Federalism: Class 10 Civics · Chapter 2

Think about one ordinary day. The ₹100 note in your pocket was issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and currency is a subject only the Union can make laws on. The constable at the traffic crossing works for your State government. The street light outside your home, or the hand pump in your village, is looked after by a municipality or a gram panchayat. Three governments, each elected, each with its own job, all govern the same you.

In Chapter 1 you saw that a democracy can share power between levels of government, not just between organs of government or social groups. This vertical sharing of power is called federalism (संघवाद). This chapter first explains the idea in general. Then it looks at how India's Constitution sets it up and how politics has made it work. It ends with the newest, third level: local government in villages and towns.

2.1 What is federalism?

Chapter 1 ended with two countries that chose differently. Ask one test question about each: can the national government take away a region's powers on its own? In Belgium before 1993 the answer was yes, because the regional governments held their powers only on loan from the centre. After the constitutional changes of 1993 the answer became no, since those powers are now written into the Constitution. That single change turned Belgium from a unitary into a federal country.

In Sri Lanka the answer is still, in practice, yes: the national government holds nearly all the power. That is why Tamil leaders there have long asked for a federal system.

A typical federation has a government for the whole country and a government for each State or province. The first takes care of questions on which the country must act as one: guarding its borders, issuing money, dealing with other nations. The second takes care of most things citizens meet from day to day, from the police station to the farm office. What makes the arrangement federal is not the number of levels but the source of their power. Each holds its share independently, not as a favour from the other.

2.1.1 Federal or unitary?

To see what is special about a federation, compare it with its opposite, a unitary system (एकात्मक व्यवस्था). There, power sits in one place. Either the country has a single level of government, or its regional and local bodies are agents of the centre, created to carry out national decisions. France and Sri Lanka are run this way.

A simple test shows the difference. Suppose the national government decides that every police force should change its uniform. In a unitary country it just issues the order, and the regions comply. In India, police is a State subject, so New Delhi cannot order Kerala or Punjab to do anything about it; it can only try to persuade them. On its own subjects a State government does not report to the national government. Each level answers to the voters instead, who elect both. Fig. 2.1 pictures the two systems.

2.1.2 Key features of federalism

Federations differ a great deal, but they share a set of features. Seven of them matter most.

1. Two or more tiers. There are at least two levels of government, such as national and State.
2. Same people, separate fields. Each tier governs the same citizens, but each has its own jurisdiction: its own subjects for making laws, collecting taxes and running the administration.
3. A written guarantee. The constitution sets out what each tier controls, so no tier exists or holds power merely at the pleasure of another.
4. No one-sided changes. The basic rules of power-sharing cannot be rewritten by one tier alone; both tiers have to agree.
5. Courts as umpire. Courts interpret the constitution, and the highest court settles disputes between tiers about who holds which power.
6. Money of their own. Each tier has clearly stated sources of revenue, so it does not depend on the other for every rupee.
7. Two goals at once. The system aims to keep the country united while leaving room for its regional variety.

Written rules alone do not make a federation work. Think of a housing society in which each family manages its own flat while an elected committee runs the lift, the gate and the water tank. It works only if everyone accepts this division of jobs and trusts the others to keep to it. Federations are similar. The levels must first agree on rules for sharing power, and then trust each other to respect those rules. A federation is strongest when both are present: an agreed set of rules and a real wish to stay together.

2.1.3 Two routes to a federation

Why is the centre powerful in some federations and modest in others? Usually the answer lies in history, in how that federation was born. There are two common birth stories (Fig. 2.2).

In the first story, separate countries decide to merge. The thirteen former British colonies that formed the USA, and the Swiss cantons, each feared standing alone. So they gave up part of their independence for common defence, while keeping their own laws and identity. Australia's six colonies joined in 1901 in a similar way. Because the members created the union, they made sure the new centre stayed limited. In such coming together federations, every member usually has the same powers, and the members stay powerful compared with the federal government.

In the second story, the country already exists as one unit. It chooses to share power with its regions, often to keep very different regions content inside one state. India from 1950, Spain under its 1978 constitution and Belgium from 1993 followed this path. Because the centre handed power down instead of receiving it from below, it usually keeps the upper hand in these holding together federations. The regions need not be treated alike either: some get special powers to protect a language, a culture or a history.

2.2 What makes India a federal country?

Belgium and Sri Lanka are small countries, yet both struggled to share power among their communities. India is vast and far more varied, with many languages, religions and regions. How does it share power?

