Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Even before the Bihar saga unfolded, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s conspicuous absence from the seventh council meeting of the Niti Aayog last week chaired by PM Modi has sent a clear signal that all is not well between the two.
While Prime Minister Modi hailed co-operative federalism in the country during the Council meeting, states like Telangana and Bihar stayed away, accusing the Centre of bulldozing the federal structure of the country. The meeting also saw many state heads griping about GST compensations, implementation of NEP and the Centre’s interference in their affairs, among a host of other issues.
The contestation between the states and the Centre over federal rights is nothing new, as many opposition states feel that the last eight years of the BJP have seen increasing centralization of power, though the party swears by spirit of cooperative federalism.
Speaking to The New Indian Express, Prof Balveer Arora, Chairman, Centre for Multilevel Federalism (CMF), said there was a dialogue deficit between the Centre and the states, which is essential for cooperative federalism. “The Niti Aayog meeting showed that dialogue between the Centre and the states is not frequent and open enough. There is a tendency to project cooperative federalism as success when states are made to toe the Central policy line,” says Arora.
However, Amitabh Kant, former CEO of Niti Aayog, told The New Indian Express that the Aayog has always acted as a bridge between the Central and state governments, bringing both together to address implementation issues. “Niti Aayog promoted competitive federalism, where we ranked states through a variety of indices. These indices ranged from SDGs, export preparedness, innovation, health, school education, water, and energy. We also highlighted state best practices, enabling states to learn from one another,” he said.
Economist Pronab Sen says that after the scrapping of the Planning Commission, there is no clarity on how funds for various schemes are allocated to states.
STRAINS IN CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS
Some experts argue that cooperative federalism is slowly being replaced by coercive federalism by increasing the Centre’s dominance in policymaking over the states. Some of the instances are mentioned below:
FINANCE
In terms of fiscal federalism, finance has always been a debatable topic. The 14th Finance Commission stating the Rashtriya Suraksha Nidhi should not be from the Consolidated Fund of India but rather by the states under the subject of security and defense has shown the opposing idea of the Centre towards cooperative federalism. Similarly, the neutralisation of the namesake State tax revenues increased from 32% to 42%, by cutting the share of Centre in Centre-sponsored schemes.
DEMONETISATION
Even the decision of demonetisation was not taken with state governments consideration due to which the states suffered a severe setback.
TAXES
And to top it all was the introduction of the 101st Amendment, wherein on one hand the power of states to levy indirect taxes (like octroi, entry tax, luxury, and entertainment taxes, etc) was taken away and on the other, the Centre was given the dominant position in the GST council decision-making process.
STATE EMERGENCY
Under coercive political federalism, one of the recent instances we find was in the Maharashtra state election. A state emergency was imposed an hour before the deadline following its revocation an hour before a minority government was formed by the Governor despite having an adequate alliance.
TRADING OF MLAs
An unfortunate occurrence lies in the trading of MLAs in the states of MP, Karnataka, and now in Rajasthan. Further, the concept of ‘One Nation One Election’ which has the tendency of overshadowing the issues of the states also seems as a centralising idea in case the same political party comes into power in both the Centre and a majority of the States.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEDERALISM
Finally, we see the deep-rooted coercive federalism spread even in the administrative federalism wherein the complaints filed by the citizens in Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan application get registered directly under the cell which is in control of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban affairs.
ARTICLE 370 REVOCATION
In matters of special status to Jammu & Kashmir which was taken away while under the President’s rule and Article 370 being rendered ineffective also shows us the deviation from cooperative federalism.
NITI AAYOG
Among other instances, we find Niti Aayog as mentioned earlier, which has replaced the Planning Commission and majorly caters to the Centre’s whims and fancies.
GOVERNOR”S APPOINTMENT
Even so far the office of Governor is concerned, states get no role in the appointment and transfer of governors.
NEW DELHI: Even before the Bihar saga unfolded, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s conspicuous absence from the seventh council meeting of the Niti Aayog last week chaired by PM Modi has sent a clear signal that all is not well between the two.
While Prime Minister Modi hailed co-operative federalism in the country during the Council meeting, states like Telangana and Bihar stayed away, accusing the Centre of bulldozing the federal structure of the country. The meeting also saw many state heads griping about GST compensations, implementation of NEP and the Centre’s interference in their affairs, among a host of other issues.
The contestation between the states and the Centre over federal rights is nothing new, as many opposition states feel that the last eight years of the BJP have seen increasing centralization of power, though the party swears by spirit of cooperative federalism.
Speaking to The New Indian Express, Prof Balveer Arora, Chairman, Centre for Multilevel Federalism (CMF), said there was a dialogue deficit between the Centre and the states, which is essential for cooperative federalism. “The Niti Aayog meeting showed that dialogue between the Centre and the states is not frequent and open enough. There is a tendency to project cooperative federalism as success when states are made to toe the Central policy line,” says Arora.
However, Amitabh Kant, former CEO of Niti Aayog, told The New Indian Express that the Aayog has always acted as a bridge between the Central and state governments, bringing both together to address implementation issues. “Niti Aayog promoted competitive federalism, where we ranked states through a variety of indices. These indices ranged from SDGs, export preparedness, innovation, health, school education, water, and energy. We also highlighted state best practices, enabling states to learn from one another,” he said.
Economist Pronab Sen says that after the scrapping of the Planning Commission, there is no clarity on how funds for various schemes are allocated to states.
STRAINS IN CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS
Some experts argue that cooperative federalism is slowly being replaced by coercive federalism by increasing the Centre’s dominance in policymaking over the states. Some of the instances are mentioned below:
FINANCE
In terms of fiscal federalism, finance has always been a debatable topic. The 14th Finance Commission stating the Rashtriya Suraksha Nidhi should not be from the Consolidated Fund of India but rather by the states under the subject of security and defense has shown the opposing idea of the Centre towards cooperative federalism. Similarly, the neutralisation of the namesake State tax revenues increased from 32% to 42%, by cutting the share of Centre in Centre-sponsored schemes.
DEMONETISATION
Even the decision of demonetisation was not taken with state governments consideration due to which the states suffered a severe setback.
TAXES
And to top it all was the introduction of the 101st Amendment, wherein on one hand the power of states to levy indirect taxes (like octroi, entry tax, luxury, and entertainment taxes, etc) was taken away and on the other, the Centre was given the dominant position in the GST council decision-making process.
STATE EMERGENCY
Under coercive political federalism, one of the recent instances we find was in the Maharashtra state election. A state emergency was imposed an hour before the deadline following its revocation an hour before a minority government was formed by the Governor despite having an adequate alliance.
TRADING OF MLAs
An unfortunate occurrence lies in the trading of MLAs in the states of MP, Karnataka, and now in Rajasthan. Further, the concept of ‘One Nation One Election’ which has the tendency of overshadowing the issues of the states also seems as a centralising idea in case the same political party comes into power in both the Centre and a majority of the States.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEDERALISM
Finally, we see the deep-rooted coercive federalism spread even in the administrative federalism wherein the complaints filed by the citizens in Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan application get registered directly under the cell which is in control of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban affairs.
ARTICLE 370 REVOCATION
In matters of special status to Jammu & Kashmir which was taken away while under the President’s rule and Article 370 being rendered ineffective also shows us the deviation from cooperative federalism.
NITI AAYOG
Among other instances, we find Niti Aayog as mentioned earlier, which has replaced the Planning Commission and majorly caters to the Centre’s whims and fancies.
GOVERNOR”S APPOINTMENT
Even so far the office of Governor is concerned, states get no role in the appointment and transfer of governors.
