“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.
It asks 3 things — 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 · Sarkaria Commission data on Article 356 (12 uses up to 1967, 62 in the next eighteen years) support the statement, but positions follow power more than ideology.
Cover
- National tendency: Article 356 used 12 times up to 1967 and 62 times in the next eighteen years (Sarkaria); centrally sponsored schemes and cesses enlarge the Centre.
- Regional demands: the Rajamannar Committee (1969, reported 1971), the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the October 1983 Srinagar conclave sought State autonomy.
- Exceptions: the West Bengal Left Front's December 1977 memorandum, prepared by the CPI(M), shows a national party seeking autonomy; parties in opposition defend it.
- Regional parties also centralise: many run States top-down, weaken panchayats and municipalities, and back the Centre when it suits them.
- Coalition era (1989–2014) raised regional bargaining power; the 14th Finance Commission raised the States' share of the divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent.
- Institutions: Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, the Inter-State Council (Article 263), the GST Council; S. R. Bommai (1994) treated federalism as a basic feature.
- Verdict: the alignment is real but circumstantial; positions follow power and electoral interest.
Close with · Sarkaria recalled the framers' intent that Article 356 be a last resort; honouring it and using the Inter-State Council would make federalism independent of the party in power.
Add value (verified)
- Sarkaria Commission: Article 356 was invoked 12 times up to 1967 but 62 times in the next eighteen years.Report of the Sarkaria Commission, Chapter VI: Emergency Provisions - Inter-State Council Secretariat ↗“Upto the end of 1967, it had been invoked only twelve times. However, in the next eighteen years, it was resorted to on as many as sixty-two occasions.”
- Sarkaria Commission: the framers expected Article 356 to be used rarely, as a last resort.Report of the Sarkaria Commission, Chapter VI: Emergency Provisions - Inter-State Council Secretariat ↗“They expected that these extraordinary provisions would be called into operation rarely, in extreme cases, as a last resort when all alternative correctives fail.”
- Economic Survey 2014–15: the 14th Finance Commission raised the States' share of the central divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent, the biggest ever increase in vertical devolution.Economic Survey 2014-15, Vol. I, Chapter 10 (Fourteenth Finance Commission) - Ministry of Finance ↗“The FFC has radically enhanced the share of the states in the central divisible pool from the current 32 percent to 42 per cent which is the biggest ever increase in vertical tax devolution.”
- Article 263: the Inter-State Council may investigate and discuss subjects of common interest to the Union and the States.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the States, or the Union and one or more of the States, have a common interest”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 360words · Minimalist IAS
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recorded that Article 356 was invoked only 12 times up to 1967, but 62 times in the next eighteen years. That record supports the statement; yet party positions on Centre–State relations have followed their place in power more than any fixed ideology.
National parties and centralisation
- President's Rule: parties ruling the Centre used Article 356 against opposition-ruled States until S. R. Bommai (1994) opened it to judicial review and treated federalism as a basic feature.
- Fiscal reach: centrally sponsored schemes and cesses enlarge the Centre's role in State subjects.
- Recent friction: after single-party majorities returned in 2014, disputes over GST, the farm laws, NEET and Governors revived the charge of centralisation.
Regional parties and State autonomy
- Autonomy charters: Tamil Nadu's Rajamannar Committee (set up 1969, reported 1971), the Akali Dal's Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the October 1983 Srinagar conclave demanded more powers for States.
- Coalition leverage: in the coalition era (1989–2014) regional parties gained bargaining power, and federal consultation deepened.
| Claim | Supporting record | Counter-record |
|---|---|---|
| National parties centralise | 62 uses of Article 356 in 18 years after 1967 | CPI(M)'s 1977 autonomy memorandum |
| Regional parties seek autonomy | Rajamannar, Anandpur Sahib | Weak devolution to panchayats |
The exceptions
- National parties in opposition: the West Bengal Left Front's December 1977 memorandum, prepared by the CPI(M), is a national party's autonomy charter.
- Regional centralisation: many regional parties run their States top-down, starve local bodies of powers, and back the Centre when it suits them.
- Devolution through national institutions: the 14th Finance Commission raised the States' share of the divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent, the biggest ever increase (Economic Survey 2014–15).
- Shared forums: the Sarkaria and Punchhi (2007–10) Commissions, the Inter-State Council and the GST Council are where both camps bargain.
Verdict
- Circumstantial, not ideological: the pattern holds broadly, but positions follow power and electoral interest, and both camps change sides with circumstance.
Sarkaria recalled that the framers meant Article 356 to be used only 'as a last resort when all alternative correctives fail'. Honouring that, and using the Inter-State Council (Article 263) to discuss subjects of common interest, would make federalism independent of whichever party rules the Centre.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
