Comparison of Pakistan’s provincial structure with that of India in terms of flexibility and decentralization

1. Introduction

3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants

Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!

Join Now

Advertise with Us

The federal structures of Pakistan and India are complex, with two South Asian nations sharing colonial histories yet charting distinct post-independence trajectories. Both countries adopted federal systems to manage their immense geographical, linguistic, and socio-cultural diversity, but their approaches to decentralization and power-sharing have diverged significantly. The historical evolution of federalism in each nation can be traced from the Government of India Act, 1935, to their current constitutional frameworks, including Pakistan's 18th Amendment and India's 'quasi-federal' model. The rationale behind adopting federal structures was to address issues of regional autonomy, ethnic diversity, and administrative efficiency. Furthermore, both countries have confronted the practical relevance and challenges of decentralization, the intricate distribution of legislative, administrative, and financial powers, and the institutional mechanisms facilitating inter-unit coordination. India has adopted a more dynamic approach, while Pakistan’s approach is more rigid, but both exhibit unique characteristics of federal governance in these two pivotal South Asian states.

2. A Brief History of Federalism in Pakistan and India

Federalism in both Pakistan and India has a complex and divergent history, shaped by their shared colonial past under the British Empire and their distinct post-independence trajectories. While both nations adopted a federal structure, the implementation and evolution of this system have differed significantly, leading to varying degrees of success in managing diversity and maintaining stability.

2.1. The Shared Colonial Roots: The Government of India Act, 1935

The foundation of federalism in the subcontinent can be traced back to the Government of India Act, 1935. This Act was a landmark in constitutional development, introducing a structured division of powers between the central government and provincial governments. However, federalism under this Act was never fully implemented as the princely states declined to join the federation. Nevertheless, it provided a blueprint for the distribution of legislative powers into three lists: the Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent lists, which later influenced the constitutions of both independent nations.

Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates

Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.

Follow Channel

Advertise with Us

2.2. Pakistan's Journey: From Centralization to a 'Majority-Constraining' Federation

Pakistan's history of federalism has been marked by a strong centralist approach, frequent constitutional crises, and periods of military rule.

2.2.1. Early Years and the 1956 Constitution:  After independence in 1947, Pakistan adopted an amended version of the 1935 Act as its interim constitution. It took nine years to frame the first constitution, which was promulgated in 1956. This constitution established a federal system with a unicameral legislature and a division of powers, but with a strong central government. The 'One-Unit' system, which merged the provinces of West Pakistan into a single province, was an attempt to create parity with East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) but led to significant discontent. This constitution was short-lived and was abrogated in 1958.

2.2.2. The 1962 Constitution and the Presidential System: The 1962 constitution, introduced by General Ayub Khan, further centralized power under a presidential system. It transformed the federation into a unitary state in practice, with appointed governors ruling the provinces. This concentration of power in the center, coupled with economic disparities and a lack of political representation for the people of East Pakistan, ultimately contributed to the country's disintegration in 1971.

2.2.3. The 1973 Constitution and the 18th Amendment: The secession of East Pakistan led to a new constitutional consensus. The 1973 Constitution established a bicameral parliament and aimed to grant greater provincial autonomy. It adopted a two-list system (Federal Legislative List and Concurrent Legislative List) with residuary powers vested in the provinces. However, subsequent military regimes under General Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharraf again led to centralization. A significant shift towards more inclusive federalism came with the 18th Amendment in 2010, which devolved significant legislative and financial powers to the provinces, abolished the Concurrent List, and enhanced the role of the Senate. This amendment is seen as a crucial step in strengthening provincial autonomy.

 Challenges: Throughout its history, federalism in Pakistan has faced significant challenges, including the dominance of the military and bureaucracy, a highly centralized power structure, ethnic and regional disparities, and an uneven distribution of resources.

2.3. India's Journey: A 'Quasi-Federal' and Cooperative Model

In contrast to Pakistan, India has generally maintained a more stable and successful federal structure, despite its immense linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity.

2.3.1. Post-Independence and the 1950 Constitution: India successfully drafted and enacted its constitution in 1950. The Indian Constitution adopted a "quasi-federal" or "cooperative federalism" model, with a strong central government but also significant provisions for state autonomy. The constitution divides legislative powers into the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List, with residuary powers vested in the Union.

