Category Archives: Federalism

The newly elected Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab is at the receiving end of the Oppositions ire over party chief Arvind Kejriwals meeting with senior Punjab officials in the absence of chief minister Bhagwant Mann. The Shiromani Akali Dal and the Congress alleged that the Punjab government was being run through remote control from Delhi.

News agency PTI quoted sources in the AAP saying that Kejriwal held a meeting with top officers of Punjab on Monday to discuss ways to implement the partys promise of providing 300 units of free electricity in the state.

Former chief minister Amarinder Singh called Bhagwant Mann a rubber stamp while Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu alleged it is a breach of federalism.

Congress Legislative Party leader in Punjab Partap Singh Bajwa claimed that people of the state did not vote for the government which was to be remote controlled from Delhi.

Shiromani Akali Dal chief Sukhbir Singh Badal also dubbed Kejriwals meeting as unconstitutional and unacceptable.

Taking a dig at the AAP, Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Singh Raja Warring asked whether senior state officials will have to be present in Kejriwals darbar.

Referring to the meeting, Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu said it is a breach of federalism. Punjabs IAS officers summoned by @ArvindKejriwal in CM @BhagwantManns absence. This exposes the Defacto CM & Delhi remote control. Clear breach of federalism, insult to Punjabi pride. Both must clarify, said Sidhu in his tweet.

However, there was no immediate reaction over the controversy from the Delhi government headed by Kejriwal.

On Monday, Kejriwal had held a meeting with the Punjab chief secretary, secretary (power) and chairman of the state power utility in Delhi over the electricity-related issue, even as Bhagwant Mann was not present in the meeting, the sources said.

Mann, who met Kejriwal in Delhi earlier in the day, tweeted in Punjabi and Hindi, Had a good meeting with our leader and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. Will give a good news very soon to the people of Punjab.

Kejriwal retweeted Manns tweet saying, We will together change Delhi, Punjab and the entire country. People are very much sad and distressed. They are fed up with dirty and corrupt politics of politicians and parties. We have to work day and night for people.

When asked about the meeting, Punjab Transport Minister Laljit Singh Bhullar said Kejriwal is the partys national convener and even if he has held a meeting, then it should not be a big issue.

AAP spokesperson in Punjab Malwinder Kang said, People come from far and wide to see the Kejriwal model of governance. If he has held an informal meeting, which is for the benefit of the people of Punjab, then it should be welcomed.

(With PTI inputs)

Link:

Kejriwals meeting with Punjab officials in Manns absence draws flak, Oppn calls it breach of federalism - The Financial Express

Some weeks down the road, likely in June, it is quite probable that we will be treated to breaking news of a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning in whole or part the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.

Such a decision will be presented as earth-shattering by breathless media. Certainly, many will receive the news with shock. Among those most adamantly pro-choice, that shock will be accompanied by dismay.

But perhaps we should all take a breath. The reversal of Roe would usher in a new era, for sure, with new policies state by state and new political battles. Most likely, such a ruling would embrace the concept of federalism and put this ultimately contentious issue back in the legislative sphere. What it would not do is somehow make abortion illegal across the board.

Those most animated in both the pro-choice and pro-life camps cite polling data to support their unyielding stance. The reality is that public opinion is far more equivocal. I regard my own thinking as largely in sync with the ambivalent, questioning, though ultimately pro-choice attitude of most of the country.

However, pro-choice need not be the same as pro-Roe. The two are not synonymous.

While not a lawyer, and not even playing one on television, it has long struck me that the Roe decision was of dubious constitutional merit. It is one thing to attach a right of privacy to the 14th Amendment and quite something else to see in that constitutional clause a design of trimesters.

One can believe in a living constitution and still think that a bit much.

Sign me up with Colorado-raised Justice Byron White, a JFK nominee to the Supreme Court, who was one of two dissenters in the Roe case. Trimesters might have been an appropriate legislative remedy, but such a prescriptive model hardly belongs in judicial decree.

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no slouch when it came to defending womens reproductive rights, criticized the Roe decision for being too far-reaching and immodest.

It is all well and good to support a womans right to choose abortion without endorsing a ruling that exceeded the boundaries of reasonable judicial scope. There is something to be said here about the ends not justifying the means.

Decade after decade, no issue has divided this nation quite like that of abortion. No other issue has contributed as much to the hardening of the political divide and the crippling, polarizing poison that defines this age.

When the questions center on the very meaning of what constitutes life and on the relative rights of the mother versus the baby-to-be, passions run high and respectful dialogue is difficult. Yet, such conversation and, yes, even compromise are what is required.

The United States is not alone in confronting this toughest of issues. Other countries have similar debates but without the unending acrimony to which we have long grown accustomed. In my analysis, that is a function of our reliance on the judiciary to resolve what should be hashed out through political give and take.

For a half-century, one side has felt effectively stonewalled by court edict when it comes to their political power to affect their deepest convictions. Is anyone surprised that such a door slam has bred intense resentment?

If, as many expect, the court returns this issue to the judgment of 50 state legislatures, neither pro-choicers nor pro-lifers will get everything they want. Blue states, including Colorado (which is already addressing the subject), will pass liberalized abortion laws. Red states will opt for more restrictive codes.

Of course, that is imperfect. But perfection is impossible in all realms of government and especially with this ultimately divisive question.

Arizonas preferences will not be the same as those of Arkansas. Just as Maryland and Mississippi will enact different laws. That is called federalism, the concept behind the union of our 50 states. It, too, is imperfect, but in this case, it might be what the doctor ordered.

Certainly, there will be inequalities in the options a woman has based on the state in which she lives. That is also a consequence of federalism.

Proposals, such as one in Missouri that criminally prevents a woman from traveling to another state for an abortion, should be quickly dismissed as absurd. Americans enjoy interstate commerce and the freedom to travel. If it is permissible to visit another state for a joint replacement or cancer treatment, there should be no more punitive standard in this instance.

The return of this issue to legislative and voter authority would bring along other benefits. For one, the Roe-ordained model of trimesters has long been on a collision course with advances in medical technology.

Beyond that, it might serve to elevate more reasoned, centrist voices and hush, even a bit, the most zealous ones. America is not about singing "Kumbaya" and coming together around this issue, but it would be major progress just to narrow the debate.

Most of the country, save the most vocal activists on each pole, refuses to accept either that a newly conceived zygote has all the rights of a human being or that a fully developed, healthy, late-term fetus enjoys no such rights.

Let us continue to argue these essential differences, but perhaps let's bring the goalposts in from the far extremes.

New ground rules for abortion are coming. Calmer voices are sought. For those on the side of abortion rights, it is necessary to keep in mind that those of an opposite viewpoint are just as earnest in their beliefs and values, and just as entitled to the democratic process.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator who writes regularly for ColoradoPolitics and the Gazette newspapers; follow him at @EricSondermann.

This piece originally appeared at ColoradoPolitics.com

See the article here:

'Pro-choice' is not the same thing as 'pro-Roe' - Washington Examiner

Thehealth of Indian democracy is well-nigh stitched to the health of the democratisation of the Indian State. And, the democratisation, in turn, is stitched to the expansion of the federalisation processes of the Indian State. With striking prescience, the Indian Constitution makers agreed upon a sui generis federal architecture of power-sharing and instituted a federal framework for the electoral response to the overarching centralised representative democracy. State elections, as a form of response, are nevertheless assertions for accommodation and legitimation of the principles of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution. State elections affirm the Indian multilevel federalism.

Idea of Regionalism

Federalism, in essence, is the sharing of policy and governance power between different governments as units, mainly the Centre and the states, to enable shared-rule and self-rule of the units. This political framework facilitates togetherness and happiness by accommodating the regional, ethnic, religious, linguistic, national, and economic diversity in achieving harmony. The urge for federalism, both as a normative and a descriptive category, was felt during British rule, basically to sustain imperialism over the vast expanse of Indias size and diversity. The Government of India Act (1935) laid down the idea of dual polity and devolution, but in practice, owing to a better communication system, the British governance established a powerful centralised authority system. And the Indians, experiencing from the British government, contemplated that free India must have federalism but with a great deal of unitary control.

ALSO READ: State Of The Union: How Centre-State Ties Have Fractured Over Time

At the time of independence, with the British centralised governance in hindsight, India confronted several challenges, such as communal frenzy leading to Partition, the transfer of power, post-Partition administrative tasks, particularly settling the refugees, a burgeoning food crisis and socio-economic development. An overarching presence of a centralised Congress party in the Constituent Assembly opted for centralised planning, coupled with a tight federation to tackle these challenges. India, unlike many model-federations in the world, became quasi-federal instead.

The federal process, since Independence, is roller-coastering around the demands of states autonomy and the actual participatory, legislative and policy pitches to the dynamics of everyday political life. Till the mid-1960s, Nehru had institutionalised the core principles of federalism, that is of consultation, accommodation and consensus, with the chief ministers by writing letters to them on a monthly basis and also by cooptation of regional leaders into the national power structures. For Nehru it was easy to coordinate the Centre-state relations, as a large number of states were ruled by the Congress. However, the dismissal of the Communist government in Kerala (1959), on some tenuous ground, by the Centre was the first major setback to the federal principles. The fourth general elections (1967) reduced the Congress party to a simple majority at the national level and by then almost one-half of the states were ruled by non-Congress-opposition parties or coalitions. Centre-state relations moved on from the practice of accommodation to the practice of cohabitationstrong Congress-Centre cohabiting with the opposition at the state level. During the Emergency period (1975-7), Indias federal polity for all practical purposes became unitary, and the federal relations shifted from cohabitation to that of confrontation and resistance. The Emergency deeply scarred Indias aspirations of emerging as a reckoning federal-democracy. However, in the late 1980s, with the rise and assertion of regional parties at the national level, such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Bihar and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, the tendency to move towards the principle of accommodation and making alliances was quite visible. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayeethe then president of BJPhad to remark that his party needed to strategically slide to the middle of the political spectrum in order to recruit and forge alliances with potential coalition partners.

The dismissal of the Communist government in Kerala in 1959, on some tenuous ground, by the Centre was the first major setback to the federal principles.

Regional parties, typically in the form of state-based parties, operated as agencies and mechanisms to negotiate and organise power, both at the central and state levels, and emerged on Indias democratic infrastructure as multi-state parties largely based on regional-ethnic style. Few parties, for instance the Samajwadi Party (SP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Uttar Pradesh, represented the features of an electoralist party, focusing on the distinct social constituencies along with its ethnic tropes. Coalition politics, since the 1990s, gave way to regional parties and therefore multi-party coalitions, and marked the deepening of the federalisation and democratisation processes, not only on the ideological vision but on the spatial trajectory too. The political process, from the 1990s onwards, marked the internalisation of federal norms and the state leaders of state-based parties carved out a new federal space of mutual power negotiations between the nation and the region. BJP, in the bargaining process, adroitly manipulated the peripheral federal cleavages and supported the carving out of new states from the belligerent regions of the existing states. The puzzle that Indias federal system is gets further complicated when regional parties, championing special and exclusive interests, coalesce with national parties and simultaneously with the other regional parties, and their leaders, striking a posture as a national leader, try to contextualise the regional party within the category of nation-state.

ALSO READ: Is Indian Federalism Reeling Under Burden Of One-Party Dominance?

State Polls

The state elections are in full sway. It is affirming the idea of festival of democracy and also equally affirming the idea of federalism. The five-state election cycle (Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur), but particularly UP, is likely to point the political direction for the national elections due in 2024. Both the national and regional parties are in the fray, but despite the strong regional sentiments to what Christophe Jaffrelot, the political scientist, calls ethnonationalist mobilisation, the political mobilisation is purely top-down where national political elites have stirred the caste-communal rabble to nab the votes of alienated individuals and groups. To understand state elections within the context of federalism, it is imperative to note the electoral narratives forged around the principal cleavages and also the alliance-building strategies within and outside of the regional parties.

ALSO READ: Punjab Haunted By The Past It Wants To Forget

The strong and autonomous state governments, to the possible extent that federalism permits, can offset the antinomies that Indian federalism is in the habit of reproducing, such as the misuse of extraordinary powers of Parliament. The recent farm laws and the invocation of the Disaster Management Act during the pandemic, for instance, explain how federalism can be infringed or transgressed. State governments need to understand the political interlocking of power relations embedded in the so-called cooperative federalism. In federalism it is important to share the federal powersprecisely for shared-rule and self-rulebut it is all the more important to use those powers for achieving constitutional goals and morality and also for holding out together the beautiful Indian diversity.

(This appeared in the print edition as "The Indian Diversity")

(Views expressed are personal)

Size Matters: Why Tiny Goa Needs To Be Heard More Often

Renegotiating Indias Federal Compact

Right In The Centre: The New Power Structure In Dilli Durbar

Centre-State Relations: Has The Concurrent List Outlived Its Utility

Mumbai Muddle: Why Maharashtra And Delhi Are Frequently At Loggerheads

How Dravidian Politics Acts As Bulwark Against Centralism

Constitutional Federalism: State Of Exception In The Paradise Of Kashmir

Ladakh Battling Centralisation To Save Identity Culture

How Regional Parties Are Becoming The Voice Of Small Communities

Manipurs Love-Hate Relations With Delhi

The Coalition Instinct: Bihars Manual Of Survival

Behind The Veil: Why Muslim Students Are Fighting For Hijab

Shifting The Goalposts: A Young Politicians Battle To Save Goa And Its Way Of Life

Diary | How The Pandemic Disrupted A Teenagers World

Tanvir Aeijaz teaches public policy at DU and is Director (hony) at the Centre for Multilevel Federalism, New Delhi

More here:

Federalism And The Idea Of Regionalism - Outlook India

In the premises of the National Conference head office at Nawai Subah, security forces usually hang their garments to dry over festoon flags of Kashmirs grand old party. Office-bearers of the party say they dont ask the forces to remove these clothes. We feel hurt, but cant do anything about it. After the revocation of Article 370, regional parties are facing an onslaught. It is sad to see our flag being covered with underwear, pyjamas and shirts. If we say anything, BJP might make it a national security issue, says Imran Nabi Dar, spokesperson of the party, with a straight face.

But what does this act by the Indian security forces have to do with the larger debate on Indian federalism, and Jammu and Kashmirs position within it? To start with, it reflects the sense of powerlessness prevailing among regional political parties as well as the people of J&K.

ALSO READ: State Of The Union: How Centre-State Ties Have Fractured Over Time

On August 5, 2019, when the BJP government abrogated Article 370 amid a military siege, a communication blackout and the arrests of thousands, including three former chief ministers, the relationship of J&K with the Centre changed dramatically. Earlier, the state had a separate constitution. Now, as a Union Territory, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh had become separate territories under the Indian Constitution. Earlier, regional parties sought autonomy and self-rule, but now they fear to raise any such issue. There are now widespread rumours that political leaders of the states regional parties are being coerced to join other parties.

Since 1950, Kashmirs politics had revolved around the political issue of Kashmir and its resolution. National Conference would repeatedly talk of restoring autonomy to J&K as the lasting solution to the issue. Since August 9, 1953, when Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was arrested, and J&K was relegated from an autonomous state within the Indian Union having its own PM and President, to a status equivalent to that of any other state within the Indian union, NC has been seeking restoration of the long-lost autonomy, with Article 370 acting as its bedrock. On June 26, 2000, the J&K assembly created ripples across the country, when, with Farooq Abdullah as chief minister, it passed an autonomy resolution with a voice vote.

