DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISM AND THE FUTURE OF INDIA'S UNITY

t { i
.i
I

,l

rJ

l
i
I l

,]

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity

NIRMAL MT'KARAJI ASHIS BANERJEE

Under the Auspices

of

CBNTNB FoR POLTCY RESEARCH

UPPAL PUBLISHING HOUSE

NEW DELHI-IIOOO2

UPPAL PUBLIS ING HOUSE

3, Ansarij Road, Daryag

j, New Delhi-110002

@ Centre for

New
1987

ISBN 8r-8502

Published by B.S. Uppal, New Dclhi-110002 aod U29 Nicholsoo Road,

Publishing House,

at Maharani hinters,
Gare, D6lhi-110m6

Foreword

In a very real sense India is unique among the large countries of the world. Its diversity distinguishes it from China and the USA and its political system from the USSR and China. The combination of size,
diversity and political system have led several Cassandras, both domestic and forcign, to forecast the break-up of India as more than just a possibility. Size and deversity being 'givens', these forebodings basically question the adequecy of the political system.

Prof. Nirmal Mukarji, former Cabinet Secretary and Research Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, and Shri Ashis Banerjee, Lecturer at Allahabad University, who was a Visiting Fellow at the

,,,,.,-'jglg

Centre for two yedrs, studied the political system. In their view dem

underlying the Indian

secularism and federalism

constitute the main underpinnings o the lndian system. The simultaneous operation of these elements the conditions for the social Indian nation. cohesion and political integration of

Within this overall formulation on the manner in which two of federalism, have developed and argument is that, while the idea of indeed grown into a study sapling,
only now beginning to come into

authors have focussed attention basic concepts, democracy and the polity. Their central has taken firm root and ism as a late starter and is own. Conscious strengthening

unity

of the federal idea is essential and for effeotive political suggestions have been put forward
We in the Centre for Policy this paper deserve to be debated taken note ofby policy makers, at

precondition for national of the nation. Specific furtherance of this basic thought.
as

feel that the issues raised in , and more especially to be present stage of evolution of

the Indian polity.

V.A. Pai Panandiker Director

Centre for Policy Research

New Delhi

'-a

Contents

Chapters

Page Nos,
v

Foreword

Introduction
Secularism and

I
6

2 Democracy,
Federalism

3 India's Federal Experience: A Recapitulation 4 Models of National Unity 5 An Alternative Approach to

thc Question of Unity: The

l2
25

Main Recommendation

37

6 Some Specific Suggestions 7 By Way of a Conclusion

Index

46
55

59

Introduction

The question of national unity recurs with great frequency in India. That it does so is not surprising because India is large and diverse, and her existence as a modern nation-state goes back to less than four decades. Besides, ever since the prospect of independence became real in the I930s forces of disunity had to be contended with. There was the question of Indian states and their place in free India and of the religious minorities, especially the Muslims. While the former were successfully integrated, a substantial section of the latter created for themselves an independent state, thus truncating what was India at the very hour of her birth. That event has left a deep impression on the political psyche of the Indian nation. The

Democracy, Fdderalism and the

of India's Unity

thought of disunity continues major failure of nationalism-the At independence India opted

bring back memories of that up of India.

become a secular and federal give equal place to all religious

democracy. Secularism promised t groups and federalism sought to d political justice to the identities of India's various linguistic and cultural groups. Put simply onal unity for the future. It this was seen as tbe formula for nstitution of India describes the is sometimes argued that the

political arangedlent as a 'Union

States' and

not as a

federa-

albeit one which provides the in some other federal states with more Dowers than o Centre Ample evidence in pport of this claim is available of the world. t Assembly, in the States Reor'in the Debates of the Consti (1956) and in ious decisions of the SuPreme ganisation Repott Court of India.
self that the arrangement is

tion. But

it is evident from the

isions of the Constitution

it'

entailed the dismantling of the e had evolved over a Period of unitary structure which British hundred years. This would ha been an impossible task had not ic response among the People the federal idea found an here to retrace the events of India. It should not be n States Reorganisation Comwhich led to the aPPointment of mission. But it is worth making note of the fact that during the g the passage of the States ReorIong debates in Parliament d urablo Member questioned the ganisation Bill not a single H erlying the Bill. Disagreements basic ideas or proPositions boundary delimitations. were restricted to questions of

Opting for the federal fo

If

anything cbmouflaged the

by the nation

in the direction of federalism it

preponderance of the congress in the States as well as at the the political sYstem did not period of Nehru's Prime Mini where federalism was Put to test

step that had been taken was the national which formed governments Thus the federal features of me apparent throughout the hip with the exception of Kerala 1959. To say this is not to dis-

Introduction

miss the rather heated differences which existed over the question of Hindi as the official language. But much of that heat was absorbed by the national organisation of the Congress party.

For the nation as a whole it may be said that in the Nchru period such was the popularity of the Congress and so great were the expectations from a free nation that the full implicatione of a federal democracy were not realised. Ovei that period aa elitist democracy was only gradually giving way to what may bc called 'mass' democracy. Besides, the non-Congress political partics, ercept the Communist Party, were essentially satellites to the anti-colonial nationalism of the Congress, forged in an earlier era by Gandhiji,
The post-Nehru phase brought about the need to re-evaluate Indian nationalism. Ideas had been put to practice and had achicved a degree of fruition. The unity of India had become an established fact; the diversity proved more complex than bad perhaps been anticipated. For the democratic process not only threw up a large number ofinterest and pressure groups, it also brought into relief the underlying characteristics of an ancient and multicultural civilisation. Federalism, which was the democratic answer to the question of accommodation of primordial socio-culturai groups within the framework of the new nation-state, sought gradually to come into its own. And, with the weakening of the Congrcss system by the mid-sixties, Indian nationalism sought redefinition mainly, if not solely, in terms of the concepts of democracy, secularism and federalism. As the modern and the pre-modern forces opcrated simultaneously, often pulling in opposite directions, the process of nation-building became complex and challenging. The centralising compulsions of the modern nation-state form and the decentralising pulls of the democratic form began to compete in an inner-struggle within the body-politic of the Indian nation.
This paper seeks to address itself to the problems arisiag.out of this struggle and attempts to make a contribution to the ongoing debate. A longer introduction will havc to anticipate many of the issues which belong more appropriately to the main body of the

.4

Dedocracy, federalism and

Future of India's Unity at this stage to state the central which will be followed. idea of democracy has been able has grown to be a sturdy sapling, federalism is itself, in essehce, a

paper. Therefore,

it

is.

argument and lay out the broad

The central argument

is that root in India but thoueh to take

thrats to it continue to exist. Si democratic idea the fortunes of

and federalisn are incontext. Federal practice has,

extricablv intertwined in the however, left much to be desird.

Over the last few years the

debated

of India's unity has been rk, though more recently the Centre-State factor of religion has also entered the debate. In this debate. on been made to lean heavily on the one hand, the notion of unity

in a

the concept of a unjtary state, thb demand for autonomy have alism. The conflation of key

degtructive to the debate, party politics such things can be Therbfore,

the other. fedoralism and clubbed with divisive regionin this manner has proved to be under conditions of adversary
on

to happen,

qot only

must

'

be brought to bear on the

federalism must also be extendian democracy has come to

Centre- State debate, the debate

ed beyond Centrb.State relations.

maturity when it is beginning to demand effective of the State. In order to meet this demand the district could constitute the unit for State level for the national level. Thus federal governauce as the State

the stage

of

levels of participatiotr below the

the reconstituted federal system

be a three.tiered one.

Also. of late the Centre-State debate secms to have got trapped Centre should be strong or the into an argu.ment as to whether of argument only confuses the Stales should be strong. This a strong Centre can only come real issues involted. fhe view about if the States are strong is logically valid one but politically lie in the area of how (i.e. in over-simplistic. The harder the States be strong so that the what respects) rnust the Centre ited and strong, Therefore any Indian natiou remains willingly .about the need to or extend the federal idea suggestion

Introduction

must be accompanied by suggestions as to which functions of the Centre must be reinforced or amended so that the federal arrangemeut evolves in the right direction.

De ocracy, Secularism and Federalism

It

has alreadY been suggested

secularism and federalism consti

the concepts of democracY' the main underPinnings of the

Indian political sYstem. In their

ultaneous operation theY Providc the conditions for the social cohesion and political integration they lend strength to the Indian of the Indian nation. to be a simplistic formulation' state. At first sight this maY be shown that there is a conPlex But by further claboration it operation of the thrce concepts. set of issues that surrounds uld be to untavel, at a PurelY The first step id this direction in these conccPts. aualytical level; thc tensions

Democracy, Feileralism and the future of India's

Unity

The concept of democracy entails, in its negative aspect, the recognition of the individual's frcedoms within a. legal framework; in the positive sense it entails the right of every individual to participate as an active citizen. Similarly, while secularism implies the principle of tolerance, and therefore inevitably a recognition ofthe identities and the existence of all religious groups, in the active sense it also suggests that the state must disassociate itself from the itrterests of any specific religious group, for only then. can tbe
6tate acquire the political authority to mediate between religious groups. Federalism entails, on the one hand, the recognition of thc rights of states, i.e. their sphere of autonomy, while on the other, it enjoids upon the states the responsibility to cooperate with the Union government and with other state governments in the interests of the nation as a whole. In fact, the three concepts are even more complex than thiS simple dialectical presentation seems to indicate. Democracy in action involves the representation of democratic opinion, which throws-up possibilities of vlrions forms of representation and the adequacy of different levels of representation. Also, in societies where structural social inequalities exist a commitment to the democratic idea involves the removal of these structured inequalities. If positive discrimination is the favoured method of doing so then the notion of 'democratic right' becomes more problematic. Becides, there is the question of the relationship botween the government and the opposition in a representative democracy. This is specially relevant to post-colonial states where conventions are not entirely settled and where the demands of 'mass' democracy often militate against imperial legacies. From time to time, for instance, either in the trame of national stability or in the name. of development or of some other purported national interest it has been held that poor countries cannot afford to havo (or do not need) an
effective

opposition.

