archive: The autonomy virus
The autonomy virus
Arvind Lavakare
Rediff on Net
August 11, 1999
Title: The autonomy virus
Author: Arvind Lavakare
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: August 11, 1999
The autonomy virus would seem to have suddenly spread from Kashmir to
Kancheepuram. The symptom was the two-day state autonomy conference
held in that city in Tamil Nadu in the last week of July. The hosts,
the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (a tiny constituent of the
Vajpayee-led government) came out with a state autonomy declaration
and a policy document on the subject. But going by the two statements
reportedly made at that conference, our Dravidian friends would seem
to either have no grasp of the Constitution of India or to harbour
ideas of fantasy about their own ability to lead their state subjects
to Utopia, as it were, if only Delhi stopped being a hindrance.
M Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu's chief minister, must have been in a rare
picturesque frame of mind at the conference's inaugural function when
he likened the states in independent India to a released prisoner who
was still handcuffed. And Vaiko of the MDMK was probably intoxicated
with the joy of his reunion with his DMK mentor when his policy
document proclaimed that the Centre should have powers only relating
to defence, foreign policy, inter-state communications and currency,
with the states being given all other powers. This distribution scheme
alone, we were told, would create a 'true federation' at the Centre.
Clearly, these two Dravidians -- and maybe other state politicians --
need a quick re-orientation course on the nation's Constitution.
The first thing Vaiko and his ilk must realise is that India's
Constitution is not a 'false federation' as implied in his demand for
a 'true federation'. According to the constitutional expert, Professor
Alan Gledhill, ''the essence of federation is the existence of a
sphere in which the units can exercise executive and legislative
authority free of central control.'' Our own expert, D D Basu,
considered, ''A federal state is the fusion of several states into a
single state in regard to matters affecting the common interest while
each component unit enjoys autonomy in regard to other matters.'' The
pattern of the Indian Constitution answers to both these definitions.
Thus, the legislative powers of the Union and the state legislatures
have been embodied in two separate lists, while there is also a third
list enumerating the matters which give concurrent powers of
legislation to both the states and the Centre. Currently, the Union
List contains 97 items, the State List has 66 and the Concurrent List
includes 47 with the provision that if a state law is repugnant to the
law of Parliament, the latter shall prevail. The residuary power of
legislation on items other than these 210 vests with the Union -- like
in Canada.
Because the above scheme is weighted in favour of the Union, some have
variously characterised our Constitution as quasi-federal, unitary
with federal features and centralised federation. The fact is that
though the Centre in India is strong, the states are not agents of the
Centre; they exist under the Constitution and not at the sufferance of
the Centre; they enjoy a large amount of autonomy in normal times;
their powers are derived from the Constitution and not from the
Central laws; and the federal portion of the Constitution can be
amended not unilaterally by the Centre alone but only with the
co-operation of the states.
These elements constitute the essence of federalism and they are all
present in the Indian federation. What seems to irk Vaiko most is that
the Union List is not confined to his prescription -- defence,
external affairs, inter-state communications and currency.
To understand the rationale behind the expanded Union List (97 items),
Vaiko and his ilk must need be reminded that, at the time our
Constitution was being framed, its architects were aware that
centralising tendencies had become manifest in the world and strong
governments had emerged in practically every federation. Wars,
international crises, scientific and technological developments, and
the emergence of the political philosophy of a social welfare state
had brought that about. Pragmatism and practical considerations thus
dictated the bias towards centralism in our Constitution.
Karunanidhi and Co must also realise the inherent dangers in a vast
and ethnically divergent country like India if it didn't have the type
of co-operative federalism that exists. Thus, though it is a dual
polity, India has only one citizenship viz the Indian citizenship, and
there is no separate state citizenship. This is in contrast to the
American pattern of dual citizenship -- one of the USA and that of
each state in it. This is politically explosive because a state, if it
had the power, could well discriminate in favour of its own citizens
in matters such as the right to hold public office, to vote, to obtain
employment or to secure licences for practising law or medicine.
The overall effect of such discrimination is evident in Jammu and
Kashmir where only the state's ''Permanent Residents'' have the right
to acquire immovable property in that state. With that solitary
exception -- the removal of which can be facilitated by the abrogation
of Article 370 of our Constitution -- the Indian federation has
largely achieved, and seeks to maintain, uniformity in basic civil and
criminal laws. It was with that same noble intention that our
Constitution's framers proposed a Uniform Civil Code but got cold feet
in imposing it, opting to leave it there as a Directive Principle;
that hesitancy has, in hindsight, proved a tragic blunder inasmuch as
it has entrenched communal interests with attendant consequences so
plain to see for all save the pseudo-secularists of our country.
