In this essay we will discuss about the Indian Federalism System. After reading this essay you will learn about:- 1. Historical Background of Indian Federalism System 2. Federal Features of Indian Constitution 3. Non-Federal Features of Indian Constitution 4. Evaluation of Federal System 5. India’s Federal Structure and Nation Building 6. Critical Assessment of Indian Federalism and Other Details.
List of Essays on the Indian Federalism System
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Historical Background of Indian Federalism System
- Essay on the Federal Features of Indian Constitution
- Essay on the Non-Federal Features of Indian Constitution
- Essay on the Evaluation of Federal System
- Essay on India’s Federal Structure and Nation Building
- Essay on the Critical Assessment of Indian Federalism
- Essay on Some Recent Trends in Centre-State Relationship in India
Essay # 1. Historical Background of Indian Federalism System:
India being a vast country administratively it is impossible to rule it from one centre. Even in a unitary form of government with a bureaucratic set up, the British government realised that the country should be a federation. Accordingly Government of India Act of 1935 envisaged a federal polity for India. Nehru Report and All Party Conference also suggested federal set-up for the country.
All subsequent negotiations which followed after 1935, to solve India’s constitutional problems were based on the principle of federal polity for India. Accordingly constitution fathers made India a Union of States, which implies that the states have no right to secede from the centre.
\These will be given some powers and a limited autonomy. According to Dr. Ambedkar, the Constitution of Union and States is a single frame from which neither can get out and within which they must work.
Though all these proposals envisaged to make India a federation, yet there was never a proposal that in the federal system centre will be very strong. Since Muslim League always was trying to get more and more powers, therefore, all attempts made to solve India’s constitutional tangle aimed at making India a federation with weak centre and powerful provinces.
The centre was to deal with only few subjects, while all other subjects were to tie dealt with by the provinces. The provinces were also given right to frame their own constitution and to decide whether they were interested in accepting federal constitution or not.
It was only after the country was partitioned and subsequently the situations so developed that it was felt unavoidable and inescapable to have a very strong centre.
There was thus extreme switch over from a very weak centre to a very strong and powerful centre, making few to comment that Indian states are only glorified municipalities and nothing beyond that. But the idea of a federal set up for the country was adhered to and followed by constitution fathers.
Before discussing Centre-state relations in India it may be clearly understood that India is ‘Union of States’ and in the Constitution term ‘federation’ has nowhere been used. It implies that the Union of India, unlike a federation is not the result of any agreement between the federating units. It also means that federating units have no right to leave the union.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while explaining the position said, “Though the country and the people can be divided into different states for the convenience of administration, the country is an integrated whole, its people a single living under single imperium derived from a single source.”
At the very introduction Dr. Ambedkar also said that, “Draft Constitution is federal Constitution in as much as it establishes what may be called a Dual Polity. The Dual Polity under the proposed constitution will consist of Union at the Centre and states at the periphery, each endowned with sovereign powers to be assigned to them respectively by the constitution.
One way of constituting a federation is that sovereign independent states may voluntarily agree to come together and form a federation. These states agree to surrender certain subjects of common interest to a newly created centre. The states, however, continue their individual existence. It is on this basis that U.S. federation is based.
Then another way of formation of a federation is when a unitary state is broken into number of units or provinces and certain subjects are allotted to them for smooth running of administration, keeping in view circumstances of the country. Federations in Canada and India have been created on this pattern. In it the federating units by whatever name these may be called have no sovereign independent status.
Essay # 2. Federal Features of Indian Constitution:
Indian federation of today has many such characteristics which are essential for a federal polity but many other characteristics which are missing but are not found in a typical federation. For a federation it is essential that its constitution should be written one, so that both the units as well as the centre can refer to that as and when need be.
Accordingly India has a written constitution and in fact one of the most written constitutions of the world. All powers and authorities flow from the constitution, which is the most sacred national document.
It discusses relations of all the three organs of the government; namely, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary with each-other on the one hand and that of the individual and the state on the other. It also very clearly specifies centre-state relations.