There is democracy In other states, where Elections are held on time. But There is no federalism in case of J&K, says Harsh Dev Singh of the Panthers Party.

Prior to contesting elections in 1996, Abdullah had promised greater autonomy to the people. In 1996, there were around 6,000 to 7,000 militants operating in J&K, with no political party ready to contest polls, when Dr Abdullah jumped into the fray. Later, speaking on the autonomy debate in 1999, he had said, No one, including the NC, was ready to take up the challenge of elections then. But we were assured by New Delhi on autonomy, so we jumped into the electoral fray, putting at risk not only our lives, but also those of lakhs of people. After the resolution was passed, copies of it were handed over to the Intelligence Bureau and the Centre. However, the then NDA government rejected the resolution.

ALSO READ: Is Indian Federalism Reeling Under Burden Of One-Party Dominance?

Meanwhile, since its foundation in 1999, PDP has acted as a quasi-separatist party while seeking self-rule for J&K. Yet, in spite of their rhetoric, PDP formed the government with BJP in 2015, with Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as the chief minister, followed by his daughter Mehbooba Mufti after his death.

Now, both NC and PDP have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the revocation of Article 370 and seeking restoration of statehood by giving up slogans of autonomy and self-rule.

ALSO READ: Federalism And The Idea Of Regionalism

Despite raging conflict and insurgency, J&K under Article 370, which governed the Centres relationship with Jammu and Kashmir and was seen as an essential facet of Indias federalism, was enjoying its fruits. Constitutional experts and political parties in the state, especially NC and PDP, would always describe Article 370 as a tunnel through which the Constitution of India is applied in Kashmir. In 2014, NC vice president Omar Abdullah famously said Article 370 is the only link between J&K and the rest of India.

It must be said here that Jammu and Kashmir was not the only state enjoying special status in matters of land and identity. Under Article 371A, Nagaland also enjoys a special status, and no act of Parliament is automatically extended to Nagaland in matters of religious or social practices, ownership and transfer of land and resources, unless the state legislative assembly takes a call on it. In spite of Article 370, industrialists from across the country could get land on 90-year lease in J&K. Now, political parties in the Ladakh UT are seeking full statehood for their region, along with Article 371A like guarantees.

ALSO READ: Punjab Haunted By The Past It Wants To Forget

GoIs agenda of undermining and trampling the spirit of federalism started with J&K, Mehbooba tells Outlook. Never in Indian history was a state demoted to a UT and robbed of its special status. More so, in a conflict region, centralised rule with an iron fist and obliterating the middle ground of mainstream parties is fraught with danger. Alarm bells for regional and opposition parties should ideally have rung in 2019 itself, when Article 370 was abrogated, says the former CM.

But perhaps the opposition didnt anticipate that this model would be replicated in other states too. Whether it was expanding the BSFs jurisdiction in Punjab and West Bengal, or the rude behaviour of BJP-appointed governors in opposition-ruled states, it is clear these are all a follow-up to what was done in Kashmir, she adds.

ALSO READ: Size Matters: Why Tiny Goa Needs To Be Heard More Often

While Mehbooba calls the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019 the root cause of the disempowerment of the people of J&K, many academics feel the former state hasnt enjoyed the fruits of Indian federalism right since 1950.

Professor Siddiq Wahid, former vice-chancellor of Islamic University of Science and Technology at Awantipora, says India has never seriously dealt with the idea of regionalism or federalism. You wont find the word federal anywhere in the Constitution of India! he says.

The reason for this is that at the time of independence, neither the domestic leadership nor foreign powers were confident that the new nation would survive. The fear of break-up was expressed by the use of the term fissiparous tendencies. This fear introduced a biaswhich still existsagainst giving regions their due. And now it has become habituated. The fate of J&K is an extreme example of this fear, but if you examine Indias post-Independence history, you will note that centralisation has always been the thrust of New Delhis agenda, Prof Wahid says.

ALSO READ: Renegotiating Indias Federal Compact

He adds that New Delhi is willing to decentralise power in states by breaking up larger ones, such as forming Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Telangana, but it has never been willing to decentralise the powers of the Centre. Specific to J&K, and in particular where it concerns us in Kashmir, the Government of India has whittled away at the first contract it formed with usthe Delhi Agreement of 1952which was contravened the very next year (1953) with Sheikh Abdullahs arrest. So, Delhi has always been insincere with promises contained in things like Article 370 or the accommodation of Article 35A, while Kashmiris have been naive.

He adds that this reality will never be admitted by an Indian nationalist, be they liberal or Hindutva. It is this foundational insincerity, of which all political parties at the Centre have been guilty, that has led to a collapse of trust between Delhi and Srinagar, he says.

ALSO READ: Right In The Centre: The New Power Structure In Dilli Durbar

Right now, fear and a sense of disempowerment prevails across both Kashmir and Jammu. But it is predominantly within the political class. Speaking at her Fairview residence on Gupkar Road earlier this week, Mehbooba reflected on the mood within regional parties. Since the abrogation of Article 370, everyday life is being made complicated for people. Every other day, orders are issued to usurp even those rights of the people of J&K that they were enjoying under the Indian Constitution, Mehbooba says. It has become difficult to figure out who is the worst sufferer in Kashmir. You chose any fieldpoliticians, journalists or the youtheveryone is being made to suffer. It is the only place where journalists are made to flee, she says.

NC spokesperson Imran Nabi Dar says J&K was not the only place enjoying some guarantees under Article 370. We were given rights by the Constitution of India. They took those away by locking us in jails, lock, stock and barrel, Dar says. Federalism in J&K can only be rescued by the Supreme Court. Let it hear petitions challenging Article 370. We believe the court will restore Article 370 and with it, confidence in federalism not just in J&K, but across the country, says Dar. The majority of the people in J&K, though, are sceptical. In J&K, people are being treated like insects. There is no hope. There is fear everywhere. Nobody is talking. It has been almost four years since the assembly was dissolved, we still dont have elections, says former minister and Panthers Party leader Harsh Dev Singh. In other states, there is democracy. Elections are held on time. We have a proxy rule in J&K. There is no federalism when it comes to J&K, says Singh.

(This appeared in the print edition as "State of Exception in Paradise")

Centre-State Relations: Has The Concurrent List Outlived Its Utility

Mumbai Muddle: Why Maharashtra And Delhi Are Frequently At Loggerheads

How Dravidian Politics Acts As Bulwark Against Centralism

Ladakh Battling Centralisation To Save Identity Culture

How Regional Parties Are Becoming The Voice Of Small Communities

Manipurs Love-Hate Relations With Delhi

The Coalition Instinct: Bihars Manual Of Survival

Shifting The Goalposts: A Young Politicians Battle To Save Goa And Its Way Of Life

Naseer Ganai in Srinagar

The rest is here:

Constitutional Federalism: State Of Exception In The Paradise Of Kashmir - Outlook India

Just before 10 am on May 30 last year, my phone was set abuzz with messages about an extraordinary Statement to the People of Goa that had just been posted on Twitter by Dr. Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, the brand-new finance minister of Tamil Nadu. Switching screens to look, I found myself stunned, then chortling aloud with surprise and amusement. Id never read anything like it before. Many others went on to agree. A few days later, no less than Shashi Tharoor tweeted, Im delighted to say that in the annals of contemporary Indian political invective, this statement by @ptrmadurai has not been bettered.

PTRas he is often referred to by the publicposted his message two days after attending his first-ever meeting of the GST Council. Soon after the gathering, Goas notably hapless transport minister Mauvin Godinhowho represented Indias smallest statetried to grandstand and rally support for himself by alleging he was insulted by his counterpart: Thiaga Rajans case is that since he comes from a big state, he should have a bigger vote. Its like saying, I am the big brother, you shut up. I take strong offence to the way he conducted himself and expressed himself in the GST Council. I want [Tamil Nadu chief minister] Stalin to condemn his minister, and make him apologise.

