Federal wrestling

Debate on the relevance of federalism and the possibilities of evolving a viable federal model is currently ongoing in several countries around the region, perhaps most notably in Nepal. Prior to making any final decision during these processes, it will be important for lawmakers in these countries to evaluate the Indian model, to take into account both its successes and ongoing failures. Past experience shows decisively that there is no generic model of federalism, and that each country will need to evolve its own system, one that is relevant to individual domestic conditions. In India, too, this debate is far from finished.

A major element of India's experience with federalism has been that the functioning of federal units with adequate powers at the state level is essential to address the people's socio-economic aspirations. The commonly made argument that lower governmental units are inefficient and corrupt is untenable, since such problems exist at all levels of governance. Likewise, the anxiety that states might opt for secessionism if given autonomous powers has been proven false. For example, during the early 1940s, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), now a ruling party in Tamil Nadu, was actively pushing for secession, citing Brahminical domination in the Indian state administration. When India adopted a federal Constitution, however, the DMK felt that it needed to advocate for the linguistic wishes of Tamils within the framework of Indian national unity. The party subsequently gave up the call for secession, entered mainstream politics and, on many occasions, has been elected to power. The fundamental issue is thus not the viability of federalism, but rather the distribution and sharing of responsibilities and power between the Centre and the states. On the other hand, imbalanced power-sharing between these two entities creates a chronic state of conflict in the long term.