Palah Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

what mujib said

Jyothi Basu Is Dead

Unflinching Left firm on nuke deal

Jyoti Basu's Address on the Lok Sabha Elections 2009

Basu expresses shock over poll debacle

Jyoti Basu: The Pragmatist

Dr.BR Ambedkar

Memories of Another day

Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Centre stage The Centre and the states have been clashing on a host of issues recently. The states are now displaying a new assertiveness. Seetha explains why

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120318/jsp/7days/story_15264565.jsp#.T2s5ccUS3ko

Centre stage

It was a photo op that said more than the picture did. Akhilesh Yadav, the new ruler of Uttar Pradesh, was being warmly embraced by Marxist leader Prakash Karat. Both beamed broadly. In the Congress headquarters, though, the image was unlikely to have raised a smile.

Clearly, bad tidings don't come singly. As if its poor performance in the recent Assembly elections hasn't been bad enough, the Congress is now faced with the spectre of the emergence of a federal front of regional parties ruling in states, something the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Odisha is believed to be spearheading.

With non-Congress governments in 18 states, pressure is mounting on the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. And political observers warn that the UPA, in not taking non-Congress ruled states along as it announces new measures, is paving the way for a bitter war.

The bugle was sounded when the Communist Party of India (Marxist) politburo lamented "the growing encroachment" of the Centre on states' rights in a March 10 communiqué. The Bharatiya Janata Party is equally concerned. "There appears to be a systematic attempt to usurp the powers of the states," says the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley.

To be sure, the Centre has stepped into the turfs of states before. That's not novel. What is new is that the states have become far more assertive about their rights.

The states' belligerence is there for all to see. In recent times, several central government measures have been put on hold because of states' opposition to what they see as the Centre's attempts to encroach into their territory.

A section of chief ministers opposed the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), which was to have come into effect on March 1 but has now been deferred.

The Lokpal Bill met with similar hostility. The Prime Minister could not sign a treaty on the Teesta river water sharing with Bangladesh because of objections by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Two recent central government moves have escalated hostilities. With the Citizens' Grievance Redressal Bill, the government seeks to tackle corruption by setting up a central commission with state branches. The Electronic Delivery of Services (EDS) Bill, 2011, is again aimed at dealing with graft by providing driving licences and other such permits electronically. But the bills deal with the delivery of public services, which, as M.R. Madhavan of the Delhi-based think tank PRS Legislative Research points out, is a state subject.

That's not all. A constitutional amendment passed in Parliament's winter session added a chapter to the Constitution on co-operatives, again a state subject on which the Centre cannot frame laws. Over the years, some state subjects have been moved to the concurrent list through constitutional amendments. Amendments, however, need the go ahead of half of all state legislatures. Creating a new chapter entirely gets around this problem, points out Madhavan.

Once, states seldom raised their voices. The near-monolithic politics of the first 40 years — with the Congress ruling at the Centre and most states and strong personalities such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi as prime ministers — resulted in a quasi-federal system becoming a de facto unitary one, says a Congress minister.

"But the era of charismatic prime ministers has gone; it is the states that have charismatic leaders," notes Baijayant Panda, BJD member of Parliament. The chief ministers of Odisha, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and now Punjab have beaten the anti-incumbency factor to get re-elected to power, he points out.

Such chief ministers are unlikely to be silent witnesses to moves that they feel usurp state powers. Not surprisingly, human resource development minister Kapil Sibal's ambitious education reform proposals have run into the wall of state opposition. "We see the centralisation of education as a serious problem," stresses Prasenjit Bose, convener of the CPM's research cell.

What worries some politicians is the fear that the Centre is going back to the dark days when it ruled with an iron hand. Jurist N.R. Madhava Menon, who was a member of the Commission on Centre-State Relations, points out that the Indian federal system had a pronounced pro-Centre tilt because the challenges after Independence necessitated a strong Centre. "The dependence of the states on the Centre is a constitutional fact that cannot be wished away."

