REWIND
New Delhi, 23
November 2023
Poll Has
Thrown Up Basic Issues
By Inder Jit
(Released on 5 March
1985)
Several issues of basic importance to the future of our
polity have come up in the course of the poll battle for the State Assemblies.
What kind of a Union is India -- federal or unitary? Opinion over the past two
decades and more has been divided. There are many who feel that India, which is
a Union of States, essentially a federal polity. However, there are others who
feel that India is not quite a federation of states in the true or classical
sense of the term. Instead, it is a mixture of both and is some kind of a
federal-cum-unitary state. The confusion, perhaps, arises because of the
background and circumstances in which the Union of India came into being. In
the case of the United States of America, for instance, independent states
decided to come together even as they retained a measure of their independence
or autonomy. In sharp contrast, India at the time of independence was ruled by
the British from New Delhi as a unitary state. And, Princely India was under
its paramountcy.
True, British India was divided into provinces. Each
province had its own Government headed by a Prime Minister, as the heads of provincial
governments were then called. But the arrangement was for administrative
convenience. Absolute power vested in the Raj at New Delhi. Following
independence, the unitary polity was divided into States. The Centre retained
many of the powers of the Raj and gave the States a measure of genuine
autonomy. In other words, the unitary Centre voluntarily shed some of its
powers and shared these with the States and not vice versa as in the case of
the United States of America. Consequently, the past two decades have seen
stresses and strains grow and develop between the Centre and the States. As a
student of history, Nehru strongly believed that India’s real strength lay in
its rich diversity and, therefore, worked for a healthy federal polity. This,
he believed, would ensure for India richness which could not possibly come from
uniformity imposed from New Delhi.
Nehru was also clear that a federal, decentralised
polity with a strong Centre would ensure speedy and balanced growth. In fact,
he set up the Planning Commission to provide not only planned development for
the nation as a whole but also for planned development at the State level
through a federal de centralised set up on the economic plane. The Planning
Commission was made autonomous and virtually independent so that it could plan
for India’s development uninfluenced and unencumbered by the Government at the
Centre and its political complexion. Sir V.T. Krishnamachari was named the
Commission’s Deputy Chairman and Nehru as Prime Minister its first Chairman. De
facto, however, 'VT’ headed the Commission and Nehru was Chairman only to
provide a link between the planning body and the Government -- and to answer
questions on planning in the two Houses of Parliament. But the situation
changed following elevation of Indira Gandhi to Prime Ministership.
Slowly but surely, the autonomy of the Planning
Commission was eroded bit by bit and the country, in effect, sought to be run
as a unitary state through both constitutional and extra-constitutional
devices. (Remember, the role which Governors are now expected to play!) The
final denouement came when the Commission, originally conceived as a body of
independent experts, was virtually reduced to the position of a Government
department and the Planning Minister appointed its de facto head and named its
Vice Chairman. Simultaneously, the National Development Council, headed by the
Prime Minister, came to be transformed into a brazen instrument of the Centre
from its original concept of a body designed to fashion a national view on
planning and economic development at the political level and ensure unity in
diversity. Fortunately, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has sought to restore to the Planning
Commission its original autonomy. Dr Manmohan Singh, one of India’s eminent
economists, has been appointed its Vice Chairman and the States assured a fair
deal. But other issues have arisen in the meantime.
The Prime Minister has now taken the stand that the
same party should be in power at the Centre and in the States in the interest
of speedy and coordinated development. Initially, Mr Gandhi denied Press
reports that he had advocated one-party rule at the Centre and in the States.
However, the Congress-I manifesto for the Assembly poll
has taken the same stand. It reminds the voters that Parliament and the State
legislatures are creatures of the same Constitution and adds: “There is a clear
linkage between the Central and State Governments in the formulation and
implementation of development plans and programmes.”Undoubtedly, there is a
linkage between the Centre and the States. Equally, development is likely to be
more coordinated and smoother if the same party is in power at New Delhi and in
the States. But the stand taken by the Prime Minister and his party goes
against the letter and spirit of the Constitution -- as also the background.
There was nothing wrong in Mr Gandhi appealing to the
voters to elect Congress-I to power in each State that he visited in the course
of his poll campaign. But to many veteran observers of the national scene he
appears to have slipped up in linking the Centre and the States as a whole and
pleading for one-party rule in the country. What he has stated amounts to
holding the voters for the Assembly poll to ransom with the virtual threat:
“Vote for a Congress-I Government in your State or else...” Shorn of polite
verbiage, this amounts to giving notice that the States which vote for the
Congress-I are likely to get better or more favoured treatment than the others.
No wonder, therefore, that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the leader
of the Telugu Desam Party, Mr N.T. Rama Rao, reacted sharply and not only
demanded “legitimate allotment” of funds to the State from the Centre towards
welfare programmes but also gave a counter-threat. He said at one poll meeting
that there would be “bloodshed and great revolution” if due share of funds was
not allotted to the State. He further added: “We are not beggars to ask for
charity or alms. We are entitled to legitimate and due shares from the Centre.”
Centre-State relations have burst into
the open once again, as they did last July. Four Chief Ministers then walked
out of the meeting of the National Development Council in an unprecedented
protest. They were: Mr N.T. Rama Rao of Andhra
Pradesh, Mr R.K, Hegde, Karnataka, Mr Jyoti Basu, West Bengal and Mr Nripen
Chakraborty of Tripura. They left the NDC meeting to protest against Dr Farooq
Abdullah’s “anti-democratic and authoritarian dismissal”. Opinion was then
sharply divided on what came to pass. Mrs Gandhi and her Congress-I colleagues
were 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
were 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 of 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 had a point. Mrs
Gandhi was partly correct when she said that the National Development Council
was only a forum for planning and national development and was not concerned
with politics. However, Mr Rama Rao, Mr Hegde, Mr Basu and Mr Chakraborty had
greater force --- and justice --- on their side. First, politics cannot be
separated from planning in any federal polity as Mrs Gandhi knew only too well.
Times out of number, she herself stated that national development was dependent
upon close co-operation between the Centre and the States. This had inevitably
led the NDC to a discussion on Centre-State relations and in the last 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 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.
Significantly, the founding fathers of the Constitution
recognised the need for a national political forum and wisely provided for one
in the shape of an Inter-State Council. Alas, few 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 among its members Mr M. Bhaktavatsalam, Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu and Mr Hitendra Desai, Chief Minister of Gujarat, was clear that the
Inter-State Council should 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 Sarkaria Commission is, no doubt, going into
Centre-State relations. However, certain things need to be done without delay.
One such thing is the need to ensure genuine functional autonomy of the
Planning Commission. The appointment of Dr Manmohan Singh as its Vice Chairman
is to be welcomed. But this by itself is not enough. Much more needs to be done
to make the Planning Commission a truly autonomous body functioning as experts
in the best national interest. Unknown to most people, the Planning Commission
has no statutory base or authority. It was created through a Government
resolution and its Vice Chairman and Members hold office at the pleasure of the
Government. Originally, the term of the Vice Chairman and members was five
years. Today, however, their position is as insecure as that of the Governors.
The Planning Commission should be made a statutory body. What is more, 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. Every
effort must be made to find a solution to the basic issues raised by the poll.
No scope should be left for any tension if India is to function as a happy and
healthy Union of States. --- INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|