CHAPTER - Vi
NEED FOR CO-OPERATIVE
The theory of co-operative federalism grew largely out as a critique of
the static, two-tier model of dual federalism embraced by British statesman,
James Bryce and later by constitutional scholar, K.C. Wheare. At the end of
the 19th century, Lord Bryce, in his book, American Common wealth described
federal and state governments as “distinct and separate in their action." The
system, he said, was “like a great factory wherein two sets of machinery are
at work, their revolving wheels apparently intermixed, their bands crossing
one another, yet each set doing its own work without touching or hampering
the other.”1
K.C. Wheare’s model of federalism aiso implied a distinct division of
functions and governmental structures in which the general and regional
governments of a country shall be independent of each other within its
sphere. In this model, a federal system is one in which sovereignty is not
confined exclusively to either the central or state governments. In Wheare’s
view, the federal and state governments are coordinate in the sense that
neither level is subordinate to the other in legal authority.
The classical definition of federalism given by Lord Bryce, K.C. Wheare
and others has given rise to the concept of “dual federalism” on the basis of
the existence of two co-ordinate and independent levels of government in a
federation. The advocates of dual federalism claim that in a truly federal
system the central and regional governments must have their respective
demarcated spheres of activity in which each can operate independently of
the other, and that the maintenance of a functional division between the two
242
levels of government is the key to the maintenance of a genuine federal
system.
However, the theory of “dual federalism” has come in for severe
criticism on several counts. The critics of dual federalism raise their objection
about the use of the term ‘independent’ to represent the relationship between
the national government and the regional governments in a federal political
system. ‘Independence’, they apprehend, might mean isolation. But if a
federal polity is to be a working system, neither the national government nor
the regional governments can operate in isolation from the centre. In all
federal systems today, the classical doctrine of ‘dual sovereignty’ or ‘dual
federalism’ has become a myth. It is argued that in spite of constitutionally
guaranteed demarcation of the spheres of functions and powers between
them, the two levels of governments are no longer substantially independent
of each other. In the course of their evolution, they have developed into a
dynamic
mechanism
of
inter-governmental
co-operation
and
interdependence. Therefore, some students of modern federalism prefer the
words like ‘potentiality and individuality’, ‘coordinate, and ‘autonomy’ to
‘independence’ for a more appropriate expression of the relationship between
the two governments in a federation.2 In fact, the emphasis has gradually
shifted to their partnership,
interaction,
and
interdependence
in the
performance of functions allocated to each of them. Dual federalism fails to
stand the empirical test of relevance and continuing applicability to older
federations and to new experiments in federalism as well. Moreover, the very
exercise of internal sovereignty by the units require its recognition by and co­
ordination of the other units of the federation.3
243
M.J.C. Vile and D.J. Elazer4 have rejected applicability of the theory of
“dual federalism" even to the American federal system (It is considered as
model of federations). Both of them suggested that the traditional conception
of federalism as involving a sharp demarcation of responsibilities between the
two independent sets of governments has never worked in practice in the
United States. According to them, administrative co-operation and political
interdependence between federal and state governments was a dominant
characteristic of the American federal system in spite of the formal division of
powers of the constitution. In the words of John D. Lees, “Despite formal
division of powers”, a federal system “has never been a neat system of
distinct governmental activities and functions.” There has been no standard
way of measuring the degree of centralization of a particular federal polity and
on that basis presenting a taxonomic representation of federal systems of the
world. The net result of all is that every viable federal system has the
characteristics of being creative and cooperative as well as quasi and
quantitative, though in varying degrees.
This view, argues R. L. Watts hold good of other developed federations
such as Canada and Australia. “Interdependence and cooperation between
the two levels of government has become their characteristic features.”5 This
trend is also inherent in the structure and operation of the new federations
formed after the Second World War. An empirical study made by Watts of the
six new federal constitutions of India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Rhodesia and
Nyasaland, Nigeria and West Indies shows that ‘cooperative federalism’
became the inevitable trend in their system. This trend has taken place
because of the
extension of nationwide
commercial
enterprise,
the
244
development of an interdependent economy, the ever-enlarging concept of
the positive functions of government in modern society, the growth of national
sentiment etc. All these have resulted in partial financial dependence of the
regional governments upon the national government and the administrative
dependence of the latter upon the former. Functional analysis of federalism
can be best understood in relation to social services, which constitutes one of
the basic functions of modern society.
Whatever may be the legal demarcation of powers between the central
and state governments, social services constitute a field of endeavour in
which the federal and state governments have become co-sharers of common
goals and objectives. Provision of education, health care, housing, social
security and social welfare services as well as special care of the neglected
and under-privileged minorities are subjects which might have been originally
allocated
by the
constitutions to the states as the
latter’s
primary
responsibilities. But in all these matters people in all federations look up to the
central government to intervene and accept responsibility for better and more
adequate provision of the above services. Here, federalism can never be
understood as the relationship between centre and states merely in terms of
the constitutional division of powers, but beyond the formal arrangement of
the constitution. We also have to look to the varied devices and institutions of
extra-constitutional cooperation and collaboration that has steadily grown over
the years between the centre and the states in the field of social services. The
existence and operation of these institutions have facilitated the emergence of
a relationship of contact and consultation, disagreement and consensus,
mutual sharing and interdependence.
245
Co-operative Federalism
Co-operative Federalism is a system in which both Federal government
and the federating units share responsibilities for public welfare. But in a
competitive federalism, the units and the centre try to maximize private
investments and promote efficiency and economy in economic governance.
The major features of co-operative federalism are: It is a positive concept.
There is an emphasis on shared duties and actions among units. It is also
need based. There is an emphasis on process than structure. It manifests the
will of the people and therefore, is consonant with participatory democracy.
Though a federal constitution involves the sovereignty of the units
within their respective territorial limits, it is not possible for them to remain in
complete isolation from each other and the very exercise of internal
sovereignty by the units require its recognition by and coordination of other
units of the federation. A federal system stands not only for the distribution of
powers between central and regional governments, (both autonomous in the
traditional sense in their respective spheres) but also for sincerer co-operation
between the two sets of political organisations in order to ensure that the ideal
of co-ordination and complete administration of divided spheres is attained as
effectively as possible. It is needed for the obvious reason that there is the
area of inter-regional relationships disallowing any component unit to keep
itself completely off from others in the interest of administrative efficiency and
nationalist sentiments. K.C. Wheare rightly visualizes that if each regional
government “keeps completely to itself, many matters will suffer from diversity
of regulation and government itself will be less efficient because the
experience of other states will have been neglected.”6
246
Federal constitutions therefore, generally, provide certain rules for co­
operation which the units are expected to take into consideration while dealing
with each other. This coordination between the states and the centre is called
co-operative federalism. In fact, the traditional theory of mutual independence
of the two governments- federal and states, has given way to “co-operative
federalism” in most of the federal countries today. An American scholar
explains the concept of Co-operative federalism in this words-7 “the practice of
administrative co-operation between general and regional governments, the
partial dependence of the regional governments upon payments from the
general governments, and the fact that the general governments, by the use
of conditional grants, frequently promote developments in matters, which are
assigned to the regions.”
Therefore, co-operative federalism- defined in terms of federal-regional
co-operation and interdependence, especially with reference to the schemes
of development, predominantly financed by the federal government and
administered primarily by provincial governments has become a fact of life in
all federations, despite the attendant tensions in inter-governmental areas.”8
Some agencies of inter-governmental co-operation have been devised
in various federal systems of the world for proper functioning of federation.
Taking the case of the Australian federal system, Inter-Provincial conference
and Premiers conference, the latter being very influential by virtue of its
annual
meeting
in
the
month
of
May where
state
Premiers
and
Commonwealth Prime Minister’s meet and discuss matters of general and
particular interest, ranging from financial resources to constitutional reforms.