It is wrong to believe that the ''defence, external affairs,
inter-state communications and currency'' constitute four subjects in
the Union list and that nothing in the remaining 93 items relates to
those four heads. As a matter of fact, seven of those 97 items cover
all aspects of India's defence, 12 entries extend to ''foreign
affairs,'' 10 to railways, nationals highways, airways etc
(''communications'') and four items fall under the category of
financial powers: eg, legal tender, public debt, foreign loans,
Reserve Bank of India.
There are dozens of other items which necessarily have to be with the
Centre -- stock exchanges and future markets, patents, standards
weights and measures, quality standard of goods, census, survey of
India, parliamentary affairs, Supreme Court and high courts; if not so
left to the Centre, one can imagine what chaos there would be in those
areas what with a communist like Basu and a Mandalite like Laloo
around.
It is also wrong to believe that just because the constitution of the
United States of America provides only one list that enumerates and
specifies the powers allocated under 18 heads to the Centre, it is a
''true federation.'' Far from it. As an expert, Dr M P Jain, records
''A liberal interpretation of these powers (couched in very general
language) has made the Centre very powerful... The commerce power has
become the Centre's source of extensive power to regulate the economic
life of the country, to deal with national economic problems, to
prevent or restrict disfavoured local activities... And the taxing
power has been used not only to raise money but also for regulatory
purposes... Thus, the Congress has come to exercise enormous power
with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court.''' Believe it or not, Mr
Vaiko, the American Congress has reached the loo as well: under a
federal law, all toilets made, sold or installed in the USA as of 1994
must have a tank no larger than 5.7 litres!
It seems quite clear that the yearning for a true federation by
Karunanidhi and Co is not based on facts or on contemporary history of
political philosophy. Why the outcry then?
One strongly suspects that the plaint against the nation's
Constitution is nothing but a cover up. It is an alibi for the
non-performance by and large of state governments across the country
in the last 50 years. Take land reforms -- an exclusively state
subject. Barring Bengal, which state has done anything radical to
improve the lot of the landless? (However, Communist Bengal has, in
its 20-odd years, been so lax in disciplining labour that several of
its industries have become sick and even prestigious companies have
perforce had to exit to other locations).
Take municipal corporations -- also an exclusive state subject. Which
of the 26 states of ours can boast of a single locality which is
spotlessly clean and which is happy with the civic amenities provided?
Take public health and safety -- one more subject in the exclusive
domain of a state. Which state has a record to be proud of in that
sphere?
Take prevention of floods -- a state subject. Which state with that
need has done anything worthwhile on its own?
Take law and order -- yet another exclusive state subject. Which state
can hold its head high in that area?
Take local self-government including village administration -- yet
another important state subject. Which state has done anything
concrete and lasting about it?
What is the condition of our city and village roads? Remember, road
development is a state subject.
To all of the above, our state governments will plead lack of
resources as defence. Well, the states do have some exclusive powers
to raise taxes. But which states have raised land revenue in keeping
with the inflation from the times the British left our shores? Which
states have raised rural electricity rates to realistic levels? Which
state has levied a tax on agricultural income as empowered under the
Constitution? Which state has collected its sales tax efficiently?
Which state has resisted populist give-aways like rice at Rs 2 a
kilogram? Which state has tightened its belt all round?
Vaiko and his ilk would do well therefore to get their priorities
right instead of faulting the Constitutional powers of the state
vis-a-vis the Centre. It is essentially a matter of being able to walk
before wanting to run, of being able to digest what is served before
craving for a multi-course banquet.
Our Constitution does need some changes, no doubt. Largely, however,
as a wise Indian noted ''The Constitution has not failed the people
but the politicians have failed both the people and the
Constitution.'' An all-pervading, self-generated environment of
corruption and craze for power, of hypocrisy and inefficiency, of
populism and profligacy -- in alphabetical order -- has ensured that.
Tragically, that verdict is as much applicable to the states as it is
to the Centre.
Tailpiece: The central government owned Radio network in Farooq
Abdullah's domain has for years been announcing itself as ''Radio
Kashmir'' -- the only state where the prefix Akashvani/All India Radio
stays axed. Some autonomy that, what?
Back
Top
|
