No room for Delhi’s statehood in a nation-state
DELHI, the capital of the world’s most populous country, should not be made a state within the nation-state mandated by the Constitution. This is for the sake of India’s unity, integrity, safety, security, sovereignty and fraternity with its diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Territorially, India has never been so big except during the reign of Emperor Ashoka and Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.
Amid the parliamentary elections, the sudden revival of the promise by politicians that “we will get full statehood for Delhi” is disturbing, to say the least. This is because there is already no dearth of allegations and counter-allegations hurled by political leaders across the country with the sole aim of wooing voters. The statehood demand is obviously aimed at enhancing their electoral prospects. This issue was also raised during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections to attract Delhi residents, who usually don’t have the time or the inclination to assess the adverse implications of such emotive ‘non-issues’. It was in 2018 that the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea seeking full statehood for Delhi, saying that it had become infructuous in view of the Constitution Bench verdict which had held that Delhi could not be accorded the status of a state.
The present cacophony appears to echo the words of English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who described life as a “war of all against all”. Should the sovereign state of India be pushed into anarchy over Delhi’s full statehood?
In fact, no political party or ideologically motivated organisation (left, right or centre) should try to play with fire in the capital (or for that matter any province) of a country which is geographically among the largest in the world. The Constitution needs to be studied closely and its essence grasped, imbibed and implemented in letter and spirit, not in violation thereof.
Article 1(1) of the Constitution stipulates that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”, while Article 239AA (inserted through the 69th Amendment Act, 1991) lays down that the “Union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi”, and the “administrator thereof shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor”. Article 239AA(2a) says: “There shall be a Legislative Assembly for the National Capital Territory”. Nevertheless, the point is unambiguous: Delhi is the capital of India. It is a union territory (like other UTs) and not a state, though it has a Legislative Assembly.
Getting down to brass tacks, let’s foresee the dangers inherent in raising the demand for Delhi’s statehood. First and foremost, the capital city belongs to India and every citizen thereof. If it’s made a full-fledged state, can the next slogan of the “sons of the soil” be far behind? Thereafter, can anyone stop “reservation and quotas” and “Delhi for Delhiwallahs” movement? Will ‘outsiders’ then be deported or deprived of their property and jobs? Will entry be restricted and some sort of permit be required for visiting Delhi? Who will gain from such bizarre curbs? Where will Central Government officers and offices go? How will the two Delhis — the capital of India and the state within the nation-state — be differentiated? How will the police forces organise their roster of duties amid overlapping territorial jurisdiction? What will happen to the 200-plus foreign diplomatic missions operating from Delhi? Won’t they end up in troubled waters created by the myopic polity? How will the majority of Indians living outside of Delhi accept the tumultuous transformation? Will India become a unique test case of the 21st century, a “country without a capital” or a partitioned capital of a partitioned nation-state, propped up by the political elites of the biggest democracy in the world?
The US Constitution grants the Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union. Thus, from 13 states in 1776, America today has expanded to 50 states jointly called the United States of America. Article 1(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution has ordained that “India shall comprise” of “such other territories as may be acquired”. Thus, the number of states in India expanded with the acquisition of Goa (1961) and Sikkim (1975). It must nevertheless be remembered that unlike the US, where land expansion increased the states’ count, it was caused in India by division, contraction and cutting up of states and UTs owing to a contradictory and divisive agenda and an inherent political inability to follow unity of purpose. In 1956, the country had 14 states and six UTs; today, there are 28 states and eight UTs.
The Delhi statehood demand is part of a sinister agenda which keeps cropping up during the elections to whip up parochial sentiments, leading to potential conflict and breach of peace and harmony.
It’s, therefore, time to take the bull by the horns. If the state of Jammu and Kashmir can be bifurcated into two UTs, Delhi’s legislature and the office of the Lieutenant Governor can also be abolished. India may revert to the two-tier system for Delhi: one headed by the Chief Commissioner reporting to the President’s office through the Cabinet Secretary, and the other by the Mayor — elected every five years — who would be responsible for the maintenance and development of the Capital.
‘Land’ could come under the Urban Development Ministry, and the Police Commissioner report to the Chief Commissioner-Cabinet Secretary-President. The clamour for turning the UT into a state could lead to a more serious demand for a ‘break-up’ across India.