247
The Loan Council may be cited as another important agency in this regard
with the only difference that while ‘Premier Conference’ has its roots and
record of evolution in usages and conventions, it has a statutory status. The
Governor’s conference in the
United
States and
Dominion-Provincial
Conference in Canada are the cases of similar institutions in the two leading
federal states of the world.9
Co-operative Federalism in India
Some scholars have attempted to define Indian federalism outside the
rigid formalism of James Bryce and K.C. Wheare. For instance, in his
landmark analysis of India’s constitution, Granville Austin is of the view that
the ‘Constituent Assembly of India was the first assembly which adopted from
the very start what is called as ‘Co-operative federalism.’ He argued, “By
increasing the interdependence of federal and regional governments- a
development, it is usually argued, that has not destroyed the federal
principle.”10
The system
of federal co-operation existing
under the
Indian
constitution, through allocation by the union of the taxes collected, or directs
grants or allocation of plan funds do not necessarily militate against the
concept of federalism. Austin specifically opposed K.C. Wheare’s definition of
federalism because the latter stressed the independence between different
spheres of government. He was instrumental in addressing this continuous
tension by labeling India’s federal system as an example of ‘co-operative
federalism.’ He argued, “Cooperative federalism produces a strong central
248
government, yet it does not necessarily result in weak provincial governments
that are largely administrative agencies for central policies.”11
In fact, the federal system in the Indian constitution is a compromise
between two apparently conflicting consideration: (1) There is a normal
division of powers under which the states enjoy autonomy within their own
spheres, with the power to raise revenue. (2) The need for national integrity
and a strong union government, which the saner section of the people still
consider necessary after 60 years of working of the constitution.
Austin observed that in India, there is not only administrative
cooperation between the central government and the state governments but
there is also political cooperation between them. In the words of Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, Indian constitution established a dual polity, which will consist of
the union at the centre and the states at the periphery each endowed with
sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively. A
good number of the experts agreed with his description of the nature of Indian
federalism. However, it was argued that the word ‘sovereign’ used in his
definition had become redundant in the discipline of Political Science at the
time when Ambedkar was introducing the Draft Constitution in the Assembly.
Therefore, it was considered better to interpret the word ‘sovereign’ used here
as meaning ‘political’ because the powers that the provincial governments
have or even the central government has are political powers and not
sovereign powers.
249
The British political scientist, Prof. Morris-Jones also pointed to the
unique discrepancy between India’s formal constitutional structure and the
demands for decentralisation. He says that federalism in India is a form of
‘cooperative federalism’ but according to him, this phrase should be
understood to include hard competitive bargaining. He continued to say, “this
is indeed the character of Indian federalism throughout.”12 He articulated,
‘whereas the emphasis in the constitution is on demarcation, that of practical
relations is on co-operative bargaining.’ Because of India’s socio-economic
diversity,
Prof.
Morris-Jones has stressed the bargaining aspects of
federalism, rather than its co-operative elements as suggested by Austin.
Co-operative federalism, for Prof. Morris-Jones, has implications of a
semblance of friendly commonality of interests, whereas bargaining implies
the confluctual aspects of co-operation resulting from confluctual interests. To
illustrate this point, he gives an example from procedures on legislation. Thus,
he says, the constitution prescribes that bills passed by state legislatures may
on
submission to the Governor be refused
assent or returned for
reconsideration or reserved for the consideration of the President, and further
that bills dealing with public acquisition of property must be so reserved. By
convention, however, states send such bills to the centre for examination and
comment in advance so that the reservation procedure when reached is
merely formal. Some states go further and submit in this way most bills, which
deal with subjects on the concurrent list.
He further elaborates the point by a reference to the financial relations
between the central and the provincial governments. He points out, ‘there is
250
an independent Finance Commission that is set up every five years and it is
this commission which lays down the distribution of shared taxes and the
principles for making grants-in-aid from the centre. However, the Finance
Commission declined in relative importance as compared with the rise of a
system of ‘matching’ grants, which are under article 282 of the constitution.
These have become the backbone of federal planning finance. Hard
competitive bargaining keeps on going between the central government and
the provincial governments for getting these ‘matching’ grants under article
282. This is the most important illustration, which explains the nature of
bargaining federalism in India.
Both Prof. Morris-Jones and Austin have illustrated the practicability of
co-operative federalism by showing that although the Indian constitution
imposed a stronger national government on the states, the states have been
strategically essential to carry out nationally defined goals.
The concept of co-operative federalism continues to figure prominently
in the government’s portrayal of federal relations in India. For instance,
according to the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the Planning Commission argued that
in a vast country like India “the spirit of cooperative federalism should guide
the relations between the centre and the states on the one hand, among
different states and Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and the Urban Local
Bodies (ULBs) on the other. The essence of cooperative 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.
Cooperative federalism encourages the governments at different levels to
251
take advantage of a larger 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 prosperous nation. Cooperative federalism
‘makes it possible to raise all the available resources by the government at
different levels in a co-ordinated way and channel them for use for the
common good of the people.”13
Institutions of Inter-Governmental Co-operation
The framers of the Indian constitution have envisaged “a series of
federal institutions’ that would
be appropriate to the Indian political
environment.”14 The language of article 1 of the Constitution is quite specific to
illustrate Indian federalism as a ‘union of states’. Moreover, our constitutional
system, apart from pertaining to the formal federal framework, necessitates ‘a
process of bargaining’ between central and state governments in which
experiment, co-operation and persuasion are requisitioned both to testify
generally accepted norms and the usual procedural patterns of interaction
between national and state governments.15
The fact that Indian constitutional system stands on the foundation of
‘cooperative federalism’16 what Prof. Morris-Jones designates “bargaining
federalism”, is traceable in the existence, formal as well as tacit, and
operation of various institutional agencies. Some of them are provided in the
text of the constitution and others are set up to implement its ideals enshrined
in the Preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy. Such as ‘Inter-State
Council, Finance Commission, Planning Commission, National Development
Council, Zonal Councils and a host of other statutory bodies for the
252
adjudication of disputes with respect to the use, distribution and control of
inter-state rivers, etc. The Constitution also envisages the appointment of a
number of high-level commissions, both Permanent and ad hoc for the
specific purpose of reconciling diverse and conflicting interests with the co­
operation of union and state governments.17 In other words,
Indian
constitution allows experimentation with a variety of federal arrangements and
devices in which interdependent central and state governments are involved.
These institutions and commissions strive to settle the disputes, which may
arise from time to time and proved fruitful in enhancing the intergovernmental
co-operation. These institutions make the envisaged system a successful
affair or, in negative terms, to avoid the situation of failure of a great system
which has already become ‘a source of enlightenment’ in many Asian and
African countries of the world.18
In his book The Discovery of India’, Jawaharlal Nehru had pointed to
the necessity of encouraging co-operation among the provincial governments
in the economic and industrial sphere. The Nehruvian institutions of central
planning included the Planning Commission, the National Development
Council and eventually the Zonal Councils. The Planning Commission and the
National Development Council have at times assumed an important role in
Nehruvian economic planning. Although extra-constitutional in nature, these
bodies have not for that reason remained ineffective. They represented forms
of ‘executive federalism’, which have promoted regular and useful centre-state
consultation and co-ordination on sectoral issues.19
253
The important inter-governmental institutions working for harmonious
centre-state relations are discussed hereunder.
(I) Inter-State Council (Article 263)
The constitution of India envisages two tiers of government, one at the
level of the union, and the other at the level of the states. From the functional
standpoint, such a constitution is not a static format, but a dynamic process.
Within this process, the interplay of centrifugal and centripetal forces
influenced by a changing social, economic and political environment,
constantly strives to find a new adjustment of the balance between unity and
diversity.
The very dynamism of the system with all its checks and balances
brings in its wake problems and conflicts in the working of union-state
relations. New areas of national concern are emerging with economic growth,
technological development and socio-political changes. The rapidly expanding
government
functions
have
brought
in
their wake
increasing
inter­
dependence. Routine problems, which rise in the day to-day working, are
sorted out through discussions and
interaction of various
levels of
bureaucracy. More important problems, which cannot be resolved at the
bureaucratic level, are settled through discussions between the concerned
ministers of the union and of the states. However, there are problems of still
greater importance involving basic issues of national policy. For resolution of
such problems and ensuring coordination of policy and action on matters of
common interest through a process of collective consideration, discussion and
persuasion by the political heads of the union and states, the constitution
254
gives to the President the power to establish an inter-governmental forum
called the Inter-State Council.
There is another historical factor, which underscores the urgency of
setting up an all-embracing Inter-State Council. Before 1967, it was easier to
resolve differences or problems that arose between the union and states at
the party level, because the same party was in power in the union and states.
Since 1967, parties or coalitions of parties other than the ones running the
government at the union have been in power in several states. These state
governments of diverse hues have different views on regional and inter-state
problems. In such a situation, the setting up of a standing inter-state council
with comprehensive character under article 263 has become an imperative
necessity.
Moreover, the unique feature of our system is that, for securing
implementation of many of its laws and policies, the union depends on the
machinery of the states, particularly in the concurrent spheres. The union
government can entrust its executive functions in the manner laid down in
article 258 to the state government or their agencies. The states may also
entrust their executive functions, with the consent of the union. The states too,
are dependent on the union for fiscal resources, administrative assistance and
in several other ways to enable them to discharge their responsibilities. Such
interdependence is inevitable more so in a large diverse and developing
society as ours.
