The Indian federal structure is unique. India is not a federation of independent federal units. Instead, it must be understood that the Constitution, drafted at a time when the nation bore the scars of Partition, accommodated the need for a strong national government.
At the same time, the vision of the framers of the Constitution was evident in the discussions of the Constituent Assembly. The essence of the Constitution lies in the fact that it is a blend of diverse considerations and statuses, incorporating the innumerable diversities of this vast nation. The special statuses given to several states and the recognition of various languages and faiths are all hallmarks of India라이브 바카라 federal framework.
A recent Supreme Court observation in a GST-related case is highly relevant in this context. The court noted that uncooperative federalism is as significant as cooperative federalism.
Indian federalism is a dialogue between cooperative and uncooperative federalism where the federating units are at liberty to use different means of persuasion, from collaboration to contestation.
—Union of India & Anr Vs M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd, 2022
The Supreme Court upholds the right of states to dissent, take different stances and contest Union government policies. However, the Union government is adopting a strategy to bypass this right by employing various tactics. They do not accept the principle of a “bunch of divergences”.
The idea of a country that preserves its divergences does not sit well with the ruling authorities of the Union government. Their agenda is to subjugate the nation to a single political authority by disregarding and suppressing not just cultural and linguistic diversities but also developmental disparities. To achieve this, the Union government is using financial centralisation, unilateral administrative decisions and strategies for political centralisation.
Multiple Strategies, One Goal
The Union government라이브 바카라 approach is to enforce its political power centralisation agenda by all means necessary. The methods adopted for this are varied. Consider, for example, the centrally-sponsored scheme PM-SHRI (PM Schools for Rising India). This scheme provides financial assistance of Rs 1 crore per school per year for five years to two schools in each block. These schools will be known as PM-SHRI schools. The New Education Policy of the Union government must be implemented in these schools. The language policy within this framework is well-known.
Here, a centrally sponsored scheme is being used as a means to impose Hindi. This policy is not just about schools; it represents an overarching effort to “brand” education through a centrally-sponsored scheme. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have not signed up for the PM-SHRI scheme. However, citing this as a reason, the Union government is withholding its share of funds for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, a national education mission. This has resulted in states being forced to cover the salaries of employees under this scheme from their own budgets.
Similarly, primary health centres and family health centres are required to be renamed as “Ayushman Arogya Kendras”, with the tagline “Health is the greatest wealth”, featuring the prescribed colours and images mandated by the Union government. What is the reason behind such arbitrary conditions? The idea is simple: impose unfamiliar names and colours on institutions, and if states refuse, deny them funds.
For example, Kerala라이브 바카라 annual health budget is Rs 12,000 crore. Over the years, Kerala has built a robust healthcare network. The Union government라이브 바카라 contribution to Kerala라이브 바카라 health budget is less than 7 per cent of its annual health budget. Yet, the Union government is insisting that Kerala adopt its branding and directives for this meagre contribution. This is nothing but a dictatorial approach, where even a fair share is denied unless states comply with ideological coercion. The Union government is misusing centrally sponsored schemes and project allocations to impose its ideological and linguistic policies. The tendency to centralise power to the extent of eliminating even the possibility of dialogue is now the defining characteristic of the Union government.
Violations in Fiscal Federal Principles
Violations of federal principles through centrally sponsored schemes have always been a matter of concern in independent India. The country is constitutionally a Union of States. The Constitution delineates powers for both the Centre and the states through a structured list system. Under Article 246, the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution enumerates subjects under three lists: the Union List (for Parliament), the State List (for state legislatures), and the Concurrent List (for both). The Constitution also prescribes executive powers accordingly through Articles 73 and 162. Under the scheme, resource-raising rights are predominantly with the Union government, whereas the expenditure responsibilities are of the states.
The Constitution provides for elaborate arrangements to address the asymmetry between resource mobilisation powers and expenditure responsibilities. A major route for fiscal devolution is Articles 270 and 275. It is noteworthy to look at what Article 270 suggests. It provides that tax is levied and collected by the Union government and shared among the union and states. The constitutional provision uses the term ‘shared’ and not ‘given’ or ‘distributed’.
Under Article 280, the Finance Commission (FC) is empowered to decide on the devolution of the tax proceeds of the Union government, which include all net proceeds of Union taxes and duties except cess and surcharge. Article 275 is also an FC route for devolution, and both are formula-based. However, what is happening today? Centrally sponsored schemes are getting a major route of transfer under Article 282 of the Constitution, which is being used as a vehicle for ideological coercion and a road map for double-engine governments.
The Fourteenth FC awarded 42 per cent of the divisible pool to states, a significant hike from the previous 32 per cent. Now, it is well known that Narendra Modi held backdoor deliberations to bring down the quantum of devolution, but the FC declined to yield.
The Modi government took a dubious route by enhancing the quantum of cess and surcharges in the gross revenue of the Union government, whereby a substantial amount has been taken out of the divisible basket. When the share of the states in the divisible pool was hiked, the Modi government squeezed the divisible pool itself by hiking cess and surcharges that are not shared with states. In 2010-11, cesses and surcharges accounted for 10 per cent of the Union라이브 바카라 revenue. By 2022-23, they had surged to 23-24 per cent. This strategy allows the Centre to collect taxes that are not shareable with states, depriving them of their rightful allocations.
The growing political centralisation is thus a direct threat to India라이브 바카라 federal framework. The demand to preserve India라이브 바카라 diversity within its governance structure is now more urgent than ever.
(Views expressed are personal)
Gopakumar Mukundan is an adjunct faculty at CSES, Kochi
This article is a part of 바카라's April 11, 2025 issue 'Viksit South', which explores the growing north-south divide in India. It appeared in print as 'A Drop In The Ocean’.
