The rapid pace of globalisation has had a profound impact on federalism, which seeks to manage sovereignty with dual rule. liberalisation, juxtaposed with the rise of coalition regimes, has strengthened decentralisation
The political debate over the division of Andhra Pradesh makes one ponder over the nuances of re-organisation of States and federalism in India. The Telangana question is symptomatic of a new phase in the process of States’ re-organisation in the country in more sense than one. For one, we have moved beyond the phase when the demand for new States was based predominantly on linguistic consideration. In the current phase, the demand is premised on regional backwardness and step-motherly treatment by the parent State.
For another, Telangana is the first case in which the demand for the creation of a new State is equally strongly resisted by the other region, namely, Seemandhra (Rayal Seema and Andhra).
The Congress-led UPA Government finds itself in an unenviable situation; if it denies statehood to Telangana, it alienates the Congress MPs/MlAs from that region who will then join the Telangana Rashtra Samithi. If it gives the nod for the creation of the new State, it is threatened with the prospect of losing its entire Seemandhra contingent of MPs/MlAs to the Jaganmohan Reddy-led breakaway YSR Congress.
India is a parliamentary federal democracy, with a bicameral Union legislature. Article 3 of the Constitution, empowering the Parliament to re-organise the States of the Union by the process of legislation, supplemented by a constitutional amendment to the First Schedule, has often been considered to be a patently unfederal feature. Inter-State boundaries since 1950 have continuously been re-organised and the process is still not complete.
However, the unilateral granting of powers to Parliament through Article 3 with the only obligation to ‘consult’ the State legislature concerned, irrespective of its ‘consent’, was obviously required as no State would voluntarily give up its boundaries. This would have permanently blocked the process of rethink on a more satisfactory internal boundary as against those imposed by historical accidents of conquest.
At the time of framing of the Constitution, the trauma of the Partition and the paucity of time to rebuild the new independent India, led to a neglect of the idea of the States being organised on linguistic basis. Mindful of the reality, BR Ambedkar did put forward the idea of an appropriate size (neither too large nor too small) for a linguistic State’s stable existence.
Even in post-independent India, the question of boundaries with unilateral powers to the Centre as per Article 3 has been often debated in several judicial cases, most notably, in the SR Bommai versus Union of India (1994), where it was argued that Article 3 requires that the President shall refer the Bill to the legislatures of the States concerned likely to be affected, “to express their views”. Once the views of the States are known, it is left to Parliament to decide on the changes proposed. Parliament can, therefore, without the concurrence of the State or States concerned, change the boundaries of the State, increase/ diminish its area, or change its name. Thus in case of boundary disputes, the Union Parliament's say is paramount.
Territorial pluralism has been an important dimension of the Indian democratic experiment. In the post-independence era, (the late) Rasheeduddin Khan most eloquently made out a case for smaller States way back in April 1973, following the failure to decentralise public administration, as a means to make Government more responsive to the people’s needs and concerns, by taking it closer to them.
The rapid pace of globalisation has had a profound impact on federalism which seeks to manage sovereignty with dual rule. The process of liberalisation, juxtaposed with the rise of coalition Governments, has tilted the balance towards a more decentralised federalism where the States have a renewed concern for their distinct development. The nucleus of power lies in New Delhi, yet a certain atmosphere has been created whereby States vie for their due space in policy matters that cast a shadow on their issues.
Regarding the institutional scenario, Article 3 gives limited due process to consult a concerned State. This power is arbitrary but it can be disciplined by political forces in play. The constitutional procedure is to ensure that the Union Government sends a draft Bill to the President, and if the President approves it, the Bill is then introduced in Parliament and the State legislatures. Re-organisation of States is an integral part of democratic process in India. However, this needs to be done under a well-constituted, second States Re-organisation Commission under the paradigm of federalism, to ensure the continuance of healthy Centre-State relations.
As the nation charts out its course as an emerging super-power, it also needs to strengthen the domestic walls by fine-tuning the variables of boundaries and development, in sync with national interest and that of the States, to avoid unnecessary clashes in the articulation of ideas.
(The writer is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi)