DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISMAND THE

FUTURE OF INDIA'S UNITY

i

Ilt{i,lI.i

'.----r*-*,,a rJ

lli

I

l

l

,]

Democracy, Federalism and theFuture of India's Unity

NIRMAL MT'KARAJIASHIS BANERJEE

Under the Auspices ofCBNTNB FoR POLTCY RESEARCH

UPPAL PUBLISHING HOUSENEW DELHI-IIOOO2

Published by B.S. Uppal,New Dclhi-110002 aodU29 Nicholsoo Road, Gare, D6lhi-110m6

UPPAL PUBLIS3, Ansarij Road, Daryag j, New Delhi-110002

ING HOUSE

@ Centre forNew

1987

ISBN 8r-8502

Publishing House,at Maharani hinters,

Foreword

In a very real sense India is unique among the large countries of theworld. Its diversity distinguishes it from China and the USA and itspolitical system from the USSR and China. The combination of size,

diversity and political system have led several Cassandras, both domes-tic and forcign, to forecast the break-up of India as more than just apossibility. Size and deversity being 'givens', these forebodings basicallyquestion the adequecy of the political system.

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

j,,,,.,-'jglg

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

underlying the Indian, secularism and federalism

constitute the main underpinnings o the lndian system. The simulta-neous operation of these elements the conditions for the socialcohesion and political integration of Indian nation.

Within this overall formulation authors have focussed attentionbasic concepts, democracy andon the manner in which two of

federalism, have developed and the polity. Their centralargument is that, while the idea ofindeed grown into a study sapling,only now beginning to come into

has taken firm root andism as a late starter and is

own. Conscious strengtheningof the federal idea is essential as a precondition for nationalunity and for effeotive political of the nation. Specific

suggestions have been put forward furtherance of this basic thought.

We in the Centre for Policy feel that the issues raised inthis paper deserve to be debated , and more especially to be

taken note ofby policy makers, atthe Indian polity.

present stage of evolution of

V.A. Pai PanandikerDirector

Centre for Policy Research

New Delhi

Chapters

Foreword

I Introduction

2 Democracy, Secularism andFederalism

3 India's Federal Experience:A Recapitulation

4 Models of National Unity

5 An Alternative Approach tothc Question of Unity: The

. Main Recommendation

6 Some Specific Suggestions

7 By Way of a Conclusion

Index

Contents

Page Nos,

v

I

37

46

55

59

6

l225

'-a

. ,-a.i"ztg

h

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 fourdecades. Besides, ever since the prospect of independence becamereal in the I930s forces of disunity had to be contended with. Therewas the question of Indian states and their place in free India andof the religious minorities, especially the Muslims. While the formerwere successfully integrated, a substantial section of the latter crea-ted for themselves an independent state, thus truncating what wasIndia at the very hour of her birth. That event has left a deepimpression on the political psyche of the Indian nation. The

i

2 Democracy, Fdderalism and the

thought ofmajor failure

disunity continuesof nationalism-the

At independence India opteddemocracy. Secularism promised tgroups and federalism sought to dties of India's various linguisticthis was seen as tbe formula foris sometimes argued that thepolitical arangedlent as a 'Uniontion. But it is evident from theself that the arrangement is

Centre with more Dowers than oof the world. Ample evidence inin the Debates of the Constiganisation Repott (1956) and inCourt of India.

Opting for the federal founitary structure which Britishhundred years. This would ha

the federal idea found anof India. It should not be nwhich led to the aPPointment ofmission. But it is worth making

Iong debates in Parliament d

ganisation Bill not a single Hbasic ideas or proPositionswere restricted to questions of

If anything cbmouflaged theby the nation in the directionpreponderance of the congressin the States as well as at the

the political sYstem did notperiod of Nehru's Prime Miniwhere federalism was Put to test

of India's Unity

bring back memories of thatup of India.

become a secular and federalgive equal place to all religiouspolitical justice to the identi-and cultural groups. Put simplyonal unity for the future. It

nstitution of India describes thef States' and not as a federa-

isions of the Constitution it'albeit one which provides the

in some other federal states

pport of this claim is availablet Assembly, in the States Reor'-

ious decisions of the SuPreme

entailed the dismantling of the

e had evolved over a Period ofbeen an impossible task had notic response among the People

here to retrace the events

States Reorganisation Com-

note of the fact that during theg the passage of the States Reor-urablo Member questioned theerlying the Bill. Disagreements

boundary delimitations.

step that had been takenof federalism it was the national

which formed governments

Thus the federal features ofme apparent throughout the

hip with the exception of Kerala1959. To say this is not to dis-

Introduction 3

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

For the nation as a whole it may be said that in the Nchruperiod such was the popularity of the Congress and so great werethe expectations from a free nation that the full implicatione of afederal democracy were not realised. Ovei that period aa elitistdemocracy was only gradually giving way to what may bc called'mass' democracy. Besides, the non-Congress political partics, erceptthe Communist Party, were essentially satellites to the anti-colonialnationalism of the Congress, forged in an earlier era by Gandhiji,

The post-Nehru phase brought about the need to re-evaluateIndian nationalism. Ideas had been put to practice and had achicv-ed a degree of fruition. The unity of India had become an esta-blished fact; the diversity proved more complex than bad perhapsbeen anticipated. For the democratic process not only threw up alarge number ofinterest and pressure groups, it also brought intorelief the underlying characteristics of an ancient and multiculturalcivilisation. Federalism, which was the democratic answer to thequestion of accommodation of primordial socio-culturai groupswithin the framework of the new nation-state, sought gradually tocome into its own. And, with the weakening of the Congrcss systemby the mid-sixties, Indian nationalism sought redefinition mainly,if not solely, in terms of the concepts of democracy, secularism andfederalism. As the modern and the pre-modern forces opcratedsimultaneously, often pulling in opposite directions, the processof nation-building became complex and challenging. The centralisingcompulsions of the modern nation-state form and the decentralisingpulls of the democratic form began to compete in an inner-strugglewithin the body-politic of the Indian nation.

This paper seeks to address itself to the problems arisiag.out ofthis struggle and attempts to make a contribution to the ongoingdebate. A longer introduction will havc to anticipate many of theissues which belong more appropriately to the main body of the

.4 Dedocracy, federalism and

paper. Therefore, it is.argument and lay out the broadThe central argument is thatto take root in India but thouehthr€ats to it continue to exist. Sidemocratic idea the fortunes ofextricablv intertwined in thehowever, left much to be desir€d.

Over the last few years thedebated in a Centre-Statefactor of religion has also entered

the one hand, the notion of unitythe concept of a unjtary state,

thb demand for autonomy havealism. The conflation of keydegtructive to the debate,party politics such things can be

Therbfore, qot only must '

Centre- State debate, the debateed beyond Centrb.State relations.the stage of maturity when itlevels of participatiotr below thethis demand the district couldfederal governauce as the State

the reconstituted federal system

Also. of late the Centre-Stateinto an argu.ment as to whetherStales should be strong. Thisreal issues involted. fhe viewabout if the States are strong isover-simplistic. The harderwhat respects) rnust the CentreIndian natiou remains willinglysuggestion .about the need to

Future of India's Unity

at this stage to state the centralwhich will be followed.

idea of democracy has been ablehas grown to be a sturdy sapling,federalism is itself, in essehce, a

and federalisn are in-context. Federal practice has,

of India's unity has beenrk, though more recently the

the debate. In this debate. onbeen made to lean heavily on

on the other. fedoralism andclubbed with divisive region-

in this manner has proved to be

under conditions of adversaryto happen,

be brought to bear on the

federalism must also be extend-ian democracy has come to

is beginning to demand effectiveof the State. In order to meet

constitute the unit for State levelfor the national level. Thus

be a three.tiered one.

debate secms to have got trappedCentre should be strong or the

of argument only confuses thea strong Centre can only come

logically valid one but politicallylie in the area of how (i.e. in

the States be strong so that theited and strong, Therefore any

or extend the federal idea

Introduction 5

must be accompanied by suggestions as to which functions of theCentre must be reinforced or amended so that the federal arrange-meut evolves in the right direction.

of the Indian nation.

in these conccPts.

De ocracy, Secularismand Federalism

the concepts of democracY'It has alreadY been suggested

secularism and federalism consti

Indian political sYstem. In their

set of issues that surrounds

The first step id this direction

the main underPinnings of the

ultaneous operation theY Pro-

vidc the conditions for the social cohesion and political integrationthey lend strength to the Indian

state. At first sight this maY to be a simplistic formulation'

But by further claboration it be shown that there is a conPlexoperation of the thrce concepts.

uld be to untavel, at a PurelY

aualytical level; thc tensions

Democracy, Feileralism and the future of India's Unity 7

The concept of democracy entails, in its negative aspect, therecognition of the individual's frcedoms within a. legal framework;

in the positive sense it entails the right of every individual to parti-cipate as an active citizen. Similarly, while secularism implies theprinciple of tolerance, and therefore inevitably a recognition oftheidentities and the existence of all religious groups, in the active

sense it also suggests that the state must disassociate itself fromthe itrterests of any specific religious group, for only then. can tbe

6tate acquire the political authority to mediate between religiousgroups. Federalism entails, on the one hand, the recognition of thcrights of states, i.e. their sphere of autonomy, while on the other,it enjoids upon the states the responsibility to cooperate with theUnion government and with other state governments in the inter-ests of the nation as a whole.

