Essay on Indian Federalism and State Autonomy

Sixty three years of Independence have witnessed tremendous changes and there is immediate need to have a fresh look in an introspective spirit at the Centre State relations both in the context of various recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and formation of three more new states in recent years.

India, as a nation, has been undergoing a radical transformation unprecedented in its scale, sweep and intensity, during the last one-decade since the launching of the package of new economic reforms in mid-1991.

Structural arrangements and clearly defined norms and procedures embodied in the Constitution have provided the guidelines for Indian fledging federalism but it is in the operating dynamics of Centre- State relationship than one sees the true nature of Indian federal equation at three operating levels, viz., political, constitutional and procedural.

The political or politico-constitutional pendulum of Indian federal system has been relentlessly swinging towards a strong Centre for the last five decades and India has become what K. Santhanam called “Centre Paramount Federation” in view of the paramount need to maintain the unity and integrity of India.

All is not well with the present federal system. Empirical evidence exists to prove that the Union vested with enormous finance powers might use financial leverage to starve the states governed by political parties of other complexion and hue.

There is a need to devise a permanent mechanism, which would ensure a better sharing of economic cake so that the states do not become the perpetual wards of the Centre economically. Recent rise of regionalism cannot be viewed as a threat to our federal system but as a reaction against over-centralisation and demand for a more balanced development of the various states.

The Union and State relations can be made more stable and fair only when the political parties and the people are actively involved at all levels. Union-state relations can be improved when there is greater cooperation and coordination between the two for good and effective governance.

Tension Areas of Union-State Relations

Appointment of governors, allocation of resources from Centre to States, deployment of Central Police Forces and imposition of President’s rule in the States are some of the main irritants in Centre-State relations. Governors are increasingly becoming constitutional redundancies and are perceived as the whipping boys of the Union Government, doing a command performance wherever different parties are ruling at the Centre and state levels.

Demands of the States

Though the problem is generally termed ‘Union-State relationship’, there is no unanimity among the States on many issues and hence the dispute is not between Union government on one side and the several State governments on the other.

The non-Congress Chief Ministers held a series of conclaves through the 1980s in Vijayawada, Calcutta and Srinagar, while a proposed conclave in Amritsar was overtaken by the spread of terrorism in the State.

At these forums, the non-Congress Chief Ministers forged strategies for joint actions and articulated their concerns and agendas for federal reforms mostly relating to relief from arbitrary dismissals by the Presidential intervention in the State administration under Article 356 of the Constitution and fiscal autonomy with augmented share in revenue resources and enlarged role in the planning process.

For example, a conference of non-Congress Chief Ministers for the second time in Calcutta on 15 December 1987 deplored the unilateral formulation by the Centre of the terms of reference of the Ninth Finance Commission and appointed a working group chaired by West Bengal Finance Minister Asim Das Gupta to prepare alternative terms of reference keeping in view the needs of the States. The Chief Ministers felt that the unilateral action of the Centre violated the neutral role of the Commission as an inter governmental agency in tune with the spirit of Article 280 of the constitution.

Territorially based ethnic movements, especially in the north-west and the north-east posed serious challenges to Indian federalism in a very acute way in the 1980s under the regimes of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi these movements, especially in Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Jammu and Kashmir took separatist turns in the form of agitations, terrorist violence, and insurgency.

Extreme pressure was mounted by the separatists inspired and aided from across international borders. In mid-1980s, the Rajiv Gandhi government entered into a series of accords with the major regional parties or movements in Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Tripura to diffuse the crisis.

The Punjab Accord, between Rajiv Gandhi and the Akali Dal leader Sant Harcharan Singh Longowal, signed in July 1985 proposed the transfer of Chandigarh, the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana, to the former in lieu of the ceding of some Hindi- speaking areas to the latter; the reference of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of the Akali Dal on greater State autonomy to the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations; the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission inquiring into the November 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi in the wake of Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination to include similar disturbances in Bokaro and Kanpur; the enactment of an All-India Gurudwara Act, etc.

The Assam-Accord signed in August 1985 between the Home Secretary R.D. Pradhan and the Assam agitation leaders provided for detection and deletion of the names of foreign intruders into Assam with the base-date for this operation fixed on January 1, 1966. Those migrating to Assam earlier to the date were to be regularized provided their names appeared in the electoral rolls of 1967.

The cut-off point earlier insisted on by the agitationists was to be determined on the basis of the National Register of Citizenship of 1957 and the 1952 electoral rolls. The government had earlier insisted on March 25, 1971, i.e., those who entered Assam from neighbouring East Pakistan(Now Bangladesh) after that date were to be deported, with the ration cards being used as valid document in determining citizenship. Moreover, those who came to Assam after January 1, 1996 (inclusive), up to March 24, 1971, were to be detected in terms of the Foreigners Act 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunal Order, 1964).

The foreigners so detected were to be excluded from the electoral rolls for 10 years. In the meanwhile, they were required to register themselves in respective districts in accordance with Registration of Foreigners Act 1939 and Registration of Foreigners Rules 1930.

The above two movements were in a way diametrically opposed to each other in the sense that the Sikh agitation was fuelled by an intolerant religious fundamentalism seeking to terrorize and drive away the Hindus and moderate Sikhs out of Punjab, while the Assam agitation stemmed from the paranoia of the Assamese threatened to be submerged in their own home by illegal Muslim infiltrators from Bangladesh.

Moreover, Rajiv Gandhi also entered into an accord with the MNF leader Laldenga ending insurgency, granting Statehood to Mizoram, and holding elections leading to the accession of the Mizo rebel as the Chief Minister of newly created State. Further, the political condition in Jammu and Kashmir sharply deteriorated after 1989 leading to a situation even worse than in Punjab and Assam. However, by mid-1990s terrorist violence was brought considerably under control to facilitate Lok Sabha elections in the State in May-June 1996 and Vidhan Sabha elections in September-October the same year. Democratic processes thus returned to the State after more than half a decade with the Congress gaining electorally in the parliamentary elections and the National Conference sweeping the polls in the Assembly elections.