255
The constitution gives overriding powers to the union to secure
compliance with its laws and to remove any impediment or prejudice to the
exercise of the executive power of the union by any executive action of a
state. These are however, extreme steps, which should not be contemplated
in the ordinary course of inter-governmental affairs. The normal way of
resolving such problems and coordinating policy and action in a democratic
two tier polity is through collective thinking, discussion and persuasion
between the political executives of the union and the states. For that purpose,
proper institutional arrangements are essential. There is no high-level co­
ordinating forum other than the Inter-State Council where such problems can
be sorted out.
Many of the state governments expressed a lingering theoretical
concern regarding the insufficiency of existing inter-governmental bodies. In
their responses to the Sarkaria Commission questionnaire, the commission
noted that ‘there was unanimity among all sections of public opinion on some
of the major issues, particularly in regard to the imperative necessity of
establishing an Inter-State Council.’
The Inter-State Council (ISC) was
eventually established in midst of a more lasting political party realignment in
the mid-1980s. The National Front coalition repeatedly announced its
commitment to establish the ISC in its campaign platform. After V.P. Singh’s
election as Prime Minister on 7th December 1989, the commitment by the
National Front to set up an ISC was finally accomplished in 1990 but it met for
the first time in 1996. It was set up as an apostle of federal comity on a
permanent basis. Its genesis is Section 135 of Government of India Act, 1935.
256
Report of Joint Committee of Indian Constitutional Reform contained the
philosophy for the inclusion of an ISC.
Article 263 of the Indian constitution provides for the establishment of
an Inter-State Council to effect coordination among the states. The President
of India constitutes it if it appears to him that its establishment would serve the
public interest. It consists of the Prime Minister (appointed by the President as
the Chairman) 6 Union Cabinet Ministers nominated by the President on the
advice of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers of all states, and the heads of the
union territories. It is suggested that all decisions on matters of national
importance should be taken after consulting the Inter-State Council except
defence and foreign affairs. This would remove much of the stress, strains
which exists between the centre and the states, and strengthen the federal
character of the constitution.
Inter-State Council being the most significant forum for Inter­
governmental consultation and cooperation is charged with the duty of20
>
Inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have
arisen
between the states,
>
Investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the states
or the union and one or more of the states, have a common interests,
and
>
Making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular,
recommendations for the better coordination of policy of action with
respect to that subject.
257
In view of frequent friction between the union and the states, the article
263 has become relevant. It is a high level forum to resolve problems, by
collective thinking, persuasion and discussion. The main object behind this
council is to establish regular recognized machinery for Inter-Governmental
consultation and Inter-State relations so that departments or institutions of co­
ordination and research are to be maintained in such matters as agriculture,
forestry, irrigation, education and public health. Such a body will give an
opportunity to the states to express their views freely on common matter and
would enable the union to understand the feelings of the states and inter­
governmental co-operation will ensure smooth carrying on of developmental
plans.
Soon after the establishment, the Inter-State Council discussed and
settled various contentious issues.
Besides, it also discussed on the ways
and means to implement Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations. It has
taken view of all 247 recommendations, 65 of which have not been accepted
by the Council, or by the administrative ministries of the departments
concerned, while 179 recommendations have been implemented. These
recommendations pertain to All India Services, Administrative Relations,
Deployment of Union Armed Forces, Agriculture, Forests, Food, Civil
Supplies, Mines and Minerals, Trade, Commerce, Mass Media etc. The
establishment of Inter-State Council has opened a new chapter in the centrestate relations and provided a useful forum for building a common national
approach on various problems.
258
The most remarkable achievement of Inter-State Council is that, in
December 2003,
State governments
reached a
consensus with the
Government of India with regard to imposition of President’s rule in the states
at the Inter-State Council meeting.
In this meeting which was held at
Srinagar, has decided that checks and balances would be exercised relating
to Article 356, which was frequently misused. The meeting unanimously
agreed to the following measures.21
> The union government will henceforth impose article 356 as a weapon
of last resort to dislodge the elected government in a state following
breakdown of constitutional machinery when all the possible avenues
of federal dynamics have been explored and resources of federal
solutions to set up an alternative administration exhausted.
> Article 356 will not be imposed in an indiscriminate manner.
Its use
shall be rule-bound and guided by constitutional conventions in order to
safeguard India’s federal democratic ethos.
The concerned state government will have to be duly notified and
alerted well in advance that such a contingent situation may arise in the
near future so that corrective steps may be taken and remedial
measures adopted.
> The notification of President’s rule will be subject to prior approval or
ratification by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha of the Union Parliament.
> The Government of India will explain the rationale of President’s rule in
its notification, issued in this connection by the President of India, and
259
>
The reasons behind imposition of President’s rule will also be
explained in detail in the concerned Governor’s recommendation report
submitted to the union government.
Though the Inter-State Council can deal with legal or non-legal matters
its function is merely advisory. The Inter-State Council or Inter-Governmental
Council (IGC) may prove helpful in stemming political antipathies and
resolving them on a national forum. After the regionalisation of the Congress
system, it has become more necessary than ever before that a new type of
relationship between the centre and the states be evolved. A relationship of
co-operative federalism in which every sign of initiative and self-expression of
the states is regarded not as a threat to national integration, but as a prelude
to traditions of responsibility and co-operation.
(II) The Zonal Councils
The linguistic reorganisation of India had the impact of creating more
homogeneous, more compact and more coherent state units. Because of this,
they could be expected to gear up their demands for state autonomy more
than even before. With greater compactness, demands for autonomy also
become more valid. However, to counteract the centrifugal forces that were
released because of the linguistic reorganisation of India, Pandit Jawarial Lai
Nehru put forward in December 1955 the idea of Zonal Councils.
In 1956,
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru well realized that a federal system as
described by a learned English writer “after all does not stand for the
multiplicity alone.
It stands for the multiplicity in unity.22 Thus, the seventh
constitutional amendment act provided for the creation of five zones taking
260
into account several factors such as the natural divisions of the country, the
requirements of economic development, cultural and linguistic affinity, river
systems, means of communication and requirements of security and law and
order. The five zones are shown in the Table- 6.1
Table: 6.1
Zonal Councils
Name
Northern Zonal
Council
Central Zonal Council
Eastern Zonal
Council
Western Zonal
Council
Southern Zonal
Council
Members
Headquarters
Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh,
Haryana, Punjab,
Rajasthan,
Delhi,
and
Chandigarh
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand,
Chattisgarh, and Madhya
Pradesh
Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal
and Odisha
Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and
Daman and Diu
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Tamil
Nadu,
Kerala
and
Puducherry.
New Delhi
Allahabad
Kolkata
Mumbai
Chennai
M.Laxmikanth: 'Indian Polity’ Tata McGraw HILL’S, New Delhi, 2009, p.14.5
As such, five zones come into being but the states and the union
territories of the North-Eastern area did not appreciate the whole system.
Therefore, an Act of Parliament created a separate zonal council called NorthEastern Council in 1971. Its members include Assam, Manipur, Mizoram,
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, and in 1994 Sikkim was
added as the eighth member of the North-Eastern Council. It was to serve as
the nodal agency for socio-economic development of North-Eastern region.
Its functions are similar to those of the zonal councils, but with few additions.
The following are the other objectives of the North-Eastern Council23261
>
To formulate a unified and co-ordinated regional plan in addition to
state plans covering matters of common importance.
>
In respect of projects or schemes intended to benefit two or more
states, to recommend the manner in which they may be executed,
managed or maintained, their benefits shared and their expenditures
incurred.
>
To supervise the progress of the implementation of the plans and the
expenditures thereon, and
>
To review from time to time the measures taken by the government for
the maintenance and security, public order as and when necessary and
to recommend further measures in this behalf.
Unlike the zonal councils, it has to its credit a lot of achievements in the
electricity and education sectors. The Second Administrative Reforms
Commission in its 15th Report on ‘State and District Administration’ suggested
that the North Eastern Council (NEC) should establish an apex Regional
Academy for Human Resource Development (RAHRD) as an autonomous
body with academic and executive flexibility.
Objectives of Zonal Councils
Zonal councils are envisaged as a countervailing device against
excessive provincialism on the part of the newly created states. It is expected
that the insertion of a third-tier between centre and states would serve both to
bring those two main levels closer and at the same time to integrate the units
of the Indian union. The main objectives of these zonal councils, in details, are
as follows:
262
>
To achieve an emotional integration of the country.