2.3.2. Evolution of the Federal Structure: The Indian federal system has demonstrated remarkable flexibility and adaptability. The reorganization of states on a linguistic basis in the 1950s and 1960s was a crucial step in accommodating regional and linguistic identities, which helped to prevent secessionist movements. The creation of new states over time has further addressed regional aspirations.

2.3.3. Cooperative Federalism: India's federalism is often described as "cooperative federalism," where the central and state governments cooperate in policy-making and implementation. However, the central government retains significant powers, including the ability to declare a state of emergency in a state, known as "President's Rule," and legislate on subjects in the State List under certain circumstances.

2.3.4. Challenges: Despite its success, Indian federalism has faced challenges related to the centralization of power, particularly through the use of emergency provisions, and financial disparities between the center and the states. The dominance of a single political party at both the center and in states for long periods has also at times undermined the federal spirit.

3. Key Differences of Federalism in Pakistan and India

4. Rationale for adopting a federal system in Pakistan and India

4.1. Rationale for Adopting a Federal System in Pakistan

Pakistan's journey with federalism has been more turbulent than India's, but the rationale for its adoption was rooted in similar, and in some ways, more acute challenges.

4.1.1. Geographical Disunity and Ethnic Diversity: At the time of its creation in 1947, Pakistan comprised two geographically non-contiguous wings: East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. The two wings were separated by over 1,000 miles of Indian territory and were distinct in terms of language, culture, and demographics. West Pakistan itself was home to various ethnic groups, including Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, and Pashtuns, each with a unique linguistic and cultural identity. A federal system was seen as the only viable way to hold these disparate units together.

4.1.2. Demand for Provincial Autonomy: From the very beginning, there were strong demands for provincial autonomy, particularly from Bengali, Sindhi, Baloch, and Pashtun nationalists. The 1940 Lahore Resolution of the All-India Muslim League, which is often considered a foundational document for Pakistan, had demanded "independent and autonomous states in Muslim majority areas." This underlined a desire for a federal arrangement. The inability to accommodate these demands effectively led to the secession of East Pakistan in 1971.

4.1.3. Constitutional Legacy of British India: Like India, Pakistan inherited the constitutional legacy of British India, particularly the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided a federal framework. This served as the interim constitution for Pakistan after independence and influenced the subsequent constitutions.

4.14. Constitutional References: The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, which is still in effect today, provides the strongest framework for federalism in the country's history.

• Part V (Articles 141-159): Defines the relations between the Federation and the Provinces, outlining the distribution of legislative powers.
• 18th Amendment (2010): This landmark amendment significantly strengthened federalism in Pakistan by abolishing the Concurrent Legislative List and devolving most of the subjects on this list to the provinces. It also established a more substantive Council of Common Interests (CCI) to resolve disputes between the federation and the provinces.
• Bicameral Parliament: The Senate of Pakistan, where all federating units have equal representation, plays a crucial role in giving representation to the provinces in national governance. This structure was designed to address the fear of domination by the largest province, Punjab.

4.2. Rationale for Adopting a Federal System in India

India's adoption of a federal system was a pragmatic and necessary choice, born from its unique historical and socio-cultural landscape. The framers of the Indian Constitution sought to balance the need for a strong, unified nation with the reality of immense diversity.

4.2.1. Vast Size and Socio-Cultural Diversity: India is a subcontinent with a vast geographical area and a mosaic of cultures, languages, religions, and ethnicities. A centralized, unitary government would have been impractical and potentially oppressive, unable to effectively govern such a diverse population. Federalism allows for regional self-governance and the preservation of distinct identities, addressing the unique needs and aspirations of different regions. This is evident in the linguistic reorganization of states in the 1950s and 1960s, which aimed to accommodate linguistic identities.

4.2.2. Historical Context and Colonial Legacy: The British colonial administration, particularly through the Government of India Act, 1935, laid the groundwork for a federal structure by introducing provincial autonomy and a division of powers between the central and provincial governments. This Act served as a significant reference point for the Indian Constitution, as many of its provisions were later adopted, contributing to India's federal framework.

4.2.3. Integration of Princely States: After independence, a major challenge was the integration of over 500 princely states. A federal system provided a framework to bring these diverse units into a unified Indian Union while allowing them a degree of autonomy. The negotiations led by Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon were crucial in convincing these states to accede to India by allowing them to retain control over certain internal matters.

4.2.4. Constitutional References: The Indian Constitution, while described as "quasi-federal" or "cooperative federalism" by scholars like K.C. Wheare and Granville Austin, clearly establishes a federal structure.

• Article 1: Declares "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." The term "Union of States" was chosen over "federation of states" to emphasize that the Indian federation is not a result of an agreement among the states and that states have no right to secede.
• Seventh Schedule (Articles 246): Divides legislative powers between the Union and the states through three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. This division of powers is a fundamental characteristic of federalism.
• Article 263: Provides for the establishment of an Inter-State Council to promote cooperative federalism and resolve disputes between the Union and the states.
• Bicameral Legislature: The Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha (representing the people) and the Rajya Sabha (representing the states), providing a platform for states to have a voice in national governance.

5. Relevance of Decentralization in Governance and Development

Decentralization, the transfer of authority, responsibility, and resources from a central government to lower levels of government or other local entities, is a globally significant public sector reform. Its relevance in governance and development stems from several key benefits:

5.1. Improved Efficiency and Responsiveness

Centralized systems often employ a one-size-fits-all approach that can be inefficient. Decentralization brings decision-making closer to the people, allowing policies and services to be tailored to the specific needs and preferences of local communities. This reduces red tape, speeds up decision-making, and improves the quality of service delivery in areas like health, education, and infrastructure.

5.2. Enhanced Democratic Participation and Accountability

By empowering local governments, decentralization strengthens democratic institutions at the grassroots level. It allows citizens and their elected representatives to participate directly in decision-making, increasing their stake in governance. This "downward accountability" makes local officials more responsive to the needs of the electorate, as their incentives are reoriented from pleasing central authorities to serving local voters.

5.3. Restructuring of Political and Economic Forces

In diverse and multi-ethnic societies, decentralization can help diffuse social and political tensions by granting greater autonomy to regions or minority groups. It can also be a tool for peace building in post-conflict states. Economically, decentralization can foster local economic growth by enabling local governments to mobilize resources, promote innovation, and attract investment based on local conditions.

5.4. Capacity Building

Decentralization can strengthen administrative and managerial capacity at the local level by providing administrators with meaningful responsibilities. This creates a larger pool of skilled personnel who can effectively manage local development programs.

5.5. Mobilization of Resources

By empowering local governments to raise their own revenue and manage their budgets, decentralization can mobilize local resources for development projects and reduce the financial burden on the central government.

6. Comparative Study of decentralization: Pakistan and India 

Both India and Pakistan have experimented with decentralization, but their experiences highlight different strengths and weaknesses.

6.1. Pakistan: Strengths and Weaknesses of decentralization 

6.1.1. Strengths of decentralization:

6.1.1.1. Periods of Strong Devolution: Pakistan has had periods of strong decentralization, particularly under military regimes (e.g., Ayub Khan's Basic Democracies, Musharraf's Devolution Plan of 2001). These initiatives, while politically motivated, did create a framework for local governments and transferred some administrative and financial responsibilities.

6.1.1.2. Administrative and Financial Devolution: The 2001 Devolution Plan created a three-tier system (District, Tehsil, and Union levels) and devolved significant administrative and financial powers to elected local representatives, making line departments accountable to them.

6.1.1.3. 18th Amendment: The 18th Amendment to the Constitution (2010) provided a constitutional guarantee for local government systems at the provincial level, stipulating that provinces must establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative, and financial responsibility to elected representatives. This provides a legal basis for decentralization that was previously lacking.

6.1.2. Weaknesses of decentralization:

6.1.2.1. Political Instability and Lack of Continuity: Unlike India's continuous constitutional framework, Pakistan's decentralization has been characterized by a lack of political commitment and continuity. Local government systems have been introduced, dissolved, and reformed by successive governments, leading to instability and hampering institutional development.

6.1.2.2. Bureaucratic Dominance: Historically, the bureaucracy has played a dominant role in local governance, often undermining the authority of elected local representatives.

6.1.2.3. Weak Financial Autonomy: Local governments in Pakistan have limited fiscal autonomy and rely heavily on transfers from provincial governments. The lack of a robust, rule-based fiscal transfer mechanism and limited local revenue-raising powers hinders their ability to function effectively.

6.1.2.4. Influence of Traditional Elites: The political landscape at the local level is often dominated by traditional elite groups, such as feudal landlords and tribal leaders, who can use local government structures for patronage and personal gain rather than for public good.

6.1.2.5. Centralization at the Provincial Level: While the 18th Amendment has empowered provinces vis-à-vis the federal government, there is a concern that power has been centralized at the provincial level, with provinces being reluctant to devolve authority to the local level.

6.2. India: Strengths and Weaknesses of decentralization

6.2.1. Strengths of decentralization:

6.2.1.1. Constitutional Mandate and Institutionalization: The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992 are a major strength of India's decentralization framework. These amendments institutionalized the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in rural areas and urban local bodies (ULBs) as the third tier of government, making decentralization a constitutional obligation rather than a policy choice. This has provided a legal and institutional foundation for grassroots democracy.

6.2.1.2. Empowerment of Marginalized Groups: The constitutional amendments mandated reservations for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes in local body elections, leading to significant political empowerment of these groups. This has increased their participation in local governance and decision-making.

6.2.1.3. Increased Citizen Participation: The Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) have facilitated greater participation of citizens in planning, implementing, and monitoring local development projects. This is particularly evident in states like Kerala and West Bengal, where decentralization has been more successful.

6.2.1.4. Improved Service Delivery: In states with effective decentralization, there is evidence of improved delivery of public services like health, education, and sanitation due to greater local accountability and responsiveness.

6.2.2. Weaknesses of decentralization:

6.2.2.1. Incomplete Devolution of Powers: Despite the constitutional mandate, the actual devolution of powers, functions, and finances from state governments to local bodies has been inconsistent and often incomplete. Many state governments have been reluctant to fully empower local bodies, leading to a "decentralization from above" approach rather than genuine devolution.

6.2.2.2. Dependency: Local bodies in India remain heavily dependent on grants from the central and state governments. Their own revenue-generating capacity is often weak, 6 limits their autonomy and ability to fund local development initiatives.

6.2.2.3. "Information Paradox": The lack of sufficient information and awareness among citizens about the functions and responsibilities of local governments can hinder accountability.

6.2.2.4. Political Interference and Bureaucratic Control: State-level political and bureaucratic elites often retain significant control over local bodies, undermining their autonomy and effectiveness.

7. Structure of Federalism in Pakistan and India

7.1. Structure of Federalism in Pakistan

Pakistan's federal structure is outlined in its Constitution, with power divided between the federal government and the provinces. However, it has historically been a highly centralized federation, with the central government holding significant authority. This has often led to tensions and demands for greater provincial autonomy, particularly from smaller provinces.

7.1.1. Four Provinces:

• Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan: These four provinces are the main federating units of Pakistan. They have their own elected provincial assemblies and governments. However, the distribution of power and resources has been a contentious issue. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 2010 was a landmark step towards strengthening provincial autonomy by devolving significant powers from the federal government to the provinces. It abolished the Concurrent Legislative List, giving provinces more control over subjects like education, health, and local government.

7.1.2. Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA):

• The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) were a semi-autonomous region governed by a unique legal and administrative system. They were merged into the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2018 through the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. This merger was aimed at integrating the tribal areas into the mainstream political and administrative system of the country and extending the writ of the Pakistani courts to the region.

7.1.3. Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir:

• Gilgit-Baltistan (GB): This region has a unique and complex status. While it is administered by Pakistan, it is not constitutionally a part of the federation. It has a semi-autonomous status with its own elected assembly and government, but the federal government retains significant control over its affairs. There is a strong demand for granting it full provincial status to integrate it into the Pakistani federation.
• Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK): Like GB, AJK is a self-governing administrative territory with its own President, Prime Minister, and legislative assembly. Its status is also linked to the Kashmir dispute, and it is not a constitutional province of Pakistan. The region has a separate constitution and its own court system.

7.2. Structure of Federalism in India

India's federalism is often described as "quasi-federal" or a "union of states" because while it has federal features, it also has a strong unitary bias, with a powerful central government.

7.2.1. 28 States and 8 Union Territories:

• The Indian federation is comprised of 28 states and 8 union territories. The states have their own elected governments and a high degree of autonomy in matters listed in the State List of the Constitution. Union Territories, on the other hand, are administered directly by the central government, with some (like Delhi and Puducherry) having a partially elected legislature. This dual structure is a key feature of Indian federalism.

7.2.2. Flexible State Creation Mechanism:

• The Indian Constitution allows for the creation of new states, alteration of boundaries, and changes in the names of existing states through a simple majority in Parliament. This flexibility has been a crucial tool for accommodating linguistic, cultural, and regional demands. The creation of new states like Telangana (2014), Uttarakhand (2000), Jharkhand (2000), and Chhattisgarh (2000), based on linguistic and developmental considerations, demonstrates this mechanism in practice. This has helped to manage regional aspirations and maintain the unity of the country.

7.2.3. Asymmetrical Federalism:

• India's federalism is asymmetrical, meaning that some states have a different constitutional status or a higher degree of autonomy than others.
  • Jammu and Kashmir (J&K): Previously, Article 370 of the Constitution granted a special autonomous status to J&K, giving it its own constitution and a high degree of self-governance. However, this provision was revoked in 2019, and the state was reorganized into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This move was a significant change in India's federal structure.
  • Northeastern States: States like Nagaland, Mizoram, and others in the Northeast have special provisions under Article 371 of the Constitution. These provisions protect their cultural identity, land rights, and customary laws, granting them a degree of autonomy.

8.  Distribution of Powers

8.1. Legislative Powers

8.1.1. Pakistan: Federal Legislative List Part I & II (post-18th Amendment)

8.1.1.1. Before the 18th Amendment: The Constitution had three legislative lists: the Federal Legislative List, the Concurrent Legislative List, and the Residuary List (which was assigned to the provinces). The Federal List contained subjects on which only the Parliament could legislate, while the Concurrent List included subjects where both the federal and provincial legislatures could make laws, with federal law prevailing in case of a conflict. This structure often led to a centralization of power and disputes over jurisdiction.

8.1.1.2. Post-18th Amendment: The 18th Amendment abolished the Concurrent Legislative List entirely. This was a crucial step towards genuine provincial autonomy. The legislative powers are now distributed into two main categories:

• Federal Legislative List - Part I: This list contains subjects of national importance on which only the federal Parliament can legislate. Examples include defense, foreign affairs, currency, and federal public services.
• Federal Legislative List - Part II: This list contains subjects that are to be regulated by the Council of Common Interests (CCI). The CCI is a constitutional body with representation from both the federal government and all provinces. This list includes subjects such as railways, mineral oil and natural gas, and regulatory authorities. This mechanism ensures that provinces have a say in matters that affect them, promoting a more cooperative form of federalism.
• Residuary Powers: The powers not enumerated in either of the Federal Legislative Lists now rest exclusively with the provinces. This significantly expands the legislative domain of the provincial assemblies.

8.1.2.India: Union List, State List, Concurrent List

India's Constitution, adopted in 1950, establishes a a quasi-federal system with a clear distribution of legislative powers between the Union (Central) government and the states. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution contains three lists that define this division:

• 8.1.2.1. Union List (List I): This list contains 97 subjects (now 99) on which only the Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate. These are subjects of national importance that require uniform laws across the country. Examples include defense, foreign affairs, banking, currency, atomic energy, railways, and inter-state trade and commerce.
• 8.1.2.2. State List (List II): This list consists of 66 subjects (now 61) on which the state legislatures have the exclusive power to legislate. These are matters of local and regional importance. Examples include public order, police, public health and sanitation, agriculture, local government, and land.
• 8.1.2.3. Concurrent List (List III): This list comprises 47 subjects (now 52) on which both the Parliament and the state legislatures can legislate. However, in case of a conflict between a central law and a state law on a subject in this list, the central law prevails. This list includes subjects such as education, marriage and divorce, forests, criminal law, and economic and social planning.
• 8.1.2.4. Residuary Powers: Article 248 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the exclusive power to legislate on any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent or State Lists.

8.2. Administrative Powers

8.2.1. Pakistan: Central dominance historically; provincial control expanded after 18th Amendment

Historically, Pakistan has had a highly centralized administrative structure. The federal government maintained significant control over key administrative functions and civil services. This led to a lack of autonomy and a top-down approach to governance in the provinces.

• 8.2.1.1. Post-18th Amendment: The 18th Amendment aimed to decentralize administrative powers by devolving several ministries and their functions to the provinces. Subjects like health, education, social welfare, and local government were transferred from the federal to the provincial domain. This devolution was intended to make governance more responsive to local needs.
• 8.2.1.2. Challenges: Despite the legal changes, the implementation of administrative decentralization has faced challenges. These include capacity issues in the provinces, a lack of financial resources to support the devolved functions, and continued federal influence in certain sectors. The transfer of responsibility without a complete transfer of financial and human resources can create an imbalance, affecting the quality of public service delivery.

8.2.2. India: Strong state machinery; administrative decentralization more pronounced

India, with its federal system, has a strong state machinery. States have their own administrative and civil services, and they are responsible for implementing state and concurrent laws. Administrative decentralization is a key feature of Indian governance, particularly after the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.

• 8.2.2.1. Panchayati Raj and Municipalities: The 73rd and 74th Amendments, passed in 1992, introduced a three-tier system of local self-government: Panchayats (rural local bodies) and Municipalities (urban local bodies). These amendments aimed to devolve power, functions, and finances to the grassroots level. They mandate the establishment of elected local bodies and the devolution of specific functions related to public health, education, and sanitation.
• 8.2.2.2. Implementation: While the constitutional framework for decentralization is robust, the actual implementation varies across states. Some states have been more successful in devolving powers, funds, and functionaries to local bodies, while others have been less so. The success of administrative decentralization depends on political will, financial capacity of the local bodies, and the extent of devolution of authority over personnel.

8.3. Financial Powers

8.3.1. Pakistan: National Finance Commission (NFC); vertical and horizontal imbalances

The distribution of financial resources between the federal and provincial governments in Pakistan is governed by the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. The NFC is a constitutional body that makes recommendations to the President on the distribution of divisible pool of taxes between the federation and the provinces.

8.3.1.1. Vertical Imbalances: This refers to the imbalance between the revenue-raising powers of the federal government and the expenditure responsibilities of the provinces. Historically, the federal government has had control over major taxes like income tax, sales tax, and customs duties, while provinces are responsible for a wide range of social and developmental services. The NFC Award aims to address this vertical imbalance by allocating a share of the federal divisible pool to the provinces. The 7th NFC Award (2009) was a landmark award that significantly increased the provincial share from 42.5% to 57.5% of the divisible pool.

8.3.1.2. Horizontal Imbalances: This refers to the imbalances in financial resources among the provinces. In the past, the NFC awards primarily used population as the sole criterion for horizontal distribution, which favored provinces with larger populations (like Punjab and Sindh). The 7th NFC Award introduced a new formula that considers multiple criteria for distribution among provinces, including population (82%), poverty/backwardness (10.3%), revenue collection/generation (5%), and inverse population density (2.7%). This was a significant step towards addressing the fiscal disparities between provinces like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the more developed provinces.

8.3.2. India: Finance Commission; GST Council; more flexible fiscal arrangements

India's financial federalism is guided by the Finance Commission, a constitutional body established every five years to recommend the distribution of tax revenues between the Union and the states, as well as the principles governing grants-in-aid to the states.

8.3.2.1. Finance Commission: The Finance Commission's recommendations are crucial in addressing both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. It determines the share of the states in the central taxes (vertical devolution) and the principles for distributing this share among the states (horizontal devolution), based on criteria such as population, income distance, area, forest cover, and demographic performance. This provides a flexible and evolving mechanism to address the changing fiscal needs of the states.

8.3.2.2. GST Council: The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017 marked a major reform in India's fiscal federalism. The GST Council is a constitutional body (Article 279A) comprising the Union Finance Minister and state finance ministers. It is responsible for making recommendations on GST rates, exemptions, and other related matters. This institutionalizes cooperative federalism in indirect taxation, as decisions are made with the consensus of both the Union and the states. The voting mechanism in the GST Council ensures that both the Centre and the states have a say, with the Centre having one-third and the states together having two-thirds of the voting weight.

9. Institutional mechanisms for coordination between the federal units in Pakistan and India, with references to their respective constitutional and statutory frameworks

9.1. Coordination between the federal units in Pakistan

9.1.1. Council of Common Interests (CCI): Post-18th Amendment

The Council of Common Interests (CCI) is a crucial constitutional body in Pakistan, designed to resolve disputes and foster cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. Its role was significantly enhanced by the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010.

9.1.1.1. Role and Composition:

• Constitutional Mandate: The CCI is established under Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
• Composition: It is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the Chief Ministers of the four provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan) and three federal ministers nominated by the Prime Minister.
• Permanent Secretariat: The 18th Amendment also granted the CCI a permanent secretariat, which provides administrative support and ensures the continuity of its work.
• Meeting Frequency: The Constitution mandates that the CCI must meet at least once every 90 days.

9.1.1.2.Post-18th Amendment Role:

• Abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List: The 18th Amendment abolished the Concurrent Legislative List, transferring a significant number of subjects to the provinces. This devolution of power made the CCI's role even more critical as a forum for resolving conflicts arising from this new distribution of powers.
• Jurisdiction: The CCI's primary responsibility is to formulate and regulate policies and exercise supervision and control over subjects listed in Part II of the Federal Legislative List. These subjects are of mutual interest to the federation and the provinces and include critical areas such as electricity, minerals, oil, natural gas, and railways.
• Dispute Resolution: The CCI acts as a key forum for resolving inter-provincial and center-province disputes, particularly concerning natural resources and water distribution. For instance, it has played an important role in addressing issues related to hydel power royalty and natural gas and oil.
• Accountability: The CCI is accountable to both houses of the Parliament (the Senate and the National Assembly) and is required to submit an annual report to them. This ensures transparency and parliamentary oversight.
• Challenges: Despite its strengthened mandate, the CCI's effectiveness has been hindered by irregular meeting schedules and political challenges.

9.1.2. Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee

The Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee (IPCC) is not a constitutional body like the CCI, but a ministerial-level committee that facilitates coordination. It works under the Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination.

• Role: The IPCC's main function is to promote uniformity in policymaking and implementation of policies concerning both the federal and provincial governments. It acts as a platform for discussion on policy issues raised by the provinces and aids in strengthening the federation.
• Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination (MoIPC): The Ministry of IPC is the parent department for the CCI and the IPCC. It is responsible for overall coordination between the federal and provincial governments and handles matters that require a unified approach. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Inter Provincial Coordination Department, for example, is the focal department for addressing provincial interests in CCI matters.

9.2. Coordination between the federal units in India

9.2.1. Inter-State Council

The Inter-State Council (ISC) is a constitutional body established to promote coordination between the states and the Union government.

• Constitutional Provision: The ISC is established under Article 263 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the President to constitute such a council if it appears to him that public interest would be served by its establishment.
• Formation: While the provision existed since 1950, the ISC was formally established on May 28, 1990, on the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission, which reviewed center-state relations.
• Composition:
  • Chairman: The Prime Minister.
  • Members: Chief Ministers of all states, Chief Ministers of Union Territories with a legislative assembly, Administrators of Union Territories without a legislative assembly, and six Union Cabinet Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister.
• Functions:
  • Advisory Role: The ISC is an advisory body that investigates and discusses subjects of common interest to the Union and the states or among the states themselves.
  • Recommendations: It makes recommendations for better coordination of policy and action on these subjects.
  • Dispute Investigation: It can inquire into and advise upon disputes that may arise between states.
• Secretariat: The Inter-State Council Secretariat (ISCS) was established in 1991 to provide secretarial assistance to the Council.
• Challenges: The ISC's recommendations are advisory and not binding, which limits its enforcement authority. Additionally, the Council's meetings have often been irregular, leading to its underutilization as a platform for continuous dialogue.

9.2.2. Zonal Councils

Zonal Councils are statutory bodies, not constitutional ones. They were established under the States Reorganization Act, 1956, to foster cooperation and a healthy environment among states.

9.2.2.1. Formation: India is divided into five zones (Northern, Central, Eastern, Western, and Southern), with a Zonal Council for each zone. The North Eastern states have a separate statutory body, the North Eastern Council (NEC).

9.2.2.2. Composition:

• Chairman: The Union Home Minister is the common chairman for all Zonal Councils.
• Vice-Chairman: The Chief Minister of a member state, by rotation, for one year.
• Members: Chief Ministers and two other ministers from each of the member states.
• Advisors: A nominee from NITI Aayog, Chief Secretaries, and Development Commissioners from the member states.

9.2.2.3. Functions:

• Advisory Forum: They are high-level advisory forums for dialogue and coordination on issues involving two or more states or the Centre and states.
• Promoting Cooperation: They discuss matters of common interest in various fields like economic and social planning, border disputes, linguistic minorities, and inter-state transport.
• Preventing Disputes: The councils serve as a platform for resolving potential disputes and promoting mutual understanding.

9.2.3. Role of NITI Aayog in Cooperative Federalism

NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) replaced the Planning Commission in 2015. It plays a significant role in promoting both cooperative and competitive federalism.

9.2.3.1. Shift from a Top-Down Model: The Planning Commission followed a top-down approach, allocating funds and formulating policies for states. NITI Aayog, in contrast, is a think tank and advisory body that aims to involve states in policy formulation, fostering a spirit of "Team India."

9.2.3.2. Cooperative Federalism:

• Governing Council: The Governing Council of NITI Aayog includes the Prime Minister (Chairman), Chief Ministers of all states, and Lieutenant Governors of UTs. This provides a platform where the Centre and states can discuss and collaborate on socioeconomic development.
• Policy Formulation: NITI Aayog's approach is to facilitate dialogue and consensus-building, aligning regional priorities with national goals. It works with states to develop and implement policies.

