Federalism is inherently an instinct in life and blood of every Odia as the legacy is inherited from Utkalgaurab Madhusudan Das, the founding father of Odisha's unification, who as member of Bihar-Bengal-Odisha Legislative Council had demanded decentralisation of power in order to strengthen local bodies in the country.
The concept of decentralisation was echoed later by Biswanath Das and other members in the Constituent Assembly. Madhubabu was the pioneer of concept of “linguistic States” to meet regional aspirations by his strategic and distinct approach in British India. Many leaders of Odisha led by him ignored Congress's call to boycott Simon Commission.
He inspired the Odias to submit memorandums to the commission for unification of Odia speaking tracts though the entire Congress party was opposed to the Simon Commission.
This paved the way for creation of Odisha State in 1936 for which Odisha province could send representatives to the Constituent Assembly formed in pursuance to May 1946 decision of the Cabinet Mission to frame a constitution for independent India.
Veteran leader JB Kripalani as president of Congress equally demanded that the constitution should be democratic and federal in character which had its effective echo in the Constituent Assembly in which representatives of Odisha made repeated suggestions to shape the federal character of the constitution.
Pandit Nehuru in his address to the Constituent Assembly on April 28, 1947 assured that India would be a “Union of States”. Biswanath Das who refused to become PM of Odisha in 1937 for his precondition against any intervention by Governor in administrative functioning of the State had strongly urged the Constituent Assembly to limit the powers of the Governors and mentioned how a Governor had tried to divide his party in Odisha when he was its PM.
This view got support from Naziruddin Ahmad and Laxminarayan Sahu proposed that the Governor should be “elected” not appointed to strengthen democracy.
Members like Judhistira Mishra and Sarangadhar Das recalled the agreement with princely States held in Odisha in the presence of Home Minister Sardar Patel and demanded merger of left out Odia speaking areas like Sadheikala and Kharasuan of Bihar province with Odisha during the debate.
Sarangadhar Das on November 17, 1949 session said that India should have taken lesson from the US and others in order to declare natural resources as the “property of community” and he opposed bringing certain areas “under Central control” for 10 years describing it as a “reactionary measure.”
Laxminarayan Sahu, another Member from Odisha, opposed any role of the Centre in education when on August 31, 1949 he had said “My contention is that, education having been accepted a State subject, universities should have all powers in regard to this subject, and the Centre should have no power.
Unless universities have full freedom in this respect, education cannot be imparted to the people properly. ” He had also urged on August 23, 1949 for appropriate constitutional safeguards to secure impartiality of public service commission to wipe out any apprehension that it is working “under the influence of any political party.”
Another very important point Odisha’s representative Lokanatha Mishra laid on January 3, 1949 session when he demanded that “to safeguard the special interest of the States and their problem”, the membership from each province irrespective of its population and geography should be limited to maximum three. Laxminarayan Sahu said that the draft provisions are mere introspective contrary to the promise made to make India a federal State with provinces as “autonomous units”.
But provinces have been “tightly chained to the Centre”. Responding to various suggestions of the representatives of Odisha, Bengal, Kanada and Madras, provisions were made in the constitution for legislative sovereignty and dual public service etc.
The impact of Odisha unification movement was immense. It inspired other linguistic regions like Kanada, Telugu to demand for full linguistic Statehood for their people towards which provision was made for creation of a State Reorganization Commission which was instituted later in the year 1955.
The representatives of Odisha province in the Constituent Assembly had repeatedly pleaded to make provinces financially autonomous. On this issue, Biswanath Das was on the forefront. He was supported on different occasions by Dr PK Sen (Bihar provinces), Dr Ram Lingam Chettiar (Coimbatore provinces) and HN Kunzuru (North-Western Provinces).
On August 9, 1949 while participating in a debate on Article-255, Biswanath Das said that “Here under Article 255 we are discussing grants-in-aid to the provinces.
Who made the Government of India, Finance Department, into a charitable institution that it gives occasional charities to undeveloped areas like Assam, Orissa, Bihar or Bengal? We stand on justice and equity, we stand here on our rights that every province must have social justice, must have a basic standard of income or revenue.” Das was very emphatic towards honesty and integrity in financial proceedings of the provinces and the country.
On November 14, 1949 while participating on Articles 148 and 149, he pleaded for “Highest degree of financial integrity” and urged that in the interest of nation the office of auditor general/account general should be made “completely independent”. Participating in long debates in the Constituent Assembly on the issue of federalism TT Krishnamachari on September 9, 1949 said “I would like to repudiate at once so far as the Drafting Committee is concerned, that there is any idea of either overloading the Centre or erring on the side of the provinces.
All that we have done, to the extent that we are able to do, is only to see that the Centre takes only such powers as are needed for the purpose of coordinating the activities of the provinces.”
While Dr Ambedakar in his explanation said that “The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in this matter.
It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism. ” Dr Ambedakar while in response to similar debate on November 4, 1948 had asserted that “The Draft Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it establishes what may be called a dual polity.
The dual polity under the proposed Constitution will consist of a union at the Centre and the States at the periphery, each endowed with sovereign power to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution,” He further proclaimed: “One can therefore safely say that the Indian Federation will not suffer from the faults of rigidity or legalism. Its distinguishing feature is that it is a flexible federation”.
He however emphasized on public awareness as key to success of working of the Constitution. Most important features of federal Constitution is distribution of legislative and executive power between units and federation and an independent judiciary for arbitration in case of differences between Union and States.
Thus federalism is not a mere slogan but a reality inherently built in country’s political ethos. In post constitution era Bijubabu was a votary of federal structure. From Indira regime to Deva Gouda, he never missed any chance to demand more financial power to States.
(The writer is a former Assembly Deputy Speaker and an advocate; Mob: 7437009009/9437412877. E-mail: pandarcp@gmail.com Views are personal)