The Indian federation is unique—“quasi-federal with a strong unitary bias” (K.C. Wheare). While the Constitution provides for a strong Union to preserve unity, regional diversities have produced strong demands for State autonomy, especially from regional parties.

National Parties and Centralisation

1. Constitutional Bias Towards the Centre:

   • Article 246 (Union List primacy), Article 249 (Parliament can legislate on State List in national interest), and Article356 (President’s Rule) favour national parties.

   • Example: Between 1951–2016, Article 356 was invoked 125 times.

2. One Nation, One Policy Approach

   • National parties support centralisation for uniform economic and social reforms.

   • Example: GST (2017) reforms — centralised indirect taxation (42% of tax pool to states under 15th Finance Commission).

3. Security and Sovereignty Concerns

   • National parties argue that internal security and foreign policy need strong central control.

   • Example: Abrogation of Article 370 (2019) and bifurcation of J&K.

4. Use of Governors and Central Institutions

   • Governors, appointed by the Centre, have often acted as agents of national parties.

   • Example: Dismissal of NTR’s government in Andhra Pradesh (1984).

   • Sarkaria Commission recommended Governors act as impartial links, not central agents.

5. Economic Control

   • Through centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) national parties control state finances.

   • Example: In 2021–22, CSS accounted for nearly 50% of total Union transfers to states, reducing fiscal autonomy.

6. Coalition Management with Centralisation

   • Even in coalition eras, dominant national parties preferred central dominance.

   • Example: Congress during UPA-I (2004–09) controlled flagship schemes like MGNREGA, despite Left/DMK pressure.

7. Judicial Support to Union Supremacy

   • SC has repeatedly upheld Union supremacy in emergencies.

   • Example: Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972) upheld Centre’s taxation power beyond Union List.

Regional Parties and State Autonomy

1. Safeguarding Linguistic & Cultural Identities

   • Regional parties emphasise sub-nationalism.

   • Example: DMK’s anti-Hindi agitations (1960s) safeguarded Tamil identity; later TMC resisted Hindi signage rules.

2. Demand for Fiscal Federalism

   • States seek more autonomy in spending.

   • Example: Southern states (Kerala, TN, Karnataka) opposed 15th Finance Commission’s use of 2011 Census, arguing it punishes states with successful population control.

3. Opposition to Central Schemes

   • Regional parties demand state-specific tailoring.
   • Example: Mamata Banerjee’s TMC opposed implementation of farm laws (2020) and CAA without state consent.

4. Political Bargaining in Coalitions

   • Regional parties have shaped Centre’s policy when coalition politics was dominant.

   • Example: DMK in UPA shaped telecom and Sri Lankan Tamil policy; JD(U) under NDA influenced Bihar packages.

5. Resistance to Article 356 and Governor’s Role

   • Regional parties oppose misuse of Article 356 (President's rule).

   • Example: SR Bommai (1994) case was a victory for regional autonomy, restricting Centre’s power to dismiss state governments.

6. Regional Aspirations and Federalism

   • Regional parties often demand special category status, more autonomy in resource management.

   • Example: BJD (Odisha) demanding royalty share from mineral resources.

7. Push for Strengthened Institutional Mechanisms

   • Regional parties advocate revitalisation of Inter-State Council (Art. 263) and greater role of Finance Commission.

   • Example: Punchhi Commission (2010) also recommended making Inter-State Council a permanent body.

Committees and Judicial Interventions

• Sarkaria Commission (1988): Favoured cooperative federalism, but upheld Centre’s primacy in unity/security.

• Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommended clear guidelines for Governor’s role, stricter limits on Article 356, and more fiscal devolution.

• S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Restricted arbitrary dismissal of state governments, reinforcing state autonomy.

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Held dissolution of Bihar Assembly unconstitutional, bolstering state autonomy.

The tension between centralisation (national parties) and autonomy (regional parties) reflects India’s dynamic and adaptive federalism. While centralisation ensures unity and national security, autonomy safeguards diversity and local aspirations. The way forward lies in strengthening cooperative and competitive federalism.