The Federal Dialogue

Dynamic Centre-State interactions are a defining yardstick of a federal set-up. The Indian federal dialogue has got a new fillip recently as seen from the nuanced way in which States have come forward to let the Union factor in their demands and grievances. This article tends to trace the interaction of the process of federalism and globalisation and attempts to make a plea for building constitutional structures of inter-governmental relations to streamline this Centre-State balance.
India is a parliamentary federal democracy, with a bicameral Union Legislature. This structure has been under the sway of profound impact of the forces of globalisation. The task for federal bargaining is to meticulously synchronise the national interest, as articulated by the Union executive, with that of the diverse spectrum of State issues.

A cursory look at the scheme of the Indian Union shows us that the States are heterogeneous and diverse owing to their geography, culture, society etc. In the Indian context, the process of federalisation got a fillip with the process of liberalisation juxtaposed with the rise of coalition forces which 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 spell on their issues. Certain calculations factored in by the contextual forces are at work wherein there is reordering of Centre-State relations with the independent State demands coming up. The new equations at the State level have made the process of federal bargaining for the Centre a not-so-easy one.

•

THE past churnings of the federal dialogue were witnessed on the issue of Foreign Direct Invest-ment in retail where the phenomena saw the key allies of the UPA, like the Trinamul Congress, expressing displeasure over it. States like Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu were vocal to doubt the proposed benefits tendered by FDI in retail, namely, that it benefits the foreign players vis-à-vis indigenous players. Bihar asserted the idea of the interest of its people, wherein the State Government did not allow Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in the past and as a matter of principle agreed to stick to its policy principles and opposed the thought process of the New Delhi regime, where employment, productivity and technology are not catered to by allowing FDI in retail. The Left parties also pointed to the executive’s act being at odds with the collective responsibility of the Cabinet as enshrined in parliamentary democracy.

In the other case of the midnight saga of the Rajya Sabha debate on the Lokpal Bill, the Opposition was candid to beat the bogey of federalism, terming the government version of Lokpal as ‘constitutionally vulnerable’, wherein Article 253 enshrining powers to the Union executive imperils State autonomy. Parties, like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), pointed towards the follies of the past where the use of the Central Burean of Investi-gation (CBI) had been done in relation to the vested interests of the ruling party to counter the States where oppositional majority prevails.

Law and order and security thereof have witnessed phenomenal changes in their operation by the executive modules. The nature of threats has also magnified from traditional to non-traditional dimensions thereof—like pandemics, marine, environmental, developmental—which do add to the intensity of the management tools needed to tackle them. Right from the Central Industrial Security Force Act, the National Investi-gation Agency, the National Committee on Coastal security in the wake of terrorist strikes in Mumbai in November 2008 efforts have been done to deal with various aspects of internal security.

Having being convened after a gap of nearly three years in 2009, this year the Chief Ministers’ meeting on internal security witnessed new political equations as well. Non-Congress Chief Ministers from Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Orissa, Punjab, West Bengal raised concerns of Centre-State trust levels, rights of States over giving police powers to the proposed National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC).
No doubt the motive of the Union Government to ask for the States’ cooperation to tackle the multi-faceted aspect of internal security, ranging from Left-wing extremism, religious fundamen-talism, ethnic violence to terrorism, are laudable. The changing dynamics of the terror threats indeed demand coordinated action.
In the ongoing debate, what one found was that the idea of national interest under the federal paradigm has become complex. If the idea of containing corruption via Lok-Ayukts, or better economic prospects via FDI in retail, or better internal security via NCTC have been voiced by the Union, the States, under the spell of globalisation and the coalition era, have been seen to speak a different language. This also adds to the beauty of a democratic set-up, where federalism has been enabling States to oppose any unilateral mono-logical exercise in times when issues are inter-meshed.

It is high time that the Union executive sits back and fine-tunes its negotiating dialogue line, by moving away from adhoc conferences, and empowering constitutional structures like the Inter-State Council, established under Article 263 of the Indian Constitution for better coordination and synergy of Union-State relations. Innovation in negotiations and consultations are the need of the hour in the process of federal bargain.

Dr Amna Mirza belongs to the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. She can be contacted at amnamirza2002@gmail.com