post independence consolidation and reorganization · them – junagadh, jammu and kashmir and...

Add : D-108, Sec-2, Noida (U.P.), Pin - 201 301Email id : [email protected]

Call : 09582948810, 09953007628, 0120-2440265

Post IndependencePost IndependencePost IndependencePost IndependencePost IndependenceConsolidation andConsolidation andConsolidation andConsolidation andConsolidation and

ReorganizationReorganizationReorganizationReorganizationReorganization

Chronicle IAS Academy [1]

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

POST INDEPENDENCEPOST INDEPENDENCEPOST INDEPENDENCEPOST INDEPENDENCEPOST INDEPENDENCE

CONSOLIDCONSOLIDCONSOLIDCONSOLIDCONSOLIDAAAAATION TION TION TION TION ANDANDANDANDAND

REORREORREORREORREORGANIZAGANIZAGANIZAGANIZAGANIZATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

CHRONICLEIAS ACADEMYA CIVIL SERVICES CHRONICLE INITIATIVE

PARTITION AND PUTTING THEPIECES TOGETHER

India and Pakistan won independence inAugust 1947, following a nationalist strugglelasting nearly three decades. It set a vitalprecedent for the negotiated winding up ofEuropean empires elsewhere. Unfortunately, itwas accompanied by the largest mass migrationin human history of some 10 million. As manyas one million civilians died in the accompanyingriots and local-level fighting, particularly in thewestern region of Punjab which was cut in twoby the border. One explanation for the chaos inwhich the two nations came into being, isBritain's hurried withdrawal with the realisationit could ill-afford its over-extended empire.

Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14August and India on 15 August 1947, the borderbetween the two new states was not announceduntil 17 August. It was drawn up by a Britishlawyer, Cyril Radcliffe, who had little knowledgeof Indian conditions and with the use of out-of-date maps and census materials. Communities,families and farms were cut in two, but bydelaying the announcement the British managedto avoid responsibility for the worst fighting andthe mass migration that had followed. The totalpopulation of the undivided Punjab Provincewas 33 million. It included territories directlyadministered by the British (pop. 28 million) andseveral princely states. The Punjab was a Muslimmajority province while Hindus and Sikhstogether made up a very large minority of 44-47per cent. The principle on which India and thePunjab were divided was that Muslim-majorityareas were separated from the rest of India andgiven to Pakistan. After partition, 90% of thesubcontinent's industry, and taxable income baseremained in India, including the largest cities ofDelhi, Bombay and Calcutta. The economy ofPakistan was chiefly agricultural, and controlledby feudal elites. The great advantage enjoyed bythe Indian National Congress was that it hadworked hard for 40 years to reconcile differencesand achieve some cohesion among its leaders.

The heartland of support for the Muslim League,however, lay in central north India (UttarPradesh) which was not included withinPakistan.

PARTITION: THE TRAGEDY

In a memorable address to the ConstituentAssembly on the night of 14 August, JawaharlalNehru, speaking as the first Prime Minister of afree India and giving expression to the feelingsof the people, said: "Long years ago we made atryst with destiny, and now the time comeswhen we shall redeem our pledge..... . At thestroke of the midnight hour, when the worldsleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. Amoment comes, which comes but rarely inhistory, when we step out from the old to thenew, when an age ends, and when the soul of anation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It isfitting that at this solemn moment we take thepledge of dedication to the service of India andher people and to the still larger cause ofhumanity.... . We end today a period of illfortune and India discovers herself again."

But, this tryst with destiny started with anunforeseen blood shedding on both sides ofborder. The Partition of India ranks, beyonddoubt, as one of the 10 greatest tragedies inhuman history. For the Punjab alone, the loss oflife is estimated somewhere between 500,000-800,000 and 10 million people were forced toflee for their lives. More importantly, after WorldWar II the first case of ethnic cleansing took placein the Punjab. Therefore, it bore the brunt of thepartition violence. Thus at the end of 1947 alltraces of a Muslim presence in the Indian EastPunjab were wiped out, except for some Muslimsremaining in the tiny princely state ofMalerkotla. In the Pakistani West Punjab, Hindusand Sikhs became conspicuous by their absence.

Fear of an uncertain future, lack ofcommunication between the leaders of theestranged communities, the waning authority ofthe British and the consequent unreliability ofthe state institutions and functionaries created

[2] Chronicle IAS Academy

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

the social and political milieu in which suspicionand fear proliferated, generating against amongthe common people. In such situations reactionand overreaction led to intended and unintendedconsequences which aggravated and finallyresulted in the biggest human tragedy in thehistory of the Indian subcontinent. Partition wasmore than a geographical mutilation of the sub-continent; it was one of those dehumanisinghorror stories that have sustained the 20thcentury's narratives on revolutions andliberation, be it the Fuhrer's Final Solution or thePol Pot's ethnic cleansing, Mao's CulturalRevolution or Stalin's Great Terror. It is a stainon our freedom, the scar on our memory as anation.

In January 1948, the Government of India,following a fast by Gandhiji, paid PakistanRs. 550 million as part of the assets of Partition,even when it feared that the money might beused to finance military action in Kashmir. Thegovernments of the two countries differed onissues raised by evacuee property, left behind bythose who migrated from the two countries, butevery effort was made to resolve them throughregotiations. On January 30, 1948, MohandasGandhi was assassinated by a young Hinduradical. Since August of 1947, India and Pakistanhave fought three major wars and one minorwar over territorial disputes. The boundary linein Jammu and Kashmir is particularly troubled.The partition of India is a signal event in worldhistory, not merely in the history of the Indiansubcontinent.

INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES

With great skill and diplomacy and usingboth persuasions and pressure, SardarVallabhbhai Patel succeeded in integrating thehundreds of princely states with the IndiaUnion. Some states have joined the ContituentAssembly in April 1947. But the majority ofprincely states had stayed away and a few, suchas those of Travancore, Bhopal and Hyderabad,publicly announced their desire to claim anindependent status. On 27, June 1947, SardarPatel assumed charge of the newly created States,Department with V.P. Menon as its Secretary.Patel’s first step was to appeal to the princesswhose territories fell inside India to accede tothe Indian Union in three subjects: foreignrelation, defense and communications. Fearfulof the rising people’s movements in states, and

of patel’s reputation for firmness all but three ofthem – Junagadh, Jammu and Kashmir andHyderabad—acceded to India by 15 August,1947.

Junagadh was a small state on the coast ofSaurashtra surrounded by Indian territory andtherefore without any geographical continuitywith Pakistani. Yet, its Nawab announcedaccession of his state to Pakistan on 15 August,1947 even thought the people of the state,overwhelmingly Hindu, desired to join India.Pakistan accepted Junagadh’s accession. On theother hand, the people of the state were againstthe ruler’s decision. They organized a popularmovement, forced the Nawab to flee andestablished a provisional government. Indiantroops marched into the state. A plebiscite washeld in the state in February 1948 which wentoverwhelmingly in favour of joining India.

The state of Kashmir was bordered on bothIndia and Pakistan. Its ruler Hari Singh was aHindu, while nearly 75 per cent of thepopulation was Muslim. Hari Singh did notaccede either to India or Pakistan. He hoped tostay out of both and to continue as anindependent ruler. On 22 October, with the onsetof winter, several Pathan tribesman, ledunofficially by Pakistani army officers, invadedKashmir and rapidly pushed towards Srinagar,the capital of Kashmir. In panic, on 24 October,the Maharaja appealed to India for militaryassistance. Within days, acting under pressure,the Maharaja acceded to India and signed theinstrument of accession with India. Afteraccession India decided to send troops toSrinagar. In order to avoid a full-scale warbetween India and Pakistan, the Government ofIndia agreed, on 30 December, 1947, onMountbatten’s suggestion, to refer the Kashmirproblem to the United Nations Security Council,asking for vacation of aggression by Pakistan.Nehru was to regret this decision later as theKashmir issue became a victim of cold warpolitics. Security Council, guided by Britain andthe United States, tended to side with Pakistaninstead of declaring Pakistan an aggressor state.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was the thirdIndian ruler who did not accede to India before15 August. Instead, he claimed an independentstatus and, encouraged by Pakistan, began toexpand his armed forces. In November 1947, theGovernment of India signed a standstillagreement with the Nizam, hoping that while


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

the negotiations proceeded, the latter wouldintroduce representative government in the state.But the Nizam hoped to prolong negotiationsand in the meanwhile build up his militarystrength and force India to accept hissovereignty. Meanwhile, there was rapid growthof the militant Muslim communal organization,Ittlihad ul Muslimin and its paramilitary wing,the Razakars with active official help by Nizam.As a result of attacks by the Razakars andrepression by the state authorities, thousands ofpeople fled the state and took shelter intemporary camps in Indian territory. The stateCongress-led movement now took to arms. Bythen a powerful communist-led peasant strugglehad developed in the Talangana region of thestate from the latter half of 1946. On 13September 1948, the Indian army moved intoHyderabad. The Nizam surrendered after threedays and acceded to the Indian Union inNovember. The Government of India retainedNizam as formal ruler of the state or itsRajpramukh, was given a privy purse, andpermitted to keep most of his wealth.

In return for their surrender of all power andauthority, the rulers of major states were givenprivy purses in perpetuity, free of all taxes. Theprivy purse amounted to Rs. 4.66 crore in 1949and were later guaranteed by the constitution.The ruler were allowed succession to the gaddiand retained certain privileges such as keepingtheir titles, flying their personal flags and gunsalutes on ceremonial occasion. However, laterIndira Gandhi abolished most of the abovementioned concessions.

After waiting patiently for internationalopinion to put pressure on Portugal, Nehruordered Indian troops to march into Goa on thenight of 17 December, 1961. The Governor-General of Goa immediately surrenderedwithout a fight and the territorial and politicalintegration of India was completed.

NATION-BUILDING IN A CONSTITIUTIONALWAY

India’s independence represented for itspeople the start of an epoch that was imbuedwith a new vision. In 1947, the countrycommenced its long march to overcome thecolonial legacy of economic underdeveloped-prevalence of disease and stark social inequalityand injustice. 15 August, 1947 was only the firststop, the first break-the end of colonial politicalcontrol. Centuries of backwardness were now

to be overcome, the promises of the freedomstruggle to be fulfilled, and people’s hope to bemet.

The tasks of nation-building were taken upby the Indian people and their leaders with acertain elan and determination and withconfidence in their capacity to succeed.Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous ‘Tryst with Destiny’speech on the eve of independence reflected thisbuoyant mood. India has started off with a broadsocial consensus on the basic contours of theIndia that was to be built on the values ofnationalism, secularism and democracy. Rapideconomic development and radical social changewere other agreed on goals. These values andgoals, and the road to their achievement, hadbeen mapped over more than seventy years bythe national movement.

AGREEMENT OVER BASIC GOALS

The first and the most important task was topreserve, consolidate and strengthen India’sunity, to push toward the process of the makingof the Indian nation, and to build up and protectthe national state as an instrument ofdevelopment and social transformation. Indianunity had to be strengthened by recognizing andaccepting India’s immense regional, linguistic,ethnic and religious diversity.

It was agreed that India's revolution had tobe taken beyond the merely political to includeeconomic and social transformation. The socialscene also called for rapid transformation.Despite lower-caste movements in several partsof the country and Gandhiji’s campaign againstuntouchability society was under a severe gripof socio-economic malaises. Male dominationwas still nearly total and women sufferedimmense social oppression in the family.Economic development and a democraticpolitical order were to be accompanied by rapidsocial transformation so that existing grosseconomic, caste and gender inequalities wererapidly eliminated, poverty was removed andthe levels of living raised. The structure of Indiansociety was to be rapidly transformed in abroadly socialist direction.

The national movement had arousedexpectations of a rapid rise in personal andsocietal prosperity, of social and economic equityand equality, of the good life. Indira Gandhi’sslogan of ‘Garibi Hatao’ in 1971 further fuelledthese expectations as did the process of


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

continuous politicization since 1950. Theconstantly rising aspiration and expectationshad to be fulfilled as rapidly as possible andwithout letting too wide a gap develop betweenexpectations and fulfillment. At the same time,political stability had to be ensured for theaccomplishment of all the tasks. The politicalsystem had to combine stability with growth,social transformation and deepening of thepolitical process. The Indian revolution had tobe gradual, non-violent and based on politicalstability, but it had to be a revolution all the same.First act of this revolution was to be the evolutionof a constitution as per India needs. Story ofsame is given below.

EVOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India came into force onJanuary 26, 1950. Since then the day is celebratedas Republic Day. The process of the evolution ofthe constitution began many decades beforeJanuary 26, 1950 and has continued unabatedsince. Its origin lie deeply embedded in thestruggle for independence from Britain and inthe movement for responsible and constitutionalgovernment in the princely states. Nationalmovement has popularized among the peoplethe notions of parliamentary democracy,republicanism, civil liberties, social and economicjustice, which became among the essentialprinciples of constitution.

The actual functioning of the Congressorganization, especially from 1920 onwards,after Gandhiji modified the Congressconstitution, was based on the elective principle.All office-bearers were chosen through election.Even more than the form, it was the spirit ofdemocracy, on which in the last and first resortthe foundations of the constitution rest, whichwas inculcated among the people by the nationalmovement. This found expression in widespreadmass participation. It ensured a place for adultfranchise after independence. Age for the samewas reduced from 21 years to 18 years duringtime of Rajiv Gandhi.

Elective principle was first introduced by theBritish in the Indian Councils Act of 1892. TheCongress and its nationalist precursors and theIndian Press, had been demanding elections tothe councils, elected majorities in them andgreater powers to the non-official members ofcouncils for many years before that. Nationalistdemands had already far exceeded what wasgranted in 1892. National movement, by the end

of the second decade of the twentieth centuryhad begun to espouse the doctrine of self-determination or the right of Indians to frametheir own constitution.

Tilak and Annie Besant had launched a'Home Rule' agitation. The Congress-MuslimLeague scheme for constitutional reformsemerged out of the Congress League Pact of1916. A very prominent role was played byMotilal Nehru, who introduced resolution onFebruary 8, 1924 in the Central LegislativeAssembly which asked the government tosummon, at an early date, a representativeRound Table Conference to recommend withdue regard to the protection of the rights andinterests of important minorities and the schemeof a constitution for India. This was the firsttime that the demand for a constitution and theprocedure for its adoption were spelt out in clearterms.

This resolution, which came to be known asthe ‘National Demand’, was passed by a largemajority in the Central Legislative Assembly- 76for and 48 against. In May 1928, Congressappointed a committee chaired by Motilal Nehruto determine the principles of the constitutionfor India. The Nehru Report, submitted onAugust 10, 1928 was in effect an outline of adraft constitution for India. Most of its featureswere later included in the Constitution of India.The demand for a Constituent Assembly wasrepeated frequently after 1934 and included inthe Congress manifesto for the 1936-37. In 1937,a resolution recommending replacement of theGovernment of India Act, 1935 by a constitutionframed by a Constituent Assembly wasintroduced in the Central Legislative Assembly.

The ‘August Offer’ made by ViceroyLinlithgow in 1940 in an attempt to secureIndian cooperation in the war effort for the firsttime conceded that the framing of newconstitution should be primarily theresponsibility of Indian themselves. The Crippsproposals were a major advance in the positionof the British government. For the first time, itwas clearly accepted that the constitution wouldbe the sole responsibility of Indians alone. OnFebruary 19, 1946, the British Governmentdeclared that they were sending a CabinetMission to India to resolve the whole issue offreedom and constitution making. The Congressresponded to the Cabinet Mission Scheme bypointing out that in its view the constituent


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Assembly, once it came into being, would besovereign. It would have the right to accept orreject the Cabinet Mission’s proposal on specifics.Though an assurance on those lines was notforthcoming from the British, the Congressnevertheless decided after a great deal of debateto accept the scheme and try to work it, as therewas a feeling that outright rejection would againdelay the process of transfer of power. TheMuslim League continued to oppose theConstituent Assembly at every stage, before aswell as after it was constituted.

THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The Constituent Assembly was to have 389members. Of these, 296 were to be from BritishIndia and 93 from the princely Indian states.Initially, however, the Constituent Assemblycomprised only members from British India.Elections of these were held in July-August 1946.Of the 210 seats in the general category, congresswon 199. It also won 3 out of 4 Sikh seats fromPunjab. The total Congress tally was 208. TheMuslim League won 73 out of the 78 Muslimseats. Especially since the Constituent Assemblywas not elected on the basis of universal adultfranchise and was thus not as trulyrepresentative in character as the Congress hadwished and demanded and also because onlyMuslims and Sikhs were recognized asminorities deserving special representation,special effort was made to see that the Assemblydid indeed reflect the diversity of perspectivespresent in the country.

The Congress Working Committee in earlyJuly 1946 specifically instructed the ProvincialCongress Committees to include representativesof Scheduled Castes, Parsis, Indian Christians,Anglo-Indians, tribals and women in theCongress list for the general category. The otherimportant consideration in choosing names forelection to the Assembly was that the very besttalent available in the country must be involvedin the task of the making of the constitution. Thelead was given by Gandhiji himself whosuggested the names of sixteen eminent personsfor inclusion in the Congress list. Altogether thirtypeople who were not members of the Congresswere thus elected on the Congress ticket. Havingfailed to prevent the election of the ConstituentAssembly, the Muslim League now concentratedits energies on refusing to join its deliberations.

The Congress and Jawaharlal Nehru aspresident of the interim government continued

to make conciliatory gestures to Muslim League,but to no avail. Accordingly, on November 20,1946, the decision to convene the first session ofthe Constituent Assembly on December 9, 1946was announced. At Nehru’s insistence, the oldestmember of the Assembly, Dr. SachchidanandSinha, became the provisional President andinvitations were issued in the name of thesecretary of the Constituent Assembly. In doingthis Nehru was establishing, for all to see, theindependence of the Assembly from Britishcontrol. On December 9, 1946, the ConstituentAssembly of India began its first session. For allpractical purposes, the chronicle of IndependentIndia began on that historic day.

The real responsibility of deciding theconstitutional framework within which thegovernment and people of India were to functionhad been transferred and assumed by the Indianpeople with the convening of the ConstituentAssembly. The first session was attended by 207members. The Muslim League, having failed toprevent the convening of the Assembly, nowrefused to join its deliberations. Consequently,the Seventy Six Muslim members of the Leaguestayed away and the four Congress Muslimmembers attended this session. On December 11,1946, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected thepermanent Chairman, an office later designatedas President of the Assembly On December 13,1946, Jawaharlal Nehru moved the famousObjectives Resolution, which was debated tillDecember 19 but its adoption was postponed toenable the representatives of the Muslim Leagueand the princely states to join.

