Federalism Pre-Partition

India
A Historical Perspective
Federalism in pre-partition India: (Chapter 2)
Was there federal arrangements in Mughal India?
• Due to geographical distance and cultural diversity the only option for
structural institutions based on autonomy (later federalism)
• Pre-Mughal India was divided into many kingdoms.
• In case of regional kingdoms suzerain respected local customs and
laws.
• Akbar was some extent successful in creating central hegemony with
loose regional autonomy.
• He developed his entire administrative structure around provinces.
• Four central departments: finance, judiciary, war and supply were
replicated at provincial level.
• He introduced subedari (governor)system.
• 12 subah provinces were created which raised to 21 by the time
Aurangzeb was king. Provinces were not demarcated on linguistic or
cultural parameter.
• Subedar use to take instruction directly from the king. He was not
appointed on cultural criteria rather he usually use to be member of
ruling dynasty.
• Subedar was responsible for protecting province internally and
externally against rebellion. He also maintained military and collect
taxes.
• With so much power there was threat a subedar would disengage
from central authority which could lead secession. Mughal countered
this threat by frequently transferring subedars.
• Heir of any subedar was not appointed to his position.
Federalism in British India:
• East India Company expansion was more haphazard. They inserted
themselves as top structure as Mughal power declined.
• They first created three trading posts Madras, Bombay & Calcutta.
They were later called presidency.
• Newer factories were added to the control of these presidencies,
leading to an unplanned, sprawling territorial expanse.
• EIC had power to collect taxes.
• Zamindars were used as middle men to control area.
• Similar structural procedure as Mughal for tax collection
• Establish treaties with princes for political, economic and military
reasons to exert influence over princely states.
• Direct territorial control of taxation was the key to power in India.
Henceforth, all real power in Bengal, and ultimately India as a whole,
was concentrated in the EIC, funding an expansionist drive in a similar
way to the Mughals.
• Between 1757 and 1857 Westminster acquired more control from
the EIC.
• After 1773 due to allegation of corruption EIC was deprived of sole
control. A more unified system of administration was established.
• The governor of Bengal was made governor general. He controlled
both Madras and Bombay. With the authority “of superintending and
controlling” the governments of Madras and Bombay in certain
matters. This confirmed their dependent status.
• Westminster continued with centralization in 1833 GG was given
more discretionary powers. He could abolish legislative councils in
other two presidency. Members of council was reduced from 4 to 2.
• Under the Act of 1853 governor of Bengal was retained as GG.
• A GG council was also created for legislative purposes.
• Center obtained power to alter provincial boundaries and also
accumulated residual powers.
• 1858 EIC was removed as they blamed for 1857 rebellion.
Presidencies were abolished in the same year.
• In 1858 an Act of Parliament relieved the EIC of its role in the
governance of India after the uprising of 1857, for which London held
the EIC responsible. Westminster then assumed direct control.
• Indian Council Act 1861 expanded legislative council to provinces but they couldn’t
decide on taxation.
• Policy decision was made by central authority.
• Provincial representation and areas of competence was expanded under Indian
Council Act 1892.
• Democratization led to demand of communal representation. In 1872 Indians were
categorized on religious lines.
• It became grounds for separate electorate for Muslims in 1909.
• Between 1916-46 several plans were introduced with the some kind of federal
design;
• Lucknow Formula of 1916, the (Motilal) Nehru Report of 1928, and Jinnah’s 14 points
of 1929, as well as the Cripps Plan of 1942 and the Cabinet Mission Plan (CMP) of
1946, were more detailed. The Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 were, of
course, fully fledged constitutions. The Lahore Declaration of 1940 is a prime
example: it demanded independent and autonomous states, but did not stipulate a
particular constitutional structure.
• Both Congress and the League accepted the need for a federation and advocated federal
forms of government. Although they disagreed over specific forms of federation,
specifically over the scale and depth of the power of the federal government.
• Attitude of Congress towards federal system:
• The Congress did not favor a unitary government, but it was initially suspicious of federal
structures of government—especially under the 1919 Act.Therefore, the Congress did not
reject the 1919 Act because of its concession of provincial autonomy. It rejected it because
under the system of dyarchy; only a few select powers were transferred to the Indian
ministers in the provinces. The remainder resided in the hands of the provincial governor-
in-council.
• This is illustrated by the fact that in 1924, Motilal Nehru advocated the extension of
provincial powers and revenue. The Congress’s acceptance of federalism was codified in
Nehru Report.
• The Congress accepted the federal form of government again in 1931 within the Gandhi-
Irwin Pact.
• Though the Congress was not antifederal, it was more concerned with the organization of
power at the center than those Muslims in Muslim-majority provinces who sought to
benefit from the provincial autonomy opportunities afforded by the 1935 federal structure.
• Muslim League’s perspective on federalism:
• The League’s attitude toward federalism was more complex than that of the Congress.
• Federal structures of government were generally welcomed, and the League did not
boycott the 1919 institutions.
• Elites within Muslim-majority provinces viewed federalism primarily as a mechanism of
minority protection at the all-India level, therefore favoring a more decentralized
federation.
• Demands for representation at the center, a consociational mechanism, initially served the
interests of the Muslims in Muslim-majority provinces, as well as those in provinces
dominated by Hindus. This was because federal structures of government did not guarantee
Muslim interests at the center.
• These tensions between the consociational and federal variables were revealed in the
position of Jinnah toward a federation.
• Although Jinnah vociferously rejected the 1935 Act—first for its inclusion of the princes and
then for its benefiting the Congress “agenda”, he did not reject the federal form.
• While the Muslim League expressed its dissatisfaction with a united Indian federation, the
Lahore Resolution supported a federal form. It called for independent and sovereign
autonomous states to be “grouped” together.
• Federal Institutional Design
I. Differences between congress and ML on territorial autonomy
II. Difference between Congress and ML on power sharing
III. Provincial reorganization
Federal instability in Pakistan: (Chapter 7)
• Religious politics and federal structure
1. Tensions on the basis of religious identity with East Pakistan
2. Sectarian tensions
3. Alliance between religious groups and military
• Linguistic politics and federal structure
1. Linguistics and Bengali nationalism
2. Urdu and incentive structure for Punjab, Baluchistan and KPK
3. Sindhi-Mohajir linguistic intra-provincial conflict
• Politics and federalism (political parties)
1. Factionalization of ML
2. Truly all Pakistan political parties are non-existent
3. Regional parties
4. Religious parties
5. Military supported alliances
Political Movements:
Limited support for regional party does not mean there is no regional discontent
Jeay Sindh Quami Movement
MRD
Bengali nationalist movement
i. Quota system (no quotas for military)
ii. Less economic resources were allocated (budget 1969-70 36% of budget
allocated to East Pakistan
iii. Bogra Formula
iv. United Front and 1954 elections
v. Dismissal of Nazim-u-Din
vi. Six Point Formula
vii. 1970 elections and radicalization of Awami League due to denial of democratic
mandate.
Baluch nationalism
• Conflict aggravated during Z. A. Bhutto era due to dismissal of
provincial government in Baluchistan
• Grievances related to resource allocation
• Exclusion from institutions
• Influx of laborers and professional from outside province
• Lack of political space for local leadership (tribal and middle class)
Unrest in urban Sindh
• Federal quota due to nationalization policy by Z. A Bhutto
• Domicile fraud