The UPA is also accused of being petty and vindictive. Several bills passed by legislatures of states ruled by non-Congress parties are awaiting presidential assent. Odisha's Excise Bill, 2005, has been with the Centre for almost three years. Jaitley holds that even Indira Gandhi, with her larger mandate and a weaker Opposition, didn't do this. "This government doesn't seem to have reconciled to the fact that it has a narrower mandate and that the balance has shifted to the regional parties."

These moves come when relations between the states and the Centre have anyway been taut. State governments say that the powers of the state police are being usurped by the NCTC and by the amendments to the Railway Protection Force Act. The states also opposed the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which will replace sales tax — a state's main source of revenue.

Some in the Congress believe there's no big deal about these skirmishes. Centre-state disputes have always existed and will continue, says Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh.

Indeed, Centre-state tensions go back to the Fifties when the Congress government in Delhi used Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss a Communist regime in Kerala. The provision was used often by the Centre to dismiss state governments of different political persuasions till a 1994 Supreme Court judgment brought a measure of restraint.

In recent times, the office of the governor has also been a source of friction. Governors in Gujarat and Karnataka have had several run-ins with BJP governments in the states. In such a scenario, coal minister Sriprakash Jaiswal's remarks during the UP elections that the state could come under President's rule if the Congress did not get a majority immediately led to fears of a hostile and interventionist central government.

Some Congress leaders insist that state governments are being needlessly touchy about the Centre's supposed high-handedness. "There is no ulterior motive behind all this," says a Congress minister, who believes the increasing complexity of modern-day governance has made some centralisation inevitable.

That complexity, counters Panda, should lead to a more federal approach. "The command economy is giving way to regional competitiveness. States can no longer be ignored. Old ways of doing business have to change."

Singh believes some of the objections have little basis. For instance, education is on the concurrent list. "In a country as diverse as India, one cannot really ignore the national character of education policy," he points out. Minor issues, he adds, are being escalated to full-blown tensions.

Take the case of a new central university in Bihar. While the state government wants it in Motihari, the HRD ministry prefers Gaya. "Why make this a federalism issue," Singh asks.

But state leaders stress that much of the confrontation has arisen because of the UPA's reluctance to engage with states. Take the NCTC. "Just because we came on board on the setting up of the National Investigation Authority, it was taken as a mandate to destroy the autonomy of the states on law and order," says Jaitley.

States are not against intelligence sharing to fight terrorism, Singh holds. "It's a question of looking at the fine print, which can amicably be resolved." A chief ministers' meeting on the subject will be held in April, he points out. Regional parties want to know why this consultation couldn't have been done before.

GST is another case in point. Instead of addressing genuine state concerns on its implementation, the Centre often triggers confrontation on flimsy grounds, maintains Thomas Isaac, Kerala's former finance minister and CPM central committee member. "Merely because GST is a good idea, things won't fall into place. The Centre needs to convince others," Panda argues.

The National Democratic Alliance did that, says Jaitley, adding that it consulted states while appointing governors and dropped those the states objected to. Singh demurs. NDA's home minister L.K. Advani asked if he had any objections to the appointment of Bhai Mahavir as governor when Singh was Madhya Pradesh chief minister. "I said I did but they appointed him anyway. But I didn't make it an issue," he says.

But are the states right in objecting to matters that are purely in the domain of the central government like allowing foreign direct investment in the retail industry, international treaties and banning cotton exports? Many central policies have implications for states and their views need to be taken on board, Isaac argues.

The standoffs are taking place even though institutional mechanisms to iron out differences exist, in the form of the Inter-State Council and the National Development Council. Clearly, neither has been effective.

Menon blames both the Centre and the states for the current state of affairs. "There is political grandstanding on both sides," he holds.

The centre and the states, he points out, are equal partners in matters of security and development. "They have to share power and that involves give and take."

Now if only everybody heeds these words.

FUTURE FLASHPOINTS?

Higher Education and Research Bill: Sets up the National Commission on Higher Education and Research which will have powers even over state universities

National Food Security Bill: Puts financial burden on states apart from adopting a uniform approach to implementation

Citizens' Grievance Redressal Bill and Electronic Services Delivery Bill: Both deal with public services, a state subject.

No comments:

Post a Comment