“India Shall be a Union of States”, is the term of Article 1 of the constitution of India upon which it’s assumed that India is a federation. Authenticating this the constitution of India goes through several clauses on different features of a federal system such as union-state relations including the decentralization of powers and functions among them.
Although the constitution provides some of the essential features of a federation such as acceptance of state units, distribution of powers and functions between the union and its federal units, the supremacy of the constitution, and an independent judiciary, it differs from the typical federal systems, followed by several states including the USA, as it further includes some features of a unitary system limiting the ambit of state functionaries such as no separate constitution, no dual citizenship, no dual system of courts, no division of public services, no equality of state representation, no right to secede and other constitutional provisions favoring a unitary system as well as excessive plenary powers and functions of the union such as the right to alter state boundaries with no consent of the state, etc. To gist, India is not a pure federation as the United states follow, as the constitution itself includes federal features as well as unitary features.
Federalism is of several kinds based on different bases. Considering the distribution of functions between central and state it is often classified into coming together and holding together federalism or federation. Along with India, Spain and Belgium do follow the latter system accurately.
Though holding together federalism is a federation in which the functions and power of the entire administration of the nation are divided or decentralized between the union government and several constituent states, the union government would have greater authority compared to states. It is also known as a quasi-federal system.
STRONG CENTRAL BIAS IN CONSTITUTION
In explaining the way how India’s most applauded holding together the federal system, it must be initiated with certain provisions provided by the constitution itself paving and easing the mode to tamper with other good constitutional interests. Having a look at those provisions provided in the Constitution would unveil a shocking fact that the existing small piece of federal features might disappear or vane at any time on any day. Such a strong central bias has taken presence in the constitution.
Even though it provided a distribution of powers between the Union and the States as if under a federal system, a strong Central bias could be found in it. Surprisingly, the powers of the States are hedged in with various restrictions impeding their sovereignty even within the sphere limited to them by the distribution of powers thereby putting the federal character of the country into a dilemma. It makes us hard to characterize the country as a federation as well as a quasi-federal since even the limited features of a federal system that existed in the constitution are restrictable by the inferior interests of a union. Some of the provisions of the constitution which might turn any time against the federal character of the country include certain exclusive powers of the union even in normal times apart from emergency periods.
Firstly, Article 249 enables the Union Legislature to take up some subjects of State competence, if required in the national interest’. It would possible if the Council of States (Second Chamber of Parliament) resolves, by a two-thirds vote, that such legislation is necessary for the ‘national interest’. It means that a party having a solid majority in both the houses of the union parliament could use it as a good weapon to bring a state ruled by its rivalry under its limp.
secondly, in any case, the state government in such a situation tried to stand without not allowing the central bias, the Union has another option or power empowered by the constitution itself to issue directions upon the State Governments to ensure due compliance with the legislative and administrative action of the Union [Articles 256-257], and to supersede a State Government which refuses to comply with such directions [Article 365].
Finally, Article 356 empowers the President to withdraw to the Union, the executive and legislative powers of a State under the Constitution if he is, at any time, satisfied that the administration of the State cannot be carried on in the normal manner in accordance with the provisions of Constitution, owing to political or other reasons [Article 356]. Though it helps the maintenance of proper administration of a state in case of breakdown of ruling administration, it too stood as a weapon before the Union to tamper with any states in contravening with its ideology and interests.
In gist, the constitution itself enshrines the country with certain federal features along with empowering the union certain powers enabling it to tamper the units of federation that is states, and to convert it into a unitary system.
75 YEARS OF THE FEDERALISM
The second way to go through the unpleasant impacts of holding together the federal system is to know the history of working of Indian federalism which has been classified into four phases from the very onset of the constitution to the present namely One-party Federalism (1952-1967), Expressive Federalism (1967-1989), Multi-party Federalism (1989-2014), and Dominant Party Federalism (2014 onwards). It has been subjected to myriad transformations under changing political and socio-economic scenarios. A walk through these phases of the actual application of the federal system might make true to say as several experts and reports are concerned, that the country’s federal features have been tampered with at several points in time and it seems most of its wings have been withered away.
India’s federalism has been shaped by political determinants, recently by religious determinants also, rather than administrative determinants. Complex interactions between union and state governments, particularly in cases of different ruling parties, are the major role player in Indian federalism.
First Phase
The Congress party who have played a major role in the independence had enjoyed a plenary of political hegemony, both at the Centre and the states. Major federal conflicts between the Centre and the states ruled by congress were resolved in Congress party forums which helped save the party from bad interferences and explicit conflicts. The dismissal of the Communist party-led state government in Kerala in 1959 by the union government, which is prevalently called as ‘First Litmus Test’ of Indian Democracy was one of the major federal struggles have taken place in this phase. Moreover, it was an assertion of the power of the union over states empowered by the constitution.
A number of regional demands for the creation of linguistic states and the robust reluctant from non-Hindi speaking states against the Union government’s decision to uphold Hindi as the national language are the demonstrations of the quest and need of its states and people in forward for the continuance of India as a federation.
Second phase
This phase witnessed the loss of power of congress in many states and the emergence of anti-Congress coalition governments in dozens of states where the Congress party was in power at the center. Massive political crises had escalated in several states including Mizoram, Assam, Kashmir Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Punjab owing to the centralizing tendencies of the union government. Further, the union government used its discretionary powers excessively to dismiss rival parties-led state governments.
Third Phase
During this period in which a multi-party system has emerged in India as two political coalitions namely UPA and NDA formed. Arguably, this and the renowned judgement of the supreme court in the case S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case judgment, 1994 caused the decline of Centre-state conflicts federal conflicts as well as of the use of Article 356 to topple state governments.
Contently, the 73rd and 74th Amendment Act of 1992 which brought the Panchayati Raj System to rural India, and the Municipality system to urban India respectively seems to be a good chapter towards federalism.
Fourth phase
Similar to the first phase a sole party that is Bharathiya Janata party secured a robust political hegemony in major parts of the country. While in 2014 it bagged 282 seats in the parliament, in 2019 it enhanced to 353 seats which is 65% of the total seats. Additionally, the party has captured 17 states out of 28 states. It is as well said by a news reporter that India's 49% population in 17 states, covers 44% of land under the Bharathiya Janata party. However, these are calculated here because they might affect the federal character of the country extremely and completely.
FROM HOLDING TOGETHER TO UNITARY
Although several instances of attempts to tamper with the units of the federation have been witnessed by India within the 75 years of life, fortunately, all such was temporary. While the bad history of federal India mostly was inspired by several political ideologies, contemporary circumstances are quite different. It is frightening.
2014, was the year that applauded certain groups holding certain ideologies as it was the fulfillment of a dream, an end of a long aspiration, waiting and working out. Bharatiya Janata Party, a national political party inspired and nurtured by Rashtriya Swayam Sevak, an ultra-Hinduistic movement, has attained the administration of the union government. Since then, the country has been witnessing several instances of attempts to tamper with the federal system of the country.
The express activities of the union government might not out case any doubts where those policies must have several outwardly showcased merits. Take the instance of the CAA act or one language policy. No room for doubts explicitly since it possesses dozens of advantages to different sectors of the nation. But unfortunately, a wide perusal of these policies along with the upholding ideas of the ruling party and its stakeholders would reveal the depth of the consequences it might bring out against the basic structures and concepts of the constitution including democracy, federalism, and secularism. Subsequently, these policies would be broadcast in a good way by the party holding giant media and if any critics came against they would be termed as anti-national. Additionally, the commentaries of several party’s adherents including its top leaders, and former and present ministers, of the statements of officials and non-officials of its mother organization that is RSS, make it reveal the true inspiration, motive, and goal behind such policies and legislations.
Several instances reveal how the union government is using the holding together federal features of the nation to gradually eradicate constitutional interests.
Firstly, the “ONE NATION, ONE INDIA” thesis. It is a motto that has been heard across the country since 2014 among the leaders of the ruling party including the Prime Minister. It means nothing other than centralizing important powers and functions and transforming the federal units that are state governments as a mere nominal government or body there by the union government could carry forward and execute its sole policies entire the country. Some such policies include ‘One nation-one party-one government’, ‘One Nation-One Language', 'one nation-one people-one culture, ‘One nation-one religion’, ‘One Nation-One Market-One Tax’, ‘One nation-One election’, ‘One nation-one registration’, ‘One nation-one poll-one voter list’, ‘One Nation-One Fertiliser' Scheme’, ‘One Nation-One Procurement policy’, ‘one nation-one police uniform’ and so on. No doubt this one-nation idea would be implemented until the kind of nation existed in the minds of the ruling party. All these are explicitly driven by certain economic, social, and administrative justifications. Undoubtedly preferring uniformity over inhered diversity and state interests would harm the federal system of the country.
Secondly, The union government is framing policies, laws, and ordinances with regard to vital subjects, even those are exclusive to the states, such as agriculture, education, banking co-operatives, etc with no consulting or conducting discussions with states and requiring and ordering the states to implement those accordingly. Take law and order as an instance, it is a state subject. Though, within the 7 years of governance, the government has done all in further to eradicate or shorten the capacity of state governments to deal with it. Invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Acts to suppress political dissent, using investigative agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation recklessly to threaten, weaken, and suppress all who oppose its policies and interests including academicians, political parties, state governments are some of such instances.
Thirdly, the other successive way to control states in its opposition been implemented by the union government is the powers of a Governers of states. controversy over the role of the governor was a constant issue since the independence particularly when the ruling parties of states and the union government is different. It was the same during the period of both congress and the NDA. Since they are nominated by the union’s ruling party generally its stakeholders would be preferred. Thus, appointing its persons as governors, though the states are ruled by other than its party, would ease the union to flare up federal; discords between the center and states thereby make state’s administration and governance in stalemate and destabilizing it.in
Further, in case the union feels a sort of failure despite using the powers of the governor, it would take the next weapon which is Article 356. It was invoked eight times since 2014 including the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Invoking it with simple procedures within a small span of days remains a remembering for all states who stands opposing the union.
Moreover, how new laws, acts, and orders are been passed in the parliament is quite frightening. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha which once witnessed vehement debates have been transmitted to halls in which the union passes important laws regarding vital such which might affect the country and its citizens at large severely with no room for much debate or opportunity to express dissent. Though the party has a giant majority in both houses, it is the rule of democracy to hear the opposition so as to bring required alterations.
A doubt might arise that what’s the difference between the sabotage actions undertaken by Congress and other coalitions and been undertook by the BJP-led Union governments. Nothing differentiates between them other than the policies, concepts and ideas uphold by both. While Congress and other political parties have political, personal, and other interests, BJP, and its Allies have some unique and queer ideologies based on religion, ethnicity, and culture.
To conclude, in keeping India as a holding-together federation the constitutional makers might be persuaded by many positive sides it possesses. Undoubtedly they would regret it if they came to know the kind in which such a system has been misused by ever-shifting ruling parties.
The urgent quest of the country in the contemporary period is nothing other than the fervent response of the public against every policy in order to avoid havoc of constitutional rights provided to the citizens thereby protecting the basic goals and interests of the constitution as well as the constituent assembly.