(This article was originally published in a Delhi based Law Journal ‘AB INITIO’)
Alpha
of Indian federalism
India is a territory
of vastness and variety having unity in diversity which is not a verbal connotation
but an expression in real. When country is colossal, culture opulent in
diversity, and religious, ethnic and linguistic pluralism robust, flexible
federalism is an imperative process of political structural engineering. India, from
antique times, has been a domicile of waves of civilization, of divergent
streams of people coming with their heritage, military conquests, political
tenure and ensconce of empires making for a salmagundi of cultures, religions and
regional amplifications. Greek, Roman, Persian, Mogul and British influx over
long periods did harvest a geo-political pluralism and cultural mosaic creating
conditions mellow for a federal system of government. Prof. M.V. Pylee observes
“A country like India with
gigantic proportions-vast area and huge population, racial, religious,
linguistic, and cultural diversities can solve its political problem only under
a system which admits unity in diversity. Such a system, any impartial observer
will admit, can be achieved only through the effective application of the
principles of federalism.”[1]
The
biography of India,
in its political protuberance has had no congruent federal or confederal
polity. One need not unearth those ancient epochs of kingdoms, chieftainship
empires and religious rulers with varying features of isolation, localism,
military alliances and disintegrations. There was, however, a broad unity of
culture despite self-governing principalities, belligerent monarchies and
incidental insurrection of peoples. However, the cataclysm of the sinking Mogul
empire and the docking of the Europeans imprint the modern period of Indian
politics. Springing up along with of feudal and colonial politico was Indian
nationalism, not as chauvinistic impetuosity and passionate patriotic frenzy of
an amorphous rebellion, but as a manumission of the people with democratic
developmental potential for all people regardless of caste, creed, race,
religion and other dissimilitude.
The
ingress of East India Company made a qualitative alteration in Indian political
affairs and when in 1858 the crown took over India from the company, foreign
occupation became a repugnant reality and the crumpling of the Mogul Empire a dawdling
certainty. The Charter Act of 1833 buttressed centralization of power in the
Governor General of India
in council. The revolutionary mutiny by the Indian people way back in 1857 was
a realization of loosing freedom, a struggle to overthrow foreign rule and a
protest against autocracy and irresponsive administration. The brutish sequence
and harsh consequence of an exceedingly centralized system of administration stirred
the claim for decentralization; and a novel course of devolution in some
limited measure to the province came to agenda.
The
resolution for Provincial Autonomy of 1911 and the transfer of the Capital of
India from Calcutta
to Delhi marked
a new drift. World War 1 made an immense impact on the Indian query in British attention
and the policy of plodding maturity of autonomous institutions came to be devised.
The Mont ford
Report, the Government of India Act, 1919 and the introduction of diarchy in
the provinces marked a measure of devolution of authority. Subjects of
all-India importance were central and those of predominantly local interest
were provincial. Principle of federalism was not espoused in the scheme of
division of powers between centre and the provinces but the federal zeitgeist
caught the mind's eye of the populace. The Simon Commission of 1927 and its
Report of 1930 only engendered more antagonism. British statesmanship had to
respond to Indian agitation and the 1935 constitution came into being after the
two Round Table Conferences. This constitution, forged in Westminster, had a federal fascia with perplexing
prolixity and was voluminous but not luminous. In outline, the unitary
government suffered suspended death sentence; and autonomous provinces, within
a federal constitutional framework, came into being. With all its blemishes,
the 1935 Act made federalism a feasible makeup. The partition of India, with its
fall-out of mammoth budge of populations and communal carnage, dazed the designers
of our constitution into an allergy towards separatism and into a realization
that a brawny central power was indispensable. The poltergeist of centralism
and Viceregal authority in Delhi
whitewashed the thinking of those who fashioned the constitution and even
Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence whose voice and noise was for the
decentralized democracy.
Our
constitution, terminologically federal but truly unitary, leaves the inkling
that Delhi is India- not the people nor the parish nor the autonomous classes
and communities whose glorious identities and cultures made unity in diversity
a pride and precious legacy. ‘We, the people of India’, was fine rhetoric but
dubious politics. Old provinces, megapolitan prejudice and western replica of
development were obsessions of the leading lights in the Constituent Assembly.
The Assembly debates and the then milieu set the tone for the need of future
federalism. Dr. Ambedkar who piloted the Draft Bill dwelt at length on federal
structure of the Indian system, after discarding the unitary pattern. He acknowledged
the dual polity and articulated a caveat: “Constitutional
morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize
that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an
Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.”[2]
Undeniably, this trepidation proved right and the ensuing alienation of weaker
pluralist groups and minorities was a fall out of the deviances from
constitutional morality by those who steered the wheels of power. People will battle
for their identity and for equality. The struggle will go on until thro dynamic
decentralism power vests where it belongs.
