AUTHOR: AKANKSHA TIWARI, Writer at GPC
Federalism is a political system of governance that separates power between the union, state, and local levels of administration. The jurisdiction and responsibilities shared in this two-tier system are independent of each other. The Central government looks into issues of national concern, whereas the state and local governments focus on the day-to-day activities and domestic functioning of their particular state. Furthermore, the Central government enacts laws for the nation as a whole, and the State Legislatures enact laws for their respective states. However, Indian Federalism has been designed based on the inherent bias in the Indian Constitution to consign more power to the Union Government than the states. Therefore, it said that India is a quasi-federal country. Dr. D.D Basu describes the Constitution of India as neither purely federal nor unitary, but as a combination of federal and unitary systems.
After witnessing two hundred years of colonial rule and remembering the freedom struggle, the national movement, partition of the country, and the spread of communal violence the leaders of independent India decided to strengthen the Union Legislature because of their fear of further disunity and secessionist tendencies in the country. Jawaharlal Nehru believed that it was essential to provide the Central Government with more power as it is largely responsible for “ensuring peace and coordinating vital matters of common concern” in the international arena.
However, for ages, the provision of a powerful center has only been misused by the ruling party. The decade of the ’70s witnessed a major political crisis, resentment, agitations, and violence in Punjab, Assam, Kashmir, and Mizoram due to centralization by the Union government. The excessive use of Art. 356 of the Indian Constitution by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to replace state governments led by opposition parties with Congress governments gave rise to the conflictual nature of federalism in India. Moreover, the abrogation of Arts. 370, 35A of the Constitution and bifurcating the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), changing the political status of Kashmir, demonetization, and the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 by the Bharatiya Janata Party, has made the pattern of centralizing tendencies of the dominant national ruling party very clear.
The relationship between the Centre and the states has only gotten worse during the pandemic. The upsurge in Covid-19 cases has not only crippled the states but has also exposed the failure of our healthcare system. Maharashtra and Delhi have been the victims of highly politicized and unfair treatments by the Centre due to the difference of parties in power. Delhi was denied a sufficient supply of oxygen and its demand of 700 MT had been reduced to 480 MT, but states with fewer cases were provided with more. Several allegations on stealing oxygen tankers by the Delhi government were made by the Haryana Health Minister Anil Vij. These allegations were soon dismissed when Delhi hospitals claimed that Linde India limited, their supplier of oxygen from the Faridabad plant, had terminated the supply of oxygen outside the boundaries of the state following the orders of the Haryana state government. Furthermore, the court orders issued against the center for cutting down oxygen supplies in the State have caused nothing but havoc. Delhi High Court decided to issue contempt action against the officials of the central government if their demand for 700 metric tonnes was not met. As a result, 730.7 MT of oxygen was released to Delhi on 5 May by cutting down supplies from elsewhere. Rajasthan health minister pointed out that the state has received 200 MT less than what they were allotted and Jharkhand, the producer state, too complained about the shortages in six districts. The states must refrain from hoarding supplies and seeking court redressal to pressure the Centre. It only causes inconveniences faced by different state governments and stiff competition among each other.
The government’s carelessness exacerbated the public health crisis, resulting in a severe lack of essential medicines, vaccines, oxygen cylinders, hospital beds, doctors, ambulances, and cremation spaces. This mayhem allowed for a growth in the capitalization of basic supplies, black-marketing, and a general disregard for the poor’s plight.
The initial periods of lockdown highlighted complete centralization by invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster Management Act. Prime Minister Narendra Modi decided to impose the most severe lockdown without consulting the states or considering the ramifications. The lack of accountability on behalf of the government forced the poor workers to migrate either through their private vehicles or, in most cases, by foot. Although many people died on their way home, the state showed no mercy. This clearly demonstrated the inadequacy of all three constituent divisions of the government to respond to citizens’ needs, throwing light on the flawed cooperative federalism in India. Although the distribution of vaccines remains highly politicized, the second wave did notice decentralization of power. The Centre was supposed to be the single entity in charge of monitoring vaccine production and ensuring equal distribution of vaccines, regardless of which political party was in power. Regardless of whose party was in power, the Centre was intended to be the only institution in charge of monitoring vaccine production and ensuring equitable distribution of vaccines. However, in response to mounting criticism from several state governments, the Centre abruptly decided to consign the states with the responsibility of procuring and administering the distribution of the vaccine for people below the age of 45 years. Because of this sudden shift in responsibility, state governments failed to fulfill their duties. The new vaccination policy obviously attempted to place the burden of acquiring vaccinations directly from the producers on the states, which resulted in disparities in price setting. The Union Government, understandably, blamed the state governments for mismanaging and mishandling the operation, which intensified the already strained relationship between the two.
The shift in the dynamics from centralization to decentralization by the Central Government during the pandemic has been very irresponsible. It completely disregarded its role as an accountable governing body. The unprecedented health and the financial hazard posed by the pandemic has not only affected the socio-economic conditions but also acted as a catalyst in decaying an already sinking center-state relation thereby, amplifying the public health crisis. In dire times like this, the Centre should not hop onto opportunities to toss the blame rather it must coordinate and collaborate with its subordinate bodies. The center must not see it as a competition but as a co-operation.
For quite a time, the Union Administration has been abusing its powers to dismiss State Governments that are controlled by opposition parties. But the current situation demands that the system goes beyond cooperative federalism and adopts a more egalitarian approach that would not only benefit the Center but also help in the holistic development of the states. The state and center must join hands to provide aid to the needy and fulfill their role as judicious and accountable institutions.
*“The views expressed in the article are author’s personal and is not endorsed by the Global Policy Consortium (GPC) or assumed by their members”
Global Policy Consortium 