Home arrow Archives arrow Spotlight arrow Spotlight-2022 arrow CMs PROTEST & THE WAY OUT, By Inder Jit, 26 February 2022
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
CMs PROTEST & THE WAY OUT, By Inder Jit, 26 February 2022 Print E-mail

REWIND

New Delhi ,26 February 2022

 

CMs PROTEST & THE WAY OUT

By Inder Jit

(Released on 17 July 1984)

 

Centre-State relations have burst into the open once again, thanks to the dramatic and unprecedented walk out by four non-Congress-I Chief Ministers from the two-day meeting of the National Development Council. The Chief Ministers, Mr. N.T. Rama Rao of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. R.K. Hegde, Karnataka, Mr. Jyoti Basu, West Bengal and Mr. Nripen Chakraborty of Tripura, readers will recall, left the NDC meeting to protest against Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s “anti-democratic and authoritarian dismissal”. Opinions are sharply divided on what came to pass. Mrs. Gandhi and her Congress-I colleagues are strongly of the view that it was wholly improper for the Chief Ministers to have made “a political statement” at the NDC forum. The four Chief Ministers are equally clear that the statement was perfectly in order. As Mr. Hegde later pointed out: “The Chief Ministers are political beings. What is more, Chief Ministers beginning with EMS from Kerala from Nehru’s time have made political statements at the NDC meetings. There has been never any bar against making them.”

 

Impartially and candidly, both sides have a point. Mrs Gandhi is partly correct when she says that the National Development Council is only a forum for planning and national development and is not concerned with politics. However, Mr. Rama Rao, Mr. Hegde, Mr Basu and Mr. Chakraborty have greater force --- and justice --- on their side. First, politics cannot be separated from planning in any federal polity, as Mrs Gandhi knows only too well.  Times out of number, the Prime Minister herself has stated that national development is dependent upon close co-operation between the Centre and the States. This has inevitably led the NDC to a discussion on Centre-State relations and in the present case on the question of New Delhi’s virtual coup in Srinagar --- and the credentials and legitimacy of the successor State Government. Second, where else could the Chief Ministers have raised the Kashmir question in the absence of a political forum? Nehru recognized this fact of life and did not, therefore, object when EMS first and Annadurai subsequently made political speeches at the NDC.

 

Some Central leaders have loudly asserted that the four Chief Ministers should have used Parliament to air their grievances and voice protest. But in doing so the leaders have slurred over reality. True, ruling parties in non-Congress-I States could get their MPs to take up issues in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. True also that the Rajya Sabha was mainly created to provide a forum for the States as the Council of States. But the two Houses cannot possibly be a substitute for a forum in which the Chief Ministers themselves are able to take up issues with the Prime Minister across the table. Nehru did not feel the need for such a forum. The reason is not far to see. All the States had Congress Governments, barring Kerala which voted a CPM Ministry in 1957. Consequently, Nehru and his Home Ministers were able to make up for the lack of any Centre-State forum through informal meetings with Chief Ministers on the party network. The situation changed considerably after Nehru and several States slipped out of the Congress fold in 1967.

 

Significantly, the founding fathers of the Constitution recognized the need for a national political forum and wisely provided for one in the shape of an Inter-State Council, under Article 263 of the Constitution in the part dealing with “Relations between the Union and the States.” The Article, which deserves to be quoted in full, reads: “If at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a Council charged with the duty of (a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States; (b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the States, or (c) making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the better coordination of policy and action with respect to that subject, it shall be lawful for the President by order to establish such a Council, and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by its and its organization and procedure.”

 

Alas, few among our leaders are aware of the provision for an Inter-State Council in our Constitution. Few also remember that the establishment of an Inter-State Council was recommended in 1967 by a top-level Study Team headed by Mr M.C. Setalvad, one of free India’s top constitutional experts. The team, which submitted its report to the Administrative Reforms Commission, included amongst its members the Administrative Reforms Commission, included among its members Mr M. Bhaktvatsalam, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Hitendra Desai, former Chief Minister of Gujarat, and Mr N.K. Mukarji, who retired as Union Cabinet Secretary in 1980. The team reviewed Centre-State relations under three broad headings. First, financial relations, including devolutions and indebtedness. Second, Centre-State relations in spheres other than planning and development. The proposal for an Inter-State Council was made in the last section which deals with the following other subjects: High Court Judges, Public Service Commissions, the conduct of elections; inter-State water disputes, All India Services and Governors.

 

The Study Team was clear that the Inter-State Council could take care of all issues of national importance in which the States were interested. Indeed, Mr. Setalvad, who as India’s first Attorney General was invited by Nehru to address Parliament on certain crucial matters, went one step further. He wanted the Inter State Council to replace the National Development Council, the Chief Ministers’ Conference, the Finance Ministers’ Conference, the Food Ministers’ Conference and the National Integration Council. The report added “Besides issues of importance normally taken up in these forums, any other issue of national importance that arises at any time may also be placed before this Council”. The team noted that the President had already established a Central Council of Health and a Central Council of Local Self Government under Article 263 for coordinating policy relating to these matters. But it averred that these Councils worked “within a narrow ambit of activity” --- and added: “The Council proposed by us will be wide embracing and will provide a standing machinery for effecting consultations between  the Centre and the States”.

 

Much bad blood has been caused over the years by inter-State disputes. The Study Team, therefore, went into the matter, especially since Article 263 provides for “inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States.” It conceded that an unnecessary onus came to be placed in the case of many inter-State disputes, such as those over borders, on the Central Government and any action or in-action on its part could be misunderstood by a contending party. But it felt that if all disputes were referred to the proposed Inter-State Council then there would be “a spare of such disputes.” Disputes, it conceded, could be referred to it on a selective basis. However, it was equally clear that it would be difficult to discriminate between disputes and disputes. At any rate, the Study Team was of the firm view that “saddling the proposed Council with functions in the area of disputes would prevent it from giving full attention to the various problems of national concern which it ought primarily to consider.”

 

The Study Team also proposed the composition of the Council and suggested that it might be as follows: Prime Minister, Union Ministers for Finance, Labour, Food and other subjects in the State and Concurrent Lists, Chief Ministers or their nominees, and any others invited by the Chairman or co-opted by the Council. The last category was so worded as to enable the Council to invite other Central Ministers, members of the Planning Commission or experts whenever their presence was required. It proposed that the Council might meet under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister and in the absence of the Prime Minister the senior-most Union Minister present. It suggested that the Council should meet at regular intervals, say, once in six months, whenever the need arose. Further, it proposed an appropriate Secretariat essentially charged with the functions of securing coordination.

 

Centre-State relations also bring with their ambit the appointment of Governors, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and the Auditor-General of India. Under the Constitution, these federal officers are appointed by the President. But the States have an interest in them as the appointees are expected to function independently. The Study Team admitted the need “to make good and impartial selection to these offices”. However, it disfavoured on two counts a suggestion for setting up an Advisory Council for such appointments. First, it felt that such a body would be against the spirit of the Constitution and the idea of Cabinet responsibility. Second, such a Council had been provided for in Sir B.N. Rau’s first draft of the Constitution. But the proposal was abandoned as it sought to give the President certain “substantive powers”. Nevertheless, the Study Team hoped that the Centre would “always exercise the greatest care in making selections to these offices so that their incumbents inspire confidence all round”.

 

Mrs Gandhi has, time and again, spoken of her keen desire to build a meaningful rapport with the State Governments of Opposition parties. On Thursday last at the NDC meeting, she acknowledged the fact of our federal polity. Centre-States co-operation, she said, was vital for the success of the Seventh Plan, which she appropriately described as “a joint venture” between New Delhi and the States. She also acknowledged that implementation of the Plan involved diverse pulls and pressures in a democratic federal set up. Clearly, every effort has to be made to cut down various diverse pulls and pressures if India is to move forward rapidly. All in all, it is time for the President to set up an Inter-State Council which could perhaps be given a better all-embracing name such as National Affairs Council. In case the President is disinclined, the four Chief Ministers should take the initiative to bring forward in the Rajya Sabha a joint resolution seeking the establishment of such a Council.  New Delhi cannot afford to sleep over a matter of vital importance to our Republic. ---INFA

 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

 

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT