Heterogeneous federalism will continue to be relevant; Need to accommodate different groups and provide share in governance
Heterogeneous federalism will continue to be relevant; Need to accommodate different groups and provide share in governance
As India completes 75 years of independence this August, the time is opportune for us to look at the constitutional, institutional, political and financial arrangements that take into account the plurality of our country. It is a nation where four major religions of the world reside; Its Muslim population is the third largest in the world; And Indians speak languages belonging to five different families. Such diversity and plurality demands a system that can pave the way for the adjustment and integration reflected in the existing system of heterogeneous federalism.
India is not the only country which has heterogeneous arrangements in its federal structure. Belgium, Germany, Canada and Spain are among other such examples. Thus this authentic idea is neither new nor only locally relevant. As a matter of fact, in the times of the new age, we see that governments formulate federal policies to deal with state-specific issues and concerns. And if one looks at the Indian model of clinically heterogeneous federalism, it can be judged on the basis of the principle of weighted and differentiated equality. This principle calls for equal treatment of all states, while noting that some states are more equal and unequal than others. Therefore, the ability to accommodate different social groups and their interests makes India a thriving federal democracy as it exhibits vast heterogeneous characteristics.
protect diversity
When building a heterogeneous framework, our founding fathers chose the salad bowl approach rather than the melting pot approach. Recognizing the existing multicultural society in India, such an alternative was needed. Recognizing specific cultural differences in the country and allowing for self-government within a scheme of shared governance for regionally focused minorities is how heterogeneous federalism works in India. Such methodology deals with the real and legal asymmetry, where the former is abundant while the latter is limited. Moreover, such an arrangement only proves that for a multicultural and multinational country like India, a heterogeneous constitutional arrangement is indisputably necessary to protect the rights of the community and minorities. This setup facilitates the accommodation of multiple yet complementary identities.
In this regard, it is necessary to understand the distinction made by Ronald Watts between political and constitutional inequalities, both of which exist in our country. While the former is based on the territorial and demographic size of the constituent units in each federal nation, the latter is characterized by the expansion of the constituent units of the Constitution’s legislative and executive powers. So when we find representation of states in Rajya Sabha on the basis of their population, it is a political disparity. This is the reason why states like Uttar Pradesh have 31 seats in the Rajya Sabha, while Meghalaya and Mizoram have only one seat each.
self-government within a shared rule
We find constitutional asymmetry in Article 370 (now diluted) and in the ubiquitous Article 371 in the special provisions and powers given to Nagaland, Mizoram and others. Parliamentary law cannot be enforced without the consent of the legislatures in the northeastern states mentioned above. these states. In particular, the provisions under Article 371 requiring the permission of the state legislature before any parliamentary law can be invoked exemplify the anomalous provisions protecting the religious and social practices, customary laws and procedures of the Nagas and Mizos. In addition, the creation of the Autonomous District Council in accordance with the Sixth Schedule also acknowledges the socio-cultural, political and historical rights of the tribes of the Northeast, facilitating provisions for self-government within the scheme of shared governance.
In addition, the Indian asymmetric setup has evolved to include another type of asymmetry, that is, Union Territories (UTs). His establishment is in line with the spirit of federal heterogeneity. These are special union units that have been created several times. However, the reasons for their construction were different. Due to prevailing cultural disparities, inter-state indifference, widespread segregation and other specific requirements in the case of National Capital Territory (NCT), union territories were too small to be declared as states or could not be merged with neighboring states. Were. Among all the Union Territories Delhi, Puducherry and Chandigarh are typical examples. Since 2019, we now have Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly and Ladakh as a Union Territory without.
The Delhi case itself is a remarkable example of heterogeneous federalism where we witness the appointment of the Chief Minister of Delhi by the President of India on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor (LG). This provision is in line with the special status of Delhi as a National Capital Territory. However, the difference between Puducherry and Delhi lies in their jurisdiction. While Puducherry has the power to make laws on subjects like land, police and civil services, this is not the case with Delhi. And though there has been a long-standing demand for statehood to Delhi, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021 has not resolved the conflict between the LG and the Delhi government’s council of ministers. Conversely, the Act makes it mandatory for the Delhi government to take any action after the LG’s permission. However, for the smooth functioning of the heterogeneous federal system, it is imperative to run the administration of the NCT through cooperation, not confrontation.
on the fiscal system
Another important anomaly is the fiscal system enshrined in the Constitution. While transferring money from the center to the states, statutory transfers are made based on the recommendations of the Finance Commission. Furthermore, while the central government fully funds specific central sector development schemes in India, the cost of implementing centrally sponsored schemes to bring about welfare is co-shared by both the central and sub-national units. In the era of NITI Aayog, the Center has significantly reduced its share of revenue for implementing centrally sponsored schemes.
Since 2019, many have questioned the relevance of heterogeneous federalism, ignoring its effectiveness in recognizing and promoting self-governance in many sectors across India. It all started with debate and discussion on the dilution of Article 370 in 2019 and the subsequent dilution of the ubiquitous Article 371. These provisions in our constitution are special arrangements reflecting contrasting features.
We must remember that the idea and system of unequal power-sharing can be troublesome if not used properly. Such features in our Constitution are neither marginal nor merely provisional. These features touch on a large number of states. And without these characteristics and provisions, it would not have been possible to reduce the separatist tendencies of a highly diverse society. The relevance of heterogeneous federalism will remain in future also because to pave the way for cooperative federalism we should be able to accommodate different groups and provide them share in the governance of the country at the same time.
Rekha Saxena is Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Honorary Vice President, Center for Multilevel Federalism, New Delhi and Honorary Senior Adviser, Forum of Federations, Ottawa.