Mains Marathon

Approach

• Start by defining federalism in the Indian context.
• Distinguish between the cooperative, competitive, and confrontational types of federalism.
• Suggest a way forward.
• Conclude with a scholarly remark.

Introduction

India’s federalism, described as quasi-federal by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), reflects a blend of unitary bias and federal features. In recent years, the triad of cooperation, competition, and confrontation has significantly influenced Centre–State dynamics.

Body

Cooperative Federalism:

• The idea of cooperative federalism gained prominence post-2014 with the replacement of the Planning Commission by NITI Aayog, intended to promote joint decision-making.
• The GST Council is a major institutional innovation in cooperative federalism, where both Union and State governments make decisions on indirect taxation through consensus.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, Centre–State coordination on lockdowns, vaccine distribution, and disaster management showed cooperative mechanisms at work.
• However, states have occasionally alleged top-down approaches, such as in disaster response guidelines and fund distribution.

Competitive Federalism:

• Competitive federalism encourages states to improve governance, attract investments, and deliver services better.
• Tools like the Ease of Doing Business rankings, Aspirational Districts Programme, and PM Gati Shakti reflect this trend.
• Finance Commissions, especially the 15th Finance Commission, have incentivized performance by linking grants to outcomes in sanitation, education, and health.
• However, excessive competition can create inequalities among states, especially between rich and poor, or resource-rich and resource-poor states.

Confrontational Federalism

• The past decade has seen growing political confrontation between the Centre and opposition-ruled states.
• The governor's role has often been contested, especially regarding withholding assent to state bills (e.g., NEET Bill in Tamil Nadu, University laws in Kerala, Farm bills in Punjab).
• Delay in GST compensation payments and perceived misuse of central agencies (ED, CBI) in opposition states have deepened mistrust.
• Issues like language imposition (Hindi), the New Education Policy, and farm laws have been criticized for being enacted with insufficient state consultation.

Way Forward

• The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended:
  • Codifying the discretionary powers of the Governor.
  • Providing a fixed time limit for the Governor to decide on bills.
  • Setting up an Inter-State Trade and Commerce Commission.
• Sarkaria Commission (1988) advocated prior consultation with states on matters in the Concurrent List and restructuring institutions like the Inter-State Council to meet more frequently.

Conclusion

As political scientist Paul R. Brass observed: “Indian federalism is a dynamic system of negotiation, adjustment, and accommodation among diverse actors and interests.” To preserve this dynamism constructively, India must institutionalize cooperative platforms like the Inter-State Council, revive fiscal decentralisation as envisioned by the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, and uphold constitutional morality in political practice.