It is usually considered better that in a federation much should be left to conventions, because federations can work on the principle of trust and good faith. Conventions can, however, develop when not much is written. When everything has already been reduced to writing how can conventions grow? Constitution makers, however, deliberately did not leave much scope for conventions, because they felt that keeping in view political, social and economic conditions of the country it was essential and in the national interest that everything should be reduced in writing.
It was perhaps felt that if much was left to conventions, which might not grow in the desired direction, the spirit with which constitution was being drafted might be defeated. It was felt at that time that it was not desirable to leave much for the conventions to grow.
In a federation the constitution should be supreme and source of strength, both for the centre as well as the federating units. None should be powerful enough to mould the constitution to suit his convenience. Accordingly India’s constitution is also supreme and not hand-maid of either the centre or of the states.
If for any reason any organ of the State dares to violate any provision of the constitution, the courts of law are there to ensure that the sanctity of the constitution is upheld at all costs. During 1975-1977 period an effort was made to give an impression that the Constitution was not a sacrosant document, but that was not accepted by the people of India.
In a federation there should be clear division of subjects so that the units and the centre are required to enact and legislate within their sphere of activity and none trans-gresses its limits and tries to encroach upon the subjects of the other. On the same analogy in India there is clear division of subjects.
In the constitution there is a state list on which states are competent to exclusively enact laws. Then there is central list, on which centre is only competent to legislate. Constitution also has concurrent list and both the centre as well as the states are competent to legislate on the subjects mentioned in the list with the provision that when central and state laws contradict or conflict with each-other, the former shall have preference over the latter.
It means that to the extent to which state law violates or contradicts central law, to that extent that will be ultra vires and provisions of the Central law will prevail over state law. Not only this, but it has been clearly said that residuary powers shall vest with the centre. Thus, on a federal pattern in India there is clear division of powers and functions.
Some of the important subjects mentioned in the central list are:
Defence
Atomic Energy and Mineral Resources
Central Bureau of Investigation
Foreign Affairs
Citizenship
Railways
Highways
Shipping and Navigation Airways
Currency, Coinage and Foreign Loans
Trade and Commerce with Foreign Countries
Banking
Regulation of Labour and Safety in Mines and Oil Fields
Higher Education, Scientific Research & Technical Education
Census
Union Public Service Commission
Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures
Audit and Accounts of Union and State Governments
Organisation and Functions, etc., of Supreme Court of India.
Income Tax
Inter-state Migration
In all there are 97 subjects in the central list.
The constitution has also listed subjects on which only states can legislate. These are mentioned in 7th Schedule of the Constitution.
Some such subjects are:
Public Order
Administration of Justice, except Supreme Court
Police
Prisons
Local Government
Public Health and Sanitation
Intoxicating Liquors
Burials and Burial Grounds
Libraries
Agriculture
Water
Land
Fisheries
Markets and Fairs
State Public Services
Taxes on Agricultural Income
Rates of Stamp Duties
In all there are 66 items which are included in the state list.
There is also a concurrent list in the Seventh Schedule. On the subjects mentioned in that list both the centre and states can legislate, but the former will always prevail over the latter.
The subjects included in this list are:
Criminal Law
Preventive Detentions for reasons of State Security.
Marriages and Divorces
Transfer of Property
Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Trusts and Trustees
Vagrancy
Adulteration of Food Stuffs
Economic and Social Planning
Trade Unions
Social Security
Vocational and Technical Training
Legal, Medical and other Professions
Ports
Newspapers, Books
Factories
Acquisitioning and Requisitioning of Property.
In this list there are in all 48 subjects.
For a federation it is also essential that the judiciary should be supreme and independent. It should be custodian of the constitution and safeguard the interests of the people. Not only this, but it should have the powers to settle disputes which might arise between the centre and states on any matter.
This is done with a view to avoiding disharmony between the centre and the federating units. In India the constitution has provided for a Supreme Court and every effort has been made to see that judiciary in India is independent and beyond the influence of either the executive or the legislature.
In order to ensure our federating states about the impartiality of judiciary, the judges are not appointed by the executive government but by the head of the state.
They, however, cannot be removed by him unless a request for removal’ is made by the legislature. Their salaries are not voted by the Parliament. These also cannot be reduced to their disadvantage during the tenure of their office. India has, thus, essential character of a federation.
