At the first NITI Aayog meeting of the NDA government last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about the need for combined efforts of all states for a ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’. 

But the meeting was skipped by representatives from 10 state and union territories over budget allocations. And West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who was the only opposition leader to have entered the meeting, walked out claiming she was allowed to speak only for five minutes.

The centre has denied Banerjee’s claims, with the PIB carrying out a fact-check and finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman terming the claim “unfortunate”.

Editorials in prominent dailies, meanwhile, pointed out what the episode meant for federalism in India. 

The Hindu said the NITI Aayog “suffers from both structural and functional issues”, adding that consultations with states have been limited as compared to the erstwhile planning commission. 

“Constituted by the NDA government in its first term, the NITI Aayog was to replace the Planning Commission, doing away with the ‘top-down’ approach of the earlier body, and to focus on ‘cooperative federalism’. But by limiting itself to an advisory body without any powers of resource distribution or allocation to States and other bodies and focusing on creating indices to evaluate States, it has led to the unintended consequence of ‘competitive federalism’; while the Finance Ministry has unfettered powers to decide on grants to States. In contrast, the Planning Commission, which too had its detractors, at least allowed for consultations with States in such matters.”

The paper said it has not helped matters that the “Bharatiya Janata Party has sought to seek votes in State elections on the basis of providing ‘double engine’ governments, leading to complaints by Opposition-ruled States that the Centre has favoured those ruled by the BJP for investment projects. The fact that the NDA government now is crucially dependent upon the support of parties that rule Bihar and Andhra Pradesh – States that suffer varying developmental deficits – and the express intention of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to address their demands specifically in the Budget have not been lost on the government’s detractors. Irrespective of the merit in this contention, the fact is that consultations with States on grants and projects have become limited after the end of the Planning Commission.”

The Times of India noted that the meeting minus opposition CMs shows “neither INDIA nor BJP has realised what voters told them during elections”.  

“Such a break in Centre-state ties hits normative federalism, and is an unsustainable opposition tactic – not all states can hold out or join boycott calls. To that end, INDIA brass must know it shouldn’t hang its unity on how states individually engage with the Centre – autonomy is paramount,” it said on the opposition’s role.

It said it is for the centre “to recognise the mandate pushed for federalism, coalition and cooperation. BJP calling opposition politicians names didn’t stop voters from making INDIA a strong opposition. Despite GOI talking up official jobs data, the budget had to effectively concede there’s a jobs problem, an issue that came front and centre during elections. Long-term livelihood is the core concern for India’s majority.”

“What the 18th Lok Sabha has demonstrated so far, with the budget followed by the boycott, is that GOI and opposition are playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee – simply twiddling.”

The Economic Times, in an editorial headlined “Hubbub of spokes that are the states”, noted that states, particularly ruled by parties in opposition to BJP, may differ on the particular development route the centre is offering through accelerated capital expenditure.

It said that access to funding is tied to a national view of development that leaves little scope for departure by the states. This curbs the political space for parties in power on the basis of regional aspirations.

“Yet, the objective metrics of development are not in dispute. New Delhi has more resources to share with states both for infrastructure and welfare. States will have to fall in line with a national development course and evolve their specific roles depending on their resource endowments. The New Delhi consensus has been decades in the making with states contributing enormously to shaping the development agenda. As parts of that agenda reach fruition, states will have to build on those gains to evolve strategies for further development that may very well be vastly superior to the common minimum programme.”

Meanwhile, Hindi daily Jansatta lashed out at Mamata Banerjee for the walkout, questioning its motive.

“If she really cared about federal dignity, then why did she leave the meeting in anger in the middle? Why this hue and cry then that she alone attended the meeting from the opposition’s side? If she cared about the opposition, she would not have rejected its appeal to boycott it like this. Ever since she went to the meeting, there has been speculation that the opposition has started to split. Due to her uncertain position, the opposition’s fight has already weakened and the alliance has had to face uncomfortable situations many times.”

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.