“While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy.” Comment.
Approach · directive: “comment”
What it asks · Test the statement against the record of national and regional parties on Centre–State relations, and note the exceptions.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Comment: the evidence that national parties favour centralisation
- Comment: the evidence that regional parties favour State autonomy
- Comment: the exceptions and the deeper pattern — positions follow power — with a verdict on the statement
Open with · The statement captures a real pattern, but party positions have shifted with a party's place in power at the Centre or in the States.
Cover
- National tendency: parties ruling the Centre strengthen it; Article 356 was often misused before Bommai (1994), and centrally sponsored schemes and cesses enlarge its role.
- Regional demands: the Rajamannar Committee (set up 1969 by Tamil Nadu, reported 1971), the Akalis' Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the October 1983 Srinagar conclave of opposition parties sought State autonomy.
- Exceptions: the West Bengal Left Front's December 1977 memorandum on Centre–State relations, prepared by the CPI(M), shows a national party favouring autonomy; national parties often defend it when in opposition.
- Regional parties also centralise: many run States top-down, weakening panchayats and cities, and support the Centre when it suits them.
- Coalition era (1989–2014): regional parties gained bargaining power and federalism deepened; single-party majorities later revived debates over GST, farm laws, NEET and Governors.
- Institutional balance: Sarkaria (set up 1983, reported 1988) and Punchhi (2007–2010) commissions, the Inter-State Council, the GST Council; S. R. Bommai (1994) treated federalism as a basic feature.
- Verdict: positions follow power and electoral interest more than fixed ideology, and both camps shift with circumstance.
Close with · Healthy federalism needs institutionalised negotiation and fiscal devolution, whichever party rules the Centre.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 298 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The statement captures a real pattern in Indian federalism, but party positions on Centre–State relations have shifted with a party's place in power, at the Centre or in the States, more than with any fixed ideology.
National parties and centralisation
- Parties ruling the Centre have tended to strengthen it: Article 356 was used freely against opposition-ruled States before S. R. Bommai (1994) subjected it to judicial review, and centrally sponsored schemes and cesses enlarge the Centre's role.
- After single-party majorities returned in 2014, disputes over GST, the farm laws, NEET and the conduct of Governors revived the charge of centralisation.
Regional parties and State autonomy
- The Rajamannar Committee (set up by Tamil Nadu in 1969, reported 1971), the Akali Dal's Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the October 1983 Srinagar conclave of opposition parties all demanded a shift of powers towards the States.
- In the coalition era (1989–2014) regional parties gained bargaining power, and federalism deepened through consultation and the Inter-State Council.
The exceptions
- National parties in opposition defend autonomy: the West Bengal Left Front's December 1977 memorandum on Centre–State relations, prepared by the CPI(M), is a national party's autonomy charter, and each major national party has questioned central overreach when out of power.
- Regional parties centralise within their States: many run their governments top-down, starve panchayats and municipalities of powers, and back the Centre when it suits them.
- Institutions cut across parties: the Sarkaria (set up 1983, reported 1988) and Punchhi (2007–10) Commissions, the Inter-State Council and the GST Council are where both camps bargain.
Verdict
- The alignment is real but circumstantial: positions follow power and electoral interest, so both camps change sides with the situation.
Healthy federalism cannot depend on which party rules the Centre; it needs institutionalised negotiation and fiscal devolution that bind all parties alike.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.