GS Paper 2Federalism and Centre-State relations
How far do you think Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation have shaped the nature of federation of India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer
Based on 79 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Article 263 Inter-State Council and Zonal Councils as the constitutional cooperation mechanisms, with a recent example of their use
- Article 370 abrogation as an instance of asymmetric federalism reshaping the Centre-State balance
- The 15th Finance Commission reduced the population weight to 15% from 17.5% and added demographic performance, which triggered southern states' objections
- Supreme Court as umpire, including S.R. Bommai (1994) on Article 356 and recent judgments on Governor assent and river disputes
- COVID-19 vaccine policy as both cooperation and confrontation, including the 2021 Supreme Court critique of the pricing policy and the revised free vaccination policy
- Explicit analysis of how the three forces interact, rather than listing them separately
Common mistakes
- Treating GST or Finance Commission devolution as confrontation, when they are cooperative mechanisms
- Giving confrontation examples without years or constitutional hooks, such as Article 356 or Article 163
- Claiming federalism evolved sequentially from confrontation to competition to cooperation, when all three coexist today
- Mixing horizontal competition among states with vertical Centre-State tensions
- Ending without a direct 'how far' verdict on which force dominates
What the better answers did
- Clear sub-headings for Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation with one or two named examples each
- Citing specific articles, years and institutions such as Article 279A, Article 263 and the Cauvery Water Management Authority
- Separating horizontal competition (state rivalry) from vertical tensions (Centre-State disputes)
- A conclusion that gives a balanced verdict on the dominant force and links it to unity in diversity
Introduction
Open by describing India as a quasi-federal polity and state that the three forces coexist today rather than following a sequence.
Conclusion
Give a clear verdict that cooperation dominates institutionally while confrontation is episodic, then link this to the unity-in-diversity balance.
Model answer
India is a quasi-federal polity with a strong Union. Cooperation, competition and confrontation coexist in its federal practice. Cooperation has shaped the system most durably, competition has pushed state governance, and confrontation has tested the constitutional balance episodically.
Cooperation
- The GST Council under Article 279A (2016) is the clearest consensus mechanism. Decisions need three-fourths of weighted votes, and the Centre holds one-third of the weight.
- Article 263 provides for the Inter-State Council, and Zonal Councils under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 handle inter-state disputes.
- NITI Aayog (2015) replaced the Planning Commission, moving planning from command to consultation. The SDG India Index ranks states on outcomes.
- The 15th Finance Commission sets devolution, which finances states and is the core of fiscal federalism.
Competition
- Horizontal competition among states is visible in investment rivalry, such as Gujarat and Maharashtra for manufacturing and Karnataka for IT.
- The Ease of Doing Business rankings (till 2020) and the Business Reform Action Plan pushed states to reform land, labour and approval processes.
Confrontation
- Article 370 was abrogated in August 2019, converting Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory. The Supreme Court upheld the decision in December 2023. This ended asymmetric federalism in the state.
- The three farm laws of 2020 triggered protests by Punjab and Haryana, and their repeal in November 2021 showed the limits of Union legislation.
- Governors delaying assent to state bills in Tamil Nadu and Kerala (2023) led to Supreme Court intervention.
- The Cauvery dispute required Supreme Court orders and the Cauvery Water Management Authority (2018) under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
On balance, cooperation dominates institutionally, competition improves governance at the margins, and confrontation remains episodic but significant. The Supreme Court acts as umpire, as in S.R. Bommai (1994) on Article 356. The federation thus balances unity with diversity.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerMore GS Paper 2 questions
- Public charitable trusts have the potential to make India's development more inclusive as they relate to certain vital public issues. Comment.
- Poverty and malnutrition create a vicious cycle, adversely affecting human capital formation. What steps can be taken to break the cycle?
- In dealing with socio-economic issues of development, what kind of collaboration between government, NGOs and private sector would be most productive?
- 'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
- Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to the one-nation-one-election principles?
- Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.
