Power-sharing and national unity: India's experience and debates

Detail

1. The four forms of power-sharing, all at work in India

• Power-sharing means that power is spread among organs of government, levels of government, social groups and parties. No single group holds all of it.
• India uses all four forms at the same time:

Form	Meaning	Indian examples
Horizontal	Power is shared among organs at the same level (legislature, executive, judiciary). Each one checks the others (checks and balances).	Functional separation of organs. An independent judiciary. Constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
Vertical	Power is shared among levels of government.	Union, state and local tiers (panchayats and municipalities). Special arrangements for some areas.
Among social groups	Weaker or minority groups get a guaranteed share.	Reservations, minority rights, linguistic states.
Among parties and pressure groups	Rival parties compete for power and sometimes share it.	Coalition governments. Regional parties ruling states.

2. Asymmetric federalism (special arrangements for some areas)

• Asymmetric federalism means that some states or areas get special powers or protections that other states do not get.
• Arts. 371–371J: these are special provisions for particular states. For example, Art. 371A protects Naga customary law and land in Nagaland, and Art. 371G does the same for Mizo practices in Mizoram.
• Sixth Schedule: sets up Autonomous District Councils (local bodies that make some of their own laws) in tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
• Article 370:
• Art. 370 gave the former state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) special status. It limited Parliament's power to make laws for J&K to defence, external affairs, communications and central elections [4].
• It was abrogated in 2019.
• A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation in In re Article 370 on 11 December 2023 [3][4].
• The Court recorded the Union's promise that statehood would be restored. For that reason it did not rule on whether splitting the state into two Union Territories was valid [4].
• It directed the ECI to hold J&K Assembly elections by 30 September 2024. It also said statehood should be restored "as soon as possible" [3][4].

3. Accords as accommodation

• An accord is a negotiated settlement between the Union and a protest or armed group. It trades autonomy, safeguards or statehood for an end to violence.

Accord	Year	What it gave
Punjab (Rajiv–Longowal)	1985	Settlement with the Akali Dal led by Sant Harchand Singh Longowal
Assam Accord	15 Aug 1985 [5]	Ended the Assam agitation of 1979–85 [5]
Mizo Accord	1986	Insurgency turned into statehood (1987)
Bodo Accords	1993, 2003, 2020	Autonomy for the Bodoland area
Naga Framework Agreement	2015	Still unresolved

• Assam Accord, Clause 6:
• The clause promised constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards to protect the cultural, social and linguistic identity of the Assamese people [5].

• Nearly 35 years later it was still not fully implemented. In January 2019 the Union Cabinet approved a High Level Committee to suggest the safeguards [5].

• Mizo Accord (1986):

• It was a Memorandum of Settlement signed by the Government of India, the Government of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front.

• It ended more than two decades of unrest [6].

• Bodo Accord (2020):

• The Memorandum of Settlement was signed on 27 January 2020 with Bodo groups.

• After it, 4,881 NDFB cadres gave up violence and joined the mainstream [6].

• Lesson: India tends to answer regional unrest with negotiation and autonomy, not with majoritarian force. Sri Lanka did the opposite with the Tamils. (Pointer: regional-aspirations.)

4. Stress points today, seen as power-sharing questions

(a) Delimitation: how many Lok Sabha seats each state gets

• Delimitation means redrawing constituencies and fixing each state's share of seats according to its population.
• The 1971 freeze:
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) froze each state's share of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats on the 1971 census [2].

• The 84th Amendment (2001) extended the freeze until the first census published after 2026 [2].

• Why the South worries:

• Southern states controlled their population growth.
• A new count based on population would cut their share of seats.

• The principle of "one person, one vote" (every vote should carry equal weight) pulls the other way.

• The 2026 attempt:

• The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16 April 2026 [2].
• It proposed raising the Lok Sabha's maximum size from 550 to 850 seats (states 530 → 815; UTs 20 → 35) [2].
• It proposed amending Arts. 81 and 82 so that Parliament could decide by simple majority when to delimit and which census to use [2].
• A companion Delimitation Bill, 2026 would have used the latest published census, which in practice is 2011 [2].
• It also tied women's reservation (2023 Act) to this delimitation [2].
• The Lok Sabha voted it down on 17 April 2026. The linked Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill became infructuous (they lapsed because they depended on the main Bill) [2].
• So the 84th Amendment freeze still stands. (Pointer: elections-electoral-system.)