ALSO READ: State Of The Union: How Centre-State Ties Have Fractured Over Time

In the normal scheme of things, everyone would have ignored Godinho as usual. But PTR responded directly in public, headlining his statement with two declarations: The hallmark of character is consistency in ones principles, even at a cost, and then, rather hilariously, Empty vessels make the most noise. He continued, I generally do not respond to noises emanating from sources that are unworthy of response. But I make this exception for two reasons. First, to counter the baseless lies uttered by Goas transport minister, stating that I have insulted the people of Goa and asking my leader & chief minister to condemn my behaviour during a press conference. Second, and more important, the whole nation of India should know how such individuals impact the quality and output of the GST Council.

With charmingly quirky syntax, the debutant minister explained that the One State = One Vote model of GST is fundamentally unfair and The Dravidian movement has long advocated local self-government as the logical extension of our core principle of self-respect and self-determination. As such, we are ALWAYS for states rights, and a truly federal governance model that devolves powers from the Union government to the lowest level practical. PTR clarified that every statement I made during the entire meeting was entirely consistent with these two principles. Even when the principle resulted in loss of future revenue to Tamil Nadu.

Goa may be infinitely smaller and less populous than Tamil Nadu, but both are dwarfed by the oceanvast forces that have embroiled India in its contemporary predicament.

Now the MLA from Madurai Central switched gears: The only question arising from your transport ministers press conference is whether he is limited in comprehension, in honesty, or both. But I am sure you are aware of his history and have drawn your own conclusions before this incident. If doubt lingers, I add that he was vociferously, and repeatedly, against lowering the GST on Covid-related drugs & vaccines from 5 per cent to 0 per cent on humanitarian grounds I found his statements during the meeting to be highly repetitive, largely vacuous, hectoring, mostly redundant to others inputs, supercilious, and devoid of the basic courtesy of assuming good faith in the comments of other states ministers. He spoke for many times the length of inputs from the honble minister from Uttar Pradesh, a state of over 20 crore citizens, and indeed EVERY other state. I leave to the public to decide whether that serves India, and democracy, well.

ALSO READ: Is Indian Federalism Reeling Under Burden Of One-Party Dominance?

He ended with this unerring coup de grce: I have no need to apologise to the people of Goa, for I have done you no harm. In fact, I have strongly advocated for your state governments rights. I do not require or expect any thanks for that, as my position was dictated by my principles of strengthening states rights & federalism with enhanced devolution. But I do offer you my sincere condolences, for having such a person as your minister. I also charge the honble CM of Goa with perpetrating a misdemeanour on Goas citizens, and the GST Council, by nominating him to represent your beautiful state. Finally, I sincerely request the BJP, even across the political divide, to impose some minimal quality control on its MLA acquisition procedure. If it had done so, Goa, and the nation would be saved a lot of pain.

Within minutes of being posted, this statement had social media ablaze with approval. The response from Goa was especially overwhelming, in part because the state was in the midst of suffering the worst throes of the second wave of Covid-19 infections, with dozens of unfortunate residents succumbing everyday due to flagrant mismanagement of oxygen. Just a couple of days afterwards, having waded in to try and reduce casualties and being thwarted by sheer inertia, the state high court issued an unprecedented apology, saying, We are very sorry. We failed collectively. We owe an apology to the people. Later on, talking about the unmitigated disaster, BJPs own governor Satya Pal Malik (he was eventually transferred to Meghalaya) admitted, There was corruption in everything the Goa government did [regarding the pandemic]. I probed the matter and informed the prime minister about it. Today people are scared to speak the truth in the country.

ALSO READ: Federalism And The Idea Of Regionalism

In this cesspool of misgovernance, PTRs statement was a thunderclap of clarity that resonated deeply with Goas beleaguered populace. They responded with unanimous appreciation, and, after dozens of requests, I finally wrote an open letter on behalf of the consensusit was signed from the people of Goain the century-old O Heraldo newspaper, once the longest-running Lusophone daily outside Brazil and Portugal. In those storied pages, by channelling sentiments being expressed all around me, and as a kind of homage to the tone and tenor of PTRs remarkable communiqu, I wrote to him that You should know it has been greatly dismaying for us, for many years, that Goas political cadre machinates almost exclusively in opaque, inexplicable and often indefensible ploys. Thus, you have done an excellent service by describing how your counterpart from Indias smallest state was vociferously, and repeatedly, against lowering the GST on Covid-related drugs and vaccines from 5 per cent to nil, on humanitarian grounds.

I also included this caveat: Please note the implications of Babasaheb Ambedkars unwavering dictum that rights for minorities should be absolute rights and should not be subject to any consideration as to what another party may like to do. He was speaking for all communities confronted by majoritarianism. Here it would be useful to remember that Goa may be infinitely smaller and less populous than Tamil Nadu, but both are dwarfed by the oceanvast forces that have embroiled India in its contemporary predicament. And this plea: You should know there is nigh-unanimous approval being expressed for your unusual, very welcome comments directed directly to the people of Goa, and the remarkable truth-telling therein. We are convinced the people of your great state are lucky to have you fighting for their interests. We hope that you will keep ours in mind as well.

ALSO READ: Punjab Haunted By The Past It Wants To Forget

This back and forth was joyously received in both parts of the country. I suddenly got 400 new Twitter followers from Tamil Nadu, most of whose bio details included the tell-tale DMK catchphrase, of Dravidian stock. Meanwhile in Goa, the response was overwhelming relief. Finally, there was at least one political leader who had an inkling of our plight, and it didnt really matter that his constituency is over 1,000 km away from our state borders. Looking back now, PTR tells me via email that I was indeed surprised to hear of how my letter was received in Goa, a place I have long admired but never visited in my life. At first, I chalked it down to the uniquely poor track record of the individual involved (Godinho). But I think there may be a larger rationale.

Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin announced he was launching an All India Federation for Social Justice, made up of leaders of depressed classes from all the states.

That larger rationale is, of course, federalism. PTR and my public exchange was conducted in the spirit of interstate dialogue, which is so rare now that one respondent on Twitter actually called it a good beginning for our political-economic democracy. This is because, ever since 1947but with particularly egregious strong-arm tactics since the Modi-Shah combine rose to what seems like almost unlimited power in New Delhi in 2014the Centre has continually and relentlessly abrogated the means and channels of national communication for itself, closely mimicking the colonial apparatus that preceded it in power. Alexander Hamilton warned of precisely this in his all-important Federalist Papers, published in 1788: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. And as PTR put it succinctly in Outlook Business earlier this month, We are much less of a federal country than either the capitalist America or the communist China.

ALSO READ: Renegotiating Indias Federal Compact

Over email, he elaborated, Devolution of powers is infinitely greater in both the US and China. In the US, everything from policing to school administration is down to the village/town/city. Sales taxes are set ONLY by states and counties. Even income taxes are set by states and cities. In China, the local authority issues licences for industrial production. Cities run their own police forces. Banking licenses are only issued by the provinces. This devolution of powers ensures three superior outcomes relative to India: greater self-determination; policy and programme customisation to suit local areas needs/demands; and greater accountability because local elected representatives can be held to account by voters, much more than national officials.

PTR says, I believe many countries get federalism rightChina, US, Australia, Switzerland (even in this tiny country, immigration rules are set by the canton). India is the country that gets it absolutely wrong. And the consequences are devastating, when considering the scale of India, and the authoritarianism of the current regime. This is the crux of his argument: We do need to create an alternative narrative to the strongman narrative, which is the fast-track to fascism. But the reality is that the authoritarian model is simply incapable of delivering results, because Indias scale and complexity cannot be managed in that manner. So, the danger is that we are on the way to economic ruin and social strife, and the vicious circle of using divisions to distract from gross economic/growth/job failures will accelerate the destruction of value built up over seven decades as a democracy.

