Center-State Relations in India

CENTER STATE RELATIONS IN INDIA:

INDIAN DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM:
India is administered by the Westminster system of “Parliamentary Governance” at the Centre, with a Constitution framed by keeping the English Constitution in mind. The relationship between the Union and the State Governments has always been a matter of controversy. Parties with different political ideologies have occupied the positions of power in various states. They may not necessarily conform to the terms at the Centre. This complex and sensitive situation could adversely affect Centre-State relationships. In India, episodes of bitter Centre-State relationships have been repeated many times since independence, the basic reason for this being the hunger for political power.
There are 3 specific lists-
1.Union List,
2.State List and
3.Concurrent List
- that regulate the power of Union Government and the State Governments as per terms laid down by the Constitution. The Parliament has exclusive powers of legislation regarding the items included in the lists; and these lists require uniformity of legislation in the interest of the country. Seen from this view point, the nature of the Centre-State relationship is quite clear and transparent. However, invoking constitutional powers, State Governments have often been toppled through manipulations by a powerful Central Government. This typical feature of Indian polity has sparked off passionate debates in various quarters. Although our Constitution provides good legal tools for protection of the State Governments, the implementation of these measures is altogether a different affair. For this to materialize, the socio-political awareness of both the masses and the political class will have to increase. Further, a democratically elected State Government must be able to stand up for itself.

ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION:
In a discussion on Centre-State relations in India, the focus is mainly on three issues-
1.The legal provisions of the Constitution vis-à-vis Centre-State relationships, i.e. the three lists.
2. The dominance of a powerful Central Government over a weak State Government through its powers or through legal battles.
3.The dominance of a powerful Governor over a weak State Government .
These are the salient aspects that characterize the relationships between the Centre and the States. The Centre- State relations is of great importance in a country like India constrained by regionalism, religion, uneven development, demand for autonomy, identity politics, conflicting political interests, caste and race. The Centre- State relationships in India have always been with conflicts and this partly follows from the arrangements made in the Constitution.

EARLIER ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES:
The relationship between the Centre and the States in India can be best described as “A work in progress”. This topic has been studied at length by important commissions at the national level. The Justice R.S. Sarkaria Commission did so from 1983-1988 and submitted a 1600 page report with almost 250 specific suggestions; but it is generally accepted that most of them supported the status quo and that the rest were not implemented. A new commission was set up in 2007, headed by Justice M.M.Punchi, former Chief Justice of India, with a two year mandate. The outcome of these ongoing national debates holds the key to when, or even whether, India can break out of the sub-optimal patterns of governance that are rooted in eras long past.

SOME INSTANCES:
Governments in states like Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal which have large mineral resources, the development of which comes under the concurrent list had the rug pulled out from under their feet on various occasions. There have been numerous instances of the Centre dictating where the investments for the downstream production facilities would go. Also, they went far away devoid of economic logic; in fact, artifices like freight subsidies were introduced to make such investments viable in distant States. The concurrent power of the States meant virtually nothing, since the ultimate power of approval for mining leases lay with the Central Government which, in any case, also controlled the related investment clearances.

PHENOMENAL CHANGE:
What could not be achieved through various commissions or acts of the Parliament has, in some measure, already been achieved by the evolution of the Indian polity from single-party rule to coalition governments. The last two decades have seen the emergence of coalitions with constituent parties from around the country. This has led to a regional assertiveness that has redefined governance at both the State and Central level. To go back to the example of mineral rich states, the last decade has seen many of them enact laws or rules which favour the recommendation of mining leases to those applicants who also commit to investing in the State.
Such policies have upset the apple cart of the Centre dictating investment terms in heavy industry as well as in various other spheres. This has also led to a shift in the balance of power. While major mineral development continues to be in the Concurrent List, the State Government’s recommendation-and the role of the State bureaucracy in processing these in a litigation-free manner has now acquired at least as much or more importance as the Central Government’s final approval. This shift of power in favour of the State Government is much more evident when the State happens to be governed by a regional ally of the coalition at the Centre, and often the State Government’s recommendation acquires the tone of an offer that the Centre cannot refuse.
This shift in balance of power is evident at the Centre as well as in important ministries, such as telecom which is held by a representative of a regional ally. In such instances, even when the subject may not be a part of the Concurrent List, and when ostensibly all policy recommendations are prepared either by the Central bureaucracy or autonomous regulators, the final diktat always emanates from the State Capitals and not from New Delhi.

