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!