ALSO READ: Right In The Centre: The New Power Structure In Dilli Durbar

This is an inescapable analysis, with tremendous resonance for South India, as well as all the other statesthe entire north-east region comes to mindwhich are generally badly served by an imperial Centres focus on interests that are very different from theirs. Certainly, PTRs analysis reads like gospel truth in Goa, where grotesque servility to the Modi-Shah combine has become the most basic political currency. This explains why, on the campaign trail, when chief minister Pramod Sawant was asked which other CM he admired, he knew there was only one correct answer no matter how much it horrified his own voters. Pat it came: Yogi Adityanath. Similarly, there can be no surprise when the perennially bumbling Mauvin Godinhowho was in the Congress before being strong-armed into the BJP by Manohar Parrikar in 2016spares no bootlicking extreme in ostensible devotion to his Vishwaguruall important presidents and prime ministers are quoting Modiji. Why? Because he has got that leadership!

Does he, though? And by repeating it more and more loudly, while genuflecting even more slavishly, will it become so? Can an entire country be successfully bludgeoned into assent? Here, its important to acknowledge that Tamil Nadu and PTRs DMK provide an alternativeand highly persuasiveidea of federation that could easily gain enough traction to be an epochal course correction for India. Late last month, chief minister Stalin announced he was launching an All India Federation for Social Justice, made up of leaders of depressed classes from all the states on his partys Dravidian model of everything for everyone. His unspoken promise: our government works relatively well in Tamil Nadu, and everyone else deserves the same.

ALSO READ: Centre-State Relations: Has The Concurrent List Outlived Its Utility

PTR told me, The notion of inter-state cooperation is as old as the country. Wiser men than our current leaders created the Council of States, which has effectively been dismantled. It needs to be revived. The long run of coalition governments at the Union level may have dulled the need for such a forum. Both multi-state parties (I wont call them national because NO party really has a nationwide presence), but much more so the BJP than the Congress, may see their own organisations as a substitute for such a councilbut they are not. The trend towards cult leadership across all parties is also antithetical to the notion of inter-state dialogue. I think it is crucial for democracy that much more of this happens, frequently and regularly.

(This appeared in the print edition as "Eye of the Thiaga")

(Views expressed are personal)

Mumbai Muddle: Why Maharashtra And Delhi Are Frequently At Loggerheads

How Dravidian Politics Acts As Bulwark Against Centralism

Constitutional Federalism: State Of Exception In The Paradise Of Kashmir

Ladakh Battling Centralisation To Save Identity Culture

How Regional Parties Are Becoming The Voice Of Small Communities

Manipurs Love-Hate Relations With Delhi

The Coalition Instinct: Bihars Manual Of Survival

Behind The Veil: Why Muslim Students Are Fighting For Hijab

Shifting The Goalposts: A Young Politicians Battle To Save Goa And Its Way Of Life

Diary | How The Pandemic Disrupted A Teenagers World

Vivek Menezes is a writer and photographer, and co-founder of the goa Arts+literary festival

Continued here:

Size Matters: Why Tiny Goa Needs To Be Heard More Often - Outlook India

On February 2, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi sparked outrage when he slammed the BJP, claiming that the party cannot see India as its kingdom because it is a union of states. Gandhi emphasised the necessity of cooperative federalism, claiming that India has only been ruled through dialogue for decades. Amit Malviya, the in-charge of the BJPs national information and technology department, took to Twitter shortly after, to say that the Congress MPs claim that it was not a nation but a union of states was very problematic and dangerous. He claimed that the Congress leader hasnt comprehended the Constitution.

The furore over federalism has also reignited an old debate around the distribution of legislative, executive and administrative powers between the Centre and states and the much-contested Concurrent List in the backdrop of the farm laws, NEET exams and health sector, among others. It is pertinent to mention that the Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union and state governments. Education, including technical, medical, universities, population control and family planning, criminal law, animal cruelty prevention, wildlife, animal protection, and forests, are topics on the Concurrent List. The Concurrent List lists 52 items found in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Union List, State List, and Concurrent List are the three lists that make up the legislative sector. However, education was earlier the states responsibility and put in the Concurrent List only during the Emergency (1975-1977).The NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test conducted for granting admission in medical UG seats of India) has once again taken centre stage in Tamil Nadu with a high-pitched campaign for the urban local body elections centred around the Concurrent List. NEET has been a sensitive issue in the southern state since 2013 when all medical entrance tests were merged into a single national-level examination. The Tamil Nadu government had formed the Justice A.K. Rajan Committee to investigate the impact of NEET on medical admissions in the state. According to the report, NEET has obviously damaged socio-economic representation in MBBS and further medical studies, favouring primarily the wealthy.

The findings of the report also says that NEET harms Tamil-medium and students from rural backgrounds, government schools, students whose parents annual income is less than Rs 2.5 lakh. Also adversely affected are students from the Most Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Tamil Nadus healthcare system will be seriously damaged if NEET is not abolished, and there may not be enough doctors to be posted at primary health centres or government hospitals. The rural and urban poor may not be able to enrol in medical courses, the report mentions.

The furore over federalism has also reignited an old debate around the distribution of legislative, executive and administrative powers between the Centre and states and the much-contested Concurrent List.

NEET became a burning electoral issue in Tamil Nadu after Governor R.N. Ravi returned the governments Bill in the assembly to abolish NEET from the state earlier this month. One of the main focuses of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) campaign is the continuation of the NEET exam against the DMKs assurance of nixing it. During his virtual campaigns, chief minister M.K. Stalin has been spending quite some time refuting the claim made by leader of the Opposition Edappadi K. Palaniswami that NEET was implemented by the UPA government of which DMK was a part. Can Palaniswami show me one exam centre in Tamil Nadu where NEET was held during the previous DMK rule? Stalin asked, noting that the examination was only introduced in the state when Palaniswami was the chief minister. Former chief minister and AIADMK coordinator O. Panneerselvam has said that NEET is a problem that the DMK cannot solve. The Bill is merely a token gesture.

Commenting on the issue, Professor Faizan Mustafa, vice chancellor of Nalsar University of Law, says that the Bill on exemption of NEET by the Tamil Nadu government is merely a political statement and that practically it cannot pass the scrutiny of law. Constitutionally, education is on the Concurrent list, both the state and central government can form laws around it. However, if there is a dispute between the laws, the Centre can override the state law under Article 254, Mustafa tells Outlook.

Nevertheless, the Constitution also gives powers to the state under section 254(2) to bypass the Centre. It states that if the central legislation and a state statute are both on the same Concurrent List subject and have contradictory provisions, the President may approve the state law. In this case, even if the governor forwards the states Bill to the President, he will not approve it in consultation with the central government; hence the Bill passed by Tamil Nadu against NEET exams is merely a political statement, Prof. Mustafa adds.Earlier, the year-long farmers protest against three controversial laws introduced by the central government had also stoked a debate around the legal validity of the legislations. The laws were challenged in the Supreme Court before the government succumbed to pressure from the agitation and withdrew the three laws.

National parties want to strengthen the Concurrent List so that the Centre has a maximum hold over states. But in my view, there should be no Concurrent List, says KCR.

Earlier, there was talk about a Central government proposal to put agriculture under the purview of the Concurrent list before the Parliament passed the farm laws. On May 5, 2015, the government had told the Lok Sabha that the National Commission of Farmers (Swaminathan Commission) had recommended agricultural market to be added to the Concurrent List. However, the proposals had made it clear that foodstuffs under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List do not provide Parliament with the jurisdiction to legislate on agricultural markets. Nevertheless, the government told the Lok Sabha on March 27, 2018, that it had no plans to add the term agricultural market to the Concurrent List. Later, In September 2020, the President approved the contentious farm bills that the Parliament approved into laws.