The complexities of secularism arise from at least two questions. Is secularism primarily a social value or is it more fundamentally a political one?.Formulated differently, to what degrqe

Democracy, Secalarism and F,

does the secular princiPle active) political role qua religious to what exteot may the state
groups? There are" of course,

religious groups an explicit (or

The second question is,

in the affairs of religious

questions which follow. As

does secularism enjoin uPon in the case of Positive for religious minorities? If so, to make opecial tho statc degree? Is the active role of then in what manner? And to to rejection of the seoular in religious matters the state principles? In other words, does it contradict that aspect of must stand above religious secularism which says that the are relevant questions in groups and their specific interests? the Indian context.

to be dealt with elscwhere However, these questions will for this paper does not extend to a substantive discussion on secunake the point that in Praclarism. The limited purpose here is tice there are more comPlexities involved than are sometimes into account a rather PoPular perceivcd. It is also necessary to holds tbat oolitics must be and essentially bealthY view inherent in a situation where religion. The separated from religion are too well known. politics comes to be dominated an inevitable relationshiP However, in multirreligious task before such a nation is does exist. The between the two the form of a clearly enuncitherefore to work Lout an interface also be nationally accePtatcd minimal relationship which If a debate should take Place able rather than to avoid the issue. , then it is better to imbue it around this issuo, as indeed it than leave the problem to the with some intellectual content alone. The significance of rough and tumble of daY to daY be missed in the prescnt conthis suggestion, it is hoPed, will deal of talk in the media and text where there is alreadY a ' and minority discontent. The elscwhere about the 'Hindu this signs of regression from secular liberal conscience may find were presumed to have been an earlier period when such to recognise that those days settled. But it would perhaPs be wi is a relentless one, If there are wcre difrerent. The political of society they are bound to problems that concern anY

Demoqacy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity

find some kind of political expression' And

when they do find

political expression they' seek political solutions' questions that The next concpt for analysis is federalism' The are the two following are generally raised with regard to federalism oo.rl Wmt .lould be the nature of relationship between the Uaion betwcen the and the States? And, how should powers be divided and some exUnion and the States? The two questions are related prts would even refrain from distinguishing between the two' The iormer, however, relates to thb historical and geo-social structure of the federation and the political attitudes that grow out of such a structure, whereas the lattcr addresses itself to the more technical

aspctsoffederalgovernance.Furtherdiscussionofthisdistinction will have to wait till the following sections.

The questions raised above apply to all federations, old and new. In the case of younger federations which are less settled it

inbecomes necessary to raise a few others. What conditions, qualify as a unit of stance. must a territorial unit fulfil in order to federal government? What should be the size of the units? What

for

kinds of criteria are necessary to assess their viability? Can all states which are cast in the federal form be expected to exhibit similar political rhythms? More specifically, if we assume that in the history of federal governance there have been two broad routes of federation-creation' one, the coming together of autonomous units into a union (the confederal routen e.g' the U'S'A') and two' the unpackaging of unitary systems (the devolution route' e'g' India), ihen are the two types of federations likely to follow similar trajectories of political development?

The last question is deliberately posed in this malner because it is customaly to evaluate all federations on a similar scale' All of too often geniralisations are made with regard to the behaviour

federationsandthesegeneralisationsare,quiteimpermissibly' given a normative weight. Thus, it is said that all modern federaiions tend towards centralisation because of various factors such planning' u. iU" pfuy of mirket forces, industrialisation, economic

lO

Democracy, Setularism and Ft

technology and defence

units of

terministic needs to be investF gatcd. Especially because the type of federation should logically move in the direction of autonomy for units as the democratic process works towards dismantling of imperial unitary structures of governance and of thought. Needless to add, such a course of develooment does not rule out the problem of reconciliation between national :erests and those of the federal units. In this case too, a substantive on will be taken up at a later point in the paper.

federatlon should Union or reconcile themselves to a assertion is too simplistic and

ts. Therefore, it is suggested, learn to 'cooperate' witl the role. Whether this

Another equally fundamental idea envisages only two levels of alism could be seen as one of the sharing which is implicit in the n and therefore be oxtended to a case then the Union could be seen Whdt would be the implications of the general principlos of federal relevant only if the third tier were to In the USA, for instance, such though the system is often described government does not derive its the country. Large, populous and de: India may find the third level of rep ally useful as the st4tes find themsel unable to perform.

is whether the..federal or whether federelements in the idea of powcr

of

democratic government level. If the latter were the

a federation of federations.
model with regard to This last question is given constitutional status. question does not arise, for
a 'three tiered' one a county wers from the constitution of

federations such

as

uve government especroverloaded and therefore

Having indicated the inherent in the three principles of democracy, secularism and bderalism it will be necessary put forward in tbe form of to move on to the next step. It may following propo$ition. What the the three principles fundameotal to a polity such as India's is effectiveness of their combination. This is so because they are y interdependent and

inutually reinforcing principles,

there do exist one-party

Democracy, Federalism an(l the Future of India's

Unity

11

states which ale also federations, in a multi.cultural, multlreligious and multi-party state the sinultaneous operation of the three the overall political process' Far from frag' principles

"onttitot"* proves to menting the polity the dynamic of this political process long run. For it is ths only,method ofesta' be intJgretalive in the process blishing a durable consensus on national issues' When the is choked fissures begin to appear in the polity' The relatively short history of independent India goes to prove this claim'
The factor of interdependence can easily be demonstrated' Without the recognition of the democratic principle neither secularism nor federalism can be genuine for essentially both are in

'

to gtoopt whether they are religious, social, or territorial' Naturani, tnese can only be rights available within the framework of the nation.stateandcannotextendtothepointofchallengingnational sovereignty. Besides, the denial of the secular principle amounts to a deniai oi the right to an individual's private beliefs' The denial of the federal principle involves a violation of a sort of participa' tory right of the territorially based groups' In this manner' there' fore, the lriad of democracy, secularism and federalism constitutes an integrated grid of national values'

some respects democratic ideas bestowing certain democratic rights

India's

ral Experience:
Recapitulation.

India is unenviably unique among the in that her unity constantly remains

own people. History is partly

fragmented past and Of unstable oal memory. In more recent times the

countries of the world question, even for her

ible for this. Images of a linger in popular historitinent has been twice
have occasioned srave

to every thrust in the

partitioned, Besides, secessionist public anxiety from titne to time. It is

surprising, therefore, that

federal movement in the direotion of unitary

ion there has been a reflex

Despite allegiance

federal constitution. there remains subconscious attraction for the unitary model as the answer to the problem of national unity.

to

Democracy, Fetleralism and the Future of India's

Unity l3

The dualism may continue to haunt the Indian political psyche for a long time to come. No ill-health need necessarily be attributed to this course of political development if it is accompanied by a sufrcient degree of self-awareness. But under conditions of great political turbulence this is easier said than done' Therefore, to
bcgin with, the character

of this turbulence

must be understood'

to change over from an to what at an earlir poiot has been elitist model of democracy referred to as a 'mass' model of democracy. This was possible because of the seeds which had been planted at the inception of inde' pendent India. The qualitative shift was followed by incremental changes in the direction of greater democratic participation in spite of the persistence of grgat economic and social inequalities. It began with the entry of tht backward'castes into the political process and the rise of the organised working class as an interest group in national politics and went'on to include larger and larger sections of the people into the political process-national, regional and local. This was an intended consequence. But it also brought with it major problems of political management. The democratic process brought into relief regional imbalances as well as regional aspirations. It also gave voice to the oppressed and the poor.
Somewhere in the sixties India began

India's relatively rapid shift to thc 'mass' model left many elements of the anti-colonial consensus far behitrd while it provided little time for the evolution of a fresh consensus. In fact, what the circumstances of the sixties demanded was not so much a national consensus as a renewed compact on the basic rules of the political game. This essentially meant that India had to settle down to stable democratic functioning with all its concomitants: competitive party politics, rival interest groups and so on.
The transition could be expected to breed irlsecurities in the minds of those who were committed to the view that th one-domi' nant party model was the rightful heir to the colonial unitary model. Therefore, when the change came in the wake ofthe Fourth General Elections there was considerable alarm. That eight state

14

India's Fbderal Exoerience: A

itulation

governments went over to the non gress fold all at once certainly occasioned this anxiety. Wbat may ve happened had the change oot ben so cataclysmic is difficult assess. However, it would not : be inappropriate to discuss the vario ramifications of the elections

of
.

1967.

north Indian states oomprised of a had come out of the Congress fold.
a substantial political following. So one-dominant party model to the to be the period of the fragmentati

Many of the coalitions (SVDs which came to power in

ge component

the

charismatic leader was especially phase. For though Lal Bahadur S national leader after the Indo-Pak he could consolidate bis success.
was

of leaders who ith these leaders had gone period of transition from tbe -party model also appeared ofthe Congress party. A tall by the Congress in this rose to the stature of a r{ar of 1965 the died before Gandhi, who replaced him,
she became

yetto develop into

the national

after

1971.

Added to this absence of leaders ress Centre suddenly had to cope wi

parate kinds. A decade earlier the 'opposition' ministry in Kerala. Even it had demonstrated great intolerance for the Communist ry which it helped to ovarthrow within a sDace of less than two In 1967 he national scene Iooked far more .inchoate and eable from New Delhi. A quick look at the federal map as it ed then is almost selfexplanatory.

was the fact that the Congpolitical forces of very diswas faced with a iingle

In the South the DMK came to pQwer in Tamil Nadu. Though :the party had given Up its separatist iileology by 1967 in the eyes of many it remained a party tainted wit{ a separarist past. Besidcs, it was not entirely coincidental that the DMK came to power in the wake of a great deal of acrimony betiveen the North and South over the status of Hindi. Regional feeling$ generated by the controversy affected the other southern states as 1vell, even though equivalents .of the DMK did not exist in these stdtes and soured feelings were

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of Inilia's

Unity
the

15

not cooverted to votes

foi cultura! sub-nationalism

as

in

case

of Tamil Nadu. In the East, West Bengal returned a leftist coalition under the leadership of the CPI(M). It will be recalled that the ideological position of the CPI(M) was still a Maoist one. And even though the CP(M) split soon after the formation of the ministry, the split pro' duced a more radical party, the CPI (ML), which not only believed in armed class-war but also sought to set up organisational linkages with China. Further to the east Naga and Mizo secessionism continued to present severe problems of national integration. China's abetment of these forces was an established fact' Bangladesh was still the eastern wing of Pakistan, the enemy of the, 1965 war'

'In the North the Congress lost Punjab to an Akali-Jana Sangh' CPI coalition. Punjab not only happened to be a border state but

had also been the scene of a long .flrawn out regional movement for a Punjabi Suba-a Sikh'dominant itate. The essentially religious character of the Punjabi Suba demand had created severe misgivings till the issue was resolved on linguistic grounds and a separate state of Haryana created. In the North the emotional integra-

tion of Kashmir could not be taken for granted and the political hold of the Congress over it continued to be somewhat tenuous, In the Hindi speaking states of the heartland, often considered the aiichor of the Indian natiorf-state, the rising backward castes and middle peasants, who were hitherto staunchly with the Congress' began to find expression through the newly formed BKD in some parts and through the Socialist parties in others. The CPI continued to be a major force among the poor and landless in parts of Bihar. Not only did these seetions move away from the Congress, but theylwere also able to find a share ofpowet' in the SVDs'
The makers of the Indian constitution had envisaged that par' ties other than the one which ruled at the Centre would come to power in the states. It is unlikely, however, that they had anticipa' ted the rise to power of groups as disparate as in the case of 1967. In the South the factors that brought the DMK to power were both

16

India's Federal Experience: A

talation

regiohal as well as integrative subonalism. In the East it was communism. In the West it was a co ion of religion and integrative sub-nationalism. Finallv. in heartland it was the rise of the middle peasants and the backward to power.
Nevertheless, bdrring the secessi East, the activities of the Marxistthe separatists in Kashmir, the post themselves perfectly within the lim But so closely had the one-d

movements in the Northinists in Bengal and those of

ion changes of 1967 were in

of constitutional

federalism.

with the integrity of the Indian Party were quickly transformed int fears for the nationstate. The ground was fertile, for the wars of I 2 and 1965 had left a feeiing of national vulnerability even th these had gone a long way towards instilling feelings of nationa solidarity.

-paty system been identified that fears of the Congress

The weakening of the system was portrayed by the party as a weakening of India. What gave credence to this was the instability of many of the state because of the Drovisional nature of sorhe of the coaliti To take the worst example, between March 1967 and December l, Bihar had as many as nine governments; the shortest span of was four days, the longest ten months. That there were others whi h were relativelv more stable did not matter in the Centre's ion. Another factor was the spilling over of 'mass' politics on to the streets, as for instance in West Bengal which saw some of most volatile movements in the urban as well as the rural areas. view that prospects for the stability and unity of India were under Congress rule gained renewed currency at this stage.
tion was accepted the case for . Political, administrative and to put pressure on the nonCongress states. At the political the main weaDon was the engineering of defections with a ew to diminish majorities in the state legislaturds. Internal and ideological differences between coalition pirtners made this reasonably easy in some
Once the rationale of such a Central intervention was establi financial power of the Centre were

Demoracy, Federalism and the Fututc of India's

states.

Unity

17

At the administrative level the most obvious entry point was through the Governor acting at the behest ofthe Centre. Article 356 of the Constitution proved to be a useful weapon ir state after state. Another administrative strategy was to increase the Centre's paramilitary forces rapidly in order to give the Centre tle capacity to intervene with a heavy hand in the states. Simultaneously, the Central Intelligence Bureau was expanded so that parallel intelligence agencies were set up in the states, reporting directly to the Centre. Finally, the considerable fnancial powers of the Centre were used to contain the states.

have abated. India could then have moved into a stage of multiparty federalism. That did not bappen. But a vigorous debate on the division of powers between the Centre and the States did begin in those days. The DMK government felt that a commission should look into the division of powers. It set up the Rajamannar Commission. At the Centre too, a study team of the Administrative Reforms Commission was entrusted to review the. working of Centre-State relatioas. A large number of books and periodical articles were also written which, together with the reports of these Commissions, uow form essential reading in the area of Indian federalism,

If the SVDs had endured, instability and turbulence usually associated with any major structural change would in all likelihood

In discussing the late sixties a rigid separation is sometimes made . between the States which went out of the Congress fold and those that remained under Congress rule, Flowever, it will be recalled that between 1966 and 1969 there was a great deal of discussion about the rise of'party bosses' in the Statos and how'ineffective' the Central leadership was proving in the face of their power. A reinterpretation of the same eveqts would show that the Congress Party itself was going through the same ,phase as the polity wasa phase of transition from a highly centralised structure to & more federal form. At this point it is not necessary to dwell on the merits and demerits of the 'party bosses'. What does need to be noted is that the federalisation of the Congress fartJ' slruclure

l8
.

India's'Federal Expefienee: A

lon
as was the rise

was as unwelcome the to Central Congress governmqnts in the Stat

of non-

The Congress split of 1969 and t wed is better explained if both these The ideological diffbrences between Congress (R) and the Congress (O) the need for a powerful and the Congress party, The dramatic
gress (R), first

the form of 'garibi hatao',

political shape.

in the form of nati

was

nature of Dolitics that folloare taken into account. t came to be known as the of less significance than leadership at the helm of ism resorted to by the Conion of banks and then in attempt at cutting across the

federal pulls outside the Congress meant to cut across the class

those within.

It

was also

which had besun to take

The result of the parliamentary the stmtegem had succeeded. This

1972. parliamentary electlons from State e ing strategy. All opposition was su was tactically incorporated. Thus u

lections of 1971 showed that

with the State eloctions

of

In fact the separation of the

success was consolidated

the party as well

as itr thc that the Centre, belng more

was in itself a centralisbarring the DMK, which stvles were restored in polity. The myth was fostered ive, should be allowed greater

freedom of action with respect the states because the states ruled by rapacious and elites. The Centre, it was were suggested, would find itselfat an vantage in bringing about social reform, specially in the agrarian because it would be able to act against the stranglehold of landed classes in the States. In order to reinforoe the mvth of Centre's activism the bureaucracy was flogged for acting as a bling block'in the way ofsocial too came in for criticism and economic reform. Soon the for scuttling radical legislation. , in order to demonstrate were abolished and more the Centre's enthusiasm privy events are well known. As sovernment take-dvers effected. becomes more discernithose years move further back the ble. The imperatites of centralr on were such that institution after institution was systematically

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity l9

The apparent unity of India was achieved by imposing a nearunitary dispensation on the country. As the mass movements of the mid-seventies demonstrated, the choking of institutional avenues of dissent could only lead to non-institutional expression of dissent. But the carly seventies were heady days for the ruling party. The flush of victory in the Bangladesh War, the successful results of the Green Revolution and the promise of Garibi Hatao, all thcse made the Congress look invincible. Those who questioned the

wisdom of indiscriminate centralisation and the ruthless ways itr which this was achieved were misfits in that age. For there were suffcient admirers available to hail the return of the Congress system. The restoration of a national consensus was taken for
granted.

Very little was achieved by way of removing poverty. And as the nation began to reel under severe bouts of inflation from 1973 onwards the oppressive machinery of the State seemed to increase in might. From a high point of federalism in 1967 the pendulum swung to a high point of centralisation by 1975. From mid-'75 onwards this unmanageable structure collapsed into authoritarian rule with the imposition of the Emergency.
The Emergency proved beyond doubt that centralisation could trot be a solution to the political and social problems of the nation. It also showed that antidemocratic and anti-federal attitudes merely choked the means by which those solutions could be made possible. Finally, it demonstrated the insensitivity of the national political elite towards the genuine aspirations ofa democrac' which was beginning to come of age. The people proved this Iast proposition by voting against authoritariatr rule in 1977.

The Jalata Government upon whom the task of dismantling the cue. This was evrdent from the haste with which it dismissed nine Congress Statc governments. The reasons given for the dismissals at that time were not inconsistent with the mood of the people. But they were not strictly within the bounds of Constitutional propriety and betthe cntralised system fell was also slow to take

20

India's Federal Experience: A

tulation

of unitarv national power as rayed a desire to capture as quickly as possiblo. The move did y dividends in the short run. in most of these States. In the Jaoata governmeits were estab run it boomeranged on the Janata after the Controt too long a The same number of Janata gfess returned to power in I office on the same grounds. sovernments were removed politics continued to be di by the rhythm of politics Federirl at the Centre.
Congress party led bY Indira Though the return to power of State debate did not die down Gandhi was spectacular, the sovernments 11 sffiss' And, as a few States sti,il had n tilted in the unitary direction, though the essentlal thrust remai by the West Bengal governthe federal case rvas kept alive of Centre-State tension began ment. Witbin the Cotrgress too a leadership on the 'loyaltY' of to grow. The accdnt of the t about dissensions within the itself bro Chief Ministers tQwards g of factional politics brought most States. The Congress in good deal of discredit in eyes of the people of those with it a were subiected to. DissatisfacStates for the type ofpolitics ly 1983 with the defeat of the tion erupted most powerfully in Congress in Andhra Pradesh and

federal oulls manifested themAIso through the early ei Punjab. The Union govertr' selves in different forms in Assam was a centrist one. It waited ment's attitude to these out, paying little heed to the for the agitations to play n attempts to divide these popular support behind them. with a heavy hand in both failed the Centre movmeots
these States thus heightening were imposed without adequate

further. In Assam, elections

bguards even though violence Congress won, but the conse-

had been apprehended widelY'

quences for the people of Assam

tragic.

In

Punjab, having

1984 elections fast approachfailed to curb terrorism and with ve Army operation as demoning, the Centre struck with a that the State was put virstration of its ability to act. F failures and political mistually under Army rule. A

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity

21

handling were then sought to be brushed aside by appealing to the

emotions of the Hindu community in Punjab and outside. The Sikh community was pushed further into alienation and left to suffer between the blackmail of extremist secessionism on the one side and state oppression on the other. However, the basic design of the election campaign had been formulated.

In the area of federal politics two major factors came in the way of the Centre's unitary predilections. The first was that one-. third of the country was under non-Congress rule. From 1977 onwards West Bengal and Tripura were ruled
governments with the CPI (M) as the leading partner. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was under a National Conference government. And most significantly, in the South, of the four states three were under non-Congress rule-the AIDMK in Tamil Nadu, and from 1983 onwards, Telegu Desam in Andhra Pradesh and Janata in Karnataka. The distinguishing feature was that unlike the post1967 governments the 'opposition' govertrments were now stable. The second factor was that they were eager to cooperate with each other in retexturing the federal polity around the autonomy principle. This was given concrete shape in the conclaves held at Hydera. bad, Calcutta and Srinagar. Their cooperative endeavour not only placed them in a position to demand a share in decision making on major national issues but also brought about much needed

by United Front

credibility for federal politics.

