Introduction:
India is admired by the world either due to its democratic feature or due to its current developing nature. Holding the entire nation together is not single handwork. The proper degree of centralization and decentralization plays an important role in excelling a country in every sector. Centralizing the power is not effective for a country like India. The drafters of the Constitution, keeping in mind the diverse socio-economic culture of India have drafted a federal form of government after a fruitful debate. This article focuses on the efforts by Constituent Assembly in framing ‘Federalism’ and the impact it has created in India.
Concept of Federalism in Constituent Assembly
Federalism refers to the governing of the country by dividing the powers under two or more levels of government. In India, Federalism refers to the relationship between the central and the state government. India has a quasi-federal system as it has major features of both federation and union. India has a federation of its kind and thus it can be phrased as ‘federation sui generis’.
Indian Constitution is considered as the holy book for successful governing of the country, and while drafting this holy book the constitution makers had to face various difficulties and one such difficulty was the partition of India and Pakistan which accompanied bloodshed and violence. After the partition, the perspective of making a constitution was changed. The prevailing circumstances at that time led constitution-makers to consider the present and future and accordingly had to draft the constitution. And while considering all the important elements for the successful functioning of the country, there were severe debates in the constituent assembly for the implementation of respective provisions. One such provision was of federalism over which the conflicts continue.
Indian Constitution is based on the western concept of a federal state. Constitution drafters considered the federation of US and U.S.S.R. However, the federal system of the US influenced the Indian maker in framing the Federal system of India.
In November 1946, J.B. Kripalani, the President of Congress mentioned the Constitution as:
“It will be a democratic constitution and will be federal in character. We may not, however, forget that, in the administrative as in the economic field, centralization more than is absolutely necessary is inimical to liberty. It is good, therefore, that the provinces in free India shall have the maximum autonomy consistent with external and internal security”[1]
Several committees were formed so that the constitution is framed in a proper direction. One such committee, ‘Committee on union subject’ submitted its report to the constituent assembly wherein the subject of the union list was mentioned. But 4 months after the report, the partition changed the constitutional perspective of India. The trend of centralization became irresistible. There was a need for a strong central for integrating the country and for a strong administration. Going back to the unitary form of government was not a good option. However, the necessity of federation was never left behind because of the diversity within India.
Dr. Ambedkar while presenting the draft constitution, stated the constitution proposed to be Federal.[2] Even though, Article 1(1) of the Constitution mentions ‘Union’ and not ‘Federal’ and also the word ‘Federal’ was not used by the constitution-makers in any other provision. There was no conflict of interest as Assembly members were of the view that diversity in India demands the federal structure. And hence, India should have Federal Constitution for a successful running of a diverse country and this decision was unanimous among Assembly members.[3]
Dr. Ambedkar stated, “India was to be a Federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement (or a contract) by the States to join a Federation, and that the Federation, not being the result of an agreement, no State had the right to secede from it. The Federation was a Union because it was indissoluble.”
Also, another report of the Union Powers Committee observed that:
“Now that partition is a settled fact, we are unanimously of the view that it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international space.”[4]
Union constituent assembly held that the Constitution of India should be federal with strong central and there should be 3 legislative lists and whatever subjects remain, should go into union list and not the state list.[5]
Eventual proceedings in the Assembly felt the need to have a strong central. Federalism was been discussed in the Assembly meetings and it was gradually adopted by the constitution-makers. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar mentioned that for independent working and to ensure coordination between Central Government and the units, Federal Constitution must divide sovereign power. As it was witnessed that the countries which had a federal form of government and had improper demarcation of sovereign power, faced the problem of dependency on each other i.e., central and state dependency.
Dr. Ambedkar in his speech on November 1949 listed several features of the Draft Constitution, some of the provisions with regard to federalism were:
- Distribution of power between central and state, power to the union with respect to exclusive power, and concurrent power as per list 1 and list 3 of Schedule VII respectively.
- The Power is given to Parliament to legislate on exclusively State subjects, namely:
(a)with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest
(b) in respect of any matter in the State List if a proclamation of Emergency is in operation
(c) For two or more States by consent of those States
Dr. Ambedkar made it clear that “These provisions make the Indian Constitution both ‘Unitary as well as Federal’ according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war, it is so designed as to make it work as though it was a unitary system.”
As per Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution, India is a ‘Union’ of state and not ‘Federal’. Even though India is a federal country, the word Union was adopted by the drafting committee as they found it advantageous. It could be seen from the views of the Constitution drafters that even though they had the view of having a strong central at the same time they desired a federal government for India because of the diversity in India and for successful administration.
Ambedkar’s view on Constitution
Three years after the constitution was adopted, Ambedkar said, “I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it.”
It seemed that he was not satisfied with the constitution. Before adopting the constitution, Ambedkar mentioned in the Constitution Assembly that the coexistence of the governor and Chief Minister in the state might lead to friction. However, after adopting the constitution, Ambedkar stated that governors be given the power of oversight over state government.
Ambedkar said, “Democracy will not work (in India), for the simple reason we have got a social structure which is incompatible with parliamentary democracy.” According to him for the Hindu majority nation, the majority only government was well suited, however, he proposed a different system to the constituent assembly.
Impact of Federalism
In a unitary government, the central government is the ultimate authority and has the power of taking all major decisions which become binding on the entire nation. However, the Federal government with different political parties may oppose the decision of the centre and in case the decisions or laws of the central government are biased, the states do not let implement the law in their states so that they could protect their citizens from experiencing biasedness. The evolution of the word ‘Federalism’ in the Constitution has helped India in current times.
- As in the case of the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the recent Farm law, few states opposed the law and passed a resolution opposing those laws. The centre had a perspective in implementing those laws and the state might have a different perspective in opposing the laws. This power of the states to oppose the law helps a country have a fair law by not completely making a country centralized. But if the state does not implement the law made by the center, the question of integrity comes into question.
- India, a developing country needs a proper administration. When the center comes up with a new law, the state government has to ensure its proper implementation in the states. The New Education Policy which the center wants to implement by 2030, is the state government which would help in implementing at the state level and would help in resolving the problems associated while implementing the policy and once implemented in all the states, it will help the whole nation grow in a new direction. It is the state government that comes up with the problems in its states, and so federalism becomes crucial in administering the law in a diverse country.
Conclusion
Federalism in India has been a point of debate for a long time. It has been a focus of political discourse. But for a country like India where diversity prevails in every aspect and where handling of every aspect becomes crucial so as to maintain integrity, federalism is a must. A country prospers only when its units (states) prosper. A country can easily collapse if the relationship between central and state are not healthy. The current scenarios in the country demand proper centralization and decentralization. It must be ensured that the honor which Indian Constitution has received from the world does not get hampered.
References:
[1] Political thinkers of Modern India: J.P.Kripalani
[2] Vol.VII, Constitution Assembly Debate
[3] Vol.XI, Constitution Assembly Debate
[4] Vol.IV, Constitution Assembly Debate
[5]Vol. VII, Constitution Assembly Debate
0 Comments