More recently, there have also been talks about bringing health under the Concurrent List. In 2020, a high-level group constituted for the health sector by the 15th Finance Commission has recommended that health be moved from the State List to the Concurrent List. In a report given to the Finance Commission, the panel stated that health should also be on the concurrent list because medical education and family planning matters fall under the same.

Public health and related matters, such as dispensaries and hospitals, are currently the responsibility of the states under the Indian Constitutions Seventh Schedule. Preventing infectious and contagious diseases from spreading from one state to another, on the other hand, is included in the concurrent list. In practice, the Centre has always taken an active role in influencing public health policies. The Centre establishes national standards and a governance framework for issues, which are later implemented by the states.

In March 2021, the 15th Finance Commission chairman N.K. Singh said that health should be moved to the Concurrent List under the Constitution, and a developmental finance institution (DFI) specialised in healthcare investments should be established. Singh said that increasing government expenditure on health to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2025 should be a fundamental commitment of all States, with primary healthcare receiving at least two-thirds of such investment. The demand for health to be put under concurrent list gained momentum in the aftermath of the second wave of Covid-19 in 2021, when the health system crumbled in the country and states allegedly failed in dealing with the pandemic.

Amid all this, there are also demands from a section of politicians to abolish the Concurrent List altogether. After being re-elected as chief minister of Telangana in 2018, K. Chandrashekar Rao made it clear that his partys victory meant working for a new non-Congress, a non-BJP national consortium of regional parties. And that he would push for further state autonomy, suggesting complete abolition of the Concurrent List. National parties want to strengthen the Concurrent List so that the Centre has a maximum hold over states. But, in my view, there should be no Concurrent List, and state governments should be able to decide what is best for their states, he had said.

However, experts believe that doing away with the Concurrent List would not strengthen the states but cause chaos. Venkatesh Nayak, a transparency activist and legal expert with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, believes that the states and the Centre work together on many subjects. And its not just about making or implementing legislation but also about generating enough resources to implement them. What KCR said after his victory in 2018 is not very new. Similar demands have existed since non-Congress governments were formed in states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Then N.T. Ramarao, Ramakrishna Hegde and others had floated a front for decentralising power. What KCR is suggesting does not seem very practical. There are issues and subjects where states and the Centre work together. All states cannot generate enough resources to implement the infrastructure for everything without support from the central government, Nayak explains.

(This appeared in the print edition as "The Sacred List")

View original post here:

Centre-State Relations: Has The Concurrent List Outlived Its Utility? - Outlook India

In 1991, when the then chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav was wiped out by the BJP in the assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, many political analysts had started writing the political obituary of the patriarch. But the seasoned and wily politician that he is, Mulayam Singh bounced back spectacularly. He formed his own outfit, the Samajwadi Party, in 1992 and a year later, contested elections in alliance with BSP to oust the BJP from power. Mulayam forming his own outfit was not an isolated incidentthe writing on the wall was clear. We needed to go beyond the established communities, says C.P. Rai, the then general secretary of SP. In the Indian federal structure, the time has arrived when smaller groups will manifest their power.

The SP leaders social engineering ensured a rainbow coalition as he wooed leaders of diverse castes and communities, recalls Rai. One such leader was Gulab Sehraa Congress leader, a two-term Dalit MLA and the leader of opposition. When Mulayam asked Sehra to join SP, Rai was the man who persuaded the Dalit leader to switch sides. And when Mulayam became the CM, he took Sehra on his official plane to Agra. The awakening after the Mandal Commission was harvested mainly by Yadavs and Kurmis in UP. But federalism had space for other smaller groups and castes. I persuaded Mulayam to appoint Sunder Singh Baghel as Ferozabad unit president of SP. He later went on to become minister. Today, Baghel is a very enlightened community in the Agra region, Rai adds.

ALSO READ: State Of The Union: How Centre-State Ties Have Fractured Over Time

The churning in Indian politics and society and the caste arithmetic of leaders like Mulayamand Laloo Prasad Yadav in Biharhad seen the emergence of smaller population groups to assert their claims over the political space. This in turn gave birth to smaller regional parties, sometimes representing minuscule communities often ignored or subsumed by larger political groupings. Though their populations varied from a meagre one to seven per cent, these groups were driven by the simple thumb rulethey may not win, but no one will without their support. Election Commission data show that the number of smaller parties had reached over 300 in 2017 compared to a double-digit number in 1989.

Mohammad Sajjad, a Professor at Aligarh Muslim University, sums up the trend succinctly. Formation of smaller parties which are community- and sub-region-based is a direct manifestation of the unique federal structure of India. This reflects division of power. When these social groups do not get the desired result from larger parties, they turn towards formation of their own party, he says. Numbers are important in a federal structure. Each vote counts and in government-formation, the number of MLAs/MPs becomes crucial. Due to the federal structure, these groups have significance in small regions owing to their proportionate numbers. But often their aspirations are not fulfilled as their leaders turn it into dynasty politics, so they turn towards another party, headed by another leader among them, he adds. However, Sajjad is also of the opinion that the same federal structure which gives rise to smaller parties, will soon see the next stage of class solidarity depending on the economic status of the regionthe demand for smaller states or autonomous areas.

ALSO READ: Is Indian Federalism Reeling Under Burden Of One-Party Dominance?

Professor Afroz Alam of Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad, has another theory for the emergence and success of regional parties. As we know, federalism is all about division of power between the Centre and states. This division of power is articulated prominently when the states are ruled by regional parties. In recent years, the creative manipulation of national parties to centralise power and dictate the terms to states has increased. The arbitrary style of working of national ruling parties while sidelining the local/regional interests is creating more fault lines for federalism to succeed, he says. As a result, India is witnessing thousands of minor/regional parties getting involved in the electoral process, putting serious competitive pressure on the dominant national parties and on occasion, influencing electoral outcomes with their consolidated social bases.

ALSO READ: Federalism And The Idea Of Regionalism

He points to the realignment of social groups for the ongoing assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, reflected in the pre-electoral alliances between mainstream parties and constituency-specific minor parties. For instance, the BJP has allied with Apna Dal and Nishad Party while the SP allied with SBSP, RLD etc. Similar is the case in other states, he adds.

The arbitrary style of working of national ruling parties while sidelining regional interests is creating more fault lines for federalism to succeed. Afroz Alam, Professor Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad

Social transformation

The birth of caste-centric small parties also has much social impact. The backward castes and even Dalits had their share of tall leaders in the past. Many of them enjoyed influence in bigger parties. However, often the party projected them just as a face of a particular group without devolution of power. It was assumed that highlighting these faces was equivalent to giving representation to a particular community.

ALSO READ: Punjab Haunted By The Past It Wants To Forget

A more visible and rapid social transformation began after 1989 when the Congress was ousted from power in Uttar Pradesh. The leaders who had influence over their communities started expanding their bases. This is also due to a social awakening among their community and educated youth articulating their grievances more forcefully. The bigger parties realised that the time for dialogue had arrived. One of the best examples is of former bandit Phoolan Devi, who was taken into Samajwadi Party by Mulayam Singh Yadav and later given the party ticket for contesting the Lok Sabha polls. As she became an MP, her backward Mallah community rallied behind her in a big way. Such was her influence that she was invited as a guest to Akhilesh Yadavs marriage with Dimple, where she blessed the couple. On her death, even Mulayam Singh and late Amar Singh were present during her funeral. After her death, some of her supporters formed the Phoolan Sena to galvanise the community. Till date, she remains an icon for her community.

Another example of a community asserting itself is the emergence of the Nishads as a political force. Once represented by the Nishad Army headed by Arvind alias Raja Nishad, the community now has political representation through the NISHAD party headed by Dr Sanjay Nishad in UP and the Vikassheel Insan Party headed by Mukesh Sahni in Bihar. Political and social awareness has come to most of the communities. We see it as a good thing. All communities should have their leaders and parties. Ours is a social organisation, we aim at good representation and raising the voice of our community. We are no more ornamental pieces, Raja Nishad says.

ALSO READ: Size Matters: Why Tiny Goa Needs To Be Heard More Often

The glass ceiling has broken. These communities which were satisfied by getting representation in bigger political parties do not shy away from talking directly to these parties. They have dialogue, their demands and want their share of the bigger political pie. The NISHAD party is presently an ally of BJP in UP. Social media too has a role in projecting these smaller parties. The youths are now armed with smartphones and openly highlight the achievements of their community, even if it is about someone becoming a high-ranking official, a celebrity or a political leader. The awareness and the medium to spread words has been instrumental in making these communities aware of the importance of their votes.

(This appeared in the print edition as "Small Is Powerful")

Renegotiating Indias Federal Compact

Right In The Centre: The New Power Structure In Dilli Durbar

Centre-State Relations: Has The Concurrent List Outlived Its Utility

Mumbai Muddle: Why Maharashtra And Delhi Are Frequently At Loggerheads

How Dravidian Politics Acts As Bulwark Against Centralism

Constitutional Federalism: State Of Exception In The Paradise Of Kashmir

Ladakh Battling Centralisation To Save Identity Culture

Manipurs Love-Hate Relations With Delhi

The Coalition Instinct: Bihars Manual Of Survival

Shifting The Goalposts: A Young Politicians Battle To Save Goa And Its Way Of Life

(The writer is a Lucknow-based senior journalist)

See the original post:

How Regional Parties Are Becoming The Voice Of Small Communities - Outlook India

A federalism issue, a political necessity

A proposal made by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin and Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to hold a convention of non-BJP Chief Ministers in Delhi has received much attention. Both Chief Ministers are pushing the proposal and trying to bring their counterparts from other states on a common platform. There are other CMs, too, moving on the same lines. Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao has been in touch with his Maharashtra counterpart Uddhav Thackeray and leaders of some non-BJP parties across the country. He is known to support a federal front of state parties and governments, and has recently become more critical of the central government and its policies. The initiative being taken by these Chief Ministers has to be seen at two levels. One is as a pushback against the central government, which is increasingly domineering over the states, and the other is as an attempt to put together a plan to counter the BJP politically.

Centre-state relations have been deteriorating steadily and the pressure on state governments has increased recently. There are several issues that have caused these tensions and fissures. The differences over the GST have continued and widened. Non-BJP states have complained that they are discriminated against. The partisan conduct of central agencies and the interventionist actions of Governors are other issues. The move to make arbitrary changes in the cadre rules of central service officers is the latest issue of discord. There have been complaints about financial and developmental matters. The states have felt that the BJPs idea of the country as a unitary state rather than as a union of states has influenced its policies toward states. They do not want their rights and powers to be curtailed and taken away by the Centre. The states have to defend themselves against an overbearing Centre now. The Chief Ministers move to make common cause has to be seen from that perspective. It is a move for self-preservation and strengthening of the federal system, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.Such initiatives become necessary and arise whenever the Centre becomes overbearing towards the states.

The political dimension of the move needs more clarity and is yet to develop. It may be considered as a rudimentary form of a political alliance against the BJP with the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in the sights of its movers. But the results of the Assembly elections in five states will have an important bearing on the plans. The roles of the Congress and some other non-BJP parties like the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) are still not clear. There is also the issue of leadership. So, the federal front as an electoral plan is still a faraway idea.

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve user experience. This includes personalising content and advertising. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy.

Read more here:

A federalism issue, a political necessity - Deccan Herald

Attempts by Mamata Banerjee and K Chandrashekar Rao to transform a proposal to forge a fight against ruling BJPs onslaught on federalism into a political alliance has attracted opposition from the CPI(M) even as it advocated the need for a joint struggle involving all non-BJP governments, including the Congress dispensations.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata and her Telangana counterpart Rao have revived the talk about taking on the BJP on the federalism issue by ignoring the Congress and have reached out to non-Congress chief ministers, namely M K Stalin (Tamil Nadu) and Uddhav Thackeray (Maharashtra), for a meeting.

While welcoming the idea of a meeting of Opposition CMs, the CPI(M) has raised concerns over the platform taking a political colour, insisting that such a move would be counter-productive. The sole agenda of the meeting should be Centres onslaught on federalism, it said.

Also Read Twenty-four years since forming TMC, Mamata only grew stronger amid rebellions

One of the issues for the CPI(M) would be the presence of Mamata-led Trinamool Congress and it does not want to share space with its arch-rival on a political platform. It was also not comfortable with the position taken by Mamata, who had said, No regional parties share good terms with Congress. Congress will go its way, we will go our way.

Coming out in support of the Congress, the CPI(M) said in an editorial in its mouthpiece Peoples Democracy, said it was true that the Congress, while in power, had advanced centralisation drive. But at present, the Congress state governments in the opposition are also bearing the brunt of the centres onslaught on states rights. So, all non-BJP state governments must be mobilised for the joint platform.

It warned against Mamata seeking to conflate the proposed meeting of CMs with the forging of an alternative alliance of regional parties will only detract from the serious business of protecting the federal principle.

The editorial then went on to say that the talk of a Federal Front by Rao or Mamatas attempt to project herself as heading an alternative alliance are political matters, which should not be mixed up with the task of bringing all Opposition CMs together.

It said a conference of CMs should focus exclusively on federalism and states rights" and any attempt to utilise such a forum to cobble up political alliances will undermine the importance of the issue of federalism and states rights and end up being counter-productive.

According to the editorial, the need for a united stand of state governments in defence of states rights cannot be overstated and the Modi government has, in its second term, stepped up the drive to centralise and concentrate all powers in its hands; no sphere of centre-state relations has been spared from the depredations of the Centre. It cited the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories as the most extreme step during this period.

Also Read Day after reaching out to KCR, Stalin, Mamata Banerjee says Congress can go its own way

The CPI(M) also claimed that there were also the "targeted attacks on specific states which represent a different political complexion, or, those that do not follow the writ of the Centre".

"When the centre amended the National Capital Territory of Delhi Act in April 2021 to declare that the Lieutenant Governor is the Government of Delhi and nullified the powers of the elected government and legislature, this was not just an attack on the AAP government but it was striking at the roots of the role of an elected state government under the constitution. It is imperative that all the democratic and secular forces take a joint stand in defence of federalism and states rights, it said.

It also referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, which encroached on the states rights, while the New Education Policy (NEP) reflects the centralising drive at various levels of education. Governors in non-BJP ruled states are increasingly becoming partisan and are acting as agents of the centre.The latest proposal of the Centre to amend the All India Service rules of IAS and IPS officers would lead to the centre having arbitrary powers to recall officers from the states to the centre bypassing the state government. The list goes on endlessly, it said.

Watch the latest DH Videos here:

See the original post here:

CPI(M) against TMC's plan to forge alliance in fight against BJP's 'onslaught' on federalism - Deccan Herald

Schoolchildren smile for the camera at a school in Panghsang, the capital of the ethnic Wa region in northern Shan State in 2015. / The Irrawaddy

By Ashley South 11 February 2022

In federal systems, education is usually a state-level responsibility. The development of locally owned and delivered education can therefore be a model for federalism in Myanmar. Many impressive initiatives are already underway, including half a dozen Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education school systems administered by Ethnic Armed Organizations and their education wings, known as Ethnic Basic Education Providers.

We are at an extraordinary period in Myanmars history, with key stakeholders working in real-time against a backdrop of an appalling crisis to re-imagine the union and its institutions. For the National Unity Government (NUG), ethnic armed organizations (EAO), Peoples Defense Forces and Peoples Administrative Bodies, civil society organizations (CSO) and others, there is an urgent need to re-negotiate state-society relations, the role and nature of the state and its institutions.

One of the opportunities of the crisis in Myanmar is to address issues which were or should have been on the previous political reform agenda and/or in the peace process, but were ignored or handled in ways which excluded key stakeholders and positions. With the Myanmar military now removed from consideration as a legitimate stakeholder in such discussions, now is the time to look at the issues without interference from these spoilers although spoilers hardly does justice to the inhumanity and idiocy of the junta goons.

One issue of concern to a wide range of stakeholders is education, and how this relates to federalism and the self-determination of ethnic nationality communities. A good place to start is examining EAO education provision, at a time when the state system of education is barely functioning and widely regarded as illegitimate.

EAO Education Departments (EBEPs)

Although terminology varies, EAO education systems are often referred to as Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEP). They serve about 300,000 children, in schools either directly administered by EAO education departments or [at least before the coup] in community-run and mixed schools, jointly administered by the governments Ministry of Education (MOE) and EBEPs. Since last years coup, the Civil Disobedience Movement has been very effective and many schools under junta control are not effectively functioning. Therefore, since 2021 there are far fewer mixed schools.

There are EAO-administered or affiliated schools in the conflict-affected areas of Karen, Mon, Kachin and Shan States and Bago and Tanintharyi Regions. Curricula range from those which largely mirror the MOE syllabus at middle and high school level, but are taught in the ethnic mother tongue [e.g. the Mon model], to those which have many separate elements to the governments curricula [e.g. the Karen school system]. In several ethnic education systems, curricula and other elements are under review and reform.

Key EBEPs include the Karen National Unions Karen Education and Culture Department, with 1093 schools and 90,000-plus students; the New Mon State Partys Mon National Education Committee, with 134 Mon National Schools and 10,324 students; the Restoration Council of Shan State Education Commission, with some 350 schools in southern Shan state and 11,000 students [and additional Shan schools administered by CSOs], the Kachin Independence Organisation Education Department, with 250-plus schools [and additional schools in government-controlled areas under the administration of Kachin education CSOs]; and the Karenni National Progressive Partys Karenni Education Department, with 60-plus schools [many administered in partnership with CSOs]. In addition, several of these groups often provide education services to children in refugee camps along the Thailand-Myanmar border.

These EBEPs variously use Mother Tongue Based and/or Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) teaching methods, with child-centered methodologies. Significant funding and technical assistance is provided by international donors, but much is supported by communities. Teachers often receive stipends, but are essentially volunteers. At present, EBEP schools are the only functioning basic education providers in the country.

Benefits of Mother Tongue-Based Education

There are two main reasons for promoting and supporting MTB-MLE in Myanmar: pedagogic and political. Regardless of the politics, children from minority communities achieve better learning outcomes if they can begin their schooling in their mother tongue. Children who are forced to learn in a language they do not speak at home are educationally disadvantaged and often never catch up with peers from the majority community, who find it much easier to understand whats going on in the classroom. MTB-MLE is acknowledged internationally as the most effective way for children who do not speak the national language to have a fair chance at achieving good learning outcomes. Evidence globally shows this to be the best way of teaching children from minority language communities. Transition to using the national language can occur in primary or middle school, depending on the specific model adopted.

Supporting ethnic education is also important for peace-building. One of the main grievances fueling ethnic conflicts in Myanmar is disregard for the identity and languages of ethnic minority/nationality communities in the state education and administrative systems, and ethnic peoples experiences of marginalization in the context of a dominant Bamar culture and language [Burmanization]. For these reasons, many ethnic nationality communities regard the national education system as a tool of assimilation, and state education has been seen as a driver of conflict. Therefore, EAOs and CSOs have set up their own MTB-MLE systems. These education initiatives owned and delivered by local actors are key elements in self-determination, and building a just and inclusive federal union.

Civil Society Education Actors

In addition to formal EBEP education systems, a number of CSOs provide informal, including after-school, and/or part-time education in local languages. Some of these work independently, while others work alongside either EAOs/EBEPs and/or with the MOE. Many are faith-based organizations.

Key Myanmar Education CSOs include Literature and Culture Committees, mostly working in government-controlled areas. In addition, several CSOs work in conflict-affected areas [often in partnership with EBEPs], as well as in areas of mixed administration and in fully government-controlled areas. Many private, often faith-based schools, follow the MOE curriculum [for example monastic schools]. Most of these activities have been unable to continue since the coup, for now at least.

Some Questions and Issues

In federal political/constitutional systems, education [especially basic education] is usually a state-level responsibility. Education provision can therefore be a model for federalism in Myanmar.

A fundamental issue to resolve is the relationship between the sub-national [ethnic state or EBEP/EAO] level, and the union level. Union-level roles for a federal government MOE can include: coordination; training and teaching resources development; finance (fundraising and distribution), and possibly also dispute arbitration, and some aspects of quality control. These issues need to be discussed, ideally through a structured process of dialogue and negotiation.

Most fundamentally, there is an urgent need for union-level recognition and accreditation of EBEP teachers and student qualifications. At present, EBEP systems are largely unrecognized by the state of Myanmar, meaning that many children find their educational achievements go unrecognized, greatly reducing their options after matriculation [and also limiting opportunities for students to move between EBEP and MOE systems].

This raises the deeper question of what is the most appropriate relationship between EBEPs and the MOE [meaning the NUGs Democratic MOE, any engagement with the juntas ministry being inappropriate]. The most useful approach might be to support parallel EBEP and MOE systems, with mutual recognition based on the elaboration of common standards, and shared learning outcomes [which can be delivered through diverse curricula and education administrations]. Another important set of questions include how to conceive of and support constructive relationships between EBEPs and state-level coordination bodies, which have emerged in a number of areas since the coup.

Focusing on the MOE [meaning the NUGs Democratic MOE], there is a need to Improve and extend MTB-MLE teaching in schools. Much-needed reforms can be based on those initiated by the ousted National League for Democracy (NLD) government through the Local Curriculum Content initiative. Under the NLD-led government, the MOE introduced ethnic language teaching up to Grade 3 in five ethnic states. Building on and learning from this experience, MTB-MLE approaches should be mainstream throughout the state system.

These issues need to be decided by Myanmar stakeholders. However, international supporters have a role to play. In general, and particularly during the last decade of reform in Myanmar, education and other initiatives were too often driven by external donor agendas. Its time to refocus this supply-driven approach, and shift towards a demand-driven agenda. Can donors get the balance right, between supporting EBEPs rather than imposing donor priorities while offering necessary advice and help to EBEP systems strengthening?

Finally, there are needs for more research and development including language-use mapping and devising teaching materials and supporting training for smaller ethno-linguistic groups, including minorities within minorities. How best to support the educational and socio-political rights of children from communities in areas where the local majority group constitute a minority across the union? These considerations may point towards a rights-based, rather than strictly ethnic-territorial, conception of federalism and self-determination.

There are many dimensions to federalism, especially in a complex and conflict-affected country like Myanmar. Although it wont be easy, exploring and supporting local ownership and delivery of education can be an important contribution to and help to learn lessons for the development of democratic federalism in the country.

Ashley South is an independent analyst, and a Research Fellow at Chiang Mai University, specializing in politics and humanitarian issues in Burma and Southeast Asia. His views are his own.

You may also like these stories:

Responsibilities and Opportunities to Save Myanmar

Myanmars Anti-Regime Protests Go On Despite Crackdowns and Detentions

Another NLD Member Dies While Detained by Myanmar Junta Forces

Here is the original post:

Education and Federalism in Myanmar - The Irrawaddy News Magazine