Federalism: Constitutional provisions; changing nature of centre-state relations; integrationist tendencies and regional aspirations; inter-state disputes.1. Planning has superseded the federation and our country is functioning almost like a unitary system in many respects. In the light of the statement, examine the recent trends in Indian Federalism. (1992)2. Trace and analyse the co-operation trends in Indian federalism. (1994,1997,1998,2005,2013)3. Shared rule to be as important as self-rule in explaining the possibility of federal power sharing.(2000)4. What are the salient features of Sarkaria Commission Report as regard to federal restructuring in India with special reference to autonomy demand by states (60)? (2000)5. The role of Indian Prime Ministers in the federal system was always controversial. Do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer with apt examples (60).(2000)6. It is generally believed that federalism suffers in the system of centralized planning. Do you agree with this point of view? Would you advocate decentralized governance for India in the context of liberalization since 1991 (60)? (2002)7. Explain the federal scheme under the Government of India Act, 1935. Why could this scheme not be implemented? (2005)8. Discuss whether coalitional politics has led to a different patterns of federalism in India (2007)9. Articles 2 and 3 of the Indian Constitution are inconsistent with the spirit of federalism. (2010)10. It is not constitutional law but political factors that ultimately determine Centre-States relations in India.(2011)11. Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State dispute in India. (2012)

Q. Trace and analyse the co-operation trends in Indian federalism.India takes great pride in describing itself as the worlds largest democracy. However, this democracy is meaningful significantly because it is encapsulated in a federal structure. Although the Constitution of India has nowhere used the term 'federal', it has provided for a structure of governance which is essentially federal in nature. While democracy represents the majority opinion, federalism accommodates and links it to the voice of the minority, lending a flavour of social justice. This ensures harmonious functioning of the entire system. There is no single pure model of federalism that is applicable everywhere. Rather the basic notion of involving the combination of shared rule (to promote unity) for some purposes and self-rule (for regional/local purpose of diversity) for others within a single political system so that neither is subordinate to the other has been applied in different ways to different circumstances. According to some scholars like Granville Austin, India is a cooperative federalism. According to him it produces a strong central government, yet it does not result in weak provincial or state governments that are largely administrative agencies for central policies. According to the 9th five year plan document, in a vast country like ours, the spirit of co-operative federalism should guide the relations between the Centre and the States on the one hand, among different States and between the States and the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) on the other. The essence of co-operative federalism is that the Centre and the State Governments should be guided by the broader national concerns of using the available resources for the benefit of the people. Co-operative federalism encourages the Government at different levels to take advantage of a large national market, diverse and rich natural resources and the potential of human capabilities in all parts of the country and from all sections of the society for building a prosperous nation. Co-operative federalism makes it possible to raise all the available resources by the Government at different levels in a co-ordinated way and channel them for use for the common good of the people. This requires a harmonious relationship and co-operative spirit between the Centre and the States and among the States themselves. While a healthy competition among the States for evolving efficient and socially desirable policies and programmes is welcome, any competition which nullifies each other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States should be avoided. Co-operative federalism is intended to ensure a minimum bundle of basic services and a nationally acceptable level of living for all the people of the country.Cooperative Federalism in the pre-independence eraSeeds of cooperative federalism can be traced right from the Regulating Act of 1773 which set up a system whereby the British Government supervised regulated the work of the East India Company but did not take power for itself. The Government of India Act, 1919 provided for a federal India, however superficial, by envisaging a dual form of government called diarchy. The Report of the Indian Statutory Commission of 1929 gave a federal solution by proposing to introduce diarchy at the centre and to advance from diarchy to fully responsible government in the provinces. The same was sought to be achieved by the Government of India Act, 1935.In 1937, after a great deal of confrontation, Provincial Autonomy commenced. From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Lord Linlithgow tirelessly tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. The Cabinet Mission of 1946 provided that Union of India should deal with Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communication and all subjects other than Union subjects and all residuary powers were to vest in the Provinces.Jawaharlal Nehru, while moving his Objectives Resolution on 13 December, 1946, reiterated that the need for a measure of uniformity in regard to apparatus and machinery of government at the Central level was to be considered in cooperation and consultation with the states, and that all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of government, are derived from the people. The Constituent Assembly members did a commendable job by envisaging a cooperative federalism set up because in the turbulent and bloody circumstances prevailing at that time and in the wake of Indias partition, it could have been very easy to swing towards at least a highly centralised federation, if not unitary, in place of a quasi-federation. Hence, even though federal character seemed to be a practical imperative by reason of Indias sheer size and diversity, yet this assumption should not be taken for granted. In fact, the strong central bias in the constitution has been a boon to keep India together at the most crucial time of its birth when forces of communalism, separatism and linguism were rampant.Development of Cooperative Federalism Post IndependenceThe changing dynamics and the varied experiences that the Indian State has had one party rule, coalition and the not so united forms, have led to the shift from Centralist to Federalist to Centre-Federalist forms of federal governance. The rise of regional parties, the formation of coalition Governments, active role of the Judiciary have shaped the trajectory of federalism by swinging the pendulum from cooperative to confrontationist and vice versa.

