CRISIS OF FEDERALISM Analysing the federal Indian Union

To federate is to join together. Friendship is the basis of all federalism at any level. When there is diversity, and unity with others is mutually beneficial in some aspects, they federate or come together on that basis. Translated in terms of government, a federal government is one where certain diverse entities have some common interests and the body that oversees and executes these elements of common benefit, as mutually agreed, is called the federal government. Thus, diverse entities retain their autonomy in some aspects of their existence and concede some autonomy as other entities also do, to a common body; in so far as the common body functions to the benefit of each diverse entity, so that each such entity continues to gain. Unless there is nothing to gain for each participant in an interaction, there is no reason for them to join together or come together. This combination of own autonomy and ceded autonomy for own benefit, this structure of separate autonomy, is typically called a federal structure. The federal structure is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, that is, it cannot be changed by parliamentary legislation. This is because the basic structure is said to be comprised of qualities that are so fundamental to the formation of the Indian Union that no degree of majoritarianism can override it. Overriding the basic structure, which also includes practices like secularism, destroys the very basis for the existence of the Indian Union.

More than 80% of the world's populations live under federal or semi-federal administrations. At its core, federalism, as an ideology, is an agreement between friends. The friends may be big and small, rich and poor, fat and thin, but they come together due to friendly association. All true friendships are based on equality and dignity. If a fat friend forces his wishes on a thin friend, or if a poor friend steals from a rich friend, the friendship ceases to exist. Similarly, at the level of federal government, the abuse of ceded powers by taking from the rich, less populous constituents to give to the poor, more populous ones, without the explicit consent of the rich, is not federalism but another version of crude majoritarianism. Federalism is based on consensus, not on the basis of the wish of a gang of constituents, ganging up on other constituents.

When that happens, it is tyranny at work. In the so-called federal system of the Indian Union, the Finance Commission unleashes exactly this sort of tyranny on its rich, progressive constituents to subsidize the more populous basket cases of the so-called Hindi belt.

The separation of powers in the Indian Union's federal system is a much debated topic. Much of the debate actually took place before the 1947 Partition. During those debates, strong non-Congress ruled provinces had their say and thus the agreement that was reached was on the basis of the Cabinet Mission plan. In that plan, Defence, External Affairs, Currency and Communication were to be the fief of the Union or federal government. Every other power was to be with the States/Provinces. This crucially included residuary powers, that is, anything that was not mentioned. This is important since the list of residuary powers increases with time as new realities crop up with the passage of time. After Partition, this underwent a sea of change and the Indian Union constitution, dictated by a massive Congress majority, led by Upper and Middle Gangetic plain leaders, ended up with a super-centralised Centre which enjoyed almost all important powers. States were reduced to mere vassals, with very limited elastic revenue sources of their own. Since the adoption of the constitution of India in 1950, the story has been one of constant chipping away of the meager powers that remained with the states. The behavior of the Congress and the BJP are not fundamentally different in this regard, except that BJP drives the same centralization process under the garb of PR gimmicks like "co-operative federalism" with an eye towards a toxic majority of Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. Its definition of the first citizen is the Hindi speaking Hindu male of the upper and middle Gangetic region (Hindustan). Everything else is an appendage. The resources of all other States are thus extracted to service the material economic interests of this group and their ideological and security anxieties. Dissent from this system is branded as anti-national. Subject after subject has been transferred from the State list to Concurrent list (where the Centre prevails if differences with States arise). In State subjects, Delhi interferes, coerces and blackmails, thus hollowing out the executive authority vested in State governments with regard to the State list. Federalism in the Indian Union has thus reached a serious crisis point.

A comparison with other federalised states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia or UK, some of them being models upon which the Indian constitution is based, can reveal how fake the federalism practiced in the Indian Union is. In Pakistan, residuary powers are with provinces. It has learned a bit if not enough from the Bangladesh episode. Through the 18th amendment, it has essentially abolished the concurrent list to transfer subjects to the provinces. In USA, states enjoy huge powers, which has prevented the tyranny of Donald Trump from being actually felt at the State level. In Canada and UK, constituent parts have been allowed referendums on independence and have near sovereign provincial parliaments with massive revenue powers. Even Sri Lanka, with its history of genocide against Tamils and the Tamil national aspiration, still has Tamil language in most government documents including its passport. All states of USA, all provinces of Canada, all nations within UK, have separate flags – something that is unthinkable in the Indian Union. This just expresses their deep anxiety about the fragile nature of unity that actually underlies paeans to Unity in Diversity.

A federal system is like a matrimonial alliance. Unless each partner has autonomous rights, including the right to separate from what is perceived by one partner to be an unequal, abusive relationship, what exists is not a marriage but forced cohabitation. In such a system, domestic partner abuse is the norm. Indeed, it is the only guarantor of the stability of such a "marriage". The federalism practiced in the Indian Union is not much different.