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)
|