Comment

Demystifying Indian federalism

PUBLIC discussion on the relationship between the central and state governments in Indian democracy has usually been conducted on the basis of rather simplistic categories, such that the complex issue of ‘balance of power’ is dichotomized around ‘powerful Centre versus weak state governments’ or the reassertion of the power of regionalist-state governments versus the central government. It has been suggested that the displacement of an over-hegemonic central government by the emergence of coalition governments at the Centre has opened up political space to the state governments. This so-called ‘shift’ in the balance of power in favour of assertive state governments has not only been celebrated by the regionalists, they also maintain that India has entered a phase of real federalism ending the era of arbitrariness of the central government.

To reduce the complex problems of state and nation-building in a decolonized country around the categories of centre versus state governments and the distribution of power between these two levels of governance of a heterogeneous and diverse country is not just simplistic, it can be dangerous. It is difficult to deny the argument that the central government in ceasing to be the real ‘centre of power’ has lost its capacity to act as an ‘arbiter’ and a final court of appeal. As a result, Indian democracy has come under siege and some state governments operate in complete violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It appears that the writ of the central government does not run over the BJP-controlled state governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, and the BJP supported coalition governments of Bihar and Karnataka. Despite every BJP-led state government passing ‘anti-conversion laws’, the central government has remained a ‘mute spectator’ to hate campaigns against minority communities who are targeted for indulging in so-called conversion activities.

It is worth recollecting that the late US President, John F. Kennedy, had threatened to invoke ‘federal laws’ to tame and discipline the state governments in the South of the country. The principle of equality enshrined in the American Constitution was challenged by the ‘racist’ state governments and the federal government, as the ultimate defender of the Constitution, threatened penal action. In India, despite a communal holocaust in Gujarat, the BJP government was not punished by the central government. The story in Gujarat has not ended. The movie ‘Parzania’ cannot be shown in Gujarat because of objection by the state government and organizations like Bajrang Dal to its depiction of the heinous crimes committed on 28 February 2002 at the Gulbarg Housing Society where 39 people were hacked to death and burnt. Is Gujarat a separate country? Is this the meaning of refederalisation of India?

Second, it is argued that the phenomenon of coalitional system of governments at the Centre enable the regional-state based parties to ‘share’ power and protect their special interests against the steamrolling attitude of a dominant party. But has the sharing of power at the Centre curbed the localism, parochialism and chauvinism of the regionalists and sub-regionalist parties? The PMK is a partner at the Centre but that has not prevented S. Ramadoss, its leader, from establishing a ‘Black Shirt Army’ ‘to protect Tamil Culture’. Ramadoss observed that Tamil culture has been ‘destroyed by the influx of outsiders’. He further stated that, ‘We are not against non-Tamils living here; we only want them to integrate with the Tamil culture and not impose their culture or practices on the locals.’ If the central government finds itself helpless against the Sangh Parivar-led state governments for their violations of the philosophy of the Constitution, it appears equally helpless to defend the Constitution against parochial culturalists.

The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to pursue his/her cultural practices, and at the same time to live in any part of the country and pursue any profession. The Tamilian chauvinists, following in the footsteps of Hindu rashtravadis and Shiv Sainiks, are threatening the fundamental rights of citizens and are getting away with their hostile actions only because there is no one centre of power which can exercise authority to curb these unconstitutional political tendencies.

Third, another attack on the Constitution has been launched by casteists-regionalists like M. Karunanidhi, Ramvilas Paswan, Sharad Yadav et al. The provocation for these casteists, who are sharing power at the Centre and the states, has been provided by the Supreme Court judgment of 11 January 2007 on the ‘justifiability’ of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has maintained that it has the power to ‘review’ any law included in the Ninth Schedule, leading Karunanidhi to demand that ‘the Constitution should be re-written’. Governor Surjit Singh Barnala, while addressing the Tamil Nadu State Assembly on 19 January 2007 observed that, ‘People belonging to the most backward, backward and Scheduled Castes, besides Scheduled Tribes, have been forced to do a tight-rope walk. To ensure social justice, gender rights and federalism, a complete review of the Constitution is necessary.’ The Constitution will end up being treated as a football game if some provisions, howsoever basic and fundamental, are not liked or approved by the castesits and communalists, more so if such demands are from groups sharing power at the Centre and the states. Unfortunately, Jayanti Natarajan of the Congress agreed with such a move for the rewriting of the Constitution asserting that, ‘Suggestion from a valuable UPA ally is worth discussing’. Incidentally, the BJP-led central government from 1998 to 2004 had appointed a Constitution Review Commission with Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah as Chairman, and the Congress party had opposed such a move by the Vajpayee government. So is there any political force genuinely committed to the defence of the Constitution?

The upshot is that with the ‘equilibrium’ between the powers of the central and the state governments at an end, the votaries of the virtues of ‘coalitional governments’ have to answer a basic question : Are the foundational philosophical postulates of the Constitution safe from attack by casteists, communalists and regional parochialists?

We recognise that ‘many Indias’ survive within one India, and a balance has to be found among diverse Indias living under a unified nation-state. India is witnessing a grand transition from pre-capitalist modes of production like feudal, semi-feudal, landlord and tribal-forest economic and social formations, to a full-fledged capitalist mode. The Constitution of India is on trial because the levels of social consciousness of multiple and diverse economic and social formations are in conflict with one another and in such a stage of conflict and multiple levels of social consciousness, a democratic ‘centre of power’ finds it difficult to be stable and strong. The DMK, despite being an inheritor of rationalist-atheistic ideology, has now ended up as a casteist, parochial, regionalist formation. Self-proclaimed socialists like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Sharad Yadav et al are today champions of caste-versus-caste politics. Ideological overlap is a fundamental feature of a society in transition where modern capitalism is also a carrier of pre-capitalist ideologies. This is the real context of state-formation in India, and not Centre versus the state governments.

The basic issue of the coexistence and over-lapping of multiple and contradictory levels of social consciousness, makes it difficult to constitute a ‘democratic centre of power’ since the state governments may follow ideological paths different from the central government. Mulayam Singh, Mayawati, Karunanidhi and others operate at a different level of social consciousness and they are trying to combine the building of a modern capitalist economy along with their social agendas which have nothing to do with the demands of modern rationality. Since the politics of the state and the Centre may follow different or opposing paths because of conflicts arising out of such an objective situation, it is necessary to strengthen the democratic fabric of the centre of power with a view to achieve an ‘equilibrium’ in a conflict-ridden political system. The history of developed capitalist federal state systems like the United States, Australia or Canada clearly shows that a real federal centre of power can emerge only when the ruling classes have established their ideological hegemony over the entire social system. Currently, the federal centre of power in India swings like a pendulum. This is the reality of India.

C.P. Bhambhri