Category Archives: Federalism

***Click here to downloadvideo. Click here foraudio.***

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, discussed the importance of One Federal Decision in expediting project approvals,flexibility provided to states through formula funding,andideas to streamline thegrant application processesat a Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on the state and local perspective of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Listening, particularly to the three local and state officials, your stories, your reflections, and your experiences reflect the diversity of our great country. [They] serve as testimony each individually and all together as to why flexibility is so darn important. I hear about drought in Arizona and flooding in the Northeast. We have a diverse country. Our geology is different. Our hydrology is different. Our demography is different. Were all different. This speaks volumes [about] the importance of federalism and states having more control,said Senator Cramer.

Senator Cramer then pivoted to a discussion on the importance of One Federal Decision and reining in the bureaucracy to cut down project timelines with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Executive Director Jim Tymon.

[The bureaucracy] almost never pays attention until we tell them what theyre prohibited from doing. The lack of a prohibition to them is a license to do whatever they want. Thats what youre experiencing I want to go into something we havent talked about that was in the [Bipartisan Infrastructure Law] specifically, and that is the One [Federal Decision] rule. One [Federal] Decision is not to cut corners. Its not designed to diminish the integrity of oversight or environmental protection. I think you can do it much, much better; much, much faster; [and] with more efficiency and integrity, [through One Federal Decision]. If you do them chronologically, rather than concurrently, youre going to add time. But if you do it concurrently, youre going to add synergy. Not just efficiency, but synergy. [This is] what makes sense to me, but the bureaucracy likes chronological because it serves their interests best. That way every agency can take as long as they want to do a simple thing and then pass it to another agency to take as long as they want to do a simple thing. The [One Federal Decision] rule is not being utilized, and I think [it] could be the answer to a lot of your challenges. Couldnt the [One Federal Decision] become part of the solution?asked Senator Cramer.

Mr. Tymon,who represents State Departments of Transportation,agreed with Senator Cramer and supported finding ways to expedite the approval of infrastructure projects.

I do think that every state [Department of Transportation] in the country supports finding ways to expedite the approval of projects and doing it in a responsible way where were not harming the environment. I do think that the [One Federal Decision] provisions do carve out a path for there to be a more efficient decision-making process. Weve been advocating for 10-15 years for a more concurrent review process as opposed to consecutive. I think this provides a good foundation for us to move forward in that direction,said Mr. Tymon.

Senator Cramer concluded by asking for ways to simplify the discretionary grant application process to remove bureaucratic obstacles and get infrastructure dollars out to communities faster.

On the issue of discretionary grants, weve heard about the importance of the formula. Again, can we simplify even the discretionary grant programs by just applying the basics? I get that [the bureaucracy is] coming up with more ways to make it harder rather than facilitating it in my view,said Senator Cramer.

For several of the discretionary grants, [theres] a common application, and I have to give a lot of credit for that because I think that did help. For people that were potential grantees, they were able to just go to one application, but it wasnt for every discretionary grant that they had out there. I think that is going to be a challenge for this Administration moving forward, given the size of the discretionary grants and the number of them, how can they do that in an efficient manner to process those applications and get the dollars out on the street I think thats going to be very tough,responded Mr. Tymon.

Click Here to Watch

See the article here:

Urging the Use of One Federal Decision Rule to Speed Up Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Projects - Kevin Cramer

Tomorrow, Sept. 17, is Constitution Day. On that date 235 years ago, our Founding Fathers signed Americas national charter, creating a government devoted to protecting our God given rights and liberties.

When Americans think about the freedoms protected by our Constitution, we tend to focus on the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those nine amendments, familiar to all schoolchildren, protect individual liberty by safeguarding citizens; rights to speak freely, to worship God in accordance with our conscience, and to bear arms in defense of ourselves and our countrymen.

But we often overlook the capstone amendment to the Bill of Rights the Tenth which enshrines one of the most foundational freedoms of all: the right of the people within each state to govern themselves.

The Tenth Amendment declares that any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if the Constitution does not clearly grant a power to the federal government, the federal government lacks that power, and the states retain it. That is the essence of federalism.

The powers given to the national government such as the power to declare war, to issue a national currency, and to regulate commerce between states are few and carefully defined.

But the powers retained by the states are vast and indefinite. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, the states powers include the authority to make laws concerning lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

That list is as broad as it sounds. Alabamians rely on those traditional state powers to govern our day-to-day lives in more ways than most of us realize. Everything from COVID 19 protocols to criminal law to the governance of public schools falls within the states domain. This is all in accord with the Founding Fathers design.

The founding generation had just fought a long and bloody war against a despotic, overextended government, so they knew from experience that our new republic could survive only if it respected local autonomy.

A remote national legislature, they recognized, could not adequately address the diverse needs and values of the people within the states. That is why Alexander Hamilton could write with such confidence that any federal intrusions on state sovereignty would be merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such.

The importance of federalism has recently taken center stage following the U.S. Supreme Courts courageous ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, which rejected the reasoning of Roe v. Wade and held that there is no federal constitutional right to abort unborn children.

In overruling Roe, Dobbs undid a grave constitutional wrong and returned an issue of profound moral consequence to the peoples locally elected representatives.

The commitment to federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment and reaffirmed in Dobbs illustrates the great genius of our Constitution. As the framers recognized, the foundational freedom from which our other freedoms spring is the right to self-government.

That right has come under attack many times in our nations history, but it is not lost. If we cherish and defend this sacred right, we will long protect the other rights that flow from it.

Jay Mitchell is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dont miss out! Subscribe today to have Alabamas leading headlines delivered to your inbox.

Visit link:

Constitution Day 2022: Celebrating the right to govern ourselves - Yellowhammer News

As the nation observed the 235th anniversary of the completion of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, what do we celebrate? Yes, we are challenged by distrust, partisanship, bigotry, racism, insurrection, questions of justice, and so many issues that are fanned to divide us, all emphasized by the efforts of those seeking to benefit. So, what is so great about the Constitution?

Is it ordered government created to use its power to protect the general welfare of the people? Is it the institution of representative government, or protections of the right to vote? Is it the checks and balances against the concentration of governmental power provided by federalism and separation of powers? Is it individual freedom of speech, press, and religion? Is it protection from abuse of power regarding privacy and due process of law? Is it equal protection of the law for all people, regardless of sex, race, income, or status?

All of these have directed my involvement in public service as I conclude my final year in the legislature. Equal protection before the law will drive my questioning this week as my Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the nominations of the governor for judges of district court and commissioners for both Human Rights and Indigent Legal Services.

During my four decades as a teacher, students were asked to do the Pledge of Allegiance, and to ponder the meaning, and responsibility, of liberty and justice for all.

The Constitution is our very American document that provides a pathway to justice. But justice is achieved only through the attentiveness of active citizenship by thoughtful people like you and me.

Christopher W. Babbidge is representative forMaine House District 8, Kennebunk. He can be reached at[emailprotected]

Previous

Next

Go here to see the original:

From Augusta Constitution Day: What does it mean to you? - Press Herald

The role of the Governor, which originates in the colonial period, has been a contentious one, right from the Constitutional Assembly debates to the Supreme Court cases around it.

The role of the Governor, which originates in the colonial period, has been a contentious one, right from the Constitutional Assembly debates to the Supreme Court cases around it.

The role, powers, and discretion of the Governors Office in multiple States have been the subject of constitutional, political, and legal debate for decades. Recently, the prolonged silence of Jharkhands Governor over Chief Minister Hemant Sorens possible disqualification as an MLA resulted in political uncertainty.

The power spat between the Delhi government and the Centre-appointed Lieutenant Governor over the appointment of bureaucrats or the deadlock between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over assenting to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exemption Bill are just two more instances of a tussle between the Raj Bhavan and the elected government in a State.

It thus becomes pertinent to understand what the framers of the Constitution had envisaged for the post of the Governor, and what powers have been specifically granted to the Office of Governors and Lieutenant Governor in the Constitution.

Since 1858, when India was administered by the British Crown, provincial Governors wereagents of the Crown, functioning under the supervision of the Governor-General.

Over the following decades, the Indian nationalist movement sought various reforms from British rule, aiming for better governanceThese efforts culminated in the Government of India Act, 1935, which came into force in 1937, bringing provincial autonomy. Post this, the Indian National Congress commanded a majority in six provinces.

With the 1935 law, the Governor was now to act in accordance with the advice of Ministers of a provinces legislature, but retained special responsibilities and discretionary power.

Upon Independence, when the Provisional Constitution of 1947 was adapted from the 1935 Act, the post of Governor was retained but the phrases in his discretion, acting in his discretion, and exercising his individual judgement, were omitted.

The post of the Governor was extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly, which too decided to retain it while re-orienting its role from the British era. Under the parliamentary and cabinet systems of governance adopted by India, the Governor was envisaged to be the Constitutional Head of a State.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, referring to the Governors position as ornamental, called his powers limited and nominal. He described the Governors role thus in the Assembly debate on May 31, 1949: The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself; no functions at all. While he has no functions, he has certain duties to perform, and I think the House will do well to bear in mind this distinction...According to the principles of the new Constitution he is required to follow the advice of his Ministry in all matters.

The two most important aspects of the Assembly debate became whether the Governor should be elected or nominated and whether he/she should be given certain discretionary powers.