>
To help in arresting the growth of acute state-consciousness,
regionalism, linguism and pluralistic trends.
>
To solve problems concerning border disputes, linguistic minorities or
inter-state transport. To help in removing the after-effects of separation
in some cases so that the process of reorganisation, integration and
economic advancement may synchronise.
>
To enable the centre and the states to cooperate with each other in
social and economic matters and exchange ideas and experience in
order to evolve uniform policies.
>
To co-operate with each other in the successful and speedy execution
of major development projects.
>
To secure some kind of political equilibrium between different regions
of the country.
The strength of the different zonal councils has increased from time to
time owing to the creation of new units of the Indian union. Each zone has its
own council headed by the Union Home Minister. It also includes the Chief
Ministers of states and two other Ministers nominated by the Governor of that
state. In the case of a union territory, it has one representative nominated by
the President of India.
All these members have the right to take part in
discussions and then vote if required. The majority of votes take all decisions.
Further, it has some advisers nominated by the Planning commission, Chief
Secretaries and Development Commissioners of the States who may take
part in the deliberations but they have no right to vote. The office of the
263
Deputy Chairman of the zonal council rotates among the Chief Ministers of
the States annually.
Moreover, under the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act,
regional zonal councils were to set up to discuss various issues of mutual
interests and to enable the centre and the states to cooperate in evolving
uniform policies in social and economic planning. They also debate any other
matter as concerning border disputes,
linguistic minorities,
inter-state
transport, security and prosperity of the concerned states. They provide forum
for the discussion of inter-state disputes. They could serve as symbols of
emotional integration of the country.24 They could promote co-operation
towards the economic and social development of the zone. Matters dealing
with include the formation of a zonal reserve police, water supply for irrigation
and power development schemes in which more than one state has an
interest. Apart from administrative co-ordination and the negotiation of
solutions to certain kinds of common problems, zonal councils may also serve
as a convenient channel for broader regional representations to the centre.
The working of these councils shows that they have served the useful
purpose of settling matters as those relating to boundary demarcation, use of
river waters,
maintenance of law and order,
and
planned
regional
development. The need is to get more work out of them than is being done.
The attempt should be to build them up as a centripetal force in Indian politics.
It is hoped that these bodies would prove an interesting experiment in co­
operative federalism in our country.
264
(Ill) Finance Commission
The constitution provided for an independent agency called the
Finance commission, which decides the principles of distribution of the taxes
that are to be shared between the centre and the state governments. The
actual quantity that was to be distributed is also to be decided by the Finance
commission.
The establishment of a Finance Commission is an original contribution
of the Constitution of India.
Under article 280, the President of India
constitutes the Finance Commission every five years. The Commission is to
consist of a Chairman and four other members.
According to the Indian
Constitution, the Finance Commission has to make recommendations to the
President on specific matters and on any other matter referred to the
Commission by the President in the interest of sound finance. The specific
duties of the Finance Commission are:25
1.
The distribution between the union and the states of the net proceeds
of taxes which are to be, or may be, divided between them and the
allocation between the states of the respective shares of proceeds;
2.
The principles which should govern the grants-in-aid of the revenues of
the states out of the Consolidated Fund of India; and
3.
The continuance or modifications of the terms of any agreement
entered into by the Government of India with the government of any
state.
265
After
its
institution,
the
Finance
commission
addresses
a
communication to all the state governments requiring them to submit
estimates of their normal expenditure and amounts of revenue over the next
five years. After receiving these estimates, the commission scrutinizes these
estimates and calls the concerned officers from the states for seeking
clarification.
Thereafter, the commission tours all the states and hears the
case of each
state for financial
assistance.
Each
state submits a
memorandum stating its case for increased assistance. The commission also
receives memoranda from individuals and associations and hears them.
The Finance commission presents its recommendations in the form of
a report, which is submitted to the President of India a few months earlier than
the preparation of the central budget to the Parliament. The President refers
these recommendations to the union Cabinet for its consideration and
implementation.
The
Government
of
India
then
considers
these
recommendations and initiates action for implementing them. While doing so,
it may not implement some of those recommendations. However, it will
implement “a substantial part of the recommendations and affect the
distribution of revenues between the union and the states till a new Finance
commission
recommends
changes
in
existing
revenue
distribution
structure.”26
As on today, thirteen Finance Commissions have completed their
assigned tasks. Over the years, different Finance Commissions did yeomen
service to bring co-ordination between the centre and the states in financial
spheres. The Commission laid down certain principles, which according to
266
them were useful in deciding the distribution of resources between the central
government and the state governments. These principles are:
1.
Budgetary needs.
2.
Tax efforts.
3.
Economy and expenditures.
4.
Standard of social services.
5.
Special obligations, and
6.
Broad purposes of national importance.
India’s gradual move to a market economy has significantly altered the
central government’s financial relationship with the states. The Finance
Commission approves nearly three-fourth of central government transfers to
the states. The Tenth Finance commission recommended increasing to 29
percent in the transfer of the center’s gross proceeds of all taxes to the
states.27 The commission also looked into the debt position of the states and
recommended a scheme for general debt relief for all states, linked to fiscal
performance and specific relief for states with high fiscal stress, the special
category states and the states with debt problems warranting special
attention.
The Report of Thirteenth Finance commission was submitted in the
Parliament in February 2010 and it recommended increasing the center’s
gross proceeds of all taxes to the states from 29 to 32 per cent. It is hoped
that it would satisfy the state governments. The state governments are
softening with regard to the functioning of the Finance commission. The way
267
of its consultation with different state governments, taking into consideration
their view points and giving due regard to them in its report was welcomed by
different political parties. The role played by Finance commission in bringing
co-operation between union and states is really appreciated by various
sections of the society.
(IV)The Planning Commission
The Government of India passed a resolution on 15th March 1950 to
establish the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was set up on
the basis of this resolution and continues to exist till today. There is no
specific constitutional provision or statute, which lays down its organization
and operation. However, the resolution for creating the commission referred to
the constitution of India and especially to certain Directive Principles of State
Policy and stated that in view of these and the “declared objective of the
government to promote rapid rise in the standard of living of the people”.28 The
purpose of creating this commission was to have an advisory technical body
in the field of planning.
Composition
In 1950, the Advisory Planning Board suggested that the Planning
Commission should have the following five members. They are:
1.
A person of standing with general experience of public affairs should
be its Chairman.
2.
Two non-official members with knowledge and experience of industry,
agriculture or labour.
268
3.
A government official with knowledge and experience of finance and
general administration, and
4.
a person eminent in the field of science and technology
At the time of its creation, the Planning commission had Prime Minister
Jawaharial Nehru as its Chairman and five full-time members. In 1973, the
Planning commission consisted of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, the
Minister of Finance and four other members. In 1977, the membership of the
Planning commission was raised to eight.
1.
Chairman - the Prime Minister
2.
Deputy Chairman
3.
Part-time Members
Union Home Minister
Union Defence Minister
Union Finance Minister, and
4.
Three full-time members.
The Planning commission was established with comprehensive terms
of reference. These were:
(i)
To make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources
of the country, including technical personnel and investigate the
possibilities of augmenting such of these resources as are found to be
deficient in relation to the nation’s requirement.
(ii)
To make a plan for the most effective and balanced utilization of the
country’s resources.
269
(iii)
On determination of priorities, to define the stages in which the plan
should be carried out and propose the allocation of resources for the
due completion of each stage.
(iv)
To indicate the factors which are tending to retard economic
development and determine the conditions, which, in view of the
current social and political situation, should be established for the
successful execution of the plan.
(v)
To determine the nature of the machinery that will be necessary for
securing the successful implementation of each state of the plan in all
its aspects.
(vi)
To appraise from time to time the progress achieved in the execution of
each stage of the plan to recommend the adjustments of policy and
measures that such appraisal might show to be necessary, and
(vii)
To make such interim or ancillary recommendations as might be
appropriate on a consideration of the prevailing economic conditions;
current policies, measures and development programmes, or an
examination of such specific problems as may be referred to it for
advice by centre or state governments for facilitating the discharge of
the duties assigned to it.
It is evident fro m the above, that the terms of reference are very wide.
The Planning Commission made full use of these wide terms of reference and
more so because it’s composition included the Prime Minister and other
important members of the central cabinet. It had assumed such great political
authority, that it came to be described as a super-cabinet.
270
It is important to note that the Planning Commission as a body
responsible for the preparation of national plans for development and is not
responsible for the execution of development programmes or plans. It is an
advisory body and makes recommendations to the cabinet.
recommendations,
the
commission
consultation with
the
ministers
governments of the states.
acts
of the
in
close
central
In framing its
understanding
government
and
and
the
The responsibility for taking and implementing
decisions rests with the centre and state governments.
The Planning commission functions as a collective body. A number of
formal and informal meetings are held with central and state governments,
through which the business of the commission is transacted. The number of
meetings varies according to the load of the work that has to be disposed.
The main responsibility for carrying out the work of the Commission involves
on the Deputy Chairman and other full-time members.
(i) Role of Planning Commission - Formulation and Implementation of
Plans
In the sphere of planning, the balance of decision making process
tilted more towards the centre during the early years of planning. This was
probably inevitable as there was lack of adequate experiences in the
formulation and the implementation of Plan programmes at the state level. No
doubt, planning from the grassroots level has been emphasized from the very
beginning, but its implementation has been sporadic and tardy. Even so, the
Planning Commission encouraged District Planning Committees (DPCs) and
taluk level planning process from the Fourth Plan. Subsequently, a significant
271
step was taken through the enactment of the 73rd and the 74th amendments to
the constitution in 1993, which conferred a constitutional status not only on
the Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies {ULB’s) but
also on the DPC’s. it is now fully realized that the spirit of cooperative
federalism should get reflected in the strong encouragement given to
participate planning process. In other words, the central government, the state
governments, the PRI’s and ULB’s, and the non-governmental organisations,
the voluntary action groups and most of all, the people at the gross-roots have
to be involved in the process of formulation and implementation of the plans.
It is realized that the process of democratic decentralisation can have
true meaning only when sufficient autonomy and freedom is available to the
states as well as to the PRIs and the ULBs in the formulation and the
implementation of the plans. At the same time, autonomy pre-supposes
maturity in decision making and responsibility in the use of national resources.
Decentralisation of the process of formulation and implementation should,
therefore, ensure accountability.
Various steps have been taken in the past to improve the interaction
with the states in the process of formulating and implementing the Five Year
Plans. The National Development Council, which approves and reviews the
Five Year Plans is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes Union Ministers
and the Chief Ministers of all the states. In addition to this, periodic
conferences of state Chief Ministers on major specific policy issues are held
not only to elicit their opinion but also to take them into confidence in regard to
the thinking of the central government. Over and above these, conferences of
272
state ministers of various development departments are also held to monitor
the progress of Plan schemes and to find solutions to the problems faced by
the state governments in the course of implementing the Plan strategies,
programmes and schemes. These conferences and meetings help resolve the
day-to-day problems faced by the commission interacts regularly with the
administrative departments of the state governments on all matters relating to
the formulation and the implementation of the Five Year Plans.
Thus, the regular and periodic interactions with the state governments
have helped in sorting out various policy issues and chalking out mutually
agreed policies and programmes for achieving the goals of the Five Year
Plans. There have also been frequent conferences and meetings of state
Chief Ministers and Ministers at the zonal level to sort out the administrative
problems relating to mobilization of resources, implementation of Plan
programmes and even maintaining law and order. In a vast country like ours,
such periodical conferences and meetings of the state Chief Ministers and
Ministers will go a long a way in resolving certain unique problems relevant to
the particular zones.
(ii) Involvement of States in the Plan Formulation
Efforts have been initiated to involve the state governments more
closely in the formulation of Five Year Plans. The occasion of the Annual Plan
discussion for 1996-97 was utilized to ascertain the views of the state
governments relating to the objectives, approaches, priorities and strategies
for the Ninth Plan. These views were taken into consideration while preparing
the Approach Paper to the Ninth Plan, which was subsequently endorsed by
273
the NDC. The state governments are also represented on various steering
Committees and Working Groups, which are set up by the Planning
commission for various sectors to review the progress made in the previous
plans and to decide the prospects and strategies for different sectors. The
reports of these steering committees and working groups are a valuable input
to the Planning Commission in the formulation of Five Year Plans.
The interaction of the Planning Commission with the state governments
is at various levels in the process of formulation of Plans. The interaction with
the state Chief Ministers at the level of Deputy Chairman has also proved to
be mutually beneficial. The focus of these, meetings has been changed from
fixing the Plan size to discussing various sectoral issues, the performance of
the state’s economy, inter-state economic disparities, environmental status
and remedial steps which may be necessary to improve the shortcomings.
Any problems, which the states may have with the central government, are
also projected at these meetings. Model practices adopted in various states in
different schemes/projects are also shared at these meetings to learn useful
lessons.
(iii) Equity-Promoting and Coordinating Role of Central Planning
While the question of greater autonomy to the states in the process of
development planning is considered, the holistic, equity-promoting and
coordinating role of central planning cannot be over-looked. The role of
central planning has to be seen not as a constraint to the state’s autonomy
but as a necessary complement to decentralized, flexible and cooperative
mode of development planning. The equity-promoting role demands that
274
greater efforts are made to remove the gaps in the provision of Basic
Minimum Services, (BMS) the level of development of rural agricultural
hinterland and infrastructure so that no region or sub-region and no group or
groups of people remain deprived of the fruits of development and every
region and all people at least reach a minimum standard of living.
The equity-promoting role of central planning assumes added
importance in the wake of the emerging policy environment in the country a
well as globally. With the opening of the economy and removal of controls, the
market forces have been unleashed, which may have a tendency to
exacerbate the disparities among groups of people and regions which can be
further widened because of the operation of large global players. As the
economy gets integrated more and more with the global economy, the centre
may be required to play a stronger equity-promoting role and to secure
sufficient space for all the federal units to work out their own strategies of
development without being overtaken by global regimes or forces. The centre
would also be required to play a stronger equity-promoting role and to secure
sufficient space for all the growth of economy for meeting the aspirations of
the people. A judicious balance on the part of the centre between
decentralisation and autonomy on the one hand and intervention to protect
the interests of the weak and to provide space for autonomous decision
making on the other is required to sustain the faith of the states in the
philosophy of co-operative federalism.
275
(V) National Development Council
In a federal country like India, where the formulation of development
plans is a central exercise, there is an imperative need for a machinery
responsible
for
securing
co-ordination
between
the
central
planning
machineries (e.g., the Planning Commission of India) and the states. The
need was felt for a platform where the central and state leaders may meet and
discuss common development needs and problems. The formation of such a
body was recommended in the drafting outline of the First Five-year Plan.
Consequently, in August 1952, the National Development Council (NDC)
came into existence by a resolution of the Cabinet Secretariat.
Composition
The National Development Council consists of the Prime Minister, the
Chief Ministers of all the states and the Members of the Planning
Commission. The Prime Minister, who is also the ex-officio Chairman of the
Planning Commission, is the Chairman of the National Development Council.
The Secretary of the Planning Commission acts as the Secretary of the NDC.
The Union Ministers and the State Ministers’ in-charge of the related subjects
are also invited to participate in its deliberations. Some concerned officers and
outside experts are also invited to the meetings of the NDC, which are held at
least twice a year. As the size of the NDC is quite big, it sets up a smaller
standing committee for handling its business. In addition to it, the NDC can
seek the assistance of some adhoc committees to which it may entrust the
investigation of specific problems.
276
Functions
The resolution, which created the NDC, laid down the following as its
functions:
(i)
To review the working of the National Plan from time to time.
(ii)
To consider important questions of social and economic policy affecting
national development, and
(iii)
To recommend measures for the achievement of targets set out in the
National Plan including measures to secure the active participation and
co-operation of the people, improve the efficiency of the administrative
services, ensure the fullest development of the less advanced regions
and sections of the community and through sacrifice, borne equally by
all citizens, build up resources for national development.
National Development Council was created as an administrative
agency to achieve the fullest co-operation and co-ordination in planning
between the central government and the state governments and to bring
about uniformity of approach and unanimity in the working of the National
Plan. It gives advice at various stages of the formulation of a plan and it is
only after its approval that a plan is presented to the Parliament for
consideration. The NDC is largely responsible for giving to plans a truly
national character. It was seen as an experiment of cooperative federation to
strengthen and to mobilize the efforts and resources of the country to support
the planning process and to ensure a balanced and a rapid development of
the various parts of the country. K. Santhanam termed it as a ‘super cabinet’
of the Indian federation a cabinet functioning for the government of India and
the government of all the states.
277
It has been quite successful in bridging and linking the union
government, the Planning commission and the various state governments. It
has served as a good forum for discussions and free exchange of ideas. It
has created a sense of high responsibility on the part of the state
governments
for
making
plans
a
success.
Decision-making
through
consensus has helped it to act out its co-ordination role in an appreciation
manner.
(VI) National Integration Council
National integration implies avoidance of divisive movements that
would balkanize the nation and presence of attitudes throughout the society
that give preference to national and public interest as distinct from parochial
interests.
India is a land of widespread diversities in terms of religion, language,
caste, tribe, race, region and so on. Hence, the achievement of national
integration becomes very essential for the all-round development and
prosperity of the country. Therefore, it was felt that there should be a forum to
discuss the issues of national integration. As a result, the National Integration
Council (NIC) came into existence in 1961, following a decision taken at a
national
conference on
‘unity in diversity’
convened
by the central
government, at New Delhi.
With a view to develop co-ordination among different states and
different sections of the society, the union government organized a National
Integration Conference in September-October 1961. The Prime Minister,
278
Union Ministers, Chief Ministers of the States, leaders of various political
parties, educationists, scientists and journalists attended it. The conference
resolved to unite the people of various states against the forces of
communalism, regionalism and linguism. It is this Conference, which decided
to set up a National Integration Council (NIC) for co-ordinating efforts towards
National Integration and for drawing a code of conduct for the public, the
students and the press.29
Composition
The composition and strength of National Integration Council is
changed from time to time since it’s inception in 1961. In 1990, the National
Front government headed by V. P. Singh reconstituted and enlarged its
membership to 101. It included prime minister as chairman, some Central
ministers, state chief ministers, leaders of national and regional parities,
representatives of women, trade and industry, academicians, journalists and
public figures. It had various items on the agenda for discussion like terrorism,
communalism, secessionists, communalism and others.
In its first meeting 2nd and 3rd June 1962, the National Integration
Council gave a direction to the process of National Integration by defining the
type of National Integration that was to be secured in India. It was clarified
that the National Integration Council was to function as a forum for effective
initiative and interaction on issues of national concern, review issues relating
to national integration and make recommendations thereon. The
National
Integration Council of India goes a step further by bringing together leaders of
political parties, non-governmental organizations, opinion makers and so on. It
279
is realized that national integration alone can provide a healthy environment in
which the people of different states can feel encouraged to secure the goals
of nation-building. For a pluralistic society like India, it is even more essential
to work for securing a high level of national integration.
In November 1976, the working group of National Integration Council,
in its report regarded regional economic imbalances as a negative factor and
called upon the state governments and the Planning Commission to formulate
plans for removing or bridging these disparities.
The National Integration
Council called upon the people to serve the national need for promoting
communal harmony, regional and linguistic amity and secularism.
In
2005,
the
United
Progressive
Alliance
(UPA)
government
reconstituted the National Integration Council under the chairmanship of the
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. The 103-member NIC was constituted
after a gap of 12 years having held its meeting in 1992. Besides some central
ministers, state and union territories, chief ministers and leaders of national
and regional parties, the NIC includes chairpersons of National Commissions,
eminent public figures and representatives from business, media, labour and
women. The NIC is to function as a forum for effective initiative and interaction
on issues of national concern, review issues relating to national integration
and making recommendations.
The 14th meeting of NIC was held in 2008 in the backdrop of communal
violence in various states like Odisha, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Jammu and
Kashmir and Assam. Promotion of education among minorities, scheduled
280
castes and scheduled tribes, elements contributing to national integration,
removal of regional imbalances, caste and identity divisions, preventation of
extremism, promotion of communal harmony and security among minorities,
and equitable development were some of the important items on the agenda
of the meeting.
Besides these inter-governmental agencies, various conferences like
Conference of Chief Ministers, Conferences of Governors, Conferences of
State Ministers and Conferences of State Secretaries have paved the way for
smoothening the relations between central and state governments.
The
Judgments of the Apex Court from time to time on centre-state conflicts
further paved the way for the smooth running of the two wheels of federal
government.
For example, in 1994, the Supreme Court of India in S.R.
Bommai case declared that the grounds on which Presidential rule is
recommended by the union government is subject to judicial review. After this
judgement,
the
rulers
at the
centre
became
more
cautious
before
recommending President’s rule. So one of the most important irritants in
centre-states relations was settled, at least for sometime.
Inter-State Co-operation
Harmonious and cooperative relations between different states are as
important as that between the centre and the states for the healthy functioning
of our federation. Various problems have been cropping up in inter-state
relations from time to time. On the one hand, there are problems like
increasing competition among the states and on the other, there are disputes
over sharing of river water.
281
With the dismantling of controls and greater freedom for the location of
industries, the competition among the states for attracting industries and other
economic activities by offering incentives has intensified. While a healthy
competition among the states for providing better and efficient services is to
be welcomed, the practice of granting tax rebates and subsides need to be
seen in the right perspective of whether they lead to national welfare.
Instances are not lacking where the states have joined a sort of a race in
granting sales tax and other rebates for attracting new industrial units. This
has affected the resource position of the concerned states without
commensurate benefits, because in so far as the same concessions are
allowed by a number of states, these concessions do not remain the main
guiding
factor for the
location
of an
industry
and
other
important
considerations like efficiency of services and infrastructure facilities may
become more important.
Similarly, often there is a tendency on the part of the states to allow tariff
concessions to various sections. Power tariff is case in point and many states
have been supplying power to various sectors at a price much lower than the
cost of generation. A national consensus had evolved at the Chief Minister’s
conference for fixing the minimum tariff for agriculture and to move over to a
regime of fixing tariffs for recovering the costs. Some states have, however,
gone against this consensus and allowed free electricity to agriculture sector.
Andhra Pradesh is one of the best examples for this. This has not only put the
financial condition of the state and electricity boards in a precarious position
but also created problems for the neighboring states where vociferous
282
demands have been made for similar concessions. Populist measures have a
tendency to spread because once they are granted by one state, pressure
builds up in the neighboring states for allowing the same concessions. Similar
is the position regarding the administrative charges for other services like
irrigation and water. Despite various commissions recommending minimum
rates for such services, so that at least Organisation & Management costs are
recovered, many states have not implemented these recommendations,
depriving them of an important source of revenue and putting their financial
position under great strain. It is essential to have a national consensus
regarding such issues like harmonization of tax structure, minimum tariff for
certain services, cap on the level of subsidies and facilitation of inter-state
trade flows. It is necessary that all the states should fall in line for
implementing mutually beneficial policies.
Another important problem that keeps up time and again is in respect of
share in natural resources like river waters, which has given rise to severe
tensions and prevented optimal utilization of such resources. It is also an area
of great concern in maintaining the federal spirit and better union-state and
inter-state relations. The river water disputes among various states are a
common phenomenon, not only in independent India, but also during British
rule. However, the disputes were subsided as the strong feelings of
nationalism persisted. The fact is that water is a prime resource for sustaining
life on earth. The domestic, agricultural and industrial use of water is
multiplying day by day and this phenomenal increase in demand for water in
diverse fields has resulted in its scarcity. Moreover, availability of water is
highly uneven in both space and time as it is dependent upon varying
283
seasons of rainfall and capacity of storage. India is served by two great river
systems, i.e. the great Himalayan drainage system and the peninsular river
network. It has 14 major rivers that are inter-state rivers and 44 medium rivers
of which 9 are inter-state rivers. Eighty per cent of the Indian land mass lies
within its major and medium inter-state rivers.
The fathers of the Indian constitution, keeping in view of the water
disputes, provided a mechanism for the amicable adjudication of these
disputes. While article 131 provides for the judicial determination of disputes
between the states by vesting the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction in
the matter, article 262 of the Indian constitution deals with waters of inter-state
rivers and river valleys. Parliament may by a law provide for the adjudication
of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of
the waters of any inter-state river or river valley.
In pursuance of article 262 of the Indian Constitution, the Parliament
made the Inter-State Water Disputes Act in 1956. This Act empowers the
central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a
dispute between two or more states in relation to the water of an inter-state
river or river valley when the matter cannot be amicably solved by means of
negotiations. The tribunal shall consists of a Chairman with two other
members nominated by the Chief Justice of India from amongst persons at
that time working as judges of the Supreme Court or of some High Court. The
verdict of this Tribunal shall be binding on the parties to the dispute and no
court shall have the power to exercise its reviewing power over the judgement
of this tribunal.
284
The need for an extra judicial machinery to settle inter-state water
disputes is as follows: “The Supreme Court would indeed has jurisdiction to
decide any dispute between states in connection with water supplies, if legal
rights or interests are concerned; but the experience of most countries has
shown that rules of law based upon the analogy of private proprietary
interests in water do not afford a satisfactory basis for settling disputes
between the states where the interests of the public at large in the proper use
of water supplies are involved.”30 So far, the central government has set up
six inter-state water dispute tribunals. The tribunals established under this Act
proved fruitful, as they settled various inter-state water sharing disputes. The
names of the tribunals, the years in which they were constituted and the
states involved in the dispute are mentioned below in Table 6.2
Table: 6.2
Inter-State Water Dispute Tribunals Set Up So Far
S.N
1
2.
Name of the Tribunal
Set up
States involved
Krishna Water Disputes
Tribunal
Godavari Water Disputes
Tribunal
1969
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and
Odisha
Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra
1969
3.
Narmada Water Disputes
Tribunal
1969
4
Ravi and Beas Water
Disputes Tribunal
1986
Punjab and Haryana
5
Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal
1990
Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and
Pandichery
6
Second Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal
2004
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh
M.Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Tata Mcgraw Hill’s, New Delhi, 2009, Chap. 14.2
285
Despite the above mentioned constitutional provisions for adjudication
of disputes, still such problems exist. For instance, the construction of Babli
Project on Godavari River has been a contentious issue between Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra. There is a need for evolving a national policy on
such issues and for putting in place a suitable mechanism for resolving such
disputes. There is also a great need for speedy settlement of inter-state water
disputes in order to quicker and larger mobilization of water resources to
sufficiently meet the different needs including that of food security. Some
times, the tribunals and the courts may not settle the issues but it may need a
political solution. Therefore, the Union government must play the role an
arbiter and should solve such issues through discussion. In addition, the
Parliament should pass an enactment after having effective and meaningful
consultation with all the state governments.
Financial Co-operation
A glance at the financial provisions that provide for the distribution of
revenues between the central government and the state governments makes
it quite clear that federalism in India is quite different from federations that
come into being in the West under different conditions.
The traditional
concept of federalism is that the constituent units must have a great deal of
financial autonomy. Wheare represents this traditional point of view when he
says, “both general and regional governments must each have under its own
independent control of financial resources sufficient to perform its exclusive
functions.”30 This definition of a federation does not any longer apply even to
the United States of America and in so far as, India is considered. This is
hardly relevant in describing the nature of financial relations that have
286
provided for in the constitution of India or as they have come into being into
real practical and political operation. It is rather well-known that one who
controls the purse, controls the will and therefore, in federation like that of
United States of America, the constitutional fathers were very particular that
revenues must be properly distributed so that states do not become
completely dependent upon the central government for their finances and
have to act as a second fiddle to the central authority.31
In India, what we have is a co-operative federation,
in our model of
federalism, the central government and the state governments do not work as
rivals to each other’s authority. While providing federalism for India, the
constitutional fathers of India did not anticipate any such rivalry. In the
Constituent Assembly, there was no great demand for financial autonomy.
The taxes that can be raised by Parliament and by the state legislature
are specifically set out as matters in the union legislative list and the State
Legislative List. In this manner, both the central government as well as the
state governments has got independent taxing powers. The major sources of
revenue for the central government are custom duties, corporation tax and
excise duties other than medicational, toilet and alcoholic preparations. The
major sources for the state governments are land revenue, sale tax, excise
duties on medicational, toilet and alcoholic preparations and estate duty.
However, the sources that were provided for the state governments
have for various reasons proved inelastic. The administrative expenses of the
state governments have been going up and their developmental needs are
287
becoming larger. Realizing the inadequacy of state resources the framers of
the Indian Constitution provided certain measures to bring co-operation
among the centre and the states. It was realized in the Constituent Assembly
itself that the resources that were allocated to the state governments did not
correspond to the allocation of functions. Therefore, three additional financial
provisions were provided for in the Indian constitution. They are,
❖
The central government is responsible for the levy and collection of
Income tax but this must compulsorily be shared with the states.
❖
The central government will collect the excise duties but this also if so
needed could be shared with the states, and
❖
There is a provision that the central government could make grants-inaid to the state governments.
In the more recent times, a growing need has been felt for fiscal
economy of a higher level. India is pursuing a new economic strategy. The
government
has
been
laying
emphasis
on
privatisation
for
speedy
development of different sectors of the economy. The success of the new
economic policy shall, require the active co-operation of the states. Striking of
political compromises necessary to carry out meaningful reforms in India’s
creaky and unbalanced fiscal federal arrangements.
The reason being that
these are not driven by economically derived principles or by a consistent
logic of functional assignment to different levels of government, but instead
through a political process of inter-governmental bargaining and compromise.
288
Need for Co-operative Federalism in India
The relation between the centre, the states and the local tiers lies at
the heart of India’s sense of nationhood and is the pre-requisite for India’s
progress. However, a strong politcal undercurrent runs through it. Every
centre-state and every inter-state 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
economies. 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.
The framers of the constitution after much deliberation and analysis
framed the constitution.
They harrowed
some provisions from other
constitutions of the world and adopted a federal form of governance,
union
and states are expected to work within the limits of the constitution and by
mutual willingness and co-operation. They wished that states should not
become over-ambitious and the union should not be too coercive. There
should be enough scope for every province “to grow and expand and there
would be nothing to prevent any state government from reaching its ultimate
goal consistent with the common obligation.”32 The state governments also
should work in the spirit of the provisions of the constitution and should keep
in mind the need for national integrity and a strong union government, which
the saner section of the people still consider necessary even after 60 years of
working of the constitution.
289
Federalism can operate only if the union tolerates the states and viceversa. “Federalism is primarily a device with considerable potential for
integrating the political assertion of diverse regional interests and providing a
framework for reconciling demands for increased
representation
and
participation in national development. Thus viewed, the issue is more than
merely devolution of powers from the centre to the states.”33
India for the last two decades and more is experiencing coalition and
both the centre and many states are being governed by coalition of different
political parties. The earlier phenomenon of ‘one party system or rather ‘oneparty dominant system’ has been eroding to coalition system. Political parties
or alliance of politcal parties is playing divergent roles in the union-state
governance. A party, which is ruling the state, is in the opposition at centre
and vice-versa. “This has made the spectacle of monolithic party organisation
a thing of the past. Different segments of the same party are both co­
operating and opposing the government of the day and this has thrown such a
challenge to traditional thinking in regard to federalism that the President, the
Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers are vying with each in their
expressions of mutual co-operation and smooth running of union-state
relations” as stated by Shreeram Chandra Dash,
“Whether it is union or the states, governments are run by men with
sentiments and susceptibilities, egos and vanities and one is not ordinarily
willing to sacrifice any part of his ego in order to smoothen the centre-state
relations in the country.....Personal equations rather than constitutional
niceties are the lubricants for smooth working of union-state relationship.”34
290
The Continental size of the country, the diversified character of Indian
society, the adoption of universal adult franchise, the peculiar type of political
process, and other factors have given birth to a large number of regional
politcal parties. The following Table 6.3 shows the number of recognised
regional parties (state parties) in the country.
Table: 6.3
Recongnised State Parties
(2009)
1.
Name of the State/
Union Territory
Andhra Pradesh
2
Arunachal Pradesh
3
Assam
4
Bihar
5
Goa
6
Haryana
7
Jammu & Kashmir
S.No
Name of the State Party
1 Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS)
2. Telugu Desam Party (TDP)
1. Arunachal Congress (AC)
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
Asom Gana Parishad (AGP)
Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF)
Janata Dal (United) (JD (U))
Lok Jan Shakti Party (LJNSP)
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak (MAG)
Save Goa Front (SGF)
Indian National Lok Dal (INLD)
1. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (JKN)
2. Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party (JKNPP)
3. Jammu ^Kashmir People's Democratic Party (JKPDP)
8
Jharkhand
9
Karnataka
10
Kerala
11
Madhya Pradesh
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
12
Maharashtra
1. Shiva Sena (SHA)
13
Manipur
14
Meghalaya
15
Mizoram
16
Nagaland
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1. Janata Dal United (JD (U))
2. Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)
1. Janata Dal (Secular) (JD (S))
Janata Dal (Secular) (JD (S))
Kerala Congress (KEC)
Kerala Congress (M) KEC (M)
Muslim League Kerala State Committee (MUL)
Samajwadi Party (SP)
Manipur People’s Party (MPP)
National People’s Party (NPP)
All India Trinamool Congress (AITC)
United Democratic Party (UDP)
Mizo National Front (MNP)
Mizoram People’s Conference (MPC)
Mizoram Nationalist Party(MNP)
Nagaland People’s Front (NPF)
291
S.No
Name of the State/
Union Territory
Name of the State Party
17
Odisha
l.Biju Janata Dal (BJD)
18
Puducherry
19
Punjab
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(ADMK) (AIADMK)
2. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)
3. Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK)
4. Puducherry Munnetra Congress (PMC)
1. Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)
20
Sikkim
1. Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF)
21
Tamil Nadu
22
Uttar Pradesh
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(ADMK) (AIADMK)
2. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)
3. Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(MDMK)
4. Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK)
1. Samajwadi Party (SP)
23
Uttarakhand
24
West Bengal
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Samajwadi Party(SP)
Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKKD)
All India Forward Bloc (AIFB)
All India Trinamool Congress(AITC)
Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP)
General Elections 2009: Reference Hand Book, Press Information Bureau, Government of
India, p. 164
In fact, India has the largest number of political parties in the world. At
Present (May 2009), there are 7 national parties, 40 state parties and 980
registered-unrecognized parties in the country.
Further, India has all
categories of parties -left parties, centrist parties, right parties, communal
parties, non-communal parties. Consequently, the hung assemblies and
coalition governments have become common phenomena.
Since 1967 General Elections, the regional parties began to play a
crucial role in the state politics. In 1967 General Elections in nine states non­
congress governments were formed. The National government of Indira
Gandhi for instance, depended to some extent on support of Tamil Nadu’s
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the Lok Sabha between 1969 and 1971. The
292
Government of Morarji Desai relied on support of the Akali Dal and the DMK
during its election campaign of 1977 and one member of Desai first cabinet
was a member of the Akali Dal. Some state parties were also partners in the
National Front Government headed by V.P. Singh, the NDA government
headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee and the present UPA government under the
Prime Ministership of Dr. Manmohan Singh are the composition of many
parties including regional parties.
For instance, DMK and Trinamool
Congress are key partners in the present (2010) United Progressive Alliance.
Participation of many regional parties in the new coalition government
at the centre shows that the significant shift of federal set up in India. Rajni
Kothari in one of the seminar at New Delhi said, ‘Issue of federalism is gaining
importance after a longer period of ups and downs. For the first time, the
Bharatia Janata Party seems to be eager to accept the reality of growing
regionalization of politics.’ It also became evident in the first address of the
President to the joint session of Parliament in 1999 that the Prime Minister
A.B. Vajpayee of the BJP and his coalition government would be committed to
the ‘governance through consensual approach.’ They would also uphold
‘dialogue, debate and discussion.’ to replace the game of parliamentary
majority and minority.
Regional parties are playing crucial role in coalitions governments. In
the changed political scenario, the regional parties are not only partners in the
central government, but they are also in power in many states. This can also
be viewed as the healthy trend towards not only cooperative federalism but
also towards national unity. The states may become more responsible and
293
responsive. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister declared that the DMK’s first goal was
to ensure the survival of the country. Therefore, it is an opportunity for the
centre to resolve key issues of the nation in consultation with the state
governments and on broad national consensus.
It would be an almost a
revolution when the major governmental policies and decision are to be
decided by the regional parties.
In recent years, attention has been more sharply focused upon the
states. This is a welcome change, because state governments, more than the
central government are in charge of functions relating to public welfare and
the political system is so structured that large part of political activity takes
place in the states.35 Impact of rise of regional parties on the state politics are:
(1). Loosing of the centralized federal structure (2). The shifted of focus from
the national to the state level, which conceded to the states an independent
‘political space’ within the Indian political system. The centre relations are
quite harmonious and healthy in the coalitions at the national level as
compared to centre-state relations during one-party dominant system. It was a
positive and welcoming change in state politics.
Further, Co-operative federalism is a dynamic and flexible process of
cooperation and sharing between two levels of governments of one and the
same people. Interdependence among governments has become a universal
feature in all contemporary federal systems. Harmony and cooperation
between the centre and the states and among the states is essential for
healthy functioning of our federation. There are problems like increasing
competition among the states and on the other, there are disputes over Inter294
state water disputes, border disputes, problems of development of backward
regions and welfare of weaker sections. These problems need to be resolved
on a national consensus while pursuing economic reforms. The centre and
the state governments should keep in mind that the need for national integrity
and a strong union government
In fact, since last sixty years, Indian states have undergone many
remarkable changes in several ways, with many ups and downs. On the one
hand, India has succeeded in building a modern nation with matching
institutions and a vibrant democracy and society. Indians have established
their excellence in almost all walks of life. Our education system has produced
world-class professionals who occupy top positions even in developed
countries, on the other hand, a sizeable section of Indian society remains
illiterate and ill-fed. There have been many divisive forces like communalism,
casteism, Naxalism, regionalism and terrorism at work undermining the vitals
of the nation. The Indian economy has been characterized as a sleeping giant
that is yet to recognize its potential strength. In this context, both the centre
and
the
state
governments
should
give
up
their
narrow
political
considerations, based on regional and sectional loyalties and ideologies,
which could distort the national vision and sense of collective purpose. It is a
compelling necessity that both the centre and the state governments need to
work together harmoniously on the basis of co-operation and co-ordination for
the unity, integrity, security, peace, progress and prosperity of the Nation.
They should keep in mind the need for national integrity and a strong union
government, which the saner section of the people still consider necessary
after 60 years of working of the constitution.
295
References
1.
Morton Grodzins, The Federal System: American Federation in
Perspective, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1967, p. 261.
2.
Sharda Rath,
Federalism: A conceptual Analysis, The Indian
Journal of Politcal Science, p. 576.
3.
Pandey J.N., Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 1993, p. 447.
4.
Vile, M.J.C., The Structure of American Federalism, Ch.X and D.J.
Elazar, The American Partnership, 1962, Chapter. 1, p. 3
5.
Watts, R.L., New Federations: Experiments in the Commonwealth’
Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 5.
6.
Wheare,
K.C,
‘Federal
Government’,
Oxford
University Press,
London, 1963, p. 227.
7.
Birch, A.H., Federalism, pp. 305-06.
8.
Political Science Annual 1997, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi
1998. p. 130
9.
Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi,
1992, pp. 131.
10.
Morris-Jones, The Government and Politics of India, Universal Book
Stall, New Delhi, 1996, p.16.
11.
Granville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1966, p. 187.
12.
Morris-Jones, op. cit. p. 15.
13.
IX Five Year Plan, op. cit.Vol.1, p.1.
296
14.
Marcus F. Franda: West Bengal and the Federalizing process in
India, Princeton University Press, 1968, p. 179.
15.
W.H. Morris-Jones: Government and Politics of India, Hutchinson,
London, 1971, p. 150.
16.
Austin, op. cit. pp.186-87.
17.
Morris-Jones W.H., op. cit. p. 150.
18.
Ronald J. May: ‘Decision-Making and Stability in Federal Systems’,
Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. Ill, No.1.1970, pp. 74-75.
19.
Morris-Jones, The Government and Politics of India, op. cit. p.1292.
20.
20. Johari, J.C., The Constitution of India: A Politico - Legal Study,
Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1995, p. 278.
21.
http//www.indiatogether.org/2003/dec/opi.roadmap.htm. p.3.
22.
Op. cit. p. 21.
23.
Ibid, p. 22.
24.
Goyal, O P. Indian Government and Politics, Light and Life
Publishers, New Delhi, 1979, p.77.
25.
Op. cit. p. 454.
26.
Ghai, K. K. Indian Government and Politics’, Kalyani Publishers,
New Delhi, 2004, pp. 350-351.
27.
Ibid. p. 349.
28.
Ibid. pp. 344-345.
29.
Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee. Select Committee of the
House of Lords appointed to join with a committee of the House of
Commons to consider the future of Government of India.
30.
Wheare, K.C., Federal Government, p. 97.
297
31.
Goyal, O.P., Indian Government and Politics, op. cit. p. 77.
32.
Rau. B.N., Indian Constitution in the making, Orient Languages,
Bombay, 1960, p. 92.
33.
Arora, Baiveer and Mukerjee, Nirmal, ‘Federalism in India’ Vikas
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1992, p.10.
34.
Dash Shreeram Chandra (1968), The Constitution of India: A
Comparative Study, Chaitanya Publishers, Allahabad, p. 202.
35.
Sudha Pai, State Politics: New Dimensions, Shipra Publication,
Delhi, 2000, p. 250.
36.
Rajashekara, H.M., “Nehru & Indian Federalism” (1988) in U.N.
Gupta(ed), Indian Federalism & Unity of Nation, Vohra Publishers,
Allahabad, p. 26.
298