India's federation was built in hard times. Partition had just divided the land in bloodshed, and more than 500 princely states, large and small, had to be brought into the new country. The framers wanted a strong, united India that could also respect its regional differences. The result is a Constitution that never uses the word federation and calls India a ‘Union of States’. Yet it sets up a clearly federal system: all seven features listed earlier are present.

In 1950 there were two tiers: the Union government in New Delhi, also called the Central government, and a government in each State. Panchayats and municipalities existed, but only under State laws. The 1992 amendments raised them into a constitutional third tier with a jurisdiction of its own, like the other two.

2.2.1 The three lists

The heart of the arrangement is a three-way division of law-making power, set out in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (Fig. 2.3).

• The Union List (संघ सूची) holds subjects on which the country needs one policy everywhere: defence, foreign affairs, banking, currency, railways, and posts and telephones. Only Parliament can make laws on them.
• The State List (राज्य सूची) holds subjects of State and local importance: police and public order, agriculture, irrigation, public health and hospitals, and trade and commerce within the State. Only the State legislatures can make laws on them.
• The Concurrent List (समवर्ती सूची) holds subjects that concern both: education, forests, marriage and divorce, adoption and succession, trade unions and electricity. Both Parliament and the State legislatures can make laws on them. As a rule, if a Union law and a State law on the same Concurrent subject clash, the Union law prevails.

No list written in 1950 could foresee everything. Matters that appear in none of the three lists, such as computer software, are called residuary subjects. Article 248 of the Constitution hands them to Parliament, which adds to the Union's weight.

2.2.2 Not every unit has the same powers

Holding together federations rarely treat all their units alike, and India is no exception. A group of articles, numbered 371 to 371J, makes special provisions for several States because of their particular history and society. Take Article 371A. It says that an Act of Parliament on Naga customary law, religious and social practices, or the ownership and transfer of land does not apply in Nagaland unless the State's Assembly agrees. Article 371G gives Mizoram similar protection. What these provisions guard differs from place to place. In the north-east they protect tribal land and customary law. In parts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka they secure a fair share of government jobs and college seats for local people.

At the other end are units with very little power of their own: the Union Territories (केंद्रशासित प्रदेश). Some, like the island groups of Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, are too small or too remote to run as States. India has eight Union Territories today. They lack a State's powers; the Union government runs them through an Administrator or a Lieutenant Governor. Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir have elected assemblies, but with fewer powers than a State's.

2.2.3 Guarding the balance

Suppose a future Parliament wanted to move police into the Union List. Could it simply vote to do so? No. A change to the lists, or to the way powers are divided, must clear two hurdles (Fig. 2.5). First, each House of Parliament must pass it by a special majority. That means a majority of the House's total membership and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Second, at least half of the State legislatures must approve it. Only then does it go to the President for assent. In other words, the States hold a key to their own powers.

Courts act as umpires. If the Union and a State, or two States, disagree about who holds which power, the dispute goes to the courts. The Supreme Court can hear disputes between governments directly under Article 131, and High Courts also decide many cases about the division of powers.

Finally, each level needs money of its own, so the Constitution gives the Union and the States separate powers to tax. Income tax on non-farm income and customs duties go to the Union, for example, while land revenue and stamp duty on property documents belong to the States. Since 2017 the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been shared. Both levels levy it, and rates are agreed in a GST Council where the Union and every State sit together.

2.3 How is federalism practised?

A constitution is only a rulebook; what matters is how the players behave. Plenty of countries have federal constitutions that are ignored in practice. India's federation has worked better than many expected, and the main reason lies in its democratic politics. Over the decades, parties, leaders and citizens came to accept that diversity deserves respect and that power has to be shared for the country to hold together. Three developments show how this happened.

2.3.1 Linguistic States

The States you know today are mostly not the units India started with. In 1947 the map was a patchwork. It had British-era provinces, such as the United Provinces and the Central Provinces, and hundreds of princely states, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. Almost none survives in its old shape. Redrawing State borders so that each major language group had a State of its own was the first big test for democracy in India.

Many national leaders were uneasy. Partition had just shown how strong loyalties could tear a country apart, and they feared that States built around language might push India towards further break-up. So the Central government resisted the demand at first. Movements in many regions kept up the pressure. In December 1952 Potti Sriramulu died after a long fast for a Telugu-speaking State, and Andhra State was created the next year. A States Reorganisation Commission followed, and in 1956 most State borders were redrawn along language lines (the timeline below).

