Two Federations, One Dilemma: A Comparative Study Of Federal Challenges In India And Canada

I. INTRODUCTION:

Federalism is a political system in which authority is divided between a central government and multiple regional governments operating within the same geographic territory. To avoid conflicts and overlapping powers, the distribution of authority between these levels is clearly defined. Both 'federalism' and 'confederalism' derive from the Latin term foedus, meaning 'treaty' or 'pact.' While once used interchangeably, the terms diverged in the 19th century: federalism denotes a governance system balancing power between national and regional governments with constitutional authority on both sides; confederalism refers to a looser association of sovereign states united primarily for common purposes, with the central authority dependent on member states."

India has had a written constitution since January 26, 1950, when it officially came into effect, defining the country as a "Union of States." Though the document doesn't explicitly use the word "federation," it incorporates both federal and unitary elements. The system is adaptable, functioning mainly as a federal structure under normal circumstances but shifting toward a more centralized model during times of war or national emergencies. This flexibility enables the central government to take swift, strategic actions when necessary.

Canada, on the other hand, functions as a constitutional monarchy, similar to the United Kingdom. Its political system is grounded in a constitution that emphasizes the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties. The Head of State mainly serves a ceremonial role, while actual governance is carried out by elected representatives in Parliament. Although laws are passed in the name of the Crown, real political authority comes from the people.

Canada's Parliament is shaped by British traditions, incorporating elements like the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons, similar to the UK's Westminster model. Despite these similarities, Canada is a true federal state, with one national government, ten provincial governments, and three territorial governments sharing legislative responsibilities. The judiciary plays a key role in interpreting the Constitution and laws, ensuring justice is upheld and resolving disputes between different levels or branches of government. It serves as the final authority in constitutional matters, maintaining the balance of power across the system.

II. Types of federalism

➢ Dual federalism

Dual federalism is a system where the national and state governments function independently of each other. Authority is split in a way that keeps both levels of government balanced. This approach reflects the original vision of the Constitution's framers, allowing states to use their specific powers with minimal involvement from the federal government. Because of the distinct separation of responsibilities, political scientists often describe this model as "layer-cake federalism."

➢ Fiscal Federalism

Fiscal federalism involves the financial relationship between the national and state governments, where the central government provides funds to states to help implement nationwide programs. One common method is through categorical grants, which come with specific conditions that states must meet to receive the funding. The way these funds are allocated and regulated can greatly influence the nature of federalism during a particular period. Depending on how the money is distributed, it can either strengthen federal control or give more freedom to states. Other forms of fiscal federalism include block grants, which offer more flexibility, and unfunded mandates, where states are required to follow federal rules without receiving financial support.

➢ Cooperative Federalism

Cooperative federalism is a system where national and state governments work together to address common challenges by sharing responsibilities and collaborating on policy implementation. In this model, the distinction between federal and state powers becomes less rigid, allowing both levels to jointly manage programs and services. Rather than acting independently, agencies from both governments coordinate efforts to achieve shared goals, especially during times of national need. This approach promotes unity in decision-making and problem-solving, often involving joint funding, regulation, and administration of programs.

➢ Competitive Federalism

Competitive federalism emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, notably during President Nixon's administration, as a shift toward giving states more control over public programs and reducing the federal government's influence in areas like welfare and grant distribution. This model promotes a system where states and the central government compete to deliver more effective services, encouraging innovation and efficiency. As federal budgets became tighter, Congress increasingly relied on conditional funding and mandates to influence state policies without direct control. Competitive federalism thrives on the idea that healthy rivalry between states and levels of government can lead to improved governance and stronger economic performance, as each entity strives to attract investment and serve the public more effectively.

➢ Executive Federalism

Executive federalism is "the processes of intergovernmental negotiation that are dominated by the executives of the different governments within the federal system." Alternatively, Donald Smiley defined Executive federalism as "the relation between elected and appointed officials of the two orders of government."

III. Historical and Constitutional background of Federalism in India and Canada

1. Historical Background of Indian Federalism System:

Indian federalism has deep historical roots, developing out of the country's immense territorial and social diversity and the need for decentralization. Early empires like the Mauryas and Guptas allowed significant provincial autonomy, and later the Cholas and Mughals combined central rule with local governance. The British colonial period continued this process, first with strong centralization and later, under pressure from growing Indian aspirations, by laying the foundation for federal principles through legal reforms and political negotiation.

