Federalism: Constitutional provisions; changing nature of centre-state relations;

integrationist tendencies and regional aspirations; inter-state disputes.

1. Planning has superseded the federation and our country is functioning almost
like a unitary system in many respects. In the light of the statement, examine
the recent trends in Indian Federalism. (1992)

2. Trace and analyse the co-operation trends in Indian federalism.

(1994,1997,1998,2005,2013)
3. Shared rule to be as important as self-rule in explaining the possibility of
federal power sharing.(2000)
4. What are the salient features of Sarkaria Commission Report as regard to
federal restructuring in India with special reference to autonomy demand by
states (60)? (2000)
5. The role of Indian Prime Ministers in the federal system was always
controversial. Do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your
answer with apt examples (60).(2000)
6. It is generally believed that federalism suffers in the system of centralized
planning. Do you agree with this point of view? Would you advocate
decentralized governance for India in the context of liberalization since 1991
(60)? (2002)
7. Explain the federal scheme under the Government of India Act, 1935. Why
could this scheme not be implemented? (2005)
8. Discuss whether coalitional politics has led to a different patterns of
federalism in India (2007)

9. Articles 2 and 3 of the Indian Constitution are inconsistent with the

spirit of federalism. (2010)

10.It is not constitutional law but political factors that ultimately determine
Centre-States relations in India.(2011)
11.Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State
dispute in India. (2012)
Q. Trace and analyse the co-operation trends in Indian federalism.
India takes great pride in describing itself as the worlds largest democracy.
However, this democracy is meaningful significantly because it is encapsulated
in a federal structure. 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. While democracy represents the majority opinion, federalism
accommodates and links it to the voice of the minority, lending a flavour of social
justice. This ensures harmonious functioning of the entire system. There is no
single pure model of federalism that is applicable everywhere. Rather the basic
notion of involving the combination of shared rule (to promote unity) for some
purposes and self-rule (for regional/local purpose of diversity) for others within a
single political system so that neither is subordinate to the other has been
applied in different ways to different circumstances. According to some scholars
like Granville Austin, India is a cooperative federalism. According to him it
produces a strong central government, yet it does not result in weak provincial or
state governments that are largely administrative agencies for central policies.
According to the 9th five year plan document, in a vast country like ours, the
spirit of co-operative federalism should guide the relations between the Centre
and the States on the one hand, among different States and between the States

and the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) on
the other. The essence of co-operative federalism is that the Centre and the
State Governments should be guided by the broader national concerns of using
the available resources for the benefit of the people. Co-operative federalism
encourages the Government at different levels to take advantage of a large
national market, diverse and rich natural resources and the potential of human
capabilities in all parts of the country and from all sections of the society for
building a prosperous nation. Co-operative federalism makes it possible to raise
all the available resources by the Government at different levels in a coordinated way and channel them for use for the common good of the people.
This requires a harmonious relationship and co-operative spirit between the
Centre and the States and among the States themselves. While a healthy
competition among the States for evolving efficient and socially desirable
policies and programmes is welcome, any competition which nullifies each
other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States
should be avoided. Co-operative federalism is intended to ensure a minimum
bundle of basic services and a nationally acceptable level of living for all the
people of the country.
Cooperative Federalism in the pre-independence era
Seeds of cooperative federalism can be traced right from the Regulating Act of
1773 which set up a system whereby the British Government supervised
regulated the work of the East India Company but did not take power for itself.
The Government of India Act, 1919 provided for a federal India, however
superficial, by envisaging a dual form of government called diarchy. The Report
of the Indian Statutory Commission of 1929 gave a federal solution by proposing
to introduce diarchy at the centre and to advance from diarchy to fully
responsible government in the provinces. The same was sought to be achieved
by the Government of India Act, 1935.
In 1937, after a great deal of confrontation, Provincial Autonomy commenced.
From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Lord Linlithgow tirelessly
tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. The
Cabinet Mission of 1946 provided that Union of India should deal with Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Communication and all subjects other than Union subjects
and all residuary powers were to vest in the Provinces.
Jawaharlal Nehru, while moving his Objectives Resolution on 13 December, 1946,
reiterated that the need for a measure of uniformity in regard to apparatus and
machinery of government at the Central level was to be considered in
cooperation and consultation with the states, and that all power and authority
of the Sovereign Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of
government, are derived from the people. The Constituent Assembly members
did a commendable job by envisaging a cooperative federalism set up because in
the turbulent and bloody circumstances prevailing at that time and in the wake
of Indias partition, it could have been very easy to swing towards at least a
highly centralised federation, if not unitary, in place of a quasi-federation. Hence,
even though federal character seemed to be a practical imperative by reason of
Indias sheer size and diversity, yet this assumption should not be taken for
granted. In fact, the strong central bias in the constitution has been a boon to

keep India together at the most crucial time of its birth when forces of
communalism, separatism and linguism were rampant.
Development of Cooperative Federalism Post Independence
The changing dynamics and the varied experiences that the Indian State has had
one party rule, coalition and the not so united forms, have led to the shift from
Centralist to Federalist to Centre-Federalist forms of federal governance. The rise
of regional parties, the formation of coalition Governments, active role of the
Judiciary have shaped the trajectory of federalism by swinging the pendulum
from cooperative to confrontationist and vice versa.

Cooperative federalism in the 1950s

The first phase of federalisation of the political process extended from the time
of Independence to the mid-1960s, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took
democracy seriously enough to face the enormously expanded Indian electorate
(in 1951, in the first general election held both to the national parliament and the
provincial assemblies), providing for full and free participation in the election. He
took the chief ministers (all of whom, with rare exceptions, were members of the
Indian National Congress (INC), the party of which he was for part of this period
the President and, of all this period, leader of the parliamentary party) seriously
enough to write to each of them every month in an effort to keep them informed
of the state of the nation and the world, and to solicit their opinion in an attempt
to build a national consensus. The INC, which had already embraced the federal
principle back in the 1920s by organizing itself on the basis of Provincial
congress committees based on linguistic regions, institutionalized the principle of
consultation, accommodation and consensus through a delicate balancing of the
factions with the Congress System (Kothari 1970). It also practised the cooptation of local and regional leaders in the national power structure,and the
system of sending out Congress observers from the Centre to mediate between
warring factions in the provinces, thus simultaneously ensuring the legitimacy of
the provincial power structure in running its own affairs as well as the role of
Central mediation.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, creating linguistic states, fulfilled a demand
that was being made vociferously and was a victory of popular will. Five Zonal
Councils were set up vide Part III of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 with the
object, in Nehrus own words, to develop the habit of cooperative working.
Confrontationist from late 1960s to 1980s
The second phase of the development of Indian federalism began with the fourth
general elections (1967), which drastically reduced the overwhelming strength of
the congress party in the national Parliament to a simple majority and saw nearly
half the states moving out of Congress control and into the hands of opposition
parties or coalitions, and led to a radical change in the nature of centre-state
relations. No longer could an imperious Congress Prime Minister afford to
dictate benevolently to a loyal Congress Chief Minister. However, even as the

tone became more contentious, the essential principles of accommodation and

consultation held between the crucial 1967-69 periods of transition. The
congress dominated Centre began cohabiting with opposition parties at the
regional level. The balance was lost once the Congress party split (1969), and
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took to the strategy of radical rhetoric and strong
centralized personal leadership. In consequence, the regional accommodation,
which had been possible by way of the internal federalization of the Congress
Party, was subsequently eroded. It was due to Mrs Indira Gandhis misadventures
that in Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala, 1973 , the Courts evolved the
basic structure doctrine to save the Constitution from the misplaced
establishment sovereignty of the Union Parliament. Chief Justice Sikri clearly
stated that the federal character of the Constitution was a feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution which was, hence, not open to whimsical
amendments.
Federalism came heavily under pressure with the declaration of emergency on
26th June 1975 under ominous conditions. However, it must be kept in mind that
declaration of emergency in itself is not an attack on federalism. But if the same
is done under questionable circumstances not in sync with the spirit with which
the provision for it was enacted, then federalism is surely under attack. This
declaration of emergency had another significant impact. It gave an opportunity
to the nascent opposition, struggling for its birth, a burning political cause and a
strongly shared grievance that enabled the leaders to sink their differences and
to plan for the future. This led to the rise of the Janata Party, Indias first
alternative to the Congress, which won in 1977 elections, marking a watershed in
Indian politics. It is to be noted that the break up from single party rule across
the country and the rise of regional parties happened simultaneously with the
existing virtually single party rule of Congress. It was because of the federal
structure that people could aspire for share in power. The National Development
Council continued to meet once a year, on an average, throughout the Seventies,
but in the Eighties, as the relations between the Congress and the opposition
grew more and more strained, the frequency of the meetings declined. In the
eighties, it met not more than seven times, and the meetings were marked by
acrimony and tension. The West Bengal Government Memorandum on Centre
State relations, prepared by the Left Front Government of West Bengal in 1977,
reflected the increasing disagreement with the Centre and portrayed the
Constitution as essentially unitary in character. In 1978, the Chief Ministers
Conference of non Janata Party CMs of South India was held. They discussed the
language issue i.e. the imposition of Hindi on the non-Hindi speaking people, and
urged the PM to intervene.
Opposition Conclaves took place in different parts of the country to express
views on centre-state relations. In response to the call of CM of Andhra Pradesh,
N. T. Rama Rao, the first Opposition Conclave was held in Vijaywada in 1983.
Fourteen non-Congress parties gathered to criticise the Centre for encroaching
upon the powers of the states and the Centre was held responsible for all
economic problems of the country.
In this background of simmering discontent among opposition ruled states, Mrs
Gandhi constituted the Commission on Centre State Relations headed by Justice
R. S. Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, in 1984 which submitted its
voluminous report in 1988 to the Rajiv Gandhi Government recommending inter

alia, a permanent Inter State Council as an independent forum for consultation

with a mandate defined according to Article 263 . It should deal with subjects
other than socioeconomic planning and development and have an advisory role
only. Administratively, it should be called Inter Governmental Council.
Cooperative In The 1990s
The National Front coalition government of V.P. Singh fell. Chandrashekhar of
Samajwadi Janta Party followed from 1990-91.And in the 1991 elections, P. V.
Narsimha Rao was elected. The return of Congress and the five years rule from
1991 to 1995 under one party signified a desire among the people for stability,
and the fact that federalism can survive only if the Centre itself is strong and
competent. A Centre that is formed of parties that are incoherent in their plan of
action will be a weak centre that cannot sustain a healthy cooperative structure.
Hence simply having a multi-party centre is not a guarantee that the same would
strengthen federalism or that it would be better than single party rule at the
Centre. Narsimha Rao followed a conciliatory style of politics. He held all party
meetings and used the National Integration Council to forge a consensus on
communal issues and meetings of the CMs under the aegis of NDC and ISC to
discuss specific thorny problems like urgent need to stop providing electricity
virtually free of cost to agriculture. The NDC has immense untapped potential.
Bringing the CMs together in national decision making will be extremely useful as
it not only helps in strengthening cooperative federalism, but also makes the
states understand the limitations and compulsions of the Centre as well as the
limitations of other states. In 1992, the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts were
passed making India the first statutorily defined three tier system of democracy.
It was envisaged as a way to destroy paternalism of the centre.
In 1996, a group of Chief Ministers and regional leaders met in Hyderabad to
discuss what they considered to be a paradigm shift in federal relations in India.
The slogan of their meeting was Federation without a Centre because they
believed that with the formation of the United Front Government, the pattern of
federal relations in India had undergone such a dramatic change where the
Central government had been rendered superfluous.
BJP came to power again from 1998-2003. It created three new states in 2000 to
recognise the demands around tribal identities. It is important to note that these
new states have emerged very much within the fabric of India which is a Union
of States, reinforcing that our federalism is alive and kicking. Indian federalism
has also experimented with sub state regional development councils to satisfy
regional, ethnic and tribal aspirations. Inclusion of languages has been another
mechanism of cooperative federalism. In 2003, Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali
were included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The inclusion allows
privileges like simultaneous translation facilities in Parliamentary proceedings,
allocation of central government funding for development of the language and
its literature and is an effective tool to include the periphery into the
mainstream. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution
NCRWC submitted its report in two volumes to the Government on 31st March,
2002. It recommended that there was a need to institutionalise the consultation
process between the Centre and the states. It considered Article 263 as being in
tune with the spirit of cooperative federalism and suggested that the ISC Order,
1990 may clearly specify in 4b of the order the subjects that would form part of

the consultation in the ISC. Article 139A should be amended so as to provide that
it can withdraw to itself cases even if they are pending in one Court where such
questions as to legislative competence of Parliament or State Legislature are
involved. Further, an Inter State Trade and Commerce Commission should be
established.
The decade of 2000
The decade was the decade of coalition politics. Both UPA I and II were
coalition governments. During this time there were high demands for autonomy
from the state governments. The non-congress ruled states accused the centre
of step-mother attitude, while the allies didnt have any problem. So the issue of
federalism in this decade was a mere political rhetoric rather than a real issue.
The outcomes of globalisation lead to more federalism in this decade. This
decade witnessed a rise in inter-state disputes. Due to globalisation, inter-state
cooperation was replaced with interstate competition. Though healthy
completion is good for nations growth, but any competition which nullifies each
other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States
should be avoided.
Conclusion
The relation between the centre, the states and the local tiers lies at the heart of
Indias sense of nationhood and is the pre requisite for Indias progress. However,
a strong political undercurrent runs through it. Every centre-state and every
interstate dispute is at its heart, a political dispute. This is the root cause of the
problematic nature of centre state relations. Such a dispute slowly ripens into an
economic one. Bad politics leads to bad economics. Unless stagnation in the
economic field and unbalanced regional development are not addressed,
integration and solidarity in the federal set up will not be complete. Both Centre
and State governments must attend to the task of preserving our nationhood
through constructive cooperative federalism which requires a great deal of
commitment. India is a beautiful melting pot of diversity. The same needs to be
valued and cherished. And there isnt a better way to do so than by cooperative
federalism. In the famous words of Justice Nani Palkhivala WHO DIES IF INDIA
LIVES AND WHO LIVES IF INDIA DIES..... People of several states sink or swim
together, and that in the long run, prosperity and salvation are in innovation and
not in division Mutuality and not conflict Cooperation and not competition.

Q. Discuss whether coalitional politics has led to a different patterns of

federalism in India
There is an emerging scholarly consensus that though India remains a federation
with strong centre features, it is more federalized today than in the past. It is
therefore not surprising that India counts among the most thriving federations in
the world and is definitely the most successful federation in Asia. The success
of federalism in India is undoubtedly the result of a federalization process that
has taken place. Though there has been no major change in the constitutional
provisions, multiple federative processes and practices have moved India from
the strong centre model towards a more federated polity. The most significant
development in the last decade in Indian federalism has been the unfolding of
new modes of power sharing with the emergence and consolidation of federal

coalitions.The federalizing factors identified in the literature on Indian federalism

include, among others, judicial pronouncements, economic changes, the
Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendment Acts, and the coalition
politics.
However, it must be mentioned that despite these factors occurring at times
independently of one another, they have influenced and reinforced one another
and the end result of federalization is a result of a combination of factors.
Indias political parties and the party system have been in continual evolution
and makeover since independence. However, the last two decades witnessed a
distinctive transformation with the decisive end to the one-party, Congressdominated system and the emergence of a competitive multiparty system. In
this new party system, the numbers and importance of single-state and/or
region-based parties has increased manifold. The clearest sign of this is the
increased representation of their members in the Lok Sabha and a concomitant
decline in the representatives of national parties except in 2014. From 1989 to
2014, no single political party has got a majority in the Lok Sabha and all
governments that have formed since then have been dependent on multiple
political parties for both formation and day-to-day running. At the state level too,
the composition of the government changes from state to state with no
distinctive pattern as could be observed in the immediate years after
independence.
The increased numbers of single-state parties and the inability of any single
party to obtain a majority of their own resulted in the formation of what former
Prime Minister I.K. Gujral (Lok Sabha Secretariat 1997, Frontline 1997) called
federal coalitions at the centre. The exigencies of the party system may have
thrown up federal coalitions, but scholars of federalism have primarily viewed
federal coalitions as a power-sharing device which seeks to reconcile
territorially-based identities within a cohesive frame even in the absence of
shared ideologies (Arora 2000: 176). Federal coalitions, which bring together
usually a polity-wide party along with numerous single-state and multistate
parties, is an innovative device to recognize and accommodate the needs of
diversity with the requirements of national unity. In the absence of an
overarching party, federal coalitions have played a key role in ensuring that
multiple diversitiesreligious, caste, linguistic, cultural, and regionalare not
merely represented but have access to power at the national level (Arora and
Kailash 2007). While maintaining an overarching commitment to the coalition,
different groups in the coalition bring their distinctive and special interests to the
table at the national level. Sharing power at the federal level has mellowed and
moderated previously hard-line positions and opened spaces in the polity for
greater inclusiveness.
Federal coalitions have also strengthened the federal political culture of the
polity. Central intervention in states using Article 356 has declined during the
phase of federal coalitions (Arora 2002; M.P. Singh 2002). This was aided no
doubt by the judicial verdict (S.R. Bommai vs the Union of India, 1994) but one
cannot miss the correlation of reduced incidence with the presence of singlestate parties, previously victim parties in federal coalitions. The presence of state
interests in federal coalitions has also fulfilled one of the long-standing demands
of states, that they be consulted in national-level decision-making. This, of

course, has had both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, it has
created an atmosphere of cooperative federalism. Most importantly, the raising
of state and regional matters at the national level is no longer a taboo or
antinational as in the past, and it has, in fact, become a new dimension in
national decision-making. However, at the same time, narrow situational political
considerations and the exigencies of coalition dynamics have also often entered
both policymaking and policy decisions.
Office of the President and Governors
The functioning of the president at the centre and of governors in the states has
also undergone a dramatic change in this phase (Rudolph and Rudolph 2001b; M.
P. Singh 2002; Singh and Verney 2003). In the federalized atmosphere, the
holders of these constitutional positions have been wary of indiscretion and the
new federal political culture has not only given them greater autonomy but also
forced them to act with discretion, measured restraint, and judicious thought.
Also this period witnessed more politicization of the governors office.
Impact on Policy making
Federal coalitions have also institutionalized a GoM mechanism (Arora and
Kailash 2007). Though primarily intended to serve the purpose of coordination
and minimize differences and resolve conflicts within the council of ministers, it
also has a federal perspective. First, it has allowed for greater involvement, both
through representation and as an avenue for consultation of state-based
representatives and interests in the national decision-making apparatus. Second,
they have enabled an introduction of a local or state-based flavour in nationallevel decision-making and policies. In a way, it has served the dual purpose of
both representing diversity and involvement at the national level. At the same
time it has become very tough on the part of the government to pass a bill
because of incoherent ideologies of the alliance partners. The ministries were
decided by number of seats won by a party rather than the capability of the
person who is going to hold the post. For, example, the railway budget during
these coalition times looked like a state centric budget rather than a budget of a
nation.
Impact on Foreign Policy
According to the 7 th schedule of the Indian constitution, foreign affairs is in the
central list. But due to coalition compulsions the government had taken many
stances against its stated policy. The examples can be of relationship with Sri
Lanka was dictated by the local parties in TN. Similarly, the Teesta water sharing
with Bangladesh also involves a third party named the West Bengal Government.
The question here is not about whether a particular decision - such as that on Sri
Lanka - is right or wrong, but about whether the rationale provided for it speaks
to the national interest as conceptualised by the central government.
Conclusion
For federalism is not only about giving more power to the states; it is also about
preserving the integrity of those arenas that lie within the exclusive purview of
the centre. Undermining the centre's governance over its own jurisdiction does
not do any service to the federal idea.So, there is a need to create a equilibrium

between federalism and national interest and the leaders of all political parties
should take a note of it.
Differences, if any, during single party rule, between different ministers on issue
of policy, details of its working, performance, and so on could have been settled
through the party network but in the era of coalition politics it needed larger
involvement of regional parties, this results in maintaining diversity and creating
unity. It may be concluded that multiparty federalism has undoubtedly played a
major role in transforming centrestate relations in India.
Q. What is the impact of globalization on Indian federalism?
In the sense that while it has allowed more autonomy of action in favour of the
state to reap the benefits of globalization, this has at the same time prepared the
long-term basis of crisis in Indian federalism itself. First, the political autonomy of
the liberal democratic states has been compromised in favour of the market.
Second, the states have been engaged in fierce competition among themselves
for foreign direct investment and SEZ models of development giving rise to a
new division among the states such as forward and backward states,
interjurisdictional competition in place of inter-state cooperation, and weakening
loyalty to the `union. Third, with the weakening of the welfare state, the newly
created conflicts out of disparity in regional development, and widening
inequalities following globalization remain unmitigated. Fourth, with the political
autonomy of the liberal democratic state compromised in favour of the market,
local governance is more and more exposed to direct penetration by global and
corporate power structures. Finally, the gradual withdrawal of the very meagre
welfare measures, and the relative absence of any social security, or safety nets,
have meant that there is mass protest against globalization led by various forms
of grass-roots political activism. This cuts into the very democratic basis of
legitimacy of the party (ies) in power in the states.
Although it is commonly believed that globalization started in India from the
early 1990s, the process had had its beginnings in the mid-1960s when Lal
Bahadur Shastri, then the Prime Minister of India (1964-66), set in motion a
process of liberalisation so much so that in the initial approach paper on the
Fourth Five-Year Plan it was stated: within the broad framework of control in
strategic areas, there is an advantage in allowing the market much fuller play.
Indias liberalisation until the end of the 1960s took a variety of forms: 16 items
were decontrolled in 1963; cement was decontrolled in 1966, and cotton in 1967;
controls on investment were liberalized, and several industries were also
decontrolled. However, the process of Indias liberalisation has since been slow
and halting, and passed through phases, and even during the Emergency (197577) regime of authoritarianism and excessive state control, the process of
liberalization, paradoxically enough, was broadened and accelerated! Hardgrave
and Kochanek have noted: During the emergency, the government tried to
further liberalize the industrial licensing policies, relax price controls, and provide
tax incentives for industrial investment in an effort to accelerate the rate of
economic growth.What remained basically a guarded process of liberalization
until the early 1990s became ever since a combined process of liberalization,
privatization and globalization. The so-called structural reforms, as is heard a
lot these days, encompass the combination: decontrol and deregulation of
industry, changes in monetary and fiscal policy, liberalization of trade policy,

changes in foreign exchange regulations, encouragement of foreign direct

investment, financial sector reforms, promotion of private foreign investment in
infrastructure, partial privatization of public sector units, and the promise to
enact labour reforms, and an exit policy that allows bankrupt private sector firms
to go out of business.Since India is a federation (called a Union of States,
constitutionally speaking), the states are the most significant strategic players in
implementing the agenda of globalization. The Indian Constitution entrusts the
states with the major tasks of development including infrastructural
development. The reforms of the 1990s gave state governments more freedom
to make policies independently, and this has extended the impacts of openness
and globalization to the sub national level. In particular,while only the national
government can determine import duties, state governments now can affect the
incentives of foreign capital to enter their jurisdictions. From the perspective of
an Indian state, capital from another country or from another state can be
viewed through the same lens, and must be treated equally in typical policy
environments. The final impacts of the entry of capital on a sub national
government will therefore depend also on the internal mobility of capital and
labor. Hence, in a federal system, attention must be paid to internal mobility of
goods and factors, in addition to external liberalization. Subnational tax and
regulatory policies can assume greater importance in a scenario of economic
reform under globalization. Another federal aspect of Indias reform is that the
decade of the 1990s has seen an increase in regional inequality in some
dimensions. While inequalities may have widened within states as well (for
example, the coastal and urban areas of Maharashtra and Gujarat versus their
interior rural regions), the main focus has been and will be on widening
disparities across the states themselves. This is natural, given the size and
political importance of the states, and the fact that the states are the direct and
indirect channels for significant financial transfers from the central government.
We also consider whether aspects of economic reform, larger global economic
forces, and state-level initial conditions and policy responses are increasing
regional inequalities within the country, and whether the mechanisms that exist
within Indias federal structures for managing regional inequalities are adequate.
The growing literature on globalization and Indian federalism, mostly written
though from the standpoint of political economy, suggests that Indian federalism
has been drastically changed so that it needs to be redefined. Rudolph and
Rudolph (2001) argued that as a result of the impact, the interventionist state in
India had given way to a regulatory state, which again was more suited to a
growing multi-party system. Lawrence Saez (2004) does not of course subscribe
to the above view because he believes that Indias redefined federal system
requires the central government to play a critical role. He is also not sure that a
regulatory state will be able to mitigate the growing competition among the
Indian states in the era of globalization. However, he believes that Indian
federalism
has
undergone
some
major
transformation
from
the
intergovernmental co-operation to inter-jurisdictional competition (among the
states).The various forms of states growing re-assertions have also been noticed
by acute observers of Indian politics and federalism since the 1990s. C. P.
Bhambri said: The state governments are very important players in the economic
development of the country, more pronounced of course since the 1990s. This
striking fact has become clear in the 1990s because investors have to contact
every state government for launching a project. Since the central state is

gradually withdrawing itself from its social responsibilities including welfareoriented development, most clearly evident, among others, in the shrinkage of
the number of centrally-sponsored welfare development schemes, as Bhambri
has shown, centre-state relations have taken often peculiar forms. Cajoling,
persuading and even bribing often could become tactics resorted to by the
Centre for involving the state governments in the process of economic reforms
and restructuring. Rao and Singh (2005) have recognized that the states role
has expanded due to market economy which demands more decentralized levels
of governance, but also that all the states are not equally equipped to access the
opportunities afforded by the market.
Q. Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State
disputes in India.
The successful functioning of Indian federation does not depend only on
center-state relationships but also on inter-state relationship. Hence the
constitution makes the following provisions with regard to inter-state comity.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Adjudication of inter-state water disputes

Coordination through inter-state councils
Mutual recognition of public Acts, records and judicial proceedings
Freedom of inter-state trade, commerce.

In addition, zonal councils have been established by the parliament to promote

inter-state cooperation and coordination.
Inter-state water disputes
One of the major reasons for disputes among states.