7.2] Federalism in India

Since USA is the first federal government in the world, theory of federalism in political science is based on the features of US constitution. The term federalism comes from the Latin word Foedus. Foedus denotes contract. Federalism is described as the government by contract. In USA, 13 colonies came together to form federation. Hence USA is called as ‘coming together model’. According to the theory of federation, the motivations behind formation of a federation can be:

1. Motivations Behind formation of Federation

1. Security – Units may realize that they may not be able to defend themselves on their own. 
2. Economic – Federalism implies a big market, seamless flow of goods, capital, services and persons. 
3. According to Dicey, federalism is a political contrivance among those who desire unity without uniformity. 

Since federalism is a government by contract, the essential features of federation are

1. Constitution – set of written rules or contract document. 
2. Independent Judiciary – as an arbiter to resolve the conflicts among the contracting parties. 
3. Division of powers – clear division as to which level of Government will have power to make law on what subject e.g. list system in India (union list, state list, concurrent list)

Though USA is the first model, yet there are many other models of federation. It would be wrong if we take USA as the ideal type. According to Granville Austen, each model is sui-generis i.e. each model can have its own specific features depending on the circumstances and the requirements. If the USA is an example of dual federalism, Canada initiated the idea of cooperative federalism. Indian model is closer to the Canadian model.

In explaining/ understanding federalism, it becomes essential to make the difference between federation, confederation and unitary system.

Federation

A federation is a political system where power is constitutionally divided between a central government and various regional governments, such as states. Both levels of government have distinct areas of sovereignty, allowing them to govern independently within their domains. The examples of federations include the United States and Germany.

Confederation

A confederation is a political system where regional governments retain most of the power, while the central authority has limited powers. The power of central authority is typically assigned by the member states for specific purposes like defense or foreign affairs. This creates a loose union where the central authority operates with the consent of the member states. The member states retain their sovereignty and can withdraw from the confederation. The examples of confederation include the European Union or ASEAN.

Unitary System

A unitary system is a political structure where a single central government holds most or all governing power, delegating authority to regional or local authorities as it sees fit. Countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Japan operate under unitary systems.

Indian federation system can be said to be a mix of federation as well as unitary system.

Relationship between federation and confederation

According the US Supreme Court, federation is indestructible union. On the other hand, confederation is destructible.

In federation, units loose external sovereignty permanently, once for all. It means the units have no right to 1] secede from union or 2] conduct independent foreign policy.  For example, as per Art 253 of Indian constitution, the division of powers between center and state would not apply in case of international treaties or agreements. 

Former USSR was confederation. Units had power to secede and power to conduct foreign policy. It is for this reason, India had diplomatic relations with central Asian countries like Tajikistan even when they were part of USSR.

Thus, confederation can also be called as a loose federation. 

2. Indian Model of Federalism

Prof. K C Wheare compared Indian model with US model and declared India to be quasi-federal. According to him, India is federal in form but unitary in sprit. He calls Indian constitution having subsidiary federal features whereas prominent unitary features.

2.1 Limitations of K C Wheare’s approach

The approach of K C Wheare is legal constitutional i.e. it only focuses on legal and institutional structure. This approach is static and ignores the dynamic aspect of federalism.

According to prof. M. P. Singh, federalism is a dynamic concept, instead of focusing only on statutes and institutions, it needs to be understood in the socio-cultural context. Indian as well as US federalism has been dynamic.

We can say that, even US federation has not remained as it used to be. Roosevelt, who introduced welfare state in USA also described US federation as ‘new federalism’. New federalism denotes centralizing trend.

Similarly, in India, from 1989 there has been strengthening in the power of state governments because of a) new economic policy, b) coalition politics. In fact, the bargaining power of state governments increased to an extent that scholars like Balvir Arora described that India is moving from quasi-federal to quasi-confederal.

However, since 2014, as the ruling party has got absolute majority and a sort of one-party dominant system, to quote Suhas Palashikar, ‘BJP system is emerging. We see centralizing trends.’

We’ve again witnessed a fractured mandate in 2024, and the federal dynamics in upcoming times remains to be seen.

The views of KC Wheare are also ethnocentric. When he calls India ‘quasi-federal’ he takes US constitution as a model. Since Indian federation is not modelled on USA, he concluded India as quasi-federal.

According to Granville Austen, each federation in unique, sui-generis, Indian federation is the product of the unique circumstances which India has faced. Whichever country will face secessionist trend is bound to have a model where center is strong. Be it India or Canada. Granville Austen calls Indian model as example of ‘cooperative federalism’.