No federation can exist without bicameral system of legislature. This is essential because in the Lower House the representatives are elected on the basis of population and every adult of the country is entitled to cast his vote. Thus, a federating state with more population will definitely have more weightage over the state with less population.
It is in the Upper House that federating units are adjusted and accommodated so that they feel a sense of security and equality. In India there is also bicameral system of legislature consisting of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Whereas in the Lok Sabha direct!) elected representatives of the people sit and deliberate, in the Upper House representatives from states perform their legislative functions.
For a federation another essential characteristic is that the constitution of the country should be rigid. This rigidity is specially desired by the federating units so that the centre subsequently does not change the list of subjects to suit its convenience. A rigid constitution, as we know is one which cannot be easily changed and for amending a constitutional clause a special procedure is desired to be followed.
India’s constitution is accordingly rigid to a great extent and thus is in conformity with a federal set up.
Essay # 3. Non-Federal Features of Indian Constitution:
But as already said India is not a perfect federation. She is a quasi-federal polity and has a powerful and strong centre.
According to Dr. K.P. Mukerjee, “I have come to take the view that whatever might have been the position at the drafting stage or previous to that stage the constitution that emerged out of the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India in January 1950 is definitely un-federal or unitary constitution.” Dr. Ambedkar said, “The constitution has not been set in a tight mould of federalism.”
Some of the significant departures from a federal set up are as under:
In Indian federal polity centre is rather too much and too over centralised. From the divisions of subjects it is quite clear that centre has many more subjects than what the states have. Moreover, it can legislate on the subjects mentioned in concurrent list.
No doubt, the states can legislate on the subjects mentioned in the concurrent list, but whenever there is a conflict between a central and a state law on a subject mentioned in this list, it is the former which is to get precedence over the latter.
Thus, the centre can legislate on the subjects mentioned in the central list, concurrent list and also enjoys residuary powers. It has, therefore, rightly been said that in our constitution states have been reduced to the position of glorified municipalities.
In an ideal federation citizens enjoy double citizenship rights. They are the citizens of the state to which they belong and also become the citizens of a federation to which their state has joined. But in India there is only single citizenship. All are the citizens of Indian Union and this practice of single citizenship is against the spirit of an ideal federal system.
Bicameral system is considered essential in a federation because it is in the Upper House alone that the units can be given equal representation. No doubt, in India too there is bicameralism but in the Rajya Sabha, which is Upper House of India’s Parliament, states have not been given equal representation.
Here too population system has been followed and bigger states have been given more representation than the smaller ones.
This is again against the spirit of an ideal federation. As is well known in the USA, Senate, which is Upper House of US Congress, all states have been given equal representation. In this two representatives come from each state, irrespective of the population or area of the state.
In addition to this, the Rajya Sabha has special powers. It can authorise the Parliament to make laws on a subject mentioned in the state list. It can do this by a resolution to be passed by two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.
The Parliament then can make a law on such a subject either for the whole country or a particular state. This provision of the constitution clearly indicates that the centre can interfere in the affairs of the state (s), which is again not in keeping with a federal system
In a federation centre has no right to change the boundaries of the states. It is primarily because, the states which join the federation are sovereign and independent before their joining federal polity. This has become a very essential criteria for a perfect federation.
But in the case of India centre has a right to change the boundaries of any state and to carve out any new state out of the existing states. In fact, this has happened in India, not only once but several times. In early fifties, Andhra Pradesh was created out of then Madras State, thereafter came States Reorganisation Commission and the chain followed.
Today there are very few states boundaries of which have not been changed at some stage or the other. The right of the centre to change the boundaries of the states is against federal set-up.
In the Constitution there is a provision for the appointment of Inter-State Councils for the settlement of inter-state and centre-state disputes. The members of each Council are appointed by the President and its recommendations and findings are also sent to him. The states have been given no powers or say either in the appointment or removal of members of the Council or its chairman.
Under the Constitution of India, the President of the Republic has been given emergency powers. An emergency can arise both in the political and financial fields. In the political field it implies failure to run administrative machinery of state in accordance with the constitution of the country. It means political instability and complete break down of law and order machinery.
In the financial field it implies grave financial crisis which cannot be solved by normal constitutional procedures. Whether such conditions which necessitate the declaration of emergency really exist or not very much depends on the President to decide. He is the sole judge to decide in this regard and his decision is final and binding. Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act has, however, put some restrictions with regard to declaration of emergency. One effect of declaration of emergency is that administration of the state is taken over by the centre, which is not in keeping with the spirit of federal polity at all.
In this connection it may be pointed out that the emergency can be for whole of India or any part thereof.
In Indian states emergency has been declared several times by the President. In 1977, when Janata government came to power it dissolved nine Congress ruled State Assemblies. Similarly in 1980 when Congress (I) came to power in the centre, it dissolved nine Janata ruled states in addition to Delhi Metropolitan Council.
In 1989, State Assembly of Karnataka which had Janata Government under S.R Bomai was dissolved on the plea of political instability, hi the wake of Babri Masjid demolition the central government dissolved BJ.P. ruled state governments of Uttar Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh., Himachal Pardesh, and Rajasthan.
The Central government has been given power to appoint enquiry commissions against Chief Minister or a particular Minister to investigate charges of misuse of power and authority, or corruption or similar other charges. In the past, enquiry commissions were set up against Dev Raj Urs and Partap Singh Kairon, and the states have no say in the composition of such enquiry commissions as its members are appointed and removed by the central government. This power is becoming more effective because opposition everywhere is levying charges against the Chief Ministers of corruption and misuse of power.
In an ideal federation there should be rigid constitution, which implies that the constitution should not be easily amendable. This is done with a view to ensuring the states that the centre shall not easily amend the constitution. One finds that in the USA which is an ideal federation of today, the constitution is very rigid.
It is said that if given an opportunity, the people of the USA will try to enact their constitution which will provide some flexibility. But Indian constitution is not very rigid. Many parts of the constitution can be easily amended. By 1995 the constitution had been amended as many as 80 times. This flexibility of constitution is against the spirit of federal system.
Why a federation at all needs a rigid constitution ? In a federation federating units, which join it, are independent, sovereign states before these become an integral part of the federation. These units come together on certain terms and conditions and agree to surrender minimum subjects and autonomy, whereas these wish to keep maximum with themselves.
These units do not wish that this arrangement should be disturbed in anyway, at any stage after they have agreed to join the federation. Situations can arise in the history of a nation when centre may need more powers to deal with a particular situation on short-or long-term basis and may feel tempted to take away those powers which are not within its jurisdictions. Even otherwise some political party in power at the centre may be interested in a powerful centre, as against the desire of the federating states not to surrender their powers. Such tendencies and desires can only be checked when constitution is rigid and it is not possible to easily amend it. When the constitution is flexible changes in the lists of subjects can easily and conveniently be made. It is why in an ideal federation provision is made for a rigid, rather than a flexible constitution.
In India there is also centralised election machinery which holds election throughout the country. It is the responsibility of the Chief Election Commissioner who is appointed by the central government to make election arrangements for the whole country. All election laws are to be passed by the Parliament. States have no say either in the appointment or removal or changes in the service conditions of Chief Election Commissioner.
In India there is a provision for All India Administrative Services. Those belonging to All India Services (I.A.S., I.P.S. & A and AS ), etc., can be posted in any state. Similarly those belonging to state services are posted at the centre.
There is also a unified judiciary and Supreme Court has powers to listen appeals from the states, both from the individual as well as the organisations.
Similarly according to the constitution the states are required to act as the agents of the centre in such matters as to the collection of income-tax, etc.
Not only is this, but a Governor, who is the head of the state appointed by the President of India on the recommendations of the central government. He is required to report the President on the working of state government. For all his actions of omission and commission he is not accountable to the state legislature.
This single institution of Governorship has created many strains on centre-state relationship. In the appointment of a Governor it is not obligatory for the centre to consult the concerned state Chief Minister. The States have quite often alleged that centrally imposed Governors act as tools of the centre in toppling inconvenient opposition ruled states.
There is a single Union Public Service Commission which makes all appointments. The existence of powerful and unified All India Services is against the spirit of federal system.
In a federation, as far as possible, states should be financially self-sufficient so that these enjoy maximum autonomy. But in Indian federal system the states are to depend on the centre for all developments. They have much less sources of income but many more needs of expenditure. This financial dependency has very much hindered the growth of states on federal lines.
Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an autonomous body is responsible for ensuring that the accounts of all government departments are properly maintained and audited. He appoints State Accounts General. He again is appointed by the President and the states have no say in his appointment or removal.
Units of a federation ordinarily have a right to amend their own constitution. But in India that is not the case. Whole country is governed by one constitution which is applicable to the people all over the country. States in India have no right to amend any part of the constitution. It is left to the centre to amend the constitution in the way it feels desirable and necessary, though approval of state in some cases is needed.
In addition, there are many other fields in which the centre can interfere in the affairs of the states. In peculiar conditions centre can abolish an existing state which is unit of our federation, India has a unified civil and criminal code of laws and the states are supposed to implement these laws.
It is the special responsibility of centre to look after development and growth of scheduled casts, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. One finds that there are certain matters which cannot be introduced in any state legislature without prior approval of the central government. But above all one finds that Union Territories are governed and administered by the central government purely on unitary basis and there is no tinge of federal system in their administration.
Not only this but under certain special circumstances the Centre can send its forces in a state, for maintaining law and order.
Essay # 4. Evaluation of Federal System:
Some of the critics in their zeal to criticise the constitution of India have tried to point out that India is not a true federation. They lay too much stress on its unitary features and under-estimate its federal characteristics.
But is this correct? India is a federation and developing on federal principles. Essence of federal system is division of powers between the centre and the states and existence of independent units which form the federation. Both these essentials are very much there in Indian federation.
The only question is that of degree. Federalism does not mean essential rigidity but merely a political arrangement which can be adjusted to suit national conditions. India’s federal system has too been adjusted accordingly. Emergency provisions of the constitution which have been criticised are intended only for dealing with extra-ordinary situations and have nothing to do with normal times.
After the passing of Constitution Forty-Fourth Amendment Act procedure for the declaration of emergency has been made considerably difficult. It now requires cabinet approval before its declaration. Apprehension of an emergency situation cannot be a cause for declaration of emergency.
In addition, its duration too has been reduced. Provision for unified judiciary and administrative services has been made with a view to giving the people of India a sense and feelings of oneness.
Dr. Ambedkar once remarked, “It is strong enough to hold the country together both in peace time and in war time. Indeed, I may say so, if the things go wrong under the new constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad constitution, what we will have to say is, that the man was vile.”
Essay # 5. India’s Federal Structure and Nation Building:
In Indian federal system there is a strong centre and in it states are weak partners. Whether such a system is conducive for nation building or not. In India there is plurality of races and languages. Each racial and lingual group is interested in developing that. There is a strong view point that if India’s diversity i f fully allowed to develop, that will more help in nation building process, than a unified strong centre.
India which is panorama of races, with each rare having its own cultural heritage, should be fully allowed to develop and grow. It is, therefore, argued that a loose federation or a federal policy, which has a weak centre, would go a long way in the nation building process.
It is pointed out that before independence every concession was given to the Muslim League and there was always a proposition that after the Britishers leave India, in the Indian federation centre will be weak, whereas the units will be strong. This was done in the hope that under that arrangement alone India will remain as a united nation and will emerge stronger with the passage of time.
But on the other hand, there is another view point. It is said that under the present circumstances and prevailing political, social and economic conditions, it is only a strong central control which can help in nation-building process. Under the arrangement of things, as these exist, a strong centre can portray and forge the image of a nation.
In the states local leaders work under local pressures and influences. In the political field there is quite often political instability and political morality is touching low-ebbs. Coalition governments do not last for a very long time. Moreover, local leaders have internal party feuds and there is no forum on which they can meet to portray the picture of a united India.
It is not unusual that people rush to Delhi from far off places to get their local difficulties redressed because either they have no faith in local leaders or they have failed to solve these. In fact, all state level political issues are solved in Delhi. This has given currency to what is known as ‘Delhi Darbar’. Since states in India are autonomous, therefore, there is no problem for the peoples of the state to develop in its own way.
In view of plural character of the society in which there are minorities everywhere, federal system with a strong centre can go a long way in nation-building process in the country.
Essay # 6. Critical Assessment of Indian Federalism:
Indian federation is based on the philosophy that strong centre can solve the problems of vast India which is faced with serious problems. While justifying the need of a strong Chief Justice Chandra Chud once said, “History holds a lesson that a weak and strife-torn centre makes non-sense of the federal concept. Federalism and high ideas which go with it then become an empty dream and a casualty in the common man’s welfare in the tug of war for power, the din of shouting and counter-shouting downs not merely the norms of ordinary decency but the very desire for a democracy to work for the attainment of democratic ideals.”
KM. Panikar also felt that strong centre was need of the hour in so far as India was concerned.
He said that, “The purpose which the founding fathers had in view was not only to hold in the check the fissiparous tendencies which led to the disruption of former empire and to maintain the unity which had been achieved after so much struggle, but to endow the central government with all powers necessary in the political and economic fields to enable India to undertake a policy of planned development which would raise her to the position of modem nation, unhampered by the statutory rights of state governments.”
As already said the Constitution fathers felt that a strong centre was needed not only for maintaining political unity of the country but also for checking fissiparous tendencies which were raising their ugly head. Not only this but a strong centre was also needed for maintaining effective law and order in the country, the possibility of which could not be ruled out even in the near future.
In addition, it was also felt that serious problems of shortages, inflation, external aggression, political and economic stability could be solved by the centre which had teeth to bite. The Centre was also to deal with forces of disintegration and separation which states could not possibly deal effectively because that needed a national level policy.
And above all there was a trend towards centralisation and India could be no exception to it
But at the same time it may be pointed out that the constitution makers were quite keen to give sufficient autonomy to the state. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru said in the Constituent Assembly, “We are unanimously of the view that it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority …. At the same time we are quite clear in our minds that there are many matters in which the authority must be solely with the units’ and to frame a constitution on the basis of a unitary state would be a retrograde step both politically and administratively.”
Similarly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar also said that, “The basic principle of federalism is that legislative and executive authority is partitioned between the centre and the states not only by the centre but by the constitution itself.
The states under our constitution are in no way dependent upon the centre for their legislative and executive authority. The centre and the states are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a constitution can be called centralist…. The chief mark of federalism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and the executive authority, between the centre and the units by the constitution. This is the principle embodied in our constitution…. It is, therefore, wrong to say that states have been placed under the centre.
Essay # 7. Some Recent Trends in Centre-State Relationship in India:
All over the world there is a tendency that the centre should be powerful and strong so that it can effectively deal both national and international problems but in India the states are resenting a powerful centre. These are demanding more powers and autonomy. In 1968, West Bengal Government of Shri Ajay Mukerjee forced centre to remove Shri Dharam Vira as State Governor.
It was again because of insistence of that state Government that Prof. Nurul Hassan continued to occupy the position of Governor of West Bengal till his death.
In 1979, after the fall of Janata Government at the centre, Choudhary Charan Singh became Prime Minister of India. He got promulgated Preventive Detention Ordinance. But the state governments of Himachal Pardesh, Haryana, Bihar, Gujarat and several other refused to implement the provisions of the said ordinance. Central Government could not do anything.
It has also found herself helpless in the face of tough resistance from Haryana and Punjab about the future of Chandigarh. Similarly the states have always exerted themselves whenever central government has tried to interfere and settle river water and territorial disputes between the states.
Boundary disputes between Maharashtra and Karnataka, river water disputes between Delhi, U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan about Yamuna water, Haryana and Punjab over distribution of water from Ravi-Beas and Satluj and Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala over the distribution of Narmada river water are the examples to quote.
The Constitution has provided that Hindi, shall be the national language of India and shall replace English but because of rough resistance from some of the states the central government had to assure the states that Hindi will not be imposed on any state and English shall continue as official language as long as these states required.
In fact, as the lime is passing with that the states are making it amply clear to the centre that these are not prepared to tolerate much central affairs in their affairs. This is, of course, a matter of concern because a weak centre and resistant attitude of the states is in no way in the national interests of the country as a whole.