Union-State relations in India have been characterized by both cooperation and conflict, primarily due to the federal structure of governance outlined in the Indian Constitution. The Indian federal system, while intended to balance the powers of the Union and the States, has often witnessed tensions across various political, economic, and social domains. These tensions are shaped by the distribution of powers between the Centre and the States, which can be a source of conflict. Below are some key areas of tension in Union-State relations.
1. Distribution of Legislative Powers
The Indian Constitution, through its Seventh Schedule, divides the subjects of legislation between the Union and the States into three lists: Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. The Union List contains subjects on which only the central government can legislate, the State List contains subjects on which only the state governments have jurisdiction, and the Concurrent List includes subjects on which both can legislate. However, the overlap of powers in the Concurrent List has led to several tensions.
Example: In the case of education, the central government’s control over higher education and the setting of policies sometimes conflicts with the autonomy of state governments in managing local educational institutions. Similarly, issues related to law and order, land reforms, and criminal justice often result in conflicts between the Centre and states.
2. Financial Relations
One of the most contentious areas in Union-State relations is the distribution of financial resources. The Constitution establishes a system of revenue-sharing between the Union and the States, but the allocation of funds remains a contentious issue. While the Finance Commission determines the allocation of taxes and duties between the Centre and the States, there are instances where states feel that the Union government does not provide adequate resources for fulfilling their responsibilities.
Example: The implementation of centrally sponsored schemes often involves the Union government deciding the funds required, without adequate consultation with the states. States argue that these schemes create financial burden, especially when they have to match central funds or bear the cost of implementation.
Example 2: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) system has also raised tensions, as states have voiced concerns over revenue loss due to the centralization of tax powers. While the GST Council has attempted to address these issues, some states, particularly those with a lower tax base, claim that they are losing out on revenues, which affects their ability to finance development programs.
3. Centre’s Control Over State Legislative Action
The Union government’s ability to override state legislation or intervene in matters of state governance is another source of tension. The Union can impose President’s Rule in a state under Article 356 if it believes that the state government is unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution. This provision has been used frequently in the past, sometimes raising concerns about the misuse of power by the Centre.
Example: President’s Rule was imposed in states like Punjab (1980s), Jammu and Kashmir (1990s), and Maharashtra (2020). In many of these cases, political leaders and state governments viewed this as an infringement upon the rights of states to self-govern. This has led to debates about the autonomy of states and the potential for political manipulation by the Union.
4. Interference in State Policies
The Union government has often been accused of interfering in the state’s internal affairs by imposing its will on policies that affect the states. The centralization of power in key sectors such as education, health, law and order, and economic development has led to resistance from state governments. States argue that they are best placed to understand their local problems and should have the autonomy to design policies to address these issues.
Example: States have sometimes resisted central policies that impose one-size-fits-all approaches. For example, the National Food Security Act (NFSA) was passed by the Union government, but several states raised concerns about its implementation, citing issues related to food grain procurement, storage capacity, and logistical challenges in implementing the scheme.
5. Role of National Parties in State Politics
The increasing dominance of national parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) in state politics has been a source of tension in Union-State relations. National parties tend to centralize power and push for uniformity across states, often ignoring local issues and concerns.
Example: In states like Tamil Nadu, where regional parties such as the DMK and AIADMK have historically dominated, the centralizing tendencies of national parties often lead to conflicts. The central government’s imposition of policies perceived to be against the regional party’s interests can fuel resentment at the state level.
6. Linguistic and Regional Identity Politics
The assertion of regional identity based on language, culture, and history often creates tensions between the Union and state governments. Several states have agitated for greater autonomy or have demanded that their cultural and linguistic identities be respected in national policies. The federal structure is often challenged by movements for greater state autonomy, such as the demand for a separate statehood or changes in the governance structure to accommodate regional diversity.
Example: The demand for separate states like Telangana, Gorkhaland, and Bodoland reflects the underlying tensions of regional identity politics, where the people of these regions feel that their cultural and economic concerns are neglected by the central government and the dominant states.
7. Security and Law and Order
The Centre’s authority over national security often comes into conflict with state authority over law and order. While national security issues such as terrorism, insurgency, and border security are within the Union’s jurisdiction, law and order in states is primarily the responsibility of state governments. However, in cases of internal security threats, the Centre has often invoked its powers to intervene, which has led to tensions with state governments.
Example: The imposition of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in states like Jammu and Kashmir and the North-East has been a source of major conflict, with state governments arguing that the central government is infringing on their constitutional rights and undermining the trust between the Centre and the people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Union-State relations in India are marked by significant tensions arising from the distribution of powers, financial resources, the imposition of national policies, and regional identity politics. While the Constitution provides a framework for federal cooperation, the uneven distribution of power and resources, combined with the dynamic political, economic, and social changes in India, often results in conflicts. Resolving these tensions requires greater dialogue, respect for federal principles, and a balanced approach that addresses the needs of both the Centre and the States.