INTRODUCTION TO NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM: DIVISION OF

POWERS BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE STATES

UNIT STRUCTURE
1. Learning Objectives
2. Introduction
3. Nature of Indian federalism
1. Federal features
2. Unitary or non-federal features

4. Centre-State Relations:Division of powers between the Union and State governments

1. Legislative Relations
2. Administrative Relations
3. Financial Relations
5. An estimate of Indian federalism
5. Let Us sum Up
6. Further Readings
7. Answers To Check Your Progress
8. Possible Questions

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to:

describe the nature of Indian federalism
explain the federal features of the Indian Constitution
explain the unitary or non-federal features of the Indian Constitution
discuss the division of powers between the Union and State governments
present an estimate of Indian federalism

INTRODUCTION

You have already come to know that India has two sets of government, one at the Centre and the other in the States. This is an important feature of a
federal government. In this way, there are some other features as well, which can prove that India has a federal form of government. But the Indian
Constitution has also some non-federal features which are opposite to the features of a federal government. Because of this, India is not regarded as a
true federation. In this unit, we will discuss all these in detail.

NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

One important thing, here, is to be noted that the Constitution of India has not described India as a federation. On the other hand, Article 1 of the
Constitution describes her as a Union of States. This means, India is a union comprising of various States which are integral parts of it. The Indian
Union is not destructible. Here, the States can not break away from the union. They do not have the right to secede from the union. In a true federation,
the constituting units or the States have the freedom to come out of the union.
India is not a true federation. It combines the features of a federal government and the features of a unitary government which can also be called the
non-federal features. Because of this, India is regarded as a semi-federal state. Prof.K.C. Wheare describes it as a quasi-federal state. The Supreme
Court of India also describes it as a federal structure with a strong bias towards the Centre. Let us now discuss the federal and the unitary or nonfederal features of the Indian Constitution.

Federal Features

Two sets of government: India has two sets of government - the Central or Union government and the State government. The Central government works
for the whole country and the State governments look after the States. The areas of activity of both the governments are different.
Division of Powers: The Constitution of India has divided powers between the Central government and the state governments. The Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution contains three lists of subjects which show how division of power is made between the two sets of government. Both the
governments have their separate powers and responsibilities.
Written Constitution: The Constitution of India is written. Every provision of the Constitution is clearly written down and has been discussed in detail.
It is regarded as one of the longest constitutions of the world which has 395 Articles 22 Parts and 12 Schedules.
Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land. No law can be made which will go against the authority of
the Constitution. The Constitution is above all and all citizens and organizations within the territory of India must be loyal to the Constitution.
Supreme judiciary: The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of justice in India. It has been given the responsibility of interpreting the provisions
of the Constitution. It is regarded as the guardian of the Constitution.
Bi-cameral legislation : In India, the legislature is bi-cameral. The Indian Parliament, i.e., the legislature has two houses - the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha. The Rajya is the upper house of the Parliament representing the States while the Lok Sabha is the lower house representing the people in general.
These are some of the features of a federal form of government and the Indian Constitution has included them in it. The Constitution has also included
some unitary or non-federal features which are discussed as below:

Unitary or Non-Federal Features

division of power is not equal : In a federation, power are divided equally between the two governments. But in India, the Central government has been
given has been given more powers and made stronger than the State governments.
Constitution is not strictly rigid : The Constitution of India can be amended by the Indian Parliament very easily. On many subjects, the Parliament
does not need the approval of the State legislatures to amend the Constitution. But in a true federation, both the Union and the State legislatures take part
in the amendment of the Constitution with respect to all matters. Therefore, those constitutions are rigid and difficult to amend.
Single Constitution: In India, we have only one Constitution. It is applicable to both the Union as a whole and the Stares. There are no separate
constitutions for the States. In a true federation, there are separate constitutions for the union and the States.
Centres control over States: The Centre exercises control over the States. The States have to respect the laws made by the central government and can
not make any law on matters on which there is already a central law. The centre can also give directions to the States which they must carry out.
Rajya Sabha does not represent the States equality: In a true federation, the upper house of the legislature has equal representation from the constituting
units or the States. But in our Rajya Sabha, the States do not have equal representation. The populous States have more representatives in the Rajya
Sabha than the less populous States.
The upper house of the Indian Parliament, that is, the Rajya Sabha is not properly representative of all the States of Indian union.
Existence of States depends on the Centre: In India, the existence of a State or a federating unit depends upon the authority of the Centre. The
boundary of a State can be changed by created out of the existing States.
Single citizenship: In a true federal state, citizens are given dual citizenship. First, they are the citizens of their respective provinces or States and then
they are the citizens of the federation. In India however, the citizens enjoy single citizenship, i.e., Indian citizenship or citizenship of the country as a
whole.
Unified judiciary: India has a unified or integrated judicial system. The High Courts which work in the States are under the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of justice in the country and all other subordinate courts are under it.
Proclamation of emergency: The Constitution of India has given emergency powers to the President. He can declare emergency in the country under
three conditions. When emergency is declared, the Union or Central governments become all powerful and the State governments come under the total
control of it. The State governments lose their autonomy. This is against the principles of a federation.
Thus, we find that though India has adopted a federal form of government, yet there are various features of our Constitution which are non-federal or
unitary. The framers of the constitution wanted to have a strong central government and therefore, had made every attempt to the make the central
government more powerful than the state governments. There are various reasons for this. India is a vast country where the people of different religious,
languages, races, castes, etc. are residing. In order to maintain unity and integrity among them, a strong centre was thought to be necessary. Again, to
perform the vast responsibility of a modern welfare state and for the economic development of a newly independent country, a strong centre with
sufficient resources and authority was essential. Further, to establish India, in the international forums, the central government needed to be powerful.

LET US KNOW
1. The unitary features are also called non-federal features because they are the features of a government which is opposite to a fed eral government.
2. In a unitary government, there is only one government which rules the whole country. There are no state governments like that of a federal
government.
3. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has its own separate constitu tion but it also works under the Constitution of India.

ACTIVITY

Find out a country which is regarded as a true federation.

Legislative Relations

So far as the legislative relations between the Central government and the State governments is concerned, the Central government has been given
exclusive power to make law on the subjects of the Union list. The union list has 96 subjects. These subjects are of great importance for the country and
uniform in character. So, these subjects are given to the Union government. Some such subjects are defence, foreign affairs, currency and coinage,
citizenship, census, etc.
The State governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in the State list. The State list has 61 subjects. The subjects which are of local
importance and may vary from State to State are included in the State list. Some subjects of the State list are - law and order, public health, forests,
revenue, sanitation, etc. Though the State governments have power to make laws on the subjects of the State list, yet the Central government, on certain
occasions, can also make laws on these subjects. For example, during the period of emergency, the Parliament makes laws on State subjects.
The Concurrent list has 52 subjects. On these subjects both the central and the state governments can make laws. The subjects which are of great
importance and uniform in character but man require local variations, are included in the Concurrent list. In respect of Concurrent list also, though both
the governments can make laws on the subjects included in the list, yet the laws made by the Central government will prevail over the State laws in case
of a conflict between the two. Some subjects of this list are economic planning, social security, electricity, education, printing and news papers, etc. In
case of residuary powers, the Union government has exclusive power to make laws. The States have nothing to do in this regard.
Thus, we find that in legislative matters, the Union Parliament is very powerful. It has not only exclusive contral over the Union list and the residuary
powers, but it has also dominance over the Concurrent list and the State list.

LET US KNOW
1. The Parliament can make a law on State subjects if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by a 2/3 majority that such a law is necessary for national
interest.
2. Sometimes the Governor of a state can reserve certain bills passed by the state legislature for the consideration of President.

Administrative Relations

As in legislative maters, in administrative matters also, the Central government has been made more powerful than the States. The Constitution has
made it clear that the State governments cannot go against the Central government in administrative matters. The State governments have to work under
the supervision and control of the Central government. The States should exercise its executive powers in accordance with the laws made by the
Parliament. The Central government can make laws for maintaining good relations between the Centre and the States. It can control the State
governments by directing them to take necessary steps for proper running of administration. If the State fails to work properly or according to the
Constitution, it can impose Presidents rule there under Article 356 and take over its (the States) administration. Again, there are some officials of the
Central government, working in the States, through which it can have control over the State governments.

LET US KNOW
1. Article 257 of the Constitution lays down that the executive authority of every State shall be exercised in such a way that it does not impede or
prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union.
2. There are some functionaries of the Union government who serve the State governments. The Governor of a State is appointed by the President who
acts as a central agent in the State. The Chief Justice and the Judges of a High Court are appointed by the President and he can also remove them if a
resolution is passed by the Parliament in this regard. The offices of the All India Services are appointed by the Central government but they serve in
different States.

