Inter-State Disputes And Cooperative Federalism

Source: Indian Express
GS II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, Governance

Why in the News?

An opinion article by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma discusses recent efforts to resolve long-pending inter-State and Centre-State disputes through dialogue, negotiated settlements and cooperative federalism.

News in Brief

• The Bihar–Jharkhand Sone River water-sharing agreement ended a dispute that had continued for nearly 25 years.
• Other agreements mentioned include the Kishau Multipurpose Project, Upper Yamuna Basin agreement, settlement of outstanding dues under the Narmada Award, and agreements concerning the Northeast.
• In the Northeast, agreements relating to Assam–Nagaland, Assam–Meghalaya and Assam–Arunachal Pradesh are presented as examples of dialogue-based conflict resolution.
• The broader issue is linked to cooperative federalism, Centre-State relations, water governance and regional development.

Cooperative Federalism

• The issue highlights the importance of cooperation between the Centre and the States in addressing disputes and achieving development.
• Instead of allowing differences to remain unresolved, dialogue and negotiation can help governments arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.
• Cooperative federalism involves,
  • Regular coordination between the Union and State governments
  • Dialogue between States on issues affecting their common interests.
  • Joint efforts in implementing major development projects.
  • Equitable sharing of water and other natural resources.
  • Use of institutional mechanisms to resolve disputes.
• The NITI Aayog Governing Council provides an important platform for discussions between the Centre and the States on development and policy issues.

Recent Inter-State Agreements

Several long-pending disputes and development-related disagreements have recently moved towards settlement.

Kishau Multipurpose project

• The project involves Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.
• Differences among the concerned governments had delayed the project for several years.
• Renewed discussions have helped revive the project.

Upper Yamuna Basin

• Haryana and Rajasthan have moved towards resolving issues related to the 1994 Upper Yamuna Basin agreement.
• Such arrangements are important for the equitable use of shared river waters.

Narmada-related settlement

• Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan reached a one-time settlement concerning outstanding dues under the Narmada Award.
• The settlement helps remove an issue that had remained unresolved for several decades.

Sone River dispute

• Bihar and Jharkhand reached an agreement to resolve their long-standing dispute over the sharing of Sone River waters.
• The agreements provides for the distribution of the former undivided Bihar allocation between the two States.

Assam-Nagaland Dispute

The Assam-Nagaland boundary dispute is an example of a long-standing inter-state issue involving both territorial claims and natural resources.

• The boundary dispute has its roots in historical administrative boundaries and differing territorial claims.
• Disagreements over the dispute areas have also affected resource exploration and development.
• A tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) involving the Centre, Assam and Nagaland seeks to create a framework for cooperation.
• The two States have also agreed to a 50:50 sharing arrangement for hydrocarbon revenue, irrespective of the final outcome of the boundary negotiations.
• This shows that resource-sharing and confidence-building measures can support the larger process of resolving territorial disputes.

Other Northeast Peace and Boundary Agreements

• The efforts taken to address conflicts and disputes in the Northeast, including,
• • Bodo Peace Accord
  • Karbi Anglong settlement
  • Assam-Meghalaya boundary agreement
  • Assam-Arunachal Pradesh boundary settlement
  • Frontier Nagaland arrangement
• These agreements reflect the use of dialogue, negotiation and political settlements to address long-standing regional issues.
• They are also relevant to the broader themes of peace-building, regional development and national integration.

Why do inter-State disputes persist?

Inter-State disputes often continue for years because they involve a combination of historical, political, economic and resource-related interests.

Competition over natural resources

• States may have competing claims over,
• • River waters
  • Minerals
  • Hydrocarbons
  • Forest resources
• Since these resources directly affect agriculture, industries and State revenues, governments may find it difficult to compromise.

Boundary Disputes

• Many boundary disputes are linked to,
  • Historical administrative boundaries
  • Reorganization  of States
  • Differences in interpretation of old maps and records.
  • Unclear demarcation of boundaries.

Political Considerations

• State governments may face political pressure to protect their territorial or resource interests.
• This can make negotiations more difficult, particularly when a compromise is perceived as affecting local interests.

Economic Interests

• Disputes over resources and development projects can have significant financial implications for States.
• Revenue from minerals, hydrocarbons, water resources or infrastructure projects can therefore become a major source of disagreement.

Institutional and Procedural Delays

• Disputes may remain unresolved because negotiations, tribunals and judicial proceedings can take considerable time.
• Even after an agreement is reached, implementation can sometimes become another challenge.

Importance for Indian Federalism

Strengthening Cooperative Federalism

• The resolution of long-standing disputes through negotiation demonstrates the importance of consultation and consensus in a federal system.

Promoting Development

• Unresolved disputes can hold up important projects related to:
  • Irrigation
  • Hydropower
  • Drinking water
  • Roads and infrastructure
  • Natural-resource development
• Resolving such disputes can allow development projects to move forward and improve the utilization of shared resources.

Strengthening National Integration

• When States resolve territorial and resource disputes through dialogue, it can improve mutual trust and strengthen the functioning of India’s federal system.

Supporting Northeast Development

• Peace agreements and boundary settlements can create a more stable environment for infrastructure development, investment, connectivity and economic activity in the Northeast.

Improving Governance

• Long-running disputes consume administrative resources and can delay welfare and development programmes.
• Timely resolution allows governments to focus on broader development priorities.

Constitutional and Institutional Framework

• Article 262
  • Article 262 deals specifically with the adjudication of disputes relating to the waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys.
  • Parliament can provide a legal framework for resolving such disputes and can also provide for restricting the jurisdiction of courts in such matters.
• Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
  • The Act provides a mechanism for adjudicating disputes relating to the sharing of waters of inter-State rivers when negotiations between the concerned States fail.
• Article 131
  • Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain disputes involving the Union and States or disputes between two or more States, where the dispute involves a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
• Article 263
  • Article 263 provides for the establishment of an Inter-State Council to promote coordination between States and between the Centre and States.
  • Its functions can include:
    • Inquiring into and advising on disputes between States.
    • Discussing subjects of common interest.
    • Making recommendations for better coordination of policy and action.
• Zonal Councils
  • The Zonal Councils were created under the States Reorganization Act, 1956.
  • They provide a platform for States within different zones to discuss issues relating to economic and social planning, border disputes and other matters of common interest.

Challenges in Inter-State Dispute Resolution

Despite progress in some areas, several challenges remain,

• Different political priorities of State governments.
• Competing claims over water and natural resources.
• Historical ambiguities in State boundaries.
• Delays in negotiations and adjudication.
• Difficulties in implementing agreements after they are signed.
• Concerns of local communities and stakeholders.
• The need to balance State autonomy with wider national interests.
• Lack of a uniform mechanism for resolving all types of inter-State disputes.

Conclusion

Resolving inter-State disputes through dialogue, negotiation and institutional cooperation can strengthen India’s federal structure. Sustained cooperation between the Centre and States is essential to ensure that differences over resources, boundaries and development do not hinder inclusive growth, national integration and the goal of Viksit Bharat.

UPSC Prelims and Mains Practice Question

Consider the following statements regarding inter-State disputes in India:

1. Article 262 deals with adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers and river valleys.
2. Article 263 provides for the establishment of an Inter-State Council.
3. Zonal Councils were created under the Constitution of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 and 2 only

B) 2 and 3 only

C) 1 and 3 only

D) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: 1 and 2 only.

Mains Practice Question

Q) Cooperative federalism can provide an effective framework for resolving long-standing inter-State disputes in India. Discuss with suitable examples. (250 words)

Daily Current Affairs: Click Here

Rate this Article and Leave Feedback