The Centre's reaction was a belligerent one, for federal consolidation restricted its lieedom of manoeuvre. Besides it cast long shadows on the election prospects of the Congress party. Therefore, taking advantage of the situation that had allowed to be developed in Punjab the Congress leadership launched a rrassive campaign against 'anti-national' forces which were portrayed as emanating frorr regionalism-the latter read as 'opposition' ruled States. The campaign was given an added bite by suggesting that these forces were being aided by foreign powers. Once the alarm about the threat to the country's dismemberment was driven home

22

India's Federdl Experience: A

itulation

the Congress was presented as the and Integrity'.

of the country's 'Unity

thus created, toppling post-'67 situation except the more blatant. AIso, tlis time

The rationale

for

central

the pendulum in the federal the period betweefl the upswing direction and its rdverse swing was uch shorter indicating, among al intolerance. Curiously the other things, a higher degree of f minister in far away Sikkim' first to be struck was a Congress dari was swiftly replaced by a A recalcitrant Nar Bahadur to the people of the State or 'loyal' chief minister without
had been, in the eyes of rpcalcitrance. of the slim majority with vulnorable State beca the Centre, a ruling. Over months defections which the Hegde government game exploded with the ex' were sought to be engineered till tre was forced to back-track posure of the 'Moily tapes'. The undcr a great deal of public

that the

slogan

the

reasons

for

chopping block. A sustained him for being in league with rhmir, hinting at his links with secessionist forces of Punjab and Pakistan. AII this went on while his family differences with G.M. is widely known that the move Shah were used to topple Farooq. refused to comply. Finally did aot succeed because the Go in the form of Governor he was replaced by a more willing goings on a fedgling faction Jagmohan and in the midst of mur of the National Conference led G.M. Shah was put in power, with the backing of the Congless. dequate care was taken by the forces even while Governor to move in the Centre's Farooq technically remained in frce. All protest was naturally snuffed out within a few days. The ovc was condemned all over form of oational indignation the nation but did not erupt in till the next toppling attempt was

Farooq Abdullah, who had for attempting to play a national parties, was the nert to be Put on media campaign was waged

the wrath of the Centre

le with the other opposition

n
l

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity

23

pretender either in the Assembly or in any other fashion even though Rama Rao insisted that he had not lost majority. On the J and K pattern paramilitary forces were despatched to prevent any expression of public outrage in Andhra. In one of the most shameful episodes in Indiau political history the counting game had to be carried to New Delhi. The details are well known and need no repetition here. The Cenlre back-tracked after having pulled the rug from under Bhaskara Rao and so disgraceful was the whole manoeuvre that no one in the Congress was willing to own it. Ram Lal was made the sacrificial goat but the Congress Centre could not redeem itself in the eyes ofa furious nation, The Andhra episode proved beyond doubt that the federal principle had acquired the
strength to resist unitary onslaughts.

Spurred by the success in Jammu and Kashmir the Centre made a bid that seemed impossible till it was actually executed. A convalescing N.T. Rama Rao was suddenly told by Governor Ram Lal that he had lost his majorlty to his.own party rival, Bhaskara Rao. No serious attempt was deliberately made to test the strength of the

But

spilled over to

the situation changed soon after. The tragedy ofpunjab the whole nation with the assassination of Indira

Gandhi on 3lst October 1984. The fears she had spoken of seemed to have come true. The assassination of the Prime Minister was seen as an attack by the forces of secessionism on a symbol ofnational authority. The atmosphere of communal division which had been building up over Punjab took a violent turn. Even as her body lay in state country-wide killings of Sikhs continued over days. For the first time in independent India an occasion for national mourning was converted into one of indiscriminate aggression against a community. This feeling of aggression remained long after the riots were over. And the unity and integrity thene, which had been put to the nation by the slain prime Minister, became a rallying point for the majority community.
When the elections came this mood was taken advantage of by the Congress party. Through posters, advertisements and campaign speeches an atmosphere of antiSikh patriotism was generated. This

24

India's FefuraX Experience: A

strategy, combined with an appeal fi stability, fetched the Congress party a massivc majority. Acco to some commentators this . So it certainly was. victory was a vindibation of Indian But it is still difficult to believe that dian national sentimetrt was so that it had to be proved much under question before the in this manner. To say this is oot assert that thcre was no secessecessionism was a marginal sionism in Punjab but to suggest bulk of the Sikh community the Sikhs. phenomenon amotrg patriotic throughout Punjab agitation. Unless this had been will communal feelings abate point is recognised squarelY reconciliation be generated. nor will an atmospherc of nati unity is not a consequeFurthcr, it must also be stated that country. The nation's unity nce of one party's rule over the that people of all creeds and must be premised on the assumpti nation. The appropriatiol of communities do wish to stay as majority community will Push patriotism by a sinlle partY or bY care will have to be takcn to the rest into aliemation. Therefo as were seen during the elecsee that such assertions of nati necessity for the managetions of 1984 do not become a ment of the Indian polity.

Models of National UnitY

question of nahas been suggested earlier in this paper that the political agenda tioo"t oolty ,riuiot almost continuously on India's

It

or another. Underlying the discussions. on Indian unity unity' some notions about what issentially constitutes this ,1"r. "r" which are often in il"t" ootioot arise out of some unstated models

io oo.

fot-

madc below to sketch cooflict with each other. An attempt has been .oi" -oa"ft briefly. It should be borne in mind that the five which have been identified for critical appraisal are not

models

ai.","".models'Eachofthemhighlightsthecentralaspectof$hat itself' in practice must be more complex than the model

26

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's (Inity

assumption that a nation-state requircs an integrated market. Further, that the more evcnly the market is int the stronger are the foundations of the nation-state. of the national market implies the prevalence of a common , the unrestricted flow of capital and labour from one part to another, and a high degree of economic interdependence between various parts. The essential idea that underlies the market is that of homogeneity. When applied to the Indian market has become increasingly i . nised industrial activity, expansion other economic instrumentalities this it is concluded that India is on sation and towards the creation of

The first is whrt may be called of national unity is based on the

'market' model. This model

it is argued that the Indian ed with the spread of orgacommunication and throueh by the government. From er way to economic modernihomogenised polity. Primor-

dial social factors which still give the nation will have to make wav fi Until this goal is reached the sectional claims. However, it will politically firm in order to tide

to political boundaries within the creation ofsuch a polity. will be under pressure from

to be physically strong and the poriod of transition to

holds a great deal of for their elites, because it presents an apparently clear and uncomplicatcd 1eg1s 1. 'catch up with the economic and ooli systems bf the developed world. But there are certain fallacies inherent in the conception of this model. Firstly, it transforms a rnto a oormative goal. For the claim that a nation-srate an integrated national market is a premise for durable na by virtue of the fact that a nation-wide rnarket removes barriers and eliminates possibilitiesof internal economic However, sucb a claim does not bestow upon a democratic the right to override the process of politics in order to go about the task of homogenising the nation. Besides, the market model an over-simplistic transposition of economic phcnomen on to the political.

The market model of national in attraction for developing countries,

Models of National

{InilY

27

More specifically, the very process of the integration of the Indian market under colonial aegis brought about severe internal distortions. The colonial management structured the market in a manner that was suited to the needs of colonial exploitation' This left India with an unevenly developed economy. Till as long as India was not a democratic polity the consequences of uneven develop' ment did not become manifest. The process of democratic politics threw up demands and pressures which had remained less articulate in the colonial era. Tbese pressures were not directed against the idea of an integrated nation. They were' and continue to be, demands for fair treatment from a free India' also be noted that the Indian market is a rather unique one in some respects. The fact that India consists of territorially bound linguistic-cultural groups means that the mobility of labour across th;country is limited, even if it is assumed that the mobility of capital is not. Judging from past experience and from available evidence for the present it does not appear as though this element of economic non-integration is likely to disappear in the near future' This creates a situation which is different from those experienced by

It must

other countries where primordial factors were less germane' There' fore, while economic regulation must aim to do away with the distortions of uneven development it must avoid the steam-rolling

efect of homogenisation, for such attempts will result in a backlash from the primordial forces.

A healthy federal system which provides sufficient room for the free expression of sub-national identities is more likely to provide the basis for economic and political integration. Besides, in a country such as India, marked by social and spatial inequalities' special care needs to be taken to see that modernisation and integiation do not take place at the cost of those who are economically and socially already at the margins. Such integration will not be durable and its short run success will be possible only under an
authoritarian political dispensation.

28
'

Democracy, Fdderalism and the

of India's Unity

The second is a, sort of Marxist which holds that a centralised political system is an precondition for carrying on tha struggle of the working Since this model used to be, and in some cases dtill is, popular in Marxist political thinking, it is called tle 'popular Marxist' model the purposes ofthis paper. It has some elements rfhich are to the 'market' model. But the idea underlying this model is that of isation of political forces at a natiotral level between the class and the working class.

Two principles gf revolutionary inform this model. First that polarisation at the national exposes the real class character of the state. And second, that centralised nation-wide organisation of the working class gives the struggle cumulative force which it is not possiible to generate more decentralised forms of
struggle. Besides, iu a polity there exists a possibility that the regional elites would islead the working class and its allies into lining up behind in their competition with the oational elite. In this situation the elites benefit without the gains actually aqcruing to the king class. On such a reading the nationalities ca[ be accorded positive role only when the revolution is over bocause in the of the elites there would be no question of the working class misled.
One

of tle

conpequencas

of

within the existing clase-stratified that real authority must be role of the CPI in the late'60s and dangers inherent irr this point of this, from the actual cxperience of ring power in some states, it can
class can play a more.effective role

gth of its own

in the politics of thg legion in its

surb-national

type of thinking is that even it contributes to the idea if it has to be effective. The '70s is an example of the . However, as opposed to communist parties in captuconcluded that tbe working it can participate directly language and with the strenThis type of participatory

politics need not come in the way of brging linkages between different state-level organisations on a fi patteru. (This is broadly in line with the stand taken by tbe at the time of States reorganisation.) The implications of this model have not been

Models of Nationol explored adequately, though glimpses of of some Marxist theoreticians.

UnitY

29

it

are found in the writings

The third model will be called the 'Hindi heartland' model' The central idea behind this model is that while there is no dominant sub-national group in India, as say in the Soviet Union (Great Russians) or in Pakistan (Punjabis), the equivalent binding element in India is the Hindi speaking people which, by virtue of the fact that they constitute a third of the national population, can be des' cribed as the core ofthe nation. This core, it is suggested, provides a stable basis for Indian unity. Actually, it is possible to discern two versions of this model. One of them may be called the 'chauv! nist' version and the other the 'anchor' version.

The chauvinist version is premised upon the belief that the Hindi speaking heartland represents the cradle of Indian civilisation' The heartland, according to this view, was the seat of many ancient empires and is the setting of major ancient epics. Therefore the roots of Indian nationalism must remaia embedded in the heartland'
The other areas

ate peripheries of the heartland and their cultures derived from that of this core. Indian unity will be assured if the pre-eminence of the mother-culture is explicitly recognised by all indians. This version evidently leans on the ancient llindu idea
that the Aryavarta represents the
essence

of what is Indian'

This model oflndian unity, by its very conception, is offensive other Indian cultures which claim to be equally ancient and rich' to Proponents of this model are not only insensitive to what they .oniid"t peripheral cultures but are usually also ignorant of their specific strengths. That is why this model, instead of providing a sound basis for unity, destroys the fabric of India's shared culture' Consequently it brings up barriers between the North and the South wbile it alienates the East ua6 16s West'

which has been called the anchor version' is not strictly separable from the chauvinist one because it too leans on the Aryavarta factor, but it has wider appeal due to the
The other version,

Democracy, Federalism and the

of India's Unity

it It believes that the States of tbe Hindi speaking heartiand, virtue of their size and their shared language, contribute to the litical stability of India in the face of centrifugal pulls from the A broadly similar political behaviour patrern in states gives to the heartland much greater weight than the and smaller states can hope to acquire on their own. The fact these states also return the largest group of members to t renders the anchor version especially signifi cant for national oral calculations.
relativcly serious political garb

This model of national unity mus have been especially attractive 'in the early stages of nation-building of the relative incerti:tude which surrounded the nati idea then. The removal of colonial authority may be assumed to ve left certain doubts about the ability ofthe natlon to hold. in the aftermath of the partition. But today this view at best an outdated truism. Modern nation-state s derive from the degree of social ,cohesion and economic progress are able to achieve. In both these respects the Hindi heartland to have fallen behind. :studies have demonstrated that the of communal violence. oppression against the weaker and the general level of crime is the highest in these states. In of economic progress these states have shown little achievement gh some parts may claim to have progressed in the agricultural le leadership to the nation it it sends the largest group of members to the national legislature. fact proponents ofthe anchor model would do well to note that in eyes of the more progressive states the heartland acts more as 'dead-weight' than an anchor progress. Reform in the and consequently holds up overall heartland and its parlty with the rest the nation has now become an imperative for integrated of the nation. In this context it would be worthwhile to the breaking up oftbese large and administrat[vely States into more compact units where overall dovelopment has better chance of succeeding. There is enough sub-regional within the States of Bibar, the heattland must

If

Hindi

cannot merely rest on the fact

Models of National

Unity 3l

Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh for more States to be fashioned out of them. Haryana's economic progress since its division from Punjab is an example of how smaller States can take rapid sffides. Smaller States will also reduce the gap..between the administration and the people and thereby provide a better opportunity for political development. This prescription is by no means applicable to the States of the Hindi heartland alone.

The fourth model ior discussion is called the 'one-dominantparty' model of national unity. In its present usage it is different
from the one'dominant-party idea which was originally formulated by a western scholar in the later sixties. It was then common in some western circles, especially in Britain, to question the view that India was a parliamentary democracy. Thc Westminster model was claimed to be the real model of a parliamentary system and India was seen as falling short of that model because there was no alteration of government as was the case in Britain. It was suggested that the Congress party had no worthwhile opposition and therefore the basic premise of a parliamentary democracy was missing. India, it was suggested, was really a one-party state. In arguing that India was not a one-party state but a one-dominant-pafly state it was held that the Congress party was not preponderant by design but by sheer accident of history. The party's leadership of the freedom struggle had placed it in a dominant position. However, its commitment to the democratic ideal was proved by the faet that there were free elections in the country in which opposition parties participated and won scats to the national
legislature, Besides, these parties also influenced decision-making through the Congress party itself and in the course of their participation in the work of parliamentary committees.

In a sense the one-dominant-party idea was an appreciation of Jawaharlal Nehru's method of conducting politics, his commitment to institution-building and his tolerance towards the views of the opposition'parties, even though it was knowp tbat they were in no position to replace the Congress in government. The one-dominant-

32

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity

party model was somewhat altered i 1967 as has been shown in the previous section, and ten years it was left behind with the Janata Party forming a government the Centre.
grew on the congress party, As a result of the pressures and due to its losses in 1967 and after, the one-dominant-party Its tolerant spirit gradually svstem came under serious gh an authoritarian period disappeared and it even went suggested during this period during the Emergertcy. It began to be assured by a single party. that India's unity and progress istic theme. The opposition In more fecent times this became a parties were accused of being ional. divisive and abettors of it has been argued that the secessionism. In the preceding conffation of the unity idea with thc one-dominant-party idea has proved destructive to the growth of multiparty federal democracy here. and tbe illustrations do not need
Insistence on the dominant unhealthy popullsm under an everyone. Repeateclly, the slogan threat was put out to rally the nati domestic issues were relegated to mises when left unftrlfilled brought ageable, backlashes in the form of type of national populism also led cult around the figure of Indira who have the interests of Indian opposition and heal,thy institutions are bctter assuranceis of national of a single party. The one'do
s unitary rule also gave rise to

everything was promised to India's integrity was under electorate around it while background. Unrealistic prorlt severe, and nearly unman-

movements. That this to the growth of a personality should be a lesson for those at heart. An effective
representative governments than the neo-oaternalism -party idea remains a useful democracv but it cangrowing federal democracy innovative due to the internal

descriptive model for ludia's not be the prescribed norm for which is bound to be dynamic of her mufti-party system.
The fifth model is called the
is often taken for granted that the

' model of national unity. It of a secular domi-

Models of National nant party after indepcndence pushed

Unity

33

the idea of a Hindu statc into the fringes of national politics. That is why the liberal consciencc balks at the revival of discussions which seem to hark back to the ;pre-independence years when the langu4ge of politics was
.coloured by religious f;rctors in almost every ficld. Partition is secn to have becn a distasteful consequence of the communal politics of that era. It is suggestcd therefore that national attention must be focussed on secular aspects of politics. The process of secular modernisation will in due course leave religious factors behind. Admittedly, this is a rather simplistic interpretation of the liberal point of view and no attempt will be rnade here to challenge the liberal hope. However, the .tend.ency not to face up to the communal 'question in present day India has allowed the growth of unprecedentcd inter-rcligious strife. The collsequenccs have been there for everyone to see. That is why there has becn no hesitation in using the label 'Hindu modcl'. But what is this model?
One version of it belongs to the older Hindu Mahsabha-Jana Sangh-R.S.S. group of ideologies. This version was, and inthe case of the R.S.S. still is, that the Hindu community forms .the social core of the Indian nation and the Hindus are the inheritors of the sovereign nstion-state. In the past, the Hindu community has been marked by a great deal of heterogeneity which accourted for the fact that others could overrun India. Hindus must pull fhcmselves out of the psychology of subjugation. Only then will they be able to demonstrate to the world that India can be a match to any other .power. In order to do this thcy will have to overcome thc

divisions wrought upon them by factors such as .language.and region. They must feel as one integrated nation. The caste system which is often said to be a divisive elcment is in fact a systcm of harmonious intcrdependence, In its present form it has become pollutcd and rigid. Thcrefore, while the cesto systcm is in needof reform, therc can be no .question of doing away with it. As for minority comnrunities, it must be made amply cle,ar .that they are not uos.elcome so Iong as they accept the fact of Hindu nationhood. In indepcndent India secularism hm amounted to giviqg minorities i,nportance rybich is disprqportionate to their numbers..

34

Democracy, Federalism and t

Future of India's UnitY

Hindus bY visualising the with the inajoritY community'

This Hindu oodel of traced well back into the Pre'in
success

to

the roots of which can be ce period has had little

in mobilisiirg Hindus will not be Possible to dwell on in this paPer. This model has trast it with a slightlY diferent k
has been apace over the last few

reasons for this lack of success sketched here in order to con-

its

organisatiortal banner.

It

of

Hindu consolidation which

came

It

enakshiPuram, in resPonse to the thc wake of the conversions in Moradagrowing prosPeritY of Muslims in some districts such as and so on. But it in Punjab bad, in response to extremist acti not be a PurelY reactive brm of csnsolidation. It has also may occurred due to the sPread of co

into Prominence in

building nation'wide front organisations such Hindu Virat Hindu Sammelan and the broadening of the Hindu comm mobility of cert4in castes which
process of

unications which has aided the the propaganda of tie Yishwa Hindu Parishad, the indtb Front; and also due to the base resulting from the uPward hitherto outside the narrow

of Hindu Po mav have roots in other

caste-Hindu basis discernible. A saParate analYsis
issue in depth

This new Hindu awareness as well which are not so clearlY

uld be required

to

examine the

it seems to have taken on the However, in its latest symbolised bY the solgan: 'l am m form of a self-resPect y, many who subscribe to this not ashamed to be a Hindu'. ( that thc Scheduled Castes are a not PrePared to slogaa are made itself manifest in Public part of Hiadu society). It has Yagna and the Ram lanma as the demonstrations such Telegu Desam's Politics has also The idiom of Bhoomi Andolan' innovative. No sPecial notice bcen markedlY Hindu' thougtr they been recurring aspects of been taken of these aeed heve are not. The point that the reacHindu social behaviour. But on, which was essentiallY comtion to Indira Gandhi's 'nOt restricted to Delhi or to a few districts but muiil, was

Models of National
happened all over the country simultaneously

Unity

35

is

significant enough

to bear repetition bere. That reaction by itself is indicative of the growth of an all-India grid, at the psychological level if not at the political level.

to be the case that the Congress party itself to this constituency for the past few has been addressing years. As has bcen argued at the end of the preceding section, during the campaign for the last general elections there was a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to this constituency to tise to the defensc of India's unity and integrity. The appeal worked and it resulted in a substantial swing of the Hindu vote in favour of the Congress. From the fact that the Congress won a large majority it is not necessary to jump to the conclusion that the Indian state was transformed into a Hindu state. The ideology of the state is reflected in the Indian Constitution. It is not laid down by the government ofthe day. Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that an overlap seems to have occurred between the one-dominant-party and the onc-dominant.religion themes. Also that in contrast to the present in the early years of independence the Congress had been able to avoid this overlap. It will be recalled that there were differences betwcen Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel on certain questions which were resolved in favour of the former despite considerablc prcssure from the proponents of the majoritarian view held by Sardar Patel. Even at the present juncture the overlap may turn out to be a transient one but it needs to be stressed that it is not an
also happens
accidental one.

It

No objection need necessarily be taken to the urge for building a robust nationalism out of the resources of India's tradition and cuiture. But if this form of nation-building turns against those who lie outside the Hindu mainstream-the minority religious groups, the scheduled castes and the tribals-it will not only violate the secular foundations of the Constitution but will ultimately tear asunder the social and moral fabric ofthe Indian nation. To suggest that a viable model of nation-building must eschew the temptation of the Hindu model is not to say that there should be an .atlrease-

j6

Denocracy, Federalism and

Future of India's UnitY

ment' of minority sentiment. culture does exist in India at all

and the pressures

it is to rccognise that a shared

of

Power

about parochial and fissiParous

shared culture are resilient and

but the resources of th y of enlightened encourage-

of society. Bconomic fiactors will from time to time britrg

The five models which have

criticatly evaluatcd above are

not exhaustivc. In theory

it

is

India's unity under an

under military rulc. But ncither

to discuss the prosPccts of ong-party disPensetion or

of

seem imrnediately relevant

democracy is well entrenched to Iudian conditions. lndia's 'the and its iostitutions are by and large stable. Ilbwevcr, it is in a brighter future for lndia ties. further deqPening Pf thes ideas exploration of such PossiThe following section is devoted to bilitics.

