The fragility of India's federalism (Implications of recent action on Article 370 for rest of India)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 The fragility of India's federalism (Implications of recent action on Article 370 for rest of India)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Ambiguities : The August 2019 abrogation of Article 370 showed the inherent ambiguities in Indian federalism. To resolve regional conflicts, many asymmetric agreements have been signed, the Kashmir special status being the oldest. But all of these arrangements were tenuous at best, held at the mercy of all-India majorities.
• 1989-2014 : The Indian Party system became regional-centred in this period, showing deepening federalism and regional autonomy (compared to Delhi). But the rise of BJP nationally instantly reversed that entire movement. The August 2019 actions show how centralised power can simply eliminate federal flexibilities and reshape any constituent unit of Indian "federation".
• Asymmetric federalism : When a nation gives different rights and privileges to different sub-units due to their unique identities, asymmetric federalism is created. The transitional Article 370 arose when Indian Constitution itself was being made, and over time, it took an almost permanent hue. Nearly all PMs - including Nehru - faced tensions with J&K as they tried to integrate it more and more with the Union.
• More arrangements : The Nagas and the Mizos got such arrangements as part of Article 371. Sikkim got it through Article 371F. More states got it later on (Andhra, Telangana, Maha, Gujarat, Karnataka etc.) 
• Diversity : All diverse societies have to offer asymmetric provisions, to dampen secessionist tendencies. All belong to the Union, but differently! So, if these are denied, secession will be a natural demand.
• Who opposes these : Majority national communities not with any such arrangment don't like it. Even regional leaders may support - so a TDP MP from Andhra Pradesh (which was the first linguistically created state of India) appreciated "one nation, one flag, one constitution".
• Arguments against asymmetric provisions : (a) They are discriminatory, (b) They promote secessionism, (c) They are not egalitarian, (d) They are anti-Dalit, anti-tribal, anti-women, etc.
• Constraining versus Enabling : Federal systems like the US constrain the powers of national majorities, while the Indian system puts less checks on a national majority. So "demos constraining" versus "demos enabling".
• Why Union is strong : The Indian Union govt. was made stronger (LS > RS, Union > states) as post 1947 India was a weak nation and needed a strong union government to hold it together. Dr Ambedkar explained it as both "unitary and federal" due to needs of the time.
• New states : Under Article 3, new states sprang up and boundaries were changed. States had no veto over bifurcation. Rigid federal systems would have not allowed this at all. Till date, all such moves happened consensually, and slowly.
• 2014 and 2019 : What was done with Telangana creation in 2014 resembles what was done in 2019 with Jammu and Kashmir. The creation of Ladakh UT was the right step. But the huge step of annulling Article 370 and demoting the state into a UT is a big step with unknown consequences.
• Summary : Indian federal system is based on the flexibility to give asymmetric arrangements to constituent units, to minimise secessionist tendencies, and that freedom has helped the Union stay strong.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.