Dissection
and dynamics
“Flowers of many colours, held together by a
common stem, or, if one may change the metaphor, sweet notes of music
mellifluously merging into a song, preserving the exquisite identity of each
sound but blending to make a magnificent symphony.”[3] When we dissect these blossoms and
corollas we could fathom the subsequent truth in its bizarre rhythm.
‘We,
the people of India’
accent on the ‘people’ meaning every human inhabitant of this land. Be he/she
humble, handicapped, an associate of minority or awakened community, a bonded
labourer or belonging to a prejudiced gender, every individual (or collective)
who had Indian personhood, Indian title to share in the sovereignty of the
republic. Instead of the paramountcy and supremacy of the people in India-today
it’s the national political parties who are paramount whether in power or in
the opposition who are more like ‘undertakers’ of people’s aspirations for
autonomy rather than ‘underwriters’ of a federal union. Alas, the machinists
who control state power, the elitist minions and political cohorts for
self-aggrandizement and moneyocracy corrupts the entire system of administration
betraying the fiduciary obligation to Indian humanity of weaving the fine-spun
garment of federalism. Currently, the ‘gun for gun’ governs, phoenix-like
rising and ruling terrorism and midgetry in administration which vacillates,
wails and fails to have faith in itself to initiate dialogue and breakthroughs
with a new vision of Indian federalism. And now, our ancient
land, which swanked of far more than democracy has by a fondle of aggressive
amnesia, forgotten ahimsa and resolved to jostle into service ‘khaki’ as better
than ‘khadi’, taking leave of the naissance notion that unity lives in the
recognition of diversity. Once the sagacity of multiplicity and mutual esteem
is broken, Indian ness will evaporate and later the restoration of humanness,
comprehensiveness and cohesiveness would be an intricate one. Bear in mind that
no one lives if India
dies.
In
view of the insinuation of Article 356 of the constitution which, if the text
be read literally, is a set of provisions calculated to take care of the
failure of the constitutional machinery at the state level, a situation of
emergency designed to salvage democracy derailed by unconstitutional
developments. Dr. Ambedkar, a prophetic jurist suggested that “I may say that I do not altogether deny that
there is a possibility of this Article being abused or applied for political
purposes. But that objection applies to every part of the constitution which
gives power to the centre to override the provinces. In fact, I share the
sentiments expressed yesterday that the proper thing we ought to expect is that
such Article will never be called into operation and that they would remain a
dead letter.”[4]Justice
Sarkaria, in his Report, cautions: “imposition
of president’s rule thus brings to an end, for the time being, a government in
the state responsible to the State Legislature. Indeed, this is a very drastic
power. Exercised correctly, it may operate as a safety mechanism for the
system. Abused or misused, it can destroy the constitutional equilibrium
between the Union and the States.”[5]
Nonetheless, this report does not argue for obliteration in total but
recommends severely restricted user of the power. This emergency power is abridged
to a comedy and a tragedy making constitutional democracy a mockery and a
perennial menace to state-level popular government, whichever the party in
provincial power. In Gandhi country, where decentralized democracy is a
fundamental faith, the reverse process, ultimately vesting all power in one
person, is the reality of the Administration. Isn’t this a disgrace for the
doctrine of Gandhism? Aren’t Emergency provisions an impediment on the path of
federal fairness? Isn’t federal politics with democratic cosmetics under damage
since unwarranted concentration of power at centre which negates devolution and
local self-government?
Earnest
Exhortations
“Our federal destiny can be won only if India is one.
And India
can be one only if Indian fraternity, thro constructive constitutional
engineering and principled political restructuring fulfill the reality of
diversity in its rich pluralism.” [6]
To-day, shortsighted politics and the cupidity for power have made statesmen with
foresight an imperiled species. We yearn for a new coterie of principled
political euphemisms and insist on 24 carat democracy which includes provincial
autonomy without hide and seek. Creative statesmanship, not wooden obtuseness,
can innovate federal mechanisms flexible enough to weld together sovereign
nationhood and limited self-determination of nationalities. Political
obscurantism about parochial nationalism, chauvinist patriotism, and an
all-powerful central despotism deserve to be sloughed off; and an effervescence
of new thinking must cicerone the womb of time.
The
rudiments of Indian demography, in the fairness and fullness of its democracy,
will flower forth as a federal flower provided there is candid avowal of the
right of nationalities and ethnic communities with territorial density to authentic
autonomy. Our democratic system must practice a hale and hearty squaring off
between regionalism and nationalism, unity and diversity, jingoistic sexism and
cluster autonomy. A re-orientation of federal dogma, a radicalization of
justice to groups with separate cultural identities and a wholehearted goodbye
to centralized despotism- that is the desideratum. This is a paradigm shift of federalism
simplified to costume the challenges of change.
