Several developments have tasks located during the last two weeks with respect to central-state relationships. One, Tamil Nadu headquarters to the Government of the Union in the Supreme Court to retain RS 2000 million rupees under the Samagra Shiksha scheme. He affirmed that the center was surreptitiously linking the implementation of the formula of three languages with the disbursement of educational funds. Two, Niti Aayog presided over its tenth meeting of the Governing Council, but three opposition cms decided to fail. In the absence of the Commission for Planning and Complete Negligence of the Interstatal Council, this is the only platform where all the ministers of CMS, PM and Union meet.
Three, even the interstate language wars are intensifying when another kerfuffle in Bengaluru about a bank manager who refuses to speak Kannada revealed. This time, several political leaders got involved. In social networks, all the national integration related to war was quickly replaced by the generic northern-south flames.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in the Tamil Nadu case underscores the pressing need to alleviate friction between the Centre and state governments, particularly concerning the role of Governors in the legislative process.
Background of the Case
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several bills, many of which pertained to state university governance. Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 of these bills without providing timely responses, leading to significant administrative delays. In response, the Tamil Nadu government filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the Governor’s inaction as unconstitutional and arbitrary .
Check, friend? TN CM MK Stalin with modes. The decision of the State to sue the union will have broader implications.
While the prime minister emphasized the idea of India’s team to realize the objective of Viksit Bharat 2047, these instances stand out once again that cooperative federalism is simply a good idea that sounds so far. What we need are structures in which real cooperation can occur. Here are four of those ideas that could be consultations.
1 | A ‘referee’ to negotiate
This idea comes from the economist Dr. M Govinda Rao. He writes in his book, studies in public finance of India, which India lacks an institution that can act as a credible referee between several states (horizontal negotiation) and between the states and the center of the other (vertical negotiation).
The National Development Council, created for this purpose, is missing. The interstate council has not done so for the past eight years. Rajya Sabha no longer works, since the Council of States and the Union Finance Commissions dissolve after making their recommendations. The Niti Aayog has not yet been established as an institution that speaks for the United States and the union equally. The GST Council is perhaps the only negotiation and negotiation platform for soaking in our federal structure, but its mandate is limited to sharing consumption taxes.
The result is that we do not have a functional institution to truly defend cooperative federalism. A model to consider is the idea of Vijay Kelkar or an Aayog 2.0 Niti, one that has fiscal powers to assign conditional funds to the states for long -term transformation objectives. But there is a risk that such powers can transform Niti Aayog 2.0 into a 2.0 Planning Commission, restoring the fiscal autonomy of the states. Therefore, we need a debate to build a new institution for cooperative federalism.
2 | More funds with less strings
All the debates of federalism focus almost exclusively on a single issue: horizontal return, that is, the formula used to share resources between states. It is also inaccurately framed as a debate of ‘North vs South’: how the southern taxes are pursed in the north. But the problem really lies in the vertical return, that is, how fiscal resources are divided between the government of the Union and all states in general. If the union government maintains less money in itself, all states can earn together.
That is why the TN request has broader implications beyond who wins this case. It is an opportunity to increase vertical return to states. While there are centrally sponsored schemes, designed by Union Miniesties and only implemented by the states, the center has rights to change the design of the scheme. States must demand that the great schemes that fall under state lists and competitors are discarded and receive unleashed funds. In this way, they decide their priorities, while the union can focus on a few sponsored selected schemes, mainly focused on states that need help. This point was raised by the TN CM at the Niti Aayog meeting too.
3 | Delegations from all over the States
As the recurring language wars illustrate, the levels of trust between the states are immersing themselves. Lok Sabha Seat Refionment Voting for delimitation; unjust fiscal redistribution positions; And the debates of privileged information caused by local reserves will only worsen the situation. Like the delegations of all the parties of India aimed at world dissemination after Pahalgam’s attack, we need a domestic mechanism where states send delegations to other states that explain their visions for development and growth. Such efforts may close the gap.
4 | Union-stated subgroups
Another interesting idea comes from Andhra CM Chandababu Naidu, who proposes three subgroups in Niti Aayog on GDP growth, population management and artificial intelligence Lever. While these issues are not put in stone, this approach could allow states to associate with each other and with the center.
Creating an Indian team is not easy, but it could happen with the right systems in place.
Discharge of responsibility
The opinions expressed above are the author’s own.
End of the article