GST rationalization has sparked Centre-State tensions due to states' concerns about declining revenue.
Opposition-ruled states are in conflict with the Centre over centrally sponsored schemes and disaster relief funds.
Abolition of the Planning Commission and changes in resource allocation post-2014 have shifted Centre-State dynamics.
Rising cesses and surcharges, which are not devolved to states, are affecting state economies.
Delimitation may lead to larger, more populated states having more political power.
Detailed Insights:
The federal coalition of the 1990s, characterized by regional party influence, contrasts with the current single-party dominance and its implications for federalism.
The GST Council has not strengthened the federal spirit, with the Centre seemingly taking unilateral decisions.
Southern states question whether they are being penalized by the Finance Commission's allocation formula, which favors northern states due to the inverse-income formula.
The Centre's increasing use of cesses and surcharges, which are not shared with states, reflects a lack of good faith.
Centrally sponsored schemes are being used by the Centre to encroach on states' responsibilities, leading to political impasse.
Electoral bonds have reshaped electoral financing, potentially weakening regional capital and local entrepreneurship.
The 'one nation, one election' proposal is viewed as a tool that uses the logic of efficiency but may not solve the structural challenges of Indian democracy.
Key Concepts Involved:
Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
GST Council: A constitutional body responsible for making recommendations on issues related to the Goods and Services Tax in India.
Finance Commission: A constitutional body that determines the method and formula for distributing tax revenues between the Centre and states.
Centrally Sponsored Schemes: Programs implemented by state governments but largely funded by the central government.