Download Cetificate

Dr. Vikas Kumar

भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षणः बदलते संदर्भ एवं मुद्दे

स्वतंत्र बाजार अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में ‘उपभोक्ता बादशाह होता है।’ पहले के कैविट एम्पटर अर्थात् ‘क्रेता स्वयं चौकन्ना रहे’ के सिद्धांत का स्थान अब केविट वैंडिटर अर्थात् ‘विक्रेता को सावधान रहना चाहिए’ ने ले लिया है।

Dr. Ganesh Sahni

भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षण और शिकायत निवारण तंत्रः एक अध्ययन

प्रतियोगिता के इस युग में उपभोक्ताओं के पास वस्तुओं की विविधताएँ मौजूद हैं। आज उपभोक्ता अपने द्वारा खर्च किये जाने वाले पैसों से अधिक गुणवत्ता वाली वस्तुएँ प्राप्त करना चाहता है।

Dr. Dilip Kumar

बिहार में सामाजिक परिवर्तन के बदलते आयाम और कर्पूरी ठाकुरः एक अध्ययन

वंचन, विभेद और अन्याय सभी समाजों में अलग-अलग मात्रा में व्याप्त हैं। अन्याय से पीड़ित, निराश, क्रुद्ध और आक्रमक लोगों में विद्रोह की प्रवृत्ति रहती है।

Dr. Priyanka Kumari

बिहार में सामाजिक परिवर्तन के बदलते आयाम और कर्पूरी ठाकुरः एक अध्ययन

वंचन, विभेद और अन्याय सभी समाजों में अलग-अलग मात्रा में व्याप्त हैं। अन्याय से पीड़ित, निराश, क्रुद्ध और आक्रमक लोगों में विद्रोह की प्रवृत्ति रहती है।

Dr. Dhananjay Jha

उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के फ्रेमवर्क में उपभोक्ता अधिकार का फैलता दायरा

बाजार नियंत्रित समाजों की मूलभूत प्रकृति यह है कि यहाँ उत्पादक एवं उपभोक्ता पूरी अर्थव्यवस्था को चलाने के लिए दो पहियों की तरह काम करते हैं मगर व्यवहारतः उपभोक्ता उत्पादक की तुलना में अधिक आधार प्रदान करता है।

Dr. Amrita Kumari

भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षण का महत्वः एक अध्ययन

विगत वर्षों में अर्थव्यवस्था का अत्यधिक विस्तार हुआ। नित नई व्यावसायिक संस्थाओं के अस्तित्व में आने तथा वैश्वीकरण के कारण बाजार में विभिन्न प्रकार की वस्तुओं एवं सेवाओं की भरमार हुई।

Ajay Kumar

भारतीय लोकतंत्र के समक्ष चुनोतियां

Amar Gautam

Micro-finance and financial inclusion

Chandan Kumar

Situating Food Security in the Matrix of Food Corporation of India

दिनेश बैठा

समावेशी लोकतंत्र: एक गांधीवादी नजरिया

डॉ. आलोक वर्मा

भाजपा की पूंजीवादी परियोजना: एकरूपीकरण की सांस्कृतिक और राजनीतिक प्रक्रिया

Dr Md Masroor Alam

Rural Development and Sustainable Livelihood through Microfinance in India

Dr. Mukund Kumar

Role of Women in the Pattern of Consumption Expenditure: A Study with reference to Rural Households of Muzaffarpur District

Dr. Shambhu Kumar Yadav

Comparative Study of Field Emission Properties of Carbon Nanotubes Based Cold Cathode by Silver and Gold Buffer Layer

Md Mashhood Alam

Climate Change Politics and the Future of the Paris Agreement: A Global Perspective

Md Tufail Ansari

Rural Development and Sustainable Livelihood through Microfinance in India

Yawar Alamgeer

Comparative Study of Field Emission Properties of Carbon Nanotubes Based Cold Cathode by Silver and Gold Buffer Layer

Dr. Md. Ehtesham Khan

Competitive Federalism in India Creating Disparity: A Comparative Overview of Poor and Prosperous States

