We should have State Constitutions, shouldn't we?

Having one constitution, such as the current one, for the entire Indian nation and not letting States to have their respective constitutions is like taking a set of jigsaw pieces and pressing them to fit within a shape of player's choice! No, the pieces fit in only one way, and that way is only decided by the pieces themselves.

Presence of a Constitution of India (COI) on top of suspended State constitutions is perhaps the root cause for those umpteen amendments India has made to the COI and for the prevalence of dire problems in India's socio-economic landscape. For instance, the number of appendages made to Article 371 - the special status gimmick - displays the finicky and fluid state of vision over national policy. Such piecewise approach to making modifications in COI not only provide a reason for its bulky nature but also explain why and how it has failed to perform its original intended duty in this democracy. The very size of the constitution and the vast demography that it intends to acquire under its purview makes it increasingly untenable given the increasing awareness in people about the sovereign and republic nature of this democracy.

The year 2014 is turning out to be an year for the States to reckon with. Chief Ministers of multiple States - Delhi, AP and, just this afternoon, Bihar - have expressed anguish at the alleged misdeeds committed by the central government against the wishes of people living in their States. These can be directly attributed to a rather convolved Constitution of India that often lands even constitutional experts in moments of introspection and doubt; a doubt that shatters the confidence of people in their nation, and also its large, bulky constitution.

This bulky constitution resembles a big fat balloon with multiple punctures - you just cannot say where it will fly, meaning where this constitution will lead India to cannot be predicted easily. The mirth is higher when you have smaller, yet a more colourful bunch of balloons in your hand than one large punctured balloon in flight. You get the analogy, right?

In another State, Tamilnadu, the CM expresses her desire to free a set of convicts who've been in prison for nearly two decades, but the constitution by some weird combination, which too is figured out after much deliberation among experts, makes her seek the Centre's approval despite the fact that Police is a State subject as per Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India itself! Instead of having the Schedule 7 dictate what the States must govern and what the Centre must (& can), wouldn't it be rather more convenient and more appropriate for the States to have their own constitutions and the COI address subjects left behind unattended by the State constitutions? Wouldn't that be real decentralization and real federalism? Wouldn't that be in line with the real spirit of a democracy where the degree of delegation of governance droops with distance - both physical and representative.

The repercussion of this constitutional arrangement is also felt on the linguistic diversity of India. With regards to language planning and policy, Constitution of India is mired in controversy - controversies based on assumptions that go squarely against the nation's linguistic diversity.

The official language act, for instance, which is a statute law spun off from Articles 343 & 344 of the COI, forbids usage of any Indian language apart from Hindi at the Centre. This is a clear violation of human rights happening right under the aegis of a constitution that lays the political framework of this nation. This violation could have been precluded had the language policy of the nation been a linear summation and intercourse of the language policies of all States.

As the famous quote goes, people of India live in their States, and the Centre really need not have any business directly with the people. With such a natural arrangement of business, it is implied that there is very little need for such an all-encompassing constitution at the Centre whereas the need for such a constitution certainly exists at the State level. Time to write one?

The Anti-Incumbency Inherent in the Constitution!

ROOT causing Congress party's decimation in the recent State Assembly elections, especially in Delhi, and a similar decimation of the BJP in Karnataka earlier this year, one can find that quite a lot of blame of lacklustre performance at the State level is being attributed to the lacklustre performance of the ruling party at the Center. Said in other words, people heard lauding Congress' good governance under Sheila Dikshit in Delhi last 15 years are attributing this December election defeat to the poor governance by Congress at the Center.

This blaming scheme probably has its roots in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, which distributes such subjects of governance to the Center that had rather been in State control so that a performance or failure of a State government can clearly be attributed to the State government alone. This arrangement of subjects - while it gives more control to those that run the Central government - creates a confusion among voters while assessing the performance or failure of their incumbent State ruling party, thereby rendering them clueless about which party their vote must go in current elections.

Whether this confusion is the genius of the Constitution or of the people that reserve the right to remove such confusion is an easy question to answer. Its the people, who hold the right to amend the Constitution - the legislators, that need to act and amend the Schedule-7 so as to re-arrange subjects of governance between the State and the Center. These people include elected members of State assemblies apart from MPs, for according to Art 368 an amendment to Schedule-7 needs approval from more than half of the State assemblies.

Now, in the interest of those political parties that have aspirations at both State and Central level politics I believe there is value in picking up this cause of an amendment to the 7th Schedule that is also long pending. There are some parties like the BJP, of course, that would like to keep the 7th schedule that way, what with the manufactured image of some of their larger than thou candidates whose projected national image is expected to win them State elections also. But is it really going to help once they gain Central power and continue to be subject to the same Constitution that is bound to pull them down, eventually?

Isn't it time we realized why people get bored of incumbent political parties even if, for a moment, we assume those parties were doing the right things? Isn't it time we saw the anti-incumbency inherent in our Constitution?

Tall Statutes, Taller Statues and Dark Shadows!

ALTHOUGH the author of this article appears to uphold the consideration promised in return to the original surrender made by the princes, and it deserves its respect, it may be important to ponder as to why there must have been such a surrender in the first place. 

With all their valor and revering subjects in their respective States, why did those princely States end up surrendering such huge amounts of money and property to a Union they were so reluctant to join in the first place? Given that affiliation and inclusion to either the Indian or the Pakistani republics was optional to these princely States, their inclusion amid heated expressions of reluctance must have been a coercion if not a conquer. In such a case what value does The Union hold to the people who belonged to these princely States and what reverence can be expected from them towards the Indian Union which upon a simple amendment to its constitution in 1971 repealed all the payments promised to the people of the dissolved princely States?

It is also questionable had these princely States not submitted and not reluctantly got coerced into The Union, would they have been in as poor state of existence as now? The Hyderabad princely State and its people, for instance, are having a bitter experience in the Indian Union now where their homeland - Andhra Pradesh - is being split in two much against popular demands against such division. Can we now pat Sardar Patel's back posthumously or our own backs for this abuse of centralized political power in inflicting pain to the Telugu people of Andhra by The Union? Did all the people who subscribed to this union in 1950 deserve this? Dont we need some time to slow down and think about a re-writing of such a constitution that lets someone to care so little for the very people of this union?

Isn't it even higher levels of stupidity to let national parties like the BJP and the INC to make this topic a bait to fish for popular votes in upcoming elections? Isn't it stupid to take sides of either of these parties (and their philosophies too) and thereby appear to support such continued acts of brutal coercion, division and undemocratic rule?

This statement by the author though summarizes to some extent the right spirit for us to derive from this piece of history bearing very well in current context:

In the end, the abolition of Privy Purses will remain one of the most shameful events in our constitutional history. The nation saved Rs.4 crore annually but lost its honour. It is equally regrettable that neither the Janata Party in 1977 nor any subsequent non-Congress government did anything to redeem Patel’s pledge. What purpose will, then, be served by spending Rs.2,500 crore to build the tallest statue in his memory?

The Legal Fortress around Hindi Imposition

Hindi and English are the lone official languages of the government of Republic India. This means ever since India became a sovereign democratic republic, promising to protect the interests of all its citizens, millions of people of non-Hindi background have been rendered as second grade citizens since their government does not deal in their language(s). This is Hindi Imposition in India summarized in a few lines.

With this kind of bias Government of India (GoI) has shown and even institutionalized towards Hindi language and (thereby) people who speak Hindi, and with the protection this institution has provided to Hindi speakers, it appears that Hindi speaking people are double insulated from adverse forces - being governed by a State government and pampered by the GoI both of which designed to favor Hindi people's rights - while non-Hindi people are left bare and helpless out there, exposed to adverse forces. In various circumstances, this is not a metaphor, but very close to reality indeed.

On the other hand, owing to the lack of protection by this institution, people living in non-Hindi States experience insecurity in their own country, with employment, food provision, primary health and even identity services catered to by the GoI being carried on a channel that only speaks Hindi apart from English. These services are freely assimilated by Hindi speaking people whereas they are indigestible to non-Hindi people of India. Be it in terms of getting their fundamental rights protected or even as far until protecting one's own lineage and having a non-decading population over time, lives of non-Hindi peoples of India are subject to substantial stress thanks to policies framed on unfair interpretations of our constitution, such as seen in The Official Language Act 1963.

Simple, yet tough, majority:
Interestingly, Article 368 of Constitution of India (CoI) rests the power to amend the statute in the hands of the parliament alone, whereas some specific parts of the constitution, including the lists in Schedule 7 and Article 368, cannot be amended without approval from a simple majority of State Legislatures. In the wake of an increased number of States being carved out, passing valid amendments to such sections of the CoI becomes a touch exercise to orchestrate - perhaps an outcome favorable to the central government that would like to retain more power with itself. As though in support of such intentions, Article 3 of the same constitution empowers the central govt to do just that - impede the process of State level opinion formation by fragmenting them. Talk about denial of fundamental rights, huh?

A pragmatic, solution oriented approach to the Hindi Imposition problem will call for amendments to Schedule 7 (the Union, State and the Concurrent lists) and some to the Official Language policy, which incidentally have been in demand since long time across the country. The center though has been successful in evading them or putting them off by means of various available interpretations of the constitution, and its protective and tricky fortress of articles that make it very difficult to achieve these essential amendments that will incorporate real federal features into our democracy.

In the backdrop of this sustained Hindi Imposition in India, it is important to see these pieces of law as blocking vital amendments required to stop this unfair imposition and to make way for equality among people of all Indian languages.

(Related read: Let this September open our eyes!)

Is Karnataka also being Telanganaad?

Karnataka Districts Map @ 2008
(Courtesy: Karnataka State Election Commission)

The Constitution of India appoints the Parliament with a right by law to edit the boundaries of the states that constitute this union called India. Part I (The Union and its Territory) of this constitution features an Article (Art. 3) stated thus:

3. Parliament may by law—
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State:
[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States 1***, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of  that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.]

After re-reading the above Article, a point that intrigues me in hindsight is why did the GoK invite the PoI Mr Pranab to inaugurate the Suvarna Vidhana Soudha built recently in Belgaavi, a district in north Karnataka? Was it a cue to impress upon him to refer to the GoK seeking its opinion about a reorganization of the Karnataka state? Is this some sort of collusion happening between the two otherwise rival national political parties in the country? Have they come to see a common political gain as their 'fortune to be won' at the end of this division? Is Karnataka also being Telanganaad?

(to be continued...)