While it is now enshrined in Articles 154 and 155 of the Constitution that the Governor is to be nominated by the President as the executive head of the State, members had questioned whether a nominated Governor could be impartial.

Is the institution of Governor subverting federal structure? | The Hindu Parley podcast

Biswanath Das, a member from Orissa and future Governor of Uttar Pradesh, expressed his apprehension by saying that the Governor had been nothing but a cipher in provinces when Congressmen came to power in Independent India. He asked how then, a Governor nominated by the President and the Central Government would co-operate with the elected State Government.

In his defence of a nominated Governor, Jawaharlal Nehru reasoned that an elected Governor would fuel separatist provincial tendencies. He proposed that the Governor, nominated as such, could be a detached figure who could rise above party politics. Dr. Ambedkar concurred by asking why, if the Governors post was a purely ornamental one, should money and effort be spent on an election.

Article 143 of the draft Constitution (now Article 163) states that the Council of Ministers of a State with the Chief Minister as the head should aid and advise the Governor in carrying out his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

Multiple members of the Assembly raised concern about the discretion clause. Member Rohini Kumar Chaudhury said that Dr. Ambedkar had convinced the members of the Assembly to accept a nominated Governor by assuring them that his position would be merely a symbol. She argued how any person who has the right to act in his discretion can be said to be a mere symbol. She asked if we were living in the past we wanted to forget, by giving the Governor the same power as that given to British Governors.

Dr. Ambedkar contended, in response to the arguments, that vesting the Governor with certain discretionary powers was in no sense contrary to or in no sense a negation of responsible government. He said that the phrase except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution in Article 143 meant that the discretion was a very limited clause.

Members also raised doubts about Article 147 (now 167), which empowers the Governor to ask the Chief Minister to furnish any information regarding the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. It also empowers the Governor to ask the Chief Minister to submit for consideration to the Council of Ministers, a decision that was taken without the Council's consideration.

Some argued that this Article would enable the Governor to interfere with and obstruct the administration carried out by the State Government, but Dr. Ambedkar said this notion was completely mistaken as the Article nowhere said that the Governor could overrule the Ministry. He added that if the Governors limited duties of advising and warning Ministers was also taken away, then he would be rendered a completely unnecessary functionary.

However, in the recent past, multiple State Governments have routinely expressed discontent over Governors interfering with day-to-day administration for instance, the prolonged discord between current Vice-President and former West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar and Mamata Banerjees ruling TMC. The Chief Minister said that Mr. Dhankhar was targeting her and State government officials and making them follow his instructions as if they were his bonded labourers. The State government had written to the Centre multiple times to recall the Governor.

There was similar conflict when Kiran Bedi was serving as the Governor of Puducherry.

The other important provisions defining the Governors role state that the Governor appoints the Chief Minister after an election and the Council of Ministers on the advice of the CM (Article 164).

The Governor can also summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Legislative Assembly (Article 174). By convention, he does this on the advice of the Council of Ministers while they enjoy the confidence of the Assembly. The M.M Punchhi Commissions report on Centre-State relations points out that the exercise of his discretion happens only when following the Councils advice would be unconstitutional or if the Council has lost the confidence of the Assembly.

Also read: Governing the Governors

Every Bill passed in an Assembly has to be sent to the Governor (Article 200), after which he has four options to assent to the Bill, withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or return the Bill to the legislature, asking it to reconsider the Bill or an aspect of it. The Governor can also suggest an amendment to the Bill. The legislature is supposed to quickly consider the recommendations but if it chooses to pass the Bill in the same form again, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.

As for the role of the Lieutenant Governor, Article 239, introduced through an amendment in 1956, states that each Union Territory will be administered by the President through an administrator appointed by him and given a designation he specifies. The administrators in some UTs are designated as Lieutenant Governors, with a special provision (Article 239AA) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which was inserted in 1991.

The Lt. Governor of Delhi also acts on theadvice of the Council of Ministers except on the subjects of police, public order, and land. The Lt. Governor can exercise his discretion when required by any law. In case of a difference of opinion with the Ministers, he would have to consult the President.

The role of the Governor was first questioned after the 1952 elections in undivided Madras, when, ignoring the United Democratic Fronts (UDF) claim as the party with the majority, Governor Sri Prakasa invited the Congress to form the government, which it did after engineering several splits and defections, with Rajaji as Chief Minister.

The Governors position was subject to much debate after the fourth general elections of 1967 when the Congress lost power in eight States while retaining it at the Centre. In the subsequent decades, the formation of regional parties and tenuous alliances to form governments led to politically volatile situations in many States. In many such cases, Governors started being called upon to exercise their discretion, thus inviting allegations of partisanship.

In 1975, after the declaration of national Emergency, the DMK regime offered political support to dissidents, which led to realignments in State politics. Then Tamil Nadu Governor K. K. Shah sent a report to the President to dismiss the DMK government for pervasive corruption. Presidents Rule was imposed on February 3, 1976. The calling for Presidents Rule by Governors became a regular practice and it was imposed in States over a 100 times prior to 1994.

It was with this backdrop that the Supreme Courts nine-judge Bench gave its historic verdict in the S.R. Bommai case in 1994, ruling that imposition of Presidents Rule shall be only in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka in April 1989, when his government was dismissed. The dismissal was on the grounds that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly. The Supreme Court ruled that the floor of the Assembly should be the only forum that should test the majority of the government of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor, who faced allegations of being the Centres agent, concerns as old as the Constituent Assembly.

Post that, governments have knocked on the doors of the apex court multiple times to interpret the extent of the Governors discretionary powers, whether it is about summoning or dissolving the Assembly, appointing the Chief Minister in a hung Assembly, or withholding assent to Bills.

In late 2015, a political crisis arose in Arunachal Pradesh, where multiple Congress MLAs rebelled against Chief Minister Nabam Tuki. The members of the BJP then sent a letter to Governor J.P. Rajkhowa expressing displeasure towards Nabam Rebia, the Speaker of the Assembly.The Governor, acting without the advice of the Chief Minister, advanced the Assembly session and listed removal of the Speaker as the agenda.

The Speaker moved the Supreme Court against the Governors move, and a five-judge Constitution Bench held in 2016 that Mr. Rajkhowas decision was a violation of the Constitution, leading to the restoration of the Congress-led Nabam Tuki government.

The Governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head. And not at his own will, the Bench led by the then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar held in a unanimous judgment.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the area for the exercise of his (Governors) discretion is limited.

Even in this limited area, his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, actuated by good faith and tempered by caution, the Bench held.

In another judgement, Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court said that President and Governor shall exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well-known exceptional situations.

Multiple commissions appointed by the Central government to review and reform Centre-State relations and encourage co-operative federalism have spoken about the role of the Governor as well, with their reports relying extensively on Supreme Court judgements. The Sarkaria Commission, headed by Justice R. S. Sarkaria, said in its 1988 report that it would not be desirable to appoint a Governor who is a member of the ruling party at the Centre, in a State where an Opposition party is governing. It said that the Governor appointee should be a detached outsider and a person of eminence in some walks of life.

Later, in 2007, the M.M Punchhi Commission report stated that Governors were expected to be independent, and to act in a manner devoid of any political consideration. It pointed out that independence of such actions would include keeping the State Legislature and the political executive shielded from the political will of the Union Government.

See original here:

Explained | The office of the Governor: its origins, powers, and controversies - The Hindu

The Geography Department Professional Speaker Series kicks off 2022-23 with OHIO alumnus Casey Galligan discussing The Clean Water Act: An Overview of One Ambitious Environmental Laws Attempts to Preserve and Improve Our Nations Surface Waters on Friday, Sept. 23, at 3 p.m. at Clippinger Labs 119.

Galligan is a staff attorney at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). His talk is open to the public, as well as OHIO students, faculty and staff.

The speaker series, funded by the College of Arts and Sciences Seminar Fund, invites high-achieving geography alumni in practical professional fields to share valuable insights on current topics, including environment, urban planning, and climate change.

Galligan is a member of the Ohio Bar and an environmental lawyer. He earned a B.S. in Geography Environmental Pre-Law from the College of Arts and Sciences in 2010 and an Environmental Studies Certificate from the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Service. After Ohio University, Gallian earned a J.D. from Capital University Law School in 2014 with dual concentrations in environmental law and energy law and policy. Galligan joined the Ohio EPA in 2016 and currently works as a staff attorney at its Surface Water Division.

"In 1972, Congress made sweeping amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restore 'the Nations Waters,' creating what is now the primary policy instrument regulating surface water quality in the United Sates," Galligan said. "The Clean Water Act of 1972 set two optimistic goals: zero discharge of pollutants by 1985; and achieving water quality that is both 'fishable' and 'swimmable' by mid-1983. The acts cooperative federalism approach allows federal and state governments to work together to achieve the goals of the act, and it contains a broad set of tools to achieve its goals and implement its policies."

While the federal Environmental Protection Agency promulgates national standards and provides oversight, the state environmental agencies provide the day-to-day work of implementing policy and tailoring standards to meet the needs of local watersheds. Galligan will provide an overview of the policies of the Clean Water Act, detail some ways in which Ohio implements the act, discuss current legal issues, and speak about successes and shortcomings.

The Geography Departments Professional Speaker Series plans to bring in a series of speakers throughout the academic year so that undergraduate and graduate students can explore career opportunities and options in government offices for environmental law, urban planning, weather forecast, and geography.

The four colloquium talks, held from 3-4 p.m. at 119 Clippinger, are scheduled as follows:

View post:

Geography Professional Speaker Series kicks off with alumnus from Ohio EPA on Sept. 23 - Ohio University

Doctors test a patient for dengue, a vector-borne disease, at Sukraraj Tropical and Infectious Disease Hospital. Photo: Aryan Dhimal

Dengue, a vector-borne disease that outbroke since pre-monsoon, has now emerged as a major health problem across the country. In some districts, including Kathmandu valley, dengue has spread in almost every household, and most of the hospital beds are full.

According to the Epidemiology and Disease Control Division (EDCD), within two months, 15,000 people have been infected with dengue and 16 people have died so far.

Looking at the data of the last decade, although the risk of dengue is there every year, the outbreaks have been seen every once in three years.

But, the government does not seem to have done preparations accordingly. It has not been able to investigate the reason for the increasing infection of dengue every year as there is no single entomologist in a country who has expertise in vector-borne diseases.

The EDCD officials admit that dengue is becoming dangerous due to the governments negligence. This situation has come about because the government has not been able to make a strategy and plan for dengue control, they say.

Another official says there are no positions allocated for entomologists who work in the research and control of vector-borne diseases, and this is one of the highest points of negligence. An entomologist is needed to study, research, and make policies on public health as far as vector-borne diseases are concerned.

An assistant entomologist is working at the Vector-Borne Disease Research and Training Centre, Hetaunda.

Before the implementation of federalism in Nepal, there were positions of vector control supervisors and entomologists in various agencies under the Ministry of Health. These experts would be responsible for controlling vector-borne diseases.

Former EDCD Director General Baburam Marasini says that the government made a mistake by removing the posts of vector control supervisors and entomologists. The government sent all the entomologists as public health workers to the municipal level after the introduction of federalism. It was wrong.

According to experts, entomologists carry out control programmes in places where vector-borne diseases such as dengue spread, collect data on infected people, and study, research and conduct control programmes in multi-sectorial collaboration.

According to government data, 37 entomologists were working in different departments, health directorates and health offices before federalism.

In the event of an outbreak, the ministry could have included experts in different places in the dengue control programme. But due to a lack of entomologists, such programmes have not been able to run where dengue is becoming terrible, says Dr Marasini adds.

The EDCD has allocated millions of budget to the local level for dengue control in the current financial year. But, the control campaign has not been effective due to the lack of experienced personnel.

According to Hemraj Joshi, a vector control officer working in the Sudurpaschim Health Directorate, the government is neglecting to understand the climate and conditions in which the mosquitoes that spread the infection develop and take steps to control it.

Entomologists and vector control supervisors used to study various pests, including disease-carrying mosquitoes, and find out their habits. Dengue has taken the form of an epidemic because the experienced and skilled human resources in this matter have to be restricted to the municipal level, says Joshi.

He further says, We have worked on the basis of the previous study. However, it is not known whether a new species has arrived or not. There has not been any new study and research.

The current dengue outbreak is going out of control as the Ministry of Healths initiatives to control vector-borne diseases are limited. Due to the ministrys attitude that dengue is a seasonal problem and it will disappear after the winter begins has brought this disaster; within a few months, there are high chances that hundreds of people may die, says Dr Marasini.

He suggests that by declaring a health emergency, attention should be paid to dengue control and management including treatment of the infected. There are no empty beds at hospitals. Healthcare workers are also getting dengue infections. The health system is witnessing a disaster. Even at this time, the government is being static. Its time to declare a health emergency. What is our government waiting for and what can be the worse scenario than this? questions Dr Marasini.

Experts say that a health emergency should be declared in order to use other mechanisms in the country as government mechanisms alone are not enough. According to the director of the Epidemiology and Disease Control Division, Dr Chuman Lal Das, a discussion is taking place on whether to declare a dengue infection as an epidemic.

This story was translated from the original Nepali version and edited for clarity and length.

See the article here:

Vector-borne diseases trouble Nepal every year as there is not a single entomologist - Online Khabar (English)

From the countrys most powerful politician to one of the worlds richest people, no Indian state comes close to matching the political and economic clout of Gujarat in the past decade. Ever since Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi stepped on to the national stage, all roads seem to lead to and from Gandhinagar. This opens up an intriguing question: Is the disproportionate influence in policymaking wielded by netas and bureaucrats from Gujarat at the Centre leading to favouritism in key decisions affecting states?

The answer might lie in the snowballing controversy over the Foxconn-Vedanta $22 billion semiconductor project setting up base in Gujarat, instead of Maharashtra. In the last week of July, Maharashtra chief minister (CM) Eknath Shinde informed the assembly that the coveted project, which is expected to provide thousands of jobs, was set to come to Maharashtra, even writing an official letter to the companies with a proposed signing date. So, what changed in six weeks? Vedanta chairman Anil Agarwal has clarified Gujarat was chosen a few months ago but that in July, Maharashtra made a massive but unsuccessful effort to get the project; the Opposition has pointed to a high-level meeting in early September between the project principals and the PM, and the fact that Gujarat goes to the polls soon.

The nature of the decision, especially in the context of the tangled Gujarat-versus-Maharashtra relationship, threatens to reopen wounds, both past and present. Recall that the formation of the two western states in 1960 emerged from a bitter even bloody conflict over the geographical division of the old Bombay state. While entrepreneurial Gujaratis have contributed to the wealth and prosperity of Mumbai, an element of sibling-like rivalry between the two state leaderships has always existed. Maharashtras linguistic and regional Big Brother assertion was reflected in the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, and later, in the rise of the sons of the soil Shiv Sena crusade.

In the last decade, the tables have turned politically and economically. When earlier this month, on a visit to Mumbai, Union home minister Amit Shah urged Mumbaikars to defeat the Shiv Sena in their own home in the forthcoming civic elections, he was seen as driving a knife into a wounded tiger. The hostile takeover of the Sena-led coalition government by encouraging a rebellion against the Thackeray family has only stoked fears among the Marathi manoos (common man) that a Modi-Shah-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is undermining Maharashtrian asmita (self-respect). The frequent visits of CM Shinde to Delhi to seek clearance on Cabinet formation has only reaffirmed the perception of Maharashtras remote control being held by Gujarats intimidating jodi #1. In that sense, the timing of the project announcement couldnt be more politically sensitive.

Moreover, while Maharashtra had a headstart as an economic powerhouse, Gujarat has gradually challenged its larger neighbour as the preferred investment destination in recent years. In 2020-21, Gujarat received the highest foreign direct investment (FDI) among all states, while Maharashtra was pushed to second. In 2021-22, Gujarat slipped to sixth as Karnataka climbed to the top, but that might be a temporary blip. While Gujarats political ascendancy has contributed substantially to its economic upsurge, states such as Maharashtra must also introspect. The Enron power project in the 1990s once seen as an exemplar of the early liberalisation blueprint was mired in allegations of bribery and corruption, leading to re-negotiation and a severe credibility crisis for Maharashtra Inc.

More recently, several key infrastructure projects have been stuck because of fiercely competitive politics; the bitter fight between the Shiv Sena and the BJP over the Aarey metro car shed development is a classic example. Where a stable single-party rule in Gujarat over the last 25 years has ensured swiftness and confidence in decision-making, coalition experiments in Maharashtra have led to uncertainty, compromises and delays in project execution.

But while Gujarat can take pride in its economic resurgence, the much-hyped Gujarat model is driven by an excessive centralised approach, not in sync with the plural character of Indian federalism. In his Independence Day speech, the PM called for cooperative competitive federalism where states seek to outshine each other on the development front. But fair competition demands that the Centre nurture a transparent, level playing field and not a partisan political environment skewed in favour of double-engine BJP-ruled states, as alleged by some states. States should compete for investment based on objective economic factors.

Opposition-run states believe they are on notice from central agencies and being routinely destabilised. The overarching political ambition to create an Opposition-mukt (free) Bharat might be part of the BJPs quest for long-term supremacy, but it also creates more friction points of suspicion and resentment, instead of genuine cooperative federalism. It can be argued that Gujarat gets precedence even in non-business matters. Why, for example, are major global leaders encouraged to visit Gandhinagar in preference to other capitals? Modi, as Gujarat CM, was CEO of his state; as PM, he is the captain of Team India.

Post-script: There is a personal angle to the complex Maharashtra-Gujarat equation. My late grandfather was a Maharashtrian, a 1943 batch Imperial Police officer from Bombay state, who was coerced into shifting to Gujarat by Morarji Desai because the new state in 1960 had a shortage of senior police officers. Then, his shift from Maharashtra to Gujarat was a rare one. Today, as Gujarat rules the roost, who can say no to anything Indias dynamo state wants?

Rajdeep Sardesai is senior journalist and author

The views expressed are personal

See the original post here:

The Gujarat factor in the development project - Hindustan Times

Soon after becoming the Prime Minister in 2014, Narendra Modi spoke about cooperative federalism as an idea that could guide Centre-state relations. His long experience as Chief Minister of Gujarat, presumably, may have been an instructive influence in shaping his vision of governance. Unfortunately, federal relations have been on the downslide for some years now.

Historically, Centre-state relations have been a fraught issue since the 1960s, especially during the premierships of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. The tension would exacerbate whenever an Opposition party would win power in a state. In fact, the Kerala crisis in 1959 was a harbinger of how this tension could build into a stand-off between the Union and the state governments. In the heyday of the Congress and Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1950s, Kerala had voted in a CPI government. Just two years after it was sworn in, the Congress-led Opposition, in cahoots with caste/ communitarian groups that were upset with the radical tenancy and education reforms, launched a mass movement calling for the ouster of the communist government. In 1959, reportedly under pressure from the then Congress president, Indira Gandhi, the Nehru government invoked Article 371 to dismiss the EMS government, which enjoyed a majority in the Assembly. Thereafter, successive Union governments, with support from pliable governors, have dismissed inconvenient state governments and imposed Presidents Rule in Opposition-ruled states. This tendency peaked in the 1970s and 80s under Indira and Rajiv. Parties such as the CPM, citing the examples of Kerala and West Bengal, used to campaign against the Centres step-motherly treatment of Opposition-run states. This was the backdrop of the Sarkaria Commission (1983) that looked into Centre-state relations and made numerous proposals for its improvement. Despite Modis assurances, federalism seems to have taken a knock as an ambitious BJP seeks to dominate the polity at all costs. The ongoing controversy over the Vedanta-Foxconn project, which this newspaper has tracked in depth, as well as the mass defections in Goa seem like a throwback to the 1970s and 80s, when the Congress used to ignore constitutional and institutional propriety to further its political goals.

Last week, it was announced that the Rs 1.54 lakh crore Vedanta-Foxconn project, originally planned for Maharashtra, would come up in Gujarat. The Opposition in Maharashtra alleged that the Centre used its leverage over the promoters to shift the project to Gujarat. Until recently, the Maha Vikas Aghadi, an anti BJP alliance, was in office in Mumbai. Moreover, Gujarat is headed for elections later this year. This war of words between the BJP-Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) and the MVA has threatened to open old fault lines in federal relations as well as the states political economy. Also, ethnic tensions that date back to the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement in the 1950s have started to feature in political debates. Girish Kuber (A troubling trend, September 16) fleshed out the details of the controversy while an editorial (Whose project, September 16) cautioned against an emerging chill in Centre -state relations. The editorial said: There is no reason why cities or states within India must not compete among themselves for investment and industry. In fact, they should. At the same time, the political gloves are off, Centre-state chill is deepening, many MLAs have become fungible assets, making for tricky terrain when it comes to who decides to invest where. The stakes are high when the fault lines run deep, watch this space.

The defection of eight Congress MLAs in Goa to the BJP, reminiscent of similar movements in Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka, exposed the lead Opposition partys inability to keep its flock together in the absence of power. An editorial (Aya Ram, Gaya Ram, September 15) pointed out the weakening of the Opposition space as the BJP seeks to consolidate the political space. If the slogan was Congress-mukt Bharat in 2014, today it seems to be Opposition-mukt Bharat. As majorities are upturned or enhanced, the anti-defection law, which was introduced in the 1980s with the intent to raise the bar for party hopping, has been thoroughly exposed. Legislators seem ready to switch sides shamelessly in Goa, the elections were held as recently as March with the confidence that voters may be willing to condone their act. In Karnataka, most of the MLAs who defected got reelected on their new party symbol. Perhaps, Parliament should tweak the anti-defection law and ask defecting legislators to sit out one term before they seek endorsement of voters in their new avatar!

As the Opposition space gets squeezed elsewhere, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin announced that his government will provide breakfast to primary school students. This is in addition to the universal mid-day meal scheme that has been a part of public education in the state since the 1980s. What is interesting is that Stalin has sought to give a political spin to his initiative by stating that the scheme is welfare, not a freebie, and it is his duty to provide such welfare. The breakfast scheme is part of a slew of initiatives in the education sector that Tamil Nadu has introduced in recent months. These interventions in education are framed as conscious political acts and in step with the Dravidian Model of governance as against the preference of Hindutva politics for a polarising nationalism and other majoritarian agendas. This could become the core of a new Opposition politics.

One of cinemas greatest auteurs departed last week. Jean-Luc Godard, French director and film theorist, reportedly died by assisted suicide at the age of 91 in Switzerland. Godard was one of the leaders of the French New Wave and inspired filmmakers all over the world. His films were political to the core and constantly explored the politics of the image and sound. He constantly reinvented himself as an artist to keep his autonomy and agency and from being appropriated by the state and its institutions as well as to keep up with upheavals in politics, science and technology. C S Venkiteswaran (Conscience of cinema, September 14) and Amrit Gangar (Godard on the Borivali local, September 15) wrote touching tributes to the maestro.

Last week also saw a new development in the Gyanvapi mosque case, with a district court in Varanasi agreeing to hear a plea by five Hindu devotees that their right to worship at the site be protected (Law and politics, September 13). The hearing is set to begin on September 22. Faizan Mustafa (Not by the law, September 13) warned against over-dependence on litigation to maintain social harmony.

Thats all for this week.

Thank you,

Amrith

Amrith Lal is Deputy Editor with the Opinion team

Original post:

The downslide in federal relations - The Indian Express

The debates surrounding theVedanta-Foxconn dealhave reignited the discussion around industrial development, the strategy of the state governments, and the role of the Centre. Since Independence, India has been accustomed to the State-directed developmental model, where the government decides the flow of investment through five-year plans. The use of license-permit raj, and planning decisions defying market logic led to severe misallocation of resources over the years. The resultant weakening of the economy, and inefficiency ultimately led to the Balance of Payment crisis which forced the economic reforms of 1991.

One of the main thrusts of the economic reforms was to move away from direct planning to indicative planning, and allow for greater play of market forces in the economy. The states were now free to attract private investments by offering incentives, and other support to the industry. With the scrapping of the planning commission by the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, India buried a relic of the Soviet-inspired past that hindered economic growth with its market-distorting interventions.

The last decade has seen the rise of co-operative federalism in the realms of taxation reform, dispute resolution, and health and welfare. But it has also witnessed the emergence of competitive federalism regarding industrialization, and attracting private investment. With no central planning, either direct or indicative, to count upon, states increasingly realise that they must play a proactive role in encouraging economic development; and that it requires attracting more and more private investment in various sectors like manufacturing, tourism, financial services etc.

The state governments are compelled to improve their law and order, and administration to make frontline bureaucracy business-friendly, and reform rules and regulations to make legal framework compatible with economic and technological changes. They are also required to make their states an attractive destination for private investment by providing several incentives and concessions like land, subsidy etc., with the hope that resultant investment will raise the tax collection in future to a sufficient level.

Competition between states has been a driving factor behind administrative and process reforms in the states. Such healthy competition between states to provide the best services and facilities to attract investment in manufacturing capacity can only be a positive sign for the economy. It will create more jobs in the country, and generate value and economic development.

In competitive federalism, the role of the Centre also becomes very important. The Centre acts as the facilitator and impartial referee between states. It sets up the rules of the game by framing appropriate economic policies, granting greater autonomy to states, and acting as a mediator between states and multinational companies wherever required. And the current government has been delicately balancing between co-operative federalism and competitive federalism.

The approach adopted by the NITI Aayog to come out with sector-specific indices is a good example of the Centre promoting healthy competition among the states. The Sustainable Development Goals Index, the India Innovation Index, the Export Preparedness Index, ranking on the performance of Aspiration Districts, etc., have propelled states to strive for better performance. Be it Business Reform Action Plan categorising states from best to least performer or finance commission recommendations pushing decentralisation and greater autonomy for states, there has been a general push towards making states proactive to attain developmental goals.

Such competition is much needed if India was to achieve its stated target of achieving a $5 trillion GDP in the coming years. Competition can unlock local potential, and make the state leadership an active stakeholder in economic development by aligning their incentives with economic growth. Higher economic growth is the pre-condition for economic development. It can nudge the states from the destructive policies of freebies, and instead put them on the path of capacity building and long-term investment to achieve fundamental transformation in economy and polity.

The Vedanta-Foxconn deal also indicates that this competition cannot be just about offering higher subsidies, or land. The stable and reliable pro-business political culture, efficient general administration, presence of local industrial cluster, better infrastructure, responsive bureaucracy, and enterprising local representatives are all factors in the mega-investment decisions by the companies.

See the rest here:

Competition between states to attract investment will boost Indias economy - Moneycontrol

In his address to the nation on its 76th Independence Day, PM Modi set the tone for a Viksit Bharat (Developed India) by 2047 through the maxim, When the states grow India grows. And Niti Aayog, with its mandate to actualise cooperative federalism, is the proactive GoI platform for bringing states together to work towards this national development agenda. This collaborative approach was endorsed in August by Niti Aayogs governing council, which in turn was building on the first of its kind chief secretaries conference in June. The latter meeting reaffirmed the need for combined Centre-state efforts to realise national and state/UT priorities.

Learning from best practices

States have varying capacities in driving transformational and inclusive growth. The scale of such transformation envisaged under Vision 2047 requires strong and agile institutions, which should also take the lead in designing a states overall development strategy, setting sectoral targets and bringing together technology, enterprise and efficient management for policy formulation and implementation. Niti Aayog can act as a medium for states to learn from each other through sharing of their best practices.

Read full opinion on TOI+

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Follow this link:

For state of the nation, look at states of the nation: Niti Aayogs new chief says it will help states learn - Times of India