dailyO
Politics

States lacking any real power is not good for India

Advertisement
Kamal Mitra Chenoy
Kamal Mitra ChenoyMay 15, 2016 | 16:09

States lacking any real power is not good for India

Strange things happen in Indian politics. For example, the Congress' criticism of the President's intervention in Uttarakhand was clearly a deviation from the SR Bommai judgment of the Supreme Court. But intriguingly, Congress leaders referred to the norms of India's federal polity - a common mistake.

The Indian Constitution does not have the terms "federal", "federation", or "federalism" anywhere in its text. It is a centralised polity. There are 97 major powers in the Union list, 47 powers in the concurrent list, and 66 powers in the state list.

Advertisement

The Union can override the states when it comes to the subjects in the Concurrent list. That means the Union has 144 (97+47) subjects it can legislate on as opposed to just 66 subjects for the states. And there are grey areas. Delhi is neither a Union Territory nor a state.

A basic argument was made in the Constituent Assembly by BR Ambedkar. He stated that there were enough checks and balances for the Union to be federal or unitary depending on the political situation. At that stage stability and state formation was the priority.

The delineation of states was yet to be done. But federalising the Constitution was a vital necessity which was never completed. Citizens, including parliamentarians often use the term "Central government", which is not in the Constitution, where the term "Union government" is used. But the term "Central government" more clearly brings out the concentration of power in the hands of the "Union government".

There have also not been enough protection for adivasi/tribal communities laid down in the Constitution.

ambedkar_051516035940.jpg
Ambedkar had stated that there were enough checks and balances for the Union to be federal or unitary depending on the political situation.  

In Manipur, for example, the people of the plains, or the Meiteis, commonly called the Manipuris, have passed three bills that would disenfranchise the tribals, both Nagas and Kuki/Hmar/Paite and associated tribal groups. Taking 1951 as a cut-off point, tribals who have not got documents certifying their entry into Manipur before that year can be deprived of their land. Yet at that time, many tribals were not literate and thus were not aware of these matters, and are threatened by the loss of their land and other rights. Since Manipur is a small state in the Northeast there is little interest in this crisis, both in national politics and media.

Advertisement

Currently, Jharkhand is in a crisis, for which the lack of protections for adivasis can be blamed. The BJP-ruled Jharkhand cabinet ruled in April, according to the state's domicile policy, that anybody who has lived in Jharkhand for 30 years or more for business, employment or any reason and has immovable property will be considered a resident of the state. This is just too sweeping a criterion and will move towards detribalising Jharkhand.

The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) is demanding that a 1932 survey be made the cut-off point for eligibility of being a citizen. The JMM called a bandh on May 14 which was backed by other opposition parties like the RJD, CPI and Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik). An MP and a number of MLAs were detained.

The British had some protections for adivasis/tribals and others. The intervention by the Indian state has been insufficient and tardy, if not opportunistic. In these and other areas, the Republic should have done much more for our people.

Last updated: May 16, 2016 | 17:18
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy