 | | Watering the relationship | India is a Union of states. The Centre has always had considerably more power to make policies and take action. The balance had to change in favour of state governments. But it is changing dramatically in this era of weak coalition governments at the Centre. Policies that affect the interests of the nation as a whole are being encroached upon by state governments. This does not augur well for the fabric of the unity of the Union. The Constitution demarcates the areas that can be exclusively legislated by the Centre, those exclusively by the states, and those concurrently. If any law passed by a state legislature is in conflict with a law of Parliament in the concurrent list, Parliament shall prevail. Thus the Indian constitutional framework gives precedence to the laws passed by Parliament over those of the states. This is clearly even more the case with subjects that are in the Central list, like foreign affairs, admission into and expulsion from India, among others. On around 100 occasions since Independence, and mostly till the late 1980s, the Central government dismissed incumbent state governments and took over their powers under Article 356 of the Constitution. The Centre exercised great power over the states, also made possible because the Congress ruled at the Centre and in most states. State chief ministers, however powerful, were subservient to the prime minister who was also the most powerful person in the party. An early challenge to the power of the Centre was the national language. Tamils threatened secession if Hindi was imposed. Hence the Constitution (Article 348) gave primacy to the English language in all courts and legislation, providing for the use of Hindi or any other language. Another important challenge to the Centre was when the states reorganization commission reported on the formation of linguistic states. The SRC was a result of violent agitation for the creation of the linguistic state of Andhra Pradesh. After the report, violent agitations led to the incorporation of Bombay city in the state of Maharashtra instead of being a separate entity as recommended. The advent of regional parties in coalition governments at the Centre led to the weakening of the Centre in relation to the states. The United Progressive Alliance governments since 2004 exposed the greater inability of the Centre to impose its will on state governments. Among economic issues, there has been the resistance of many state governments to foreign direct investment in retail. This is now subject to the willingness of the state government to allow it. The goods and services tax was a major reform measure to make India into a true common market, with single rates of indirect taxes all over the country. This has been held up for many years as the states bargained with the Centre for adequate compensation for loss of revenues. What might emerge is a compromise with more than one tax rate and the possibility of staggered adoption by some states. The Constitution provides for a finance commission that every five years will lay down the principles and methods of transferring financial resources from the Centre to the states. The Planning Commission also considers and decides on the size of state plans. These fund transfers are part of the constitutional framework. They are not charity from the Centre to the states. But central ministers like Kapil Sibal seem to make it so. He said that development in Gujarat resulted from the Centre providing Gujarat with funds, and apparently not from Gujarat's efforts. The Central government has tried to introduce more unified information and control systems over gathering, analysing and sharing intelligence and actions to contain domestic and imported terrorism. Developing unified counter-terrorism capabilities is resisted by state governments. The reason lies in the apparent misuse by the Centre of agencies like the Intelligence Bureau and the Central Bureau of Investigation. This restricts our capability to deal with terrorism. Now the Punjab government is making martyrs of the Khalistani terrorists and the assassin of a chief minister of Punjab. They are making heroes out of criminals. Surely this is also in violation of the unitary fabric of India? A new challenge to the powers of the Centre by states is now in foreign policies. The possibility of a fast and economical waterway through the Bramhaputra between the Northeast and the rest of India, cut off from each other because of the narrow "chicken's neck" that connects them, has been prevented by the West Bengal state government. Before Partition, the river provided a perennial waterway to the Northeast which ceased after Partition. When the prime minister was to sign an agreement with Bangladesh that would have reopened this connection, the the chief minister of West Bengal objected at the last minute to the terms of settlement of another part of the agreement between the two countries. This was on sharing the waters of the Teesta river. A state government thus successfully prevented an important foreign policy initiative that would have benefited the country. Another instance that followed was of the Tamil Nadu legislature and government demanding that Sri Lankan cricketers not be allowed to play in the Indian Premiere League matches in Chennai. The Central government meekly acquiesced in this intervention by a state government in foreign affairs. There is also a demand that India not have 'friendly' relations with Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi's government had arrested and jailed Velupillai Prabhakaran. He was released at the intervention of then Tamil Nadu chief minister, M.G. Ramachandran. Prabhakaran over the years killed thousands of Sri Lankans, murdered leaders who opposed him, sacrificed civilians and children as shields against the Sri Lankan army, fought viciously against the army, and refused to accept any compromises in the pursuit of a Tamil 'eelam' (homeland) in Sr Lanka. He engineered the assassination of the former prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi. The Tamil Nadu government never protested against his atrocities. But with elections in the offing in 2014 both the main Tamil parties (the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) are agitating for mercy to Rajiv Gandhi's assassins, and to prosecute the Sri Lankan government for protecting their country, and declare them not friends of India. No Indian state protested against the harassment of the sizeable population of Indian origin in Fiji some years ago. Tamil speaking Sri Lankans are not Indians and have not been so for over a hundred years. An analogy is that Sinhalas were originally migrants from Odisha and Odisha should agitate for them. It is one thing to express sympathy with Sri Lankan Tamils, Indians in Fiji, and families of Sikh terrorists, but wrong to actively intervene on their behalf. India has similar groups that could justifiably demand intervention from fellow religionists in other countries, or from those speaking a common language. We do not want foreign interference. We should allow the same privilege to other countries. The unitary fabric of the Indian Constitution is being pierced by irresponsible state governments, aided by a weak and shortsighted Centre. The Central government should have a lakshman rekha, and not tolerate state government interference where it hurts the national interest. This must be so even if the government falls on such issues.
The author is former director general, National Council of Applied Economic Research | 
No comments:
Post a Comment