The klain Recornrnendation

An Alternative Approach to the Question of Unity:

When one speaks of national unity in a liberal-democratic nationstate context one usually refers to two aspects simultaneously. First, that the unity of a nation rnust be based on thc concnt of, thc people, and second, that any internal challenge to the integrity of the nation-statc can legitimately be nret witb force by the. statrs. In other words, nationalism, even when it is liberal,. permits. tlte use of force though conscnt is thc most fundamental.basis of the liberal state. The paradox here is oot merely apparent. It is a real one with which such nation.states mut live. Admittedtry, justifications

foi the use of force are not always

38

Democracy, Federalism and the

e of

India's Unity

provided on liberal grounds, but thc claim that the rnajority of territory afected do not really
one type of justificartion which is

either strategic grounds or on in the portion of national secession. There is, however,

from a liberal oremise-an

argument which really emerges from social-contract theorv and is very Lockean in inspiration. This is ore or less as follows. Liberal principles were in the first place meant to ooerate within the boundaries of the nation-state and ong the people as a whole. Since secession or separatism the integrity of the nationstate, in other words, its very the liberal principles no longer remain applicable. The foregoing is a popular but ble position. What is a nation.state which a group, however small, , from claiming separate nation-hood if the group genuinely feels that it does not really fit into the o nation-state? Nationalism is a group's self-detprmined identity And, in the ultimate analysis 'when a minoritv feels disaffected seeks to break away from the original nation-stato, at first , and if that is not possible by force. The state, on its part, to prevent such a break-up, at first peacefully, and when that not possible, by force. The idea of national unity is indeed a one. For, from a liberal premise there is no irrefutable or theoretical argument against separatism. The more the social composition of a n4tion-state the more difficult is resolution of disunity. There do exist grounds such as cultural inuity, historical linkages or religious uniformity which are ided as justifications for unity, but in the absence of acquiescence' the disaffected groups there

it

about

is no liberal defencc

of

these

But separatism &nd secession are extreme cases

it is not often that the paradox of the liberal state is so clearly exposed in practice, If consent is the fundamental basis ofthe liberal statc, it is not ornly so in the sen$e that it is historically prior to tbc nation-state or that consent exisls only as a pre-condition. The strength of the liberal state lies in the fact that consent can be generated witbin the framework of a liberal state and that the crea-

of

disunity and

The Main Recommendation 39

tion of

or continuous' process. Political state entails the generation of new levels management of the liberal of consensual politics so that the use of force is restricted to the consent
barest minimum.

is a recurring,

Much damage has already been done by theories of political modernisation which argue that modern nationalisms are products ofa transference of primordial loyalties to national loyalties. As
though it were possible

to bring about a Gestalt-like effect in

human behaviour. Such theories derive little support from the concrete historical experience

of European nationalism, and even less from those of twentieth-century nationalisms of Asia and Africa.
There can be no dispute with .the view that the emergence of national loyalty is a pre-requisite for nation-hood. But, whether such loyalty is premised upon the obliteration of primordial identities, such as those of language and culture, is highly questionable. It is quite another thing to suggest that a nation-state requires the recognition of a sort of hierarchy of identities, with the national identity receiving priority over others in case of a conflict of identities.

Primordial identities, which are also in a sense sub-national identities, need not be seen as antithetical to national identity- If there are instances of historical conflict between sub-nationalities there are, perhaps, more numerous instances of co-existence and complementarity between sub-national groups. India is a good example of the latter case. But the task before a modefn (or moder' nising) nation-state is to effect accommodation between sub'national groups even when there has been a history ofconflict. This accommodation requires a transformation (or redefinition) of primordial cultural identities so that coexistence and, cooperation are possible within the fabric of nationalism, and to repeat, not their annihilation. It will be evident that this is not an argument in support of unabashed primordialism. Many modern states, both multi-party

&

Detnoeracy, Federclism end

Future of India's Unity

have acquired a stable two-way

and einglc party states in Europe, aeomodafion bclwecn nati Wcrt Germany and Switzedand;
having acquired the same equilibri Federalism is the usual i
srreh an accommodation is

and sub-nationalism. While

examples f.rom mutli-party

states, Yugoslavia is an interesting example

of a one party state

are altrowed

to

olperaf

withit

thcy also intermesh with the of soma simpli0cation it is possible to conceptualise the functioning of thc federal proccss in tcrms of operatirg in small indcpendcnt orbits but within the field of a natiodal orbit. Put diffierently, nationalism in societies justifies its consensual nature by providing political to sub-nationalisms within the ambit of thc nation-state. It thereby fulfils the cssential precondition for national unity.

mechanism through which Thus, while political processes national units of the federation political process. At thc risk

Iaterestingly, historical research is increasingly bringing to light the character of nationalist articulal in late nineteerth century India, In places as far apart as and Gujarat the first stirrings of nationalism were scen as the of the Assamese or the Gujarati spcaking pcople from the of domination. This mode of nstiooalist articulation became more manifest in Bengal in thc wakc ofthe 1905 partition. Oriyas, Punjabis, and so on, at difrcrent stages, also their nationalisms in a sinihx manncr. The initial was popular or folk literaturq followcd soon by limited mobilisation. So that by the timc Gandhiji appcarcd on the scene diferent sub-nationaIitics had alrcady begun to perceive their liberation lay in the libcration of India from imoerial It is not surprising, thar, that Gandhiji decided to the organieation of the Indbn National Congress on the of linguistic groups in 1920, long before thc Cobgress had federalism as its ofhcial blueprint for free Indiq with the Nohru eport of 1928,

The Mainl Recontmendation

4l

At independence tho Indian Constitution created a federal order thougb it did not explicitly call the tndian Republic by that rmme. Why did thc Constitucnt Assembly refrain from using the term fedaral while io fact it structured the Constitution or federal lines? Much has been writtcn on this and it is unlikely that anything that is rot already known can bc said on the issue. Howevcr, three explanations seem, in retrospect, to be more important than thc rest, First, that the tcrm federal had come to be associated in tho forties with a scheme which cnvisaged Muslim and Hindu majority
units. The Congress had been opposed to tbis communal federal scheme atrd the Constituent Assembly also wanted to distance itself from such a fcdcral prospect. Secondly, tho partition gavc rise to thc deepest insecurities of the leeders of free India. Thc question that became uppermost was, if thc powers of the Ccntre wcre to be diluted in any wey would the rest of India bc able to hold togcther, or would thc Indian nation relapso into its. segmantary form as it had done in the 'dark' eighteenth ccntury after the brcak-up of the Moghul empirc. A powerful Centre seemed to bc the logical answer to the question of political and administrative unity. Finally, so clsttercd was thc federal map of India at that stage, with Part A, B, C and D States, and with difficultics over tbe integration of princely states still contiouing, tlat a settled federal process could not
possibly have been operated. The argument submitted here, then, is that the federal idea was continuously present before the Constituent Asscmbly though it found it more cxpedient under the given circumslanccs to opt for the phrase 'Union of States'. This point of view need uot, howcver, be accepted without qualifications. There were gcnuine apprehensions about conceding what may be termed'St4tes' 'rights' on the lines of the American federal model. And it was with considcrable dismay and consternation that Nehru and his collcagucs observed the kind of passion whicb was generated during thc movemeot for a sep&rete Andhra State. Thereforc, the view thet the leadership was hcsitant to grant recognition to any idcntity but that ofa natiooal citizen for the people is not without substance. But the oeriod between the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 and the

42

Democrocy, Federalism and the 'uture of Indid.'s Unity lines in 1956 must be the cxtended parliamenBill are an indication, there

reorganisation of st4tes on
seen as a watershed in federal tary debates over the

If

was complete conselsus on the issue ments pertained only to exact

restructuring of the ,sixties and the tion of a process which had begun

linguistic States. Disagreedelimitations. The selective

seventies were the comole-

the fifties.

The reorganisation of States implicit recognition to subnationalism as an integrative idea and created a fresh national corsensus by dismattling the ies carved out durinE British rule on purely administrative tions. Indian nationali6m thereby accommodated a transformed within a modern nation-state framework. Above all, it save the federal idea an importance which had hitberto only to democracy and secularism witbin the Indian oolitical system. (The transformation of primordialism and its acco within the Indian nationstate is a continuous process).

The 'strong Centre' theme of the 'ed unaltercd. This had the difficult transition from a colonial

nowever.remaln-

tem. But as federal politics matured the 'strong Centre' arrangement the functioning of a competitive created strains in the Indian potity felt that they were treated unfairly by the Centre. This was naturally more true of those states which ruled by parties other than the one ruling at the Centre.

of seeing India through a svstem to a federal svscolonial unitary aspects of to come into conflict with i-party federal system. This ine out ofthe fact that states

Despite all this. over the last decades the federal idea has been developing and growing. It ma be added that the growth of federalism has by and large taken p without detriment to the ' idea, though, as has been essential aspects of the 'strong of single party rule at argued before, it has challenged the what does it really mean to the Centre as well as the States.

claim that thc federal idea has gro

The Main Recommendation 43 Essentially it means that with democracy, and like the democratic idea, federal politics has gradually been able to function without the supporting prop of the Congress system. Federal politics is

takcn seriously by the people as well as by political parties. And though State governments are occasionally described as 'glorified municipalities', all political parties and intercst groups realise the importance of attaining power and influence in the States' Bcsidcs, for long periods it is through the States that 'opposition' govern' ments and opposition parties have been able to put their point of view across to the nation. By the same token opposition parties, having achieved power in the States, have also been corlpelled to be judged on the basis of their pcrformance' They have thereby not only acquired a greater sense of responsibility but have also been
able to experiment with fresh ideas aod new policies.

Finally, notwitbstanding the Assam and Punjab movements, State politics is secn as part of |arger national politics by ttre people of the States. Anti-Centre postures do not automatically imply anti-national convictions. States do perceive issues of national defence and national planning, among other such issues, as genuine national issues about which they may have strong views to offer but wbich are in the ultimate analysis the Union's responsibilities. In other words States, whcther they are ruled by 'opposition' parties or by the party which is also ruling at the Centr, do want greater participation in national politic even while they are conscious of their own interests.
A1l this does not, of course, take place in any neat, orderly or rational manner. State politics is at times imbucd with a great deal of populism and cultural or 'ettrnic' chauvinism, Anti'Centre tilades sometimes acquire hysterical dimensions. But io a diverse and democratic federal system, which also happens to be at a stage of rapid development, these factors need not be seen as unduly alarming. In any case, thc apparent irrationality of State politics is not significanfly greater at any time than that of national politics' There ls a method in all political madness, especially when the competition is tough.

44

Demseracy, Faderalism and the Future of India's Unity

Fedoral politic; then, bas age in India. But th argumont f,or grcatcr federalism (which, identally, in the Indian context implies a greator role for thc rurlikc in the United Stares Central Government) rnust not 'reherc it means a gfeater role for bc pereeived meroly as one provides the preconditi ol for national unity. A complox and nation like lndia cmnot possi.bly be mana8ed from a central, source of au,thority. Regional and local issues need to handled politically at those levcls" Similarly local aspirations to be provided avenues rcgionally and locally. That is why of power with the federal units is an essential requirerrent for political mr nagement of the nation.

lt is necessary to hear in mind fact tbat by tbc turn of tbe century India's population will be close to the billion mark and, givcn thc prescnt pace of every adult citizen will, even morc than now, seck active participation in one form or anothcr. The size of an averacc State, it may also be noted, is that of an avcrage in the world. In India's democratic system it is simply not to deny the States an efective
and autonomous role.

If the experience of the last one India's elitist dernocracy will participatoxy politics. This course stopped only by dismantling the
oppressed castes, l4ndlcss peasants,

plovides any indication bave to give way to more

politbal developnent will be ic order. Tlibal blocks,

and othcr groups which

may heve remaincd quiwcent hi will come alive potritically. Much of this politicisation, and in pncral, will confinue to take place in regional The fi rst-generation educated and politicised will be morg morc aggressive and demanding of far greater attentioa was true of the fifties and
sixties.

If tbe

present institutional bias

oriented political attitudes cipation the country will have to

tho Centre and Centreblock this flood ofpartiover chargc to the forces of

The Main Recommendation 45

backlash sponsorcd by the. already entrenched groups. In this sense India is today at a very delicate point in her political evolution. Bither the polity makes way for power-sharing and participation or it moves on to authoritarianism, however ably camouflaged the latter may be. Greater federaliSm will go a long way to meet the need for participation. That is why it is necessary to consciously promote the federal idea and deepen it with a package of well conceived ideas. This is the essential recommendation of this paper. The development of thc federal idea and consequent decntralisation will be in the interests of national harmony and of political maoagement. But deccntralisation cannot be considered in isolation from the need to formulate nationally coherent policies. That is why decentralisation strategies will havc to be balanced by fresh strategies of political cohesion. Cohesion strategies will, therefore, have to be part of the samc federal package.

perceived in this suggestion it is so only becauso in the past fcw years India has passed through a period of unprcedentd adverearinoss in Ccntre-State rclations. During tbis pcriod a largely barrco debate has been taking place over whether ih. St"t" should be strong or the Centre should be strong' What, one might ask, is all this strength for? Surely the debatc can be rcsolved by arguing that the States as well as the Union must have powers which are in consonance with their responsibilities' Further, liven the dynamic nalure of federal governancc, these powers and

Ifa

contradiction

is

institutiolal arrangpmonts must be reviewed, and where necess&ry' readjustcd from time to time. This should not be an impossible task sven in the context of intcnse .p8rty political competition' The following"section atteopts to outline somc specific suggestions flowing out of .the main recommendation of this papcr.

'section has been that in a large and diverse country like India tralisation strategies would by themselves promote a great deal of coherenie. At the same time

A crucial assumptibn of the preced

coberence strategies

will,

among other things, have to legitjmise

decentralisation as a necessarv Thus the distinction between

of ttie political system.

of decentralisation and those

of coherencc may neither be clear venience of presentation, a packa ment is proposed in this section
decentralisation' and'strategies

valid. However, for the con-

of policies for federal

develop-

two headings: 'strategies of

of

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity

47

A further preliminary point needs to be made before moving on to the specific suggestions. At the present stage of India's political development decentralisation has acquited a salience becausc political overccntralisation has imposed strains on the unity of the country by choking the participatory federal process' Even more significantly, it has rendered the management of the polity difficult, if not impossible, by overloading the Centre with responsibilities of decision making which properly belong to other levels of the polity. But, in the long run the recommendcd balance between strategies of decentralisation and coherence must tilt towards the latter without downgrading the former. For coherence, and even cohesion, when it is not confused with homogenisation, is what nation building is about in a plural society such as India's'
Strategies of Decentralisation

(1) As the preceding section submits, India's federal arrangement has provided room for the voluntary participation of her sub-nationalities in the national political process' But this two-tiered federal system is proving inadequate in the face of rising demands for popular participation. The system

of local government which was expected to provide for subState level participation has, by and large, proved unsuccessful, firstly, because its functioning was not guaranteed constitutionally, and secondly, because it had to operate in tendem with, what may loosely be called, Collector-raj.

In most States, epecially tle large ones' state governments are now too far removed from local problems and aspira. tions. This is so not only because populations have grown significantly since thes9 states were created, but also because peoples' aspirations and political personalitics are becoming increasingly articulate. The institution of the district magis.trate or the collector is not suited to the vetrtilation of these aspirations. Yet this institution has overshadowed the panchayati-raj system.

48

Sorne Specific Suggstions

The contiuuance

of
difrcult
take the

raj

been India through a

be relied upon

to

India now uceds a

after independence has of t ransition but cannot into the 2lst ccntury. guaranteed tbroe-tiercd

level. Thc size of an average district is suftcient to sustain such a district government. Naturally, the district will have to come squarely under the district government, and not oyer it. Today's collector could then become s cbief secrctary of

at the district

federal system with a

represntstive government

district governments. The

systcm would require maj

n of

a three-tiered federal

elaboratc exefcise to redistri functions and finances over the thrce-tiers will havc to be undertaken. It is necessary to that a constitutional provision for district government trot obviate the necd for sub-district participatory such as panchayat samitis, mandal panchayats village panchayats.

constitutional changes and an the total pool of powers,

(2) Serious thou$ht needs to ability of large Stats. A

be

mission shoulld be appointed

to the virtual non-govcrnStates reorganisation comdelineat more governable

ones, without breaching the linguistic-cultural pdncipte. The of creat ing new States by putting together adjoining linkcd arcas of two or more existing States should ot be rulcd out. An exampIe would be a possible Bho State composed of culturally-Iinked districts f eastern UP and western Bihar, with perhaps Varanasi its capital. Population range, based on the [981 ccnsus, be 20 to 25 million, though this itself worild be one of the to be gone into by the

stat$ out of the existing

second'States reorganisation

'(3) Similerly, large districts nced be broken down into manageable sizesi Several .Statw bave 'atrready been ,rnoving in thb dirccticn. Thus it is thaJ number of distnicts in the couDtry has gone up from in l97l to 412 in l98 l. The

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's

Unity

49

aim should be that districts should not have population (in 2000 A.D.) larger than 1| to 2 millions. Perhaps the same
second States reorganisation commission of reorganising districts, also.

could do this job

A three-tiered federal system embedded in the Constitution would tend to freeze State and district boundaries, changes being possible only by amending the Constitution' That is why a rational and objective exercise to redelineate States

and districts is necessary before three'tiered federalism is

introduced.

(4) A Constitution Commission should be appointed to go into the powers, functions and sources of finance ofthe three proposed tiers of the new federal system. Without prejudice
to the generality of this charter, it should be required to examine the following specific issues: (a) what the structure of district .government should be' i.e. whether it should follow the parliamentary model or any other;

(b) whether there is at all any need for a provision like article 356, either as between the Union aod the States, or as between the States and the districts; and

(c) whether, again. there is any need for a provision to reserve State bills for the consideration of the Union or District bills for the consideration of the States.
(5) The recommendations of the two commissions, the second States reorganisation commission and the Constitution Commission, could then be considered by Parliament, and the Constitution amended suitably through the prescribed pro'
cedure.

50

Some Specific Suggestions

Strategies of Coherence

(1)

a third to a half of the counIt seems that at any given under the rule of parties other try may, at the State level, tban the one in power at the Union level. Much the same the States where district would be the position governmefit is introduced; is to say, anywhere up to half y be ruled by parties other than the districts in a State far the operating principle in ruling the State. the one

respect

of "other"

party

rule has been intolerance. The

in 1959, and those in power at level, Congress r Janata, have remained grooved the Union party rule in the States ever in intoterance towards " since. State level powerders have, if anything, been worse, judging by the wa they have freely used the power to supercede local bodies by their reluctance to hold years together. It is not possielections at the local level ble to have federalism, m Iess an extension of it to a third tier, if prevailing attitudes of intolerance towards "other" pafties persist, for then will be continued confrontation and conflict. The federal can itself become a powerpacesetter

for this was K

ful instrument of cohesion accepted as normal. We

operative ratber than

"other" party rule comes to

be

of "othern' party rule m

as the operatitrg principle.

then begin moving towards co' onal federalism. Acceptance therefore, displace intolerance

(2) It is trecessary to should mean in practice.

what cooperative federalism

oadly two things:

consensus on matters of common

-a continuilg search fi interst to the Union

Statos and the distri

the States, and to individual

within them, and

willingness -aputed issues. to su

to

mediation

in

respect of dis-

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's (3) Forums

Unity 5l

for

consensus-building

also necessary.

and dispute-resolution are They do not exist at present. Almost by

default the Union Government has come to be regarded, and mostly tends to regard itself, as responsible for both. But consensus-building cannot be unilateral, and dispute-resolution cannot be left to one of the disputants (and the major one at that) without straining credibility about the fairness of the outcome. In intra-State matters, State governments have similarly tended to be unilateral arbiters instead of seeking consensus or settling intractable disputes through mediation. Federal forums must be independent of executive
governments.

(4) Serious thought needs to be given to two kinds of forums' The Rajya Sabha was intended to be a council of the States and as such should have been the natural forum for the above purposes. In practice it has been oot much more than a second chamber of the Union legislature. With nearly 35 years of experience behind us, it is time to review the composition and functions of the Rajya Sabha to enable it to serve as a forum for both consensus building and disputc resolution in the federal field, in addition to being a second chamber for Union legislation. West Germany's model where the States and the Federal goveroment nominate representatives to the Bundesrat, as also other models, could be

studied. Possibly there could be something like six representatives each from the major States and three each from the smaller ones. Matters of common interest to the Union and the States could be made subject to acceptance by a large enough vote to reflect the consensus principle, say 80?ir' Insisting on unanimity would go counter to the principle of consensus and would give unjustified veto powers to the
very few. (5) In a three-tiered federal system, each major State should have legislativg councils, i.e. upper houses, as councils of the districts, following the revised Rajya Sabha model. This

52

Some Specific Suggestions

would imply reversing the abolish upper houses, fact because these councils parties. Recomposing the government f epresentation fore, hopefully remove the (6) The second kind of forum is

trend in the States to for financial reasons, but in often dominated by "other" on the basis of district
alter the picture and, therefor anti-councilism.

much-advocated inter-State there is a case for creating such a council, a three-tiered bderal system would require councils in the States where the setting up of in Whether such councils district sovernment is upper houses, or would would be Dreferable to be useful in addition to the , is a question which deserves fu ier donsideration.

council, utilising article

If

(7)

It is

suggested that th afi mission should so into the quate federal forums at Uni

Constitution Comrole question of creating adeand States levels.

(8) The same Constitution Co

or a oarallel one if it d be burdened enough by the was felt that the former tasks alreadv visualised for il. should undertake a stockus watch-dog institutions takins exercise as to how the have functioned (in their conceived by the watch-dog roles) over the three decades or more. The aim should be to devise to strngthen them, and to suggest the manner of extensiln of their watch-dog functions to the proposed third tier. The exercise would have to

Democracy, Federalism and the Future

of India's Unity

53

-the

UPSC and State PSCs Tribunals

-Administrative -Special
(g) India has
serve

Ofrcers for SCs/STs (art. 338) and minorities (art. 350 B)

for linguistic

a common market and a common polity. Both as integrating, not homogenising, forces. But we still do not have a common civil code. Serious thought needs to be given to enacting one. The Hindu Code was a giant stride in this direction, but it applies only to Hindus. Also it has been criticised by women's groups as not providing gender equality. The concept of the Hindu Undivided Family tends to be viewed as a tax haven conceded to one community but denied to others. The new code would have to transcend all this. Communal sensitivities may make it expedient to introduce the new code as an enabling facility for all citizens to avail of if they so desire.

(10) We must not stray away from planning as the chief instrument for the socio-economic development of the country. In the past planning has suffered through over centralisation. It now seems to be in danger of being crippled through overdependence on the so-called market forces. What is necessary is to tune the planning process to the emerging federal system, Plannitrg at the national level must be made more relevant, which can only happen

(a) if it is backed up by
levels, and

planning

at State and district

(b) if its broad strategies are

sensus.

supported by national con-

to become federal in orientation without losing its national perspective. Above all, planning at all levels must not lose sight of two objectives vital for achieving coherence in the country: the removal
Planning needs

54

Some Specific Suggestions on of regional imbalances, possibility of the Planniog Commission The it has the confidence of all constitutional status, so system, should be explored. three tiefs of the ucw fi If an inter-State council. drawing constitutional legittto be set up, the Planling macy from article 263, w Commission couid an adjunct of that. Similarly, State Planning bodies co ld become adjuncts of interdistrict councils in the

of poverty, and the

By Way of a Conclusion

India's unity has come under challenge in the past from forces of
separatism

and secession, but this nation-state

has demonstrated

remarkable resilience both in terms of its socio-cultural foundation as well as its state-craftsmanship to meet such challenges. In the present phase, however, disunity has primarily been the product of
over-centralisation in the face of rising participatory and federal urges within the polity' That is why the continuous harping on the unity theme in the absence ofan actual examination of the theoretical and ideological basis of unity of this complex plural polity

is proving to bo counter-productive' It is now more important than ever for policy makers to give detailed attention to intellectual

56

Demcracy, Federalism and

Future of India's Unity

and institutional possibilities Indian unity rather than to wish as the best guarantee for unity.

will

create the circumstances of a homogenised Indian people

This paper, in a sense, is not ment, though the underlying

will be evident to the reader.

the subject, outlined the

around a single arguuity of thought, it is expected, first section, while introducing

thought.

The second soction attmpted a theoretical exposition of the inter-deoendence of three cardinal :inciples of the Indian political system viz, democracy, secularis and federalism, aod sought to principles. establish the complementarity of appraisal of India's federal ex' The third section made a cri perience and tried to bring out the contradiction ' between growing intolerance on the other. This federalism on the one hand and of federal decentralisation had section also indicated that the led to anti-liberal and anti-secular mpulsions for the Centre. The dangers inherent in such a course f development are obvious. the previous two sections, the Departing from the argument of Indian unity which arise fourth section discussed some m litics. These unitY models were out ofthe sociology of Indian and cultural insensitivitY. found wanting on grounds of iallv the last three, seemed to Besides, some of these models, impose unity ratbbr than generat( consensual integration. One of a contrasting back'drop the functions of this section was to

to the fifth

section which

a federal alternative to the five

unity models of thc fourth section.

The fifth section began with from a liberal premise there is in sent against sepafatiol or
a

liberal state coulld create the

for consensual unity. Agenuine

possibly disturbing claim that no theoretical or logical argu. Though, it was suggested that ons and provide the avenues t to federalism was put

By l4tay of a Conclusion

57

forward as the most favoured pre-condition for unity under Indian

circumstances.

Finally, the sixth section, while emphasising the need to deepen

the federal idea by further decentralisation also pointed towards cohesive strategies which were not only compatible with decentralisation but were necessary for nation-building. The specific suggestions do not need repetition here but it may be pointed out that in the interests of overall balance of this paper the recornmendations
bave been presented in a rather abbreviated fcrrm. This should not convey the impression that insufficient thought has been given to the subject matter of these recommendations. Having said this, the authors would not lay claim to have done the detailed exercises which have been suggested in the sixth section.

If the essential thrust of the recommendations is found worthwhile much thought and time will have to be given to their detailed conception and execution. The purpose of this paper will have been served if it is able to initiate a discussion in the suggested direction.

Index

Abdullah, Farooq., 22 Aryavarta, 29 Administrative Reforms Commis- Assam, 40 African nationalism, 39 Agrarian reforms, l8

sion,

17

Assam

problem, 20 Asian nationalism, 39 Autonomy, 2l

Sangh-CPI Backward Castes, 13 Bhandari, Nar Bahadur, 22 Andhra Pradesh, 20-21, 23 Bhartiya Kranti Dal (BKD), t5 Bhaskara Rao, 23 Andhra state movement 4l-42 Antinational forces, 21 Bhojpuri-speaking state, 48

Akali-Jana Coalition, 15

AIDMK, 2I

60

Democracy, Federalism and the

e of

India's Unity
otr'

Bihar,

15-26,30

45,46, 47-49

Caste System, 33 Central Intelligence

Bureau, l7 Centralisation, 9-10, 18 19

Janata government

concept of, 7 models of, 7,

ic

13

right,

and,

19-20

Centre-State relations, 2,9'1O, 16-l'1,20,42-45

Conclaves

administration, 48 magistrate, 47 reorganisation, 47-49

on. 2l

India's unity and, 4-6 Coalition governments, 14-17

,

MK,

causes

of,
14-18

55

Coherence strategies, 50'55 Collector-raj, 47-48

t3 a Yagna
28
34

Communalism, 33"36 Communal federal gcheme. 4l Communist Party of India (CPI), 3. 28 Communist Party of India, (M) 15,2r
Congress Congress Congress

nationalism. 39-40
ederal

19,32

(O), (R),

forums. 5l-52

I8

ederalism, 2'4
coherence strategies and, 50-55

18

Party,

2-3

concept

of,

as one.dominant

party, 3l'32

cooperative,

7 2

communal federal scheme and;

decentralisation

and,

47-49

split of, l8 fourth general eloction, states,

14-16

4l

India's experience, 12'24 levels of government and,

problems

l0

Consensus-building,

51

before, 9-10 three-tired, 47'48 proposed, 47-54

Greater federalism.

Constitution Commission, 49-52 Constitution of India, federal structure in, 2,41-42

strong centre theme

see also

of,
10

42

Constitutional status,
Constituent Assembly, federalism and, 4l

Indira, Mrs, 14,20, 32 assassinationof. 23-24 M.K., 3,40 election,fourth, 13-14 elections of 1971, l8
elections,

Cooversions, 34

Eighth,

35

Index 6l
Governor,

role

Great Britain. 3l Greaterfederalism, 44-45

of,

Karnataka. 20-22 l7
40

Kasmir

see Jammu

and Kashmir.

Kerala., 2, 14,50 LegislativeCouncils, 5l-52

Madhya Pradesh, 31 Market spe National market. Marxist, national unity and, 28-29

Gujarat,

Haryana, l5
Hegde goverament, 22

Hindi chauvinist, 29 Hindi heartland, national unity and, 29-31 Hindi backlash, 35 Hindu Code, 53 Hinduorganisations, 34

Minoritycommunities, 33-34 Mizo, l5 Modern nationalism, 39

Hindus,
India,

32-36

Multipartymodel, Muslims. I
Naga

13-14

national unity

and,

12-36

movement, 15 NationalConference, 2l democracy, National language, 3 mass model, 13 National loyalty, 39 federal development, National Market, coherelce strategies, 50-55 integration of, 26-27 decentralisation strategies. 47- National politics,
49 state politics, and 43-45

federalism

and,

12'24

National unity l-4

alternative approach,

three-tired, 47-48
integrated national market and,
26-27

main recomendation, 37-45

basis

of,

37

national unity models, 25-36 nationalist articulation, 40 Integrated national market, 26-27 Inter-StateCouncil, 52,54
Jagmohan, Governor., 22 Jammu and Kashmir, 15-16,
23

Hindi heartland model

of,

29-

2l-

Hindu model of, 32'36. liberal principles of, 37'39 market model of, 26-27 Marxist model, 28'29

3l

models of, 25-36 one-dominant party model, 31'

JL

Janata government, 19-21, 32

62

Democracy, Federalism and the Future oJ lndia's (Jntty

one-party ruler 4nd, 24 Ram Janma Bhoomi Andolan, 34 primordial identlties and, 39-40 Ram Lal, Governor, 23 unitary rgle ando 12 Rama Rao, N.T., 23 Nationalism, Regionalism, post'Neh1u pftaee, 3 origin of, 13 see also National Unity. Religion,

Nationalist articul4tion,

Nehru, Jawaharla\.,

4l

2-3,31,35,

40

politics and, 8-9 state's fole and, 8

23

Nehru Report

of 1928,40

Riots,

anti-Sikhs, RSS, 33

One-dominant-parly model, 3l -

Opposition, 7 Opositions rule, 16-17, 21,

toppling

32

' Secessionism, 14-16

of, 22-23 29

50

Chinese help

to,
33

15

Secularism, 2, geparatism,

-34

complexities of, 7-8 concept of, 7

38

Party bosses, 17 Patel, Sardar., 35

Pakistan,

Personal laws, 53 Planning, 53-54

$hah, G.M., 22 phastri, Lat Bahadur., 14

parties, federalism and, 3 Politics, religion and, 8-9

Political

Planning Commission,

54

Union, 29 btate politics, 43-45

$oviet
States,

Fikkim, 22 Sikhs, 21,24 $ocial reforms,

18

Populism, 32 Poverty, 19 Privy purses abolitipn, Punjab, 15

army rule
Punjab

'Popular Marxist' model,

28-29

opposition governments

in,

16-

17,2l
toppling,

of

22-23

l8

Ntates Reorganisation, 42

ptates

Recoganisation 1956, 2

problem,

in, 2O-21 20-21 51

Commission, 2, 48

Report

lStrong Centre'

idea,

43-45

40

Rajamannar Commission, l7

Rajya Sabha,

flamil Nadu, 14-15,21

Index
Telegu Desam, 2l ,

63

Terrorism, 20 Tolerance. 7

34 22

Unity see National Unity Uttar Pradesh, 3l

West Bengal, 15-16, 20, West Germany, 40, 5l
21

Toppling operations,

Tripura,

21

Workingclass, 13,28-20 Unitary system, 9 United States of America, 9-19, Yogolavia, 40

44