A turning point came with the Government of India Act of 1935, which envisioned an All-India Federation uniting both British provinces and princely states. This Act was a watershed moment in India's constitutional history. This Act laid the foundation for a federal structure by providing for provincial autonomy and a central legislature. Although it did not fully implement federalism, it was a significant leap towards decentralization and self-governance, which formally divided governmental powers among the centre, provinces, and "concurrent" domains. However, while its provincial autonomy provisions took effect, the full federation was never implemented, mainly due to political resistance from princely states and persistent negotiations over autonomy and power-sharing.

Throughout the late colonial years and subsequent constitutional discussions, a federation with a weak centre and strong provinces was the preferred model, especially from parties like the Muslim League who sought maximal provincial autonomy. This approach included the possibility for provinces to frame their own constitutions and choose whether to join a federal union. However, the chaos surrounding partition and the grim reality of national integration needs prompted Indian constitution framers to reassess these ideas.

The Constituent Assembly ultimately adopted a "Union of States" model for independent India. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, guiding the drafting process, argued that the Constitution must keep India an "indestructible union," meaning states could not secede. The Constitution bestowed states with substantial powers and limited autonomy but enshrined strong central control over sensitive and national subjects like defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Importantly, the word "federation" was omitted to show that Indian federalism was not based on agreements among sovereign states but rather on practical and historical necessity.

India's federal structure thus became a distinctly Indian hybrid: embracing dual government, Union and states with defined powers, but tilting toward central authority for unity and stability. This mix is supported by historical experience, the vision for a cohesive yet diverse nation, and the pragmatic balance between regional interests and national integration. The dynamic between centre and states continues to evolve, reflecting shifts in society, politics, and administrative needs.

2. Historical Background of Canadian Federalism System:

The Province of Canada was formed in 1841 through the Act of Union, which merged the separate colonies of Lower Canada (predominantly Francophone) and Upper Canada (mostly Anglophone), each having its own elected legislative assembly. Despite efforts to maintain the distinctiveness of each community, political stability was elusive. Several measures were introduced to accommodate differences, including appointing two prime ministers, one for Canada East (Francophone) and one for Canada West (Anglophone), and two attorneys-general to uphold the respective civil and common law systems. Additionally, certain laws, such as those governing education, were applied differently in the two regions to preserve their unique identities.

However, political tensions were intensified by the Act of Union's provision for equal representation from both Canada East and Canada West in the legislative assembly, despite Canada West having a smaller population at the time. By 1850, with Canada West's population surpassing Canada East's, demands arose for representation based on population rather than equality. Opposition, especially from French-Canadian political leaders protective of their institutions, resisted this change. By the 1860s, it was clear that autonomy needed to be restored to the two regions. At the same time, it was essential to maintain unity for economic and strategic reasons. This led to the proposal to reorganize the Province of Canada into two entities within a federation, sharing powers between federal and provincial governments ensuring cohesion while allowing cultural diversityand considering including other British North American colonies in this expanded federal union for greater benefits.

The Charlottetown Conference, held in September 1864 in Prince Edward Island, marked the beginning of formal discussions about uniting the British North American colonies. Though originally focused on a maritime union of the Atlantic colonies, the conference shifted towards a broader federal union after delegates from the Province of Canada advocated for including all colonies. The Maritime colonies, despite sharing language similarities, had distinct historical and socio-economic identities and valued their existing autonomy through elected assemblies. They found the federal union proposal appealing as it promised to safeguard their local governance while promoting regional cooperation.

A month later, the Quebec Conference further shaped these ideas, producing the 72 Resolutions that outlined the division of powers between a federal government and provincial legislatures. Provincial assemblies would handle local affairs, while the federal Parliament would control common policies, including economic and military matters. These resolutions paved the way for the Confederation of Canada in 1867, initially uniting Ontario, Quebec (formed by splitting the Province of Canada), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. The federation was designed to protect the French-speaking population primarily residing in Quebec by guaranteeing their language, religion, and legal traditions, and by recognizing bilingualism within federal and provincial institutions, a foundation that has evolved continuously since Confederation.

IV. Evolution and Challenges of Federalism in India and Canada

India's federal system has experienced significant evolution marked by distinct phases shaped by political changes and leadership. Initially, 'cooperative federalism' prevailed during the period of Congress party dominance, where central leaders like Nehru and Shastri worked collaboratively with the states. As one-party rule waned, India transitioned into 'bargaining federalism,' characterized by states negotiating with the central government for resources, grants, and special statuses. The 1990s ushered in 'competitive federalism,' where regional parties in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal became influential actors. Coalition politics became central to governance, leading to intense negotiation between the centre and state leaders over policies and government formation. Despite India's federal constitution, the system remains centralized in many areas, even as states compete for foreign investments and economic advantages. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed coordination challenges between the center and states, with centralized decisions in the first wave devolving into decentralized responses during the second, highlighting ongoing tensions in center-state relations.

Canadian federalism has evolved through three major stages i.e., colonial, classical, and interdependence federalism, over more than 150 years. The colonial phase was marked by a strong federal government exercising control over provinces, with powers to tax, regulate, and disallow provincial laws that conflicted with federal authority. The challenges of linguistic rivalry between English and French, economic downturns, judicial decisions, and security fears fueled centralization, strengthened under Prime Minister John Macdonald through reservation and disallowance powers. Over time, however, the federal government reduced intervention, allowing provinces to expand their jurisdiction into areas such as taxation, labour laws, transportation, and education. The interdependence phase is characterized by increased cooperation where federal and provincial governments collaborate closely, particularly through conditional funding to provinces for social welfare programs and joint management of international trade policies like those with the European Union and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This collaborative but complex system adapts continuously to new challenges while respecting provincial autonomy within a unified framework. India's federal system has evolved through distinct phases reflecting changing political dynamics and leadership styles. Initially, cooperative federalism prevailed under the dominant Congress party, with leaders like Nehru and Shastri collaborating closely with states. As one-party dominance waned, India entered an era of bargaining federalism, where states negotiated with the central government for financial grants, special status, and greater autonomy. The 1990s marked the rise of competitive federalism, with strong regional parties emerging in states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, leading to complex negotiations between the center and states over policy and governance. Despite constitutional federalism, India's system retains strong central elements, with states competing for foreign investment and economic advantages. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed challenges in center-state coordination, transitioning from centralized decision-making during the first wave to decentralized responses in the second, highlighting ongoing tensions.

Canadian federalism has unfolded over more than 150 years through three main stages: colonial, classical, and interdependence federalism. In the colonial phase, the federal government exercised strong control over provinces, with extensive powers including taxation, regulation, and the disallowance of provincial laws conflicting with federal authority. Linguistic tensions between English and French, economic downturns, judicial interventions, and security concerns contributed to federal centralization, particularly under Prime Minister John Macdonald. Over time, the federal government reduced its intervention, enabling provinces to broaden their roles into areas like income tax, labour laws, transportation, and education. The interdependence phase features increased federal-provincial cooperation, especially through conditional grants funding social programs and shared management of international trade policies such as those involving the European Union and the USMCA. This model balances mutual reliance and provincial autonomy within a collaborative federal framework.

V. Conclusion

Federalism in both India and Canada has developed as a dynamic and adaptable system of governance, uniquely shaped by each country's historical, cultural, and political contexts. While Canada adopted a federal structure to reconcile linguistic, legal, and regional diversity within a colonial framework, India's model emerged from the need to unify a newly independent nation marked by immense demographic and regional complexity.

Despite their different origins, both countries have built flexible systems capable of responding to changing national priorities and political realities. India's federalism leans towards centralization, especially during crises, yet remains responsive to regional aspirations through evolving models like cooperative and competitive federalism. Canada's federalism, although initially centralized, has gradually moved toward greater provincial autonomy, with intergovernmental collaboration becoming central to policy-making in areas such as healthcare, education, and trade.

Both nations continue to face ongoing challenges be it India's center-state coordination in times of national emergencies or Canada's balancing act between provincial demands and national unity, especially in Quebec and other distinct regions. However, their federal systems have proven resilient and adaptive, supporting democratic governance, regional representation, and national cohesion.

Ultimately, the federal experiences of India and Canada demonstrate that federalism is not a static concept but a living political mechanism capable of evolving to meet the demands of governance, development, and diversity in the modern world.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.