India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has always projected himself as an advocate of federalism. Like a person who believes in giving states more freedom.

But last week, Article 370 granting special status to Jammu and Kashmir was nullified and the state was divided into two union territories.

Curfew and all mediums of communication were banned in the state. Many people see this as a blow to the federal structure of India.

Now the new union territory, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will be directly governed from Delhi. The federal government gives union territories less autonomy than states. Sumantra Bose, Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics, considers them as "special municipalities of Delhi".

In the words of one commentator, the Modi government has tried to "spoil India's fragile federal balance" by ending the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and putting it in the category of Union Territories of the country.

Article 370 granting special state status was more symbolic in many ways because the decisions of the President in the last several years had greatly affected the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir.

In fact, after a lot of struggle and hard work, India went on the path of federalism.

Contrary to the federal system of government of USA and Canada having an economically strong and common culture, it was not easy for India to agree on power sharing despite religious-cultural diversity and poverty.

What will be the powers of the elected federal government and state legislatures is clearly mentioned in the Indian Constitution.

Yamini Iyer, chief executive officer of the Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, says, "The Constitution seeks to strike a balance between unitary governance, the state and the federal system."

However, some commentators have always been skeptical of the "authenticity of Indian federalism".

The appointments of governors in states are decided by the central government, which is usually politically motivated. Whenever the elected government of the states fails, their elected governors help the Center to direct governance in those states.

An adverse report of the governor against the state governments may form the basis of President's rule, after which states are ruled directly from Delhi. On the basis of this, the dismissal of the state government can also be done.

From 1951 to 1997, President's rule has been imposed on Indian states 88 times.

Many believe that the removal of Article 370 from Kashmir in India without consulting local people and politicians is a blot on India's federal system. This was done when Governor's rule was in force there.

Navneet Chadha Behera, author of 'Demystifying Kashmir' and former visiting scholar of the Brookings Institute, says, "The most important is that we are moving towards a unitary state and democratic principles are being revoked. This undermines federalism in India After this decision of the government, people are so busy celebrating happiness that they are unable to see the big picture of it.

"The more worrying thing is that it can happen to any other state. The federal government can dissolve the state government. It can divide the states and weaken its position. Also a matter of concern It is also that most of the people, media and regional parties are keeping silence on this and are not strongly opposing it. ''

Yamini Iyer believes that "federalism - which was considered by those who framed the Indian Constitution to be essential for the democracy of the country, today has very few people in its favor compared to 1947. It is dangerous for the democracy of India."

Those justifying the government's decision say that this is a "special case". At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party had been talking about the removal of Article 370 for many years and termed it as an example of "appeasement" in the only Muslim majority state of the country.

However, there is a history of compromise with the aspirations of separatism in India. Some states in the Northeast are examples of this.

The Supreme Court of India has already stated clearly that "as more and more powers have been given to the Central Government under the scheme of the Constitution, this does not mean that the States are only lagoon behind the Center".

The court also said that "states are supreme within their jurisdiction. The Center cannot tamper with their conferred powers."

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court of India deals with the legal challenges against the decision taken on Kashmir. This would be a test for independence of the apex court.

(Click here for Android APP of IBTN. You can follow us on facebook and Twitter)

Share This News

About sharing