Language was never the only test. Nagaland and Meghalaya grew out of the distinct identities of hill peoples in the north-east. Uttarakhand and Jharkhand came from the hill and forest regions of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, whose people felt neglected by distant State capitals. Telangana's people speak Telugu, like their neighbours in Andhra Pradesh, but they sought a State of their own on regional grounds.

Seventy years on, the early fears of break-up look misplaced. A Tamil or Marathi speaker can deal with the State government, go to court and sit exams in their own language. This has made people feel more at home in India, not less. Governing has also become simpler where officials and citizens speak the same language.

2.3.2 Language policy

The second test was language. Imagine a Union government recruitment exam that could be written only in Hindi: most candidates from Kerala, Odisha or Assam would start at a disadvantage. India's Constitution avoids this. It names no national language at all. Hindi, in the Devanagari script, is the official language of the Union. But it is the mother tongue of fewer than half of all Indians: 43.6 per cent in the 2011 Census.11Your textbook rounds this to ‘about 40 per cent’ in one place and ‘about 44 per cent’ in another; the Census figure is 43.63 per cent. So other languages get firm protection.

The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution lists 22 Scheduled Languages, Hindi among them. Candidates in the Union Public Service Commission's civil services main examination may write their answers in any of them or in English. Each State also picks its own official language or languages, so a farmer in Karnataka deals with the State government in Kannada and one in Punjab in Punjabi.

The hardest moment came in 1965. The Constitution had allowed English in official work for fifteen years only, until 26 January 1965. As the deadline arrived, students and parties in Madras State (now Tamil Nadu) launched protests that turned violent, and other non-Hindi-speaking States shared their alarm. The Union chose compromise over force: English would carry on beside Hindi, a promise written into law when the Official Languages Act was amended in 1967. Some critics say the real gainers were the small English-educated elite.

The Union still promotes Hindi as official policy, but it may not force Hindi on States whose people speak other languages. India's leaders bent instead of imposing one language on everyone. As a result, India escaped the bitter conflict that followed Sri Lanka's decision in 1956 to make Sinhala its only official language.

Linguistic diversity of India

Counting India's languages is harder than it sounds. In the 2011 Census, people wrote down their mother tongues in nearly 20,000 different ways. Census experts first merged spellings and duplicates, leaving 1,369 distinct mother tongues. Then they grouped related tongues under 121 languages; Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Garhwali and Haryanvi, for instance, are all counted under Hindi. Only 22 of the 121 appear in the Eighth Schedule, and the other 99 are non-Scheduled. Few countries come anywhere near this variety.

Read Fig. 2.6 from the top. Even the longest bar, Hindi at 43.6 per cent, stops short of the halfway line, and the second, Bengali, reaches only 8 per cent. No language is the mother tongue of a majority. English barely registers as a mother tongue, at about 0.02 per cent of Indians. Yet roughly one Indian in ten told the Census they know it as a second or third language.

2.3.3 Centre–State relations

The third change came in the everyday relationship between New Delhi and the State capitals. The same constitutional rules can be applied generously or grudgingly, and what decides it is the behaviour of the parties in power (Fig. 2.7).

In the first decades after 1950, one party governed in New Delhi and in most State capitals. Chief Ministers took their cues from their party's national leaders, so States seldom pressed their constitutional rights. States run by rival parties had a harder time. The Centre's favourite weapon against them was Article 356. It lets the Union impose President's Rule on a State whose government cannot be carried on according to the Constitution. Elected State governments of opposition parties were removed this way again and again, and a commission headed by Justice R. S. Sarkaria reported in 1988 that the article had often been used improperly. This went against the spirit of federalism.

The 1990s turned this around. Parties rooted in a single State grew strong in State after State. From 1989 until 2014, no Lok Sabha election gave one party a majority of its own. So most Union governments in this period were coalition governments that depended on regional partners. A Prime Minister who needed such partners could not easily ignore or bully the States, and respect for State governments became part of political life.

The courts reinforced this trend. In the S. R. Bommai case of 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that a State government's majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly. It also ruled that courts can examine a proclamation of President's Rule. This made it much harder for the Centre to dismiss State governments at will. Since then, the dismissal of elected State governments has become far rarer, and States bargain with the Centre much more confidently than in the 1950s and 1960s.