(b) Money: fiscal devolution and the GST Council

• Fiscal devolution means the share of central taxes passed on to the states.
• GST Council (Art. 279A):
• Art. 279A was added by the 101st Amendment Act, 2016 [7].
• A decision needs at least three-fourths of the weighted votes of members present and voting [7][8].
• The Union's vote counts for one-third. All the states together count for two-thirds [7][8].
• The Union alone cannot reach 75%. The states together cannot either. Each side holds a veto, which forces them to cooperate [9].

• In practice, most decisions have been taken by consensus [9].

• (Pointer: federalism-centre-state.)

(c) Governor–state friction

• The Governor must usually act on the advice of the state's ministers (Art. 163).
• Disputes arise when Governors delay assent to state Bills or are seen as agents of the Union.

(d) Language

• Some non-Hindi states see the three-language formula (in NEP 2020, a student learns three languages, at least two of them Indian) as a way to impose Hindi.
• This echoes the Sinhala Only Act, 1956, which shows why language policy is a power-sharing issue.

(e) Ladakh and Manipur

• These are newer tests of accommodation: Ladakh's demand for Sixth Schedule-type protection, and the ethnic conflict in Manipur. (See Section 9.)

5. Does power-sharing weaken unity or protect it?

Case for sharing (it protects unity)

• India has survived as a diverse democracy.
• Sri Lanka:
• The majority imposed its will (Sinhala Only Act, 1956).
• Tamils felt alienated.

• Civil war followed (1983–2009).

• Pakistan, 1971:

• The Awami League won a majority in the 1970 election.
• It was refused power.

• East Pakistan broke away and became Bangladesh.

• Prudential reason: sharing power reduces conflict between groups, so the political order becomes more stable.

• Moral reason: sharing power is the spirit of democracy. People have a right to be consulted.

Costs of sharing

• Delay: many players must agree.
• Veto players: actors whose consent is needed, such as states in the GST Council. Any one of them can block a decision.
• Hardened identities: fixed group shares can freeze caste, religion or language divisions.
• Coalition instability: governments can fall when partners leave.

Synthesis: design matters

• Arrangements work better when they are:
• Cross-cutting: they bring different groups together instead of sealing each one off.
• Rights-based: they protect individuals and minorities through rights that courts can enforce.

• Time-bound: they are reviewed or end after a fixed period.

• Fixed communal quotas tend to work worse.

• Closing frame (NCERT exercise): Thomman, Mathayi and Ouseph debate power-sharing. Ouseph argues that every society needs some form of power-sharing, even one that is small or has few social divisions.

Prelims Hooks

• 84th Amendment (2001): extended the freeze on seat allocation (based on the 1971 census) until the first census after 2026. The freeze was first imposed by the 42nd Amendment (1976) [2].
• Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026: proposed a Lok Sabha of up to 850 seats and delimitation on the 2011 census. The Lok Sabha negatived it on 17 April 2026 [2].
• Art. 279A (101st Amendment, 2016): GST Council decisions need ¾ of weighted votes. The Union has ⅓ and the states together have ⅔ [7][8].
• In re Article 370 (11 Dec 2023): a five-judge Bench upheld the abrogation and ordered J&K Assembly polls by 30 Sept 2024 [3][4].
• Assam Accord (15 Aug 1985): Clause 6 promises safeguards for Assamese identity [5].
• Mizo Accord (1986): signed with the Mizo National Front; statehood followed in 1987 [6].
• Bodo Accord (27 Jan 2020): 4,881 NDFB cadres gave up violence [6].
• Trap: the Sixth Schedule covers Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. It does not cover Nagaland or Manipur.
• Trap: the Naga Framework Agreement (2015) is not a final settlement. It remains unresolved.
• Match: Rajiv–Longowal Accord → Punjab (1985). Awami League denied power after 1970 → Bangladesh (1971).

Mains Points

• Accommodation versus majoritarianism: India's accords (Punjab, Assam, Mizo, Bodo) turned armed revolt into constitutional politics. Sri Lanka's Sinhala-first policy and Pakistan's refusal of the 1970 mandate led to civil war and break-up. Power-sharing is therefore a source of unity, not a threat to it (GS-II, GS-I).
• Delimitation dilemma: "one person, one vote" clashes with fairness to states that controlled their population. The defeat of the 131st Amendment Bill (2026) shows that seat shares need broad consensus. Possible fixes: a larger House, a cap on how many seats any state can lose, or protecting Rajya Sabha balance [2].
• Cooperative federalism by design: the GST Council's voting rule, where each side has a veto, forces the Union and states to bargain. The same idea could guide disputes over fiscal devolution, Governors and language [7][9].
• Good design: asymmetric provisions (Art. 371, Sixth Schedule) and reservations work best when they are rights-based, cut across groups and are reviewed from time to time. Permanent communal quotas risk hardening identities.