GS Paper 2 15 marks · 250w 14 min Medium
“While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy.” Comment.
Subtopic: Constitution & Polity · federalism and the party system
How to structure your answer
Introduction: party system shapes the federal bargain → Centralising record of national parties: Article 356, planning era, CSS, cesses, uniform policies → Regional parties' autonomy canon: Rajamannar, Anandpur Sahib, WB Memorandum, current flashpoints → Qualifications: coalition behaviour blurs the binary; bargained federalism in GST Council → Conclusion: Sarkaria-Punchhi balance
Written within the word limit
233 words · target 250 words · 14 min
India's federal bargain has been negotiated as much by its party system as by its Constitution, with national and regional parties historically pulling in opposite directions.
Centralising tendency of national parties
- During the one-party dominance era, Article 356 was invoked over a hundred times, often against opposition-ruled states, until S.R. Bommai (1994) disciplined its use.
- Centralised planning and one-size-fits-all centrally sponsored schemes narrowed states' fiscal and policy autonomy.
- Rising cesses and surcharges — roughly a fifth of the Union's gross tax receipts — remain outside the divisible pool, diluting the 41 per cent devolution award.
- Recent pushes such as One Nation One Election and uniform frameworks like NEET reflect a continuing centralising instinct.
Regional parties as champions of State autonomy
- The DMK government's Rajamannar Committee (1969), the Akali Dal's Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the West Bengal Memorandum (1977) demanded a restructuring of Centre-State relations.
- Regional governments have led resistance to gubernatorial interference — culminating in Supreme Court rulings on Punjab (2023) and Tamil Nadu (2025) over withheld Bills — and pressed for GST compensation and larger Finance Commission shares.
The binary is not watertight
- Regional parties inside Union coalitions have backed centralising measures, while national parties discover states' rights when in opposition.
- Institutions like the GST Council display bargained rather than purely confrontational federalism.
The statement holds as a tendency, not a law. Implementing the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations and reviving the Inter-State Council would institutionalise the balance both kinds of parties claim to seek.
What an examiner expects to see
- The historical record supports the claim: over a hundred invocations of Article 356, centralised planning and proliferating centrally sponsored schemes under national-party dominance.
- Fiscal centralisation: cesses and surcharges (about one-fifth of gross tax receipts) sit outside the divisible pool, diluting the 41 per cent Finance Commission devolution.
- The regional autonomy canon: Rajamannar Committee (1969), Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973), West Bengal Memorandum (1977).
- Contemporary flashpoints: Governors withholding Bills, NEET, GST compensation demands, One Nation One Election.
- Counterpoint: regional parties in Union coalitions back centralising moves; national parties turn federalist in opposition — the divide is positional, not ideological.
- Way forward: Sarkaria and Punchhi implementation, a functioning Inter-State Council, consultative federal institutions.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — judicial check on Article 356 misuse
- Rajamannar Committee (1969), Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and West Bengal Memorandum (1977)
- State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor (2023) and the 2025 Tamil Nadu ruling on Bills withheld by Governors
- States' demand to extend GST compensation beyond June 2022
- Tamil Nadu's sustained opposition to NEET as a federalism issue
Terminology to weave into the answer
cooperative federalismState autonomydivisible poolArticle 356regionalisation of the politySarkaria Commission