The “Centre is a conceptual myth”, declared the founder of the Telugu Desam Party, N T Rama Rao, protesting against New Delhi’s bossism over the states. The dismissal of his government in Andhra Pradesh in 1984 by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became a cause célèbre for the opposition parties that launched countrywide protests against Delhi’s authoritarianism. Delhi was forced to reinstate him in office. What a pity that today’s pale shadow of the political party founded by NTR chose to stay away from the Chennai conclave of chief ministers convened by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s mentor was NTR, and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s distinguished predecessor was Jyoti Basu. Both were powerful advocates of the interests of the states vis-à-vis the Union. It is a pity that Naidu and Banerjee did not turn up in Chennai. The Chennai conclave had, of course, set itself a limited agenda, of protesting against the Bharatiya Janata Party’s move to increase parliamentary representation for the more populous Hindi-speaking states of northern India. It should widen its agenda to demand a return to a more balanced relationship between the Union and the states.
Story continues below this ad
Many believe Prime Minister Narendra Modi has muffled the voice of the states, beginning with the scrapping of the Planning Commission and never convening a meeting of the National Development Council. Hopefully the Chennai conclave will widen its agenda and bring other issues pertaining to Union-state relations back into focus. These issues have exercised state leaderships, including Modi when he was a chief minister. The original sin, so to speak, was committed when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the first democratically elected communist government, led by E M S Namboodiripad, in Kerala in 1957.
The political weakening of the Indian National Congress in the 1960s brought many of the issues to the fore, resulting in the constitution of the Justice P V Rajamannar Committee on “Centre-state” relations in 1969. On her return to power in 1980, after the Emergency debacle, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi constituted the Justice R S Sarkaria Commission, which examined in particular the role of governors, an institution devalued by all governments. Nowhere has a governor gone truly astray more than in Chennai.
The time has come for yet another commission that examines in detail the damage inflicted on India’s federal structure and institutions and the issues raised by the Chennai conclave. Therefore, when the newly established conclave reconvenes in Hyderabad, it must widen its agenda. In fact, the political parties gathered there can themselves constitute a high-powered committee chaired by a retired and respected Supreme Court judge that can take a second look at the implementation of the recommendations of the Rajamannar and Sarkaria Commissions and address the new issues now raised by the delimitation and language controversies.
Story continues below this ad
It is interesting to note that periodic attempts of Indian states to remind New Delhi that “India is a Union of States” have emanated mainly from southern states. It is a measure of the political distance that one is repeatedly reminded of between Delhi and the regions outside the so-called Hindi heartland. Having a PM and an HM from Gujarat has not made much difference to bridging this gap. None of the Southern Indians in the Union government have any significant political footprint in their states.
In the past, some of the psychological distance between Delhi and the South was bridged by inducting powerful political leaders from these states into the Union government. Not only has such representation dwindled but the political party in power has amplified North Indian dominance in recent years. The shabby treatment meted out by Delhi and in Delhi to a history-making PM from the South, P V Narasimha Rao, was just one stark example of such a regional bias.
Perhaps one demand that those gathered at the Chennai conclave may consider articulating at their next meeting is the downsizing of Uttar Pradesh. Apart from demanding a freeze on the membership of the Lok Sabha, a further demand can be made that no one state should have more than 10 per cent share of the number of seats in the Lok Sabha. That will require UP to be divided into two new states. a demand that has often been made.
The most articulate speaker at the Chennai conclave, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K T Rama Rao, spoke eloquently in favour of an important suggestion made by many others that rather than increase the number of seats in the Lok Sabha, the real legislative reform required is to increase the number of seats in state legislatures. If an improved and better “representation for people” in the legislature is the key objective of delimitation, then it is at the level of the states that such a change should be made. For it is state governments that in fact deal with the day-to-day issues that voters are interested in.
All political parties should also commit themselves to empowering panchayat and municipal institutions. The constitutional framework for this exists. However, few states have truly empowered the lowest tier of government. The Chennai conclave draws attention to the underlying grievance of many states, including the ones where CMs nominated by the Delhi “high command” are in office but not in power. The Chennai conclave was waiting to happen and Stalin deserves compliments for convening it.
most read
Beyond issues pertaining to political representation and administrative jurisdiction, there are larger issues of the ideological basis of Indian democracy that debates on Union-state relations bring forward. Unitary forces in Delhi have always challenged the idea that “India is a Union of States”. This has been further empowered by the Hindutva ideology that insists that “Bharat” is a civilisational entity and not one defined by a republican Constitution.
Today’s Bharat, as the Constitution defines it, is an India that was created by the legal amalgamation, some voluntary and some forced, of individual states. Every Indian swears by the Constitution and by doing so accepts “India that is Bharat” as her nation. If Bharat were to be defined purely in civilisational terms, the geographical identity of a legal entity would be up in the air. Hence, it is best to stay with the Constitution, periodically reaffirming allegiance to its concepts and commitments.
The writer was member, National Security Advisory Board of India, 1999-2001 and media advisor to the Prime Minister of India, 2004-08.
