Events & Issus
New Delhi, 4 January 2017
Building Unitary
Spirit
CHALLENGE BEFORE
NATION
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Union-State relationship is entering a new phase. Take the
recent case in Tamil Nadu. The ruling AIADMK took strong objection to the
income tax raids conducted in the offices and houses of its Chief Secretary
terming it as an “act of intimidation unleashed to test the courage of the
State Government”. CPM leader Prakash Karat too reacted saying the Centre
should not have kept the Chief Minister in the dark on the raids. He thinks the
Centre had acted against the spirit of federalism and views this as an attack
on a non-BJP government.
Then there is the case of West Bengal.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee burst out that the federal structure had been
disrupted and democracy twisted by the Centre deploying Armed Forces at toll
plazas in the State. Her deep anguish manifested in her strong indictment of
what is said to be a routine exercise is evidence of strong feelings of State
governments to remain and be respected as autonomous entities.
Her reaction shocked the entire country when she remarked in
a press conference: “It seems that the Central government is trying to create a
civil war like situation in the country”. She described it as “unprecedented”
and a “very serious situation worse than the Emergency”, and a clear violation
of the rules and understanding between the Centre and State.
One of the life convicts in Rajiv Gandhi murder case, Perarivalan,
has filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s verdict that held
that the concurrence of the Centre was imperative in commuting sentences of
prisoners. The Tamil Nadu Government had already filed a petition challenging
the verdict of the Supreme Court. It is argued that the court’s decision would
go against the federal structure of the country and would interfere in the
rights of the State government.
The State government also opposed the Goods and Services Act
(GST) on the ground that it would adversely affect the fiscal autonomy of the
State and would cause huge and permanent loss of revenue. The proposed GST
Council, it is said, would impinge on the legislative sovereignty of State
legislatures and Parliament. The State government suggested creation of a
constitutionally mandated independent compensation mechanism and objected to
the veto power given to the Central government in the proposal.
The Government of Delhi, ever since the AAP came to power is
struggling to assert its superiority over the Lieutenant-Governor as its main
task. A suit was even filed in the Supreme Court by Kejriwal government seeking
clarity on the ratio of power between its Cabinet and the NDA government in the
administration of the national capital, which was dismissed.
These are some of the recent cases that are evidence of the
relationship between the Centre and States entering a new phase where party
politics and rivalry for power is not the only element in the conflict. Such
cases were always present, but presently they have become more prominent and
more frequent than the use of Article 356 to dismiss State governments that
hitherto dominated discussions on Union-State relations.
In the age of globalisation, forces of both centralisation
and decentralisation are simultaneously active in different ways. The shift in
the economic policy from socialistic pattern to business liberalism has
elevated State governments and entrepreneurs to a new level in economic matters
where they need to have autonomy. They are getting more and more involved in
development projects and have direct business pacts with other countries.
Some State governments also have a genuine interest in
decision-making in some international issues involving State interests. West
Bengal wants to have its way in water treaties with Bangladesh; and Tamil Nadu cannot
watch silently Centre’s handling of Sri Lankan Tamil problem. At the same time,
certain decisions and regulations need to be taken at the national level for
effectiveness as well as to keep national interests over and above sub-national
ambitions.
In India,
before the formation of the federation, States were not sovereign independent
entities as in the US.
These were formed by conscious decision and consciously reorganized. The Indian
Union is indestructible, but not the constituent States which can be split and
joined as required.
The Indian Constitution provides three lists of legislative
powers – Union, State and Concurrent – leaving
residuary powers in the domain of the Centre. In the concurrent field, Union
law prevails over State laws wherever they are different. The maxim of shared
rule at the Centre and self-rule in the States is not just applicable, but most
suitable for fostering unity in manifold diversity.
However, each one of the instances mentioned in the
beginning represents existence of contrary views on the limits of the Centre
and the States. Income tax raids are conducted by tax authorities and not by
any government. To give advance notice about intended raids is indeed a
laughable suggestion. To impute presence of Centre-State conflict in the matter
is perhaps intended to divert attention, attribute extraneous motives in the
duty of income tax authorities, and belittle the purpose of the raids. Far from
raising a constitutional question of Central intrusion in State administration,
it can create fears of more exposures that may embarrass the State government.
West Bengal Chief Minister has tried to enlarge the issue of
routine deployment of armed forces as if it is a “coup” to ouster the State
government. An image of a champion of State rights is being created, around
which leadership for an alliance of State/regional parties could be hopefully
built. It is reported that she gave 30 official letters to the PM during her
visit to the capital in July last on the problem of “undermining of
federalism”.
The Defence Minister has denied the charge and clarified
that it was an annual exercise conducted throughout the country for getting
data about the availability of load carriers in the Army for use in contingency
situations and done after informing the concerned States.
Perarivalan’s review petition contains a long pending issue
that needs to be settled as a question of crime and punishment and not as
Union-State powers. The Supreme Court had held that the State government had no
suo moto power to release the convicts without the concurrence of the Central
government.
The GST is the only case mentioned here involving
Union-State relations in protecting financial interests of the States in the
regime of liberalism. It requires a solution satisfying the States and taking
forward economic reforms.
There is definitely a decline in the number of cases of Central
takeover of State government which were the main contentious issue in past
decades. The days of wholesale dismissal of State governments have gone. But
there are several lingering problems and potential issues that may crop up in
view of the existence of some strong regional parties having abilities to tilt
the scales in times of close contests for power at the Centre. This gives
political significance even to non-political issues.
Global political, economic conditions are such that national
decisions are to be taken in conformity with global decisions without wasting
time, energy, and resources in petty party politics with the sole aim of
assuming postures that do not matter to the people. Building unitary spirit in
the federal set up is the challenge before the nation. --- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|