Financial Relations

To run the administration properly, both the Central and the State governments need adequate sources of income. The income of the government comes
mainly from various taxes imposed by it. In financial relations between the two governments, we will discuss how the sources of income are adjusted
between the to governments.
There are certain taxes like land revenue, tax on agricultural income, estate duty, etc., which are levied and collected by the States. They are the sources
of State revenue. Some taxes are there like stamp duty, excise on medicine, toilet preparations, etc. which are levied by the Union but collected and
appropriated by the States. There are some other taxes also which are the sources of income of the Union government alone. They are revenue earned
from railways, posts and telegraphs, wireless, broadcasting, etc.
In financial matters also, the central government is more powerful than the States. The President of India has the power to make alterations in the
distribution of revenues earned from income-tax between the centre and the States. The Centre has also the power to great loans and great-in-aid to the
State governments. The Comptroller and Auditor General India and the Finance Commission of India which are the central agencies also have control
over the State finances.

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. In which Schedule of the Constitution, we find the three lists of sub jects?

2. The Union list has 96 subjects. (True/False)?

3. Discuss the administrative relations between Central and State governments. (within 50 words)

AN ESTIMATE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

The Constitution of India has described India as a Union of States and not a federation. Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the
Indian Constitution, while explaining the meaning of the phrase, said that though India was to be a federation, it was not the result of an agreement by
the States to join a federation which is why no state had the right to secede from it. The federation is a union, because it is indestructible. He again said
that the States are sovereign in the field which is left to them by the Constitution as the centre is in the field which is assigned to it.
So, though the Constitution makers made the Central government stronger than the State governments, yet they wanted a cooperative federation. They
wished that States would perform their functions in their allotted spheres freely and both the governments would co-operate rather than confront each
other.
But the real working of the Constitution in all these years shows that the Centre has grown stronger day by day and that the States have become just like
administrative units of the Centre. They have not been able to work freely and independently. The Centre has been changing the boundary of the
existing States from time to time in which the consent of the concerned States was not regarded as necessary. Again, the Centre has also been using
Article 356 to have control over the States mostly in a discriminating way. The role of the Planning Commission has also been contributing to the
strength of the Central government in financial matters. The Planning Commission exercises control over the working of the State governments and thus
reduced the position of the States to the units of local administration in a unitary system of government.
But the States are always resenting the stronger position of the centre and demanding autonomy so that they can work independently in their own
matters. The Rajamanner committee, the West Bengal Government Memorandum on Union-State Relations, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and the J &
K Assembly Autonomy Resolution have all given a call for the grant of more powers to the States. The Sarkaria Commission, in its report while
accepting the need for a strong Centre also favoured the devolution of more powers to the States in some areas. The demand for State autonomy has
become stronger with the emergence of the regional political parties in different States and with their growing influence in national politics.
In recent years, we have seen an important development in the working of Indian federalism. No single national political party has been able to secure
absolute majority in the Parliament to form the government independently. Various regional and local political parties have been emerging and playing
crucial role in the formation of coalition governments at the Centre. This development to some extent has changed the face of Indian federalism.
However, India has been continuing with a strong Central government. But, it is hoped that Coalition politics will enable Indian federalism to bring
about some positive changes in the Center-State relations, particularly, in the use of Article 356 by the Central government, role of the Governor in a
State and the distribution of financial powers between the two governments. These are some of the issues which have been constraining Centre-State
relations from the very beginning.

LET US KNOW
In 1983, the Sarkaria Commission was established by the Central government to study the question of the Centre-State relations and to suggest
reforms, if necessary. This commission emphasised co-operative federalism in India. It is a fact that India has a strong Central government but it
should not always try to interfere in the matters of the States. Both the governments should respect one anothers power or authority and work
harmoniously.

LET US SUM UP

In This unit, we have discussed that India has various features of federal government. But India is not regarded as a true federation, as it has many nonfederal features as well. The Central government has control over the State governments and the State governments are to work under the authority of
the Central government although they have a certain degree of autonomy in their respective spheres. Accordingly, India combines both federal and nonfederal or unitary features with unitary features outweighing the federal features.

FURTHER READING

1. Select Constitutions Anup Chand Kapur and K.K.Misra

2. Indian Government and Politics K.K.Ghai
3. Constitutional Government in India M.V.Pylee
4. Indian Government and Politics Prakash Chander

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS 1

Q. no. 1. True
Q. no. 2. Prof. K.C. Wheare
Q. no. 3. i) two sets of government; ii) division of power; iii)Written constitution, iv) supreme Judiciary
Q. no. 4. i) division of powers is not equal; ii) single constitution; iii) Constitution is not strictly rigid; iv) unequal representation of States in the Rajya
Sabha
CHECK YOUR PROGRESS 2
Q. no. 1. Seventh Schedule
Q. no. 2. True
Q. no. 3. As in legislative maters, in administrative matters also, the Central government has been made more powerful than the States. The State
governments have to work under the supervision and control of the Central government. The States should exercise its executive powers in accordance
with the laws made by the Parliament. The Central government can control the State governments by directing them to take necessary steps for proper
running of administration.
Q. no. 4. To run the administration properly, both the Central and the State governments need adequate sources of income. The income of the
government comes mainly from various taxes imposed by it. There are certain taxes like land revenue, tax on agricultural income, etc., which are levied
and collected by the States. They are the sources of State revenue. Some taxes are there like stamp duty, excise on medicine, etc. which are levied by the
Union but collected and appropriated by the States. There are some other taxes also which are the sources of income of the Union government alone.
They are revenue earned from railways, posts and telegraphs, etc. In financial matters also, the central government is more powerful than the States.

Federalism in India
The Government of the Union and the Governments of the
States
Federalism is indicative of a governmental structure where various groups of authorities (federating units such as
States) unite together under a single unit (the Union). In a federation, all governmental authority is clearly divided
between the Central Government and the State Governments, and neither the Centre nor the States can boast of
overriding powers above another. Both States and the Centre are equal holders of powers of different kinds, usually
demarcated through a written constitution.
The Central Government of India is also known as the Union Government, being the pivotal authority of a Federal
Union of 29 States and seven Union Territories. The Constitution envisages a multi-tiered system, in which the
Constitution of India outlines the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The current
arrangement has two constitutional levels of governance, as shown in the chart below, and their areas of governance,
legislation and jurisdiction are clearly determined by the three listsoutlined in the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of
India.

Union List:Includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the country, foreign affairs, banking,
communications and currency. The Union Government alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the
Union List. There are currently 99 items mentioned on the Union List.
State List:Contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade, commerce, agriculture and irrigation.
The State Governments alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List. However, in certain
circumstances, Union Parliament can also make laws on subjects mentioned in the State List. For this, Union
Parliament has to pass a resolution with 2/3rd majority stating that it is appropriate to legislate on the State List in
national interest. There are currently 61 items mentioned on the State List.
Concurrent List: Includes subjects of common interest to both the Union Government as well as the State
Governments, such as education, forest, trade unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as
the State Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws conflict with each other, the
law made by the Union Government will prevail. There are currently 52 items on the Concurrent List.
Further, any residuary powers are entrusted to the Union Government.
It must be noted here that India does not follow a purely Federal form of government, but does display some clear
Centralising tendencies, bending the balance of powers a little away from the States. It is this tendency which has
resulted in the Indian structure being referred to as federal in form but unitary in spirit
.

challenge to Indian federalism

The efforts of the Union government to divide Andhra Pradesh irrespective of the State
legislatures views, pose a grave danger to federalism and unity.
The decision to divide Andhra Pradesh raises important questions about federalism and the nations future.
This is the first time in India that a state is sought to be divided without the consent of the State legislature, and
without a negotiated settlement among stakeholders and regions, and in the face of public opposition.
All major federal democracies have in their Constitutions the provision that a state cannot be divided or merged
with another state without its prior consent. This is the essence of federalism.
Article 3
Indias Constitution-makers gave much thought to the issue of formation of new states and reorganisation of
states. The Drafting Committee and the Constituent Assembly were aware of the circumstances prevailing at
that time. India witnessed Partition, accompanied by violence, bloodshed, and forced mass migration. In
addition, there were several kinds of States Parts A, B and C and there was need to reorganise all states
and integrate the 552 princely states. If the consent of every State or Unit was a precondition to altering the
boundary, reorganisation would have become an excruciatingly difficult exercise. Consequently, the final text of
Article 3 as promulgated provided for the Presidents recommendation and ascertaining the views of the state
concerned both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof.
Our nation-builders were wise in drafting the Constitution to suit our requirements. More important,
successive governments have wisely applied Article 3 in dealing with states. While prior consent of the state was
not necessary under the Constitution, in practice every state has been formed with prior consent, in most cases
after a detailed, impartial examination by an independent commission. Only in the case of Punjab, there was no
legislature at the time of dividing the State in 1966. But there was a broad consensus among stakeholders and
no opposition.
So far, Parliament and governments have acted with restraint and wisdom in dealing with boundary issues and
formation of states. They rejected the notion that anything could be done to alter boundaries, provided it is not
expressly prohibited by the Constitution. While prior consent of the state legislature is not mandatory, in
practice care has been taken to obtain consent, or to act only on the express request of the state. The 1956

reorganisation was based on the fundamental principle of language; there was broad national consensus on the
issue.
Articles 3 & 4 in their present form are enabling provisions empowering Parliament to act in an exceptional
situation when national interest warrants it, or to settle marginal boundary disputes between states when they
are recalcitrant and efforts to reconcile differences and arrive at a settlement fail. The framers of the
Constitution did not intend to give Parliament arbitrary powers to redraw boundaries; nor did successive
Parliaments and governments act unilaterally or arbitrarily without consent, broad consensus or negotiated
settlement.
Even after 1987, in every case of state formation, the consent of the state legislature was obtained. The broader
principle of federalism and the willing consent of constituent units and their people has been deemed to be
necessary before a state is formed or a territory merged, unless overwhelming national interest demands action
by Parliament. The procedure was observed in creating Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh in 2000.
Dr. Ambedkar said in his reply to the debate in the Constituent Assembly on states rights: The charge is that
the Centre has been given the power to override the States. This charge must be admitted. But before
condemning the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in
mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the Constitution. Their use
and operation are expressly confined to emergencies only.
It is this spirit that informed the actions of the Union government and Parliament over the past six decades.
There were blemishes in the application of Article 356 earlier. But over the past two decades Indian federalism
has matured a great deal. The Supreme Court, in Bommai (1994), made Article 356 more or less a dead letter
as Dr. Ambedkar had hoped. Though the Finance Commissions recommendations are not binding on
Parliament and government, those of every Finance Commission in respect of devolution of resources have
been accepted and implemented. Since the report of the Tenth Finance Commission, there has been greater
transparency in devolution: most of the tax revenues of the Union are being treated as the divisible pool, and a
fixed proportion of it is shared with states as decided by the Finance Commission. States are now more in
control of their economic future.
Limited sovereignty
This does not mean states can act as they please, or that their territorial integrity is inviolable. There is one
nation and one citizenship, and the nations territorial integrity is paramount. However, within that
overarching framework, states exercise limited sovereignty, and the federal spirit informs the operation of the
Constitution. The Constitution did not intend to make India a unitary country with states functioning as
municipalities, their survival dependent on the will and whim of the Union government. Nor did the operation
of our Constitution over the past 63 years suggest a de facto unitary state. In fact, federalism has been
deepening in India, in keeping with global trends.
The determined efforts of the Union government and its oft-repeated declarations that Andhra Pradesh will be
divided irrespective of the legislatures views, pose a grave danger to federalism and unity. Andhra Pradesh was
formed with the prior consent of the Andhra State Legislature, and the Hyderabad State Legislature. When two
popular movements for the states division were launched in the three regions in Telangana in 1969-70, and
in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in 1972-73 the Union government encouraged all regions to arrive at a
negotiated settlement. Corresponding constitutional provisions were put in place to safeguard the interests of
all regions. An explicit and implicit compact was made by the Union with the people of Andhra Pradesh to the
effect that the State would remain united. It is on this basis that people migrated on a large scale to the other
regions and to the capital, Hyderabad, and built their lives, livelihoods and the States economy. In this
backdrop, any redrawing of boundaries would need another agreement arrived at by the affected parties

through patient negotiation. The Union has a seminal role in helping reconcile conflicting interests
harmoniously. Parliament can act only on the basis of such an agreement, consensus and consent. Any other
approach would be ham-handed, arbitrary and uneven, and run counter to the principles and practice of
federalism as they have evolved under Indian conditions.
The way the President and Parliament handle the Andhra Pradesh issue will, in a fundamental sense, shape the
future of the Union itself. This is a defining moment not for Andhra Pradesh alone, but for our federal
Constitution and India itself.
If such an arbitrary decision becomes a precedent, any and every state could be divided or boundaries altered
without consent, and without a negotiated settlement, that will effectively convert states into municipalities,
and India into a unitary state. Neither the Constitution-makers nor nation-builders intended such an outcome.
And Indias future will be in peril if such an effort is made to make the nation effectively unitary at this stage.
In critical moments like this the President and Parliament have to act with restraint, foresight and wisdom. The
President is not only the head of the Republic, he is also a part of Parliament. The President is elected by
members of both Houses as well as members of State Assemblies. In a fundamental sense the President
represents the nation both Union and states and is the final defender of the Constitution and federalism
along with the Supreme Court. This is therefore a fit case where the President should exercise his constitutional
duty independently before recommending introduction of any Bill to divide the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Leaders of parliamentary parties too should act with clarity and wisdom, and with the knowledge that division
of a state without its consent and a negotiated settlement among all stake-holders converts the nation
effectively into a unitary one. Every state will, in future, be vulnerable to unilateral action for short-term
electoral expediency.
The Constitution, the President, Parliament and the political parties will be put to a severe test in this case, and
the way they respond to this challenge will shape the future of our Republic, and the future of federalism in
India.
(The writer is president of the Lok Satta Party. He is at drjploksatta@gmail.com)
Keywords: Andhra Pradesh bifurcation, Telangana agitation, statehood demand, Telangana
JAC, Samaikyandhra movement, Andhra Pradesh politics

Cooperative Federalism

Although the Constitution of India has nowhere used the term 'federal', it has provided for a
structure of governance which is essentially federal in nature. First of all, Constitution has
provided separate governments at the Union and the States with separate legislative,
executive and judicial wings of governance. Secondly, Constitution has clearly demarcated
the jurisdictions, powers and functions of the Union and the State Governments. Third,
Constitution has spelt out in detail the legislative, administrative and financial relations
between the Union and the States.
Within this basic framework of federalism, the Constitution has given overriding powers to

the Central government. States must exercise their executive power in compliance with the
laws made by the Central government and must not impede on the executive power of the
Union within the States. Governors are appointed by the Central government to oversee the
States. The Centre can even take over the executive of the States on the issues of national
security or breakdown of constitutional machinery of the State.
Considering the overriding powers given to the Central government, Indian federation has
often been described as 'quasi-federation', 'semi-federation', 'pragmatic federation' or a
'federation with strong unitary features'.
Indian federation should be seen in the context of its democratic system of governance at the
national, state and local levels and the pluralities of its culture in terms of ethnic, linguistic,
religious and other diversities which cut through the States. India is the largest democratic
country as also the largest federal and the largest pluralist country of the world. While
democracy provides freedom to everybody, federation ensures that governance is distributed
spatially and a strong central government enables that the 'unity amidst diversity' is
maintained and the country mobilizes all its resources to maintain its harmony and integrity
and marches ahead to progress.
A strong Centre in India is therefore necessary for strong States and vice versa. This is the
essence of cooperative federalism. So long as the central and governments were ruled by the
same political party, the cooperative framework worked very well. Since the seventies when
different political parties are in power in the centre and the states and more recently when
coalition governments of national and regional parties are in power in the Centre, there are
signs of stresses and tensions in intergovernmental relations between the Centre and the
States.
Article 263 of the Constitution has provided for the setting up of an Inter-State Council for
investigation, discussion and recommendation for better coordination of relation between the
Centre and the States. The Zonal Councils set up under the State Reorganization Act 1956
provide another institutional mechanism for centre- state and inter-state cooperation to
resolve the differences and strengthen the framework of cooperation. The National
Development Council and the National Integration Council are the two other important
forums that provide opportunities for discussion to resolve differences of opinion. Central
councils have been set up by various ministries to strengthen cooperation. Besides Chief
Ministers, Finance and other Ministers have their annual conferences in addition to the
regular meetings and discussions of the officials of the Centre and the States to share mutual
concerns on various issues.
One of the challenges of Indian federation would be how best these mechanisms of
cooperative federalism can be strengthened further to promote better coordination and
cooperation between the Centre and the States.