According to professor M P Singh, the concept of cooperative federalism entered into the lexicon of the theory of federation from 1930s when USA introduced welfare state. The time at which Indian constitution was written, by that time cooperative federalism was a well-established concept.

2.2 Salient features of Indian federation

Unlike US constitution, which is an example of dual federation, India is an example of cooperative federalism. In dual federalism, the two governments are the two completely independent entities. They are like two water tight compartments.

Cooperative federalism is based on the concept of interdependence rather than independence. The two governments are not two water tight compartments, there is interlocking. It means both are made dependent on the other. If states are dependent on union, financially, union is dependent on state for implementation. They have to depend on state for execution of union laws and policies. Hence India is also seen as an example of ‘Executive federalism’, rather than legislative federation like USA. In India, the importance of state arises in context of administration.

However, according to Prof. M P Singh, in most of the scenarios, cooperative federalism remains an idea whereas in practice, it becomes bargaining federalism.

Difference in Cooperative and Bargaining Federalism

Cooperative denotes the existence of the trust between the two levels of Government It represent the consultation, cooperation, mutual trust, in the words of Prime Minister Modi, ‘team India’. In cooperative federalism, center acts as a friend, philosopher and guide.

On the other hand, bargaining federalism represents a situation where center acts as a big bullying brother or a patriarch. Since bargaining power of center is more, bargaining federalism show the disadvantaged position of the states. However, regionalization of party system has enhanced the bargaining powers of state governments.

Competitive Federalism

The vision of Prime Minister Modi is for ‘competitive, cooperative federalism’. A neo-liberal idea based on ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. It denotes rolling back of the state. When the developmental functions of the states are rolled back, the vacuum is filled by private sector. Hence the policy of the state governments should be such that they are able to attract private investments.

According to Prof. Balveer Arora, competitive federalism in Indian context may not be adequate because the situation of different states varies. It will create unfair competition, will lead to the lack of balanced development.

According to the political experts, union has abolished a formula-based approach given by planning commission. It has enhanced the discretionary powers of central government to make bargains. According to Prof. M P Singh, present government has introduced spoils system.

2.3 Indian and US Federalism

The basic difference between the Indian and American federations are: USA is symmetrical federation, India is asymmetrical. Asymmetrical denotes difference in the status. In USA, all states are equally represented in the Senate with two senators each, regardless of population size. While in India, all states do not have equal representation in Rajya Sabha.

In India, there are special provisions with regard to different states e.g. Art 371 (A) Special provisions related to Nagaland. Similarly, some states have 5th schedule, some have 6th schedule.

Alfred Stepan calls India’s asymmetrical model as demos-enabling whereas USA’s symmetrical model as demos-constraining. (demos = people). Indian model is more democratic as representation in Rajya Sabha is given on the basis of population. The idea is that no citizen should suffer from disadvantage either because of living in larger state or smaller state. According to him, Indian model is a better model for developing countries to follow rather than the American model.

US model is called as coming together while Indian is called as holding together. US is called as centrifugal as the force is towards periphery. And India is called as centripetal where the force is towards center.

2.4 Party System and Federal System

Ideally, a federal system requires presidential form of government. A parliamentary form of government is based on party system and party system distorts federalism. On the other hand, presidential system does not depend on party system.

It is now an explicit fact that in India, there is no center and state disputes, there are only party to party disputes. Indian model works properly in a frictionless manner when same parties are ruling at the center and the state. However, once the combination differs, friction emerges and cooperative federalism becomes bargaining.

According to Prof. M P Singh, there are two axes of Indian political system i.e. 1) parliamentary axis and 2) federal axis.

Parliamentary axis denotes strong center, federal axis denotes strong states. When single party has absolute majority at the center, parliamentary axis becomes prominent. e.g. Under Pandit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, under Modi Government for last 10 years. On the other hand, when there is a coalition politics, which represent regionalization, federal axis becomes dominant.

Thus, the nature of federalism has been evolving with the changing nature of party system in India.

It should always be noted that federalism does not operate in a vacuum; it is influenced by multiple factors in environment. Besides party system, economic policy/political economy of the state also impact the working of federal dynamics. The position of states will be stronger if the developmental model is neo-liberal and that of center will be stronger if the developmental model is based on welfare.

3. State Formation in India (Article 3)

Art 3 is often suggested as a nonfederal feature of Indian constitution. However, it is not so.

As suggested by Granville Austin, every federation is sui-generis (unique). It is not correct to take USA as an ideal type. Indian model is cooperative federation, logically driven by the historical situations. Ambedkar has clearly mentioned that India is indestructible union of destructible states. India is holding together model.

