Dismantling Federalism for a Unitary State
Prakash Karat
THE RSS-BJP has never accepted the federal principle that India is a “union of states.” For them, it is the RSS concept of Akhand Bharat that matters. Their conception of such a Bharat is a centralised unitary State where states are mere administrative units based on convenience.
Seventy-seven years after independence, the federal principle enshrined in the Constitution, the separate spheres of jurisdiction listed between the centre and the states, and the constitutional basis for the rights of elected state governments and state legislatures, are all in danger of being dismantled.
TRIPLE ATTACK
The Modi government which represents the Hindutva-corporate alliance has targeted the three pillars of the Constitution viz. democracy, secularism and federalism. The assault on all three fundamental principles of the Constitution is inter-related. The attack on the federal principle is also an attack on democracy as any suppression of the rights of elected state governments and legislatures is also an attack on democracy; similarly, any undermining of secularism is also an attack on democracy, as minorities have equal rights in a democracy.
As far as the federal features of the Constitution are concerned, given the nature of the ruling classes who assumed power after independence, there was constant pressure to centralise powers at the hands of the centre. This is because the big bourgeoisie, who is the leader of the ruling class alliance, is interested in a unified all-India market with no barriers whatsoever for the free movement of capital and goods. It may be recalled that the associations representing big business had opposed the formation of linguistic states, just as the RSS too did.
In the 1970s and 80s, successive Congress governments took steps to concentrate more powers in the hands of the centre; this was seen particularly during Indira Gandhi’s rule. However, what is being witnessed today is qualitatively different. There is a deliberate and systematic assault on states’ rights and steps to dismantle the federal features inherent in the Constitution. These are manifested in the political, fiscal and cultural aspects of federalism.
SUBVERTING FEDERAL POLITICAL SET-UP
The use of governors to subvert the powers of elected state governments and the rights of state legislatures has been a new dimension in the authoritarian drive of the BJP-RSS combine. In the past, there used to be the misuse of the governor’s post mainly by previous Congress governments, when the governor became the instrument to invoke Article 356 to dismiss a state government and impose President’s rule. However, the 1995 Bommai judgment of the Supreme Court put a check on this misuse of the governor’s role.
Under the Modi government, governors are expected to be politically active and partisan, particularly in the non-BJP ruled states. A pattern has developed of governors making public statements critical of the state government, summoning officials by-passing the state government, withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature and appointing vice-chancellors of state-run universities by misusing the post of chancellor. Governors of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab and Karnataka, where there are non-BJP governments, are constantly transgressing the constitutional role assigned to the post of governor. Such aberrant behaviour can only be due to central diktats and have become the most insidious mode of encroachment on the political sphere of the states.
The opposition ruled states have been fighting back against the governor’s unconstituonal actions. For instance, on the issue of the governor not giving assent to bills passed by the state legislature, both Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments filed petitions in the Supreme Court. Earlier, in a case filed by the Punjab government, the court had in November 2023, decreed that the governor cannot question the validity of an assembly session convened by the Speaker nor withhold assent to four bills passed by the assembly. In the petition against the Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi’s role in withholding assent indefinitely to 12 bills passed by the state assembly, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment in April 2025. The court defined the role of the governor in the matter under Article 200 of the Constitution. The two-member bench clarified that the governor has no discretionary power to veto any bill and set time limits for the governor to give assent or to return the bill for reconsideration by the assembly. It also set a time limit for the president to act on bills referred to her. Moreover, the court decided the action of the governor withholding assent to the bills was null and void and the bills were deemed to have been approved into law.
This judgment was a sharp rebuke of the conduct of the Modi government in misusing governors for their narrow partisan ends. Unable to accept this verdict, it has taken the extraordinary step of getting a Presidential reference sent to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion whether the judiciary can set down rules on how high Constitutional authorities should function. This episode highlights how dogged the Modi government is in its pursuit of one-party authoritarian rule.
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) system whereby there will be simultaneous elections of the Lok Sabha, state legislatures and local bodies will result in seriously curtailing the rights of the states and the constitutional guarantee of a five-year term for the state legislatures. The Modi government has introduced a Constitutional amendment bill in Parliament to bring this into effect. The implications of this change in the electoral system will be far-reaching. Truncation of the five-year term of certain state assemblies, introduction of governor’s rule and increased central intervention will be an outcome. This will be a grievous blow to the federal political set up.
FISCAL STRANGULATION
The other vital sphere is the economic and fiscal one. The state governments run by the opposition are being economically and fiscally discriminated. In some cases, such as Kerala, they are sought to be financially strangulated. The centre, through measures such as reducing the divisible pool of taxes, denial of resources to the states and non-continuation of GST compensation has created a fiscal crisis for some of the opposition-ruled states. The states’ share of the divisible pool has reduced in central budgets over the years. While it stood at 41.1 per cent in 2016, it came down to 35.1 per cent in 2023.
The increasing reliance on non-divisible cesses and surcharges by the centre has reduced the overall divisible pool of tax revenue shared with the states. On top of this, faced with shrinking resources, the states are faced with increasing restrictions on borrowings. The centre uses such restrictions on borrowings to cripple the states’ finances and hamper their developmental activities. The ruling party, the BJP, then utilises the economic difficulties faced by the state to discredit the state government in the eyes of the people. The discriminatory practices and denial of funds to the states are intended to convert the states to be supplicants of the centre and nullify the essence of the federal principle.
IMPOSING HINDUTVA
The third sphere in which the centralising drive affects the federal set up is in culture which includes education, language, and cultural traditions. The BJP-RSS slogan of ‘One Nation, One Language, One Culture’ is sought to be imposed uniformly all across the country trampling upon the diversity and plurality of culture which is protected by a federal set up. The drive to inculcate Hindutva values in the educational system is sought to be advanced by utilising governors in the opposition ruled states to by-pass the state governments in appointing vice-chancellors in state run universities. The choice of such vice-chancellors in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal has been at the behest of the centre.
The Draft UGC Guidelines, which have been issued, further strengthens the role of the chancellor/governor in appointing vice-chancellors. Though education is a concurrent subject, through various central run educational bodies and central schemes, state governments are being compelled to introduce schemes in school education with the threat of withdrawal of funds if they do not comply. In the sphere of language policy, various measures to promote Hindi and impose it on non-Hindi states are ongoing. Through the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) blatant efforts are made to promote cinema which extol Hindutva themes while curtailing or obstructing films which have democratic cultural values. Here too, for the BJP-RSS rulers, it is important to centralise and homogenise all cultural activities and productions.
Hindutva authoritarianism requires the centralisation drive which is inimical to states’ rights and federalism. It is therefore important to make the defence of federalism and states’ rights a part of the anti-authoritarian and anti-Hindutva struggle. This struggle has to be conducted jointly by all non-BJP state governments and a broader unity forged of all the Left, democratic and secular forces.
