Federalism and the Indian Union
A federal front has to demand powers be transferred from the central and concurrent list to the state list.
The writer holds an MBBS (Calcutta) and a PhD (Harvard University). He is currently a postdoctoral scholar in Brain and Cognitive Science at MIT
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. With the BJP and the Indira Congress forming the two “poles” around which others must necessarily coalesce, any talk of a third formation has influential vested interests who have invested a lot into these two “national” parties. With West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s call for a “federal front” being met with some enthusiasm in Bihar and Orissa, we face a moment that we have known before. Between Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United), Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal, they represent about 10 per cent of the parliamentary seats — not a small factor by any means. Some other forces also have indicated some interest — including the Samajwadi Party, the ruler of the most populous state, Uttar Pradesh.
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.
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.