Notes of Ch 7 Federalism| Class 11th Political Science

What is Federalism?

Federalism as a principle of government has evolved differently in different

situations.

• Essentially, federalism is an institutional mechanism to accomm sets of

polities-one at the regional level and the other at the national level. Each
government is autonomous in its own sphere. In some federal countries, there
is even a system of dual citizenship. India has only a single citizenship.

• The people likewise, have two sets of identities and loyalties--they belong to
the region as well as the nation, for example we are Gujarat is or Jharkhand is
as well as Indians. Each level of the polity has distinct powers and
responsibilities and has a separate system of government.

• The details of this dual system of government are generally spelt out in a
written constitution, which is considered to be supreme and which is also the
source of the power of both sets of government. Certain subjects, which
concern the nation as a whole, for example, defence or currency, are the
responsibility of the union or central government. Regional or local matters
are the responsibility of the regional or State government.

• To prevent conflicts between the centre and the State, there is an

independent judiciary to settle disputes. The judiciary has the powers to
resolve disputes between the central government and the States on legal
matters about the division of power.

Federalism in the Indian Constitution

That the Constitution of India does not even mention the word federation

Article 1

• India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

• The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First
Schedule.

Division of Powers

• There are two sets of government created by the Indian Constitution:

→ One for the entire nation called the union government (central
government)
→ One for each unit or State called the State government.

• Both of these have a constitutional status and clearly identified area of

activity.

• If there is any dispute about which powers come under the control of the
union and which under the States, this can be resolved by the Judiciary on the
basis of the constitutional provisions.

• The Constitution clearly demarcates subjects, which are under the exclusive
domain of the Union and those under the States.

• One of the important aspects of this division of powers is that economic and
financial powers are centralised in the hands of the central government by the
Constitution.

• The States have immense responsibilities but very meager revenue sources.
The Union List

• Consists of 100 subjects (originally 97), the State List 61 subjects (originally
66) and the Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47).
• Both the Centre and the states can make laws on the subjects of the
concurrent list, but in case
of a conflict, the Central law prevails. The residuary subjects (ie, which are not
mentioned in any of the three lists) are given to the Centre.

Federalism with a Strong Central Government

• It is generally accepted that the Indian Constitution has created a strong

central government.

• India is a country of continental dimensions with immense diversities and

social problems.

• The framers of the Constitution believed that we required a federal

constitution that would accommodate diversities.

• Besides the concern for unity, the makers of the Constitution also believed
that the socio-economic problems of the country needed to be handled by a
strong central government in cooperation with the States.

• Poverty, illiteracy and inequalities of wealth were some of the problems that
required planning and coordination.

• Thus, the concerns for unity and development prompted the makers of the
Constitution to create a strong central government.

The important provisions that create a strong central government:

• The very existence of a State including its territorial integrity is in the hands
of Parliament. The parliament is empowered to 'form a near State by
separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States....' It can
also alter the boundary of any State or even its name.

• The Constitution provides for some safeguards by way of securing the view
of the concerned State legislature. The Constitution has certain very powerful
emergency provisions, which can turn our federal polity into a highly
centralised system once emergency is declared. During an emergency, power
becomes lawfully centralised. Parliament assumes the power to make laws on
subjects within the jurisdiction of the States.

• Even during normal circumstances, the central government has very

effective financial powers and responsibilities. In the first place, items
generating revenue are under the control of the central government. Thus, the
central government has many revenue sources and the States are mostly
dependent on the grants and financial assistance from the centre. Secondly,
India adopted planning as the instrument of rapid economic progress and
development after independence. Planning led to considerable centralisation
of economic decision making. Planning commission appointed by the union
government is the coordinating machinery that controls and supervises the
resources management of the States. Besides, the Union government uses its
discretion to give grants and loans to States. This distribution of economic
resources is considered lopsided and has led to charges of discrimination
against States ruled by an opposition party.

• The Governor has certain powers to recommend dismissal of the State

government and the dissolution of the Assembly. Besides, even in normal
circumstances, the Governor has the power to reserve a bill passed by the
State legislature, for the assent of the President. This gives the central
government an opportunity to delay the State legislation and also to examine
such bills and veto them completely.

• There may be occasions when the situation may demand that the central
government needs to legislate on matters from the State list. This is possible if
the move is ratified by the Rajya Sabha. The Constitution clearly states that
executive powers of the centre are superior to the executive powers of the
States.
→ Furthermore, the central government may choose to give instructions to the
State government.

• Articles 33 and 34 authorise the Parliament to protect persons in the service

of the union or a state in respect of any action taken by them during martial
law to maintain or restore order. This provisions further strengthens the
powers of the union government. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has
been made on the basis of these provisions. This Act has created tensions
between the people and the armed forces on some occasions.

Centre State Relations

• In the 1950s and early 1960s the foundation of our federalism was laid
under Jawaharlal Nehru.

• It was also a period of Congress dominance over the centre as well as the
States.

• Except on the issue of formation of new States, the relations between the
centre and the States remained quite normal during this period.

• In the middle of the 1960s Congress dominance declined somewhat and in a

large number of States
opposition parties came to power.

• It resulted in demands for greater powers and greater autonomy to the

States. In fact, these demands were a direct fallout of the fact that different
parties were ruling at the centre and in many States. So, the State
governments were protesting against what they saw as unnecessary
interference in their governments by the Congress government at the centre.

Demands for Autonomy

• Sometimes, these demands expect that the division of powers should be

changed in favour of the States and more powers and important powers be
assigned to the States.

• Another demand is that States should have independent sources of revenue

and greater control over the resources. This is also known as financial
autonomy.
• The third aspect of the autonomy demands relates to administrative powers
of the States. States resent the control of the centre over the administrative
machinery.

• Fourthly, autonomy demands may also be related to cultural and linguistic

issues. The opposition to the domination of Hindi (in Tamil Nadu) or demand
for advancing the Punjabi language and culture are instances of this. Some
States also feel that there is a domination of the Hindispeaking areas over the
others. In fact, during the decade of 1960s, there were agitations in some
States against the imposition of the Hindi language.

Role of Governors and President's Rule

• The role of Governors has always been a controversial issue between the
States and the central government.

• The Governor is not an elected office-holder.

• Many Governors have been retired military officers or civil servants or

politicians. Besides, the Governor is appointed by the central government and
therefore, actions of the Governor are often viewed as interference by the
Central government in the functioning of the State government.

• When two different parties are in power at the centre and the State, the role
of the Governor becomes even more controversial.

• The Sarkaria Commission that was appointed by the central government

(1983; it submitted its report in 1988) to examine the issues relating to
centre-State relations, recommended that appointments of Governors should
be strictly non-partisan.

• Powers and role of the Governor become controversial for one more reason.
One of the most controversial articles in the Constitution is Article 356, which
provides for President's rule in any State.
• This provision is to be applied, when a situation has arisen in which the
Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of this Constitution.'

• It results in the takeover of the State government by the Union government.

The President's proclamation has to be ratified by Parliament. President's rule
can be extended till three years.

• The Governor has the power to recommend the dismissal of the State
government and suspension or dissolution of State assembly. This has led to
many conflicts.

• In some cases, State governments were dismissed even when they had a
majority in the legislature, as had happened in Kerala in 1959 or without
testing their majority, as happened in several other States after 1967.

• Some cases went to the Supreme Court and the Court has ruled that
constitutional validity of the decision to impose President's rule can be
examined by the judiciary.

Interstate Conflicts

• While the States keep fighting with the centre over autonomy and other
issues like the share in revenue resources, there have been many instances of
disputes between two States or among more than two States.

• It is true that the judiciary acts as the arbitration mechanism on disputes of a

legal nature but these disputes are in reality not just legal.

• They have political implications and therefore they can best be resolved only
through negotiations and mutual understanding.

Broadly, two types of disputes keep recurring.

• One is the border dispute: States have certain claims over territories
belonging to neighboring One of the long-standing border disputes is the
dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka over the city of Belgaum.
Manipur and Nagaland too, have a long-standing border dispute. The carving
out of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab has led to dispute between
the two States not only over border areas, but over the capital city of
Chandigarh. This city today houses the capital of both these States. In 1985,
the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reached an understanding with the
leadership of Punjab. According to this understanding. Chandigarh was to be
handed over to Punjab. But this has not happened yet.

• While border disputes are more about sentiment, the disputes over the
sharing of river waters are even more serious, because they are related to
problems of drinking water and agriculture in the concerned States. You
might have heard about the Cauvery water dispute. This is a major issue
between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Farmers in both the States are dependent
on Cauvery waters. Though there is a river water tribunal to settle water
disputes, this dispute has reached the Supreme Court. In another similar
dispute Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are battling over sharing
the waters of Narmada River. Rivers are a major resource and therefore,
disputes over river waters test the patience and cooperative spirit of the
States.

Special Provisions

• The Constitution has some special provisions for some States given their
peculiar social and historical circumstances. Most of the special provisions
pertain to the north eastern States (Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh,
Mizoram, etc.) largely due to their sizeable indigenous tribal population with a
distinct history and culture.

• Special provisions also exist for hilly States like Himachal Pradesh and some
other States like Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra Sikkim and
Telangana.

Jammu and Kashmir

• The other State which has a special status is Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) (Art.
370).

• Jammu and Kashmir was one of the large princely states, which had the
option of joining India or Pakistan at the time of independence.

• Immediately after Independence Pakistan and India fought a war over

Kashmir. Under such circumstances the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to the
Indian union.

• In practice, however the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir is much less than
what the language of article 370 may suggest.

• There is a constitutional provision that allows the President, with the

concurrence of the State government, to specify which parts of the Union List
shall apply to the State.

• The President has issued two Constitutional orders in concurrence with the
Government of J&K making large parts of the Constitution applicable to the
State.

• As a result, though J&K has a separate constitution and a flag, the

Parliament's power to make laws on subjects in the Union List now is fully
accepted.

• The remaining differences between the other States and the State of J&K are
that no emergency due to internal disturbances can be declared in J&K
without the concurrence of the State.

• The union government cannot impose a financial emergency in the State and
the Directive Principles do not apply in J&K.

• Finally, amendments to the Indian Constitution (under Art. 368) can only
apply in concurrence with the government of J&K.