From a cooperative federalism towards a competitive one

The famous statement of former Andhra CM N T Rama Rao describing center as a mere “conceptual myth” (1) brings out the complexity of the center-state relationship in India. In fact, it was for the creation of Andhra Pradesh that Potti Sreeramulu undertook the fatal fast unto death whose aftermath compelled the government of India to constitute the State Reorganization Commission and give acceptance to linguistic basis of the state creation.

For several foreigners, India’s diversity made it an unnatural nation (2) but for India’s forefathers it was the reflection of pluralist Indian civilization. For them, it was the main reason why India adopted a federal parliamentary system so as to nurture every aspiration blossoming in the fabric of India. But at the same time they were conscious of the historical experience as well. As per Dr. Ambedkar, India had to face defeat from foreigners due to disunity and indifference between different regions. (3) Therefore, he advocated a strong center in the Republic of India.

But during the time of constitution making itself, representatives of states opposed an extremely powerful center arguing that the country has got a ‘unitary constitution in place of a promised federal one’ and the concept of democracy is limited to the boundaries of Delhi. (4) The assertion has continued till date with states demanding non-interference, increase in revenue share or share in collection of taxes and limiting the numbers of centrally sponsored schemes. CM of TN, Jayalalitha once said that states have been reduced to the level of “glorified municipalities” due to the extra-ordinary powers enjoyed by the center. (5) But the nature of such demands has changed. From being the demand of regional identity and regional autonomy, it has become more about economic share for which “soft regionalism” is often invoked.

At present, we are witnessing a full majority government at the center after a long time, which has defied the popular rationalization of coalition era, with ever increasing role of regional parties, as a belated natural reflection of India’s regional diversity. However regional parties are not new in India’s electoral history. They emerged soon after the independence and got traction with the transformation of congress from a rainbow national party to a family run enterprise. This marginalized the regional leaders, which led to neglect of regional concerns and aspirations. This forced these leaders to move out of umbrella of congress and form their own region specific parties.

But the expression of regional concerns and identity has not been without its problems. The Naga movement and the Kashmir issue were some of them in the early years of independence. In early 80s and later, a demand for separate Khalistan state were raised; having its roots in the early years of post-independence.(6)

So the problem we are faced with is “what is the solution for these regional aspirations and how could it be utilized in the nation-building process”? Also, how can the federal structure be strengthened while letting the thousand flowers bloom? These are the burning questions, which demand a balanced, liberal and a far-sighted leadership; fortunately India had never dearth of it, unlike its struggling and partially failed Western neighbor. But for answering it, we need to know the characteristics of the regional politics and its impact on the federal character of India.

India witnesses a wide variety of regional politics. The first kind of regional politics derives its inspiration from the identity politics of languages. In fact, the first re-organization of Indian states took place on this very ground and main concern behind it was the fear of some language groups of being over-shadowed by some dominant language group in the region.
The second kind of regional politics is that of religious-ethnic identity, due to concerns of people of losing their religion, or ethnic identity in a huge unitary oriented national mainstream. At times, it went to the extent of separatist demand but largely it remained agitated in the realm of constitution. Its example was Akali Dal (Punjab), Mizo National Front (Mizoram), Asom Gana Parishad (Assam) and National Conference of Jammu and Kashmir etc.

Third form of regionalism is comparatively less ‘regional’ and driven by aspirations of downtrodden and backwards castes. At times, such movements developed into a localized party. These parties affected our federal system in a significantly different ways and were manifested in Samajawadi Party (UP), RJD (Bihar), BJD (Odisha) and JD-S of Karnataka.

When India witnessed largely a single party rule from 1952 to 1990, regional partied did not affect the functioning of the center in a way it did in later decades. But the pre-90 era did witness some impact of regional politics on the federal system. In fact, the creation of new provinces on linguistic basis was itself a fine example of regional impact on our federal polity. It was made possible despite center’s clear reluctance to open a Pandora box of such demands in the immediate aftermath of the partition. It was the regional politics, which prevented Hindi from being the sole official language of India and ensured continuation of the English. A comprehensive study of language policy of government of India will itself throw much light on regional politics and its influence on our federal system. But it was in 90s & after that regional politics became so dominant and coalition so routine that they even tried to affect the foreign policy of the county. During UPA-2, the Chief Minister of West Bengal refused to visit Bangladesh as part of a delegation led by the Prime Minister. (7) Similarly, during Sri Lankan civil war, political parties in Tamil Nadu pressurized the Government of India to talk tough to Sri Lanka.

Regionalism also came to fore when it came to the distribution of resources; natural or material. Distribution of river water, ownership of some cities (i.e., then Bombay, Chandigarh or Hyderabad these days), priority in industrial plants or regionalism within a region (i.e. Telangana or Bodoland) was main demands by different regions or regional parties. Till early 90s, newspapers were filled with headlines of Cauvery water dispute or water dispute of Ravi-Vyas River. Often, it was seen that governments fought with each other on these issues even if they belonged to the same party. In Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, it was Congress or Congress-alliance government in power but they continuously fought for river water. In year 2004, Punjab assembly even passed a resolution scrapping water treaties with neighbouring states in an open violation of federal spirit. (8) At that time, Punjab and Center both had Congress governments.

In some states regional parties opposed those coming from other states on the ground of protecting jobs for locals. It happened in Assam in 60s where Bengalis (especially from East Pakistan) were opposed and in Maharashtra in early 60s (targeted at south Indians) and in the first decade of new millennium where north Indians were opposed.

But regional politics also had its positive side as well. For example, the development of Tamil Nadu or Mizoram may well be cited; which were once epicenter of anti-Hindi, anti-North and anti-Brahmin movement. These states showed the trend of a linguistic, ethnic, caste and anti-center approach. But the feeling of Tamil sub-nationality also did some good for the state. It compelled its leaders to better connect with its people and make state more welfare-centric. They showed inclusive development and were ahead on social standards like education, health and nutrition. Likewise, Himachal Pradesh and Mizoram which were carved out of Punjab and Assam respectively, focused on education especially girl’s education and in the later part of 90s Himachal registered a female literacy rate of 98 percent which was just 11 percent in 1961! (9) The regional politics inspired their leaders to become more pro-people and provide better governance, which reflected into literacy rate, per-capita income, better gender ratio, social harmony etc via schemes like mid-day meal, cycle for school going girls, affordable housing and cheaper food-grains for the poor.

In fact, while regionalism was a ‘real danger’ at the time of independence, it is now controllable and to an extent also welcome. During British Raj, most of India was backward; it seemed like a colony within a colony where handful of big cities had all facilities. The condition of princely states was different; fortunately some of the princes established modern school or colleges or someone started scheme for the poor. When British left India, only 8 percent of population was literate and almost similar number lived in the cities. The country faced huge disparity; economic, social and regional. In such a scenario, the danger to the unity of country due to regional dissent was ‘real’. But by creating infrastructure and spreading education and economic activities, the government has somehow tried to establish a level of parity in the country. Cinema, industrial activities, communication tools, cricket and other factors have done the similar task to lowering regional antagonism. Today regional issues are no more than asking for a better pie in the economy; they do not pose a threat to the national unity anymore but argue for better & equitable integration in the national mainstream. People now can be a confident Tamil, Kannadiga or Bihari at the same time while being a proud Indian as well. (10)

As far as the future of regionalism is concerned, a diverse country like ours is bound to have regional characteristics and it is natural. It can’t be eliminated from this country nor is it desirable; yes the way nation is striving forward in infrastructure, economic integration and witnessing a rapid expansion of communication media, we can say we are moving towards a competitive federalism where states and region are competing with each other and trying to race ahead. In that process, they might quarrel sometimes; but not impact the unity of the nation. Instead, they will add a colour to the idea of India and also integrate the best elements of its culture. Recently, finance minister Arun Jaitley rightly said, “if states are strong, center would be strong. We are moving towards competitive federalism from cooperative federalism”. (11)

Also, with the creation of NITI Aayog by the Modi government, it is a good initiative in the direction of letting states and different region develop and design developmental scheme as per their specific requirements. It will cater the need of ‘competitive federalism’ and a good push towards decentralization of economic activities. It really shows the spirit of a confident nation.

(This article was published in Yojana Hindi(February 2015) and then “The Nationalist” E-magazine as well)

(The author is an IIMC alumnus, political analyst and translator. He has translated Ramchandra Guha’s India After Gandhi and Gandhi Before India into Hindi for the Penguin. Also translated Patrick French’s India: A Portrait. Works as senior editorial consultant in a consultancy and writes for newspapers, magazines and websites. Can be reached at jhasushant@gmail.com )

References:
1. Sanjay Baru, The Accidental Prime Minister, Chapter-9, First paragraph
2. Winston Churchill, Indian Speeches and Introduction (London, Thornton Buttrworh, 1931), p. 31, 120, 125 etc.
3. Part of Dr B R Ambedkar’s speech, Outlook.com (http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Grammar-Of-Anarchy/289235)
4. Speech of Loknath Mishra and K Hanumanthaiyya, CAD(Constituent Assembly Debates), Vol-11, p-799, 617
5. J Jayalalitha, 23 oct. 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-reducing-states-to-glorified-municipal-corporations-jayalalithaa/article2562391.ece
6. Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Chapter-9, p-185
7. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/teesta-water-sharing-talks-put-off-mamata-banerjee-manmohan/1/150681.html
8. Ramaswami R Ayyar, Punjab Water Imbroglio, Economic and Political Weekly, 31 July 2004
9. The Probe Team, Public Report on Basic Education in India(New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999), Chapter-9
10. Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Chapter 9, p.200
11. Arun Jaitely, 8 January 2015, http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/economics-breaks-political-ice-mamata-banerjee-arun-jaitley-talk-of-cooperation/27360/