In fact, the three concepts are even more complex than thiSsimple dialectical presentation seems to indicate. Democracy inaction involves the representation of democratic opinion, whichthrows-up possibilities of vlrions forms of representation and the

adequacy of different levels of representation. Also, in societieswhere structural social inequalities exist a commitment to the demo-cratic idea involves the removal of these structured inequalities. Ifpositive discrimination is the favoured method of doing so thenthe notion of 'democratic right' becomes more problematic. Beci-

des, there is the question of the relationship botween the govern-

ment and the opposition in a representative democracy. This isspecially relevant to post-colonial states where conventions are notentirely settled and where the demands of 'mass' democracy oftenmilitate against imperial legacies. From time to time, for instance,either in the trame of national stability or in the name. of develop-

ment or of some other purported national interest it has been heldthat poor countries cannot afford to havo (or do not need) aneffective opposition. I :

The complexities of secularism arise from at least two ques-

tions. Is secularism primarily a social value or is it more funda-mentally a political one?.Formulated differently, to what degrqe

8 Democracy, Secalarism and F,

does the secular princiPle religious groups an explicit (or

active) political role qua religious The second question is,

in the affairs of religiousto what exteot may the stategroups? There are" of course, questions which follow. As

does secularism enjoin uPonin the case of Positivetho statc to make opecial for religious minorities? If so,

then in what manner? And to degree? Is the active role ofthe state in religious matters to rejection of the seoular

principles? In other words, does it contradict that aspect ofmust stand above religioussecularism which says that the

groups and their specific interests?

the Indian context.are relevant questions in

However, these questions will to be dealt with elscwhere

for this paper does not extend to alarism. The limited purpose here is

substantive discussion on secu-

nake the point that in Prac-

tice there are more comPlexities involved than are sometimes

perceivcd. It is also necessary to into account a rather PoPularholds tbat oolitics must beand essentially bealthY view

separated from religion. The inherent in a situation where

politics comes to be dominated religion are too well known.

However, in multirreligious an inevitable relationshiP

between the two does exist. The

therefore to work Lout an interface

atcd minimal relationship which

task before such a nation isthe form of a clearly enunci-

also be nationally accePt-

able rather than to avoid the issue. If a debate should take Place

around this issuo, as indeed it , then it is better to imbue itwith some intellectual content than leave the problem to the

rough and tumble of daY to daY alone. The significance ofthis suggestion, it is hoPed, willtext where there is alreadY a

be missed in the prescnt con-deal of talk in the media and

elscwhere about the 'Hindu ' and minority discontent. The

secular liberal conscience may find this signs of regression froman earlier period when such were presumed to have been

settled. But it would perhaPs be wi to recognise that those days

wcre difrerent. The politicalproblems that concern anY

is a relentless one, If there are

of society they are bound to

Demoqacy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 9

find some kind of political expression' And when they do find

political expression they' seek political solutions'

The next conc€pt for analysis is federalism' The questions that

are generally raised with regard to federalism are the two following

oo.rl Wmt .lould be the nature of relationship between the Uaion

and the States? And, how should powers be divided betwcen the

Union and the States? The two questions are related and some ex-

p€rts 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

asp€ctsoffederalgovernance.Furtherdiscussionofthisdistinctionwill 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

becomes necessary to raise a few others. What conditions, for in-

stance. must a territorial unit fulfil in order to qualify as a unit offederal government? What should be the size of the units? What

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 inthe 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

too often geniralisations are made with regard to the behaviour of

federationsandthesegeneralisationsare,quiteimpermissibly'given a normative weight. Thus, it is said that all modern federa-

iions tend towards centralisation because of various factors such

u. iU" pfuy of mirket forces, industrialisation, economic planning'

lO Democracy, Setularism and Ft

technology and defenceunits of a federatlon shouldUnion or reconcile themselves to aassertion is too simplistic andgatcd. Especially because thecally move in the direction ofdemocratic process works towardstary structures of governance andadd, such a course of develoomentof reconciliation between nationalunits. In this case too, a substantivea later point in the paper.

Another equally fundamentalidea envisages only two levels ofalism could be seen as one of thesharing which is implicit in the nand therefore be oxtended to acase then the Union could be seen

Whdt would be the implications ofthe general principlos of federalrelevant only if the third tier were toIn the USA, for instance, suchthough the system is often describedgovernment does not derive itsthe country. Large, populous and de:India may find the third level of repally useful as the st4tes find themselunable to perform.

Having indicated theples of democracy, secularism andto move on to the next step. It maythe following propo$ition. Whatmeotal to a polity such as India's isbination. This is so because they areinutually reinforcing principles, there do exist one-party

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

role. Whether thisterministic needs to be investF

type of federation should logi-autonomy for units as thedismantling of imperial uni-

of thought. Needless todoes not rule out the problem:erests and those of the federal

on will be taken up at

is whether the..federalor whether feder-

elements in the idea of powcrof democratic governmentlevel. If the latter were the

a federation of federations.a model with regard to

This last question isgiven constitutional status.

question does not arise, fora 'three tiered' one a county

wers from the constitution offederations such as

uve government especr-overloaded and therefore

inherent in the three princi-bderalism it will be necessary

put forward in tbe form ofthe three principles funda-effectiveness of their com-

y interdependent and

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

principles "onttitot"*

the overall political process' Far from frag'

menting the polity the dynamic of this political process proves to

be intJgretalive in the long run. For it is ths only,method ofesta'

blishing a durable consensus on national issues' When the process '

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 secu-

larism nor federalism can be genuine for essentially both are in

some respects democratic ideas bestowing certain democratic rights

to gtoopt whether they are religious, social, or territorial' Natur-

ani, tnese can only be rights available within the framework of the

nation.stateandcannotextendtothepointofchallengingnationalsovereignty. 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'

India is unenviably unique among thein that her unity constantly remainsown people. History is partlyfragmented past and Of unstableoal memory. In more recent times thepartitioned, Besides, secessionistpublic anxiety from titne to time. It isto every thrust in the federalmovement in the direotion of unitaryfederal constitution. there remainsthe unitary model as the answer to the

India's ral Experience:Recapitulation.

countries of the worldquestion, even for her

ible for this. Images of alinger in popular histori-

tinent has been twicehave occasioned srave

surprising, therefore, thation there has been a reflex

Despite allegiance to asubconscious attraction for

problem of national unity.

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 attribut-ed 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'

Somewhere in the sixties India began to change over from an

elitist model of democracy to what at an earli€r poiot has been

referred to as a 'mass' model of democracy. This was possible be-

cause 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. Itbegan with the entry of tht backward'castes into the political pro-

cess 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 itmajor problems of political management. The democratic process

brought into relief regional imbalances as well as regional aspira-

tions. It also gave voice to the oppressed and the poor.

India's relatively rapid shift to thc 'mass' model left many ele-

ments of the anti-colonial consensus far behitrd while it provided

little time for the evolution of a fresh consensus. In fact, what thecircumstances of the sixties demanded was not so much a nationalconsensus as a renewed compact on the basic rules of the politicalgame. This essentially meant that India had to settle down to stable

democratic functioning with all its concomitants: competitive partypolitics, 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 unitarymodel. Therefore, when the change came in the wake ofthe FourthGeneral 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 certainlyoccasioned this anxiety. Wbat mayoot be€n so cataclysmic is difficult

: be inappropriate to discuss the varioof 1967.

ve happened had the changeassess. However, it would notramifications of the elections

one-dominant party model to the -party model also appearedto be the period of the fragmentaticharismatic leader was especially

ofthe Congress party. A tallby the Congress in this

. Many of the coalitions (SVDsnorth Indian states oomprised of ahad come out of the Congress fold.a substantial political following. So

phase. For though Lal Bahadur S

national leader after the Indo-Pakhe could consolidate bis success.

quick look at the federal map as itexplanatory.

which came to power in thege component of leaders whoith these leaders had goneperiod of transition from tbe

rose to the stature of ar{ar of 1965 the died beforeGandhi, who replaced him,

ed then is almost self-

was yetto develop into the national she became after 1971.

Added to this absence of leaders was the fact that the Cong-ress Centre suddenly had to cope wi political forces of very dis-parate kinds. A decade earlier the was faced with a iingle'opposition' ministry in Kerala. Even it had demonstrated greatintolerance for the Communist ry which it helped to ovarth-row within a sDace of less than two In 1967 he national scene

eable from New Delhi. AIooked far more .inchoate and

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 ofmany it remained a party tainted wit{ a separarist past. Besidcs, itwas not entirely coincidental that the DMK came to power in thewake of a great deal of acrimony betiveen the North and South overthe status of Hindi. Regional feeling$ generated by the controversyaffected 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 15

not cooverted to votes foi cultura! sub-nationalism as in the 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 conti-nued 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 buthad also been the scene of a long .flrawn out regional movement

for a Punjabi Suba-a Sikh'dominant itate. The essentially religi-

ous character of the Punjabi Suba demand had created severe mis-

givings till the issue was resolved on linguistic grounds and a sepa-

rate 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, Inthe 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 conti-

nued to be a major force among the poor and landless in parts ofBihar. 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 topower 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

regiohal as well as integrative sub-communism. In the West it was a corative sub-nationalism. Finallv. inmiddle peasants and the backward

East, the activities of the Marxist-the separatists in Kashmir, the postthemselves perfectly within the limBut so closely had the one-dwith the integrity of the IndianParty were quickly transformed intground was fertile, for the wars of I

of national vulnerability even thtowards instilling feelings of nationa

The weakening of theparty as a weakening of India. Whatinstability of many of the state

sional nature of sorhe of the coalitibetween March 1967 and Decembergovernments; the shortest span ofmonths. That there were others whidid not matter in the Centre'sspilling over of 'mass' politics on toWest Bengal which saw some ofthe urban as well as the rural areas.stability and unity of India wererenewed currency at this stage.

Once the rationale of such aCentral intervention was establifinancial power of the Centre wereCongress states. At the politicalengineering of defections with athe state legislaturds. Internalbetween coalition pirtners made this reasonably easy in some

talation

onalism. In the East it was

ion of religion and integ-heartland it was the rise of the

to power.

Nevertheless, bdrring the secessi movements in the North-inists in Bengal and those of

ion changes of 1967 were inof constitutional federalism.-paty system been identifiedthat fears of the Congress

fears for the nationstate. The2 and 1965 had left a feeiing

these had gone a long waysolidarity.

system was portrayed by thegave credence to this was the

because of the Drovi-To take the worst example,l, Bihar had as many as nine

was four days, the longest tenh were relativelv more stable

ion. Another factor was thethe streets, as for instance inmost volatile movements in

view that prospects for theunder Congress rule gained

tion was accepted the case for. Political, administrative and

to put pressure on the non-the main weaDon was the

ew to diminish majorities inand ideological differences

Demoracy, Federalism and the Fututc of India's Unity 17

states. At the administrative level the most obvious entry pointwas through the Governor acting at the behest ofthe Centre. Arti-cle 356 of the Constitution proved to be a useful weapon ir stateafter state. Another administrative strategy was to increase theCentre's paramilitary forces rapidly in order to give the Centre tlecapacity to intervene with a heavy hand in the states. Simultaneous-ly, the Central Intelligence Bureau was expanded so that parallelintelligence agencies were set up in the states, reporting directly tothe Centre. Finally, the considerable fnancial powers of the Centrewere used to contain the states.

If the SVDs had endured, instability and turbulence usually asso-ciated with any major structural change would in all likelihoodhave abated. India could then have moved into a stage of multi-party federalism. That did not bappen. But a vigorous debate onthe division of powers between the Centre and the States didbegin in those days. The DMK government felt that a commis-sion should look into the division of powers. It set up the Rajaman-nar Commission. At the Centre too, a study team of the Adminis-trative Reforms Commission was entrusted to review the. workingof Centre-State relatioas. A large number of books and periodicalarticles were also written which, together with the reports of theseCommissions, uow form essential reading in the area of Indian fed-eralism,

In discussing the late sixties a rigid separation is sometimes made .

between the States which went out of the Congress fold and thosethat remained under Congress rule, Flowever, it will be recalledthat between 1966 and 1969 there was a great deal of discussionabout the rise of'party bosses' in the Statos and how'ineffective' theCentral leadership was proving in the face of their power. A reint-erpretation of the same eveqts would show that the CongressParty itself was going through the same ,phase as the polity was-a phase of transition from a highly centralised structure to &more federal form. At this point it is not necessary to dwell onthe merits and demerits of the 'party bosses'. What does need tobe noted is that the federalisation of the Congress fartJ' slruclure

l8 India's'Federal Expefienee: A

. was as unwelcome the to CentralCongress governmqnts in the Stat

The Congress split of 1969 and twed is better explained if both theseThe ideological diffbrences betweenCongress (R) and the Congress (O)the need for a powerful andthe Congress party, The dramaticgress (R), first in the form of natithe form of 'garibi hatao', wasfederal pulls outside the Congressmeant to cut across the classpolitical shape.

The result of the parliamentarythe stmtegem had succeeded. Thiswith the State eloctions of 1972.parliamentary electlons from State eing strategy. All opposition was su

was tactically incorporated. Thus u

the party as well as itr thcthat the Centre, belng morefreedom of action with respectwere ruled by rapacious andsuggested, would find itselfat ancial reform, specially in the agrarianto act against the stranglehold ofIn order to reinforoe the mvth ofcracy was flogged for acting as aand economic reform. Soon thefor scuttling radical legislation.the Centre's enthusiasm privysovernment take-dvers effected.

those years move further back theble. The imperatites of centralrafter institution was systematically

on were such that institution

lon

as was the rise of non-

nature of Dolitics that follo-are taken into account.

t came to be known as theof less significance thanleadership at the helm of

ism resorted to by the Con-ion of banks and then in

attempt at cutting across thethose within. It was also

which had besun to take

lections of 1971 showed thatsuccess was consolidated

In fact the separation of thewas in itself a centralis-

barring the DMK, whichstvles were restored in

polity. The myth was fosteredive, should be allowed greater

the states because the states

elites. The Centre, it was

vantage in bringing about so-

because it would be ablelanded classes in the States.

Centre's activism the bureau-bling block'in the way ofsocial

too came in for criticism, in order to demonstratewere abolished and moreevents are well known. As

becomes more discerni-

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity l9

The apparent unity of India was achieved by imposing a near-unitary dispensation on the country. As the mass movements of themid-seventies demonstrated, the choking of institutional avenuesof dissent could only lead to non-institutional expression of dissent.But the carly seventies were heady days for the ruling party. Theflush of victory in the Bangladesh War, the successful results ofthe Green Revolution and the promise of Garibi Hatao, all thcsemade the Congress look invincible. Those who questioned thewisdom of indiscriminate centralisation and the ruthless ways itrwhich this was achieved were misfits in that age. For there weresuffcient admirers available to hail the return of the Congresssystem. The restoration of a national consensus was taken forgranted.

Very little was achieved by way of removing poverty. And as

the nation began to reel under severe bouts of inflation from 1973onwards the oppressive machinery of the State seemed to increasein might. From a high point of federalism in 1967 the pendulumswung to a high point of centralisation by 1975. From mid-'75onwards this unmanageable structure collapsed into authoritarianrule with the imposition of the Emergency.

The Emergency proved beyond doubt that centralisation couldtrot be a solution to the political and social problems of the nation.It also showed that antidemocratic and anti-federal attitudes merelychoked the means by which those solutions could be made possi-ble. Finally, it demonstrated the insensitivity of the national politi-cal elite towards the genuine aspirations ofa democrac' which wasbeginning to come of age. The people proved this Iast propositionby voting against authoritariatr rule in 1977.

The Jalata Government upon whom the task of dismantlingthe c€ntralised system fell was also slow to take the cue. This wasevrdent from the haste with which it dismissed nine Congress Statcgovernments. The reasons given for the dismissals at that timewere not inconsistent with the mood of the people. But they werenot strictly within the bounds of Constitutional propriety and bet-

20 India's Federal Experience: A

rayed a desire to capture as

quickly as possiblo. The move didJaoata governmeits were estab

trot too long a run it boomerangedgfess returned to power in Isovernments were removedFederirl politics continued to be diat the Centre.

Though the return to power ofGandhi was spectacular, the

as a few States sti,il had nthough the essentlal thrust remai

the federal case rvas kept alivement. Witbin the Cotrgress too ato grow. The accdnt of the

Chief Ministers tQwards itself broCongress in most States. Thewith it a good deal of discredit inStates for the type ofpoliticstion erupted most powerfully inCongress in Andhra Pradesh and

AIso through the early ei

selves in different forms in Assam

ment's attitude to these

for the agitations to play

popular support behind them.

mov€meots failed the Centre

these States thus heighteningwere imposed without adequatehad been apprehended widelY'quences for the people of Assam

failed to curb terrorism and withing, the Centre struck with astration of its ability to act. Ftually under Army rule. A

tulation

of unitarv national power as

y dividends in the short run.in most of these States. In the

on the Janata after the Con-The same number of Janata

office on the same grounds.

by the rhythm of politics

Congress party led bY IndiraState debate did not die down

sovernments 11 sffiss' And,tilted in the unitary direction,

by the West Bengal govern-

of Centre-State tension began

leadership on the 'loyaltY' oft about dissensions within theg of factional politics broughteyes of the people of those

were subiected to. Dissatisfac-ly 1983 with the defeat of the

federal oulls manifested them-Punjab. The Union govertr'

was a centrist one. It waited

out, paying little heed to the

n attempts to divide these

with a heavy hand in bothfurther. In Assam, elections

bguards even though violenceCongress won, but the conse-

tragic. In Punjab, having1984 elections fast approach-

ve Army operation as demon-that the State was put vir-failures and political mis-

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 21

handling were then sought to be brushed aside by appealing to theemotions of the Hindu community in Punjab and outside. The Sikhcommunity was pushed further into alienation and left to suffer bet-ween the blackmail of extremist secessionism on the one side andstate oppression on the other. However, the basic design of theelection campaign had been formulated.

In the area of federal politics two major factors came in theway of the Centre's unitary predilections. The first was that one-.third of the country was under non-Congress rule. From 1977 on-wards West Bengal and Tripura were ruled by United Frontgovernments with the CPI (M) as the leading partner. The state ofJammu and Kashmir was under a National Conference govern-ment. And most significantly, in the South, of the four states threewere under non-Congress rule-the AIDMK in Tamil Nadu, andfrom 1983 onwards, Telegu Desam in Andhra Pradesh and Janatain Karnataka. The distinguishing feature was that unlike the post-1967 governments the 'opposition' govertrments were now stable.The second factor was that they were eager to cooperate with eachother in retexturing the federal polity around the autonomy princi-ple. This was given concrete shape in the conclaves held at Hydera.bad, Calcutta and Srinagar. Their cooperative endeavour not onlyplaced them in a position to demand a share in decision makingon major national issues but also brought about much neededcredibility for federal politics.

The Centre's reaction was a belligerent one, for federal consoli-dation restricted its lieedom of manoeuvre. Besides it cast longshadows on the election prospects of the Congress party. There-fore, taking advantage of the situation that had allowed to bedeveloped in Punjab the Congress leadership launched a rrassivecampaign against 'anti-national' forces which were portrayed asemanating frorr regionalism-the latter read as 'opposition' ruledStates. The campaign was given an added bite by suggesting thatthese forces were being aided by foreign powers. Once the alarmabout 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

The rationale for central thus created, topplingthe post-'67 situation except

that the slogan more blatant. AIso, tlis timethe period betweefl the upswing the pendulum in the federal

direction and its rdverse swing was uch shorter indicating, among

other things, a higher degree of al intolerance. Curiously thef minister in far away Sikkim'first to be struck was a Congress

A recalcitrant Nar Bahadur dari was swiftly replaced by ato the people of the State or'loyal' chief minister without

the reasons for rpcalcitrance. had been, in the eyes ofthe Centre, a vulnorable State beca of the slim majority with

posure of the 'Moily tapes'. The tre was forced to back-track

undcr a great deal of public

which the Hegde government

were sought to be engineered till

Farooq Abdullah, who hadfor attempting to play a nationalparties, was the nert to be Put onmedia campaign was wagedsecessionist forces of Punjab andPakistan. AII this went on while his

he was replaced by a more willingJagmohan and in the midst of murof the National Conference ledwith the backing of the Congless.Governor to move in the Centre'sFarooq technically remained insnuffed out within a few days. Thethe nation but did not erupt in

ruling. Over months defectionsgame exploded with the ex'

the wrath of the Centrele with the other opposition

chopping block. A sustainedhim for being in league with

rhmir, hinting at his links withfamily differences with G.M.

in the form of Governorgoings on a fedgling faction

G.M. Shah was put in power,dequate care was taken by the

forces even whilefrce. All protest was naturallyovc was condemned all over

Shah were used to topple Farooq. is widely known that the move

did aot succeed because the Go refused to comply. Finally

till the next toppling attempt wasform of oational indignation

n

l

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 23

Spurred by the success in Jammu and Kashmir the Centre madea bid that seemed impossible till it was actually executed. A conva-lescing N.T. Rama Rao was suddenly told by Governor Ram Lalthat he had lost his majorlty to his.own party rival, Bhaskara Rao.No serious attempt was deliberately made to test the strength of thepretender either in the Assembly or in any other fashion eventhough Rama Rao insisted that he had not lost majority. On theJ and K pattern paramilitary forces were despatched to prevent anyexpression of public outrage in Andhra. In one of the most shame-ful episodes in Indiau political history the counting game had to becarried to New Delhi. The details are well known and need no re-petition here. The Cenlre back-tracked after having pulled the rugfrom under Bhaskara Rao and so disgraceful was the whole man-oeuvre that no one in the Congress was willing to own it. Ram Lalwas made the sacrificial goat but the Congress Centre could notredeem itself in the eyes ofa furious nation, The Andhra episodeproved beyond doubt that the federal principle had acquired thestrength to resist unitary onslaughts.

But the situation changed soon after. The tragedy ofpunjabspilled over to the whole nation with the assassination of IndiraGandhi on 3lst October 1984. The fears she had spoken of seemedto have come true. The assassination of the Prime Minister wasseen as an attack by the forces of secessionism on a symbol ofna-tional authority. The atmosphere of communal division which hadbeen building up over Punjab took a violent turn. Even as herbody lay in state country-wide killings of Sikhs continued overdays. For the first time in independent India an occasion for nation-al mourning was converted into one of indiscriminate aggressionagainst a community. This feeling of aggression remained longafter the riots were over. And the unity and integrity thene, whichhad been put to the nation by the slain prime Minister, became arallying point for the majority community.

When the elections came this mood was taken advantage of bythe Congress party. Through posters, advertisements and campaignspeeches an atmosphere of antiSikh patriotism was generated. This

24 India's FefuraX Experience: A

strategy, combined with an appeal fiparty a massivc majority. Accovictory was a vindibation of IndianBut it is still difficult to believe thatmuch under question before thein this manner. To say this is ootsionism in Punjab but to suggest

phenomenon amotrg the Sikhs.

had been patriotic throughoutpoint is recognised squarelY

nor will an atmospherc of natiFurthcr, it must also be stated thatnce of one party's rule over the

must be premised on the assumpti

communities do wish to stay as

patriotism by a sinlle partY or bY

the rest into aliemation. Therefosee that such assertions of natitions of 1984 do not become ament of the Indian polity.

stability, fetched the Congressto some commentators this

. So it certainly was.

dian national sentimetrt was so

that it had to be provedassert that thcre was no seces-

secessionism was a marginalbulk of the Sikh community

Punjab agitation. Unless thiswill communal feelings abate

reconciliation be generated.unity is not a conseque-

country. The nation's unitythat people of all creeds andnation. The appropriatiol ofmajority community will Pushcare will have to be takcn to

as were seen during the elec-necessity for the manage-

:

Models of National UnitY

It has been suggested earlier in this paper that the question of na-

tioo"t oolty ,riuiot almost continuously on India's political agenda

io oo. fot- or another. Underlying the discussions. on Indian unity

,1"r. "r"

some notions about what issentially constitutes this unity'

il"t" ootioot arise out of some unstated models which are often in

cooflict with each other. An attempt has been madc below to sketch

.oi" -oa"ft briefly. It should be borne in mind that the five

models which have been identified for critical appraisal are not

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

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

The first is whrt may be calledof national unity is based on thetion-state requircs an integrated market. Further, that themore evcnly the market is int the stronger are the founda-

of the national market impliestions of the nation-state.the prevalence of a common , the unrestricted flow ofcapital and labour from one part to another, and a high degree ofeconomic interdependence between various parts. The essentialidea that underlies the market is that of homogeneity.

When applied to the Indian it is argued that the Indianmarket has become increasingly i ed with the spread of orga-

. nised industrial activity, expansion communication and throuehother economic instrumentalities by the government. Fromthis it is concluded that India is onsation and towards the creation of

er way to economic moderni-homogenised polity. Primor-

dial social factors which still give to political boundaries withinthe creation ofsuch a polity.the nation will have to make wav fi

Until this goal is reached the will be under pressure fromsectional claims. However, it willpolitically firm in order to tide

'market' model. This modelassumption that a na-

to be physically strong andthe poriod of transition to

rnto a oormative goal.an integrated nationalby virtue of the factbarriers and eliminates

The market model of national inattraction for developing countries,

holds a great deal offor their elites, be-

cause it presents an apparently clear and uncomplicatcd 1eg1s 1.'catch up with the economic and ooli systems bf the developedworld. But there are certain fallacies inherent in the conception ofthis model. Firstly, it transforms aFor the claim that a nation-sratemarket is a premise for durable nathat a nation-wide rnarket removespossibilitiesof internal economicdoes not bestow upon a democratic

However, sucb a claimthe right to override the pro-

cess of politics in order to go about the task of homogenising thenation. Besides, the market modeltransposition of economic phcnomen

an over-simplisticon to the political.

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, de-

mands for fair treatment from a free India'

It must 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

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 inte-

giation 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 cen-tralised political system is an precondition for carryingon tha struggle of the working Since this model used to be,and in some cases dtill is, popular in Marxist political thinking, it iscalled tle 'popular Marxist' model the purposes ofthis paper. Ithas some elements rfhich are to the 'market' model. But theidea underlying this model is that of isation of political forcesat a natiotral level between the class and the working class.

Two principles gf revolutionary inform this model. Firstthat polarisation at the national exposes the real class chara-cter of the state. And second, that

struggle. Besides, iu a polity there exists a possi-bility that the regional elites would islead the working class andits allies into lining up behind in their competition with theoational elite. In this situation the elites benefit withoutthe gains actually aqcruing to thethe nationalities ca[ be accordedrevolution is over bocause in thebe no question of the working class

nisation of the working class giveswhich it is not possiible to generate

One of tle conpequencas ofwithin the existing clase-stratified

centralised nation-wide orga-the struggle cumulative forcemore decentralised forms of

king class. On such a readingpositive role only when the

of the elites there wouldmisled.

type of thinking is that evenit contributes to the idea

that real authority must be if it has to be effective. Therole of the CPI in the late'60s anddangers inherent irr this point of

'70s is an example of the. However, as opposed to

this, from the actual cxperience of communist parties in captu-concluded that tbe workingring power in some states, it can

class can play a more.effective role it can participate directlyin the politics of thg legion in its language and with the stren-gth of its own surb-national This type of participatorypolitics need not come in the way of brging linkages between diffe-rent state-level organisations on a fi patteru. (This is broadlyin line with the stand taken by tbenisation.) The implications of this

at the time of States reorga-model have not been

Models of Nationol UnitY 29

explored adequately, though glimpses of it are found in the writings

of some Marxist theoreticians.

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

to other Indian cultures which claim to be equally ancient and rich'

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'

The other version, which has been called the anchor version' is

not strictly separable from the chauvinist one because it tooleans on the Aryavarta factor, but it has wider appeal due to the

There is enough sub-regional within the States of Bibar,

Democracy, Federalism and the e of India's Unity

litical stability of India in theface of centrifugal pulls from the A broadly similarpolitical behaviour patrern in states gives to the heartlandmuch greater weight than the and smaller states can hope

these states also return thet renders the anchor version

to acquire on their own. The factlargest group of members toespecially signifi cant for national oral calculations.

relativcly serious political garb itof tbe Hindi speaking heartiand,shared language, contribute to the

. This model of national unity mus'in the early stages of nation-building:tude which surrounded the naticolonial authority may be assumed tothe ability ofthe natlon to hold.partition. But today this viewModern nation-state s derive

model would do well to note that insive states the heartland acts more as

It believes that the Statesvirtue of their size and their

have been especially attractiveof the relative incerti-

idea then. The removal ofve left certain doubts about

in the aftermath of theat best an outdated truism.from the degree of social

eyes of the more progres-'dead-weight' than an anchor

,cohesion and economic progress are able to achieve. In boththese 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

of economic progress theseis the highest in these states. Instates have shown little achievement gh some parts may claimto have progressed in the agricultural

If the Hindi heattland must le leadership to the nation itit sends the largest group ofcannot merely rest on the fact

members to the national legislature. fact proponents ofthe anchor

and consequently holds up overall progress. Reform in theheartland and its parlty with the rest the nation has now becomean imperative for integrated of the nation. In thiscontext it would be worthwhile to the breaking up oftbeselarge and administrat[vely States into more compactunits where overall dovelopment has better chance of succeeding.

Models of National Unity 3l

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

The fourth model ior discussion is called the 'one-dominant-party' model of national unity. In its present usage it is differentfrom the one'dominant-party idea which was originally formulatedby a western scholar in the later sixties. It was then common insome western circles, especially in Britain, to question the viewthat India was a parliamentary democracy. Thc Westminster modelwas claimed to be the real model of a parliamentary system andIndia was seen as falling short of that model because there was noalteration of government as was the case in Britain. It was sugges-ted that the Congress party had no worthwhile opposition andtherefore the basic premise of a parliamentary democracy was mis-sing. India, it was suggested, was really a one-party state.

In arguing that India was not a one-party state but a one-domi-nant-pafly state it was held that the Congress party was not pre-ponderant by design but by sheer accident of history. The party'sleadership of the freedom struggle had placed it in a dominantposition. However, its commitment to the democratic ideal wasproved by the faet that there were free elections in the country inwhich opposition parties participated and won scats to the nationallegislature, Besides, these parties also influenced decision-makingthrough the Congress party itself and in the course of their partici-pation in the work of parliamentary committees.

In a sense the one-dominant-party idea was an appreciation ofJawaharlal Nehru's method of conducting politics, his commitmentto institution-building and his tolerance towards the views of theopposition'parties, even though it was knowp tbat they were in noposition to replace the Congress in government. The one-dominant-

32 Democracy, Federalism and the

party model was somewhat altered iprevious section, and ten yearsJanata Party forming a government

As a result of the pressures

and due to its losses in 1967 andsvstem came under seriousdisappeared and it even wentduring the Emergertcy. It began tothat India's unity and progressIn more fecent times this became a

parties were accused of beingsecessionism. In the precedingconffation of the unity idea with thcproved destructive to the growth ofand tbe illustrations do not need

Insistence on the dominantan unhealthy popullsm undereveryone. Repeateclly, the sloganthreat was put out to rally the natidomestic issues were relegated tomises when left unftrlfilled broughtageable, backlashes in the form oftype of national populism also ledcult around the figure of Indirawho have the interests of Indianopposition and heal,thy institutionsare bctter assuranceis of nationalof a single party. The one'dodescriptive model for ludia'snot be the prescribedwhich is bound todynamic of her mufti-party system.

The fifth model is called theis often taken for granted that the of a secular domi-

Future of India's Unity

1967 as has been shown in theit was left behind with the

the Centre.

grew on the congress party,after, the one-dominant-partyIts tolerant spirit graduallygh an authoritarian period

suggested during this periodbe assured by a single party.

istic theme. The oppositionional. divisive and abettors of

it has been argued that theone-dominant-party idea hasmultiparty federal democracy

s unitary rule also gave rise toeverything was promised to

India's integrity was underelectorate around it while

background. Unrealistic pro-rlt severe, and nearly unman-

movements. That thisto the growth of a personality

should be a lesson for thoseat heart. An effective

representative governmentsthan the neo-oaternalism

-party idea remains a usefuldemocracv but it can-

growing federal democracyinnovative due to the internal

' model of national unity. It

here.

norm forbe

Models of National Unity 33

nant party after indepcndence pushed the idea of a Hindu statcinto the fringes of national politics. That is why the liberal con-sciencc balks at the revival of discussions which seem to hark backto the ;pre-independence years when the langu4ge of politics was.coloured by religious f;rctors in almost every ficld. Partition is secnto have becn a distasteful consequence of the communal politics ofthat era. It is suggestcd therefore that national attention must befocussed on secular aspects of politics. The process of secularmodernisation will in due course leave religious factors behind.Admittedly, this is a rather simplistic interpretation of the liberalpoint of view and no attempt will be rnade here to challenge theliberal hope. However, the .tend.ency not to face up to the commu-nal 'question in present day India has allowed the growth of unpre-cedentcd inter-rcligious strife. The collsequenccs have been therefor everyone to see. That is why there has becn no hesitation inusing the label 'Hindu modcl'. But what is this model?

One version of it belongs to the older Hindu Mahsabha-JanaSangh-R.S.S. group of ideologies. This version was, and inthecase of the R.S.S. still is, that the Hindu community forms .the

social core of the Indian nation and the Hindus are the inheritorsof the sovereign nstion-state. In the past, the Hindu community hasbeen marked by a great deal of heterogeneity which accourted forthe fact that others could overrun India. Hindus must pull fhcm-selves out of the psychology of subjugation. Only then will they beable to demonstrate to the world that India can be a match to anyother .power. In order to do this thcy will have to overcome thcdivisions wrought upon them by factors such as .language.andregion. They must feel as one integrated nation. The caste systemwhich is often said to be a divisive elcment is in fact a systcm ofharmonious intcrdependence, In its present form it has becomepollutcd and rigid. Thcrefore, while the cesto systcm is in needofreform, therc can be no .question of doing away with it. As forminority comnrunities, it must be made amply cle,ar .that they arenot uos.elcome so Iong as they accept the fact of Hindu nation-hood. In indepcndent India secularism hm amounted to giviqgminorities i,nportance rybich is disprqportionate to their numbers..

34 Democracy, Federalism and t Future of India's UnitY

to Hindus bY visualising the

with the inajoritY community'

This Hindu oodel of the roots of which can be

traced well back into the Pre'in ce period has had little

success in mobilisiirg Hindus its organisatiortal banner. Itwill not be Possible to dwell on reasons for this lack of success

sketched here in order to con-in this paPer. This model hasof Hindu consolidation which

It came into Prominence intrast it with a slightlY diferent k

has been apace over the last few

bad, in response to extremist acti

may not be a PurelY reactive

in Punjab and so on. But itbrm of csnsolidation. It has also

occurred due to the sPread of co

process of building nation'wideunications which has aided the

the propaganda of

Hindu front organisations such tie Yishwa Hindu Parishad, the

Virat Hindu Sammelan and the

broadening of the Hindu commindtb Front; and also due to the

base resulting from the uPward

thc wake of the conversions ingrowing prosPeritY of Muslims in

mobility of cert4in castes which

caste-Hindu basis of Hindu Pomav have roots in otherdiscernible. A saParate analYsis

issue in depth

However, in its latest

form of a self-resPect m

Bhoomi Andolan' The idiom ofbcen markedlY Hindu' thougtrof these aeed heve been taken

enakshiPuram, in resPonse to the

some districts such as Morada-

not ashamed to be a Hindu'. ( y, many who subscribe to this

slogaa are not PrePared to that thc Scheduled Castes are a

made itself manifest in Publicpart of Hiadu society). It has

demonstrations such as the Yagna and the Ram lanmaTelegu Desam's Politics has also

hitherto outside the narrow

This new Hindu awareness

as well which are not so clearlY

uld be required to examine the

it seems to have taken on the

symbolised bY the solgan: 'l am

innovative. No sPecial noticethey been recurring aspects of

Hindu social behaviour. But are not. The point that the reac-

tion to Indira Gandhi's on, which was essentiallY com-

muiil, was 'nOt restricted to Delhi or to a few districts but

Models of National Unity 35

happened all over the country simultaneously is significant enoughto bear repetition bere. That reaction by itself is indicative of thegrowth of an all-India grid, at the psychological level if not at thepolitical level.

It also happens to be the case that the Congress partyhas been addressing itself to this constituency for the past fewyears. As has bcen argued at the end of the preceding section,

during the campaign for the last general elections there was a thinlyveiled attempt to appeal to this constituency to tise to the defensc

of India's unity and integrity. The appeal worked and it resulted ina substantial swing of the Hindu vote in favour of the Congress.

From the fact that the Congress won a large majority it is notnecessary to jump to the conclusion that the Indian state wastransformed into a Hindu state. The ideology of the state is reflect-ed in the Indian Constitution. It is not laid down by the govern-ment ofthe day. Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that an overlapseems to have occurred between the one-dominant-party and theonc-dominant.religion themes. Also that in contrast to the presentin the early years of independence the Congress had been able toavoid this overlap. It will be recalled that there were differencesbetwcen Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel on certain questionswhich were resolved in favour of the former despite considerablcprcssure from the proponents of the majoritarian view held bySardar Patel. Even at the present juncture the overlap may turnout to be a transient one but it needs to be stressed that it is not anaccidental one.

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

j6 Denocracy, Federalism and Future of India's UnitY

it is to rccognise that a sharedment' of minority sentiment.culture does exist in India at all of society. Bconomic fiactors

will from time to time britrgand the pressures of Powerabout parochial and fissiParous but the resources of thshared culture are resilient and y of enlightened encourage-

criticatly evaluatcd above areThe five models which have

not exhaustivc. In theory it is to discuss the prosPccts ofong-party disPensetion orseem imrnediately relevant

India's unity under an

under military rulc. But ncither ofto Iudian conditions. lndia's democracy is well entrenched

and its iostitutions are by and large stable. Ilbwevcr, it is in 'the

a brighter future for lndia ties.further deqPening Pf thes€ ideas

The following section is devoted to

bilitics.

exploration of such Possi-

An Alternative Approachto the Question of Unity:

The klain Recornrnendation

When one speaks of national unity in a liberal-democratic nation-state context one usually refers to two aspects simultaneously. First,that the unity of a nation rnust be based on thc conc€nt of, thcpeople, and second, that any internal challenge to the integrity ofthe nation-statc can legitimately be nret witb force by the. statrs. Inother words, nationalism, even when it is liberal,. permits. tlte use

of force though conscnt is thc most fundamental.basis of the liberalstate. The paradox here is oot merely apparent. It is a real one withwhich such nation.states mut live.

Admittedtry, justifications foi the use of force are not always

one type of justificartion which is from a liberal oremise-ansocial-contract theorv and isore or less as follows. Liberal

meant to ooerate within theboundaries of the nation-state and ong the people as a whole.Since secession or separatismstate, in other words, its verylonger remain applicable.

the integrity of the nation-the liberal principles no

The foregoing is a popular but ble position. What isit about a nation.state which a group, however small,

, from claiming separate nation-hood if the group genuinely feelsthat it does not really fit into the o nation-state? Nationalism

38 Democracy, Federalism and the

provided on liberal grounds, butthc claim that the rnajority ofterritory afected do not really

argument which really emerges fromvery Lockean in inspiration. This isprinciples were in the first place

is a group's self-detprmined identity'when a minoritv feels disaffectedoriginal nation-stato, at firstby force. The state, on its part,at first peacefully, and when thatidea of national unity is indeed apremise there is no irrefutable

e of India's Unity

either strategic grounds or onin the portion of national

secession. There is, however,

And, in the ultimate analysisseeks to break away from the, and if that is not possibleto prevent such a break-up,not possible, by force. The

one. For, from a liberalor theoretical argument

against separatism. The more the social composition of a

resolution of disunity. Theren4tion-state the more difficult isdo exist grounds such as cultural inuity, historical linkages orreligious uniformity which are ided as justifications for unity,but in the absence of acquiescence' the disaffected groups thereis no liberal defencc of these

But separatism &nd secession are extreme cases of disunity andit is not often that the paradox of the liberal state is so clearlyexposed in practice, If consent is the fundamental basis ofthe libe-ral statc, it is not ornly so in the sen$e that it is historically prior totbc nation-state or that consent exisls only as a pre-condition. Thestrength of the liberal state lies in the fact that consent can begenerated witbin the framework of a liberal state and that the crea-

The Main Recommendation 39

tion of consent is a recurring, or continuous' process. Politicalmanagement of the liberal state entails the generation of new levels

of consensual politics so that the use of force is restricted to the

barest minimum.

Much damage has already been done by theories of politicalmodernisation which argue that modern nationalisms are productsofa transference of primordial loyalties to national loyalties. Asthough it were possible to bring about a Gestalt-like effect inhuman behaviour. Such theories derive little support from the con-crete 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 ofnational loyalty is a pre-requisite for nation-hood. But, whethersuch loyalty is premised upon the obliteration of primordial identi-ties, 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 nationalidentity receiving priority over others in case of a conflict of identi-ties.

Primordial identities, which are also in a sense sub-nationalidentities, need not be seen as antithetical to national identity- Ifthere are instances of historical conflict between sub-nationalitiesthere 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'nationalgroups even when there has been a history ofconflict. This accomm-

odation requires a transformation (or redefinition) of primordialcultural identities so that coexistence and, cooperation are possible

within the fabric of nationalism, and to repeat, not their annihi-lation. It will be evident that this is not an argument in support ofunabashed primordialism. Many modern states, both multi-party

& Detnoeracy, Federclism end

and einglc party states in Europe,aeomodafion bclwecn natiWcrt Germany and Switzedand;states, Yugoslavia is an interestinghaving acquired the same equilibri

Federalism is the usual isrreh an accommodation isare altrowed to olperaf€ withitthcy also intermesh with theof soma simpli0cation it is possibleof thc federal proccss in tcrms ofdcnt orbits but within thePut diffierently, nationalism insual nature by providing politicalthe ambit of thc nation-state. Itcondition for national unity.

Iaterestingly, historical researchthe character of nationalist articulalIndia, In places as far apart asof nationalism were scen as theGujarati spcaking pcople from theof nstiooalist articulation becamethc wakc ofthe 1905 partition.and so on, at difrcrent stages, alsoa sinihx manncr. The initialturq followcd soon by limitedtimc Gandhiji appcarcd on theIitics had alrcady begun to perceivelibcration of India from imoerialthar, that Gandhiji decided toIndbn National Congress on thelong before thc Cobgress hadprint for free Indiq with the Nohru eport of 1928,

Future of India's Unity

have acquired a stable two-wayand sub-nationalism. While

examples f.rom mutli-partyexample of a one party state

mechanism through whichThus, while political processes

national units of the federationpolitical process. At thc risk

to conceptualise the functioningoperatirg in small indcpen-

field of a natiodal orbit.societies justifies its consen-to sub-nationalisms within

thereby fulfils the cssential pre-

is increasingly bringing to lightin late nineteerth century

and Gujarat the first stirringsof the Assamese or the

of domination. This modemore manifest in Bengal in

Oriyas, Punjabis,their nationalisms in

was popular or folk litera-mobilisation. So that by thescene diferent sub-nationa-their liberation lay in the

It is not surprising,the organieation of the

of linguistic groups in 1920,federalism as its ofhcial blue-

The Mainl Recontmendation 4l

At independence tho Indian Constitution created a federal orderthougb it did not explicitly call the tndian Republic by that rmme.

Why did thc Constitucnt Assembly refrain from using the termfedaral while io fact it structured the Constitution or federal lines?

Much has been writtcn on this and it is unlikely that anything thatis rot already known can bc said on the issue. Howevcr, threeexplanations seem, in retrospect, to be more important than thcrest, First, that the tcrm federal had come to be associated in thoforties with a scheme which cnvisaged Muslim and Hindu majorityunits. The Congress had been opposed to tbis communal federalscheme atrd the Constituent Assembly also wanted to distance itselffrom such a fcdcral prospect. Secondly, tho partition gavc rise tothc 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 ithad done in the 'dark' eighteenth ccntury after the brcak-up of theMoghul empirc. A powerful Centre seemed to bc the logical answerto 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 prin-cely states still contiouing, tlat a settled federal process could notpossibly have been operated.

The argument submitted here, then, is that the federal idea was

continuously present before the Constituent Asscmbly though itfound it more cxpedient under the given circumslanccs to opt forthe phrase 'Union of States'. This point of view need uot, howcver,be accepted without qualifications. There were gcnuine apprehen-sions about conceding what may be termed'St4tes' 'rights' on thelines of the American federal model. And it was with considcrabledismay and consternation that Nehru and his collcagucs observedthe kind of passion whicb was generated during thc movemeot fora sep&rete Andhra State. Thereforc, the view thet the leadershipwas hcsitant to grant recognition to any idcntity but that ofanatiooal citizen for the people is not without substance. But theoeriod between the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 and the

42 Democrocy, Federalism and the 'uture of Indid.'s Unity

reorganisation of st4tes on lines in 1956 must beseen as a watershed in federal . If the cxtended parliamen-

Bill are an indication, theretary debates over thewas complete conselsus on the issue linguistic States. Disagree-

delimitations. The selectivements pertained only to exactrestructuring of the ,sixties and thetion of a process which had begun

seventies were the comole-

The reorganisation of States implicit recognition to sub-nationalism as an integrative idea and created a fresh nationalcorsensus by dismattling the ies carved out durinE Britishrule on purely administrative tions. Indian nationali6mthereby accommodated a transformednation-state framework. Above all,

the fifties.

within a modern

ine out ofthe fact that states

it save the federal idea animportance which had hitberto only to democracy andsecularism witbin the Indian oolitical system. (The transformationof primordialism and its acco within the Indian nation-state is a continuous process).

The 'strong Centre' theme of the nowever.remaln-'ed unaltercd. This had the of seeing India through adifficult transition from a colonial svstem to a federal svs-tem. But as federal politics matured colonial unitary aspects ofthe 'strong Centre' arrangement to come into conflict withthe functioning of a competitivecreated strains in the Indian potity

i-party federal system. This

felt that they were treated unfairly by the Centre. This was natural-ly more true of those states whichthe one ruling at the Centre.

ruled by parties other than

Despite all this. over the last decades the federal idea hasbe added that the growth ofbeen developing and growing. It ma

federalism has by and large taken p without detriment to theessential aspects of the 'strong ' idea, though, as has been

argued before, it has challenged thethe Centre as well as the States.

of single party rule at

claim that thc federal idea has growhat does it really mean to

The Main Recommendation 43

Essentially it means that with democracy, and like the democra-

tic idea, federal politics has gradually been able to function withoutthe supporting prop of the Congress system. Federal politics is

takcn seriously by the people as well as by political parties. Andthough State governments are occasionally described as 'glorifiedmunicipalities', 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. Inother 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 oftheir own interests.

A1l this does not, of course, take place in any neat, orderly orrational manner. State politics is at times imbucd with a great deal

of populism and cultural or 'ettrnic' chauvinism, Anti'Centretilades 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 isnot significanfly greater at any time than that of national politics'There ls a method in all political madness, especially when the com-petition is tough.

bc pereeived meroly as onenational unity. A complox andpossi.bly be mana8ed from a

givcn thc prescnt pace of

ed, is that of an avcragecratic system it is simply notand autonomous role.

India's elitist dernocracy will

Much of this politicisation, andto take place in regionaland politicised will bedemanding of far greatersixties.

oriented political attitudescipation the country will have to over chargc to the forces of

44 Demseracy, Faderalism and the Future of India's Unity

Fedoral politic; then, bas age in India. But th€ argu-mont f,or grcatcr federalism (which, identally, in the Indian con-text implies a greator role for thc'reherc it means a gfeater role for

rurlikc in the United StaresCentral Government) rnust notprovides the preconditi ol for

nation like lndia cmnot

Regional and local issues need tocentral, source of au,thority.handled politically at those

to be provided avenues rc-of power with the federal

units is an essential requirerrent forof the nation.

political mr nagement

lt is necessary to hear in mind fact tbat by tbc turn of tbecentury India's population will be close to the billion mark and,

even morc than now, seck activeevery adult citizen will,

participation in one formState, it may also be not-or anothcr. The size of an averacc

in the world. In India's demo-to deny the States an efective

If the experience of the last one plovides any indicationbave to give way to more

levcls" Similarly local aspirationsgionally and locally. That is why

participatoxy politics. This coursestopped only by dismantling the

politbal developnent will beic order. Tlibal blocks,

oppressed castes, l4ndlcss peasants, and othcr groups whichmay heve remaincd quiwcent hi will come alive potritically.

in pncral, will confinueThe fi rst-generation educated

morg morc aggressive andattentioa was true of the fifties and

If tbe present institutional bias tho Centre and Centre-block this flood ofparti-

- 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 evolu-

tion. Bither the polity makes way for power-sharing and participa-

tion 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 con-

ceived ideas. This is the essential recommendation of this paper.

The development of thc federal idea and consequent dec€ntra-

lisation will be in the interests of national harmony and of political

maoagement. But deccntralisation cannot be considered in isola-

tion 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.

Ifa contradiction is perceived in this suggestion it is so only

becauso in the past fcw years India has passed through a period of

unpr€cedentd 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 rc-

solved 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

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.

A crucial assumptibn of the precedlarge and diverse country like Indiaby themselves promote a great dealcoberence strategies will, amongdecentralisation as a necessarvThus the distinction betweenof coherencc may neither be clear

'section has been that in atralisation strategies would

of coherenie. At the same timeother things, have to legitjmise

of ttie political system.of decentralisation and thosevalid. However, for the con-

of policies for federal develop-two headings: 'strategies of

venience of presentation, a packament is proposed in this sectiondecentralisation' and'strategies 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 politi-

cal 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 responsi-

bilities of decision making which properly belong to other levels ofthe 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 arrange-

ment has provided room for the voluntary participation ofher 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 sub-

State level participation has, by and large, proved unsuccess-

ful, 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 pan-

chayati-raj system.

48 Sorne Specific Suggstions

The contiuuance ofbeen India through a difrcultbe relied upon to take theIndia now uceds afederal system with aat the district level. Thcdistrict is suftcient to sustainNaturally, the districtunder the district government,lector could then becomedistrict governments. Thesystcm would require majelaboratc exefcise to redistrifunctions and finances overundertaken. It is necessary tovision for district governmentsub-district participatorysamitis, mandal panchayats

(2) Serious thou$ht needs to beability of large Stat€s. Amission shoulld be appointedstat$ out of the existing ones,tic-cultural pdncipte. Theby putting together adjoiningor more existing States shouldIe would be a possible Bhoof culturally-Iinked districtsBihar, with perhaps Varanasibased on the [981 ccnsus,this itself worild be one of thesecond'States reorganisation

'(3) Similerly, large districts ncedageable sizesi Several .Statwthb dirccticn. Thus it is thaJcouDtry has gone up from in l97l to 412 in l98 l. The

raj after independence hasof t ransition but cannot

into the 2lst ccntury.guaranteed tbroe-tiercd

repres€ntstive governmentsize of an average

such a district government.will have to come squarely

and not oyer it. Today's col-s cbief secrctary of

n of a three-tiered federalconstitutional changes and an

the total pool of powers,the thrce-tiers will havc to be

that a constitutional pro-trot obviate the necd for

such as panchayatvillage panchayats.

to the virtual non-govcrn-States reorganisation com-

delineat€ more governablewithout breaching the linguis-

of creat ing new States

linkcd arcas of twoot be rulcd out. An examp-

State composedf eastern UP and westernits capital. Population range,

be 20 to 25 million, thoughto be gone into by the

be broken down into man-bave 'atrready been ,rnoving in

number of distnicts in the

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 49

aim should be that districts should not have population (in2000 A.D.) larger than 1| to 2 millions. Perhaps the same

second States reorganisation commission could do this jobof reorganising districts, also.

A three-tiered federal system embedded in the Constitutionwould 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 intothe 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 exa-

mine 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 likearticle 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 toreserve State bills for the consideration of the Union orDistrict bills for the consideration of the States.

(5) The recommendations of the two commissions, the second

States reorganisation commission and the Constitution Com-mission, could then be considered by Parliament, and theConstitution amended suitably through the prescribed pro'cedure.

50 Some Specific Suggestions

Strategies of Coherence

(2) It is trecessary to

(1) It seems that at any given

try may, at the State level,

the districts in a State

the one ruling the State.

to supercede local bodieselections at the local level

a third to a half of the coun-

y be ruled by parties other thanfar the operating principle in

by their reluctance to holdyears together. It is not possi-

under the rule of parties othertban the one in power at the Union level. Much the same

would be the position the States where districtgovernmefit is introduced; is to say, anywhere up to half

respect of "other" party rule has been intolerance. The

pacesetter for this was K in 1959, and those in power atthe Union level, Congress r Janata, have remained groovedin intoterance towards " party rule in the States

since. State level power- ders have, if anything,worse, judging by the wa they have freely used the power

everbeen

ble to have federalism, m Iess an extension of it to a thirdtier, if prevailing attitudes of intolerance towards "other"pafties persist, for then will be continued confrontationand conflict. The federal can itself become a power-ful instrument of cohesion "other" party rule comes to be

then begin moving towards co'accepted as normal. Weoperative ratber than onal federalism. Acceptanceof "othern' party rule m therefore, displace intoleranceas the operatitrg principle.

should mean in practice.d what cooperative federalismoadly two things:

-a continuilg search fi consensus on matters of commoninter€st to the Union the States, and to individualStatos and the distri within them, and

-a willingness to su

puted issues.

to mediation in respect of dis-

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 5l

(3) Forums for consensus-building and dispute-resolution are

also necessary. 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. Butconsensus-building cannot be unilateral, and dispute-resolu-

tion cannot be left to one of the disputants (and the majorone 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 ofseeking consensus or settling intractable disputes throughmediation. 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 com-position and functions of the Rajya Sabha to enable it toserve 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 re-presentatives to the Bundesrat, as also other models, could be

studied. Possibly there could be something like six represen-

tatives 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 ofconsensus and would give unjustified veto powers to the

very few.

(5) In a three-tiered federal system, each major State shouldhave 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 trend in the States toabolish upper houses, for financial reasons, but infact because these councilsparties. Recomposing thegovernment f epresentationfore, hopefully remove the

often dominated by "other"on the basis of district

alter the picture and, there-for anti-councilism.

(6) The second kind of forum is much-advocated inter-Statecouncil, utilising article If there is a case for creatingsuch a council, a three-tiered bderal system would requirethe setting up of councils in the States where

district sovernment is in Whether such councilsupper houses, or wouldwould be Dreferable to

be useful in addition to the

ves fu ier donsideration., is a question which deser-

(7) It is suggested that th€ afi Constitution Com-mission should so into thequate federal forums at Uni

role question of creating ade-and States levels.

(8) The same Constitution Cowas felt that the former

or a oarallel one if itd be burdened enough by the

tasks alreadv visualised for il. should undertake a stock-takins exercise as to how the us watch-dog institutionsconceived by the have functioned (in theirwatch-dog roles) over the three decades or more. Theaim should be to devise to str€ngthen them, and tosuggest the manner of extensiln of their watch-dog functionsto the proposed third tier. The exercise would have to

Democracy, Federalism and the Future of India's Unity 53

-the UPSC and State PSCs

-Administrative Tribunals

-Special Ofrcers for SCs/STs (art. 338) and for linguistic

minorities (art. 350 B)

(g) India has a common market and a common polity. Bothserve as integrating, not homogenising, forces. But we stilldo not have a common civil code. Serious thought needs tobe given to enacting one. The Hindu Code was a giant stridein this direction, but it applies only to Hindus. Also it hasbeen criticised by women's groups as not providing genderequality. The concept of the Hindu Undivided Family tendsto be viewed as a tax haven conceded to one community butdenied to others. The new code would have to transcend allthis. Communal sensitivities may make it expedient to intro-duce the new code as an enabling facility for all citizens toavail of if they so desire.

(10) We must not stray away from planning as the chief instru-ment for the socio-economic development of the country. Inthe past planning has suffered through over centralisation.It now seems to be in danger of being crippled through over-dependence on the so-called market forces. What is neces-

sary is to tune the planning process to the emerging federalsystem, Plannitrg at the national level must be made morerelevant, which can only happen

(a) if it is backed up by planning at State and districtlevels, and

(b) if its broad strategies are supported by national con-sensus.

Planning needs to become federal in orientation withoutlosing its national perspective. Above all, planningat all levels must not lose sight of two objectives vitalfor achieving coherence in the country: the removal

54 Some Specific Suggestions

of poverty, and theThe possibility ofconstitutional status, so

three tiefs of the ucw fi

on of regional imbalances,the Planniog Commissionit has the confidence of allsystem, should be explored.

If an inter-State council. drawing constitutional legitt-macy from article 263, w to be set up, the PlanlingCommission couid an adjunct of that. Similarly,State Planning bodies co ld become adjuncts of inter-district councils in the

By Way of a Conclusion

India's unity has come under challenge in the past from forces ofseparatism and secession, but this nation-state has demonstrated

remarkable resilience both in terms of its socio-cultural foundationas well as its state-craftsmanship to meet such challenges. In thepresent phase, however, disunity has primarily been the product ofover-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 theo-retical and ideological basis of unity of this complex plural polityis 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

and institutional possibilitiesIndian unity rather than to wishas the best guarantee for unity.

This paper, in a sense, is notment, though the underlyingwill be evident to the reader.

the subject, outlined the

The second soction att€mptedinter-deoendence of three cardinalsystem viz, democracy, secularisestablish the complementarity of

The third section made a criperience and tried to bring out thefederalism on the one hand andsection also indicated that theled to anti-liberal and anti-seculardangers inherent in such a course

Departing from the argumentfourth section discussed some mout ofthe sociology of Indianfound wanting on grounds ofBesides, some of these models,impose unity ratbbr than generat(

the functions of this section was toto the fifth section whichunity models of thc fourth section.

The fifth section began withfrom a liberal premise there is insent against sepafatiol ora liberal state coulld create thefor consensual unity. Agenuine t to federalism was put

Future of India's Unity

will create the circumstances ofa homogenised Indian people

around a single argu-uity of thought, it is expected,first section, while introducing

thought.

a theoretical exposition of the

:inciples of the Indian politicaland federalism, aod sought to

principles.

appraisal of India's federal ex'contradiction ' between growing

intolerance on the other. Thisof federal decentralisation had

mpulsions for the Centre. Thef development are obvious.

the previous two sections, the

of Indian unity which arise

litics. These unitY models were

and cultural insensitivitY.

iallv the last three, seemed toconsensual integration. One of

a contrasting back'dropa federal alternative to the five

possibly disturbing claim thatno theoretical or logical argu-

. Though, it was suggested thatons and provide the avenues

By l4tay of a Conclusion 57

forward as the most favoured pre-condition for unity under Indiancircumstances.

Finally, the sixth section, while emphasising the need to deepenthe federal idea by further decentralisation also pointed towardscohesive strategies which were not only compatible with decentra-lisation but were necessary for nation-building. The specific sugges-tions do not need repetition here but it may be pointed out that inthe interests of overall balance of this paper the recornmendationsbave been presented in a rather abbreviated fcrrm. This should notconvey the impression that insufficient thought has been givento the subject matter of these recommendations. Having said this,the authors would not lay claim to have done the detailed exer-cises which have been suggested in the sixth section.

If the essential thrust of the recommendations is found worth-while much thought and time will have to be given to their detailedconception and execution. The purpose of this paper will havebeen served if it is able to initiate a discussion in the suggesteddirection.

Index

Abdullah, Farooq., 22 Aryavarta, 29Administrative Reforms Commis- Assam, 40

sion, 17 Assam problem, 20African nationalism, 39 Asian nationalism, 39Agrarian reforms, l8 Autonomy, 2lAIDMK, 2IAkali-Jana Sangh-CPI Backward Castes, 13

Coalition, 15 Bhandari, Nar Bahadur, 22Andhra Pradesh, 20-21, 23 Bhartiya Kranti Dal (BKD), t5Andhra state movement 4l-42 Bhaskara Rao, 23

Antinational forces, 21 Bhojpuri-speaking state, 48

60 Democracy, Federalism and the

Bihar, 15-26,30

Caste System, 33

Central Intelligence Bureau, l7Centralisation, 9-10, 18 19

Janata government and, 19-20Centre-State relations, 2,9'1O,

16-l'1,20,42-45Conclaves on. 2lIndia's unity and, 4-6

Coalition governments, 14-17

Coherence strategies, 50'55, Collector-raj, 47-48Communalism, 33"36

Communal federal gcheme. 4lCommunist Party of India (CPI),

3. 28

Communist Party of India, (M)15,2r

Congress (O), I 8

Congress (R), 18

Congress Party, 2-3as one.dominant party, 3l'32communal federal scheme and;

4l

split of, l8fourth general eloction, states,

14-16

Consensus-building, 51

Constitution Commission, 49-52

Constitution of India,federal structure in, 2,41-42strong centre theme of, 42

Constitutional status, 10

Constituent Assembly,federalism and, 4l

Cooversions, 34

e of India's Unity

otr'5

45,46, 47-49

concept of, 7

models of, 7, 13

ic right, 7

administration, 48

magistrate, 47

reorganisation, 47-49

causes of, 55

MK, 14-18

t3

a Yagna 34

28

, 19,32nationalism. 39-40

ederal forums. 5l-52ederalism, 2'4coherence strategies and, 50-55

concept of, 7

cooperative, 2

decentralisation and, 47-49India's experience, 12'24

levels of government and, l0problems before, 9-10

three-tired, 47'48proposed, 47-54

see also Greater federalism.

Indira, Mrs, 14,20,assassinationof. 23-24

M.K., 3,40election,fourth, 13-14

elections of 1971, l8elections, Eighth, 35

32

Governor,role of, l7

Great Britain. 3lGreaterfederalism, 44-45Gujarat, 40

Haryana, l5Hegde goverament, 22

Hindi chauvinist, 29

Hindi heartland,national unity and, 29-31

Hindi backlash, 35

Hindu Code, 53

Hinduorganisations, 34Hindus, 32-36

national unity and, 12-36

India,democracy,

mass model, 13

federal development,coherelce strategies, 50-55

decentralisation strategies. 47-49

federalism and, 12'24three-tired, 47-48

integrated national market and,26-27

national unity models, 25-36nationalist articulation, 40

Integrated national market, 26-27Inter-StateCouncil, 52,54

Jagmohan, Governor., 22Jammu and Kashmir, 15-16, 2l-

23Janata government, 19-21, 32

Index 6l

Karnataka. 20-22Kasmir see Jammu and Kashmir.Kerala., 2, 14,50

LegislativeCouncils, 5l-52

Madhya Pradesh, 31

Market spe National market.Marxist,

national unity and, 28-29Minoritycommunities, 33-34Mizo, l5Modern nationalism, 39

Multipartymodel, 13-14Muslims. I

Naga movement, 15

NationalConference, 2lNational language, 3

National loyalty, 39

National Market,integration of, 26-27

National politics,state politics, and 43-45

National unity l-4alternative approach,

main recomendation, 37-45basis of, 37

Hindi heartland model of, 29-3l

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

Marxist model, 28'29models of, 25-36one-dominant party model, 31'

JL

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

one-party ruler 4nd, 24 Ram Janma Bhoomi Andolan, 34primordial identlties and, 39-40 Ram Lal, Governor, 23unitary rgle ando 12 Rama Rao, N.T., 23

Nationalism, Regionalism,post'Neh1u pftaee, 3 origin of, 13

see also National Unity. Religion,Nationalist articul4tion, 40 politics and, 8-9Nehru, Jawaharla\., 2-3,31,35, state's fole and, 8

4l Riots,Nehru Report of 1928,40 anti-Sikhs, 23

RSS, 33One-dominant-parly model, 3l -

32 ' Secessionism, 14-16Opposition, 7 Chinese help to, 15Opositions rule, 16-17, 21, 50 Secularism, 2, 33 -34

toppling of, 22-23 complexities of, 7-8concept of, 7

Pakistan, 29 geparatism, 38

Party bosses, 17 $hah, G.M., 22Patel, Sardar., 35 phastri, Lat Bahadur., 14Personal laws, 53 Fikkim, 22Planning, 53-54 Sikhs, 21,24Planning Commission, 54 $ocial reforms, 18

Political parties, $oviet Union, 29

federalism and, 3 btate politics, 43-45Politics, States,

religion and, 8-9 opposition governments in, 16-'Popular Marxist' model, 28-29 17,2lPopulism, 32 toppling, of 22-23Poverty, 19 Ntates Reorganisation, 42Privy purses abolitipn, l8 ptates RecoganisationPunjab, 15 Commission, 2, 48

army rule in, 2O-21 Report 1956, 2Punjab problem, 20-21 lStrong Centre' idea, 43-45

40

Rajamannar Commission, l7Rajya Sabha, 51 flamil Nadu, 14-15,21

Index 63

Telegu Desam, 2l , 34 Unity see National UnityTerrorism, 20 Uttar Pradesh, 3lTolerance. 7

Toppling operations, 22 West Bengal, 15-16, 20, 21

Tripura, 21 West Germany, 40, 5lWorkingclass, 13,28-20

Unitary system, 9United States of America, 9-19, Yogolavia, 40

44