Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil's none-too-recent hint that the Centre was considering the setting up of a new commission to review Centre-State relations is a welcome move. While it may be yet another effort at decentralization of administrative power between the Centre and the States, care should be taken in formulating the terms of reference and in the choice of the commission's members that the process percolates down to the panchayat-level.
It is a reflection on our times that both now, and earlier when the Vajpayee Government appointed the Justice Venkatachalaiah Commission, the initiative for reviewing Centre-State relations came from the former. The Centre as a constitutional institution on the one hand, and the BJP or the Congress as the respective leader of the ruling coalition at the time, on the other, have shown the kind of openness unheard of in the past.
On earlier occasions, it was regional parties like the Akali Dal in the North and the DMK in the South that had kicked-started calls for more powers for the States vis a vis the Centre. The Akali Dal even today swears by the 'Anandpur Sahib resolution' on State autonomy whereas the DMK while in power in Tamil Nadu even appointed the Justice Rajamannar Committee to study the issues, mostly as the party saw it. Barring the communists, who for all practical purposes are national parties with only a regional base, neither the Congress nor the Jan Sangh/BJP had great appreciation for such efforts. Not any more.
Shivraj Patil has sort of indicated that the fresh initiative may have flown from the need for greater decentralization in the context of Jammu and Kashmir, and the peace talks in various North-Eastern States, involving local groups wanting to give up militancy. In all these cases, the demand is not individualistic in nature, but relates to more powers for the States and peoples concerned.
In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there is not much more that the Centre can yield beyond what Article 370 already offers. Any improvement at this stage could involve only a return to the pre-1953 scheme. It has to be a stand-alone offer if such 'revival-demands' are not to be heard from other parts of the country. Yet, a separate scheme would still have to be evolved for the North-Eastern States.
Simultaneously, the aspirations of regions like Telangana and Vidharbha need to be addressed if the emerging situation is not to go out-of-hand. There is thus the inherent possibility of demands of the kind emanating from other parts of the nation. This part, the experience of newly-formed States like Chattisgarh and Jharkhand, and those of the 'lost-out' parent States like Madhya Pradesh and Bihar need to be addressed.
If in this background, a review of the Centre-State relations assumes relevance and significance. It would also ensure that whatever rights are available to one State or unit in the Union are available to other States or units. Conversely, whatever powers and rights most States or units could not enjoy, a few others should not become entitled to, by virtue of history, geography or topography.
Yet, any review of Centre-State relations at this stage in the life of the Union should delay, if not end the need for such constant reviews of the kind, which would make the existing system unmanageable and laughable. While there may be a need for decentralization of power, there is also now need to evaluate the kind of 'decentralisation' that is required, and up to what level down the line, it should be allowed to percolate.
One felt but unacknowledged need of the hour is the distribution of economic power down the line up to the last village and the last man. If the States and regional groupings of parties and social groups may have cause to complain that political power has not flowed down the line to the States as they should have, it assumes a fiscal and economic angle in these days when economy has become the centre-piece of our 'national agenda'.
From that also flows the need for further decentralization down to the village and panchayat-levels. This becomes a greater and immediate need if one considers the need for fast-tracking growth and development across rural India in the background of the real threat being posed by the Naxalite movement across the country - with promises to spread even faster in the coming years, and even months.
Further decentralization of powers between the Centre and the States may be a bargaining chip for encouraging the reluctant States to yield further ground for greater decentralization from the States to the Zilla Parishads - and from there, down to town municipalities and village panchayats.
While States did celebrate the constitutional amendments mandating the panchayati raj system, they have since been found reluctant to share power. This is an unacceptable situation, for which the solution may lie in trade-offs of the kind. For their parts, the Centre, the States and the political forces need to recall that even where they have been reluctant to part with power, the higher judiciary has not been found wanting.
They need to decide before it is too late if they would be graceful enough to grant on their own, what is due to those constitutional authorities what may be due to them in the evolving circumstances - or, would listen only when they are told to do so by the higher judiciary. The former may be seen as a weakness, but the latter makes it all mandatory, nonetheless.
* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
