|
october/november 2007 News
Special Section
Other Departments President's page
|
||
Cajoling and compromise drive India’s multi-party systemIndian federalism bristles with paradoxes
REUTERS/ Jagadeesh India
Manufacturers of political party banners, flags and signs display their products before shipping them to campaign offices from their workshop in Bangalore.
India is not a textbook federation. Under the classic theory of federalism, it is not a federation at all. The Constitution of India does not use the term federation; rather, it describes India as “a union of states.” And yet, the country’s Supreme Court has unequivocally maintained in two landmark judgments, in 1977 and 1996, that “the Indian union is federal” and “it (federalism) is the basic feature of the Constitution.” Described variously as a “federation without federalism,” quasi-federal and “a union of unequal states,” the federal system in India has often evoked lively academic debate. The success of Indian democracy and federalism has many roots. India is a state built on ancient civilizations but its democratic institutions have adapted well to modern and post-modern realities. The development of the Indian political system during the six decades after independence has given it a measure of strength and stability. Unlike most post-colonial states, India’s basic constitutional and political framework remains that which became operational soon after independence. Indian federalism is a judicious blend of rigidity and flexibility. The basic structure of the Constitution cannot be easily changed. Certain changes in the Constitution require a two-thirds majority in Parliament, besides being ratified by not less than half of state legislatures. There are also cases, including the formation of new states, which require approval of a simple majority in Parliament. Thus, the Indian Constitution allows for change and evolution through its amending formulas. By 2006, it had been amended 96 times. Independence and evolution India’s Constituent Assembly was ready to frame a federal constitution when it first met in 1946 and early 1947. However, the announcement of the Mountbatten Plan, outlining the partition of India, changed the mood of the country in favour of a strong central authority. Overnight, federalism became suspect in the eyes of the constitution makers. 
REUTERS/Sucheta Das
In run-up to Indian elections, cookies are sold with party symbols. Clockwise from top left: Congress Party, Bharatiya Janata Party, Tinamool Congress and Communist Party (Marxist).
After the partition of India and independence in 1947 there was sectarian violence of an unprecedented scale accompanied by a huge exchange of populations between the two countries. What loomed large at that critical moment for India was not federalism, but national unity and integration. The constitution makers did not abandon the federal idea as such, but rather vested the central government with extraordinary powers. Thus India became a union of states. The Congress system One-party dominance had its share of unhealthy influence on the federal body politic. Such was the obsession with strong federal government that regional movements and identity aspirations became a sort of anathema to the Indian state. Yet, the States Reorganization Act of 1956 paved the way for the creation of linguistic states, which stymied many demands for autonomy. While southern India burned over the perceived imposition of the Hindi language in the 1960s, there were ethnic stirrings in the northeast and subnational uprisings. Some movements bordered on secessionism, while the ethnic upsurge was primarily the result of an accrued sense of neglect and alienation. The 1980s saw three autonomy movements, in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir. Leaders in the Congress Party warned that having strong states would entail a weak central government, and vice-versa. If the country was weak and drifting in the late 1970s and 1980s, they argued, it was the result of regional demands for autonomy. Such an argument could be considered misleading as it sidestepped the central issue of distribution of powers. The end of one-party rule Three combinations of coalition governments have held power: the non-BJP, non-Congress-led United Front, supported from outside by the Congress Party (1996-98); the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (1998-2004); and the present Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (since 2004). The United Front government’s alternative model of governance, with its devolution of greater economic and administrative autonomy to states, set the tone for change in the federal polity. Coalition governments have come to stay and India has learned to live with this. With their commitment to granting greater autonomy to states and transferring the bulk of centrally-sponsored programs to state governments, regional parties have successfully advanced the cause of federalism. The Indian federal system has to go through frequent negotiations between the centralists and seekers of autonomy, and between federal and state governments. There have been repeated revisions of the Constitution and frequently the failure of talks and accords. It is through such constant churning that India’s federal system has matured. In the early days of independence, demands for autonomy were viewed increasingly as divisive and secessionist. Today, parties that made such demands hold important levers of power in the present coalition government. A changed federal system In today’s multi-party coalition, the central government often has to cajole and negotiate with the states where it would once have bullied its way through. As well, there have been occasions when a state government has taken on the central government and defied its will. The arrest of two central ministers by the Tamil Nadu government in 2001 illustrates the extreme end of the new transformation. On June 29 and June 30, 2001, Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha got her long-time rival and former chief minister M. Karunanidhi arrested along with two central ministers, Murasali Maran and T. R. Balu. It was an act of political vendetta. A nationwide outcry got them released on July 2. As Susanne Hoeber Rudolf and Lloyd Rudolf write, “the states are making themselves heard and felt politically and economically more than they ever have.” India is moving from administrative federalism toward multi-level political federalism. Through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, a third tier of governance has been created. These 1993 amendments to the Indian Constitution provided the framework for introducing a third tier of elected councils in rural and urban areas. They also provided for reserving at least one-third of elected seats in councils for women. Today, many previously excluded groups and communities are included. But the biggest impact of the 73rd and 74th amendments is on local governance, which moved beyond the exclusive control of central and state governments. Economic reforms have given a new lease on life to states, and there has been a gradual shift of power away from the central government. With the end of one-party rule and the advent of coalition governments, India is moving toward a polity that permits the emergence of strong states with a strong centre, accompanied by increasingly assertive local governments.
|
Ash Narain Roy is the associate director of the Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi.
|
|
| Reviewed October 3, 2007 by Shannon Elliot | Return to Top | Privacy Policies |
