India's Asymmetry Federalism

Indian Constitution provide a great distinction for sharing of power between centre and states. Even though the word "Federal" is not found any where in the nations holy  book . But it continues to be existed in nature of polity. Before 1970 the indian politics is largely dominate by one party. These parties are charged by leadership whose vision  is strong centre. The centre leadership is filled by proven track record of state leaders or by loyal personalities.  When ever there is vaccum among the equation between state ad centre this created a tussle between governments. This rift continue to appear even after 1991 economic liberalization.

Federalism was put to test during time of crisis. The court judgements and civil interests pushed the scope of federalism with more inclusive principles then the central authoritarian trends. In rare cases centre is in position of deciding the course and opt for its interest. This interest can be inclusive or can be exclusive.  

If the history of Indian federalism is taken into account, then it is mostly seen as asymmetric. When the governments in both centre and state has same party then the bills and policies worked smoothly with leadership. When there are different parties in government, then centre and state relation is likely to be volatile. During coalition politics the centre and states based on understanding functioned their governments with less roadblocks. 

Looking the diversity of nation the Constitution thinkers and political theorists called Indian Constitution as "Bargaining federalism" or " Competitive federalism". Ideally the leaders with a good vision always aspires for "Co-operative federalism". Federalism is dervied from the latin word " foedus", which means agreement. It is an agreement between two type of governments sharing power and controlling their respective influences.

When compared to USA where the states came together to form the nations, In India it not the case. Indian union is called as "Indistructable Union of Distructable States". The special laws provided for states is temporary and can be changed unilaterally by union. This was recently seen in case of J ammu and Kashmir through abrogation of  article 370 and creation of two UTs. India is a federal system but more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It sometimes considered as quasi federal system as it has both a federal and unitary system. Article 1 of the Indian constitution provide, " India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states ". Elementsof the union were introduced into union by the Government of India Act 1919.

Features of Federal Setup are:

• Written constitution
• Rigidity of constitution
• Supremacy of constitution
• Division of powers
• Judiciary need to be independent
• Bicameral legislature
• Dual citizenship
• and Right to secede

In India context last two features are not present and theose of very much present in USA. They infact state constitution along with union. 

  India's Asymmetric federalism

1. Pudicherry and Delhi have legislature, while other UT's do not have legislatures.
2. Pudicheery has legislature power on any matter mentioned in the state list or the concurrent list. Delhi, which has the same field, has three functions exception: police, land and public order are outside its purview. How ever the parliament has overriding power over any law made by the Assembly in the UTs.
3.  Under Article 370 for J&K, the state was allowed to have its own constitution, its own definition of "permanent residents", the right to bar outsiders from holding property. President is empowered to notify, from time to time, the provisions of constitution that could be extended to state with or without modifications.
4. Under Article 371, the governor of maharashtra has a special responsibility to establish separate development boards for vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of the state. The Gujarat governor has similar responsibility to Saurashtra, Kutch and rest of Gujarat.
5.  Article 371 A provide special status to Nagaland. No law made by Parliament in relation to Nagaland customary, including civil and criminal justice matters and ownership of transfer of land will apply to Nagaland unless the legislative Assembly of Nagaland decide so.
6.  Article 371 B give special provisions to for Assam under which committee of legislature formed from the tribal areas. These tribal areas later formed as Meghalaya state.
7. Article 371 C  provide Committee of legislature to  The Hill Areas of Manipur.  The Governor has responsibility to make an annual report to President on the administration of the Hill area. 
8. Article 371 D provide that the President can pass an order to provide equitable opportunity and facilitate to people belonging to Andhra pradesh  in public employment and education.
9. Article 371 F under this special provisions were provided to Sikkim. One major objective was was to grant protection to existing laws of sikkim. So, that they are not declared unconstitutional after being brought under the constitution of India.
10. Article 371 G provide special provisions to preserve the religious and social pracrtices of Mizos in Mizoram. 
11. Article 371 H provide special responsibility to the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh with respective law and orders.

With some areas their are decentralized power sharings:

 

• In Assam , the Karbi- Anglong Autonomous council, Dima hasao Autonomous District Council and the Bodoland Territorial Council have been set up under the Sixth Schedule.  
• In West Bengal there is Darjiing Gorkha Hill council.
• In Ladakh two Hill development councils (Leh and Kargil).
• The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution contains provisions for the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

References:

http://blog.pabulumias.com/ias-general-studies-2/polity-and-governance-upsc/indias-asymmetric-federalism/

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-forms-of-federalism-in-india/article28977671.ece

https://www.gktoday.in/gk/asymmetries-in-indian-federalism/