Federal Structure or Unitary
The Indian constitution does not fit into any rigid definition of federal or unitary . To quote
Austin:7
The political structure of the Indian Constitution is so unusual that it is impossible to
describe it briefly. Characterisations such as ‘quasi-federal’ and ‘statutory
decentralisation’ are interesting, but not particularly illuminating. The members of the
Assembly themselves refused to adhere to any theory or dogma about federalism.
India had unique problems, they believed, problems that had not ‘confronted other
federations in history ’. These could not be solved by recourse to theory because
federalism was ‘not a definite concept’ and lacked a ‘stable meaning’. Therefore,
Assembly members, drawing on the experience of the great federations like the
United States, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia, pursued ‘the policy of pick and
choose to see (what) would suit (them) best, (what) would suit the genius of the nation
best . . . This process produced . . . a new kind of federalism to meet India’s peculiar
needs.’
The Assembly was perhaps the first constituent body to embrace from the start what A.M. Birch
and others have called ‘cooperative federalism’. It is characterized by increasing
interdependence of federal and regional governments without destroy ing the principle of
federalism.8 (Interestingly , the concept of cooperative federalism was reintroduced into the
political vocabulary by P. Chidambaram, when he was the Finance Minister in the United Front
government in 1996–98.)
The decision of the Constituent Assembly to have a federal constitution with a strong Centre
was occasioned also by the circumstances in which it was taken. A strong central government
was necessary for handling the situation arising out of the communal riots that preceded and
accompanied Partition, for meeting the food crisis, for settling the refugees, for maintaining
national unity and for promoting social and economic development, which had been thwarted
under colonial rule.
However, in the initial months of its existence, before Partition became an accepted fact, the
Constituent Assembly did not express itself in favour of a strong central government. The Union
Powers Committee of the Assembly , headed by Nehru, had in its first report provided for a very
weak central government. But once the decision on Partition was taken and announced on 3 June
1947, the Constituent Assembly considered itself free of the restraints imposed by the Cabinet
Mission Plan of 1946, and moved quickly in the direction of a federation with a strong Centre.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, while introducing the Draft Constitution, explained why the term ‘Union of
States’ was preferred over ‘Federation of States
The Indian constitution does not fit into any rigid definition of federal or unitary . To quote
Austin:7
The political structure of the Indian Constitution is so unusual that it is impossible to
describe it briefly. Characterisations such as ‘quasi-federal’ and ‘statutory
decentralisation’ are interesting, but not particularly illuminating. The members of the
Assembly themselves refused to adhere to any theory or dogma about federalism.
India had unique problems, they believed, problems that had not ‘confronted other
federations in history ’. These could not be solved by recourse to theory because
federalism was ‘not a definite concept’ and lacked a ‘stable meaning’. Therefore,
Assembly members, drawing on the experience of the great federations like the
United States, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia, pursued ‘the policy of pick and
choose to see (what) would suit (them) best, (what) would suit the genius of the nation
best . . . This process produced . . . a new kind of federalism to meet India’s peculiar
needs.’
The Assembly was perhaps the first constituent body to embrace from the start what A.M. Birch
and others have called ‘cooperative federalism’. It is characterized by increasing
interdependence of federal and regional governments without destroy ing the principle of
federalism.8 (Interestingly , the concept of cooperative federalism was reintroduced into the
political vocabulary by P. Chidambaram, when he was the Finance Minister in the United Front
government in 1996–98.)
The decision of the Constituent Assembly to have a federal constitution with a strong Centre
was occasioned also by the circumstances in which it was taken. A strong central government
was necessary for handling the situation arising out of the communal riots that preceded and
accompanied Partition, for meeting the food crisis, for settling the refugees, for maintaining
national unity and for promoting social and economic development, which had been thwarted
under colonial rule.
However, in the initial months of its existence, before Partition became an accepted fact, the
Constituent Assembly did not express itself in favour of a strong central government. The Union
Powers Committee of the Assembly , headed by Nehru, had in its first report provided for a very
weak central government. But once the decision on Partition was taken and announced on 3 June
1947, the Constituent Assembly considered itself free of the restraints imposed by the Cabinet
Mission Plan of 1946, and moved quickly in the direction of a federation with a strong Centre.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, while introducing the Draft Constitution, explained why the term ‘Union of
States’ was preferred over ‘Federation of States
No comments:
Post a Comment