2.4 Decentralisation in India

Two tiers are not enough for a country this size. In the 2011 Census, Uttar Pradesh alone had about 20 crore people, more than Brazil, and Bihar's 10.4 crore outnumbered Germany's population.22Brazil had 19.1 crore people in its 2010 census and Germany 8.0 crore in its 2011 census. A Chief Minister in Lucknow cannot know which village well has run dry in a district hundreds of kilometres away. Most States are also very diverse inside, so power needs to be shared within them too. That is the case for a third tier below the State: local government. Think of it as the ground floor of a three-storey building, the floor closest to where people actually live.

Shifting power and money from the Central and State governments down to local bodies is called decentralisation (विकेंद्रीकरण). Three arguments support it. Knowledge: the people of a ward or village know best which drain floods, which school lacks a teacher and which road the rains washed away. Better spending: they can judge which of these needs comes first and keep an eye on how the money is used. Participation: decisions taken close to home let ordinary citizens join in directly, and that practice makes them better democrats. Together these serve an old democratic ideal: local self-government, people running their own local affairs.

The idea is old. Article 40 of the Constitution asks the State to organise village panchayats. In 1959 Rajasthan launched the first three-tier panchayati raj system; other States soon followed, and towns had municipalities. Yet for three decades these bodies lived at the mercy of State governments. A State could put off their elections for years or dissolve them at will, and they had little money or authority of their own. On paper, power had moved down; in reality it had not.

2.4.1 The 1992 amendments

A major step came in 1992, when Parliament passed two constitutional amendments: the 73rd for rural local bodies and the 74th for urban ones. They came into force in 1993 and turned local government into a real, constitutionally protected third tier of democracy. They brought five big changes.

• Regular elections. Elections to local bodies must be held every five years; if a body is dissolved early, a fresh election must follow within six months.
• Reserved seats. Seats, and the posts of heads of these bodies, are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population, and States may also reserve seats for Other Backward Classes.
• At least one-third for women. Not less than one-third of all seats, and of the posts of heads, are reserved for women.
• A State Election Commission. An independent State Election Commission in each State conducts panchayat and municipal elections.
• Sharing powers and money. State governments must share some powers and revenue with local bodies. A State Finance Commission, set up every five years, recommends how money should be shared. In practice, States differ widely in how much they hand over.

2.4.2 Panchayati raj: rural local government

Rural local government is popularly known as panchayati raj (पंचायती राज). Its smallest unit is the gram panchayat. A large village has one of its own, while in some States a few small villages share one. Each ward of the village elects a member, the panch. The village also has a head, the sarpanch (called pradhan or mukhiya in some States), who in most States is elected directly by the voters. Together they form the council that takes decisions for the whole village (Fig. 2.8).

The panchayat is not left unchecked. Every voter of the village is a member of the gram sabha (ग्राम सभा), the village's own assembly. When it meets, villagers can question the sarpanch, pass or reject the panchayat's yearly budget and judge its work, rather as shareholders question the managers of a company. State laws fix how often it must meet, usually at least two or three times a year. Many States call gram sabha meetings on days such as 26 January, 15 August and 2 October.

Above the village, the structure widens its view. The panchayat samiti (called a block or mandal panchayat in some States) looks after a group of gram panchayats. Its members are elected, and in many States the area's sarpanches sit on it too. The zilla parishad plans for the whole district. Elected members make up most of it, but the district's Lok Sabha members and MLAs also have seats, and its elected chairperson is its political head.

2.4.3 Urban local government

Urban India has its own version. The Constitution provides three kinds of urban body, by size. A nagar panchayat serves a place changing from village to town, a municipality (municipal council) a smaller town, and a municipal corporation a big city such as Pune or Kolkata. Each is divided into wards whose voters elect councillors. The political head of a municipality is the municipal chairperson; in a corporation it is the mayor, often called the city's first citizen.

2.4.4 How well has it worked?

Probably no other country has ever had so many people holding elected local office at once. Your textbook counts about 36 lakh elected members of panchayats and municipalities across India, more than the whole population of a country such as Uruguay.

The gains are real. Local elections now happen on schedule, and villagers turn out to vote in large numbers. Reserved seats have brought great numbers of women, Dalits and Adivasis into public life, often for the first time. In 2006 Bihar became the first State to raise women's reservation in panchayats to 50 per cent, and many States have since done the same. Decisions about lanes, water and schools are now debated close to home, which has deepened democracy.

The shortcomings are just as real. Gram sabhas often meet rarely, or with few people present. In most States the important powers still sit with the State government. Local bodies have neither the funds nor the staff to do much on their own, so they depend on grants from above. India has come a long way, but genuine local self-government is still some distance off.