Daily Archives: June 24, 2021

Political incidents are like bubbles. Nevertheless, they can reveal changing realities and their impact on the larger polity. One such incident recently took place in Kolkata. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay left a review meeting called by the prime minister in just 15 minutes. This throws a light on the emerging symbiosis between the party system and federalism.

Pre-poll acrimonies between political parties are not a new thing in electoral politics. But its impact on state politics is fraught with the danger of fracturing federalism. The authors of the Indian Constitution were conscious of the possibility of such a situation arising and so, they explicitly defined the Centre-state relationship. Moreover, no scope was left for the aspiration to be a subsidiary sovereign. The use of the phrase union of the states for the Indian federation is not accidental it gives paramountcy and unchallenged monopoly of sovereignty to the parliamentary executive. For Indian federalism, jurisdictional morality, not legalism, is fundamental to its success. In this regard, the aforementioned incident not only undermined the constitutional authority but also reflected an ambition for shared sovereignty. This gratuitous action represents an undoing of constitutional morality.

In a multiparty system, the political fulcrum is unlikely to be static. It changes like electric waves. This was first experienced when the communist government in Kerala was dismissed on July 31, 1959. Unlike today, the Left then carried strength and weight. The debates in the Lok Sabha on August 17, 19 and 20, 1959 on the promulgation of the Presidents Rule under Article 356 bear appalling testimony to the fact that a battle for hegemony has the potential to unsettle constitutional arrangements. Interestingly, both sides vouched for democracy but they lacked conviction. The then Home Minister G B Pant said democracy requires the spirit of accommodation, unlimited fund of tolerance, patience and forbearance. Easwara Iyer from the communist group warned those persons who had used the atom bomb against us will know that democracy has its own values and they will be wiped out from entire India.

Its monopoly over power led the Congress to treat state governments as an extension of the High Command. In Punjab, for example, the Congress had 70 MLAs out of 77 in 1951. But Presidents Rule was imposed due to unmanageable dissensions in the party. The then home minister, C Rajagopalachari, said this went against the prestige of both the government and the party.

Article 356, described by Ambedkar as a dead letter, was used 88 times by the Congress in its 54 years in power. Where does the fault line lie? The answer is simple: Political immorality spreads faster than the forces trying to combat it. When parties are deluded by a mandate into believing that it is their divine right to act according to their exaggerated ambitions, crises emerge. The example of Kerala further proves the point. The CPI, led by E M S Namboodiripad, got only 35 per cent of the vote and 60 seats in the 1957 assembly elections. The Congress got 37 per cent votes but only 46 seats. This dichotomy is not unnatural in a first-past-the-post system. The formation of the government through a mandate is fundamentally different from government by revolution. In the former, the government is bound by moral responsibility even for those who have not voted for it. Thus, democracy carries inherent limitations as well as responsibilities. Failing to understand this leads to a mess. This happened with both Indira Gandhi and the EMS government.

There is a long distance between Congress rule and the BJPs ascendency. The reason lies in their fundamental differences on core issues secularism, right to freedom of religion and also matters mentioned in the directive principles of state policy. The BJP proved itself closer to Indian realities and its opponents remained prisoners of their eroded ideological hegemony. Besides, cultural capacity gives the BJP-RSS influence even over those who vote for others. This multiplies their strength and confidence. On the ideological front of Hindutva, the BJP is free from competition while there are many claimants for the dying Nehruvian legacy of pseudo-secularism.

The commitment to the constitutional values does not rest upon reading the Preamble but finds an echo in the narratives on unity and integrity of the nation. After a long time, New Delhi under Narendra Modi has substantively reached out to the people of the Northeastern states. The protracted crises in the region have ended. This disappointed even China, whose imperialistic ambitions are known.

Moreover, central schemes, such as the construction of toilets, homes for the poor, Jan Dhan Yojana, Ayushman Bharat, Ujjwala Yojana and free grains to 80 crore poor under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, are a great leap from the symbolism practised earlier. Modi has acquired a pan-India presence, from Kongthong to Kushinagar.