Cooperative federalism in the 1950s The first phase of federalisation of the political process extended from the time of Independence to the mid-1960s, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took democracy seriously enough to face the enormously expanded Indian electorate (in 1951, in the first general election held both to the national parliament and the provincial assemblies), providing for full and free participation in the election. He took the chief ministers (all of whom, with rare exceptions, were members of the Indian National Congress (INC), the party of which he was for part of this period the President and, of all this period, leader of the parliamentary party) seriously enough to write to each of them every month in an effort to keep them informed of the state of the nation and the world, and to solicit their opinion in an attempt to build a national consensus. The INC, which had already embraced the federal principle back in the 1920s by organizing itself on the basis of Provincial congress committees based on linguistic regions, institutionalized the principle of consultation, accommodation and consensus through a delicate balancing of the factions with the Congress System (Kothari 1970). It also practised the co-optation of local and regional leaders in the national power structure,and the system of sending out Congress observers from the Centre to mediate between warring factions in the provinces, thus simultaneously ensuring the legitimacy of the provincial power structure in running its own affairs as well as the role of Central mediation. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, creating linguistic states, fulfilled a demand that was being made vociferously and was a victory of popular will. Five Zonal Councils were set up vide Part III of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 with the object, in Nehrus own words, to develop the habit of cooperative working. Confrontationist from late 1960s to 1980sThe second phase of the development of Indian federalism began with the fourth general elections (1967), which drastically reduced the overwhelming strength of the congress party in the national Parliament to a simple majority and saw nearly half the states moving out of Congress control and into the hands of opposition parties or coalitions, and led to a radical change in the nature of centre-state relations. No longer could an imperious Congress Prime Minister afford to dictate benevolently to a loyal Congress Chief Minister. However, even as the tone became more contentious, the essential principles of accommodation and consultation held between the crucial 1967-69 periods of transition. The congress dominated Centre began cohabiting with opposition parties at the regional level. The balance was lost once the Congress party split (1969), and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took to the strategy of radical rhetoric and strong centralized personal leadership. In consequence, the regional accommodation, which had been possible by way of the internal federalization of the Congress Party, was subsequently eroded. It was due to Mrs Indira Gandhis misadventures that in Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala, 1973 , the Courts evolved the basic structure doctrine to save the Constitution from the misplaced establishment sovereignty of the Union Parliament. Chief Justice Sikri clearly stated that the federal character of the Constitution was a feature of the basic structure of the Constitution which was, hence, not open to whimsical amendments.Federalism came heavily under pressure with the declaration of emergency on 26th June 1975 under ominous conditions. However, it must be kept in mind that declaration of emergency in itself is not an attack on federalism. But if the same is done under questionable circumstances not in sync with the spirit with which the provision for it was enacted, then federalism is surely under attack. This declaration of emergency had another significant impact. It gave an opportunity to the nascent opposition, struggling for its birth, a burning political cause and a strongly shared grievance that enabled the leaders to sink their differences and to plan for the future. This led to the rise of the Janata Party, Indias first alternative to the Congress, which won in 1977 elections, marking a watershed in Indian politics. It is to be noted that the break up from single party rule across the country and the rise of regional parties happened simultaneously with the existing virtually single party rule of Congress. It was because of the federal structure that people could aspire for share in power. The National Development Council continued to meet once a year, on an average, throughout the Seventies, but in the Eighties, as the relations between the Congress and the opposition grew more and more strained, the frequency of the meetings declined. In the eighties, it met not more than seven times, and the meetings were marked by acrimony and tension. The West Bengal Government Memorandum on Centre State relations, prepared by the Left Front Government of West Bengal in 1977, reflected the increasing disagreement with the Centre and portrayed the Constitution as essentially unitary in character. In 1978, the Chief Ministers Conference of non Janata Party CMs of South India was held. They discussed the language issue i.e. the imposition of Hindi on the non-Hindi speaking people, and urged the PM to intervene.Opposition Conclaves took place in different parts of the country to express views on centre-state relations. In response to the call of CM of Andhra Pradesh, N. T. Rama Rao, the first Opposition Conclave was held in Vijaywada in 1983. Fourteen non-Congress parties gathered to criticise the Centre for encroaching upon the powers of the states and the Centre was held responsible for all economic problems of the country.In this background of simmering discontent among opposition ruled states, Mrs Gandhi constituted the Commission on Centre State Relations headed by Justice R. S. Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, in 1984 which submitted its voluminous report in 1988 to the Rajiv Gandhi Government recommending inter alia, a permanent Inter State Council as an independent forum for consultation with a mandate defined according to Article 263 . It should deal with subjects other than socioeconomic planning and development and have an advisory role only. Administratively, it should be called Inter Governmental Council.Cooperative In The 1990sThe National Front coalition government of V.P. Singh fell. Chandrashekhar of Samajwadi Janta Party followed from 1990-91.And in the 1991 elections, P. V. Narsimha Rao was elected. The return of Congress and the five years rule from 1991 to 1995 under one party signified a desire among the people for stability, and the fact that federalism can survive only if the Centre itself is strong and competent. A Centre that is formed of parties that are incoherent in their plan of action will be a weak centre that cannot sustain a healthy cooperative structure. Hence simply having a multi-party centre is not a guarantee that the same would strengthen federalism or that it would be better than single party rule at the Centre. Narsimha Rao followed a conciliatory style of politics. He held all party meetings and used the National Integration Council to forge a consensus on communal issues and meetings of the CMs under the aegis of NDC and ISC to discuss specific thorny problems like urgent need to stop providing electricity virtually free of cost to agriculture. The NDC has immense untapped potential. Bringing the CMs together in national decision making will be extremely useful as it not only helps in strengthening cooperative federalism, but also makes the states understand the limitations and compulsions of the Centre as well as the limitations of other states. In 1992, the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts were passed making India the first statutorily defined three tier system of democracy. It was envisaged as a way to destroy paternalism of the centre. In 1996, a group of Chief Ministers and regional leaders met in Hyderabad to discuss what they considered to be a paradigm shift in federal relations in India. The slogan of their meeting was Federation without a Centre because they believed that with the formation of the United Front Government, the pattern of federal relations in India had undergone such a dramatic change where the Central government had been rendered superfluous.BJP came to power again from 1998-2003. It created three new states in 2000 to recognise the demands around tribal identities. It is important to note that these new states have emerged very much within the fabric of India which is a Union of States, reinforcing that our federalism is alive and kicking. Indian federalism has also experimented with sub state regional development councils to satisfy regional, ethnic and tribal aspirations. Inclusion of languages has been another mechanism of cooperative federalism. In 2003, Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali were included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The inclusion allows privileges like simultaneous translation facilities in Parliamentary proceedings, allocation of central government funding for development of the language and its literature and is an effective tool to include the periphery into the mainstream. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution NCRWC submitted its report in two volumes to the Government on 31st March, 2002. It recommended that there was a need to institutionalise the consultation process between the Centre and the states. It considered Article 263 as being in tune with the spirit of cooperative federalism and suggested that the ISC Order, 1990 may clearly specify in 4b of the order the subjects that would form part of the consultation in the ISC. Article 139A should be amended so as to provide that it can withdraw to itself cases even if they are pending in one Court where such questions as to legislative competence of Parliament or State Legislature are involved. Further, an Inter State Trade and Commerce Commission should be established.The decade of 2000 The decade was the decade of coalition politics. Both UPA I and II were coalition governments. During this time there were high demands for autonomy from the state governments. The non-congress ruled states accused the centre of step-mother attitude, while the allies didnt have any problem. So the issue of federalism in this decade was a mere political rhetoric rather than a real issue. The outcomes of globalisation lead to more federalism in this decade. This decade witnessed a rise in inter-state disputes. Due to globalisation, inter-state cooperation was replaced with interstate competition. Though healthy completion is good for nations growth, but any competition which nullifies each other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States should be avoided.ConclusionThe relation between the centre, the states and the local tiers lies at the heart of Indias sense of nationhood and is the pre requisite for Indias progress. However, a strong political undercurrent runs through it. Every centre-state and every interstate dispute is at its heart, a political dispute. This is the root cause of the problematic nature of centre state relations. Such a dispute slowly ripens into an economic one. Bad politics leads to bad economics. Unless stagnation in the economic field and unbalanced regional development are not addressed, integration and solidarity in the federal set up will not be complete. Both Centre and State governments must attend to the task of preserving our nationhood through constructive cooperative federalism which requires a great deal of commitment. India is a beautiful melting pot of diversity. The same needs to be valued and cherished. And there isnt a better way to do so than by cooperative federalism. In the famous words of Justice Nani Palkhivala WHO DIES IF INDIA LIVES AND WHO LIVES IF INDIA DIES..... People of several states sink or swim together, and that in the long run, prosperity and salvation are in innovation and not in division Mutuality and not conflict Cooperation and not competition.

Q. Discuss whether coalitional politics has led to a different patterns of federalism in IndiaThere is an emerging scholarly consensus that though India remains a federation with strong centre features, it is more federalized today than in the past. It is therefore not surprising that India counts among the most thriving federations in the world and is definitely the most successful federation in Asia. The success of federalism in India is undoubtedly the result of a federalization process that has taken place. Though there has been no major change in the constitutional provisions, multiple federative processes and practices have moved India from the strong centre model towards a more federated polity. The most significant development in the last decade in Indian federalism has been the unfolding of new modes of power sharing with the emergence and consolidation of federal coalitions.The federalizing factors identified in the literature on Indian federalism include, among others, judicial pronouncements, economic changes, the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendment Acts, and the coalition politics.However, it must be mentioned that despite these factors occurring at times independently of one another, they have influenced and reinforced one another and the end result of federalization is a result of a combination of factors.Indias political parties and the party system have been in continual evolution and makeover since independence. However, the last two decades witnessed a distinctive transformation with the decisive end to the one-party, Congress-dominated system and the emergence of a competitive multiparty system. In this new party system, the numbers and importance of single-state and/or region-based parties has increased manifold. The clearest sign of this is the increased representation of their members in the Lok Sabha and a concomitant decline in the representatives of national parties except in 2014. From 1989 to 2014, no single political party has got a majority in the Lok Sabha and all governments that have formed since then have been dependent on multiple political parties for both formation and day-to-day running. At the state level too, the composition of the government changes from state to state with no distinctive pattern as could be observed in the immediate years after independence.The increased numbers of single-state parties and the inability of any single party to obtain a majority of their own resulted in the formation of what former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral (Lok Sabha Secretariat 1997, Frontline 1997) called federal coalitions at the centre. The exigencies of the party system may have thrown up federal coalitions, but scholars of federalism have primarily viewed federal coalitions as a power-sharing device which seeks to reconcile territorially-based identities within a cohesive frame even in the absence of shared ideologies (Arora 2000: 176). Federal coalitions, which bring together usually a polity-wide party along with numerous single-state and multistate parties, is an innovative device to recognize and accommodate the needs of diversity with the requirements of national unity. In the absence of an overarching party, federal coalitions have played a key role in ensuring that multiple diversitiesreligious, caste, linguistic, cultural, and regionalare not merely represented but have access to power at the national level (Arora and Kailash 2007). While maintaining an overarching commitment to the coalition, different groups in the coalition bring their distinctive and special interests to the table at the national level. Sharing power at the federal level has mellowed and moderated previously hard-line positions and opened spaces in the polity for greater inclusiveness.Federal coalitions have also strengthened the federal political culture of the polity. Central intervention in states using Article 356 has declined during the phase of federal coalitions (Arora 2002; M.P. Singh 2002). This was aided no doubt by the judicial verdict (S.R. Bommai vs the Union of India, 1994) but one cannot miss the correlation of reduced incidence with the presence of single-state parties, previously victim parties in federal coalitions. The presence of state interests in federal coalitions has also fulfilled one of the long-standing demands of states, that they be consulted in national-level decision-making. This, of course, has had both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, it has created an atmosphere of cooperative federalism. Most importantly, the raising of state and regional matters at the national level is no longer a taboo or antinational as in the past, and it has, in fact, become a new dimension in national decision-making. However, at the same time, narrow situational political considerations and the exigencies of coalition dynamics have also often entered both policymaking and policy decisions.Office of the President and GovernorsThe functioning of the president at the centre and of governors in the states has also undergone a dramatic change in this phase (Rudolph and Rudolph 2001b; M. P. Singh 2002; Singh and Verney 2003). In the federalized atmosphere, the holders of these constitutional positions have been wary of indiscretion and the new federal political culture has not only given them greater autonomy but also forced them to act with discretion, measured restraint, and judicious thought. Also this period witnessed more politicization of the governors office.Impact