Conflicts in the federal system

The Constitution recognises the states' identity but gives the Centre more power, so states naturally seek more powers and autonomy, causing tensions. Legal disputes go to the courts, but autonomy demands are political and must be settled by negotiation. As the book says, the Constitution is a skeleton; politics gives it flesh and blood.

Phases of Centre-State relations:

• 1950s to early 1960s: under Nehru, the foundations were laid in a period of Congress dominance at the Centre and in the states; relations were mostly smooth (except over new states), and states hoped to progress with central grants.
• Mid-1960s onwards: Congress dominance declined and opposition parties came to power in many states. With different parties at the Centre and in the states, states protested central interference, and demands for autonomy grew.
• Since the 1990s: an era of coalition politics, with national and regional parties in power, giving states a greater say, more respect for diversity, and a more mature federalism.

Kinds of autonomy demands:

• More powers: changing the division of powers in favour of states (raised at various times by Tamil Nadu, Punjab and West Bengal, among others).
• Financial autonomy: independent revenue sources and control over resources (for example, a 1977 West Bengal document on restructuring Centre-State relations).
• Administrative: resentment of central control over the administrative machinery.
• Cultural and linguistic: opposition to the domination of Hindi (Tamil Nadu), promotion of Punjabi language and culture; there were agitations against imposing Hindi in the 1960s.

Governors and President's rule. The Governor is appointed by the Centre and not elected, so their actions are often seen as central interference, especially when different parties rule at the Centre and in the state. The Sarkaria Commission (appointed 1983, reported 1988) recommended non-partisan appointments of Governors.

• Article 356 provides for President's rule when a state's government 'cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution'. The Union takes over; Parliament must ratify the proclamation; it can last up to three years. The Governor can recommend dismissal of the state government.
• It was used sparingly until 1967, but then often misused: governments were dismissed even with a majority (as in Kerala in 1959) or without testing their majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that the validity of President's rule can be examined by the courts.

Demands for new states. The national movement fostered unity around common language and culture, and it was agreed that states would, as far as possible, be linguistic. The States Reorganisation Commission (December 1953) recommended linguistic states; reorganisation began in 1956. Gujarat and Maharashtra were created in 1960; Punjab and Haryana separated in 1966; the north-east was reorganised (Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh). In 2000, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand were carved out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; in 2014, Telangana was formed from Andhra Pradesh. Some regions, such as Vidarbha, still seek statehood.

Inter-state conflicts are legal and political, best solved by negotiation:

• Border disputes: border areas often have mixed-language populations, as in the Maharashtra-Karnataka dispute over Belgaum, the Manipur-Nagaland dispute, and Punjab and Haryana over border areas and Chandigarh, which is the capital of both.
• River water disputes, even more serious because they affect drinking water and farming: the Cauvery (Kaveri) dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (which reached the Supreme Court despite a tribunal), and the Narmada dispute among Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.