Unity or Uniformity: Rethinking Federalism in the Age of Hegemony

The “Unity or Uniformity: Rethinking Federalism in the Age of Hegemony” looks at how the federal architecture of India was rebuilt by the hegemony of a single party, focusing on fiscal centralisation, political homogenisation, and uniformity of policies, which weaken the autonomy of states. It outlines judicial protection, regional opposition, and subnational reforms as opposing forces, arguing that federalism is in transition and not failure.

The principle of federalism is a constitutional principle that forms the division of authority between the Union and the States and helps to maintain both unity and heterogeneity in a polity. Federalism in India was first developed as a dynamic balance whereby the states were granted autonomy without interfering with national unity. Traditionally, this balance was consolidated by coalition governments and regional parties that forced the Union into negotiation and cooperative federalism. However, with the emergence of single-party leadership of late, this has been destabilizing the balance with keen queries on the strength of federalism within centralized political dominance. The centralisation of power on a national scale has come to fruition due to the fiscal centralisation, the introduction of homogeneous policy frameworks, and the subjugation of local power. The examples of the curtailment of state sovereignty are the Goods and Services Tax, the gubernatorial position, and centrally planned welfare plans. However, federalism is not only reasserting itself; states are aggressively pursuing their uniqueness through policy making and court adjudication.

The book or concept "Unity or Uniformity: Rethinking Federalism in the Age of Hegemony" argues that federal systems must move from imposing top-down uniformity to embracing genuine unity in diversity to counter centralizing hegemonic powers.

Federalism: Conceptual Framework

Federalism is a political structure that separates power between a central government and constituent units. It helps maintain national cohesion and safeguard diversity, hence balancing national integration and regional autonomy.

Defining Federalism
Federalism is generally interpreted to denote a form of governance whereby two levels of governance are constitutionally separated in sovereign powers. Contrary to unitary ones, federalism formalizes mutual sovereignty, allowing states or provinces to develop legislative, administrative, and financial capabilities within stipulated limits. This framework is not only a structural but a normative one because it is made up of the principles of pluralism, decentralization, and democratic participation.

Historical and Constitutional Underpinnings
In India, the Constitution of 1950 incorporated federalism, although it was highly unitary. The framers were struggling to balance diversity and national integrity, to allow states a certain amount of autonomy and maintain primacy in the state on national security, economic planning, and foreign affairs. An example of such constitutional architecture is the Seventh Schedule, which is the demarcation of Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. The federalism here is dynamic and not static, and is modified to political and socioeconomic changes.

Dimensions of Federalism
The three major dimensions on which federalism functions are:

• Union and States’ Sharing of legislative and executive powers. 
• The distribution of financial resources, taxation, and grants, which can, in most cases, constitute the substantive autonomy of the states. 
• Administrative mechanisms, including inter-state councils and cooperative organizations that are used to bring in the implementation of policies at different levels. 

Contemporary Relevance
The federalism conceptual framework remains an essential tool in pivoting the challenges of the diverse issues, which are multifaceted, thus the regional aspirations and the economic disparity. The current controversies in India related to the new tax regime, Goods and Services Tax (GST), the defined position of Governors, and the set of centrally sponsored programs can be used to demonstrate that federal principles are put to empirical test continuously. On this basis, federalism plays a dual role in ensuring that there is no centralization of power in the hands of an autocratic government, and in the same breath serves as a tool of cooperation in a pluralistic society.

Emergence of One-Party Hegemony

The rise of single-party dominance is a sharp change in the Indian political structure, which essentially changes the federal relations through the balance of power between central and state sovereignty.

Historical Background of Party Supremacy
The Indian National Congress was given unmatched dominance during the immediate post-independence period, being the center of control of governance. The 1960s and 1970s began to see the rise of regional parties, which broke the hegemony and gave a new twist to federalism. The 1990s coalition politics only strengthened the federal concepts and made the Union government negotiate with a wide range of regional actors. In such divided party systems, consensus and collaboration were inevitable, thus ensuring the further existence of federalism.

Monopoly of the Single Party
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has since 2014 reinstated a dominating-party paradigm that is reminiscent of the Congress era, but to an even greater extent, centralizing tendencies are implemented. The removal of the Planning Commission, the integration of the majority in parliament, and the general domination of national institutions has added to the ability of the Union to dictate policy. This superiority has also led to decreased bargaining power of states; especially those dominated by opposition parties, and thus converted the cooperative federal model to a more centralized model.

Consequences to Federalism
The dominance of a single party has been observed in fiscal centralization, which was typified by the GST mechanism, where state fiscal dominance has been mitigated. Political homogenization can be seen through the weakening process of regional parties and the increase of the role of Governors in the formation of state politics. The imperatives of the state, often expressed as national integration, have been superseded by policy uniformity regarding such policy areas as welfare schemes, language policies, and education. All these developments are indicative of a trend of federalism backsliding because of the burdened centralized power, and therefore, create an apprehension of democratic pluralism.

Oppositions and Resistance
Nevertheless, in spite of the current centralizing tendencies, states continue to claim independence via judicial activism, creative policy responses, and political backlash. Controversy on GST, objection to centrally sponsored schemes, and legal hassles were taken to the Supreme Court, highlighting the strength of federal values. Therefore, the emergence of single-party hegemony does not imply the complete loss of federalism, but it refers to the shift towards a situation of a conflict of interests where the centralization and autonomy can be found in the state of an ongoing confrontation.

Manifestations of Retreat

The retreat of federalism in the party of a single-party system is not just an abstract phenomenon; it becomes a real phenomenon through concrete institutional, financial, and political practices, which reshape the balance between the Union and the States.

Fiscal Centralization
Fiscal federalism is one of the most noticeable forms of retreat. State taxation has been curtailed with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which has incorporated the power of the states into a centralised system. States have grown overly reliant on Union compensation, reducing their bargaining ability. Conditional grants and centrally sponsored plans put additional strains on states with financial flows tied according to the priorities of the Union instead of the local needs. This centralisation of the fiscal authority dilutes the concept of common sovereignty and places the states under economic decision-making.

Political Homogenization
The dominance of one party undermined the position of regional parties, which have been considered as the guardians of federal pluralism. The parliamentary majority that the Union has allows it to create laws that apply in different areas at the stress of the context of the state. Traditionally a neutral connection and required by the Constitution, the office of the Governor has been turned into a means of political manipulation, which has resulted in numerous conflicts between the Union and the states governed by opposition. This uniformity kills the spirit of cooperation of federalism, and it is substituted by imposition.

Policy Consistency and Administrative Regulation
The other form is the introduction of homogeneous policy frameworks. State-specific innovations are relegated to national education policies, language propagation programs, and centrally planned welfare programs. The scope of local experimentation is suppressed by administrative mechanisms like centrally appointed bodies and commissions. States are coerced into delivering Union-initiated programs even if they are not in line with regional priorities. This homogeneity waters down the variety that federalism was meant to safeguard, thus constraining the room to self-rule.

Institutional and legal challenges
The withdrawal of federalism is also manifested in the courts and institutional conflicts. States are petitioning the Supreme Court more often, challenging Union rulings, whether it is the delay of the GST compensation or the prohibition of borrowing limits. Although the federal principles are sometimes upheld by judicial interventions, the rate of such conflicts amounts to an imbalance in the system. The institutions that were supposed to foster cooperative federalism, like the Inter-State Council, are not exploited, and this continues to weaken the federal dialogue.

Opposing Trends and Future View

Regardless of the strong reorganization of the federal structure in India within the framework of single-party rule, there are still in place the reverberating influences of the counter-currents on the governing system.

Judicial Safeguards
The court system has continued to act as a mediator protecting the federal ideals. Examples of instances where landmark adjudications have been delivered are S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, a retrial of the constitutional inviolability of state governments by arbitrarily dismissing it. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, stepped into the conflicts related to fiscal transfers, relationships between governors and states, and legislative competencies, thus strengthening checks on central power. This judicial monitoring will guarantee that federalism remains a living Principle, capable of resisting over-centralization.

State Independence and Policy Novelty
The fiscal restraint does not stop states from maintaining their autonomy by crafting creative policies that are adapted to the regional demands. The Kerala model of decentralized health and the welfare initiatives used in Tamil Nadu, and the Telangana programs of the agricultural support, are some of the relevant examples showing how the governments of states refine the governance framework to meet the regional needs. The effect of these initiatives on minimising the uniformization tendency, in addition to emphasising the power of federalism as a way of promoting heterogeneity and experimenting with policy, is significantly emphasized. They are therefore boosting the argument that federalism is not on the run but rather, it is on the rise.

Political Contestations and Regional Assertions
The parties within regions, however, have been weakened, but they still play a major role in opposing the dominance of the central government. The political pluralism and the continuity of regional identity are illustrated by the success of the electoral process in states like West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. When the stateschallenge the center policy, federalism is successful, and states have to negotiate and talk. The claim of linguistic, cultural, and economic identities still gives ballast to homogenization and has made federalism perennial but vigorous.

The Future of Federalism
Federalism in India depends on whether a balance should be found between the central and state powers. Enhancing institutions like the Inter-State Council and renewing the cooperative mechanisms would bring back the balance. Economic reforms to strengthen the revenue autonomy of states, together with judicial activism, can protect federal principles. Furthermore, collaborative federalism may be fostered by the emergence of issue-based politics, which might include climate change, health, and education, whereby the Union and the States share responsibility instead of playing power games with each other.

Conclusion

The history of Indian federalism, when dominated by a single party, indicates a complicated relationship between centralisation and autonomous federal roles. Fiscal tightening, political homogenisation, and uniformity of policies seem to announce the abandonment of the principle of cooperative federalism; although opposing forces, judicial protection, regional demands, and state-level policy ingenuity have proven it wrong. Indian federalism is never static but is continuously being transformed based on the changing political realities, institutional practices, and socio-economic demands. The main issue is to maintain diversity and democratic pluralism at the same time, while maintaining national cohesion. The future of federalism depends on the strengthening of the institutional tools like the Inter-State Council, enhancing the financial autonomy of the states, and establishing genuine cooperative communication between the Union and the States. Finally, federalism is vital, but it is vital because it is flexible.