Dr. Md. Ehtesham Khan Professor & Former Head, Dept. of Political Science, Magadh University, Bodhgaya Accommodation of differences is used by federal system to hold their units together. Lack of accommodation of disparity could lead to conflicts and pose danger among states for a union. This article exposes the protection of the interest of the various states of a union in federal system. It involves a comparative overview of the poor and prosperous states of Indian federal system. While the competition between states reflected in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index, has generated a lot of enthusiasm, this must be a continuing exercise. There are only few well-off states like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu which are competing. The present inter-state competition in attracting investment is too early to determine whether it will really encourage competitive patterns of investments on a continuous basis. There are varied economic patterns in different states. There are deficit states or the backward regions or the states under debt. Those states are being treated on par with the well-off states. The states like West Bengal, Bihar and Odisha have protested against the uniform approach in funding because of their special situations in which the central government has to provide special funds to these states. Without special funding these states can not imagine their participation in competitive federalism. Though the states are provided with financial independence, it is a fallacy to assume that all the states would perform uniformly in the process of development because while some states have favourable factors like skilled labour, capital and infrastructure, innovative service industries, other states are lagging behind. For that states with unfavourable climate still need the help from centre. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Indian Federalism is different from the type of Federalism practiced in the countries like the United States of America. Indian model of federalism is called quasi-federal system as it contains major features of both a federation and union. Article 1 of the Constitution of India states that ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.1Indian federation was not a product of coming together of states to form the federal union of India. It was rather a conversion of a unitary system into a federal system. It is a compromise between two conflicting considerations such as autonomy enjoyed by states within the constitutionally prescribed limit (State List) and the need for a strong centre in view of the unity and integrity of the country (Union List). Dr. Subhash Kashyap considers, “the India Constitution establishes a strong centre.” Paylee considers it as “perfectly federal.” Morris Jones terms it “bargaining federalism” and for K.C. Where it is “quasi-federal.” This description leads to the conclusion that the structure of the Constitution is an example of cooperative federalism. There are various mechanisms which insure cooperation between the Union and the State Governments, such as provision for Inter-state Councils, Zonal Councils, All India Services, National Development Council, Planning Process and Finance Commission. The constitution establishes a federal structure in India, i.e. there are separate governments of the union and states, and there is a division of powers between the two. However, there are other constitutional provisions and practices which impart unitary features to Indian federation by giving more powers and prominence to the union in comparison to states.2 The present Modi government is stressing on the need to leverage the potential of cooperative and competitive federalism for achieving all round inclusive development in India. In February,2015 the central government has tabled in parliament the recommendation of the 14th finance commission of India with a view to introduce the competitive federalism. For this purpose the NITI Aayog has been formed to empower and strengthen the state governments replacing the Planning Commission which was created in 1951. In this context, I will examine the concepts of cooperative and competitive federalism and the issues surrounding them. Although the term federal has not been mentioned in the constitution but the working of Indian democracy is essentially federal in structure. However, it is the applied aspect of the federalism, which brought the concepts of centralised federalism, confrontational federalism, cooperative federalism and competitive federalism in India. In post independence from 1947 to 1967, India experienced the centralized federalism. It is largely attributed to the single party domination at the central level. As most of the states were also ruled by same party, hardly there were any issues between centre and states. From 1967-1990, India witnessed confrontational federalism on account of the emergence of other party governments at the state level. Since 1990 the state level political parties started becoming the part of central governments and this has led to the development of cooperative federalism. the present NDA government has been focusing on the new concept of competitive federalism along with cooperative federalism for higher growth of the country. The main features of the competitive federalism comprise the following: Competitive federalism is a concept where centre competes with states and vice-versa, and states compete with each other in their joint efforts to develop India. The states would compete with each other over a broad range issues to provide citizens various services in a hassle-free manner. The policy of one-size-fit-all is replaced with different policies of various states based on the own priorities within the state. Competitive federalism follows the concept of bottom-up approach as it will bring the change from the states. This also promotes discipline among the states. Now, state governments do not look towards centre for policy guidance and fiscal resources completely. The centre has increased the share of states in central tax revenue from the earlier 32% to 42%. The government also declared that the states will have freedom to plan their expenditure based on their own priorities and the states are free to change centrally sponsored schemes. However, the states should work within the context of shared national objectives. The most important among the Modi government’s steps to increase states’ competitiveness is the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion’s (DIPP’s) 98-point Assessment of State Implementation of Business Reforms. This under-appreciated assessment is the best guidebook for those states that want to increase their relative competitiveness. Of course, highlighting those states that are leading versus lagging does not automatically trigger action. Some states simply focus on short-term political gains, at the expense of improving their economy. But other states are taking advantage of this new set of policy tools. The output linked initiatives of the govt. like Smart city also accelerated such competition. No longer the central assistance is seen as entitlement but is linked to the performance. Different states are seen organising Investment summits like Vibrant Gujarat, Progressive Punjab etc.  to project themselves as the most suitable destination for investment. Land reforms undertaken by various states in order to improve the ease of doing business is another manifestation. For instance, in 2016, amended its Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, eliminating the requirement of a social impact assessment and consent clauses while in 2016 the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, allowed the sale of certain publicly-owned lands that were previously slated only for leasing. Obstacles in its way: There are deficit states or the backward regions or the states under debt. Those states should not be treated at par with the well-off states. Such states need special attention in which the central government has to provide special funds to these states. Without special funding these states cannot imagine their participation in competitive federalism. Though the states are provided with financial independence, it is a fallacy to assume that all the states would perform uniformly in the process of development because while some states  have favourable factors like skilled labour, capital and infrastructure, innovative service industries while other states are lagging behind. For that states with unfavourable climate still need the help from Centre. Presently, the union government is taking unilateral decisions on issues like international treaties, WTO obligations, environmental issues, and decisions on FDI liberalisation in various sectors of economy etc. An institutional mechanism must be evolved where important decisions are appropriately discussed with states. Competitive Federalism cannot be ensured without first securing the spirit of federalism. Competition between unequal states is unfair- eastern states cannot compete with resource rich states like Maharashtra, etc. Thus, the demand for ‘special status’ coming from different states. Conspicuous departure from federalism -presence of UTs- Delhi demanding state status. May further instead of improving unequal growth as states like Tamil Nadu (with much better social and Investment Infrastructure) will no doubt pull more investments. Thus, the need is to balance both. With the 15th Finance commission award impending - centre can use new financial models to give a boost to the lagging states. further, schemes like Aspirational district scheme which plans to improve 117 backward districts in a mission mode and NITI’s SAATH programme will help in bridging the gap between states too. Comparative Overview After analysing the various studies the fact comes in the light that the average Bihari is 19 years old, has attended primary school and earns roughly Rs 35,000 per annum. The average Tamilian is 30 years old, has matriculated and earns Rs 136,000 per annum, nearly four times more. This demographic, literacy and income gap between the richest and poorest big states of India. Levels of income disparity across the big states of India are at an all-time peak. India is currently experiencing a 3-3-3 paradox – the richest three are three times richer than the poorest three large states. This is surprising to note that in 1960, the average Tamilian earned roughly Rs 330 per annum while the average Bihari earned Rs 215, and both were roughly of the same age. Up until 1990, the difference in average income between the richer and poorer states in India was around 1.5 times. In the subsequent 25 year period from 1990 to 2015, the difference shot up to four times, implying that the richer states grew much faster than the poorer states in post-liberalisation India. Primarily, the southern states, and Maharashtra and Gujarat grew at a scorching pace in the post-1990 period leading to this great divergence among states. Decadal analysis from 1960 to 2015 shows that in the decades until 1990, India did not experience any significant divergence across its big states and may have even experienced slight income convergence between 1970 and 1980 but has shown puzzling divergence in every decade since 1990. There have been various scholarly attempts to explain this disparity and economic out-performance of some states, but none have done so satisfactorily. It is quite evident that the needs and priorities of much poorer Bihar or Madhya Pradesh will be vastly different from that of, say, Kerala or Tamil Nadu. Bihar may need a more robust state-run social security mechanism, focus on primary education, flexible labour laws, inexpensive energy and public health system. Tamil Nadu may well need a focus on higher education, cleaner energy, privatised health care and perhaps a cash transfer-based social security net.3 Formal Jobs created/Formalised in States The country has seen creation of 39.36 lakh jobs in oraganised sector during the period September 2017 to March 2018 as per the statistics released first time for 20 states and 2 Union territories, namely Delhi and Chandigarh by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) on May 21, 2018. This shows that more than half of the jobs formalised in India are in three leading industrialised states of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.4 See the table-1 States of India Job Creation Maharashtra 817,302 Tamil Nadu 465,319 Haryana 325,379 Karnataka 293,779 Delhi 276,877 FDI Inflows in India So far as the Foreign Direct Investment is concern it also exposed the real state of comparative federalism in India. As per data provided by various regional offices of RBI, Mumbai and New Delhi region have attracted more than 50% FDI amongst the eighteen regional offices from April 2000 to March 2016.5 See the table-2 S.N RBI’s Regional Office State Covered 2013-14 In terms of Rs. in crore & $ in million 2014-15 In terms of Rs. in crore & $ in million 2015-16 In terms of Rs. in crore & $ in million Cumulative inflow 2000-2016 In terms of Rs. in crore & $ in million % in terms of US$ 1. Mumbai Maharashtra,Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu 20,595 3,420 38,933 6,361 62,731 9,511 415,753 82,629 29 2. New Delhi Delhi, Part of U.P & Haryana 38,190 6,242 42,252 6,875 83,288 12,743 332,312 62,154 22 3. Chennai Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry 12,595 2,116 23,361 3,818 29,781 4,528 118,547 21,542 7 4. Banglore Karnataka 11,422 1,892 21,255 3,444 26,791 4,121 108,912 20,241 7 5. Ahmedabad Gujarat 5,282 860 9,416 1,531 14,667 2,244 68,464 13,285 5 Out of total FDI inflow of Rs. 1,495,326 crore (US$ 288,513 million) attracted in India during the aforesaid period, Bhubaneshwar and Patna regional offices have attracted 0.1% and 0.03% respectively. This shows the stark divergence in investment amongst the states of India. Broken Education System If we analyse the education system, only 32.57% population in the 16-17 years age group are enrolled in school, and only 44.07% students are transitioning from secondary to higher secondary whereas the transition rate from elementary to secondary is 84.64% . In Bihar around 1,25,00,000 youth, aged between 18-23 years will enter the job market without good quality education. Bihar has only 22 universities across the state, having 744 colleges. This means only 7 colleges for every lakh population with an average enrollment of 2,142 in one college, while the national average is 28 colleges per lakh population and average enrollment per college was 721 in 2015-16. Out of its total young population only 1,78,833 students are enrolled in colleges and universities.6 Benefits of economic growth As per the survey released by the International Rights Group Oxfam hours before the start of the world economic forum annual meeting at Davos shows that besides, 67 crore Indians comprising the population’s poorest half saw their wealth plus rise by just 1%. Last year’s survey had showed that India’s richest 1% held a huge 58% of the India’s total wealth. This is higher than the global figure of about 50%. In the same year the richest 1% in India cornered 73% of the wealth generated in the country. This year’s survey also showed that the wealth of India’s richest 1% increased by over Rs. 20.9 lakh crore during 2017- an amount equivalent to total budget of the central government in 2017-18. The Oxfam survey also reveals that India added 17 new billionaires in 2017, taking the total number to 101. The Indian billionaires’ wealth increased to over Rs.20.7 lakh crore, increasing in the year by Rs. 4.89 lakh crore, an amount sufficient to finance 85% of the all states’ budget on health and education.7 Conclusion Going through the various secondary sources, I found that the competitive federalism as concept is an new addition to federalism, but in reality this has been creating disparity amongst the various states of India. The poorer states need more attention and balance approach from the centre to come up with the prosperous states in all fronts. It is established wisdom that different sovereign states will have different policy priorities in their development cycle. In this context, true federalism doesn’t merely imply more devolution of financial resources but also granting true legislative and political autonomy to the states to enable a policy to take account of specific circumstances without departing in essentials from the original. There is an inherent tension between efficiency and federalism – the former demands commonness and the latter demands acceptance of differences. Whichever camp one belongs to, there is no denying the vast cultural, political and now economic diversity of India. It is then also time to ponder greater legislative autonomy to states, perhaps by transferring some of the concurrent list subjects such as education, land and labour back to the states. The concepts of cooperation and competition federalism seem to be contradictory and cannot exist together. Cooperative and competitive federalism are two sides of the same coin. The competition alone cannot give the best results it is competition with cooperation that will drive the real change. To bring competition, the centre should cooperate with the states by providing necessary autonomy in their policy making and allocating them the required funds to spend based on their own priorities. The cooperation forms the ground base on which competition can begin. Thus, this is essential to create a balance between cooperative and competitive federalism. References Bakshi P.M., The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. LTd. , Delhi, 1999. Pant HG, Constitutional System of India- Continuity and Change, Vasudeva Publication, New Delhi, 1983. https://scroll.in/article/816726/the-stark-economic-divergence-between-indias-states-makes-a-strong-case-for-greater-federalism. Business Standard, New Delhi, Tuesday, May 22,2018. https://www.corporate-cases.com/2016/10/state-wise-fdi-inflows-in-India.html The Times of India, Patna, Friday, October26,2018. Times of India, New Delhi, Thursday, January 22, 2018.