According to Louise Tillin, in her book Remapping India, the internal territorial map of India is still not settled. It is to be noted that boundaries in India have been colonial boundaries rather than natural boundaries. Gandhi himself accepted and advocated the reorganization of India on linguistic lines. Even for administrative purposes, some sort of homogenization is required. Hence it was natural that constitution makes flexible provision for formation of states. Had Art 3 not been there, and the process of alteration had been made rigid, India would not have survived its ‘dangerous decades’.

3.1 Idea of Smaller States

There has been a consistent demand for creation of new states. However, there is a lack of consensus among the political scholars.

In Favor of Smaller States

Ramchandra Guha, Bibek Debroy, Political leaders like Advani and Mayavati favour creation of smaller states.

Their core argument is logic of good governance. Smaller states are easy to govern and good governance translates into development and inclusive growth. There should be a rationalization between the strength of administration and the population.

According to Bibek Debroy, there should be at least 50 states in India. USA with 1/4th of Indian population has 50 states but India has only 29 states. If we take UP as a country, in terms of population, it will be the 5th largest in world.

2nd school of thought.

Prof. M. P. Singh and Sudha Pai are not in favour of smaller states.

1. There is no relation between size and good governance e.g. Despite being large, Tamil Nadu is well governed and despite being small, neither Jharkhand nor Chhattisgarh can be seen as examples of good governance.
2. There is also no relation between size and development. The growth story of Punjab is over, Chhattisgarh shines on mines (the unsustainable approach.). Maharashtra, despite being large, continues to be more developed.
3. New states mean new ministries, new infrastructure for government institutions, unnecessary expenditure.
4. More states mean more interstate disputes.
5. Smaller states are also politically unstable and the defection is easy e.g. Goa.
6. The economic viability of many new states being demanded is questionable. They will depend on grants of union, as good as union territories.
7. The impact on mother state will also have to be taken in consideration.
8. Some demands may create strategic concerns like Gorkhaland in India. It will give weightage to the Nepal’s allegations that India has captured its territories during colonial times.
9. When Government has introduced 73rd amendment act, the logic for smaller states goes. Good governance and development require the strengthening of Panchayati Raj instead of creation of smaller states.
10. The use of information and communication technology (e-governance) can bring government at the doorstep.
11. This does not mean that no demand for smaller states to be accepted. Wherever there is a genuine aspiration of the people, the demand can be considered. However, it should not be purely political.

3.2 Factors behind state formation

Louise Tillin in her recent book Remapping India has given the exhaustive analysis of the process of state formation. As analysed by her, new states have been formed in different phases with different logic/reasons.

1. The first phase i.e. 50s and 60s marked reorganization of Indian peninsula. The main concern behind state formation was linguistic.
2. In the second phase i.e. 60s and 70s, the reorganization of Western and North Eastern parts of India was done.  As far as North East is concerned, ethnicity was the criteria.
3. The third phase i.e. 21st century witnessed the reorganization of Hindi heartland besides Telangana. In this, the logic has been ‘good governance’ and development.

Besides above narratives, there are academic explanations behind creation of smaller states.

1. Sociological theory as suggested by Ramchandra Guha and Yogendra Yadav. For them, the demands of separate statehood represents the assertion by the marginalized sections. To assert their share in power and development. 

2. According to Political economy approach by Atul Kohli, the economic policies of the state dictated the creation of smaller states. The main consideration behind creation of Chhattisgarh was central government’s neo-liberal approach to mining. Once Chhattisgarh becomes state, it will have no option but to open its mines and minerals.

However, according to Louis Tillin, the main consideration behind state formations has been political. The timing, the possibility of formation is primarily dictated by the interest of the ruling party at center e.g. Congress kept on postponing the creation of Telangana and made announcement just before elections. Similarly, BJP created Uttarakhand to consolidate its position. Laluprasad Yadav agreed for bifurcation of Bihar because it consolidates the position of RJD.

Christophe Jaffrelot also considered state formations in India including linguistic reorganization as purely political phenomenon and primarily based on caste. In his analysis:

1. Pandit Nehru opposed linguistic states because he was concerned about the future of Congress system. However, he held that multilingual states are showcases of India’s unity in diversity.
2. Despite SRC (State Reorganization Commission) accepted need to create Telangana, Pandit Nehru rejected, instead of state he offered ‘gentleman’s promise’. The real reason was Telangana was dominated by communists.
3. Linguistic reorganization was an aspiration of certain castes to consolidate their political power. It led to the emergence of dominant castes in different states who could form their governments.