Federal government grants have been a disputed issue. The US administration under president Ronald Reagan had initiated a concept of New Federalism by stopping federal aid to the states. This silenced many of those who considered overriding state rights. Eventually, the federal government reversed this decision. The obligation of the Indian Constitution to empower the poor and marginalised has never been disputed in our central schemes, whether it was Indira Gandhis Garibi Hatao or Manmohan Singhs MGNREGA. However, Modis welfare schemes have been undesirably politicised by some non-BJP chief ministers, notably Banerjee and Arvind Kejriwal. They have, unfortunately, perpetuated false narratives even in the difficult times of Covid-19.

Democracy is based on free speech and legitimate opposition. But obstructionism is not an adequate substitute for these, which is what the opposition practises now. It seems Frank Anthony imagined the future during his speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. Describing the inclusion of health in the state list as a great blunder, he argued: we have left it in the hands of the provincial governments and inevitably this greatest nation-building subject will be dealt with in a feeble, halting manner, according to the different capacities of the different provincial regimes.

When ideological rivalry mutates into abhorrence, constitutional morality is the casualty which we now daily witness in shameful and sham television debates. Historian George Grote rightly said: The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is the indispensable condition of a government at once free and peaceable.

Constitutional morality does not appear along with a democratic constitution but requires strenuous and unbroken efforts to establish it as a convention and tradition.

Two basic things that the political class needs to evolve are unlearning poll-bound discourses and socialising with adversaries. After all, democracy is the use of the heart and mind, which together creates consciousness.

This column first appeared in the print edition on June 24, 2021 under the title The federal let-down. The writer is a BJP Rajya Sabha member

Link:

What does the West Bengal chief secretary episode say about India federalism? - The Indian Express

The escalating row over Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the former chief secretary of West Bengal who is now an advisor to the state chief minister, demonstrates the challenges of uncooperative federalism. It throws up an important question: stuck between the Centre and the state, forced to make a difficult choice, what should a civil servant do?

Over his long career, Bandyopadhyay navigated the power corridors of Bengal smoothly. He built a reputation of being effective and of getting along with all his political bosses, first from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and then from the Trinamool Congress. Yet at the very end, he faltered when it came to following hierarchical protocol.

Bandyopadhyays troubles started when he failed to attend a review meeting on May 28 about Cyclone Yaas chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Bandyopadhyay had been accompanying West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on an inspection of the areas that had been affected by the storm. Banerjees antipathy for Modi is no secret and when she decided to skip the review meeting and continue her aerial survey, Bandyopadhyay went along with her.

Had he attended the meeting, irrespective of what the chief minister did, he would not be facing disciplinary proceedings from the Centre that could result in him losing his pension and gratuity. He would also have avoided the notice sent to him under the Disaster Management Act for allegedly refusing to attend the meeting with Modi. The section mentioned in the notice carries the penalty of imprisonment and a fine.

Had Bandyopadhyay adhered to the rule book, he could have protected himself, irrespective of whether the political relationship between the state and Center was acrimonious or affable.

Politicians get away with a lot of things but civil servants dont, observed CV Ananda Bose, former chief secretary of Kerala, in the New Indian Express. In case of dispute between the state and the Center, the Center usually prevails. There is a lesson to all civil servants in this imbroglio, Bose said. Look before you leap. Keep off party politics.

According to Sarvesh Kaushal, former chief secretary of Punjab, civil servants should go by the service rulebook alone.

But former civil servants from Bengal have come out in support of Bandyopadhyay.

Jawahar Sircar, former Union Culture secretary was of the opinion that though All India Service officers have dual loyalty to both Centre and the state in which they are posted, Bandyopadhyays immediate boss was the chief minister, so he was not in a position to disobey and attend the meeting with Modi.

Former IAS officer and ex-MP Bikram Sarkar told The Times of India that the charges are vague and need to be properly interpreted. He can get justice from the court, but again in the courts, such a case is unprecedented so he has to be extra cautious, Sarkar said. This will come at a price. His pension and gratuity will be stalled till such time as the departmental proceedings are disposed of, Sarkar said.

Modi governments relationship with civil servants, especially the Indian Administrative Service, has been difficult. Since it came to power in 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party government has worked towards chipping away the stranglehold bureaucrats have on governance. Since 2018, Modi government has sought to reduce the presence of IAS officers in top positions and has instead promoted officers from other services.

With the introduction of the 360-degree appraisal format that involves multi-source feedback in addition to the Annual Confidential Report system, the abrupt and frequent transfers of officers from one ministry to another, the introduction of biometric attendance in government offices, and the concentration of power in a Prime Ministers Office manned by handpicked loyalists, the supply of IAS officers to Delhi has also plummeted.

Once there was a scramble for deputy secretary, director and joint secretary postings at the Centre but now there are hardly any takers. Of the 280 IAS officers in West Bengal, only 11 are posted with the Central ministries.

The increasing politicisation of Indian civil servants has been explained by sympathisers as being a necessary evil to survive in the current political environment. But as the Alapan Bandyopadhyay case shows, it is pushing them down a slippery slope.

Sreya Sarkar is a public policy professional based out of Boston who has previously worked as a poverty alleviation specialist in US think tanks.

See the rest here:

For civil servants, Alapan Bandyopadhyay case highlights the perils of uncooperative federalism - Scroll.in

West Bengal Finance Minister Amit Mitra on Wednesday wrote to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman alleging that there has been a steady breakdown of the spirit of cooperative federalism in GST Council meetings.

What pains me the most is the fact that the GST Council Meetings have become acrimonious, vexing and almost toxic with erosion of mutual trust that held past between States and the Centre since inception, he said.

He urged her to consider a course correction in the manner of functioning of the council. We will respond in equal measure if you bring back consensual atmosphere that has defined GST Council since its inception, he noted.

Dr. Mitra stated that after hours of submission by Ministers, no conclusion and consensus was declared at the end of a meeting, as in the case of 42nd meeting of the council. The Minister has sent a note of dissent after the meeting. He alleged that his microphone was switched off at a crucial time.

In the three-page letter that has been copied to his counterparts in other States and Union Territories, Dr. Mitra said, Many of us as Ministers are also concerned that the GST Implementation Committee ( GIC) consisting of officers, from a few States and mainly from GoI, have started amending rules and presenting them only for the information of GST Council not for discussion and ratification.

Follow this link:

Breakdown of spirit of cooperative federalism at GST Council meetings: Bengal Minister - The Hindu

As easy as it is to blame successive Union governments for being bullies, it is equally, if not more, important that state governments block and repel centralisation.

COVID-19 has shone light on one of Indias darkest corners that we stoutly refuse to examine the lack of coordination between the governments in India. Nationally relevant policies, be they vaccine procurement, pricing and disbursal, oxygen manufacturing and inter-state supply, GST rates for COVID care resources, trans-state migrating labour, national lockdowns, elections in various states, religious gatherings of multi-state relevance, and more have cried out for planning and coordination across the governments in the country. The absence of it has cost lakhs, perhaps tens of lakhs of lives.

India has many governments; one of them is the Union. Notwithstanding that Parliament was repeatedly truncated or cancelled in the name of COVID-19 (while elections and religious events proceeded simultaneously), it is neither the purview nor expertise of the Parliament to coordinate inter-state relations and implementations. For instance, the formula for vaccine disbursal to states, the lag between requirements and fulfilments, its pricing, or assigning the cost of migrant labour transport, etc., are issues that only governments can claim, plan and coordinate, not legislators. That at least a dozen Chief Ministers, including those of Kerala, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Delhi, have written to the Union, and some to each other on vaccinations alone, must make it apparent.

Indeed, there emerges even more compelling evidence from the recently concluded GST Council which, stunningly, was not called to order for over 6 months amidst the throes of a pandemic. The Council announced a lowering or waiving of GST rates for certain essential or medical items, decisions delayed till June of 2021, largely due to the breakdown of federal relations in India.

India was formed from and is formed of many governments, and this implies that cross-country governance requires ongoing inter-state planning and coordination. This feature is not unique to India. Most large democracies like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. have many governments provincial ones and a Union. What Australia did, for instance, as soon as the pandemic struck, was to retire its existing Council of Australian Governments, an existing inter-government coordinating body in their federal structure, and create a National Cabinet. It is composed of all Chief Ministers, Premiers, the Prime Minister and even representatives from local bodies. An empowered executive, with select and expert committees and adjunct councils, it decides on federal financial, pandemic-related health, employment, even womens and childrens safety and security, and with a legal framework as buttress.

For doubters asking if Australia or any of the others in a genuine federal partnership between their in-country governments are managing the pandemic better than India, the answer is crystal clear. In a Westminster-style democracy, Indias national and sub-national governments are elected for parties agendas and as on date, India and its states vest their executive powers in close to 40 distinct ruling parties. So the question before us is not if Australia or countries with federal partnerships within are doing better but if India will now manage COVID-19, and indeed the country in general, better if its various governments with distinct agendas plan and coordinate regularly.

While COVID-19 may spotlight the extent of rot of federalism in India, the unequal partnership between the Union and states has cost India through the annals of time. India did set up an Inter-State Council, thanks to the Sarkaria Commission in 1990, to recommend policy on matters of common interests across states and the Union. It met a dozen times until 2017. As per Article 263 of the Indian Constitution, the Inter-State Council is composed of the Prime Minister, who is the Chairperson, Chief Ministers of states and Union Territories and several Union Cabinet Ministers, and cannot be dissolved or re-constituted. In other words, it is extant but defunct, barely meeting once in three years since establishment and not at all during a pandemic that requires intimate partnerships and collaboration.

Also read: Union govt vs Centre: Whats the difference, and why DMK govt is insisting on the former

The problem, of course, goes back to the very establishment of the Union, denying states their sovereignty (unlike in the US) even as it leaned federal. Subsequent purposeful Constitutional amendments, like expanding Concurrent lists, or the GST, have vigorously engendered centralisation. However, the real root of federal rot lies more with states and less with the Union.

Successive, blighted state governments have failed to check Union overreach, which has imposed grave costs on public good. A few states have responded in an enlightened fashion. Tamil Nadu refused to ratify the GST, across both the DMK and the AIADMK, until J Jayalalitha passed. Many states passed resolutions against the Citizenship Amendment Act, and most recently, Mamata Banerjee displayed spirited resistance against her Chief Secretarys transfer. As easy as it is to blame successive Union governments for being bullies, it is equally, if not more important, that state governments block and repel centralisation.

The keys are often in the very structure of the institutions that states have allowed without due diligence. The GST Council has been established with only the Union Finance Minister as Chair, and ability to call for meetings. By any measure, the GST is a multilateral matter, with separate stakeholders, the Union being one. There is no reason why Chairpersonship is not rotated or powers (like calling meetings) are not vested in many or all. In fact, Mumbai city with its mammoth pre-GST Octroi has no say in the Council, and neither does any other local government.

The previous West Bengal Finance Minister, Amit Mitra, chided the Union Finance Minister for failing to convene the GST Council during the pandemic; subsequent reduction in GST rates for life-saving drugs and equipment could have perhaps avoided deaths if they had been considered 6 months prior. The Tamil Nadu Finance Minister, Palanivel Thiagarajan, also recently pointed out that the GST Council has fundamental structural issues of One State, One Vote. Manufacturing states like Gujarat and Maharashtra, whose people are heavily compromised, have been egregious in their historical silence, hence enabling an anti-federal structure.

Ditto with the Finance Commission. For a Constitutional body that divides monies between states and the Union, and across states, the Union is but one stakeholder. However, the Union assumes all powers in appointment of the Commission and issuing of its Terms of Reference (ToR), an inherent bias for a federal body. This is exactly what the Inter-State Council is meant to do; ensure that a ToR is negotiated and balanced.

For India to leapfrog into a developed country, an oft-bandied political rhetoric, the country must first be willing to shed its unitary insecurities, govern via a federal body politic, and defer to local and state governments. As things stand, the Union has too much power on inputs and too little stake in outcomes. The Inter-State Council must be resuscitated, reinvigorated and chartered to represent a federal India. Matters, not only financial but water management, labour, energy, human trafficking and much more, are cross-state matters, which require ongoing conference between states. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, yes, but also as much autonomy and agency, given the differences in the social and economic environments across states.

One Nation, Many Governments is the reality of India, and the Union is but one among the many. India must strive for a boring Union and vibrant states and that indeed will be the hallmark of success, replete with subsidiarity, decentralisation and federalism.

Tara Krishnaswamy is the co-founder of Shakti Political Power to Women, a non-partisan grassroots group campaigning for more women MLAs and MPs. She is co-founder of Citizens for Bengaluru, a citizens movement for a sustainable Bengaluru.

More here:

One nation, many governments: Why India must embrace federalism - The News Minute