Relation between centre and state in India (

a ang chiah chiaha tih loh tur Idea neih

nan ringawt)
After independence India adopted the federal structure for,
perhaps, administrative convenience. The state did not impose compulsions. That is why limited autonomy has been given to the states.
There is dual policy, with the Union government at the centre and
the state governments at the peripheryeach enjoying powers
assigned to them. The autonomy of the states is so adjusted with the
centre that the latter can perform its function of ensuring unity of
the country. Pt. Nehru wanted a happy and harmonious
compromise between the strong centre and autonomous states.
Weak centre, he thought, would be able to ensure peace,
coordinating matters of common concern and of speaking
effectively for the whole country. But if units do not enjoy
autonomy, it would be a retrograde step politically and
administratively. With the coming of the different political parties
in power in some states and the centre, a qualitative change in the
relations is demanded. Last year the West Bengal government
refused to take account of the guidelines sent by the Planning
Commission for the Sixth Five-Year Plan. The Karnataka also
resented some of the measures taken by the centre. The Punjab and
Jammu & Kashmir Chief Ministers wanted a revision of the
Constitutional position of centre-state relations.
The legislative relations between the centre and the states
determined in accordance with the provisions of the Article 246 of
the Constitution. The legislative powers are categorized in three lists
Union Lists with 97 subjects, States List with 66 and Concurrent
List with 47 subjects. Residuary legislative powers rest with the
Parliament. Moreover when there is state of emergency, Parliament
can make laws on the subjects given under Union List. In the case of
a conflict between the laws made by the state and the laws passed by
the centre the central law will prevail. Clearly the centre is decidedly
stronger as far as legislative powers are concerned.

The executive power of every state must comply with the laws made
by the Parliament. The executive power of the state should be
exercised in a manner that it does not impede of prejudice the
executive power of the Union. The centre can direct the states if
matters of national importance are concerned. During emergency,
Union government can assume vast administrative powers.
The financial relations between the centre and state are the main
subject of controversy now-a-days. While deciding these relations
the fathers of the Constitution followed the India Act of 1935. Some
taxes are levied and collected exclusively by the central government
while others are levied and collected only by the states. These are
taxes levied by the centre which are collected by the states and
others which are levied and collected by the centre and given to the
states.
The centre gives grants-in-aid to the states from the consolidated
fund. The Construction makes it clear that state legislature can
make laws relating to taxes for the benefit of the state. Such a
system cannot last longer. According to Dr Jenning " ...
arrangement of this character always proves to be unsatisfactory
after ten years or so". But there is a provision for setting up a
Finance Commission after five years.
The Planning Commission is criticized on the ground that it has no
statutory basis though it exercises enormous powers. States are left
with no initiative because clearance for every scheme is given by the
Planning Commission. The allocation of funds, it is alleged is not
proper. Punjab wants the allocation to be made on the basis of
population : Himachal Pradesh wants it on area basis, whereas West
Bengal insists on the basis of the economic conditions of the state.
In fact serious thought should be given to centre-state relations.
Power-wresting strategies have deprived the issue of its sanctity. As
all the central leaders belong to the states and all the people of the
states belong to India, the centre should not be reluctant to review
the centre state relations. At least the irritants should be remo

Foreign policy is a central subject in India, as in most other

countries as well. The states do not have jurisdiction in determining
Indias external relations. That is an area to be handled exclusively
by the government at the centre. But given the steady rise of
regional parties and the increasing dependence of governments in
New Delhi on their state allies, the impact is being felt in the area of
foreign policy as well. The decision by West Bengal Chief Minister
Mamata Banerjee, to oppose the signing of the Teesta water
accord between India and Bangladesh, at virtually the last moment,
made headlines and mired Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs visit
to Dhaka in deep controversy. By opting out, despite high-level
efforts to persuade her, Ms Banerjee catapulted herself onto the
centre stage of foreign policy in the making and went on to
announce an expert committee to review the entire situation. By
truncating the agreement singlehandedly, at great cost to IndiaBangladesh relations, Ms Banerjee despite being just a state leader,
has established herself as a player in bilateral relations between the
two countries.
The Trinamool Congress was then actively supporting the United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition and the ruling Congress party
was reluctant to offend her and risk a withdrawal of support.
Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid has recently
expressed hope that Ms Banerjee will be persuaded to give up her
objections, even as leaders of the Congress party and Bangladesh
have been wooing her to ensure that the accord is signed, at some
point, later this year. In fact, Dhaka is spending more time on the
chief minister of West Bengal regarding this issue than it is on the
central government with regard to the Teesta water issue, creating
an unprecedented situation for the ministry of external affairs.
The second instance, defying an early resolution, is the strong
response of Tamil Nadu to worldwide reports of the annihilation of
innocent Tamils in Sri Lankas military operations against the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The anger in Tamil Nadu
compelled the two main parties, the ruling All-India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK),
to issue strong statements against Sri Lanka, urging New Delhi to
treat that country as an unfriendly nation. This was just as the UPA
government was heaving a sigh of relief at having handled the Sri
Lankan situation through a policy of neutrality, whereby relations

with the Rajapaksa government were maintained without adverse

reaction from the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or for that matter, India.
Large-scale protests across Tamil Nadu and statements by the state
political parties, including Chief Minister Jayalalitha Jayaram, put a
spoke in the works that have frozen relations completely. The UPA
ally, DMK, has pulled out support.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a strong resolution seeking a
referendum for a separate Tamil Eelam, even as it urged New Delhi
to stop treating Sri Lanka as a friendly country and slap economic
sanctions against it. The situation became more bizarre with Sri
Lanka reacting to the state resolution, describing it as disturbing
and inviting all detractors to visit the country and see for
themselves the progress on the ground. New Delhi was compelled to
watch a diplomatic exchange between a state and a foreign country
in silence. As if this was not enough, Tamil Nadu has trampled
directly on the centres jurisdiction of allowing or disallowing
foreigners, with a notice imposing a ban on all Sri Lankans from
travelling to the state. A letter to this effect has been sent by the
state chief minister to the prime minister, despite the fact that only
the Union Home Ministry is authorised under the Constitution and
the law to take such decisions.
In a country where the states had for long been complaining of
central authoritarianism, the reverse now seems to be true. The
pendulum of state-centre relations seems to be swinging towards
the former, although the beginning is shaky, not very mature, and
clearly too emotional for good governance. Two women chief
ministers, Banerjee and Jayalalitha have, however, raised a red flag
on foreign policy, leaving the dependent government at the centre
virtually paralysed on the two respective issues of import. Public
opinion within the state and the constituencies of the regional
political parties appears to be favouring the state governments
actions, although in other parts of India there is visible dismay. But
clearly, the two states have sent out powerful signals that need to be
understood, factored in and incorporated into the larger mould of
centre-state relations to prevent discord and tension within
coalition governments in the future.