on Policy making Federal coalitions have also institutionalized a GoM mechanism (Arora and Kailash 2007). Though primarily intended to serve the purpose of coordination and minimize differences and resolve conflicts within the council of ministers, it also has a federal perspective. First, it has allowed for greater involvement, both through representation and as an avenue for consultation of state-based representatives and interests in the national decision-making apparatus. Second, they have enabled an introduction of a local or state-based flavour in national-level decision-making and policies. In a way, it has served the dual purpose of both representing diversity and involvement at the national level. At the same time it has become very tough on the part of the government to pass a bill because of incoherent ideologies of the alliance partners. The ministries were decided by number of seats won by a party rather than the capability of the person who is going to hold the post. For, example, the railway budget during these coalition times looked like a state centric budget rather than a budget of a nation.Impact on Foreign Policy According to the 7th schedule of the Indian constitution, foreign affairs is in the central list. But due to coalition compulsions the government had taken many stances against its stated policy. The examples can be of relationship with Sri Lanka was dictated by the local parties in TN. Similarly, the Teesta water sharing with Bangladesh also involves a third party named the West Bengal Government. The question here is not about whether a particular decision - such as that on Sri Lanka - is right or wrong, but about whether the rationale provided for it speaks to the national interest as conceptualised by the central government.ConclusionFor federalism is not only about giving more power to the states; it is also about preserving the integrity of those arenas that lie within the exclusive purview of the centre. Undermining the centre's governance over its own jurisdiction does not do any service to the federal idea.So, there is a need to create a equilibrium between federalism and national interest and the leaders of all political parties should take a note of it. Differences, if any, during single party rule, between different ministers on issue of policy, details of its working, performance, and so on could have been settled through the party network but in the era of coalition politics it needed larger involvement of regional parties, this results in maintaining diversity and creating unity. It may be concluded that multiparty federalism has undoubtedly played a major role in transforming centrestate relations in India.Q. What is the impact of globalization on Indian federalism?In the sense that while it has allowed more autonomy of action in favour of the state to reap the benefits of globalization, this has at the same time prepared the long-term basis of crisis in Indian federalism itself. First, the political autonomy of the liberal democratic states has been compromised in favour of the market. Second, the states have been engaged in fierce competition among themselves for foreign direct investment and SEZ models of development giving rise to a new division among the states such as forward and backward states, interjurisdictional competition in place of inter-state cooperation, and weakening loyalty to the `union. Third, with the weakening of the welfare state, the newly created conflicts out of disparity in regional development, and widening inequalities following globalization remain unmitigated. Fourth, with the political autonomy of the liberal democratic state compromised in favour of the market, local governance is more and more exposed to direct penetration by global and corporate power structures. Finally, the gradual withdrawal of the very meagre welfare measures, and the relative absence of any social security, or safety nets, have meant that there is mass protest against globalization led by various forms of grass-roots political activism. This cuts into the very democratic basis of legitimacy of the party (ies) in power in the states.Although it is commonly believed that globalization started in India from the early 1990s, the process had had its beginnings in the mid-1960s when Lal Bahadur Shastri, then the Prime Minister of India (1964-66), set in motion a process of liberalisation so much so that in the initial approach paper on the Fourth Five-Year Plan it was stated: within the broad framework of control in strategic areas, there is an advantage in allowing the market much fuller play. Indias liberalisation until the end of the 1960s took a variety of forms: 16 items were decontrolled in 1963; cement was decontrolled in 1966, and cotton in 1967; controls on investment were liberalized, and several industries were also decontrolled. However, the process of Indias liberalisation has since been slow and halting, and passed through phases, and even during the Emergency (1975-77) regime of authoritarianism and excessive state control, the process of liberalization, paradoxically enough, was broadened and accelerated! Hardgrave and Kochanek have noted: During the emergency, the government tried to further liberalize the industrial licensing policies, relax price controls, and provide tax incentives for industrial investment in an effort to accelerate the rate of economic growth.What remained basically a guarded process of liberalization until the early 1990s became ever since a combined process of liberalization, privatization and globalization. The so-called structural reforms, as is heard a lot these days, encompass the combination: decontrol and deregulation of industry, changes in monetary and fiscal policy, liberalization of trade policy, changes in foreign exchange regulations, encouragement of foreign direct investment, financial sector reforms, promotion of private foreign investment in infrastructure, partial privatization of public sector units, and the promise to enact labour reforms, and an exit policy that allows bankrupt private sector firms to go out of business.Since India is a federation (called a Union of States, constitutionally speaking), the states are the most significant strategic players in implementing the agenda of globalization. The Indian Constitution entrusts the states with the major tasks of development including infrastructural development. The reforms of the 1990s gave state governments more freedom to make policies independently, and this has extended the impacts of openness and globalization to the sub national level. In particular,while only the national government can determine import duties, state governments now can affect the incentives of foreign capital to enter their jurisdictions. From the perspective of an Indian state, capital from another country or from another state can be viewed through the same lens, and must be treated equally in typical policy environments. The final impacts of the entry of capital on a sub national government will therefore depend also on the internal mobility of capital and labor. Hence, in a federal system, attention must be paid to internal mobility of goods and factors, in addition to external liberalization. Subnational tax and regulatory policies can assume greater importance in a scenario of economic reform under globalization. Another federal aspect of Indias reform is that the decade of the 1990s has seen an increase in regional inequality in some dimensions. While inequalities may have widened within states as well (for example, the coastal and urban areas of Maharashtra and Gujarat versus their interior rural regions), the main focus has been and will be on widening disparities across the states themselves. This is natural, given the size and political importance of the states, and the fact that the states are the direct and indirect channels for significant financial transfers from the central government. We also consider whether aspects of economic reform, larger global economic forces, and state-level initial conditions and policy responses are increasing regional inequalities within the country, and whether the mechanisms that exist within Indias federal structures for managing regional inequalities are adequate.The growing literature on globalization and Indian federalism, mostly written though from the standpoint of political economy, suggests that Indian federalism has been drastically changed so that it needs to be redefined. Rudolph and Rudolph (2001) argued that as a result of the impact, the interventionist state in India had given way to a regulatory state, which again was more suited to a growing multi-party system. Lawrence Saez (2004) does not of course subscribe to the above view because he believes that Indias redefined federal system requires the central government to play a critical role. He is also not sure that a regulatory state will be able to mitigate the growing competition among the Indian states in the era of globalization. However, he believes that Indian federalism has undergone some major transformation from the intergovernmental co-operation to inter-jurisdictional competition (among the states).The various forms of states growing re-assertions have also been noticed by acute observers of Indian politics and federalism since the 1990s. C. P. Bhambri said: The state governments are very important players in the economic development of the country, more pronounced of course since the 1990s. This striking fact has become clear in the 1990s because investors have to contact every state government for launching a project. Since the central state is gradually withdrawing itself from its social responsibilities including welfare-oriented development, most clearly evident, among others, in the shrinkage of the number of centrally-sponsored welfare development schemes, as Bhambri has shown, centre-state relations have taken often peculiar forms. Cajoling, persuading and even bribing often could become tactics resorted to by the Centre for involving the state governments in the process of economic reforms and restructuring. Rao and Singh (2005) have recognized that the states role has expanded due to market economy which demands more decentralized levels of governance, but also that all the states are not equally equipped to access the opportunities afforded by the market.Q. Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State disputes in India. The successful functioning of Indian federation does not depend only on center-state relationships but also on inter-state relationship. Hence the constitution makes the following provisions with regard to inter-state comity. 1. Adjudication of inter-state water disputes2. Coordination through inter-state councils3. Mutual recognition of public Acts, records and judicial proceedings4. Freedom of inter-state trade, commerce.In addition, zonal councils have been established by the parliament to promote inter-state cooperation and coordination. Inter-state water disputesOne of the major reasons for disputes among states.