FEDERALISM IS NO ONE WAY ALLEY
By S R Ramanujan
Federalism is the latest buzz word in
political discourses these days, of course, next only to “secularism”. Is
federalism a one-way street? Is it the
responsibility of the Centre alone to respect and maintain the federal spirit
of the Constitution with no role for the States to reciprocate? After the
booing incidents at the functions organized by the state where there was an
attempt to silence the state chief ministers by a small section of the audience
in contrast to the cheering of the Prime Minister, the debate for true
federalism has become more shrill.
Undoubtedly, what happened at
Kaithal, Solapur and Jharkand are not in good taste and a little prod from the
Prime Minister could have averted an ugly spectacle. But, this, in no way, can
be stretched to conclude that the Centre has violated the federal spirit of the
Constitution. Federal spirit has nothing to do with the unpredictable behavior
of the “aam admi”. What the chief ministers did in retaliation saying that they
would never share the dais with the PM and would never follow the protocol was
also indeed a violation of the federal spirit. Petty incidents, that too, in
poll-bound states, cannot and should not be blown out of proportion.
Maharashtra chief minister did violate the protocol when he refused to receive
the Prime Minister at the Mumbai airport, and instead sent one of his junior
ministers. He went a step further and said that he wanted a guarantee for
boo-free audience if he were to participate in the functions of the Prime
Minister.
Well, what Prithviraj Chavan chose to
ignore was the fact that in his own state his partymen breached PM’s security
to show him black flags. This protest was perfectly legitimate in a democracy,
as legitimate for a section of the audience to boo a chief minister. The
argument was that such a protest was orchestrated by the BJP to humiliate the
state chief ministers. Can the BJP or the PM put a counter-condition that the
PM would visit a state only if the state chief ministers could guarantee that
there would be no black flags against the PM. That would have been silly, as
silly as Chavan’s demand for a similar guarantee. But the national English
media went to town that there was “a rape of federal structure of the country”.
The very same media thought it was no news when Modi invited Haryana chief
minister Hooda for a chat over tea to mollify his hurt sentiments. When the
slogan shouting clip was repeated ad nauseum, there was no clip of Modi-Hooda
meet.
Anyway, let us come to the basics. If
there could be one party which cared a damn for the federal spirit of the Constitution,
it is the Indian National Congress of the Nehru era, Indira Congress of the
Nehru dynasty and now the Sonia Congress. In between we had many more Congress
parties with different “suffixes” like Congress (O), Congress (U), Congress (R)
and the splinter groups led by Arjun Singh,ND Tiwari and others. The extant
splinter group is NCP. Why did we have so many Congress groups? The reason is
quite simple. Those at the helm at the Centre, whether it was Nehru, Indira, or
Sonia did not respect the federal spirit of the Constitution and treated the
States like the vassals? That arrogant attitude caring a damn for the federal
spirit splintered the party and laid the foundation for political immorality.
We may hail Nehru as the greatest
democrat. But, he was the first Prime Minister to strike a blow to the federal
spirit of our Constitution when he dismissed EMS Namboodiripad government in
Kerala on 31st July 1959. The undivided communist party of India won the polls
with a thin majority of two seats. The Congress could not digest this defeat
and the party under the leadership of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, unsuccessfully
tried its best for defection. Under the guise of “Vimochana Samaram”
(liberation movement), a situation was created to dismiss the duly elected
government using Art. 356 of the Constitution.
The tips that Indira leant under her
father to (mis)use Art 356 came very handy for her when she took over the reins.
She imposed President’s Rule misusing Art 356 on 39 occasions between 1966 and
1977. Janata Party government, formed after the Emergency, was no angel. It
also resorted to this authoritarian trend by imposing President’s rule on nine
occasions in the states ruled by the Congress. If Art 356 remains in cold storage for some
time now, it is not because of the mercy shown by the Centre to the states or respect
for federalism or the wisdom of the political class, but the credit goes to the
SC judgement on SR Bommai case that restored a semblance of sanity in dealing
with the states.
Sonia Gandhi, a loyal “bahu” of the dynasty
proved that she was no different in trashing the federal spirit of the
Constitution and treating the states like vassals when she wanted to bifurcate
Andhra Pradesh. The resolution of the State assembly was thrown into the
dustbin. A legal pundit made a succinct remark over this episode. Let me quote:
“To treat the State’s views as carrying merely formal value, as has been widely
suggested, would render the Constitutional process of consultation entirely
nugatory in a matter of national importance”. Well, it is like quoting
scriptures to a devil. It cannot also be forgotten as to how Lalu Prasad Yadav,
when he was the Union Railway Minister, destroyed the federal spirit, when ordered a parallel enquiry, without the state’s
consent, into the 2002 Godhra violence, as a political tool to beat Modi with.
Law and order is another state
subject and the Centre cannot intervene unless in an advisory role. But what is
the record of the states in equipping themselves with competent manpower and
arms and ammunition, besides intelligence network, in order to maintain the
federal spirit? States have not
implemented police reforms and the police force has been completely
politicized. Every time there is a terror attack or Maoist violence, states
were caught napping. It is the Centre that has to intervene with its men and
material. Even the failure to control Maoist insurgency is because of the dual
authority. Centre cannot directly intervene and it can only supply men and
material but the operation has to be under state control. Most often, lack of
coordination, as we have seen in Chattisgarh, led to enormous violence and loss
of lives.
It is, therefore, funny that states
that cannot handle the subject of law and order that was given to them under
the federal structure and failed to protect its people is raising a silly
incident like booing to talk of “rape of democracy”. Let the surviving Sonia Congress and for that
matter the people who are around and who were partners in Janata experiment
introspect as to who trampled the federal spirit of the Constitution for
decades instead of blaming the present dispensation!