Dear reader, The federal pact that governs the relations between the Union and the states has come under strain just as the nation prepares for the 72nd Republic Day this Wednesday. The latest event to reflect the worsening Centre-state relations is the push by the Union government to amend the IAS cadre rules. Four proposed amendments are seen by critics as an attempt by the Centre to exercise more control over the officers. Predictably, state governments have raised their voice against the move. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a letter to the Prime Minister, has warned that the amendments could turn into a political confrontation between the Centre and the states. The IAS controversy comes in the wake of Opposition-administered states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala, besides West Bengal, openly accusing the Centre of rejecting their R-Day tableaux for political reasons. The Kerala tableau featured the iconic poet-saint and social reformer, Sree Narayana Guru while Tamil Nadu showcased freedom fighters from the state; West Bengal had focussed on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, whose 125th birth anniversary is being celebrated today. The Indian Express editorial on the IAS cadre rules ('Battleground IAS', January 22) cautioned against unilateral moves that could upset the delicate federal relations. As is often said, the IAS is the steel frame that holds up the governance structure. These officers are selected and appointed by the Centre and assigned to the state and Union Territories. They are also deputed to work at the Centre. The deputation is done after consultations involving the Centre, the state government and the concerned official. It seems officers these days are reluctant to shift to the Centre, which has affected governance. This is a concern that calls for the Centre and the states to sit together and resolve in the true spirit of federalism. The Centre should find out why officers prefer assignments in the states to a central tenure. Could it be because, as the editorial flagged, work is no longer challenging or interesting at the Centre, where all decisions are taken at the top? These controversies are clear evidence of deterioration in Centre-state relations. A tendency to reimagine India in unitary terms has gained strength since the BJP assumed office in 2014. Tension between the forces of centralisation and decentralisation has always been a part of the nation-building project, of course. The mainstream of the freedom movement saw India as a federation of states and while propounding unity in diversity also recognised the diversity in unity. The Constitution cemented the federal spirit with provisions that safeguard the rights of states and minorities — religious, linguistic, ethnic, regional etc. It is this federal spirit that won over political movements that had argued for separate nationhood on the basis of language etc. in the 1940s and 50s. The dismissal of the CPI government in Kerala in 1959 was one of the earliest acts of the Centre threatening the federal balance envisaged by the Constitution. In the Indira Gandhi era, Article 356 of the Constitution was weaponised and used against the Opposition-run state governments. An all-powerful Centre imposed the Emergency in 1975 and the federal balance between the states and the Centre, for almost all practical reasons, collapsed. The Janata Party, which has a federal character because of the way it was constituted after the Emergency was lifted, set out to correct the anomalies of the Emergency, including restoring the powers and rights of the states. It set up the Sarkaria Commission to address the concerns of the states. With the rise of coalitions at the Centre, the states could negotiate better with the Centre since regional parties had become influential partners in the ruling coalitions at the Centre. The empowerment of the regional parties, and thereby states, was one of the positive features of the National Front, United Front, the Vajpayee-led NDA and UPA coalition governments. It also facilitated more widespread and diversified economic growth and urbanisation. Cities like Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Chennai etc. became urban conglomerations that started to rival Delhi and Mumbai in producing quality jobs and offering even better living conditions. An overbearing Centre that prefers to impose itself on the states rather than govern through dialogue and consensus would surely disrupt this India story. In his article ('The Missing Federal Spirit', January 21), CPI general secretary D Raja has claimed that the ruling establishment wants to flatten the diversity that is a unique feature of the Republic. He wrote: “These developments stem from an ideology that has disregard for the diversity of the country and a contempt for constitutional values. These are rooted in a monolithic conception of the country, which is the hallmark of the RSS and the BJP. Their obsession with homogeneity and the idea of ‘Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan’ is blinding. The philosophy of uniformity and flattening out diversity has disastrous consequences for our republic, society and ways of life”. Just as the week ended, a new controversy erupted over the Centre’s decision to “merge” the Amar Jawan Jyoti at the India Gate with the eternal flame at the adjacent National War Memorial. Arun Prakash, a formal Naval chief, wrote that criticism of the move is needless. In a pre-budget article ('Feel the pain', January 21), Ishan Bakshi argued that the government must recognise the distress that persists in the unorganised sector, both labour and enterprise, and provide the necessary support to help them survive the havoc wreaked by the pandemic. Literary critic and environmental historian G Madhusoodanan ('Voice of the Silent Valley', January 19) remembered the contributions of M K Prasad, who passed away aged 89 in Kochi last week. Prasad, who taught botany in government colleges in Kerala, was primarily responsible for building up sound scientific evidence against the construction of a dam at the Silent Valley forests in Kerala in the 1970s. He was a leading light of the green movement in Kerala since the 1970s and nurtured a host of activists, writers and movements that fought the crude developmentalism that pervaded the corridors of government. Science defined Prasad’s environmentalism and the scientific temper he argued for shunned blind faith in technology and respected ecological wisdom. Thank you. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment