Opinion Christophe Jaffrelot writes: BJP is chipping away at India’s federalism

First, the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) through the 101st Amendment to the Constitution had a centralising effect. The GST (which replaced sales taxes and other indirect taxes that were partly collected by the states) is monitored by a council where the states have only two-thirds voting rights while the Centre holds the remaining third. A decision of the GST Council requires a 75 per cent majority — this effectively gives veto power to the Centre.

Second, the BJP had promised to revive the Inter-State Council. But a meeting of this body — created for promoting cooperation between states — was convened only once during the Modi government’s first term.

Third, while PM Modi resented the centrally sponsored schemes initiated by his predecessor, he has been more favourably inclined towards those that he initiated — naturally so. The Swachh Bharat Mission, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Jan Dhan Yojana and Ujjwala Yojana are cases in point. As the names of most of these schemes suggest, these initiatives are closely associated with the PM’s personality and advertisements publicising these programmes carry his photograph.

Fourth, PM Modi did not consult the chief ministers when he took significant decisions, such as those on “demonetisation” and the “lockdown” during the first phase of the Covid pandemic. In March 2020, he announced a 21-day “lockdown” without consulting chief ministers. Within a few hours of the PM’s announcement, factories had to shut down, means of transportation were suspended and people who dared to step out were chased by the police.

Fifth, the Centre has exerted control over Opposition-ruled states by putting restrictions on their interactions with governments outside the country. In 2018, after Kerala was devastated by floods, the state government agreed to receive a Rs 700-crore financial assistance offered by the UAE. But the Centre said that India did not require any foreign aid. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was not given permission in time by the Ministry of External Affairs to visit Singapore to address the World Cities meet in 2022 — the Singapore government withdrew the permission.

Sixth, the politicisation of the office of governor — which according to the Constitution must establish a “living connection” between the states and the Centre — has increased in the past five years. Governors have always deferred to the party in power. But the current government has taken this politicisation to another level. For example, in a surprise move after the elections to the Goa assembly in 2017, the governor called on the BJP to form a government even though the Congress had more MLAs — albeit not a majority. The role of Delhi’s Lt Governor has been very controversial.

In Karnataka in 2019, then chief minister and JD(S) leader, H D Kumaraswamy, alleged that the BJP had tried to bribe some of his party MLAs into toppling the state government. In Madhya Pradesh, the BJP was able to engineer defections in the Congress and form a government despite an electoral defeat.

The Modi government has also been accused of abusing the use of President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh and in Uttarakhand, where it wrongly claimed that the government — led by the Congress Party — had lost its majority in the assembly. In both cases, the judiciary had to force the government to reverse its decision. In its decision on the Arunachal government, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the then-governor of the state.

These developments lead us to doubt the capacity of federalism in resisting the current regime’s centralising tendencies. States with a non-BJP government can balance the Centre’s power. The question, however, is: Can the Opposition parties come together or will they bargain with the BJP before and after the 2024 elections?

Jaffrelot is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, and professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London