Article
in The Economic Times |
Authored
by Dr.Jayaprakash Narayan |
|
National
Coordinator of
VOTEINDIA movement
|
A
plea for balanced federalism
09-Nov-2002
The
recent spurt in terrorist violence and the unresolved Cauvery
river water dispute brought to the fore once again the imbalanced
nature of our federalism. For long scholars have argued with
reason that our Constitution is quasi-federal in nature, and
in times of emergency (under Article 352) and imposition of
president's rule under Article 356, it becomes completely
unitary. These apart, the states in India are completely at
the mercy of the Union for their very existence. Articles
2 and 3 of the Constitution give the Union unlimited powers
to establish, merge, separate or alter the boundaries of states
at will. The only restraint is that the Union shall not introduce
a Bill for such purposes in Parliament without first referring
it to the Legislature of the State affected by it for expressing
its views. All these features, coupled with nomination of
governors by the Union, the power of governors to withhold
assent to a Bill and to reserve it to President's assent make
our federalism skewed in favour of the Union.
|
However
the developments over the years have restored the federal
balance to a great extent. The Supreme Court judgment in
the Bommai case made Article 356 practically a dead letter.
The Union's increasing dependence on bipartisan consensus
to get any Bill passed in Rajya sabha made adventurism unlikely.
Coalition governments with strong presence of regional parties
made the Union government dependant on states for its survival.
The Forty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution during Janata
government made proclamation of Emergency under Article
352 virtually impossible. With economic liberalization and
dismantling of license-permit-quota raj, the Planning Commission
lost much of its power and control over states. Fiscal devolution
in India has been a model of mature and balanced federalism,
thanks to Finance Commissions. The states' share of Union
tax revenues is now over 40 percent - 29 percent direct
devolution, and about 12 percent through planning commission
grants and centrally-sponsored schemes. Even these funds
are allocated in a fairly objective manner, based on an
agreed formula. True, there are still over 200 centrally
sponsored schemes, and there is a case for direct devolution
of most of these funds and plan grants through the Finance
Commission mechanism. But on balance, we can conclude that
our federalism is far more mature and balanced than ever
before.
However, there are certain areas in which the Union's weakness
is hurting the country. Take the Cauvery dispute. Year after
year the problem surfaces, and the Union is helpless. In
1991, during Bangarappa's chiefministership, there were
serious allegations of government inciting riots and violence
against Tamilians in Karnataka. Timely rains rather than
good sense of the states or institutional arrangements have
been giving us respite in most inter-state river water disputes.
The Union is often a helpless bystander as states indulge
in political posturing and play dangerously parochial power
games. Entry 56 in list-1 is too feeble and inadequate to
permit decisive role to the Union. When your state is your
constituency, it is difficult to be restrained or fair-minded.
Similarly law and order and crime control are state subjects
included in list-2 of the Seventh Schedule. Terrorism, serious
financial or banking fraud, cyber crime and drug trafficking
do not respect state boundaries. Only well-coordinated,
national action can check these offences and safeguard our
lives, liberty and vital interests. Often the states lack
national perspective, and do not have the expertise to deal
with certain crimes. In 1987, when naxals abducted several
IAS officials in Gurthedu in East Godavari district, the
matter was treated as the State's problem, and a dangerous
precedent was set by agreeing to the terms of extremists.
In 1990, when Rubina Sayeed was abducted by terrorists in
Kashmir, again the state was forced to capitulate. Such
disjointed, knee-jerk responses obviously emboldened terrorists
and played havoc with national security. There is obviously
a strong case for effective and automatic Union jurisdiction
of all such offences.
Inter-state barriers like octroi are another example of
parochial interests hurting national economy. We cannot
have national unity or economic integration without free
trade across the length and breadth of the country. Severe
restrictions on education and employment and sons of the
soil policies have been impeding growth and diluting standards,
particularly in professional courses and universities. Again
there is a case for the Union to be entrusted with these
subjects.
Finally, linguistic and other minorities are often at the
mercy of the state concerned. It is always easy and politically
profitable to spread hatred and venom against vulnerable,
politically insignificant minority groups. If the Union
cannot guarantee life, limb and dignity of all citizens,
then nationhood loses its meaning.
These four areas - inter-state river waters, terrorism and
other specified crimes, inter-state trade, and protection
of vulnerable minorities - need to be transferred to the
Union. We certainly need a truly federal state based on
the principle of subsidiarity. What can be done locally
should never be entrusted to a larger unit. But what clearly
can be handled only by the Union should not be entrusted
to the smaller units either. Rapid changes in technology
and security environment, and threats to our unity, integrity
and economic prosperity need to be addressed swiftly and
decisively. Balanced federalism must be a two-way traffic.
It is in the larger interest of political parties and the
Union and states to periodically reexamine the division
of powers under Seventh Schedule. A diverse, vast and complex
society needs to be alert and sensitive in its response
to changing environment. Only then can we secure unity and
promote prosperity.
***
|
|
|
|