Indian
federalism can earn essence and come of age, our constitutional order may spell
constancy and hold out the promised haven, our people will become sovereign in
a polity structured to provide pluralist status and decentralized empowerments,
only if the fundamentals of federalism are unreservedly honored and we vow to
bear true reliance to the superlative values inscribed in the preamble to our constitution.
‘People’ used in the preamble, must obtain a distributive semantic shove to envelop
homogenous groups. The soul force and political source of power pounce from the
people, and therefore Indian pluralism desiderates political decentralism, not
as top-vinaigrette but as soul profound power streamlining.
The
relations between the states and the center, the domain and degree of autonomy
and the manifestation of self-expression of waterlogged communities, tribes and
ethnic groups cannot be static. The dialectics of challenges and the dynamics
of changes covert in federalism must be documented and new shapes and
silhouettes of political severance must receive fulfillment- greeted, not
gunned down. We have to push further the new frontiers of devolution of powers.
We cannot any longer pledge by the past nor shoot down change. Our people are
aware and ask for federal and distributive justice, even if it will deprive Delhi of its power to
some extent in favour of provincial self-government. It is the destiny of our
generation to struggle and accomplish political justice to those who have been shorn
of it in the past, economic justice to groups who have botched to be fed and
clothed, social justice to whole nationalities dear to Bharat.
Overall,
the DNA of Indian Federalism needs genetic mutations and metamorphosis in its
creative potential.
Omega
orations
Bharatiya
sanskar, in its social spiritual epitome, is the process of perceiving the numerous
in the single and the single in the numerous. Devoid of this sublime acuity
federalism will turn phony or pretense. More than a billion people of India must bear
in mind that our culture is cooperative, not combative, and hunt for appeasement,
not argument. But truth to tell, the seeds of sub-national status in Bharat are
spouting, the roots are going deep which is palpable from the Rajamannar Report
to the Sarkaria Report and the subsequent struggles in various parts of the
country for statehood and more admirable autonomy. Neither party nor parliament
can douse the flames and fumes of the demands for statehood in the name of
brotherhood. Indeed, the Telugu Desom Party, the DMK and AIDMK, the Jharkand
parties, the Akali Dal, the AGP and others of their ilk prove beyond sensible
doubt the halcyon days of 1950 are gone and tumults and thunderstorm of to-day
are not trivial or transient. The Army is not the gadget to eliminate these
popular pressures and pandemonium. A federally picturesque India, with
soulful autonomy and without central bullying, is the movement that needs inaugural
ceremony now.
The
Indian federal odyssey with all the exploits and experiences over five decades
entitles us to make India, that is Bharat a fresh blossom with the petals as
peoples regardless of race, religion, region and other differentiating factors
may bring together all nationalities, sub-nationalities and diverse groups into
a ‘one blissful Union’. It is the sacred obligation of those of our generation
to accomplish the assignment of decentralized democracy for which the Mahatma
and millions of others gallantly fought. Before it, the people, party and
politicians will have to answer by pondering few questions like- why do we have
Presidents Rule under Article 356, more than hundred times, making state
autonomy a ubiquitous absentee and constitutional mockery? Why are we having
the military and para-military forces omnipresent, as it were, in the land of Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence and
father of nation? Why are fidgety, and until now suppressed, people organizing
upsurges, although otherwise they are patriots? Why is the statute book of India gory with
terrorist laws like TADA, POTO, POTA and the like? Why are regional parties
springing up like tigers from the jungles and with power to threaten even the
Centre? Why federalism is fading and autonomy is in anathema? Where is the soul
of India
and Indians? The answer is- the rediscovery of India, which is Bharat, must begin
again. That is the dialectic of contemporary history, if federal India is to
bloom in dazzling colours tomorrow. Let us think mutually to liquidate violence
and activate justice to miscellaneous categories entitled to separate political
status without risking disintegration of the union. Candidly, the hour is late
therefore beware.
Bibliography
- ‘A History of India’- Percival Spear
- Reports of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre- State Relations, Part 1
- ‘Constitutional Law of India’- Seervai H.M.
- ‘Federalism and Centre-State Relations in India’- O.P. Tiwari
- ‘The Federal Court of India’- M.V. Pylee
- ‘Indian Federalism Dialectics and Dynamics’- V.R. Krishna Iyer
[1] ‘The
Federal Court of India’- M.V. Pylee (page 33-34).
[2] Speech
of Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 4/11/1948.
[3] ‘Indian
Federalism- Dialectics and Dynamics’- V.R. Krishna Iyer.
[4] Speech
of Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.
[5]
Commission on Centre-State Relations Report-Part 1- At Page 171.
[6] ‘Indian
Federalism- Dialectics and Dynamics’- V.R. Krishna Iyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment