Q6). How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer (UPSC CSE 2020)(Answer in 150 words,10-marks)

INTRODUCTION: The Indian federalism is based on the “holding together” model for efficient governance of the geographically vast and culturally diverse polity. The Constitution adopted a structure of “asymmetrical federalism” and has made the Union government more powerful than the states.This quasi-federal nature and the prevailing political factors have induced cooperation, competition, and occasional confrontation which have served to strengthen the Indian federal discourse.

COOPERATION

Granville Austin called the Indian federalism as a “cooperative federalism”.The concept of cooperative federalism professes a horizontal relationship between the Central as well as the State governments. This means that the Union and the States cooperate to serve the larger public interest.

There are provisions in the Constitution which promotes cooperative federalism such as:

• Inter-State Council (Article 262)
• Finance Commission (Article 260)
• Zonal Councils formed through Parliamentary Act promoted cooperation

In the early years of independence, India’s federalism developed a cooperative character as the same political party ruled both the centre and states. In the late 1980s, a number of emerging political, economic and institutional factors led to the “reconfiguration of Indian politicsand deepening the country’s federal design.

This has reduced the confrontation and paved the way for a more decentralized federalism in India.

In recent times, the realization of the need for empowering the statesfor national development has made ‘cooperative federalism’ even more significant. Some examples are:

• In 2014, the centralised Planning Commission was replaced by the Niti Aayog which has active involvement of the states.
• To implement Goods and Services Tax (GST) reform consensus among states had to be built. In the GST Council, states are equal members as part of national fiscal policy.
• The Union government has accepted the 14th Finance Commission recommendation to give the states 42-percent share of the funds from the central pool (from the previous 32 percent).
• Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the vital role of state governments in managing the COVID-19 crisis. After initial unilateralism, the Union government ceded adequate space and autonomy to the states and the Centre is playing the coordinating role.

Cooperation is inherent in Indian constitution and the power of states has been rising in the coalitional era that began in 1989.

COMPETITION

In competitive federalism, the States share a vertical relationship with the Central government while competing amongst themselves. Essentially, States individually work towards attracting funds and investment to aid their developmental activities.

Benefitted by the LPG reforms, the state governments got relatively more autonomy in economic field. India can achieve its ambitious growth targets by enhancing competitiveness. There exists a powerful connection between competition and economic and social development.

Some recent examples of competition are as follows:

• Creation of an EoDB Index for Indian States and the release annual rankings has created a sense of competition and prompted corrective action.
• In a push for sustainable development, NITI Aayog releases rankings of states on the Composite Water Management Index (CWMI).

Post LPG, there was the increasing competition between the states for the limited resources. This resulted in the imbalance and inequalities between the states.However, in recent times, publishing rankings and rewarding top performers, several states and districts have driven reform at the ground level.

CONFRONTATION

Federal conflicts arise as a result of disputes between Centre and states or among the states themselves.Indian federalism can deteriorate when the states come under the rule of the parties that are opposed to the national ruling party at the Centre. It is only after the 1967 elections when a more fragmented polity emerged in India and the Centre-state relations took a more conflictual turn.

The Centre exercises superior legislative powers creates an atmosphere of mistrust between the Centre and the States. In past few years, federal conflicts have emerged regularly. Some examples are:

• Article 356: Once again the role of the governor in opposition-ruled states became States like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand Goa, Manipur and Maharashtra raised questions about the governor’s preference for the ruling party at the Centre.
• Conflict over investigating bodies like CBI (Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal), Enforcement Directorate (ED).
• Issue of GST Compensation to states.
• Power conflict between Central government and Delhi government.
• States are challenging central laws in the Supreme Kerala has moved SC against the CAA, Chhattisgarh filed a suit challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act and Punjab is planning to challenge the recently passed Farm Acts.
• The southern states have been extremely vociferous with regards the sharing of taxes between the States and the Centre as it is mostly subjected to the recommendations of the Finance Commission. They have opposed the use of 2011 census data by the 15th FC.  

Confrontation paves way for further cooperation and decentralization. When federal tensions were rising in late 1970’s, the Union government appointed the Sarkaria Commission. Federal conflicts have helped to definethe contours of federalism and uphold unity and integrity of the nation.

CONCLUSION: The recommendations given by the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2010) are important for strengthening Indian federalism. Despite all their tussles, the Union government and the states have a mutual need for survival. Though originally designed as a quasi-federal constitution, the Indian Constitution has in operational reality become a much more federal, thereby having achieved “inadvertent” or “unintended” federalism.