Tweak federalism to make it work

It is known to all that the Indian Constitution has created a federal system. However, the term ‘federal’ has not been mentioned in the legal document. On the contrary, Article 1 describes India as a ‘union of states’. But, as a stark reality, our Constitution contains all the requisites of a federal system which implies the co-existence of two sets of Government, distribution of powers between them and the presence of a Supreme Court for the settlement of legal disputes between the Centre and the States.

The Founding Fathers fondly hoped that such a co-operative federation was the only coveted system for a country so vast and diverse in size, content and ethnology.

In fact, for nearly two decades after the inception of the Constitution it worked smoothly and no problems in Centre-State relations came to the fore.

Advertisement

The Congress, as a political colossus, ruled the country without any sizeable opposition and the differences in were silently ironed out within the party.

But, after 1967, the Congress lost its monopoly of power and various non-Congress parties took the reins in nine states. The ruling coalitions soon became vocally assertive and they, in unison, clamoured for real autonomy within the framework of the Constitution.

Most of these parties were regional in structure and they were not prepared to remain under the thumb of the rulers of Delhi. Thus DMK, Jharkhand Party, Bangla Congress, AIADMK, CPI, CPI-M, SP, Forward Bloc, SUCI, Kerala Congress etc. bitterly demanded more power in their hands. Their leaders pleaded that they only wanted a level playing field and no favour.

But, the rulers at the Centre argued that the Constitution expressly conferred upon the states sufficient power and requisite money to run administrations and that the non-Congress leaders had kicked up a fuss over a non-issue. Though states decried the Centre for its close-fisted policies, they were ultimately brought to bay by the arguments of the latter.

However, in 1971, the Congress, under Indira Gandhi, again came to power at the Centre and in almost all the states. Naturally, the cry for more autonomy was buried for some years. As such, the attempt to alter the federal scheme ultimately drew a blank.

However, in 1977, the Janata Party came to power at the Centre. The existence of some governments of different colours in some states again created a stand-off. Naturally, the demand for a change in Centre-state relations once again was loudly raised. But in spite of its lenient attitude, the Janata regime was not prepared to weaken to the Centre by any major Constitutional change.

Thereafter, there have been various changes in the political scenario and the demand for greater autonomy for the states has often been raised with louder voices.

However, it bears recall that some factors have often embittered Centre-state relations in the past. First, some states have resented the deployment of the Central Reserve Police (CRP) in states for the preservation of law and order. In their view, it is a state subject and so the Centre ought not to get involved.

Secondly, the behaviour of some Governors has also been a matter of heated controversy. Of course the Governor has a dual role – he is the Head of the province and, at the same time, an agent of the Centre. So, when different parties occupied power at the Centre and in the states, some of them suddenly leaped into importance as desired by the Centre. As they owed a Constitutional duty to act upon the Central directives, they had to exercise their powers in defiance of the ministerial advice in the state.

For example, NB Bhandari of Sikkim, SS Dhawan and Dharma Veera of West Bengal, Ramlal of Andhra and some others earned the wrath of some local leaders at different times for their unfavourable decisions. Thirdly, the misuse of Article 356 has also been a source of contention in the federal relation. It is a legal device by which some state governments have been prematurely ousted on the plea of their failure to rule the state according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, this central weapon has been more abused than used.

Fourthly, the existence of the Planning Commission, with its centralising activities, was another factor that often aggravated the crisis. Some of the non-Congress Chief Ministers have fired their salvo at the Centre for its alleged violation of local autonomy by its emphasis upon a deadening unity of the nation.

Fifthly, they have also voiced their grievances regarding their financial deprivation. It is alleged that their sources of income are very limited, the taxes they collect are too little to serve the local people and often the Centre deprives them of their fair share of the tax-proceeds in various ways. They also have alleged that the Constitution provides for three types of central grants – but, in this matter, much depends upon the whim and favouritism of the Centre.

For all these reasons, Centre-state relations have often been fragile. Some disgruntled leaders once set up a conclave in order to fight for greater autonomy of the states. But, ultimately, its efforts ended in smoke due to the Centre’s opposition.

However, in September 1969, the Tamil Nadu government set up the Rajamannar Committee to look into the matter. It came down heavily on Article 356 and sought its deletion from the Constitution. It also suggested the setting up of an Inter-state Council and recommended that state legislatures should have the power to reject or repeal an Act of Parliament passed under Art. 252. It further suggested that the major part of the Centre’s power of taxation should be transferred to the units, and also that the Governor’s power should be curtailed in order to make him the nominal Head of the state.

But, surely, its report was one-sided and unsatisfactory, because, it meant a total re-writing of the Constitution. In fact, it went against the original intention of the makers who desired to establish unity in the diversity of the polity.

Significantly, the Sarkaria Commission, appointed by the Centre in 1983 put forward some impressive and valuable suggestions on this burning issue. It did not suggest any radical and basic departure from the original Constitution for some cogent reasons. It only showed the ways and means for bringing the federal scheme more in tune with the changed needs of the day.

It deplored the frequent use of Article 356, suggested sparing application of Article 256 by which the Centre intervenes in the state-administration, stood for restricting gubernatorial power, advised the Centre to choose the Governor in consultation with the relevant Chief Minister, opposed the existing system of transfer of Judges and favoured the setting up of an Inter-state Council.

In its view, these changes were enough to make the Constitution a leak-proof document and to restore the desired harmony in the Centre-state relations.

Thus, it may be held that there is no need for any major and drastic change in the existing Constitutional set-up. It is a cardinal truth that India is a federal polity and that there are several units in it with varied ideas and beliefs. But, the original Constitution earnestly sought to strike a balance between the Indian unity and provincial autonomy.

So, in order to cope with the changes of time, some minor adjustments in Centre-state relations are absolutely necessary – but the basics of the Constitution should remain unchanged, because it is a wonderful creation of some brilliant and wise persons.

The writer is a Griffith Prizeman and former Reader, New Alipore College.

Advertisement