At the next session, which took place fromJanuary 20-22, 1947, it was decided to not waitany longer for the League, and the ObjectivesResolution was passed. The third session washeld from April 18 to May 2, 1947 and the Leaguestill did not join. On June 3, 1947, theMountbatten Plan was announced which madeit clear that India was to be partitioned. Thecompletely altered the perspective of theConstituent Assembly, as the Cabinet MissionPlan, the essence of which was Compromisewith the league, was no larger relevant. WithIndia becoming independent on August 15, 1947the Constituent Assembly became a sovereignbody, and also doubled as the legislature for thenew state. It was responsible for framing theconstitution as well as making ordinary laws.That its function as a legislature as well as its


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

large size did not come in the way of its effectivelyperforming its duties as a constitution makingbody is due to the enormous preparatory workas well as organizational skills and hardwork ofits leading members.

The work was organized into five stages:Committees were asked to present reports onbasic issues; B.N. Rau, the constitutional advisor,prepared an initial draft on the basis of thereports of these committees and his own researchinto the constitutions of other countries; Thedrafting committee, chaired by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, presented a detailed draftConstitution which was published for publicdiscussion and comments; The draft Constitutionwas discussed and amendments proposal; andthe constitution was adopted.

In addition, a critical role was played byCongress party. It had asked a committee ofexperts to prepare material and proposals for theconstitution as early as July 4, 1946. Thecommittee was chaired by Nehru and had AsafAli, K.T. Shah, D.R. Gadgil, K.M. Munshi,Humayun Kabir, R. Shanthanam and N.Gopalaswamy Ayyangar as members. Nehrudrafted the Objectives Resolution and the CWCand AICC ratified it on 20 and 21 November1946 well in time for its introduction in the firstsession of the Assembly. This practice continuedtill the constitution was adopted with theCongressmen thoroughly discussing andexamining each provision in their party forums,in addition to participating fully in the debatesin the Assembly. Jawaharlal Nehru, who draftedthe Objective Resolution, which spelt out thephilosophy and basic features of the constitution,set a formidable example by his keen involvementin every aspect of the process. Sardar Patel’sinterest was second, if at all, only to Nehru’s. Heplayed the decisive part in bringing in therepresentatives of the erstwhile princely statesinto the Constituent Assembly, in seeing to it thatseparate electorates were eliminated and inscotching any move for reservation of seats forreligions minorities. Rajendra Prasad wonacclaim for his impartiality and dignity asPresident of the Assembly. Maulana Azadbrought his formidable scholarship andphilosophical mind to bear on many issues ofgrave importance. Informed by a strong senseof its historic role in laying the foundations ofindependent India, the Congress party tried hardto do its best by the people it had led to freedom.

MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDIANCONSTITUTION

The constitution of India lays down a set ofrules to which the ordinary laws of the countrymust conform. It provides a framework for ademocratic and parliamentary form ofgovernment. The constitution also includes- Listof Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles-the first, a guarantee against encroachments bythe state and the second a set of directives to thestate to introduce reforms to make those rightseffective.

The basic philosophy of the constitution, itsmoving spirit, is to be found in the Preamble.The Preamble itself was based on the ObjectivesResolution drafted by Nehru and introduced inthe Assembly in its first session on December 13,1946 and adopted on January 22, 1947. Thepreamble states that the people of India in theConstituent Assembly made a solemn resolve tosecure liberty of thought, expression, belief, faithand worship, Equality of status and ofopportunity; and to promote among them all,Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individualand the unity of the nation. It has been pointedout that the priority given to the concept ofjustice as compared to liberty, equality,fraternity, and to social and economic ascompared to political justice, was deliberate. Theorder of the words indicated that the concept ofsocial and economic justice was perhapsconsidered the most fundamental norm of theConstitution of India.

The constitution declares India to be asovereign, socialist, secular and democraticrepublic. Even though the terms secular andsocialist were added to the constitution only bythe 42nd Amendment in 1976, the spiritembodying the constitution was secular. In 1973the Supreme Court held the secular character ofthe constitution to be one of the basic features ofthe constitution. While Fundamental Rights arejusticiable and Directive Principles are not, thelatter are no less important for that reason. TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights alsocontains two sets of rights and the new economicand social rights. In the Indian constitution, thefirst kind is included under Fundamental Rightsand the second under Directive Principles. Thereason for the distinction between the two is verysimply that while the state could straight-awayguarantee political and civil liberties containedunder ‘Fundamental Right’, it could only secure


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

economic and social justice over a period of timeas the economy developed and social changetook place. The latter set of rights could not goto a court of law in case of denial.

REORGANISATION OF STATES

After independence, the demand for thereorganisation of states on linguistic basis wasraised from different regions. The ConstitutionAssembly appointed S.K. Dhar Commission inNov. 1947 to study the issue of reorganisation ofStates on linguistic basis. The commission in itsreport, submitted in 1948, recommended againstthe organisation of states purely on linguisticbasis. Instead, the commission suggested thefollowing criteria alongwith language-Geographical contiguity, Financial self-reliance,Administrative viability and Potential fordevelopment.

The Congress, in its Jaipur session in 1948,appointed a three member committee to considerthe recommendations of Dhar Commission. TheCommittee is popularly known as JVPCommittee after the name of its three members– Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel, andPattabhi Sitarammaiah. The committee rejectedlanguage as the basis of reorganisation of states.It suggested that the security, unity andeconomic prosperity of the nation as the criteriaof reorganisation. The Congress WorkingCommittee accepted its recommendation in1949, but the demand for linguisticreorganisation of States persisted in southernstates particularly in Telungu speaking areas. On19 October, 1952, a popular freedom fighter,Patti Sriramalu, undertook a fast unto death overthe demand for a separate Andhra and expiredafter fifty eight days. His death was follwoed bythree days of violence all over Andhra. Thegovernment immediately gave in and concededthe demand for a separate State of Andhra,which finally came into existence in October1953. Simultaneously, Tamil Nadu was createdas a Tamil-speaking state. This incident led toappointment of the States ReorganisationCommission.

To make an exhaustive study, theGovernment of India setup States ReorganisationCommission in 1953 which was headed by FazalAli. The other members of the commission wereHriday Nath Kunzru and K.M. Panikkar.

The reorganization of the states based onlanguage, a major aspect of national conso-

lidation and integration, came to the fore almostimmediately after independence. The boundariesof provinces in pre-1947 India had been drawnin a haphazard manner as the British conquestof India had proceeded for nearly a hundredyears. No heed was paid to linguistic or culturalcohesion so that most of the provinces were multi-lingual and multi-cultural. The interspersedprincely states had added a further element ofheterogeneity.

The case for linguistic states as administrativeunits was very strong. Language is closelyrelated to culture and therefore to the customsof people. Besides, the massive spread ofeducation and growth of mass literacy can onlyoccur through the medium of the mother tongue.SRC was to examine ‘objectively anddispassionately’ the entire question of thereorganization of the states of the union.Throughout the two years of its work, theCommission was faced with meetings,demonstrations, agitations, and hunger strikes.The SRC submitted its report in October 1955.While laying down that due considerationshould be given to administrative and economicfactors, it recognized for the most part thelinguistic principle and recommended redrawingof state boundaries on that basis. TheCommission, however, opposed the splitting ofBombay and Punjab. Despite strong reaction tothe report in many parts of the country, the SRC'srecommendations were accepted, though withcertain modifications, and were quicklyimplemented.

The Commission submitted its report to thegovernment of India on September 30, 1955.Some of the important recommendations of theCommission were:

• The Indian Union was to consist of 16 Statesas against the existing 27 and three centrallyadministered territories.

• Special safeguards were recommended forlinguistic minorities.

• In the interests of national unity and goodadministration, the Commission recom-mended the reconstitution of certain AllIndia Services. It further recommended thatatleast 50 per cent of the new entrants tothe All India Services and atleast one thirdof the number of Judges in a High Courtshould consist of persons recruited fromoutside that State so that, administration


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

might inspire confidence and help inarresting parochial trends.

• The Commission put emphasis on the needfor encouraging the study of Indianlanguages other than Hindi but, for sometime to come, English continue to occupyan important place in the universities andinstitutions of higher learning.

• The Commission rejected the demand forthe creation of a Punjabi Speaking State(Punjabi Suba) because “the creation ofsuch a state will solve neither the languagenor the communal problem”.

The States Reorganization Act was passedby parliament in November, 1956. It providedfor fourteen states and six centrally administeredterritories. The Telengana area of Hyderabadstate was transferred to Andhra; merging theMalabar district of the old Madras Presidencywith Travancore-Cochin created Kerala. CertainKannada-speaking areas of the states of Bombay,Madras, Hyderabad and Coorg were added tothe Mysore state. Merging the states of Kutchand Saurashtra and the Marathi-speaking areasof Hyderabad with it enlarged Bombay state.

The State Reorganisation Act was passed byParliament in 1956 to give, effect to theserecommendations. It provided for fourteen Statesand six Union Territory. But two of the mostsensitive area, Bombay and Punjab, were notreorganised on linguistic basis. The demands forseparate tribal states, including Jharkhand andNagaland, were also bypassed.

Soon, Gujarat and Nagaland were createdas separate states. In 1966, Punjab was dividedinto two parts, Punjab and Haryana. The hillyareas of Punjab were added to HimachalPradesh, which itself was constituted as anindependent state on January 25, 1971. The mapof India has undergone further changes since1966. In 1975, there was an addition to theterritorial boundaries of India in the form of theState of Sikkim, which was till then a protectorateof India. Radical changes have been made in themap of North-Eastern region of India which nowhas 7 States. Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh andGoa, Daman & Diu have been elevated tostatehood and Chattisgarh, Uttranchal andJharkhand are the 3 youngest states. At presentthe Union of India consists of 28 States and 7Union Territories.

From now onward we would present theprocess of political consolidation and maturitythat unfolded in many states. First, states’political landscape will be discussed and thena brief account of national level politics willbe presented.

MAHARASHTRA- issues

The strongest reaction against the SRC'sreport and the States Reorganization Act camefrom Maharashtra where widespread riotingbroke out and many people were killed inBombay city in police firings in January 1956.The opposition parties supported by a widespectrum of public opinion organized a powerfulprotest movement. Under pressure, thegovernment decided in June 1956 to divide theBombay state into two linguistic states ofMaharashtra and Gujarat with Bombay cityforming a separate, centrally administered state.This move too was strongly opposed by theMaharashtrians.

Nehru reverted to the formation of bilingual,greater Bombay. This move was, however,opposed by the people both of Maharashtra andGujarat. The broad-based Samyukta Maha-rashtra Samiti and Maha Gujarat JanataParishad led the movements in the two parts ofthe state. In Maharashtra, even a large sectionof Congressmen joined the demand for aunilingual Maharashtra with Bombay as itscapital; and C.D. Deshmukh, the FinanceMinister in the Central Cabinet, resigned fromhis office on this question. The Gujaratis felt thatthey would be a minority in the new state. Theytoo would not agree to give up Bombay city toMaharashtra. Violence and arson now spreadto Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat.

To express resentment against theCommission’s report with regard toMaharashtra there was fierce rioting andviolence under the auspices of these twolinguistically based organisations, namely, theSamyukta Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti and theMaha Gujarat Parishad. After three years oftrouble, ultimately in 1960, the demands forreorganisation were accepted and Maharashtraand Gujarat were constituted as separatelinguistic states with Bombay as part ofMaharashtra.

The demand to transfer the Marathi-dominated area of Belgaum to Maharashtra fromKarnataka has been a serious political issue


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

between two states. During United MaharashtraMovement, 11 persons were killed in police firingin Belgaum. The border dispute case is pendingin the Supreme Court. Belgaum borderingMaharashtra has a sizeable Marathi-speakingpopulation, and had for decades been a bone ofcontention between the two States. Earlierconstituted, Mahajan Commission’s recom-mendations have been challenged in court atpresent.

GOA: When India became a Republic, on26th January, 1950, Goa was still a Portuguesecolony. Twelve years later, the Indian armywalked into the territory and, after the garrisonthere surrendered, announced that it had beenreunited with the motherland. Shortlyafterwards the Goans were allowed to vote forthe first time in their very long history.

There is a distinction between ‘integration’and ‘assimilation’. The Goans are comfortablewith the former. In the first decade afterLiberation, the most serious threat to Goanidentity came from the neighbouring state ofMaharashtra. Maharashtrawadi GomantakParty, vigorously campaigned for Goa to bemerged into that state. In a referendum held inthe late 1960s, the Goans chose not to joinMaharashtra. In subsequent decades, there wasa vigorous revival of a Konkani identity. AfterGoa was elevated from Union Territory statusto full statehood in 1987, Konkani was bestowedwith the title of ‘official’ language.

J & K: issues

Immediately after Kashmir's accession inOctober 1947, India had offered a plebisciteunder international auspices for the people ofKashmir to take a final decision on it. But therewas a condition that Pakistan's troops mustvacate Kashmir before a plebiscite could be held.Till the end of 1953, the Government of Indiawas willing to abide by the results of a plebisciteif proper conditions were created for it. But aplebiscite could not be held, mainly becausePakistan did not withdraw its forces fromPakistan-held Kashmir. Pakistan continued totake a non-conciliatory and aggressive approach.By the end of 1956, the Indian government madeit clear to Pakistan and the internationalcommunity that the situation in Kashmir andIndo-Pak relations had changed so completelythat its earlier offer had become absolute and

Kashmir's accession to India had become asettled fact.

Under the Instrument of Accession signedin October 1947, the state of Jammu andKashmir was granted a temporary special statusin the Indian Union under Article 370 of theIndian constitution. The state ceded to the IndianUnion only in defence, foreign affairs andcommunication, retaining autonomy in all othermatters. In 1956, the Constituent Assembly ofJammu and Kashmir ratified the accession of thestate to India. Over the years, the state's specialstatus has been considerably modified and thestate is almost on similar footing with other statesexcept the clauses mentioned under Article 370.

Sheikh Abdullah: As Sher-e-Kashmir,Sheikh Abdullah brought Kashmir into India butspent his whole life negotiating the terms of thataccession. He spent many years in jails oncharges of separatism, but had an utter lack ofbitterness towards Nehru-Indira. He died as theCM of the land he had fought so hard for.Pressed by communal elements in the KashmirValley demanding merger with Pakistan andharassed by communalists in Jammu demandingfull integration with India, Abdullah began todemand separation. By the middle of July 1953,Abdullah publicly demanded that Kashmirshould become independent. Abdullah wasconsequently dismissed and Bakshi GhulamMohammed was installed as Prime Minister.Under Nehru's pressure, he was released on 8,January 1958 but was rearrested three monthslater as he continued with his separatistcampaign and appeals to communal sentiments.Nehru got Abdullah released again in April 1964.Abdullah, however, continued to claim thatKashmir's accession to India was not final andthat he would fight to secure for the state theright of self-determination. But at the same time,he was also against the state's merger withPakistan. He was opposed by pro-Pakistanipolitical groups for his independent stand.

In 1975 Abdullah again became ChiefMinister and the leader of the NationalConference after agreeing that he will notdemand separation. In the July 1977 mid-termpoll in the state he won comfortably. His son,Farooq Abdullah, succeeded him as ChiefMinister, on his death in 1982. Farooq won acomfortable majority in the mid-term electionsin July 1984. In a political coup against Farooq,his brother-in-law, G.M. Shah, split the national


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Conference. Later, the Governor, Jagmohan,dismissed Farooq as Chief Minister and installedG.M. Shah in his place. It was alleged that hewas acting at the behest of the centralGovernment. On 2 July, 1984, Farooq Abdullah,the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, askedthe governor, Jagmohan, to immediately call asession of the legislative assembly. He wanted totest his majority on the floor of the house astwelve members had deserted his party. TheGovernor, however, dismissed his ministry fromoffice and installed a new man, G.M. Shah, asChief Minister. Abdullah campaigned against hisdismissal all over the country.

The incident was also cited as proof of theunion government's infringement of theautonomy of the state and was thus a handytool for stocking sucessionist fires. Rajiv Gandhientered into an alliance with Farooq Abdullahfor the assembly elections in early 1987. ButFarooq, though won the election, found that hewas not able to manage the state. Both HizbulMujahideen and other fundamentalist, pro-Pakistan groups and those for independence ledby the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front(JKLE) took to violent agitations and armedinsurgency. All these groups were activelyfinanced, trained and armed by Pakistan.

V.P. Singh at the Center dismissed FarooqAbdullh's government, which had lost controlover the Valley to the terrorist groups, andimposed President's Rule in the state. Farooq,however, made another political comeback bywinning the long-delayed elections in 1996. Inthe 2002 state elections, he lost power and thestate came to be ruled by an alliance of thePeople's Democratic Party, headed by MuftiMuhammed Sayeed, and the Congress party. Atpresent, Omar Abdullah, son of Farooq, is ChiefMinister of state.

Pakistan’s Role: J & K was always the rootof 3 open wars Pakistan fought with India 1948,1965 & 1971, though to a lesser extent in case of1971 war. In 1974 the Kashmir StateGovernment reached an accord with the IndianGovernment, which affirmed its status as "aconstituent unit of the union of India". Pakistanrejected this accord. The 1980s had seen somediplomatic discussions aimed at resolvingoutstanding differences, between India andPakistan. In 1982, the two rivals beganunsuccessful talks on a non-aggression treaty.However, in 1984 Indian troops were airlifted

to the Siachen glacier in northern Kashmir(Operation Meghdoot) which increased tensionin the area. Pakistan retaliated by fortifying theglacier from its side of what has become knownas the world's highest war zone.

In 1988, India and Pakistan had signed anagreement not to attack each other's nuclearfacilities. But in 1989 armed insurgency againstIndia began in the Kashmir valley. Muslimpolitical parties complained that the 1987elections to the state's legislative assembly wererigged against them, and they formed militantwings. Some groups demanded independencefor the state of Jammu and Kashmir and othersunion with Pakistan. Pakistan gave its "moraland diplomatic" support to the movement, callingfor the issue to be resolved via a UN-sponsoredreferendum. Whereas, India maintains thatPakistan's support of the insurgency consistedof training and supplying weapons to militant.

During the 1990s, several new militantgroups emerged, most of which held radicalIslamic views. The ideological emphasis of themovement shifted from a nationalistic andsecularist one to an Islamic one. This was in partdriven by the arrival in the valley of Kashmir oflarge numbers of Islamic "Jihadi" fighters whohad fought in Afghanistan against the SovietUnion in the 1980s. India and Pakistan set upmeetings to defuse tension over Jammu andKashmir. The diplomatic push became moreconcerted a year later and an agenda for peacetalks was agreed on. In 1997, itself, Pakistan alsosuggested that the two sides meet to discussrestraining nuclear and missile capabilities. In1996, Pakistani and Indian military officers meton the Line of Control to ease tension. Thecelebrations of 50 years of independence in 1997in both countries coincided with a surge indiplomatic activity. During 1997, Indian andPakistani foreign ministers met in Delhi. Afterrounds of talks in Islamabad, they announcedan eight-point agenda for peace talks, includingdiscussion of the Kashmir issue. Though, talksended in a stalemate. Lahore bus service, kargilincursion, Agra Summit, attack on Parliamentand Mumbai have been the latest flash pointsbetween the two nations.

The fact that the majority of Kashmiris areMuslims has nothing to do with the countrywhich Kashmir joins. The ruler of Kashmiracceded to India and the real leaders of thepeople of Kashmir, Muslims themselves, have


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

clearly stated their desire to remain with India.Kashmir is, in fact, a part of India. The part heldby Pakistan is wrongly seized by aggression andmust be vacated in favour of the realgovernment.

Despite many rounds of talks between Indiaand Pakistan, a long term solution to problemsin valley and other areas of J & K still eludes thenation. A large role for the army in Kashmir hasbeen a necessity in view of Pakistani militarythreat and subversion; but this has also meant ahigh cost in terms of the functioning of a CivilPolity and Human Rights. Kashmir has alsosuffered from near-perpetual political instability.How the story unfolds in the J & K is to be seen.A new strategy of engagement with Islamabadneeds to abandon the myth that nothing wasachieved during the earlier peace process. Evena cursory look at the host of significantConfidence Building Measures — ranging fromthe Agreement on Advance Notification ofBallistic Missile Tests (signed in 2005) to theestablishment of a communication link betweenPakistan's Maritime Security Agency and theIndian Coast Guard, to legalising the screeningof Indian films in Pakistan in 2008 — shows thattangible, positive progress was made and furtherprogress is not impossible. The very fact that thetwo governments, albeit through the back-channel, had closely and seriously examinedpotential solutions to Kashmir demonstrates thatthere are enough no. of peace supporters withinthe two establishments who can think outsidethe box.

Differences are fundamental and intentionsare hostile between two nations. Despite this factthere are compelling reasons why India shouldproactively engage with Pakistan. First, for thedomestic reason that a tension-free relationshipwith Pakistan would help us consolidate ournationhood. Second, for the regional reason thatregional terrorism can be effectively tackled onlyin cooperation with Pakistan and not inconfrontation with it. Third, for the internationalreason that India will not be able to play its duerole in international affairs so long as it isdragged down by its quarrels with Pakistan. Asfor just turning our backs on each other, Siamesetwins have no option but to move together evenwhen they are attempting to pull away fromeach other.

PUNJAB- issues

Punjab story starts with Patiala MuzaraMovement. The 'muzara of tenants movement'that was going on the Patiala at inde-pendencehad its origins in the late nineteenth century.Biswedars (the local term for landlords), whoearlier had only some mafi claims or revenue-collecting rights, due to their growing influencein the administration, succeeded in claimingproprietary status and relegated the entire bodyof cultivating proprietors of roughly 800 villages,comprising one-sixth the area of the state, to theposition of occupancy tenants and tenants at will.The new tenants regarded the new landlords asparvenus, who had no legitimate right to theland which had belonged to the tenants forgenerations and not in the manner in which atraditional tenantry might regard their old,established, feudal landowners, whose right tothe land had acquired a certain social legitimacyby virtue of its very antiquity.

The grievance festered, but the opportunityfor expression came only with the new wave ofpolitical awareness brought by the nationalmovement and its associated movements suchas the Akali and the Praja Mandal movementsin the 1920s. But the repressive atmosphere inPatiala made any political activity extremelydifficult, and it was only in the late 1930s withthe change in the political atmosphere broughtabout by the formation of Congress ministries inmany provinces that it became possible for amovement to emerge. From 1939, a powerfulmovement emerged and from 1945, in escalatedinto an open confrontation between muzarasand biswedars, with the state intervening mainlyto institute cases of non-payment of batai (rentin kind) and criminal assault. Numerous armedcrashes took place at different places, some overforcible possession of land, other over forciblerealization of batai.

The Praja Mandal, which spearheaded theanti-Maharaja democratic movement, under theinfluence of Brish Bhan, who was sympatheticto the Communists and the tenants’ cause,extended support. This gave strength to thetenants as the Praja Mandal had the weight ofthe Congress behind it. With the coming ofindependence, Punjab joined the Indian Union.The repression decreased after the formation ofthe PEPSU in July 1948, a new provincecomprising the erstwhile princely states ofPunjab. An Agrarian Reforms Enquiry


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Committee was set up to make recommendationsand till such time as the legislation could beenacted, the PEPSU Tenancy (TemporaryProvision) Act was promulgated in January 1952which protected tenants against eviction. In1953, the President of India issued the PEPSUOccupancy Tenants (Vesting of ProprietaryRights) Act. This legislation, though it did notmeet fully the Communists’ demand of transferof proprietary rights without compensation, wasobviously found acceptable by the tenants, andno further resistance was reported. TheCommunist continued, however, to condemnthe new agrarian legislation as inadequatebecause the biswedars’ lands were not beingconfiscated without compensation. This resultedin their growing isolation from the peasants, aprocess that was also furthered by their desertionof their erstwhile comrades-in-arms in theMuzara Movement and the Praja Mandal, theleft wing Congress group led by Brish Bhan. Inthe long run, the Communists were also the losersin this game, because they were too weak tostruggle effectively on their own against thegradual ascendancy of the Akalis and othercommunal and semi-communal and right-winggroups.

After August 1947, Hindu and Sikhcommunalists were pitted against each other.The Congress and the 'Hindu' Nehru, 'who ruledfrom Delhi', were made special targets of Akalianger for representing the Hindu andBrahminical conspiracy against Sikhs. Here alsomajor issue was of state language. The Hinducommunalists wanted this status for Hindi andthe Sikh communalists for Punjabi in theGurmukhi script. Demand for Creation ofPunjabi-speaking Punjab and Hindi-speakingHaryana was not accepted. The SRC rejected thedemand on the grounds that there was not muchdifference between Hindi and Punjabi and thatthe minimum measure of agreement necessaryfor making a change did not exist among thepeople of Punjab. After a great deal of haggling,an agreement was arrived at in 1956 betweenthe Akali Dal and the Government of Indialeading to the merger of Punjab and Patiala andEast Punjab Union (PEPSU).

Akali Dal under the leadership of MasterTara Singh soon organized a powerful agitationaround the demand for the formation of aPunjabi Suba. The Jan Sangh and the otherHindu organizations and individuals strenuouslyopposed this demand on the ground that it

represented an effort to impose Sikh dominationand Sikh theocracy on Punjab. The Harijan Sikhs,known as Mazhabi Sikhs, who were mostlylandless agricultural labourers, also opposed thedemand for a Punjabi Suba because they wereafraid that the new state would be dominatedby the rich peasants, who as Jat Sikhs were themain supporters of the Akali Dal. Nehru refusedto concede the demand for a Punjabi Subamainly because of its communal underpinnings.

Sant Fateh Singh, who ousted Master TaraSingh from the leadership of the SGPC and theAkali Dal, declared that the demand for aPunjabi Suba was entirely language based. Atthe same time, a major political and socialorganizations in Haryana demanded a separateHindi-speaking state and those in Kangra askedfor its merger with Himachal Pradesh.

In order to widen their support base amongSikhs, the Akalis began to intensify thecommunal content of their politics and tocontinuously escalate their demands, the so-called moderate leaders keeping in step with theextremists. In 1981, the main Akali Dal, headedby Sant Longowal, submitted to the PrimeMinister a memorandum of forty-five religious,political, economic and social demands andgrievances, including the issue of the sharing ofPunjab's river waters between Punjab, Haryanaand Rajasthan and the question of the transferof Chandigarh to Punjab, and launched avirulent campaign around them. Very soon,implemented of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution(ASR), adopted in 1973, became the mostprominent demand.

The initiator of terrorism was Sant JarnailSingh Bhindranwale, who emerged in the late1970s as a strong campaigner of Sikh orthodoxy.In this campaign he received the tacit supportof the Punjab Congress led by Giani Zail Singh,who hoped to use him to undercut the Akalis.He was, however, to soon become a Frankensteinand turn against his erstwhile patrons. Theterrorist campaign by Bhindranwale and the AllIndia Sikh Students Federation, headed by AmrikSingh, began on 24 April, 1980 with theassassination of the head of the Nirankari sect.Till September 1983, terrorist killings wereconfined to Nirankaris, petty governmentofficials and Sikhs who disagreed withBhindranwale. In April 1983, A.S. Atwal, a Sikhdeputy inspector-general of police, was killedjust as he was coming out of the Golden Temple.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

In December 1983, Bhindranwale movedinto Akal Takht within the Golden Templefearing arrest. He made it his headquarters,armoury and a sanctuary for other terrorists. Theattitude of the Akali leadership towards theterrorists was ambivalent. They neither joinednor opposed them. Instead of boldly confrontingthe communal and separatist challenge to theIndian polity, Indira Gandhi waited and triedother ways for three years. Finally theGovernment of India undertook military action,code-named 'Operation Blue Star'.

On 3 June, the army surrounded the GoldenTemple and entered the temple on 5 June. Thereit found that the terrorists were far greater innumber and also far better armed than assumed.The military operation turned into a full-scalebattle. The army had to deploy even tanks in theend. Over a thousand devotees and temple staffwere trapped inside the temple and many ofthem died in the crossfire. The buildings in thetemple complex including Akal Takht wereseverely demaged. Harmandir Sahib, the mosthallowed of the Sikh shrines, was riddled withbullet marks. Among the dead were Bhind-ranwale and his followers also.

'Operation Blue Star' produced a deep senseof anger and outrage among Sikhs. It was seenby most of them as a sacrilege and an affront tothe community. The terrorists vowed vengeanceagainst Indira Gandhi for having desecrated theGolden Temple. On the morning of 31 October,1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by twoSikh members of her security guard. Earlier shehad rejected her security chief's suggestion thatall Sikhs be removed from her security staff. Theassassination of the popular Prime Minister ledto a wave of horror, fear, anger and communaloutrage among people all over the country,especially among the poor. This anger took anugly and communal form in Delhi and someother parts of North India, where anti-Sikh riotsbroke out as soon as the news of theassassination spread. For three days from theevening of 31 October, mobs took over the streetsof Delhi and made Sikhs targets of violence.There was complete failure of the law and ordermachinery in giving protection to Sikhs and theirproperty. The three-day violence in Delhiresulted in the death of more than 2,500 Sikhs.The slums and resettlement colonies of Delhi werethe main scenes of carnage.

Finally, in August 1985, Rajiv Gandhi andLongowal signed the Punjab Accord. The

government conceded the major Akali demands.It was agreed that Chandigarh would betransferred to Punjab and a commission woulddetermine which Hindi-speaking terroristswould be transferred from Punjab to Haryana.The river water dispute was to be adjudicatedby an independent tribunal. On 20 August,Longowal announced that the Akalis wouldparticipate in the elections. He was assassinatedby the terrorists on same day. The Akalis securedan absolute majority in the state assembly forthe first time in their history.

There was a resurgence in terrorists activities.The militant groups regrouped taking advantageof policies of the Barnala government where thestate government was riven with factionalismand thus was unable to contain them. Soon, thecentral government dismissed the Barnalaministry and imposed President's Rule in Punjabin May, 1987. Despite this, terrorism in Punjabwent on growing.

After 1985, terrorism begun to be openlyfunded and supported by Pakistan.

A hard policy towards terrorism wasfollowed from mid-1991 onwards by theNarasimha Rao government. In February, 1992elections, congress came into power led by BeantSingh in Punjab. The police became increasinglyeffective in its operations. By 1993, Punjab hadbeen virtually freed of terrorism. Last politicalheavy weight to sacrifice his life for peace inPunjab was Beant Singh.

Former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singhwas assassinated in a human bomb attack.Dilawar Singh was the human bomb: A SpecialPolice Officer (SPO) with the Punjab Police, hewas assigned the task of assassinating BeantSingh. He was wearing an explosive beltunderneath his uniform, reached Beant Singhwhen the CM had just stepped to his car outsideassembly and pressed the trigger. Jagtar SinghHawara, a member of the Babbar KhalsaInternational (BKI) terrorist group headed byWadhawa Singh, was the mastermind behindthe whole operation.

WEST BENGAL Politics

After emergency, CPM, alongwith its leftallies, was able to form the government after anelectoral victory in 1977. After coming to power


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

the CPM launched the programme called'Operation Barga'. This reformed the tenancysystem in the interests of the bargadars(sharecroppers), who constituted nearly 25 percent of the rural households. 'Operation Barga'included politicization and mobilization ofsharecroppers. The government secured legalregistration of sharecroppers, thus giving thempermanent lease of the land they cultivated andsecurity of tenure. Government enforced lawsregarding the share of the produce they couldretain. Significantly reform of the jotedari systemprovided the incentive to all concerned toincrease production. It became a contributoryfactore in the ushering in of the Green Revolutionand multi-cropping.

The second major change introduced by WestBengal government was its restructuring andtransformation of the Panchayati Rajinstitutions, through which the rural poor wereempowered to participate in political power. The'Food for Work' programme was alsoimplemented effectively to generate jobs for thelandless. The CPM government's record incontaining communal violence has beenpraiseworthy. Despite having a high ratio ofMuslims in the population and the large influxof Hindu refuges from East Bengal, West Bengalremained relatively free of communal violence.In 1984, it contained the communal fallout ofIndira Gandhi's assassination and in December1992 of the Babri Mosque's demolition.

Jyoti Basu headed West Bengal from 1977 to2000, the longest serving CM in history whoalmost became PM. His tenure symbolised themixed blessings of CPI(M)'s rule: land reform anda robustly secular politics on the one hand;industrial flight, economic stagnation and thesystematic politicisation of the state'sbureaucracy on the other.

Off late, Mamata Banerjee of TrinamoolCongress brought the change in politics of WestBengal. “The catalysts” for the change wereSingur, Nandigram and Lalgarh. Thesemovements resurrected Mamata Banerjee’spolitical career and essentially brought about herto the centrestage. Mamata Banerjee translatedthe anger against communists into votes, seatsand a government that would replaced a regimeof 34 years.

Gorkhaland Territorial Administration

In 1986, the Gorkha National LiberationFront (GNLF) was organized under theleadership of Subhash Gheising. It started anagitation in the hill district of Darjeeling in WestBengal around the demand for a separateGorkha state. After negotiations between GNLFand the central and state governments, atripartite accord was signed in Calcutta inAugust 1988, under which the semi-autonomousDarjeeling Gorkha Hill Council came into being.The Council had wide control over finance,education, health, agriculture and economicdevelopment.

Lately Bimal Gurung’s GJM has emerged asthe main political force in the area. A tripartiteagreement paving the way for the setting up ofthe Gorkhaland Territorial Administration(GTA), an elected body for the Darjeeling hills,has been signed. West Bengal Chief MinisterMamata Banerjee and GJM president BimalGurung and Central Government were 3 Partiesconcerned. The new set-up will have 50members: 45 of them will be elected and the restnominated.

As large numbers of Gorkhas sang anddanced at the site to celebrate the signing of theaccord, there was a complete shutdown in thenearby town of Siliguri and parts of the Dooarsand Terai regions on the plains of north Bengal.Mr. Gurung has reiterated the demand for theinclusion, under the GTA, of the Terai andDooars regions. A committee set up for theinclusion of areas in the Dooars and the Teraihas recommended for meager areal inclusionand this may provide flash point in future. Thegovernment will also have to pay attention tothis issue.

The long-running agitation for a GorkhalandState in the hills was propelled by ethnic andlinguistic passions. A lesson the West BengalGovernment appears to have picked up fromhistory is that these passions can often turndisruptive unless adequately addressed. Hencethere is a need to amend Article 371 to providea constitutional guarantee to the DGHC ratherthan continue to accept its functioning under aState Act. There is also a need to formulate anapproach paper at the political level seeking tosafeguard the interests of the Gorkhas as adominant ethnic community with a distinctivesocial and linguistic identity.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CONUNDRUM OF TAMIL POLITICS

The DMK emerged in the 1950s as a partywhich thrived on strong caste, regional and evensecessionist sentiments in initial phases. It wasamalgamation of two strands of the Pre-independence period movements in Tamil Nadu:the non-Brahmin movement (pro-British Justiceparty in 1920), and the reformist anti-caste, anti-religion Self Respect movement (led byE.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, popularly known asPeriyar).

In 1944, Naicker and C.N. Annaduraiestablished Dravida Kazhagam (Federation) orDK which split in 1949 when Annaduraifounded the Dravida Munnetra (Progressive)Kazhagam (DMK). If Periyar launched theDravidian movement, Annadurai gave itpolitical form by founding the DravidaMunnetra Kazhagam in 1949. He fought for theupliftment of non-Bhrahmins, led the anti-Hindiagitation; he also gave Madras its name TamilNadu. His legacy still inspires politics in the state.In contrast to the Justice Party and Naicker,Annadurai had taken up a strongly anti-imperialist, pro-nationalist position before 1947.

The DMK was strongly anti-Brahmin, anti-North and anti-Aryan. Southern Brahmins andNorth Indians being seen as Aryans, all otherSouth Indians were seen as Dravidas. It raisedthe slogan of opposition to the cultural, economicand political domination of the South by theNorth. Naicker and others had in 1938organized a movement against the decision ofthe Congress ministry to introduce Hindi inMadras schools, labelling it to be an aspect ofBrahminical North Indian domination. Its maindemand, however, was for a homeland for theDravidas in the form of a separate independentSouth Indian State Dravidnadu or Dravidasthanconsisting of Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Karnatakaand Kerala.

Gradually focus was shifted from race toTamil consciousness and Tamil Pride. However,opposition to Hindi and emphasis on radicalsocial reforms was retained. The DMKimmediately amended its constitution and gaveup the demand for secession. From secessionismit shifted to the demands for greater stateautonomy and more powers to the states.

DMK wanted for limiting the powers of thecentral government, an end to the dominationand unfair treatment of the South by the Hindi-

speaking North, and allocation of greater centraleconomic resources for the development of TamilNadu.

In 1967 elections DMK in alliance with otherparties got 138 of the 234 seats in assembly, withCongress getting only 49. The DMK formed thegovernment in the state with Annadurai as chiefminister. After Annadurai's death in February1969, M. Karunanidhi became the ChiefMinister. In 1972 the DMK split, with MGRforming the All-India Anna DMK (AIADMK).For 25 years, Maruthur Gopala Ramachandranwas the biggest star in Tamil Cinema. He turnedhis fan base into political power, founding theAIDMK, serving as CM for then continuousyears. His greatest legacy was the mid-day mealscheme which at one stroke got kids into schools,improved literacy and addressed malnutrition.The two party system now emerged in TamilNadu, but operated between the two Dravidaparties, with both parties alternating in powerin the state.

SHADES OF ANDHRA POLITICS

First and foremost story in Andhra politicshas to be related to Telangana Peasant Struggle.The Telangana or Telugu-speaking area ofHyderabad state ruled by the autocratic Nizamhad been experiencing political opposition sincethe late 1930s under the influence of nationalistand democratic organizations such as the StateCongress and the Andhra Mahasabha. From theearly 1940s, the communists emerged as a majorforce and when the ban on the CPI was lifted bythe British in 1942 due to their pro-war line, theyquickly expanded their influence and establishedtheir control on the Andhra Mahasabha. Thepeasants in Telangana suffered extreme feudal-type oppression at the hands of Jagirdars andDeshmukhs, some of whom owned thousandsof areas of land. The communists began toorganize the peasants against the hated forcedgrain levy imposed by the government and vethbegar or forced labour extracted by landlordsand officials.

From 1945, helped along by a few incidentsin which the Communists heroically defendedthe poor peasants, the peasant movement beganto spread rapidly. The Communists participatedactively in the anti-Nizam, pro-integrationmovement, and it is in this phase, August 1947to September 1948, when they rode the anti-Nizam pro-India wave, that they registered their


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

greatest successes, establishing a firm base in theNalgonda, Warangal and Khammam districts.Landlord and officials mostly ran away to thetowns, leaving the field free for the Communistsin the villages. Lands that had been taken overby landlords in lieu of debt claims in largenumbers during the Great Depression of the1930s were returned to the original owners,government owned uncultivated waste andforests land was distributed to the landless. Asconfidence grew, ‘ceilings’ on landlords’ landwere declared, first at 500 acres and then at 100acres, and the ‘surplus’ land distributed tolandless and small peasants. On 13 September,1948, after having waited for more than a yearfor the Nizam to see the writing on the wall andonce the anti-Nizam resistance movement hadshown clearly what the people desired, theIndian army moved into Hyderabad. The peoplegreeted it as an army of liberation and withindays the Nizam and his troops surrendered. Thegovernment was quick to respond to theissuances raised by the movement.

The Jagiradari Abolition Regulation was laiddown in 1949 itself and the Hyderabad Tenancyand Agricultural Lands Act was passed in 1950.Over 600,000 tenants covering over one quarterof the cultivated area were declared ‘protected’tenants with a right to purchase the land on easyterms. Land ceiling were also introduced in themid-1950s. Landlords who returned after themovement collapsed were not able to go back tothe old ways. The movement had broken theback of landlordism in Telangana, but this hadalready been done as part of the anti-Nizam,pro-integration liberation struggle, when theirposition as leaders of popular upsurge providedCommunists the opportunity to articulate radicalpeasant demands as well. The costly adventurethereafter was not dictated by the imperativesof the peasant movement but was entirely aconsequence of misguided resolution anyromanticism, of which some Indian Communistsappeared to be enamoured.

Demand for separate Andhra

Andhra was created as a separate State inOctober 1953 and in November 1956 the Teluguspeaking Telangana area of Nizam's Hyderabadstate was merged with it to create AndhraPradesh. A large unilingual state was supposedto strengthen and bond the Telugu peopleculturally, politically and economically.

A powerful movement for a separate stateof Telangana developed in 1969 based on thebelief that because the politics and admini-stration of the state were dominated by peoplefrom the Andhra region. People alleged that theAndhra Government had neglected Telanganaand had done very little to remove the regionaleconomic imbalance. Andhrans were accused ofexploiting the Telangana region.

The major issue in this context became theimplementation of Mulki Rules. The Nizam'sgovernment in Hyderabad had accepted earlierthat in all state services those who were born inthe state or had lived there for fifteen years (i.e.,(Mulkis) would be given preference. At the sametime restrictions would be imposed on theemployment of outsiders. The discontented inTelangana accused the government of deli-berately violating the agreement. To lead themovement for a separate Telangana state in anorganized manner, the Telangana Praja Samiti(TPS) was soon formed. However, movement fora separate Telangana began to lose stream afterthe summer of 1969.

The TPS merged with Congress in September1971 after Brahmanand Reddy, the Chiefminister, resigned and was replaced by P.V.Narasimha Rao from Telangana. Now the middleclasses of the Andhra region started to protestagainst Mulki Rules. To solve the impasse, centralgovernment put forward a six-point formulawhich did away with the Mulki Rules butextended preference in employment andeducation to all districts and regions of the stateover outsiders. The 32nd ConstitutionalAmendment was passed to enable theimplementation of the formula.

In the case of both the Telangana andAndhra regions, the central government firmlyand successfully opposed the demand forbifurcation of the state as it was apprehensiveof similar demands being raised in other partsof the country. But recent contours of strugglefor Telangana Separation have stretched thesituation to the extreme. The Home MinisterChidambaram’s statement about initiating theprocess of forming the new state was promptedby Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) party chiefK. Chandrasekhara Rao’s resolve to fast untodeath and violent protests in state capitalHyderabad.

Since its inception, demands for a separateTelangana state, formed out of 10 districts of


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Andhra Pradesh, has seen violent protests andpolitical power play, with more than 300 peoplekilled between 1969 and 1972. The Congress’electoral alliance with TRS in the state in 2004was based on promises of delivering Telanganato its leaders and was included in its CommonMinimum Programme. However, Telanganasupporters accused the Congress of backtrackingfollowing its two electoral wins. Though, recentdevelopments point to the possibility thatTelangana can soon become the youngest stateof Indian Union. A brief account of controversialpoints follows.

One major issues that seem to be at the centreof the contention between the two regions ofAndhra Pradesh is the future of Hyderabad afterthe division of the State. Hyderabad is an integralpart of Telangana and a Telangana State withoutHyderabad as the capital is inconceivable.However, the militant rhetoric of some politicalparties has made people of other areas feelunwelcome, creating an air of mistrust amongthe Telugu-speaking people of various regions.Rhetorical slogans such as 'Telangana waalonjaago, Andhra waalon bhago' gives theimpression of an exclusionist movement. WhenMaharashtra and Gujarat were created from thethen Bombay state on the recommendation ofthe States Reorganisation Commission, there wasalso a fear about Mumbai losing its importanceas a financial nerve-centre as a lot of investmentin Mumbai had been made by Gujarati businesspeople. The creation of two separate States didnot halt Mumbai’s rapid development. In fact, itadditionally paved the way for the developmentof Ahmedabad and Surat as alternativefinancial centres. Hyderabad can emulate thesame model. The Telangana agitation is the onlysuch movement in India that involves a capitalcity located in the region that is fighting forseparation from the main State. This clearlyreflects on the lack of governance and civicadministration in this area as the benefits ofhaving a State capital in the hinterland have nottrickled down to other areas in that region.

Justice Srikrishna Committee has held wideconsultations on demands for a separate Stateof Telangana as well as for keeping AndhraPradesh united, and offered half-a-dozenoptions on which the government may take acall. The suggestions include keeping AndhraPradesh in the present form, forming a separateTelangana, and making Hyderabad a UnionTerritory.

By acknowledging the merits of thelongstanding grievances of the people of theTelangana region and recommending robust“constitutional/statutory measures” – centredon a Telangana Regional Council – for the “socio-economic development and politicalempowerment” of the region within a unitedAndhra Pradesh as “the best way forward,” theCommittee for Consultations on the Situation inAndhra Pradesh headed by retired SupremeCourt judge B.N. Srikrishna has tried to find ajust and equitable solution to the problem. Thestatutory and empowered Regional Councilwould be provided with “adequate transfer offunds, functions and functionaries” and wouldalso act as “a legislative consultative mechanism”for the subjects it would deal with.

After weighing five other options, theCommittee is of the opinion that this is the mostworkable option in the given circumstances andin the best interest of the social and economicwelfare of the people of all the three regions. Thecore issues, the Committee emphasised, aresocio-economic development and good gover-nance. The united Andhra Pradesh option,premised on far-going and meaningful regionalautonomy for Telangana, is recommended for“continuing the development momentum” of allthree regions and “keeping in mind the nationalperspective.” Crucially, it would end theuncertainty over the future of Hyderabad. The“second best option” – bifurcation of the Stateinto Telangana and Seemandhra with theirexisting boundaries and with Hyderabad as thecapital of the former and a new capital forSeemandhra – is clearly a distant second. TheCommittee's view is that this option should beexercised only if it becomes unavoidable and allthree regions come to an amicable agreement onit. But Telangana has been declared as the 29thState of India.

NORTH EAST REORGANIZATION

Soon after India’s independence, vestedinterests started promoting sentiment in favourof separate and independent states in north-eastern India. The virtual absence of any politicalor cultural contact of the tribals in the North-East with the political life of the rest of India wasalso a striking difference. The struggle forindependence had little impact among the tribalsof the North-East. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru:‘the essence of our struggle for freedom was the


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

unleashing of a liberating force in India. Thisforce did not even affect the frontier people inone of the most important tribal areas.’ Again:‘thus, they never experienced a sensation ofbeing in a country called India and they werehardly influenced by the struggle for freedom orother movements in India. Their chief experienceof outsiders was that of British officers andChristian missionaries who generally tried tomake them anti-Indian.’

Sixth Schedule of the Constitution offered afair degree of self-government to the tribal peopleby providing for autonomous districts and thecreation of district and regional councils, whichwould exercise some of the legislative andjudicial functions within the overall jurisdictionof the Assam legislature and the parliament. Theobjective of the Sixth Schedule was to enabletribals to live according to their own ways. TheGovernment of India also expressed itswillingness to further amend the constitutionalprovisions relating to the tribal people if it wasfound necessary to do so with a view to promotefurther autonomy. However, this did not mean,Nehru clarified that the government wouldcountenance secession from India orindependence by any area or region, or wouldtolerate violence in the promotion of anydemands.

Nehru’s and Verrier Elwin’s policies wereimplemented best of all in the North-East FrontierAgency or NEFA, which was created in 1948out of the border areas of Assam. NEFA wasestablished as a Union Territory outside thejurisdiction of Assam and placed under a specialadministration. From the beginning, theadministration was manned by a special cadreof officers to implement specially designeddevelopmental policies without disturbing thesocial and cultural pattern of the life of thepeople.

NEFA was named Arunachal Pradesh andgranted the status of a separate state in 1987.Soon problems developed in the other tribal areas,which were part of Assam administratively. Theproblems arose because the hill tribes of Assamhad no cultural affinity with the Assamese andBengali residents of the plains. The tribals wereafraid of losing their identities and beingassimilated by what was seen to be a policy ofAssamization.

The creation of Nagaland as a separate statehad its own peculiarities. The Naga tribes along

the Assam-Burma border had never been fullycontrolled by the British and the problem wasfurther complicated on account of the large scaleconversion of the Naga tribes to Christianity byAmerican Baptist missionaries. There was a-longentrenched rebellion led by the Naga leader A.Z.Phizo, but the traditional leadership of the Nagatribes under the Naga People’s Conventionwanted a settlement “within the Indian Union”.Ultimately in 1963, Nagaland was created as aseparate State.

In the early 1980s, in Nagaland, the NagaNational Council (NNC), political face of theoldest of the insurgencies in the region, was ledby Angami Zapu Phizo, then in exile in Britain.Despite the challenge posed by a faction of theNNC that had split and formed itself into theNational Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN),the NNC remained the dominant voice of Naganationalistic assertion. In Manipur, Nagainsurgency was active those days in the Naga-inhabited hill districts mainly in Tamenglong,while in the Imphal Valley, several outfits, someof them fighting one another as much as theIndian state, were active: the United NationalLiberation Front (UNLF), the Peoples' LiberationArmy (PLA), the People's Revolutionary Partyof Kangleipak (PREPAK) and the KangleipakCommunist Party (KCP). In the Union Territoryof Mizo Hills, the Mizo National Front (MNF)arrived at the Talk-Talk-Fight-Fight stage, andwas on the way to give up its secessionistagenda, sign a peace accord and become alegitimate party of the government. Insurgencyhad not become a generalised fact of life in theregion including Assam, though formally theUnited Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) hadbeen founded in April 1979.

The objectives of all these organisations,including the nascent ULFA, were broadly thesame: independence and sovereignty, therestoration of sovereignty that ‘lapsed' to thepeople these organisations claimed to representwhen the British left India but which Indiarefused to concede. The undeniable historical factunderlying this idea of restoration of sovereignty'as against the demand for sovereignty' is thatbeginning with the British annexation of Assamfollowing the defeat of Burma in 1826 in the FirstAnglo-Burmese War, the colonial governmenthad embarked on consolidating the boundariesof these newly acquired vast territories,progressively annexing more of theseborderlands and extending its own boundaries.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

NNC split that led to the formation of theNSCN in early 1980. Even though the NSCN indue course also split into two factions, and theNNC has refused to fade away, the NSCN (I andM) bearing the initials of Chairman Isak Swuand General Secretary Thuingaleng Muivahremains the dominant voice of the sovereigntyaspirations of the Naga people.

However, all these insist that settlement ofthe “Naga political issue,” that is restoration ofNaga sovereignty and independence — theresolution of what has come to be known in theNaga nationalist rhetoric as “the mother of allinsurgencies” in the region — is central toresolving the other problems in the region. Thisperspective has been expressed several times byMuivah since the NSCN(I-M) began talkingdirectly to the Government of India nearly 15years ago. During this period, the NSCN(I-M)leaders have met several Prime Ministers inforeign lands and in India, and have hadprolonged dialogue with, interlocutors, initiallyin cities in Europe and South East Asia, and laterin Delhi. Peace of a kind has prevailed inNagaland and in the Naga inhabited areas ofManipur, though the “Naga political issue”remains unresolved.

The irony in the northeast is that armedinsurgencies coexist with the enthusiasm for theelectoral process. The debate on the politics ofthe northeast has rested on the region’salienation and marginalisation from mainstreampolitics. The astounding number of organisedinsurgencies in the region, party politicsnotwithstanding, gives credence to the idea thatthe northeast has substantial grievances againstthe Indian state. Yet, in recent assembly electionsin the insurgency-hit States of Meghalaya,Nagaland and Tripura, the incumbents werevoted back into power and voter turnout wasunprecedentedly high – Tripura had a voterturnout of 93 per cent, followed by Meghalayaat 88 per cent and Nagaland at 83.2 per cent.

Some celebrate the high voter turnout andpolitical stability (amidst relative peace) as anindicator of northeastern people’s leap of faithin New Delhi’s politically accommodativestrategies. Others lament that the northeast hascontinued to be peripheral in India’s nationalpolitical imagination and therefore successfulelections in the region should not be seen as anextension of legitimacy for the Indian state.Historically, the northeast has been thought of

by New Delhi as a region riddled withexceptions in three different areas — the people’sracial and tribal difference, their geographicisolation which enabled a perceived non-participation in the national movement andfinally, the spread of Christianity as a dominantreligion in Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland.

Assamese Story

The Assamese had a grievance that the severeunderdevelopment of Assam was due to unfairtreatment by the central government. It wasalleged that central government had not onlyneglected its development but also discriminatedagainst it in allocation of central funds. At thesame time, centre was seen as having deprivedAssam of its due share of revenues from its crudeoil and tea and plywood industries. There weredemands for a greater share for Assam in therevenues derived from tea and plywoodindustries and a higher royalty for its crude oil.Other demands included larger central financialgrants and plan allocation and location of oilrefineries in Assam, so that there is no need tosend the oil to Barauni refinery. In infrastructure,demands included construction of more bridgesover the Brahmaputra river and upgrading ofthe railway link between Assam and the rest ofIndia.

Reservation was demanded for locals toensure greater employment of Assamese incentral government services and public sectorenterprises located in the state. There was also astrong feeling among the Assamese speakers thatBengali predominance in education and middle-class jobs also posed a threat to the Assameselanguage and culture. The movement for achange in the official language led to the roundsof hostility between Bengali and Assamesespeakers. In July 1960, language riots erupted.In 1960, the state assembly passed a law makingAssamese the sole official language, thoughBengali remained the additional official languagein Cachar. It was done against the wishes ofBengali speakers and many tribal groups.

Later, a massive anti-foreigners movementstarted in 1979. Main reason was the large-scaleillegal migration from Bangladesh and to someextent from Nepal. The demographic trans-formation of Assam created apprehensionamong many Assamese that the swamping ofAssam by foreigners and non-Assamese Indianswould lead to the Assamese being reduced to a


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

minority in their own land and consequently tothe subordination of their culture.

At the end of 1979, the All Assam StudentsUnion (ASSU) and the Assam Gana SangramParishad (Assam People's Struggle Council), acoalition of regional associations, started amassive, anti-illegal migration movement. Thiscampaign won the support of many sections ofAssamese society. The years from 1979 to 1985witnessed political instability. Election to the stateassembly in 1983 led to its large scale boycott.The Congress party did form the government,but it lacked legitimacy.

Finally, the Rajiv Gandhi government signedan accord with the leaders of the movement on15 August, 1985. All those foreigners who hadentered Assam between 1951 and 1961 were tobe given full citizenship, including the rightto vote; those who had done so after 1971 wereto be deported; the entrants between 1961 and1971 were to be denied voting rights for ten yearsbut would enjoy all other rights of citizenship.A parallel package for the economic develop-ment of Assam, including a second oil refinery,a paper mill and an institute of technology, wasalso promised. The central government alsopromised to provide 'legislative andadministrative safeguards' to protect thecultural, social, and linguistic identity andheritage of the Assamese people. Fresh electionswere held in December 1985. Prafulla Mahanta,an AASU leader, became the youngest chiefminister of independent India. Extreme andprolonged political turbulence in Assam ended,though fresh insurgencies came later e.g.demand of Bodo tribes for a separate state andof the secessionist United Liberation Front ofAssam ULFA.

Democracy in North East

The democratic health of any country is notonly indicated by robust voter turnouts, regularelections, but also by the State’s ability to furtherthe rights of people, deliver public goods andmaintain peace. The strong pro-incumbent trendcoupled with high voter turnouts and regularelections suggests that democracy works well inthe northeast. Yet, we see the persistence ofinsurgent groups in all three States underdiscussion.

There are two distinct political processes atwork in the northeast - the party political processdemonstrated through electoral politics and the

non-party political process found in the form oflong-running insurgencies. Both these processesmutually support each other. The non-partypolitical process has evolved in reaction togrievances against the Indian state and insynergy with electoral politics.

Even though there were regular allegationsof vote-buying in some districts of Nagaland, theCongress regularly came to power in mostnortheastern States until vibrant studentmovements allowed for regional formations likethe Asom Gana Parishad and the BodolandPeople’s Front (Assam), Khun HynniewtrepNational Awakening Movement (in Meghalaya)and the Naga People’s Front (Nagaland) toemerge.

Over time, violent counterinsurgency gaveway to ceasefires, negotiations and policies ofsurrender. This allowed many northeasterninsurgent groups to scale down their politicaldemands from outright secession to limitedautonomy within the Union of India. This wasgranted to them under the Sixth Schedule in theform of autonomous districts. The pacts withinsurgent groups have also led to formerinsurgents being incorporated into mainstreampolitics. In this manner, many former insurgentshave been playing crucial political roles in theregion.

However insurgencies in the northeast havealso acquired a momentum of their own. InMeghalaya, Assam, Nagaland and Manipur,insurgent groups are often reported to act likemafias or cartels running extortion, drugs,kidnapping and small arms rackets. The rentsextracted from these illegal activities often sustainthe groups’ organisational needs and createincentives for new recruits. Massiveunemployment in the region makes insurgencya lucrative career amongst disaffected andmarginalised tribal youths within the northeast.On top of this, the State’s coercive techniquescontinue to add fuel to the fire.

NEED FOR SECOND SRC

In 1956, the first SRC had reorganized statesalong linguistic lines. However, more than 6decades later, the idea of linguistic identityforming the basis of statehood has becomeoutdated. Today the demand for smaller statesis increasingly driven by socio-economic


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

aspirations. A second SRC would do well tostudy these factors and pronounce its verdict onthe viability of the statehood demands. Thiswould also guard against fringe movementsholding the Centre and the idea of India toransom.

Beyond Language

Nehru warned against any kind ofpassionate surge in demand for separate Statesbased on an exclusive ideology of language orreligion. He wanted large States to retain theircosmopolitan character. He was not fullyconvinced of the viability and durability ofmonolingual States. Whereas, Ambedkar, asChairman of the Drafting Committee of theIndian Constitution, supported the demand forreorganisation of States on a linguistic basis. Heconsidered four basic principles such asdevelopment, efficiency, equality and democracyfor ushering in the era of reorganisation of States.

Ambedkar proposed that each State mayhave its own language for purposes ofadministrative communication with the Centreand other States, but disregarded the thesis of“one language, one state”. In other words, hisview was that people speaking the same languageneed not be grouped into one State but therecould be more than one State with the samelanguage. The formula of one State, onelanguage, he pointed out, was not to be equatedwith one language, one State. Instead, peoplespeaking one language might find themselves inmany States depending upon other factors suchas the requirements of administrative efficiency,specific needs of particular areas and theproportion between the majority and minoritycommunities within a State.

For Ambedkar, States in a democratic polityneeded to have equitable size limits since thiswould ensure proportional distribution ofresources among the States as well as theirinhabitants. Like Nehru, he too favoured astrong Centre to ensure an equitable survival ofdifferent languages, cultures, regions and Stateswithin a broader framework of an inclusivedevelopmental polity.

After Independence, the demand for thereorganisation of states along linguistic linesovershadowed such issues as size and economiccapability. Today, the situation has undergonea substantial change. There are increasingdemands for carving out smaller states out of

the large, single-language states created afterIndependence. In the contemporary post-Congress and post-reform era, states haveemerged as important players determiningnational political patterns. In many states, anupsurge from below has brought the hithertounderprivileged groups to power, creating newpolitical elites. And in the era of coalitiongovernments, regional or state parties havebecome partners in central governance. Thecurrent demand for the break-up of large stateslike Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and UttarPradesh needs to be examined seriously anddispassionately in its historical andcontemporary context.

Smaller states within the same linguisticregions are desirable when history,administrative efficiency, dialect, or any otherstrong characteristic renders new statehooddesirable. Thus, the Nizam’s rule in Hyderabadhas given the people of Telangana a distinctidentity. Portuguese rule in Goa has set it apartfrom other Marathi speaking areas. To ignoresuch differences arising from history would bedenying the affirmation of healthy local pride.

The establishment of a market economy, too,has opened the floodgates to private capital thathas led to increasing regional inequalities and,thus, contributed to the rising demands forsmaller states. Economic backwardness of sub-regions within large states has also emerged asan important ground on which demands forsmaller states are being made. This is evidentfrom the immediate demands for the formationof Vidharbha, Bodoland and Saurashtra, amongother states. These developments have beenresponsible for a shift away from issues oflanguage and culture – which had shaped theearlier process of reorganisation – to those ofbetter governance and greater participation,administrative convenience, economic viabilityand similarity in the developmental needs of sub-regions.

In this situation, the move towards smallerstates appears to be inevitable and would leadto more democratisation. The formation of threenew states in 2000 – Jharkhand, Chhattisgarhand Uttarakhand – has provided a fillip to thisprocess. Fresh parameters for the creation ofStates have to be based on holistic developmenton economic and social lines for betteradministration and management. This fact hasbeen proven with the creation of Chhattisgarh


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

from Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand from Biharand Uttaranchal from Uttar Pradesh. The casefor small States can be argued withmacroeconomic statistics from the Ministry ofStatistics and Programme Implementation.Between 1999-2000, when the smaller Stateswere created, and 2007-2008, India’s overallGDP increased by 75 per cent during this timeperiod. During the same period, Jharkhand,Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal recorded morethan 100 per cent, 150 per cent and 180 per centincrease respectively.

New Demands

In the long journey of reorganisation from14 to 28 States, the Centre changed a fewprinciples into guidelines to deal with demandsfor further redrawing of existing Stateboundaries. These principles, according to PaulBrass are as follows: A. demands must stop shortof secession; B. demands based on language andculture could be accommodated, but not thosebased explicitly on religious differences; C.demands must have clearly demonstrated publicsupport; and D. division of multilingual statesmust have some support from different linguisticgroups.

Except the major demands such as Bodoland(Assam), Gorkhaland (West Bengal), Haripradesh(Uttar Pradesh), Vidarbha (Maharashtra) andKodagu, or Coorg (Karnataka), not much isknown about the remaining 26 or so demandsreportedly pending for consideration before thegovernment. There has been a significant shiftfrom language and culture that shaped the earlierprocess of reorganisation to the one driven byspecific needs of the political economy ofdevelopment and socio-cultural inclusion.

This whole process of rise in demands tookso long. Reason lies in history. The colonial statesupported commercial agriculture and industryin selected areas such as the coastal regions,deltas, river valleys and mineral-rich areas,leaving the vast hinterland underdeveloped.Such a distorted pattern of unequal developmentcontinued in the post-Independence period aswell. The result has been uneven developmentin the big States of India: some districts that haveseen rapid development are surrounded bypoorer regions that remain backward and under-developed. E.g. Bundelkhand, Poorvanchal,Vidarbha and the inner tribal regions of Orissahave continued to remain deprived within largeStates. The three small States of Chhattisgarh,

Uttarakhand and Jharkhand, which came intoexistence in 2000, were not created on linguisticand cultural grounds. These three States are notperforming badly.

There are demands for Harit Pradesh andBundelkhand in UP, Maru Pradesh in Rajasthan,Coorg in Karnataka, Vidharbha in Maharastra,Bodoland in Assam and Gorkhaland in WestBengal. A full-fledged exercise is needed for afederal reorganisation of the country byappointing of a Second States ReorganisationCommission.

Justified Demands or Political Demands

It is being argued that federal reorganisationof India into smaller States would not only fulfillthe political aspirations of the people of thebackward regions but would also ensure theirrapid economic development. It wouldaccelerate the pace of modernisation (in thoseStates) by increasing administrative efficiencyand bringing the administration closer to thepeople there. E.g. rapid progress was made byPunjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh in ashort span of time after their creation onNovember 1, 1966. It has been further arguedthat the accordance of Statehood to variousregions would also resolve the problem ofidentity-crisis in them. This would enable themto develop their language and culture. It wouldhelp them in getting rid of the feelings of internalcolonialism. The reorganisation of the countryinto small States would also make the federationmore balanced by making the representation ofthe present large-sized States, like UP, MP andMaharashtra, and the small States, like Punjab,Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, moreproportionate.

As a result of Nehru’s determination to dealfirmly with any secessionist movement, the 16thConstitutional Amendment was passed in 1962declaring the advocacy of secession a crime andrequiring every candidate to parliament or stateassembly to swear ‘allegiance to the Constitution’and to ‘uphold the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia.’ But such trends are more of a pastphenomenon. Today, fears of the Centreweakening due to the creation of a large numberof small states are unfounded. Many small stateswere created after 1956 - Punjab, Haryana andsome in the north-east – which strengthenedrather than weakened the Union. Even as theolder federal structure served the polity created


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

at Independence, there is a need to redraw themap of India in keeping with the new social andpolitical order. The demand for smaller states isbased on the principle that in a true democracy- which India is supposed to be – there must begrassroots representation. In other words, thepeople running the show in any particularadministrative area must be aware of, andsympathetic to, the needs and aspirations of thegeneral population which inhibits that area.Larger States can become hegemonic andundemocratic through their numerical strengthand command over natural and physicalresources, which can have a serious impact onthe federal democratic structure of the country.

At the same time States Reorganisation Act,1956 also needs a fresh look to determinewhether division on linguistic lines has facilitateddevelopment or there is need to look at the wholeissue from a wholistic and/or alternative view.Granting greater autonomy and empoweringlocal bodies is one way to ensure that the fruitsof development get evenly distributed, andsatiate regional aspirations.

The emergence of regional parties and theirimportance in coalitions formed at the Centre toform governments can push demands forcreating more States in the near future. Thisshould be welcomed as the continuing processof democratization aiming to reach down to newsocial groups and regions hitherto excluded fromthe mainstream of governance.

It would not only create and increasepolitical consciousness among the disadvantagedgroups in the States, but also produce new localand regional elites with participatory anddecision-making roles. Such a process, accordingto them, is inevitable as regional inequalitieswiden among the existing States under theprocess of globalization creating more intensecompetition for sharing resources in intersectingregions and sub-regions of the States.

Whereas, division of the existing States isoften opposed on the grounds that it couldencourage centrifugal tendencies and lead to thedismemberment of India. E.g. Arunachal Pradeshis an extraordinary story. There is no parallelbetween the success achieved there and anythingelse in any part of the world. The State is a mosaicof over 110 tribes of diverse racial and linguisticstock but coming together through to acquire anew sense of identity as Arunachalese Indians.

The grant of Statehood cannot guaranteerapid economic development of those backwardregions which do not have the required materialand human resources for economic growth.Moreover, some of the small States may not behaving the potential for economic viability. Thesmall States could also lead to the hegemony ofthe dominant community/caste/tribe over theirpower structures. There can develop in anaggressive regionalism leading to the growth ofthe sons-of-the-soil phenomenon and other illsof aggressive regionalism.

The attainment of Statehood could also leadto emergence of intra-regional rivalries amongthe sub-regions as has happened in HimachalPradesh, religious communities as in Punjab andcastes/tribes as in Haryana and Manipur, if theregional identity of the new States remains weakdue to demographic factors or historical reasonsor their cultural backwardness. The creation ofsmall States may also lead to certain negativepolitical consequences. The political opportunists,power-brokers and power-hungry politicianscould hold the Chief Minister of a small State toransom. The case of Jharkhand, where even anindependent MLA manipulated to become theChief Minister, may be cited as an illustration.

Political demands for smaller states andbifurcation arise for multiple reasons. There are,of course, emotional considerations like culture,language, religion and a sense of economic andregional deprivation. But more importantly,politicians envision additional posts of power aschief ministers or ministers, leaders of theopposition, Assembly speakers and so on.Similarly, government servants think ofbecoming chief secretaries or secretaries, DGs ofpolice, chief-engineers, directors and so on.

The more serious objection to ever-smallerstates is that such demands, based on the politicsof sub-regional identity, further erode India'salready threatened and fragile unity. It is oftensaid that Indians tend to be Gujaratis, or Tamils,or Punjabis, or whatever else, first and Indianssecond. Rabble-rousers have shown us thedangers of regional chauvinism, and a sons-of-the-soil policy. If each state, or sub-state, sproutsits own home-grown version of the son of soilpolicy the Indian union will soon be a disunionof disparate parts.

Alternatively, in such States, the risk ofcentralization of powers in the hands of few


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

would be rather greater. The administration ofsuch States would tend to be highly personalisedand politicized. Such a State would become afiefdom of the Chief Minister. This type of regimehas really been in existence in Haryana since itsvery formation on November 1, 1966—except fora few brief interludes—owing to its small sizeboth in terms of area and population.

Too often, the demand for smaller states isnot really based on genuine concerns aboutadministrative equity but is a disguised excusefor a land-grab. The moment a new state isformed, a new capital for it has to be established,together with all the pomp and paraphernaliaof statehood: a new assembly, secretariat, andso on. As a result, property prices in the newlydesignated capital shoot up and the land mafiahits the jackpot.

Evidence shows that both large and smallstates have fared well and that poorperformance is not necessarily linked to size. Infact, today, technology can help make governinglarger territories easier and bring even far-flungareas closer. Much more than the size of a state,it is the quality of governance andadministration, the diverse talent availablewithin the state’s population, and theleadership’s drive and vision that determinewhether a particular state performs better thanthe others.

At the same time, the creation of a federationconsisting of smaller states is a complex task andrequires careful attention. Many critics havecorrectly argued that the mere creation of smallerstates out of the existing bigger ones does notguarantee good governance and faster andinclusive economic development. If theadministration in a large state suffers frominefficiencies, there is no guarantee that it willbecome competent by merely creating a smallerstate.

A common notion is that a larger share ofcentral funds would flow into a new statecompared to when it is a region in a larger state.Most also believe that a new capital city wouldprovide better living conditions. Arguments areset forth that a smaller state with less number ofdistricts would diminish the span of control ofstate-level functionaries. And that reduceddistances between the state capital andperipheral areas would improve the quality ofgovernance and administrative responsivenessand accountability. However, this can easily be

achieved with strong regional administrativeunits in larger states.

A small state is likely to face limitations interms of the natural (physical) and humanresources available to it. Moreover, it will lackthe kind of agro-climatic diversity required foreconomic and developmental activities. It wouldalso be restricted in its capability to raiseresources internally. All these factors would onlymake it more dependent on the Centre forfinancial transfers and centrally-sponsoredschemes. Further, increasing the number of statesin the country would expand the span of controlof the central ministries dealing with states andof party high commands dealing with state partyunits.

A new small state may find itself lacking ininfrastructure (administrative and industrial),which requires time, money and effort to build.Some may argue that it is with this very purposeof developing infrastructure that demands forthe creation of smaller states are encouraged. Butexperience shows that it takes about a decadefor a new state and its government andadministrative institutions to become stable; forvarious issues of division of assets, funds and ofthe state civil service(s) to get fully resolved; andfor links to the new state capital to stabilise. Thecost of this transition is not low and the state’sperformance may suffer during this interimperiod. Smaller states are not a panacea forIndia’s myriad problems. Neither can theyresolve issues faced by various regions andsections of society. Larger states may be, in fact,more economically-and financially-viable andbetter capable of serving people and achievingplanned development.

And last but not the least, the creation ofsmall States would lead to an appreciableincrease in the inter-State water, power andboundary disputes; and apart from the strain ontheir limited financial resources, these wouldrequire huge funds for building new capitals andmaintaining a large number of Governors, ChiefMinisters, Ministers and Administrators—if theexisting states are reorganised into smaller states.

Conclusion

Demand to constitute another StatesReorganization Commission to consider thepossibility of reorganising federal India intoStates on a fairly rational basis cannot be ignoredfor long. Second state reorganisation commission


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

is the need of the hour in Indian polity and allthe demands for separate statehood and substatehood are a political demand with electoralunderpinnings. "Racial and cultural identityassertion, uneven development is often fraughtwith strong grass-root movement for separatestate," (Prof. M.P. Singh). Democracy in Indiahad now been converted into ethnocracy anddelineated about various state movements in theNorth East and other regions. Variousmovements for separate states like Telangana,Gorkhaland, Vidharbha, Seemanchal and manyothers need urgent action on this front.

The reorganization of states throughout Indiawould be a huge task requiring time andpatience. But it should be undertaken andaccepted in principle immediately. While theproposed Commission undertakes its task othermeasures regarding a rational division ofresponsibility between local, district, state andcentral governments should also be studied.India’s political system requires reappraisal inits entirety. And announcement of a second SRCcan be the starting point in this journey.

FEDERALISM IN INDIA

India is a vast country, and even neighbouringvillages have different customs and traditions.Also, the people follow different faiths, speakdifferent languages and live in many climaticzones. In such a situation, it is desired that thegovernance conforms to the regional conditions.Federalism is an arrangement to apportion powersbetween the Centre and the States, andconsidered a feature of the Cabinet form ofgovernance. This means the governance shouldbe by the people of the region, and the basic lawswill have to be in line with the pattern of thesocial life.

This is the reason that States have a certainamount of independence in formulating policiesand implementing them. However, there maybe disputes between States, and in such casesthe intervention of the Centre becomes necessary.The Centre should also see to it that the Statesaccept the decision that it takes.

The time is ripe now for establishing a truefederal system that will strengthen the bonds ofmutual cooperation, unity, and cordialitybetween the Centre and the States. For properand ideal Centre-State relations, there should bemore powers for the States. To be more

appropriate and precise, there should beautonomy for the States and federalism at theCentre.

Demands for Autonomy

The demand for restructuring Centre-Staterelations is as old as the adoption of theConstitution of India in 1950. The creation of anew structure of constitutional government forindependent India deserves to be seen inhistorical context. In fact, political imperativesemerging out of the independence movementinfluenced the design of government incor-porated in the Constitution. On the one hand,the framers, drawing the spirit of theindependence movement, found the federalscheme appropriate for India; on the other hand,Partition created a fear of centrifugal elementsin the nascent nation.

Indeed, the major part of the history of thestruggle for self-rule and independence reflectsefforts to find a solution to India’s giganticdiversity. Even the mobilisation for the nationalmovement was based on federal principles. Theacceptance of language as the basis forredrawing the provincial boundary, for example,was a result of such a mobilisation. The historyof federalism and Centre-State relations in Indiais marked by political mobilisation andintermittent struggle to fashion a more federalset-up. Even though such efforts have not yetresulted in any major constitutional changestowards a more federal orientation, the strugglehas not been entirely fruitless.

In the phase lasting until the last 1960s, thetask of nation building and development was themain concern of the nation’s rulers. However,this period was not solely dominated by the trendof centralisation. One of the major democraticmovements in the post-Independence period —the movement for the formation of the linguisticStates – took place in the 1950s, which resultedin the formation of linguistic States in 1956. TheCentral government resisted this demand andbut later gave in – in the face of strong popularmovements. This laid the basis for the laterassertion by the States for greater powers.

The second phase began with the 1967general elections. Non-Congress State Govern-ments came into being. The demand forrestructuring of Centre-State relations picked upmomentum. An important feature of the 1967elections was the coming together of the


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Opposition parties; some of them formed anti-Congress fronts in some states. In other cases,they entered into a series of electoral adjustmentsby sharing seats and avoiding contests. Theelection results were dramatic and Congresssuffered a serious setback. Though it succeededin retaining control of the Lok Sabha-it won 284out of 520 seats-its majority was drasticallyreduced from 228 in 1963 to 48. In West Bengaland Kerala, the left parties gained. Congress alsolost its majority in the assemblies of eight states-Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, WestBengal, Orissa, Madras and Kerala. The JanSangh emerged as the main Opposition party inUttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana,Swatantra in Orissa, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradeshand Gujarat, the SSP in Bihar, and theCommunists in West Bengal and Kerala.

The 1967 elections revealed certain long-termTRENDS AND ALSO HAD CERTAIN LONG-TERM consequences. Apart from general disen-chantment with Congress, defection by the richand middle peasants from the Congress campplayed a major role in the Congress debacle inthe northern states. The 1967 elections alsoinitiated the dual era of short-lived coalitiongovernments and politics of defection. Except theDMK government in Tamil Nadu and theSwatantra led government in Orissa, thecoalition governments in all the other states,whether formed by Congress or the Opposition,proved to be highly unstable. In Haryana, wherethe defection phenomenon was first initiated,defecting legislators began to be called 'Aya Ramand Gaya Ram' (incoming Ram and outgoingRam). The 1967 elections drastically changed thebalance of power inside Congress. Its dominantleadership in the form of the syndicate receiveda major blow as several syndicate stalwarts,including Kamaraj (its President), Atulya Ghosh(West Bengal) and S.K. Patil (Bombay), lostpolitical ground to regional warlords.

Government under Desai was a short livedone. Change at the top of political hierarchy didnot last long and results of the 1971 electionsturned out to be overwhelming personal triumphfor Indira Gandhi and a rude shock to theOpposition. Congress (R) swept the polls,winning 352 of the 518 Lok Sabha seats. Thisgave the party a two-thirds minority required toamend the constitution. The 1971 electionsrestored the Congress party to its dominantposition in Indian politics. By voting for Congress

the people had simultaneously voted for changeand stability.

Meanwhile, in TN assembly, report of theRajamannar Committee was received in 1971.On April 16, 1974, a historic resolution wasmoved in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assemblyrequesting the Central Government to accept theviews and the recommendations of theRajamannar Committee and proceed to effectimmediate changes in the Constitution of Indiato establish a truly federal set-up.

For the first time, in 1989, a National FrontCoalition Government headed by V.P. Singh,which included major regional parties like tookoffice at the Centre. Though short-lived, thisgovernment took certain steps to strengthen thefederal principle. The Inter-State Council wasconstituted in 1990. The entry of regional partiesin coalition Governments at the Centre becamea regular feature in 1996 with the formation ofthe United Front government and later in formof NDA and presently in the United ProgressiveAlliance Government. The Left parties, whichsupported both the National Front Governmentin 1989 and the United Front Government in1996-1998 and the present UPA government, arestrong supporters of the federal principle.

Attempts have been made to impose a unitaryform of government in the country. The characterof India as a multinational, multilingual, multi-religious state has been blatantly ignored. Therelevant recommendations of the SarkariaCommission on the restructuring of Centre-Staterelations have not been accepted andimplemented in true spirit. As a result of whichthere has been a persistent trend of centralisationof economic and political powers in the country.The time is ripe now for a transformation thatwould strengthen the bonds of mutualcooperation, unity, and cordiality between theCentre and the States.

Financial Relations

Federal Constitutions everywhere arecharacterised by an imbalance between thefunctional responsibilities and the financialpowers at different levels of government. TheIndian Constitution, while expressly vesting theCentre with greater powers of taxation, alsoprovides for an institutional mechanism — theFinance Commission — to determine the shareof the States in the Central tax revenues by wayof correcting this imbalance.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

In deciding on the devolution of taxes andthe provision of grants, the Finance Commissionis required to address the vertical imbalance(between the Centre and the States) as also thehorizontal imbalance, the one between the Stateswith varying fiscal capacities but similarresponsibilities in the provision of public services.The Centre gets a little over 60 per cent of thetotal revenues. While the States are thus left withless than 40 per cent of the revenue, their sharein revenue expenditure averaged about 57 percent. At present, about 40 per cent of Centralrevenues (tax and non-tax) are transferred to theStates, and this includes the grants they get fromthe Planning Commission and the CentralMinistries. Although the shareable pool has beenenlarged (thanks to the 80th ConstitutionAmendment) to include all Central taxes, therelative revenue accruals of the Centre and theStates have not seen any major change.

Nobody can deny that most of 2ndgeneration reforms will require a cooperativerelation between 2 layers of governance. E.g. Thebig question is -What will be the impact of theproposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) on thevertical imbalance? These reforms will have majorimpact on relative financial strength in futureand will shape the contour the centre staterelations. The subject of Centre-State financialrelations in India has received much lessattention than it merits in public discourse.Twelfth Finance Commission (TFC) not onlyushered in an era of rule-based fiscalconsolidation at the State level but also providedthe basis for reforms in the management of publicdebt, both at the State and Central levels.

The fiscal capacities of the States as measuredby the per capita income continue to vary widelyeven after six decades of federal financialdevolution and economic planning. The disparitybetween the highest and the lowest is in the ratioof four-to-one. As a consequence, there is anuneven provision of public services acrossdifferent States, including 'merit goods' such aseducation and health services.

This inter-State inequality on account ofdifferences in fiscal capacity is furthercompounded by two factors. The States with lowincome levels have a large population. It meansthey have to transfer huge additional resourcesif there has to be any impact at all. Further, some

States have certain “cost disabilities” because ofthe vastness of the area or other geographicaland climatic factors. An explicit equalisationmethodology is yet to be developed to tackle thissystemic problem.

Way Forward

A number of the govt. proposals, includingthe Prevention of Communal and TargetedViolence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill2011, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill 2011, NationalCommission for Human Resources for Health(NCHRH) Bill 2011, Border Security Force(Amendment) Bill 2011, the setting up of theNational Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) andthe issue of Central Sales Tax (CST)compensation have received flak on the groundsthat the Centre is trying to destabilise the federalstructure by undermining the powers andposition of state governments.

The Inter-State Council (ISC), set up in 1990following the recommendations of the SarkariaCommission, is eminently qualified to make acontribution in today's scenario. Unfortunately,it has been lying dormant for many years, withits last meeting held in 2006. The full ISC didnot meet even once during P.V. Narasimha Rao'stenure and it met only twice during the UPA 1regime.

Caste-based political parties and casteistpolitical leaders are the emerging trends inIndian politics. Mamata Banerjee, J. Jayalalithaaand Nitish Kumar, who are championing thecause of states today, are more interested ingetting better grants from centre rather thanemergence of true federalism. These defendersof state rights have had no qualms in usingcentral intervention powers to suit the interestsof their respective parties. As allies in the 1998-99 BJP-led coalition, the Trinamool Congress, theAIADMK and the Samata Party had pressuredthe Centre to dismiss the West Bengal, TamilNadu and Bihar governments respectively.Partisan role played by governor is another areaof discord between centre and states.

Only the spirit of “co-operative federalism”— and not an attitude of dominance orsuperiority — can preserve the balance betweenthe Union and the States and promote the goodof the people. Under our constitutional system,no single entity can claim superiority.Sovereignty does not lie in any one institution orin any one wing of the government. The power


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

of governance is distributed in several organs andinstitutions – a sine qua non for good governance.Even if we assume that the Centre has beengiven a certain dominance over the States, thatdominance should be used strictly for thepurpose intended, not for oblique purposes. Anunusual and extraordinary power like the onecontained in Article 356 should not be employedfor furthering the prospects of a political partyor to destabilise a duly elected government anda duly constituted Legislative Assembly. Adictatorial marshalling of the regions was neverenvisaged by the Constitution makers. TheArticle which allows a highly interventionist roleto the Centre should be reinterpreted in order toallow the spirit of cooperative federalism toemerge.

No federal system thrives exclusively onconstitutional or institutional arrangements,guaranteed rights, judicial protection anduniform and efficient bureaucracy. Because,federalism implies political accommodation ofheterogeneous people. It is a sort ofgregariousness, a faith in the political values andthe will to live together called political culture.Federalism at the moment stands at thecrossroads in India. With the regional parties atthe helm, the demand for greater politicalautonomy for the states will keep on clashingwith the desire to have a stable government atthe Centre. And in this struggle will emerge thetrue federalism for the country in 21st century.

MAJOR ISSUES IN INDIANDEMOCRACY

COMMUNALISM

For a long time it was held that a close linkexisted between the modernisation of society andthe secularisation of the population.Consequently, it was argued that the influenceof religion declined in post-enlightenmentsociety. The impact of these developments inmodern world, it is argued, has led to the declineof the relevance and influence of religion.Opposed to the modernisation-secularisationparadigm is the view that the influence ofreligion in the public sphere has not only notdeclined, but in fact, has increased. There aretendencies which suggest that there is aworldwide resurgence of religion. Such animpression is based on three factors: missionaryexpansion, fundamentalist radicalisation and thepolitical instrumentalisation of the potential for

violence. Between these 2 possibilities Indiastarted her experiments with Secularism.

A DIFFERENT SECULARISM

The public sphere emerged in Europe in the18th century within the society as a discursivespace in which private individuals came togetherto discuss matters of public interest. Theseparation of powers of the state and the churchand the enlightenment virtues of reason andhumanism, and the economic changes broughtabout by the Industrial Revolution, contributedto the formation of the public sphere and shapedthe transactions within it. The existence of thepublic sphere was contingent upon the accessof all citizens to, and protection of individualrights by the rule of law. In essence, the characterof the public sphere as it evolved in Europe inthe 18th century was secular and democratic.

The formation and development of the publicsphere in India during the 19th and 20thcenturies had a different trajectory. This wasprimarily because India was under colonialdomination and Indian society did not have thenecessary independence to shape its destiny. Fora variety of reasons, the ability of the agencieswhich contributed to the formation of the publicsphere in India — such as the media, voluntaryorganisations and social and religious movements— to constitute a public sphere was restricted.Unlike in Europe the public sphere in India wasnot the product of a free society; it took shapewithin the political, social and economicparameters set by the colonial government. Itssocial base was very weak, consisting of thenascent emerging middle class. The legacy ofcolonial rule imparted to the public sphere inindependent India an internally contradictorycharacter. In terms of conception andconstitution the public sphere was democraticand secular, but it was not so in practice.

In India the public sphere reflected the co-existence of the secular and the religious. Themedia were essentially secular, but anundercurrent of religious consciousness wasreflected. The public sphere has succumbed tothe celebration of religiosity, based on rituals andsuperstitions. The official policy of equalrecognition of all religions has only led to thereinforcement of this contradiction, because ithas opened up more and more public space toall religions. As a result, what has becomeprominent in the public sphere is not secularreason but religious celebration.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

The State's subsidises the Kumbh Mela.Muslims wishing to make the Haj pilgrimagereceive state support; Sikhs travelling toGurdwaras of historic importance in Pakistanalso get support. The state helps underwritedozens of pilgrimages, from Amarnath toKailash Mansarovar.

When India became independent in 1947, acentral question the new nation faced was therelation of faith to state. There was a strongmovement to create India as a ‘Hindu Rashtra’,a mirror-image of the Islamic nation that wasPakistan. The person who stood most firmlyagainst this idea was the first Prime Minister,Jawaharlal Nehru. In a letter written to ChiefMinisters on October 15, 1947, he remindedthem that “we have a Muslim minority who areso large in numbers that they cannot, even if theywant to, go anywhere else. They have got to livein India. This is a basic fact about which therecan be no argument. Whatever the provocationfrom Pakistan and whatever the indignities andhorrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we havegot to deal with this minority in a civilisedmanner. We must give them security and therights of citizens in a democratic State.”

Debate on Securalism

Both Jinnah and Golwalkar appeared tobelieve that a Hindu is a Hindu, and a Muslim aMuslim, and never the twain shall meet. Thesetwo men claimed that their views andmentalities, their styles of worship and ways ofliving, were so utterly different as to not permitthem to live peacefully together. The twocommunities, in other words, were two nations.This interpretation of Hindu-Muslim relationswas vigorously contested by the Maulana AbulKalam Azad. Down the ages, the interaction ofHindus and Muslims was marked by love andby hate, by conflict as well as by collaboration.There were times when Hindus and Muslimsclashed and fought, and other times when theylived together, harmoniously.

Jawaharlal Nehru pointed out in October1947, ‘we have a Muslim minority who are solarge in numbers that they cannot, even if theywant, go anywhere else. That is a basic fact aboutwhich there can be no argument. Whatever theprovocation from Pakistan and whatever theindignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslimsthere, we have got to deal with this minority ina civilized manner. We must give them security

and the rights of citizens in a democratic State.’Whatever happened—or did not happen—underthe rule of Akbar and Aurangzeb in the past, orin countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistanin the present, in the Indian Republic everyIndian is guaranteed the same rights.

Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were notopponents and adversaries. This myth ispromoted by advocates of a ‘strong’ India, bythose who believe that Nehru was soft onPakistan, soft on China, and soft on theminorities. It is usually accompanied by asubsidiary myth, namely, that Patel would havemade a ‘better’ Prime Minister than Nehru. Intruth, Nehru and Patel worked superbly as ateam—who, in the first, formative years ofindependence, effectively united and streng-thened India. Of course, they differed bytemperament and ideology. But these differenceswere subsumed and transcended by commit-ment to a common ideal: namely, a free, united,secular and democratic India. There weresomethings Nehru could do better than Patel—communing with the masses, relating to theworld, assuring vulnerable groups (such asMuslims, Tribals, and Dalits) that they enjoyedequal rights with other Indians. There were somethings Patel could do better than Nehru—dealingwith the princes, nurturing the Congress party,carrying along dissidents in the ConstituentAssembly. Each knew the other’s gifts, each tookcare not to tresspass on the other person’s turf.That is how, together, they built India anew outof the ruins of Partition. Along with the Kashmirissue, an important sources of consent tensionbetween the two countries was the strong senseof insecurity among Hindus in East Bengal,fuelled primarily by the communal character ofPakistan’s political system. This led to the steadymigrated of the persecuted Hindus from EastBengal to West Bengal to retaliatory attacks onMuslim in West Bengal, leading to theirmigration. On 8 April, 1950, the prime ministersof India and Pakistan signed an agreementknown as the Nehru-Liaqat pact to resolve theissue of protection of the minorities. The pact metwith the strong disapproval of the Hinducommunalists and the two ministers fromBengal, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C.Neogi, resigned from the cabinet in protest. Thisincident clearly demonstrates that communalismhas not only led to internal problems but ourrelations with neighboring countries have alsobeen effected by the scourge of communalism


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Some Controversial Incidents

Use of religion for political ends hassubstantially increased during the last fewdecades. Such a development has seriousimplications for a secular state and society. Animportant feature of Indian politics andadministration in the last few decades has beenthe growing laxity of the state apparatusesespecially the police, in their treatment ofcommunal violence. Communalism is an ideologybased on the belief that Indian society is dividedinto religious communities, whose economic,political, social and cultural interests diverge andare even hostile to each other because of theirreligious differences. Like all ideologies andpolitics, communalism has a concrete social baseor roots; it is the product of and reflects theoverall socio-economic and political conditions.

This artificially created base has led to thegrowth of communalism since the 1960s in formof political opportunism towards communalismpractised by political parties, groups andindividuals. The soft approach towardscommunal parties and groups has had theextremely negative consequence of making themrespectable and legitimizing communalism.Some of these trends are discussed below intopical framework.

Politics of Ban

The debate on multiculturalism and offensivespeech is a burning topic across the world,affecting everything from politics to literature.Secularism today has reached a point where itactually means the state will encourage a cut-throat competition among all shades of religion.A strong movement of secular, democratic-minded people is the need of the hour. Thecensoring out of Mr. Rushdie from the Jaipurliterary festival was not an isolated event. India'sconstitutionalism is at stake. Every religiousfestival is increasingly becoming a state-sponsored event. Secular-minded writers andartists find it difficult to publish their creativeworks for fear of being banned by the state andmanhandled by vandals. Instead of makingefforts to make our nation truly progressive, ourelected representatives have failed us and theConstitution's ideals by bending over backwardsto appease faith-based groups. 'We, the people'must ensure that the ‘theocratic dystopia' doesnot reach the monstrous proportions and formsit is capable of.

By violently protesting, the religiousfundamentalists obviously want to enforce a ban,otherwise legally unsustainable, on artisticworks. The larger purpose is to criminallyintimidate free-thinking artists who dare toquestion the authority of religion and religiousscriptures. Freedom of expression is an inviolable,fundamental right in India; it cannot be held toransom by intolerant, communal, fringe elementswho invoke religious sentiments to get away withblatantly unconstitutional acts. In secular India,the right to freedom of religion is on a par withother fundamental rights. One fundamentalright cannot infringe on another fundamentalright.

Examples are Abound

Recent a play in Delhi by acclaimed dramatistK.S. Rajendran was cancelled. He was invitedto stage a play at an international seminar onDara Shikoh – Shah Jahan’s heir apparent wholost the struggle of succession to his brotherAurangzeb. The play “Aurangzeb” was writtenin 1974 in Tamil by Indira Parthasarathy and itexplores the transformation of Aurangzeb froma child interested in music and Sufism tosomeone perceived as a divisive character inhistory. He used the writings of Sir JadunathSarkar, then the Bible on Aurangzeb, forreference. His play came at a time when manystates, including Tamil Nadu wereuncomfortable with what they saw as animposition of Hindi on them by the rulers inDelhi. The play is a critique on the one nation-one language-one faith theory.

For the ardent supporters of secularism,Salman Rushdie's censoring-out from the literaryfestival in Jaipur will be remembered as amilestone that marked the slow motiondisintegration of India's secular state. Islamistclerics first pressured the state to stop Mr.Rushdie from entering India; on realising hecould not stop, he was scared off with a dubiousassassination threat. Fear turned out to be aneffective censor. M. F. Hussain, Taslima Nasreenare some other well known names that have beenthe victim of politics of ban.

India's religious leaders, regardless of theirfaith, have long been intensely hostile to stateregulation of religion – witness the country'sfailure to rid itself of the faith-based laws thatgovern our personal lives. In the matter of theperpetuation of their religion, though, the stateis a welcome ally.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

By citing law and order as the reason for theViswaroopam ban, the Tamil Nadu governmentalso contributed to the banning culture. Allgovernments speak of their apprehension of lawand order disturbances while appearing toappease religious fundamentalists andextremists by enforcing bans on films and otherart forms. E.g. the 'Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK) government, while banning The Da VinciCode' in 2006, stated that the release of the filmmight “lead to demonstrations and disrupt peaceand tranquillity” in the State. The stone-throwing and arson in Karnataka by fanaticsagainst the publication in a Kannada daily ofan article, purportedly by Taslima Nasreen, onwearing of the burka were a nasty challenge tothe freedom of expression guaranteed in theIndian Constitution.

Way Forward

"Though nobody can deny that religionsurvives on faith and no one has the right hurtit. But at the same time there must be a balancebetween the competing rights i.e. rights tofreedom of expression and freedom of religion.India must get rid of the exclusiveness in thoughtand social habit which has made life a prison toher, stunting her spirit and preventing growth”wrote Jawaharlal Nehru in 'The Discovery ofIndia'. It took 350 years for the Church to admitthat Galileo Galilei was right. Maybe, it will takelonger in India but we need to keep working inthat direction.

Babri Masjid Demolition

A mosque was built by a governor of Baburat Ayodhya (in Uttar Pradesh) in the earlysixteenth century. Some Hindus claimed in thenineteenth century that it was built over a sitewhich was the place where Ram was born andwhere a Ram temple had existed. Issue came toforefront in December 1949 when a districtmagistrate permitted a few Hindus to enter themosque and instal idols of Sita and Ram there.Sardar Patel, as the Home Minister, andJawaharlal Nehru condemmed the districtmagistrate's action, but the Uttar PradeshGovernment felt that it could not reverse thedecision. However, it locked the mosque. Thesituation was more or less accepted by all as atemporary solution for the period of the disputein the court.

In 1983, VHP started a public campaigndemanding the 'liberation' of the Ram

Janmabhoomi, which would entail thedemolition of the mosque and the erection of aRam temple in its place. Many political partiesand groups did not do anything to counter thecampaign; they just ignored it. On 1 February,1986, the district judge reopened the mosque,gave Hindu priests its possession, and permittedHindus to worship there. The Hindu commu-nalists demanded the demolition of the mosqueand the construction of a Ram temple on its site.

In 1989, the VHP, keeping in view theimpending Lok Sabha elections, organized amassive movement to start the construction of aRam temple at the site where the Babri mosquestood. As a part of that objective, it gave a callfor the collection of bricks, sanctified by waterfrom the river Ganges, from all over the countryto be taken to Ayodhya.

To popularize the objective, it organized in1990 an All-India Rath Yatra headed by itspresident, L.K. Advani. The yatra aroused fiercecommunal passions and was followed bycommunal riots in large number of places.Thousands of BJP-VHP volunteers gathered atAyodhya at the end of October 1990, despite theUttar Pradesh government, headed by MulayamSingh Yadav, banning the rally. To disperse thevolunteers and to prevent them from harmingthe mosque, the police opened fire on them,killing and injuring over a hundred persons. TheBJP-VHP organized a huge rally of over 200,000volunteers at the site of the mosque on 6December, 1992, with the major leaders of thetwo organizations being present.

To allay the fears of injury to the mosque,Kalyan Singh BJP Chief Minister of UP, gave anassurance to the Supreme Court that the mosquewould be protected. In spite of the assurance,the volunteers set out to demolish the mosquewith hammer blows, while government lookedon. The entire country was shocked. Communalriots broke out in many parts of the country, theworst hit being Bombay, Calcutta and Bhopal.The riots in Bombay lasted for nearly a month.In all more than 3,000 people were killed in theriots all over India.

Recently, judicial decisions in Ayodhya casewas handed down by the Lucknow Bench of theAllahabad High Court when it passed judgmenton the title suits regarding ownership of thedisputed land on which once stood the BabriMasjid.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

What does it mean, for example, thatquestions of theology should have to be resolvedby a court of law? Courts in other democraciesare not generally called upon to adjudicate suchquestions as were brought before the threejudges. Has it become something of a habit inIndia to turn to our courts for matters that cannotby a sensible person be viewed as falling underthe purview of jurisprudence or legal reasoning?What does it say about civil society in India thata court should have been asked to adjudicatewhether the ‘disputed site’ was the birthplaceof Rama, and what can a court tell us on thismatter that might not have been told to us byhistorians, archaeologists, or other scholars? Dowe not have enough resources among us as apeople to be able to come to some commonunderstanding on these matters?

Babri Masjid was most likely built with theremnants of a Hindu temple. Many temples werebuilt and destroyed, not always or even often atthe hands of the Muslim conqueror; some fell tothe elements, others were vandalized, and yetothers bore the brunt of battle, sometimesbetween Indian rulers. The architects andmasons picked up pieces of temple sculpture andwove them into the architecture of the newmosque and vice versa. It is instructive that notonly Muslims but Hindus and Jains in India, andChristians elsewhere in the world, did exactlythe same, utilizing the remains of previousreligious structures to build new ones. Much ofhistory, one might go so far as to say, is nothingbut spoliation – we plunder and rob not onlyreligious structures but the past, sometimes asthe only way of making the past alive,coterminus with the present.

A lot has been said about the lack ofenthusiasm for the verdict among the generalpublic. This is because the aam aadmi hasbecome mature enough to realise that the actualbeneficiaries of the Ayodhya dispute and the likeare politicians and religious leaders. Or aamaadmi is still the communal Hindu or communalMuslim? Is the main question that will decidethe future of secularism in India. Since theAyodhya issue is a matter of faith, it is not soeasy to resolve through court interventions. Indiaas a nation-in-making has been unable to evolvea consensus on it. It is ingrained in the minds ofIndians and will remain thus as long as religionremains the centre of politics.

Mumbai Riots and 1993 Blasts

It is 20 years since two cataclysmic eventsshook Bombay now Mumbai. First, – thecommunal carnage spread over two months.Second, the serial blasts of March 12, 1993, withwhich terror came home to the city and claiminginnocent lives. The Srikrishna Commission, in itsfinal report, said the riots appeared to have beena causative factor for the bomb blasts. SupremeCourt has finally disposed of appeals by deathrow convicts and actor Sanjay Dutt in the March12, 1993 serial blasts case on March 21, 2013.

Godhra Train burning and Gujarat Riots

The story began on the morning of 27February at Godhra, town in Gujarat, where abogey of the Sabarmati Express caught fire. 58people, including 15 women and 20 children,were burnt to death in the fire. The victims wereall Hindus, Karsevaks or volunteers, returningfrom participating in a yagya or religiousceremony at Ayodhya.

On 28 February began a wave of communalriots that continued for almost three months. Thepolice and administration allegedly looked theother way or even connived and helped. Manyobservers have remarked that what distinguishedthe events of 2002 was that, unlike a typical riotsituation in which two groups engage in, usuallyspontaneous, violence, the assault was one-sided, premeditated, brutal, and supported orfacilitated by the state. The Gujarat events shookthe conscience of the nation. Many high profilecases are being fought in courts and it is believedby many that judiciary alongwith certain wellknown faces are fighting the seemingly eternalfight against the biggest enemy of State i.e.Communalism.

'Sons of the Soil' Movements

Since the 1950s an ugly kind of regionalismhas been widely prevalent in the form of the 'sonsof the soil' doctrine. It is based on the view thata state specifically belongs to the main liquisticgroup inhabiting it or that the state constitutesthe exclusive, 'homeland' of its main languagespeakers who are the 'sons of the soil' or the 'local'residents. All others who live there or are settledthere and whose mother tongue is different are'outsiders'. Language loyalty and regionalismwas used to systematically exclude the 'outsiders'from the economic life of a state or city.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

The 'sons of the soil' movements have arisen,when there is actual or potential competition forindustrial and middle-class jobs, between themigrants and the local middle-class youth.Economic mobility of population throughmigration of unskilled labour from the bakwardregions and of skilled labour to them cancontribute to the lessening of regional disparity;and the Indian constitution guarantees thismobility. There has been a great deal ofmigration from one state to another. Some statesHimachal Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar and Kerala—have benefited from out-migration just as Bengal,Gujarat and Maharashtra have benefited fom in-migration. But economic rationale hardly staysin front of passion.

Most popular movement in public memorywas led by the Shiv Sena, off late by MNS alsowhich split from Shiv Sena. This appealed toextreme regional chauvinism and assumed facialproportions. This was funded in 1966, under theleadership of Bal Thackeray. The Shiv Senademanded that preference in jobs should begiven to Maharashtrians, who were defined asthose whose mother tongue was Marathi. Raisingthe slogan of 'Maharashtra for the Mahara-shtrians', the Shiv Sena organized a militant, andoften violent movement against South Indians,especially Tamils. Later north Indian came in theline of fire. The 'sons of the soil' movements inAssam and Telegana have also assumed seriousproportions.

CASTE POLITICS

The farmers’ movements, dalit mobilisation,the renewed struggles of the agrarian poor,women’s discourse, and the new phase ofstudent politics and civil rights articulation in anumber of States, are all demonstrative of thevibrant politics of post-Emergency India. Duringthe recent years, caste mobilisation has becomean important factor in shaping Indian politics.Ever since the issue of Mandal Commissionreservations in government jobs for the OBCscame to the national agenda in 1989, it has leftan impact on the evolution of national politics.The practice of reservation has also shown thatit is almost impossible to reverse. The constitutionhad envisaged reserations as a short-termmeasure lasting ten years; but it is now nearly66 years. At the same time demands for andacceptance of reservation have only increased.Dinesh Goswami burnt himself to death to

protest the implementation of MandalCommission, but once out of pandora’s box,genie of OBC reservation could not be negated.

Caste in Modern India

The word caste derives from the Portuguesecasta , meaning breed, race, or kind. Among theIndian terms that are sometimes translated ascaste are varna, jati, jat, biradri, and samaj.Many castes are traditionally associated with anoccupation. There is also some correlationbetween ritual rank on the caste hierarchy andeconomic prosperity. Inequalities among castesare considered by the Hindu faithful to be partof the divinely ordained natural order and areexpressed in terms of purity and pollution.

The caste stratification of our society issomething that has come down to us fromcenturies. Despite all the refinements andchanges within castes and between castes, thathave taken place over the years, the basicstructure, in so far as the oppression of the dalitsor the backward castes is concerned remains.The main reason for this persistence of socialoppression based on caste stratification is theinadequacy of the ruling classes, during thefreedom struggle, in addressing themselves tothis issue. The overcoming of caste differentiationwas sought through proper social behaviourbetween individuals and castes without growinginto the social roots of this phenomenon.

Ideologically Jyotiba's movement was anuncompromising attack on the ancient andfeudal superstructure. However, this uncom-promising attack did not go beyond to attack thebasic agrarian relations based on feudal landrelations which was the basis on which thissuperstructure existed. Similar has been theexperience of Ambedkar. This most outstandingand tireless fighter, who on behalf of the dalitsexposed the upper caste hypocrisies, lambastedthe then Congress and its policies had to finallyasked his followers to embrace Buddhism toescape the injustices of Hindu society.

Similar also has been the experience of theDravidian movement led by PeriyarE.V. Ramaswamy Naicker. Periyar did succeedin creating a great feeling against casteoppression and his voice boomed large againstuntouchability. But yet again, viewing thismerely at the level of superstructure withoutattacking the socio-economic base that sustainscaste stratification.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Universal adult franchise opened up newpossibilities for mobilising electoral support onthe basis of caste and thus prevented theconsciousness of caste from dying down.Democracy was expected to efface thedistinctions of caste, but its consequences havebeen very different from what was expected.Politics is no doubt an important part of a nation'slife in a democracy, but it is not the only part ofit. There are other areas of life in which theconsciousness of caste has been dying down,though not very rapidly or dramatically.

The consciousness of caste is brought to thefore at the time of elections. The mobilisation ofelectoral support on the basis of caste is acomplex phenomenon whose outcome givesscope for endless speculation. Private televisionchannels have created a whole world in whichtheir anchors and the experts who are regularlyat their disposal vie with each other to bring outthe significance of the “caste factor,” meaningthe rivalries and alliances among castes, sub-castes and groups of castes.

The system of parliamentary democracy thatwas adopted was based on an electoral systemwhich tended to reinforce the casteconsciousness. Instead of guaranteeing equality,irrespective of caste, the electoral system, itself,nurtured the perpetuation of caste consciousnessin terms of choice of candidates and the appealto the electorate.

Politics of Caste and Reservation

Govt. has come in favour of enumeration ofcastes in special census. The ostensible need toinclude enumeration of the backward castes(BCs) flows from the Mandal Commissionrecommendations, which mandated monitoringof their progress after 20 years from theirimplementation. Before the 2001 Census began,there was a demand made for such inclusion inthe census. But this proposal was turned downby the Ministry of Home Affairs, which controlsthe census organisation. This time although thegovernment created turbulence around the issueby referring it to the GoM, which accepted it.

The core rationale for this caste census maythus lie in the technical requirement arising fromthe acceptance of the Mandal Commissionrecommendations to extend reservations to theOBCs. Mandal recommendations andparticularly their acceptance by the V.P. Singh

government in 1989 will be an ominous markon the path of annihilation of castes. It gave anew lease of life to castes. The entire caste gamewas played in the name of the Constitution,which rather had reference to class andindividuals. The Constitution under Articles 15(4), 16(4), 46 and 340 refers to “socially andeducationally backward classes” or “backwardclass citizens”. In the country in which peoples’politics is stuck on the unfortunate duality ofcaste and class, the State as well as the judiciaryinterpreted class in the Constitution to besynonymous with “caste”.

The intention of the recent high court orderto stay caste-based rallies might have been tocheck politics on caste and communal lines butthe political parties in the state will find ways tobypass it for caste based politics. It is extremelydifficult to find the most acceptable stand on theissue of caste, when passions run high on bothsides of issue. But one thing is sure that castepolitics will remain a part of Indian politicallandscape for a long time to come.

Dalit Political Uprising

Kanshi Ram (March 15th, 1934 to October8th, 2006) is lovingly referred and rememberedas ‘Saheb’ (in Maharashtra) or ‘Sahab’ (in NorthIndia) or as ‘Manyavar’ among his followers. Heremained most enigmatic personality throughout1980s and 90s who played the most significantrole in Indian politics after Independence. It isbelieved by many that he proved that politics ofsocially marginalized and poor people can alsosucceed without the help of literate, intellectuals,business houses and urban gentry. He single-handedly changed the mainstream politics of themost populated State Uttar Pradesh and thereby,the Indian polity itself.

Kanshi Ram believed in democratic valuesand constitutional provisions. He was convincedof power of political elections and voting rightswhich have been enshrined in the constitutionto all. He believed that right of votes is a valuableequalizer; with ‘one man-one vote and one vote-one value’. However this can help only when‘you learn to use it meticulously’. His followingslogans prove his deep faith in the Indiandemocracy. “Vote Humara Raj Tumhara NahiChalega – Nahi chalega”; (Our Vote and YourRule, No Longer, No Longer) “Vote Se Lenge PMCM- Arakshan Se Lenge SP–DM” (form voteswe will have Prime Minister and Chief Minister


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

and from reservations Superintendent of Policeand District Magistrate); ‘Jiski Jitni SankhyaBhari Uski Utni Bhagedari’ (each communityshould get according to the percentage of itspopulation).

Kanshi Ram’s movement was dynamic innature. He perpetually experimented bymobilizing people and envisaging a larger goalfor his movement by incorporating more andmore people in it. He politically socialized themby forming different types of organizations, inhis cadre camps which used to run for days andby organizing political programmes which usedto run for months. From the life and struggle onecan definitely establish that Manyavar was thetrue inheritor of Babasaheb’s legacy; howeverManyavar himself always argued that he is onlygiving a “practical shape to Baba Saheb’stheoretical formulation and in turn trying to fulfilthe unfinished movement of Baba Saheb”.

NAME CHANGE POLITICS

The process of renaming of cities in Indiastarted after the end of the British imperial periodin 1947 and continues to date. Ever since theBritish left India in 1947, many cities, streets,places, and buildings throughout India wereassigned new "Indian names". India wanted tochange the names kept by the British colonialists,& rename them according to their "SanskritizedHindi roots" or something along those lines.Certain old names, however, continue to bepopular. The states whose names have beenchanged are: Travancore- Cochin to Kerala,Madhya Bharat to Madhya Pradesh, MadrasState to Tamil Nadu, Mysore to Karnataka andUttaranchal to Uttarakhand. The renamedIndian union territories are Laccadive, Minicoyand Amindivi Islands to Lakshadweep andPondicherry to Puducherry.

Trend is not limited to India alone. Cities havebeen renamed to assert local pronunciation overforeign in many countries also. The decision torename is said to be part of a wider trend to erasethe Anglican influence in the naming of statesand cities amid demands for carrying out morename changes elsewhere in the country. Thereasons that have been cited for renaming citiesinclude: to adjust the spelling in English languageto the spelling in the local language. (Simla toShimla) and to switch back to the local namefrom an English name derived from the original.A change in the name of a state however requires

approval of Union Cabinet and Parliamentunder Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, andthe President has to refer the same to the relevantstate legislature for its views.

There have been political controversies aboutseveral renaming. Not all proposed renamingwere actually implemented. Every renaming ofa city in India has to be approved by the centralgovernment. The trend of renaming of a stategained momentum after renaming of Bombay,Madras and Calcutta. Bombay was renamedMumbai--derived from name of GoddessMumbadevi--in 1995 when the Shiv Sena-BJPcombine won the Maharashtra Assemblyelections. In the following year Madras wasrenamed to Chennai and in 2001 Calcutta wasrenamed Kolkata. While Calcutta becameKolkata, West Bengal never got a name change.Alphabetically, West Bengal which is the last inthe order of states in the country also hopes tomove up in the list with desired name change toPaschimbanga.

The country's Information Technology (IT)capital Bangalore was renamed Bengaluru in2007 but the younger generation in the Siliconcity did not sound too enthusiastic about thename change. It was felt that the image of thecity may take a beating worldwide as the namedoes not sound too appealing or 'modern'.Bangalore was originally known as BendaKaluru and then became Bengaluru followingwhich the British renamed it as Bangalore. Thename change of Orissa to Odisha is anotherrecent change.

Besides, Mumbai, Madras, Calcutta andBangalore, major cities that have got new namesafter independence include(old names in brackets):Vadodara (Baroda), Vijayawada (Bejawada)Vishakhapatnam (Waltair; before that,Vizagapatnam), Kadapa (Cuddapah), Shimla(formerly Simla), Kanpur (Cawnpore),Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum), Pune(Poona), Kochi (Cochin), Puducherry(Pondicherry), Kozhikode (Calicut), Udhaga-mandalam (Ootacamund), Tiruchirapalli(Trichinopoly) Thanjavur (Tanjore), Varanasi(Benares) and Tirunelveli (Tinnevelly).

NAXALISM

In 1969, the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist (ML) was formed under the leadershipof Charu Majumdar. Similar parties and groupswere formed in Andhra, Orissa, Bihar, Uttar


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Pradesh, Punjab and Kerala. The CP(ML) andother Naxalite groups argued that democracyin India was a sham, the Indian state was fascistand feudal. India was politically andeconomically dominated by US, British andSoviet imperialisms, Indian polity and economywere still colonial, the Indian revolution was stillincomplete, and protracted guerrilla warfarewas the form revolution would take in India. TheNaxalite groups got political and ideologicalsupport from the Chinese government.