9.2.3.3. Competitive Federalism:

• Indices and Rankings: NITI Aayog promotes a healthy competition among states by publishing various indices and rankings, such as the Health Index, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Index, and Innovation Index. This encourages states to improve their performance in different sectors.
• Aspirational Districts Programme: This program, under the guidance of NITI Aayog, focuses on improving the socioeconomic indicators of 112 underdeveloped districts by fostering competition among them.

9.2.3.4. Challenges: NITI Aayog is a policy advisory body and lacks statutory authority, meaning its recommendations are not binding. This can limit its impact on resolving deep-rooted issues. However, it has been instrumental in strengthening fiscal federalism through increased tax devolution to states and initiatives like the GST Council, which operates on a consensus-driven model with representation from both the Centre and the states.

10. Flexibility in the provincial restructuring in Pakistan and India, with references.

10.1. Pakistan: Rigid Structure; No New Provinces since Independence

Pakistan's provincial map has largely remained static since 1970, with the country comprising four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan. While there have been changes in administrative units, such as the merger of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2018, the number of provinces has not increased.

10.1.1. No new provinces since 1970: After the dissolution of the "One Unit" policy in 1970, which had merged all the provinces and princely states of West Pakistan into one administrative unit, the four current provinces were established. Since then, despite various demands and debates, no new provinces have been created. 

10.1.2. Debates around new provinces: There have been persistent and ongoing debates about creating new provinces, particularly in regions like South Punjab, Bahawalpur, and Hazara. The demand for a South Punjab province, based on socio-economic and administrative grounds, has gained significant traction. The Punjab Assembly has even passed a resolution in favor of a new province in South Punjab, and a government body was formed by the National Assembly for its creation in 2022. However, these proposals have not yet materialized into a new provincial unit.

10.1.3. Constitutional hurdles: The creation of a new province in Pakistan is a complex process. It requires a constitutional amendment, which needs to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament. Additionally, a resolution must be adopted by the provincial assembly of the respective province. This constitutional mechanism, coupled with political resistance from regional elites who fear a loss of influence, has been a significant obstacle to restructuring the federal map. 

10.2. India: Dynamic Federal Map; Frequent State Reorganizations

In contrast to Pakistan, India's federal map has been remarkably dynamic and flexible, with frequent state reorganizations since its independence in 1947.

10.2.1. Process via Article 3 of the Constitution: The Indian Constitution provides a clear and powerful mechanism for the creation of new states and the alteration of existing ones through Article 3. This article empowers the Parliament to:

• Form a new state by separating territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states.
• Increase or diminish the area of any state.
• Alter the boundaries or names of any state.

While a bill for this purpose must be recommended by the President and referred to the affected state's legislature for its views, the Parliament is not bound by those views. This gives the central government significant power to reorganize states.

10.2.2. Responsiveness to linguistic, cultural, and administrative needs: The primary driver for state reorganization in India has been the principle of linguistic reorganization. The States Reorganization Act of 1956, based on the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission, was a pivotal moment in this process. It led to the creation of states based on language, a move that fostered regional identity and unity. Notable examples include the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 (the first linguistic state), and later, the formation of states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, and Karnataka.

10.2.3. Ongoing evolution: The process of creating new states has continued in India, demonstrating the dynamic nature of its federal structure. More recent examples include the formation of Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh), Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh), and Jharkhand (from Bihar) in 2000, and Telangana (from Andhra Pradesh) in 2014. These reorganizations were not just based on language but also on factors like administrative convenience, regional disparities, and economic viability.

11. Conclusion

In conclusion, both Pakistan and India inherited the framework of federalism from the Government of India Act, 1935. However, their journeys have diverged significantly. Pakistan's federalism has been a story of a constant push-and-pull between a historically strong center and provinces demanding autonomy, with the 18th Amendment being a watershed moment in shifting the balance of power. India, on the other hand, adopted a "quasi-federal" and cooperative model that prioritized unity while providing a flexible mechanism for reorganizing states and empowering local governments, demonstrating a more dynamic and adaptive federal structure. While decentralization in both countries faces challenges like political instability and fiscal dependency, India's constitutional entrenchment of local bodies and a flexible state creation mechanism have given it an edge in accommodating diversity and ensuring continuity.