Centre, states should foster federal bond

In the case of India, it is noted by some experts that articles of confederation are adhered to as ‘compact between states’ by signing two agreements. The ‘Standstill Agreement’ formulated by the Political Department of British India government and the ‘Instrument of Accession’ formulated by the states department are signed by all of the princely states, except the Nizam, Junagadh, Mangrol and Babariwad.

Show of dissent: Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin showed concern over the Centre’s tendency to appropriate the powers of states. PTI

KS Chalam

Former UPSC Member

Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary General, in one of his articles on India, noted that “it is only through free, unified and collective mobilisation that India can achieve lasting peace, justice and prosperity. Your country’s founding fathers understood this necessity. Their vision should remain at the heart of your future.” He was referring to the political and social catastrophe that India was undergoing at that time and warned it could set back the country’s development for generations and reminded us how India attained its independence from callous imperialism.

Every Indian knows the formation of a national government with the joining of 560 odd princely states with the British India presidencies, marking diversity and plurality as our core values. The achievements of the national government during the last seven decades of its existence are not trivial but substantial in terms of UNDP indices. Yet, we have not been able to live up to the expectations of our founding fathers who through their collective wisdom gave us a magnificent written Constitution that solemnly resolved to constitute a sovereign, democratic (socialist, secular) republic. It was also made clear, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” We may reflect here that it was not just Bharat, but consisted of several states defined under Article 1(3). We are reminded of this basic structure of the nation-state once again when MK Stalin after taking charge as the CM of Tamil Nadu spoke about “Ondriya Arasu”, the confederation of states and their rights. It is not only MK Stalin, several other CMs, including that of Punjab and West Bengal, have raised their voice against the propensity of the Centre to appropriate the powers, privileges and cultural identity of states.

The Constituent Assembly deliberated on the issue of the structure of a federal state. They knew of the history of imperial rulers, from the time of Kharavela, the mighty king of Kalinga (1-2 BCE), who through his Hathigumpha inscription noted that Bharat Varsha is different from Tramira. Later, it was elaborated by the East India Company Surveyor General James Runnel in 1733 that the line above Balasore to Bharuch is Hindustan and below, Deccan. The epic Ramayana and Samudra Gupta’s expeditions spoke about the southward expansion and the resistance encountered. The colonial rulers have created a country with South Asian dimensions.

In the modern period, several countries have emerged on the basis of agreements, treaties etc. The idea of a federal structure seems to be different from that of confederation. The term federal is derived from the Latin word ‘foedus’, which means league, treaty, covenant etc under the Roman law.

Confederation generally involves the principle of Westphalia. The experience of several European countries, USA, Australia, Canada etc in the formation of a federal structure is different from our legacy of state formation. Most of the countries are single ethnic or nation-based realms to form either symmetrical or asymmetrical federations. Scholars have noted that the Australian federation displays the strongest aggregative characteristics while those of India are the most devolutionary, with Canada falling somewhere in between.

The soul of a federation lies in the sovereignty vested either with the nation or to the constituent units or both as in the USA. In the case of India, it is noted by some experts that articles of confederation are adhered to as ‘compact between states’by signing two agreements. The ‘Standstill Agreement’formulated by the Political Department of British India government and the ‘Instrument of Accession’formulated by the states department are signed by all of the princely states, except Nizam, Junagadh, Mangrol and Babariwad. It is in this context that our federation, which according to our founding fathers is indestructible, needs to be understood. The term indestructible seems to have been taken as an ideal with enigmatic scope for disputes, if the constitutional ideals translated as devolutions are not respected. In fact, they have noted that though the country and its people are divided into different states for the convenience of administration, “the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source”.

It appears that the Constitution makers were under the impression that the federation was not the result of an agreement and therefore secession does not arise. But the fact was that the princely states joined the Union with their own social and cultural identities under some kind of an instrument of force that may not be legal. Thus, the seeds of a strong Centre and the accompanying malevolence were sown inadvertently.

The experience of the states with a federal structure during the last seven decades is mixed. Constitutional structures like the Schedules, devolution of grants, functions and even conferring of citizenship to others who will reside in a particular state not being consulted are in place. The Kerala Assembly passing a resolution demanding the scrapping of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) last year has added one more issue to the list of disputes between the Centre and the states. Already, the states have been raising the issue of their economic autonomy being eroded after the GST clause 269A was added to the Constitution, reducing their right to levy and retain taxes. The State List is pruned and education including entrance examinations for medical etc is taken away from the ambit of the states creating social tensions. It was anticipated that the learned judges who have introduced innovations like ‘basic structure’ would come to the rescue of the states by ingeniously applying Part XI of the Constitution, rather than reasoning defences to rescue the privileged. It is an irony that the states that lie below the Bharat Varsha in terms of language, culture and colour are not protected even under Article 14 and 15 as the Constituent Assembly perhaps was overwhelmed by their allegiance to Bharat and not India. It is time to listen to the sane advice of elders to evolve a benevolent Centre.