UTs were too small to be declared as States or could not be merged with a neighbouring State due to prevailing cultural dissimilarities, inter-State indifferences, extensive isolation and other specific needs, as in the case of National Capital Territory (NCT). However, the reasons for their creation have been different. These are special federating units that have been created multiple times. Their establishment is in line with the spirit of federal asymmetry. In addition, creation of the Autonomous District Council as per the Sixth Schedule also acknowledges the socio-cultural, political and historical rights of the tribes of the Northeast, thereby facilitating the provisions of self-rule within the scheme of shared rule.įurthermore, the Indian asymmetrical setup has evolved to include another type of asymmetry, i.e. Specifically, the provisions under Article 371 requiring the State legislature’s permission before implementing any parliamentary law exemplify asymmetrical provisions protecting the religious and social practices, customary laws and procedures of Nagas and Mizos. The parliamentary statute cannot be implemented in the northeast States mentioned above without the consent of the legislatures of these States. We find constitutional asymmetry in Article 370 (now diluted) and in the special provisions and powers extended to Nagaland, Mizoram and others in the omnibus Article 371. That is why States such as Uttar Pradesh have 31 seats in the Rajya Sabha, whereas Meghalaya and Mizoram have just one each. So when we find representation of States in the Rajya Sabha based on their population, it is a political asymmetry. While in every federal nation the former is based on the territorial and demographic sizes of the constituent units, the latter characterises the Constitution’s extension of legislative and executive powers to the constituent units. In this regard, it is necessary to understand the distinction made by Ronald Watts between political and constitutional asymmetry, both of which exist in our country. So, the capacity to accommodate various social groups and their interests makes India a thriving federal democracy as it displays enormous asymmetric characteristics. This principle calls for equal treatment of all States while being mindful that some States are more equal and unequal than others. And if one looks clinically at the Indian model of asymmetrical federalism, one can gauge it based on the principle of weighted and differentiated equality. As a matter of fact, in the neoteric time, we see governments formulating federal policies to deal with State-specific issues and concerns. Thus this normative idea is neither new nor only locally relevant. Belgium, Germany, Canada and Spain are among other such examples. India is not the only country with asymmetrical arrangements in its federal setup. Such diversity and plurality call for an arrangement that can pave the way for accommodation and integration reflected in the existing system of asymmetrical federalism. It is a nation where four major religions of the world find abode its Muslim population is the third largest in the world and Indians speak languages belonging to five different families. As India completes 75 years of Independence this August, the time is apt for us to look at the constitutional, institutional, political and fiscal arrangements that take into account the plurality of our country.
0 kommentar(er)
