The New National

The New National

The authors of the Indian Constitution provided for a quasi-federalism in order to separate so-called local issues from national and international ones. And, significantly, to subordinate the States to the Centre to make for greater cohesiveness and strength.

This worked after a fashion for the initial decades of one party rule, even though the States were often, and infamously, dealt with more imperiously than they might have been. The matrix of Union subjects, State subjects and Concurrent ones, conceived by the founding fathers, was, it is now seen, only adequate to meet the demands of a bygone era.

Also, as the time went on, the limitations of the old notion of exclusively State Subjects which include “public order and police”, became evident, given the rampaging externally instigated terrorism and Maoist violence that many regions are facing.

A graphic image to remember in this regard is the invasion of the Taj Mahal Hotel and Mumbai’s Jewish Chabad House on 26/11, by terrorists first and the NSG commandos later. That was in 2008, already a few years ago, and a lot more has happened, both before and since, to underline the new reality. And this, without the Republic of India properly coming to grips with the problem even to date as scores of innocents continue to be killed.

Law and order, as visualised at the state level, was meant to address simple security and crowd control issues. These, the local police are indeed trained and equipped to tackle. But the bigger challenges of politically motivated assassination attempts on politicians, kidnapping of prominent citizens or their relatives, subversion, bombings, planned sedition etc. call for national and international intelligence sharing and coordinated action, often involving several States, the Centre, and foreign governments. While this may be self evident, what has remained sadly unchanged is the attitude of a weakened Central Government nevertheless thinking it can impose its views on the States without consultation.

Still, having tasted the power of controlling their own security, albeit augmented by para-military, military, intelligence, investigative and other central forces, brought in on the State’s invitation, the States are now unwilling to have the Centre oversee or worse, overrule them in their own backyards. And this, crucially, because many of the States, not run by the ruling coalition at the Centre, are not beholden for their electoral success or standing to the Union Government.

Apart from security as in “public order”, another important State Subject, “Public Health,” is also woebegone and apathetically dealt with, almost from the start. This is because the States rarely have the funds themselves, or the wherewithal to properly administer central or foreign funds to conduct programmes, or create facilities to the standard necessary. And yet, the reform in this vital regard has not really been forthcoming.

One reason for this is because it enables the Centre to blame the States for poor public health administration rather than take responsibility for its betterment themselves.

“Education”, which is on the Concurrent List, does not fare much better, again because of divided responsibility and weakened accountability. The whole area of “Criminal Law and Procedure” and “Civil Procedure”, also on the Concurrent List suffers from the ravages of dual responsibility and local manipulation.

But the answer towards betterment in all this is probably not greater centralisation. Because, when it existed and prevailed through the long years of the Nehru and Indira Gandhi eras, it did not deliver the requisite results. It didn’t, probably because, combined with Socialism and its chronic shortages, and a GDP growth rate of between 1.8 to 2.2 per cent, there was very little money to throw at development, let alone those issues designed to modernise organisation and methods. Besides, there was no credible political Opposition, or even the kind of factionalism now rife, to threaten the ruling party. All this is now history as the recent results in the just concluded Assembly elections in four states have shown.

In 2012 also, the notion of quasi-federalism itself is facing spirited challenges. The authority of the Centre has been eroded steadily since the era of coalition politics settled in properly. Today, the definition of “national” and “regional” when applied to political parties too is undergoing a sea change. 

A National Party like the BJP for example, derives a great deal of its authority and presence at the Centre from the fact that it is running an increasing number of States. And likewise, regional parties such as the BSP, the SP and the TMC are no longer content to confine their electoral pitches only to their home states, and are winning seats in other state assemblies also.

In the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha too, it is the tail that wags the dog, more often than not, with coalition partners exercising near veto-like influence on the initiatives of the largest coalition partner in the ruling UPA.

And the Opposition BJP also often finds itself in the peculiar position of facing many of the problems of the Congress Party both at the Centre and in the States.  What we are witnessing is a weakening of the mooring bolts of our quasi-federation, and this fact has not been lost on the various regional parties.  To them, pushing for more power, both at the Centre and in the States, this is a welcome development.

Nor has the implications of this trend been unnoticed by the several powerful State Chief Ministers from both the principal national parties or their allies in their respective coalitions, who also happen to run some of the States. Some States in turn are even running local coalitions of their own. 

The Centre has undeniably been performing very poorly for several years now, stymied and conflicted about how to go forward. It has increasingly fallen back on old hat tactics such as populist soppery to buy votes or insulting divisiveness to garner minority support. The net result has been both a loss of credibility and face reflecting a new sophistication amongst voters that it has failed to gauge.

The inheritors of the power that has slipped away from the Centre are the regional parties, along with those national parties more able to make common cause with them, and the Governments across the political spectrum that are ensconced in the States.  It is they who will give new meaning to the Constitution and its provisions, and determine the future of India both at the Centre and in the States.

And it is also they who will determine and provide the future occupants of Race Course Road and Rashtrapati Bhavan as well as many of those on Raisina Hill.

(1,099 words)

7^th March 2012

Gautam Mukherjee

Published as Leader on Edit Page of The Pioneer on 8th March 2012 as "Power shifts to the States" and also online at www.dailypioneer.com