WHAT IS LAGGING YET?
It is important to note that none of these shifts in power, while and real, have yet been reflected in Constitutional changes. It has been argued, however that they should be adequately reflected in order to more accurately highlight the federal spirit of the republic. It can also be argued that the current top-down style of economic policy could never be sustainable in a country with several diversities like India in the long run.

CENTRE’S NEW ROLE:
Be that as it may, there is a strong case for Centre’s enhanced role in some specific spheres. Take for instance the crucial area of law and order. Unlike certain aspects of economic policy which are on the Concurrent List, law and order has always been a State subject and Central intervention under Article 355/366 of the Constitution is intended to be invoked only in the rarest of cases. Indeed, in recent years, that has been the case. In earlier years, however, the Article 356- the much reviled power of the Central Government to dismiss elected State Governments had been abused many times for meeting political ends. This shift in practice can also be linked to the rise of regional political parties, to whom this all-encompassing power of the Centre is an anathema.
This shift has often left the Centre in a position resembling that of a bystander, not because of the lack of Constitutional provisions, but for the lack of political will to intervene. For some years now, the standard response of the Central Government to law and order fraying in the country has been to practically to wash it’s hands off with the pretext that it is a “State Subject”. This is occasionally countered by State Governments with the argument that Central support, in terms of intelligence, logistics and paramilitary troops, is inadequate. The irony is that two of the vestiges of the Raj, the national police and the civil servants, continue to survive, and play key roles in both sides of this disconnect. Likewise, “Terrorism”, another disputed phenomenon has been always a disputed matter. However, the spate of terrorist attacks in the country in recent years has created a groundswell of support for the idea that the Centre should play a far more proactive role in handling the matter.

HOW I CONCLUDE:
The Centre-State divide needs a revisit. Both procedures and institutions need restructuring to meet the new developmental challenges. Everyone knows that there is lack of adequate reforms in power, education, health and agriculture, which lie in the purview of the States. We do not have the luxury of time; our archaic approach and institutions are inconsistent with ambitious growth targets. Some things are obvious. These need not await the recommendations of future commissions on Centre-State relations. A wake up call is overdue.

"INSTRUCTORS!" TRY TO BE ORATORS FIRST!

A good student always envisages to be an instructor. Being one is not a 'Herculian' job. Vivid understanding of the key skills required meets nearly 70% of the credibility status. To crisp things, I have outlined the allegory for a rational instructor.

SLCDMT

S-Being Simple-> An instructor is expected to be simple - in form & in language.Flowery words never do the job. Instances from 'History' depict the liking of the masses to fine, simple, right-fashioned language. I must mention here that 'a language with too many continuums makes the effort of an instructor futile'.

C-Being Clear-> "Too many Cooks spoil the broth" is an exceptionally common saying. Likewise, an instructor must be clear with his theme. His verdicts must be unambiguous. Avoidance of proposing contrived facts is most welcomable.

L-Being Loud-> Good audibility trait is one among the basic needs of a rational instructor. I do not prescribe a 'Crescendo' or a 'Dimunendo'here by naming 'L' as 'Being Loud'.Discrimination of vocal pitch, attitudinal changes to context & the so called 'josh' are the makers of a phenomenal success in a class.

D-Do a study on the Students-> A good instructor must do a study on the students convened. He must analyse their exposure to the topic under discussion & coach them as per the results obtained. He musn't be too kiddish with his explanations.

M-Maintain the 'Minutes'-> A first-rate instructor must have a look at the minutes of his previous class in prior to his subsequent sessions. Questioning the listeners about the theme discussed in the last class projects a contorary portrait of him among them.

T-Time Management-> Apart from the above mentioned traits, time management is also extremely vital. An ace instructor switches through the topics as per the proposed agenda without hastening. He senses the feeling of boredom among the audience & transforms the topic in a witty way.

Today's students are much phenomenal with their expectations. To fulfil them, an instructor must be humble enough to follow the above said allegory. For those who oppose, "Bear with the Audience!".