Udayan Hazarika
(The writer can be reached at udayanhazarika@hotmail.com)
Not very long ago, in the later parts of 1970s till 1980s, States were not like as indifferent as they appear to be like today towards their right to performing Constitutionally mandated function. They used to make fuss over the issues whenever, the Centre makes a gesture to overstep the power of the States. Despite being an ardent Communist, the ardent leader Jyoti Basu was vocal about the States' rights and for that matter - the federalism as mandated by the Constitution of India and so also EMS Nambudiripad. There are instances when Members of the Parliament were at loggerheads taking into account of the issues in which Centre attempts to erode the power of States. But today, the States appear to have lost all interest in fighting against the centre for their rights – as if they have accepted the suzerainty of the Centre. Take for example the issue of three agricultural Bills in parliament.
The pandemonium created in the Rajya Sabha, while presenting the three Agricultural legislations was just short-lived and didn't yield any results. The ruling party almost effortlessly got it passed in the Parliament. Through these legislations, the Government wanted to bring reforms in the agriculture sector while it does not appears so in the eye of primary stakeholders – the farmers. Such things indeed happen in India only. Agriculture happens to be in the State list and the Centre is exercising power under Article 249 to pass these legislations on the State subjects. Such overstepping has become frequent in recent times and the most unfortunate is the fact that almost all the Indian States kept quiet knowing very well that such actions are derogatory to the spirit of federal structure of the Country. The recent forceful passage of the three Bills are not just the first case in recent times in which States' role have been undermined in taking significant national decisions despite the fact that States are the 1st stakeholder in each case.
The first example may be cited of the Centre's unitary exercise of power under the Disaster Management Act 2005 in March this year while declaring the national lockdown - the result of which we have before us. The State economies have failed like anything resulting in closing down of millions of trading units with unprecedented increase in unemployment and fund crunch and while it became the turn of the Centre to release the dues to the States, they were told to manage on their own as the virus attack was 'gift of God'. It is noteworthy that the instant decision of imposing lockdown was Centre's own and the States were never given their role in decision making till the Centre was blamed for the collapse of the economies. The second such crucial instance was the formulation of National Education Policy.
Every bit of the Policy was structured by the national Government ignoring the States' role in toto and thereafter the Policy was imposed upon the States for implementation. Despite the fact that education is in concurrent list, such historic act of negligence towards the States now needs a new definition in the political history of the country with reference to India's so-called federal structure. The list hasn't ended here. Recently, considering the COVID-19 dominated economic situation, and on the demands from the States, Central Government has allowed enhancement of borrowing limit from existing 3 per cent to 5 per cent of the GSDP- but not before dictating the tough terms of realising this additional 2 per cent borrowing. This additional 2 per cent increment has three components- of which only the first 0.5 per cent is allowed without any condition. Of the remaining 1.5 per cent, 1.0 per cent is allowed only if the borrowing is linked to specific reforms like creation of jobs, debt sustainability, power sector reforms, etc and that too not in one go but in 4 equal instalments of 0.25 per cent. The remaining 0.5 per cent is allowed only if the State achieves the stated milestones in the above reforms sectors. This apart, another notable event in the same direction is the controversial removal of Article 370 and 35A of the Constitution. The way the government eliminated the Article 370 and the consequent imposition of force in the said local area, only reminds us of emergency days of 1970s.
Existence of duel government is said to be a characteristic feature of a federal State. But are our State Governments really 'government' in true sense of the term? Election to the State Assembly is conducted under the strict supervision and guidance of Election Commission of India- which is again an organization having some type of administrative control of the Central Government. As soon as the election results are declared, the leader of the party having majority elected candidates is invited to form the Government by the Governor of the State who is the representative of Government of India. He has also discretionary power not to invite any particular leader if he has any doubt about the commendation of majority members of the party to that leader. The recent series of happenings in various States show that the Governors have activated their position and they become proactive attempting to intervene in all executive matters of the State. After the formation of a ministry, the State government runs its business through the bureaucracy headed by all India service officers who are well trained about the policies of Government of India but not the policy of the State in which they are serving. They are the officers who are under the control of the Central Government. They are there to tune all State Government policies to suit the characters of national policies.
In the financial front, all powers of imposing taxation lie with the Union Government. Thus, resources of the country are in reality controlled by the national Government. If State Government somehow manages to collect 25 to 30 per cent of the fund they require annually by way of taxation, (23-27% in case of Assam), for the remaining portion, the State has to depend on the Union Government for Central assistance, on Finance Commission (Article 208) for devolution of fund, and on Niti Aayog for fund for new schemes. Natural and manmade disasters are State subjects but their management is guided by the Central Government, their funding is also decided by the Finance Commission and therefore regulatory mechanism lies in the hands of the Central Government. This categorically defines the affairs of the State in relation to Central Government today. Finance Commission while allocating resources from divisible pool keeps the major part for Centre (59% in case of 15th FC). Even after introduction of GST, the mechanism of distribution of divisible pool resources has not been changed.
India has never been a country with federal structure, there is no such word in the Constitution either. So far, we have been taught that existence of emergency powers of the Centre, the residuary and overriding power of the Centre to legislate over residuary and State subjects, financial supremacy, etc, are the primary unitary characters of India. Under this backdrop there are people who attempt to superimpose the federal characters using the popularly coined statement that India is a country of federal in structure but unitary in character by which, they actually deceive themselves. In fact, there is nothing concrete to show that there exists any federal character in true sense of the term. The essence of federalism whatever had existed initially getting annihilated gradually in the passage of time. The States must work out to restore the basic characteristics of the Constitution in terms of Centre State relations. The Centre must understand that States are an integral part of the nation and for free, fair and effective implementation of the Policies, States must be made a party to every crucial decision of national importance.