People's Democracy

CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS

Three Decades Of Struggle – New Context, New Challenges

Nilotpal Basu

THE Left Front government of West Bengal has just concluded three decades of its uninterrupted existence. Not only in our country, even perhaps in the whole world, there is no such parallel in the history of multi-party parliamentary democracy. There have been extensive discussions and research on this unprecedented political phenomenon. The sweat and blood of the toiling sections – their yearnings and struggles – have been the lifeline for the Left Front government. But in terms of impacting the structural question of democracy, the major political question on which the Left Front government has really made a lasting impact is that of centre-state relations.

Centre-state relations, today, faces a new context. The challenge of globalisation is raising fundamental questions on the very concept of nation-states and their sovereignty. The relevance of these face a big question mark. How the Left will face these challenges based on the rich experience of governance in the last three decades is the most important concern that we are confronted with. Doubtlessly, the Left Front government – matured as it has over the last three decades – has to spearhead this quest for an appropriate answer.

A FOREWORD

It is not possible to comprehend the outlook and the struggle of the Left Front government since 1977 by divorcing it from the background which dates back earlier. The questions that were raised by the Left Front government after its assumption of office had, indeed, created a popular pressure. And, this resulted in the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to study this issue comprehensively. Today, nobody is in a position to question the contribution of the West Bengal Left Front government in forcing the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission. The memorandum of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) before the commission which was presented by the then general secretary of the Party, Comrade EMS Namboodiripad, detailed out the process of evolution of the ideas that the Left has come to highlight. The memorandum clearly pointed out the basic question of how the post-independent State structure should shape up in the post-independent period. This conceptual framework was developing within the national movement itself.

The CPI(M) memorandum clearly outlined the genesis: “The idea of a federal centre with wide autonomy for the provinces came to be woven into the framework of the future Constitution as spelt out in the Congress-League pact of 1916, Motilal Nehru report of 1928 and so on, right down to the discussions of the 1940s. A major change, however, took place when the country was divided into the Hindu majority Indian Union and the Muslim majority Pakistan. The bourgeoisie which stood at the head of the freedom movement and which became the ruling class was interested in an extensive home market which requires a centralised rather than a federal State.”

Therefore, the Constitution that was adopted in 1950 talked about federal character in a formal sense – but clearly displayed the tendency of overcentralism. The ruling classes used the excuse of saving the country from external aggression to put in place an excessively powerful `centre’. It is obvious that subsequently the ruling party extensively used the authoritarian powers of the excessively powerful `centre’ to repeatedly undermine the powers of the states.

The CPI(M), enriched by the experience of fighting the dismissal of the first communist government of Kerala (incidentally we are observing the golden jubilee of this event), had brought out the understanding of our Party in the memorandum to the Sarkaria Commission. It quoted the relevant para 60 of the Party programme “It is but natural that in such a situation the contradiction between the central government and the states should have grown. Underlying these contradictions often lies the danger of contradiction between the big bourgeoisie on the one hand and the entire people including the bourgeoisie of these or that state on the other. These deeper contradictions get constantly aggravated due to the accentuation of the unevenness of development under capitalism”.

This programmatic understanding has been vindicated by the subsequent developments. The asymmetry in the centre-state relations has been felt practically across the entire range of economic and political issues. The manner in which two United Front governments had been dislodged in West Bengal in the late sixties had also most crudely manifested this. This tendency assumed the most dangerous dimension during the days of emergency. The 42nd Constitutional amendment reduced the powers of the state governments to that of the level of municipalities. It became clear that in pursuing an authoritarian direction the central government would not even display the ‘luxury’ of honouring the formal powers granted to the state governments.

Therefore, the struggle for a balanced and harmonious centre-state relations became an inevitable and integral part of the struggle for democracy. However, the CPI(M) had no illusions about the significance of the restructuring of centre-state relations. The Party had made it explicit before the commission that this process of restructuring cannot be an end in itself – it, under no circumstances, will act as any ‘Aladdin’s magic lamp’. To achieve the solution of the basic problems of the people, fundamental social transformation is necessary. But the struggle for realignment and establishment of the legitimate rights of the state can provide a great momentum to the struggle for democracy, secularism and against communal and divisive forces.

CONTRIBUTION OF THE LF GOVT

Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria had made an extremely insightful observation about centre-state relations in India. The analogy he drew likened centre-state relations to a human body. He stated “No human being can survive with a high blood pressure in the head with anaemia in the rest of the body”.

The formation of the Sarkaria Commission itself resulted from the efforts of the Left Front government of West Bengal which managed to build a nationwide awareness and pressure for realising the demands raised by the Left, particularly the CPI(M), on the question of restructuring of centre-state relations. The authoritarian tendency of the Congress party and the consequent attempt to arm the central government with absolute powers gave rise to the danger of one-party rule. This was the ruling classes’ political approach against which the Left Front government contributed significantly to the nationwide struggle for restoration of democracy. What is significant is that the approach adopted by the Left Front did not suffer any one-sidedness. The Left Front government correctly anticipated that the disbalance in the alignment of the centre-state relations would eventually reinforce anti-democratic and communal/divisive forces. Therefore, even while agreeing with the legitimate aspirations of the regional parties, the Jyoti Basu government put forward the idea of a powerful central government along with strengthening the powers of the state government.

After the assumption of office in June 1977, the cabinet adopted a formal resolution on December 1. Subsequently, it is this December resolution of the West Bengal government which gave rise to a political storm. The decision of the government, apart from putting forward the relevance of political content, was impeccable in its political timing. The fresh memories of the authoritarian attacks of the emergency paved the way for the demand for restructuring of centre-state relations becoming inseparably connected with the struggle for restoration of democracy.

The presence of non-Congress governments at the centre, on the one hand, and the states, on the other, had created a conducive atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue on this question. In this context, the proposal of the West Bengal government added an important dimension to this emerging question.

The cabinet resolution, while highlighting the 15-point demands, argued strongly for a realignment of the centre-state relations; but more importantly, it specifically underlined the question of economic disparities in the economic relations between the centre and the states. The resolution also brought up the questions of the role of Finance Commission, the incongruities in the state, central and concurrent list of the Constitution, the power exercised by the central government over central services and decentralisation. The state government counter-posed specific alternatives on all these important issues. With relation to Justice Sarkaria’s observation on the centre-state relations, the resolution strongly advocated the case for strong states in order to ensure a strong centre. It clearly pointed out that without decentralisation, the legitimate aspirations of the people in the backward regions cannot be fulfilled. And, this regional underdevelopment will lead to fissiparous tendencies. The struggle, which started in 1977, eventually evolved into a political platform for united struggle of all the non-Congress state governments. This platform not only led to an opposition to the authoritarian tendencies of past Congress governments but also posed a strong alternative framework to the divisive movements of Assam and Punjab in the eighties.

The public opinion that galvanised during the early eighties forced Indira Gandhi’s government to act. The pressure led to the formation of the Sarkaria Commission. Many of the several memoranda that were submitted before this Commission echoed the views of the Left. But, unfortunately, the principal question of replacing the unitary and centralised direction of the Constitution were not sought to be substantially changed by granting wider autonomy to the states. This is the biggest drawback of the conclusions of the Sarkaria Commission. The intense demand for ensuring a federal structure was not acceded, notwithstanding certain cosmetic changes recommended here and there. It is all the more unfortunate that the task of studying the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and implementing most of them, still remains incomplete. Even during 2006, some of the commission’s recommendations over which there was complete unanimity in the Inter-State Council have been rejected by the central government. The demand for amending Article 356 was also rejected on the ground that subsequent to the Bommai judgement of the Supreme Court, there is no further need to incorporate the spirit of the judgement in the Constitution.

The cabinet resolution of 1977 adopted by the Left Front government was the major basis of the CPI(M)’s memorandum to the Sarkaria Commission. EMS while presenting the memorandum had mentioned “No other part of the Constitution has been subjected to such universal criticism from state governments including those headed by the party ruling the centre, as its financial provisions. The memoranda submitted by the state governments to successive finance commissions would show how wide is the gulf between the centre and the states on the question of financial powers and resources. A complete overhauling of the entire field of financial relations is thus important.” EMS also drew the attention of the commission to the fact that all major expenditure incurring activities except defence and foreign relations are under the responsibility of the state governments; but the overwhelming powers of resource mobilisation is with the centre. The Party also strongly castigated the functioning of the Planning Commission and the manner in which it is used by the central government to serve its political interests. Even today, the validity of the CPI(M)’s contention is being vindicated through the functioning of institutions like Finance Commission, Planning Commission, Inter-State Council and National Development Council.