The writer holds an MBBS (Calcutta) and a PhD (Harvard University). He is currently a postdoctoral scholar in Brain and Cognitive Science at MIT
The third front is a curious organism in the political scene of the Indian Union. It is a phoenix-like organism that intermittently threatens to rise from the ashes. More often than not, its rise is arrested, not by external factors but in the dishonesty of the initial threat itself. It is often the butt of jokes from the two so-called “national” parties. But a consistent ridiculing represents a consistent perception of threat. It is the rise of this front in its various avatars, representing, in part, an aspiration to true federalism that has rendered all but ineffective that most undemocratic “national” tool — Article 356. That elected state governments could be dismissed without a floor test by the centre may seem like a ridiculous idea today but it was not too long ago that the Old Congress and the Indira Congress used this tool as a habitual shortcut to unseat opposition ruled state governments. Some of the worst assaults on state rights happened during the infamous emergency regime of the Indira Congress during the 1970s. The rise of these forces has left an indelible impact on how politics is done in the Indian Union.
But does anything remain of such a federalist third force beyond convenience and bluster today? This is especially odd given that the present parliament represents one of the lowest points for the “national” if one were to combine the seats/votes of the Indira Congress and the BJP. It is not improbable that this number might reduce further in the next parliamentary elections. These two parties are thought to represent mother ships to which others seek to anchor themselves. In reality, the appendages are nearly as big as the mother ship if not bigger.
However, neither governance nor corruption distinguishes the two “nationals” from the others. Opposing dynastic politics at Delhi has lost steam due to the mini-satrapies that have developed in Chennai, Chandigarh, Bangalore, Lucknow and elsewhere.
Whatever becomes of Mamata Banerjee’s call for a “federal front”, the thrust won’t die soon. The Anandpur Sahib resolution is an extremely important document — especially those portions that have implications beyond Punjab and the Sikhs. Made in the backdrop of a Union still reeling from the emergency, the resolution made a plea for progressive decentralisation and an emphasis on federal principles. Major political forces of the time endorsed the decentralising thrust. Ashok Mitra, the disenchanted former CPI(M) finance minister, tried to organise opposition consensus around fiscal federalism — that revenues from a state should go directly to a state without any Delhi middleman. That issue still remains at the core of the Indian Union’s false federalism.
A federal front has to distinguish itself by not claiming it can manage the Union better within the present framework. It has to demand powers to be transferred from the central and concurrent list to the state list, and claim back various revenue collection and disbursement powers. It has to revive the spirit of the Sarkaria Commission and have the imagination to offer the tantalising possibility of a reconceptualised India — a more democratic federal union. It has to become true its name — that is a political front that takes federalism seriously.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The perfect stage of devolution will be reached when the level of politics crosses a certain threshold. If you allow that to happen before the political ecosystem reaches that certain threshold, the power will be treated as a dog's breakfast by these 'third front' parties. We have seen how they tend to rule and no one in their right mind would like a repetition of the nightmare. There are still permutation and combinations in Indian polity that might allow it again but that is not the ideal situation given the 'narrow' ideologies of the third front parties. These regional parties that constitute 'third front' can start acting like 'prince' and states like their princely states, catering primarily to state's interest and also usurping the paramount interest that ought to be given to the 'Nation State'. I will give you an example. What happened during PM's visit to Bangladesh is well known. Mamta Banerjee scuttled Teesta water share treaty for perceived political gains. From what was reported it wasn't even 'vote' gain politics but instead blackmailing the central govt. to accede to her legitimate demands of financial package from center. But is it the way to go about politicking on matters of state's interest? By jeopardising Nation State's interest!
Dear author, we Indians will reach devolution and allocation of state rights togather at the right time. Thank you. Rab rakha
@Razi, You don't seem to understand the subject of Federalism. If pakistanis had freedom to rule themselves, pakistan would not hv got dismembered If you had more states adhering to principle pakistan constitution, but freedom to live life in there own way, you could have been as strong as India is now. Your federal govt tried to impose one language and one religion by force and by tampering history / knowledge through education, this is your problem. This is not HAWKISH INDIANs view by any standard.
@ayesha, there is no whole sale devolution of powers in pakistan AT ALL. please check, 18th Amendment came only last year, before that still major health and development projects were planned / provided by cener only in pakistan. Also in education / internal security states do not have or not taken major role at all. Cultural freedome is almost nill to the states. If you see indian Federal setup, cultural freedom is maximum. Which has been the bedrock of unity to the country.
@author You committed the cardinal sin of praising Pakistan for something and asking India to learn from it. Since none but the most hawkish of Indians comment here, gloating with shameless ease, don't be upset about the reaction. That's what they come here for.
Good article, but India must avoid the wholesale devolution that has taken place in Pakistan. Because of devolution, we now have regional (provincial) regulating agencies in the internal common market that is the state of Pakistan. This would not only lead to poor governance but would be hard to enforce as well especially for durable, manufactured goods. Further, the plethora of regional, separate legal codes and standards for labor, health, environment etc would make the cost of doing business exhorbiant especially for corporations operating in more than one province not to mention the accompanying increase in red tapism and babbus (bureaucracy). Pakistan is now the only country out of the 196 soverign countries and territories of the world that does not have federal level departments for health, labor, environment etc.This may in the long term harm the national integrity of Pakistan.
Ayesha, IBA
@Author - " any talk of a third formation has influential vested interests who have invested a lot into these two “national” parties."
Not always... If you recall, the third formation had an opportunity to form a Govt in 1998, when the largest party BJP was unable to prove it strength on the floor... Jyoti Basu was tipped to be the PM. However his fellow comrades in the Politburo torpedoed this idea (for some unexplained principles/ideology) and later regretted this 'historic blunder'... So its not always the vested interests... sometimes ideology (like opium) turns a Politburo incoherent....
"It is often the butt of jokes from the two so-called “national” parties"
Not just national parties.. they provide entertainment to us ordinary Indians as well. Everybody who is anybody gets a chance to become a PM - from Deve Gowda (sleeping beauty), Inder Kumar Gujral (halwa-puri diplomacy with Pakistan). The front typically has socialists and communists in it and is multi-headed, speaks in forked-tongues, pulled in different directions and collapses under its weight.
haha... Harvard indeed. So you bought into the delusional federal front? And Mamata or Nitish is your example? Mamata who got kicked out from every alliance that she made is you place holder for a federal front? Nitish who betrayed BJP is your next example for making a federal alliance of even smaller parties? I guess you have a lot to learn about real politics of India so comon now, get back to work and in the meanwhile stop you ridiculous idea that there is any India can learn from Pakistan.
The author wrote, "Ashok Mitra, the disenchanted former CPI(M) finance minister, tried to organise opposition consensus around fiscal federalism — that revenues from a state should go directly to a state without any Delhi middleman". This is absolutely untrue. Dr Mitra, a wellknown economist, in the early 1970s in his Kale Memorial Lecture suggested the end of wrong devolution.
@author " Dr " " Most people in Pakistan probably do not realise that when it comes to federalism and devolution, Pakistan is an adult compared with the Indian Union that has many a things to learn from it " After this sentence I stopped and came straight to comment section. Pakistan Does not have Federalism, It has Feudalism. If It had Federalism, it would be in better shape today and probably not got bifurcated !!!!
Dr. Stick to somethink you are master of.
@author: “ ... Instead of the confused rambling that followed this line, the author could have listed the things that India could learn from Pakistan, as far as ‘federalism and devolution’ is concerned. ... “
That "devolution" you see in Pakistan is a manifestation of centrifugal forces at play.
Excellent article. The best way to manage India is to apparently break it up into independent states - I now understand why Pakistan is the adult and we are but children.
The author seems to have made up his mind and then spun a narrative around it, to fit the conclusion. A clear symptom of cognitive dissonance, a little odd for a postdoctoral scholar, of ‘Brain and cognitive science’. That said, there is of course a need for looking into areas of conflict between the states and the centre, Article. 356 for example. But alluding to 'Indian Union's false federalism' is a bit of a stretch.
Federalism is another word for fiefdoms.
Time and again political analysts have discussed threadbare the idea of a third front in Indian politics. I am amused a physician studying in Harvard has high hopes for a third front shaping up in the next few months before the general (Parliamentary) elections. To sum up most of the political analysts in India, a federal or third front has always been a ragtag group of opportunists. Constituents have problems in their own homestead, with each other, or within themselves. Samajwadi Party (of Mulayam Singh Yadav) and Bahujan Samaj Party (Mayavati) in UP don't see eye to eye. Trinamool Congress leader Mamta Banerjee is known for shifting her alliances like Katy Perry's girl changing cloths. A new inclusion to this is the JDU of Bihar, who share a lukewarm relation with RJD of Lalu Yadav. BJD of Naveen Patnaik has a good governance record but Odisha is a small state when number of MPs is concerned. Jayalalithaa of TN and HD Devegowda of Karnataka have their animosity to each other regarding sharing river Kaveri waters. TDP of Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh is not in best shape either. More over, Congress and BJP have clear policies on economy, defense, external relations, planning and every sphere of the Union administration, whereas regional outfits forming the third or federal front are a big zero. And not the least, whatever may be the pre-poll alliances, once the election results are out, constituent parties desert the third front and gravitate towards the national parties like rats deserting a sinking ship, depending on their religious/ pseudo-secular hues.
"Most people in Pakistan probably do not realise that when it comes to federalism and devolution, Pakistan is an adult compared with the Indian Union that has many a things to learn from it."
Sure, 1971 was one lesson that Pakistan can teach us in federalism. The repeated army rule is another lesson in federalism that we can learn from Pakistan. Yet another lesson is deciding for people what their faith is as Pakistan does for Ahmadis. ANother lesson to learn from Pakistan is how some citizens of the federation should have fewer rights than others and ensure there is no confusion by putting it in the Constitution.
This same article was published in DNA. Don't you have anything new to say?
" Pakistan is an adult compared with the Indian Union that has many a things to learn from it." Instead of the confused rambling that followed this line, the author could have listed the things that India could learn from Pakistan, as far as 'federalism and devolution' is concerned. Would have made this write-up more useful rather then just being a space occupier.