Federalism Notes in English Class 11 Political Science Chapter-7 Book-1

 

Federalism

two levels of government 

1. One government for the whole country

Central Government / Union Government 

2. Separate governments for states

Provincial Government / State Government 

Federalism 

• Central government 

• Local government 

• state government 

What is meant by federalism

• Federalism is a system that  combines two types of political systems. 

• In this, one is at provincial level and the other is at central level 

• Every government is autonomous in its own area  and has the power to govern. 

• Some federal countries have dual citizenship 

• But in India there is single citizenship.

• Thus people have dual identities and loyalties. 

• They belong to their region as well as to the nation. 

• For example, someone is Gujarati, Jharkhandi, Bihari, Bengali and also an Indian. 

• Each level of political system has some specific powers and responsibilities and also has a separate government.

• The broad outline of the dual regime  is present in a written constitution. 

• This Constitution is supreme and also the source of powers of both the governments. 

• matters of national importance

• For example, the responsibility for defence and currency lies with the federal or central government. 

• The provincial state governments are responsible for matters of regional or local importance.

• To prevent conflict between the center and the states, there is a provision for an independent judiciary, which resolves the conflicts. 

• The independent judiciary is empowered to resolve legal disputes arising regarding the division of powers between the central government and the states.

Features of federalism 

• Federalism is a system of two or three tiers of government 

• The form of government is determined by the constitution 

• Independent judiciary, which resolves disputes between the central and state governments 

• If any change is to be made, consent is required at every level 

• Financial Autonomy 

India is a union state 

There are three levels of government in India 

• Central government

• state government

• Local government

Federalism in the Indian Constitution

• Even before India's independence, many leaders of the national movement were agreed that to govern a vast country like India, it would be necessary to divide the powers between the provincial and central governments. 

• He understood that Indian society had regional and linguistic diversities. These diversities needed to be recognised. 

• People from different regions and languages ​​were to share power 

• And the people of these areas should have been given the opportunity for self-governance.

Division of power 

• Two types of governments have been described in the Indian constitution 

• The first central government whose jurisdiction is the whole country 

• Second government is the state level government - whose jurisdiction is limited to the state only 

• Both are constitutional governments and their powers of employment are clearly described

Federal features in the Indian Constitution – 

• India has an independent judiciary which does not allow the government to become dictatorial.

• There are three levels of governments in India (central level, state level, local level)

• Constitutional amendment system

• The constitution is supreme; no power is above the constitution 

• All will work within the ambit of the constitution

Division of powers- 

• According to the Constitution of India, the central and state governments have various powers according to the Constitution and these governments have to make laws on various subjects 

• It is described in the Union List, State List and Concurrent List 

• Union List - Central government makes laws 

• State List – State government makes laws

• Concurrent List - Both the Central Government and State Government can make laws but in case of a dispute, only the Central Government's law will be followed 

Strong central government and federalism 

• There were two views in India as to whether the central government should have more powers or the state government

• Some people wanted a strong central government 

• So some people wanted to make the state government stronger 

• A strong central government has been established by the Indian Constitution. 

• India is a huge country like a continent 

• It is full of diversity and social problems. 

• The Constitution makers believed that we need a federal constitution 

• And the Constitution should be such that it can accommodate this diversity. 

• The Constitution makers also wanted to establish a powerful central government 

• that can curb disruptive tendencies 

• and bring about socio-political change.

• Such powers were necessary for the Centre at the time of independence 

• Because at that time the country had not only some provinces formed by the British government 

• In fact, there were more than 500 native princely states as well 

• Which were either to be merged with the old provinces or to be formed as new provinces.

Provisions in the Indian Constitution that create a strong central government -

• According to Article 3 of our Constitution, the Parliament may 'form a new State by separating any territory from any State or by uniting two or more States'. 

• It can change the boundaries or name of a state. But to prevent misuse of this power, the Constitution first gives the legislature of the affected state an opportunity to express its opinion.

• There are certain emergency provisions in the Constitution that make the Centre more powerful, which when implemented, turn our federal system into a highly centralised one. 

• During an emergency powers become legally centralized. 

• The Parliament also gets the power to make laws on subjects which fall under the jurisdiction of the states.

• Even under normal circumstances, the Central Government has very  effective financial powers and responsibilities. 

• The central government has control over the major sources of income. 

• The Centre has multiple sources of income and the states depend on the Centre for grants and financial assistance. 

• On the other hand, after independence, India used planning as a tool for rapid economic progress and development. 

• Due to planning, the power to take economic decisions got concentrated in the hands of the central government. 

• The Planning Commission appointed by the central government monitors the resource management of the states. 

• Apart from this, the Central Government exercises its privilege to provide grants and loans to the states. 

• This distribution of economic resources is considered unbalanced and the central government is often accused of discriminating against states governed by opposition parties. 

• All India Services are for the entire country and the officers selected in it work in the administration of the states.

• Hence, the Central Government has control over the Indian Administrative Service officers working as District Magistrate or the Indian Police Service officers working as Police Commissioner. 

• The state can neither take any disciplinary action against them nor remove them from service.

• Two other Articles of the Constitution, 33 and 34, greatly increase the powers of the Central Government in the event of martial law being imposed in any area of ​​the country. 

• These provisions give Parliament the power to declare as legal any action taken by any Central or State officer to maintain or restore peace in such a situation. 

• Under this, the 'Armed Forces Special Powers Act' was created. This has sometimes led to tensions between the public and the armed forces.

Tensions in the Indian federal system

• The Constitution has given a lot of powers to the Central Government. 

• This is why states demand more power. 

• From time to time, states have raised demands for greater power and autonomy. 

• This gives rise to conflicts and disputes between the Centre and the states. 

• The judiciary resolves  mutual legal disputes between the Centre and the State or between different states  .

• But the demand for autonomy is a political question which can be resolved only through mutual dialogue.

Center-State Relations -

• In the 1950s and early 1960s, Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation of the Indian federal system. 

• During this period, Congress was dominant in the centre and the states. Apart from the demand for formation of new states, the relations between the centre and the states remained peaceful and normal. 

• The states hoped that they would be able to develop with the financial grants received from the Centre. Apart from this, the states also had a lot of hope due to the policies made by the Centre for socio-economic development.

• In the mid-1960s, Congress's dominance declined somewhat and opposition parties came to power in many states. 

• This gave rise to demands for greater power and autonomy for the states. 

• The main reason behind this demand was that different parties were in power at the Centre and in the states. 

• Hence, the state governments started opposing the undesirable interventions made by the Congress government at the centre.

• Congress also  faced problems in coordinating relations with states ruled by opposition parties. 

• In this strange political context, a debate arose over the concept of autonomy within the federal system.

• Ultimately, since the 1990s, the dominance of Congress  has ended to a large extent  and the era of coalition politics has begun at the Centre. 

• Various national and regional parties have also come to power in the states. 

• This enhanced the political stature of the states, respected diversity, and marked the beginning of a mature federalism. 

• Thus, in the second phase, the issue of autonomy has become politically active.

The demand for autonomy

• From time to time, various political parties have raised the demand for more autonomy for the states as compared to the centre  

• Sometimes the desire behind these demands is to change the division of powers in favour of the states and to give more and important powers to the states. 

• From time to time, many states (Tamil Nadu, Punjab, West Bengal) and parties (DMK, Akali Dal, CPI(M)) demanded autonomy.

• Another demand is that states should have independent sources of income and more control over resources. This is also called financial autonomy. 

• In 1977, the Left government of West Bengal  published a document to redefine centre-state relations. 

• The demands for autonomy by Tamil Nadu and Punjab also have the hidden intention of gaining more financial powers.

• The third aspect of the demand for autonomy relates to administrative powers. 

• Various states remain unhappy with central control over the administrative machinery.

Role of Governor and President's Rule -

• The role of the Governor has always been a matter of dispute between the Centre and the states. 

• The Governor is not an elected official. 

• The Governor is appointed by the Central Government. 

• Hence, the decisions of the Governor are often seen as interference of the Central Government in the functioning of the State Government. 

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

• A Commission was set up by the Central Government in 1983 to look into issues related to Centre-State relations.   

• This commission is known as 'Sarkaria Commission'. 

• This commission had recommended in its report in 1998  that the appointment of governors  should be compulsory and impartial.

• One of the most controversial provisions of the Constitution is Article 356. 

• Through this, President's rule is imposed in the states.

• This provision is applicable to a State when "a situation has arisen in which the State cannot be governed in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution".

• " As a result the federal government takes over the state government. 

• President's rule can be extended for a maximum of three years. 

• The Governor has the power to recommend the dismissal of the State Government and the suspension or dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.

• This gave rise to many controversies. In some cases state governments were dismissed even after having a majority in the legislature. 

• In Kerala in 1959 and in many states after 1967,  governments were dismissed without a test of majority.

• By 1967, Article 356 was used very little. 

• After 1967, non-Congress governments were formed in many states  while the Congress remained in power at the Centre. 

• The Centre has used it on several occasions to dismiss  state governments  or to prevent a majority party or coalition from coming to power through the Governor. 

• For example, in the 1980s the central government  dismissed the elected governments of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.

• The Governor is seen as an agent of the Central Government 

• He can send a recommendation to the President for removing the state government and dissolving the Legislative Assembly. 

• The Governor also has the power to reserve any bill passed by the Legislature for the President's assent. 

• This gives the central government the opportunity to delay the lawmaking of a state 

• And if he wants, he can examine such bills and use his veto power to reject them completely.

Demand for new states

• There has also been tension over the demand for formation of new states 

• After independence, the demand for formation of new states has arisen 

• For which the government formed the State Reorganization Commission in 1953 

• This commission recommended the formation of states on the basis of language.

• Gujarat and Maharashtra were formed in 1960 

• In 1966, Punjab and Haryana were separated and later  the northeastern states were formed 

Specific provisions -

• An important feature of Indian federalism is that the various states are treated slightly differently. 

• Since each state has different size and population, they have been given unequal representation in the Rajya Sabha. 

• Where even the smallest state has been given minimum representation 

• At the same time, this arrangement also ensured  that bigger states get more representation.

• Under the scheme of division of powers,  the powers granted by the Constitution are equally vested in all the states.

• But the Constitution provides for certain special rights for some states according to their specific social and historical conditions. 

• Such provisions are there for the North Eastern states (Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram etc.) 

• Where tribal-dominated population with distinct history and culture resides. 

• These residents want to preserve their culture and history. (Article 371).

• However, these provisions have not been successful in preventing separatism and armed rebellion in some parts of the region. 

• Some similar special provisions also exist for the hill state of Himachal Pradesh and other states like Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sikkim and Telangana.

Jammu and Kashmir -

• Earlier Jammu and Kashmir had the status of a special state under Article 370

• Jammu and Kashmir was one of the larger princely states that had the option of joining either India or Pakistan, or remaining independent. 

• But, soon after independence, in October 1947, Pakistan sent tribal infiltrators from its side to capture Kashmir. 

• This forced Maharaja Hari Singh to seek help from India and he joined the Indian Union.

• Many Muslim-majority areas in the western and eastern parts merged with Pakistan, but Jammu and Kashmir was an exception.

• Under these circumstances, it was given a great deal of autonomy by the Constitution. 

• According to Article 370, the consent of the state was required to make any law on matters mentioned in the Union and Concurrent Lists. 

• This was different from the situation in other states. 

• In the case of other states, the division of powers as given in the three Lists automatically applies. 

• In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Government had only limited powers and other powers given in the Union List and the Concurrent List could be exercised only with the consent of the state. 

• Jammu and Kashmir had a separate constitution and flag, 

• in Jammu and Kashmir without the consent of the state, 

• Emergency  could not be declared due to internal disturbance. 

• The central government could not impose financial emergency in the state  and the Directive  Principles did not apply in Jammu and Kashmir.

• Amendments to the Indian Constitution (under Article 368) could be implemented only with the consent of the government of Jammu and Kashmir.

• At present the special status given under 370 does not exist. 

• By the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, the state has been divided into two union territories  (1) Jammu and Kashmir and (2) Ladakh. This new arrangement came into effect from October 31, 2019.