In Naxalbari village of West Bengal, CPI(ML)and other Naxalite groups succeeded inorganizing armed peasant bands in some ruralareas and in attacking policemen and rivalcommunists as agents of the ruling classes. Thegovernment, however, succeeded in suppressingthem and limiting their influence to a few pocketsin the country. Not able to face state repression,the Naxalites soon split into several groups. Butthe real reason for their failure lay in theirinability to root their radicalism in Indian reality,to grasp the character of Indian society andpolity.

The major Naxal group in India has been CPI,MCC, CPI(M-L) Liberation, CPI(M-L) Unityorganization and Peoples war group. In 2004PWG and MCC joined together to formCommunist Party of India which is at presentmain organization of all Naxalites in India. Itshould be noted that all Naxal groups areoriginated from CPI(M-L) formed in 1969 byCharu Mazumdar and others. Beside violentstruggle, the major characteristics of Naxalmovement in India have been various splits,disintegration and reorganization andideological backing. Many of the groups andleaders have accepted parliamentary path tosocial change, yet other continues to upholdrevolutionary ideology.

The Naxalites are wedded to the cult of thegun. Their worship of violence is extreme. Theyare a grave threat to democracy and democraticvalues. A democratically elected State Gover-nment should tackled their challenge through atwo-pronged strategy: (i) smart police work,identifying the areas where the Naxalites arwactive and isolating their leaders; (ii) sincerelyimplementing the constitutional provisionsguaranteeing the land and tribal forest rights ofthe adivasis, and improving the delivery of healthand education services to them. According to theHome ministry of India at present there are 220

districts in 20 states are affected by naxal violenceand force alone can not solve the issue. What isneeded is a two-pronged strategy as mentionedabove.

AFSPA

AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Power Act)is a bare law with just six sections. The mostcontroversial are those in the fourth and sixthsections: the former enables security forces to“fire upon or otherwise use force, even to thecausing of death” where laws are being violated.The latter says no criminal prosecution will lieagainst any person who has taken action underthis act. In 54 years, not a single army, orparamilitary officer or soldier has beenprosecuted for murder, rape, destruction ofproperty (including the burning of villages in the1960s in Nagaland and Mizoram).

Some time ago, two judges of the SupremeCourt, intervening in a case where the CentralBureau of Investigation was seeking to prosecutearmy officers accused of murdering five villagersin Jammu & Kashmir, in what is known as thePathribal incident, declared clearly that AFSPA’sprotection was limited to acts conducted in theline of duty. Army circles are worried thatsoldiers and officers will be dragged to civiliancourts and that frivolous cases will be filedagainst them. This is a real matter of concernbut it cannot be the rationale for blocking effortsto repeal or amend AFSPA.

We need to remember two points here aboutAFSPA and the place where it all began —Nagaland, in 1958. Nagaland today is peaceful.It is not free of intimidation, extortion or factionalkillings, but not a single Indian solider has fallenin combat here for the past five years. The Stategovernment has been asking, since 2005, for theremoval of the Disturbed Areas Act but with noresults. In 2005, The Reddy Committee gave itsreport, which not only recommended AFSPA’srepeal but also proposed a legal mechanism bywhich the Army could be used in extraordinarysituations involving national security

This act and numerous other that have beenreportedly misused by the security forces showthe important role played by the legislative bodiesin facing the menace of terrorism and insurgency.A too lax law and a too rigid law-both can becounterproductive.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE & NATIONALINTEGRATION

Article 44 of the Constitution of India reads:‘The State shall endeavour to secure for thecitizens a uniform civil code throughout theterritory of India’. The objective of this article isto effect an integration of India by bringing allcommunities into a common platform which isat present governed by personal laws which donot form the essence of any religion. At the sametime, Article 37 of the Constitution makes it veryclear that the provisions contained in theDirective Principles of State Policy are notenforceable by any court of law and therefore,the courts have no jurisdiction over them.

History behind UCC

The first Prime Minister of India, JawaharlalNehru, and the first Law Minister, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, were both modernists who wishedto reform archaic personal laws and bring themin line with progressive notions of gender justice.They were both committed, in theory, to aUniform Civil Code. However, faced with thebitter opposition of Muslim members in theConstituent Assembly, they decided to beginwith the reform of the personal laws of theHindus, a community whose liberal wing wasboth influential and articulate. All the same, ittook them all of eight years to pass the laws thatfinally made caste irrelevant in marriage,allowed Hindu women the right to choose ordivorce their marriage partners, abolishedbigamy and polygamy among Hindus, andgranted Hindu daughters and wives rights in theproperty of their fathers and husbands. Theopposition to the reform of the Hindu personallaws was led by the Jana Sangh and theRashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. The laws beingdrafted to allow personal choice in marriage andinheritance rights to daughters were denouncedas intrusion in Hindu society. On the other side,the Socialists and Communists chastised theGovernment for not reforming the personal lawsof all communities.

UCC generally refers to that part of lawwhich deals with family affairs of an individualand denotes uniform law for all citizens,irrespective of his/her religion, caste or tribe.Laws relating to crime and punishment areuniform for all citizens. So are the laws relatingto commerce, contracts and other economicaffairs. However, family affairs such as

marriage, divorce, inheritance, guardianship andadoption are legally permitted to be governedby customs or rules applicable to the persons andtheir community. This has been the practise fromthe time of British rule (even before that), becauseit was considered prudent not to disturb thepeople’s religious and community customs as faras their private affairs are concerned. The sameposition continued even after the independenceand people were permitted to follow theirrespective personal laws.

Over the period, there have been attemptsto codify personal laws applicable to eachreligious group. The codified personal lawsrelating to marriage, divorce and inheritance aremainly: The Indian Christian Marriage Act of1872 (applicable to whole of India except areasof erstwhile Travancore-Cochin, Manipur andJammu & Kashmir); Anand Marriage Act, 1909(For Sikh marriages); Cochin Christian CivilMarriage Act of 1920 (applicable for Travancore-Cochin areas); Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)Application Act, 1937 (making Shariat lawsapplicable to Indian Muslims); The ParsiMarriage and Divorce Act, 1937; HinduMarriage Act, 1955 (applicable to not merelyHindus, Buddhists and Jains but also to anyperson who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi orJew, and who is not governed by any other law).While Indian Parliament has enacted a secularlaw for marriages (The Special Marriage Act,1954) that provides a system of marriageirrespective of the religion or faith followed byeither party to the marriage, the number ofmarriages that occurs under this system is stillnegligible.

The Shah Bano Case

Shah Bano case was a milestone in theMuslim women's search for justice and thebeginning of the political battle over personallaw. A 60-year-old woman went to court askingmaintenance from her husband who haddivorced her. The court ruled in her favour. ShahBano was entitled to maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the CriminalProcedure Code like any other Indian woman.The judgment was not the first granting adivorced Muslim woman maintenance underSection 125. But a voluble orthodoxy deemed theverdict an attack on Islam.

The Congress Government under thepressure of the orthodoxy enacted the MuslimWomen (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986. The most controversial provision of the Act


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

was that it gave a Muslim woman the right tomaintenance for the period of 'iddat' (about threemonths) after the divorce, and shifted the onusof maintaining her to her relatives or the WakfBoard. The Act was seen as discriminatory as itdenied divorced Muslim women the right tobasic maintenance which women of other faithshad recourse to under secular law.

The Bharatiya Janata Party saw it as'appeasement' of the minority community anddiscriminatory. The Shah Bano judgement wasa landmark in our social and political history fora large number of reasons. This case wasdifferent because Shah Bano's former husbandwas a lawyer and could appeal to the SupremeCourt against the judgements given in her favourby the lower courts. Chief Justice Y.V.Chandrachud delivered a verdict in Shah Bano'sfavour with certain observations that attractedwrath of hardliners. This elicited a protest frommany sections of Muslims who also took to thestreets against what they saw, and what theywere led to believe, was an attack on theirreligion and their right to their own religiouspersonal laws.

In 1984, Rajiv Gandhi led his party to victorybut soon found his government faltering whenhis finance minister, V.P. Singh, levelled seriouscharges of corruption against the Congress.Faced with a situation in which a huge numberof Muslims were protesting on the streetsGovernment did not enact a law in Parliamentoverturning the Supreme Court judgement. RajivGandhi took two political decisions which wouldhave momentous and disastrous results: hepushed through an Act of Parliament whichdenied Muslim women the right to demandmaintenance from their former husbands andgave the green signal to the Uttar PradeshGovernment to unlock the gates to the makeshiftRam Mandir set up surreptitiously inside theBabri Masjid. Then, the premises were locked bythe court while the case was sub judice. Manypolitical commentators have argued that thisattempt to appease the fundamentalists of bothcommunities gave the BJP an issue that ensuredits future electoral successes; and an immediateelectoral victory to the Janata Dal whichbenefited from Muslim anger being convertedinto votes.

Road ahead

The bogey that a uniform civil codenecessarily entails the repeal of personal laws

needs to be laid to rest. This is simply not so. Inmost probable case, if enacted, a uniform civilcode will be one among many and, like 'TheSpecial Marriage Act, an option. This isguaranteed by the constitutional provisionspertaining to the right to freedom of religion.While religious ideologues have been responsiblefor derailing a rational debate on a uniform code,secularists have done the nation grave disserviceby opposing movement towards a uniform codeor reform of personal law. A touch-me-notsecularism has resulted installing the process ofmodernisation and social reform.

A uniform code has been wrongly positedas an assault on religion and religious identities.What it essentially aims at is secular reform ofproperty relations in respect of which all religioustraditions have grossly discriminated againstwomen. A uniform civil code is, therefore,foremost a matter of gender justice. But malechauvinism and greed have joined with religiousconservatism to forge an unholy alliance toperpetuate a major source of genderdiscrimination thereby impeding themodernisation of social relations and nationalintegration.

Personal Laws and Status of Women

The most significant manner in whichpersonal laws in civil matters affect the rightsdiscourse is by delineating rights for womenbelonging to their respective religiouscommunities. The ‘family’ remains one of themost contested sites of women’s rights. One ofbiggest criticism working against personal lawsis that these antiquated provisions arediscriminatory towards women and seek toundermine their position within the privatedomain. There is a compelling need to study thepersonal religious laws from a human rightsperspective. India has time and again pledgedits commitment to upholding the normativeregime of human rights, be it in the provisionsof the Constitution or the terms of the variousinternational covenants and treaties.

Principles of equality, non-discriminationand fairness which form an essential part of thehuman rights discourse are the subject matterof the debate regarding personal laws of India.These principles are enshrined in the Preambleto the Constitution, Fundamental Right and theDirective Principles. Gender equality is a facetof equality and it is one of the basic principles ofthe Constitution. Moreover, the doctrine of


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

equality as enshrined in Article 14 of theConstitution of India is not merely formalequality before the law but embodies the conceptof real and substantive equality which strikes atall the inequalities arising on account of vasthistorical, socio-economic an customarydifferentiation. Thus, we see that Article 15(3)of the Constitution empowers the State to makespecial provisions for protection of women andchildren. Article 25(2) mandate that social reformand welfare can be provided irrespective of theright to freedom of religion. Article 44 whichdirects the state to secure for its citizens aUniform Civil Code throughout the territory ofIndia is the cornerstone for women’s equality inthe country and must be urgently implementedso as to eliminate antiquated discriminatorynorms of religious laws.

A major feminist critique of the currenthuman rights discourse is that anti-discrimination measures cannot concernthemselves only with conduct of public officials,that is to say, with relations between individualsand government. Discrimination in the ‘private’sphere of home, workplace and school must alsobe addressed, given the power vested in theinstitutions of family and the community toarbiter the women’s rights and freedoms.

Solution

The demand for UCC gathered pace afterthe Shah Bano controversy. The reform of familylaw has become deeply politicized, subject to thepressures of party politics rather than governedby the principles of gender justice or the idealsof the Indian Constitution. But, as Shabana Azmihas pointed out, ‘for far too long women havebeen victimized and justice has been denied tothem under the pretence of personal law’. Thisis true of formal Muslim law but also ofcustomary Hindu law, as in the still powerfulcaste councils that ostracize women who daremarry outside their community. There is thus ‘anurgent need to cull out the just and equitablelaws of all religions and form a blueprint for auniform civil code based on gender justice’.

There is a larger reason for a uniform code.With the slow but steady empowerment,modernisation and even globalisation of Indiansociety, the country's real diversity is becomingmanifest. Today, with growing education,migration and economic and social mobility,unknown and earlier socially prohibited

relationships (for example, inter-caste, inter-regional, inter-community marriages anddivorce and the acquisition and disposal of self-acquired property by women) are becomingincreasingly common. In the circumstances,there could be social breakdown, heartburn andstrife even among couples of the samecommunity without a uniform civil code.Traditional personal codes do not accommodateemerging multicultural realities and aspirations.On the other hand, suppressing them couldengender violence or deviant behaviour,undermining public order. 'The Special MarriageAct' fortunately provides a safety valve. But it isabsurd and regressive that Muslim and ChristianIndians cannot legally adopt a child for lack of auniform code on adoption.

The country needs a twin strategy. Anoptional uniform civil law should be promotedby the state. Clerics, among others, should beheard but must not prevail on issues of secularlife that are beyond their province. This isessential if we are to invest new meaning inIndia's secular ideal and rescue Muslims frommalicious accusations of hindering nationalintegration. At the same time, all religiouscommunities must be encouraged to debate andsupport codification and reform of personallaws. If, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Indonesiahave reformed Muslim personal law, there is noreason why Muslim Indians should not followsuit.

A uniform civil code will focus on rights,leaving the rituals embodied in personal lawintact within the bounds of constitutionalpropriety. Being optional, it will provide freechoice and facilitate harmonisation of socialrelationships across the country in keeping withthe changing contours of emerging societalrealities. A uniform civil code should not beconstructed, as sometimes suggested, by puttingtogether the best elements from various existingpersonal codes. This will invite contention. It isfar better that a uniform code is framed de novoby somebody like the Law Commission, inconsultation with relevant experts and interests,as a citizens' charter governing family relations.

A liberal, forward-looking uniform civil codemay be expected to win many adherents,especially from those with cross-culturalbackgrounds. This could in time inducecustodians of faith to look inwards and seek to


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

codify and reform age-old personal laws inconformity with current modernising andintegrative tendencies or risk losing their flock.

ECONOMIC CONSOLIDATION ANDREORGANIZATION

Evolution of Economy

In 1947, the country was poor and shatteredby the violence and economic and physicaldisruption involved in the partition. Theeconomy had stagnated since the late nineteenthcentury, and industrial development had beenrestrained to preserve the area as a market forBritish manufacturers. At independence theeconomy was predominantly agrarian.Moreover, the structural economic problemsinherited at independence were exacerbated bythe costs associated with the partition of BritishIndia. The settlement of refugees was aconsiderable financial strain. Partition alsodivided complementary economic zones. Underthe British, jute and cotton were grown in theeastern part of Bengal, the area that became EastPakistan (after 1971, Bangladesh), but processingtook place mostly in the western part of Bengal,which became the Indian state of West Bengalin 1947. As a result, after independence Indiahad to employ land previously used for foodproduction to cultivate cotton and jute for itsmills.

At Independence, the national consensuswas in favour of rapid industrialization of theeconomy which was seen not only as the key toeconomic development but also to economicsovereignty. In the subsequent years, India'sIndustrial Policy evolved through successiveIndustrial Policy Resolutions and IndustrialPolicy Statements. Specific priorities forindustrial development were also laid down inthe successive Five Year Plans. After gainingindependence it was necessary to give newpolicy for industrial development, decide priorityareas and clear doubts in the minds of privateentrepreneurs regarding nationalisation ofexisting industries.

So, First Industrial Policy Resolutionannounced in 1948 laid down broad contoursof the strategy of industrial development. At thattime the Constitution of India had not taken finalshape nor was the Planning Commissionconstituted. Moreover, the necessary legal

framework was also not put in place. Therefore,the Resolution was somewhat broad in its scopeand direction. Yet, an important distinction wasmade among industries to be kept under theexclusive ownership of Government, i.e., thepublic sector, those reserved for private sectorand the joint sector. Bombay Plan preparedearlier, by leading Indian industrialists in 1944-45 had recommended government support forindustrialization, including a direct role in theproduction of capital goods.

Subsequently, the Indian Constitution wasadopted in January 1950, the PlanningCommission was constituted in March 1950 andthe Industrial (Department and Regulation) Act(IDR Act) was enacted in 1951 with the objectiveof empowering the Government to takenecessary steps to regulate the pattern ofindustrial development through licensing. Thispaved the way for the Industrial PolicyResolution of 1956, which was the firstcomprehensive statement on the strategy forindustrial development in India. Indian leadersintroduced the five-year plans and agreed thatstrong economic growth and measures toincrease incomes and consumption among thepoorest groups were necessary goals for the newnation. Government was assigned an importantrole in this process, and since 1951 a series ofplans have guided the country's economicdevelopment. Although there was considerablegrowth in the 1950s, the long-term rates ofgrowth were less than India's politicians desiredand less than those of many other Asiancountries.

Industrial Policy Resolution-1956

The Industrial Policy Resolution - 1956 wasshaped by the Mahalanobis Model of growth,which suggested that emphasis on heavyindustries would lead the economy towards along term higher growth path. The Resolutionwidened the scope of the public sector. Theobjective was to accelerate economic growth andboost the process of industrialization as a meansto achieving a socialistic pattern of society. Giventhe scarce capital and inadequate entrepreneurialbase, the Resolution accorded a predominant roleto the State to assume direct responsibility forindustrial development. All industries of basicand strategic importance and those in the natureof public utility services besides those requiringlarge scale investment were reserved for thepublic sector.


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

The Resolution classified industries into threecategories. The first category comprised 17industries exclusively under the domain of theGovernment. These included inter alia, railways,air transport, arms and ammunition, iron andsteel and atomic energy. The second categorycomprised 12 industries, which were envisagedto be progressively State owned but private sectorwas expected to supplement the efforts of theState. The third category contained all theremaining industries and it was expected thatprivate sector would initiate development ofthese industries but they would remain open forthe State as well. Despite the demarcation ofindustries into separate categories, the Resolutionwas flexible enough to allow the requiredadjustments and modifications in the nationalinterest.

Another objective spelt out in the IndustrialPolicy Resolution-1956 was the removal ofregional disparities through development ofregions with low industrial base. Accordingly,adequate infrastructure for industrialdevelopment of such regions was dulyemphasized. Given the potential to providelarge-scale employment, the Resolution reiteratedthe Government’s determination to provide allsorts of assistance to small and cottage industriesfor wider dispersal of the industrial base andmore equitable distribution of income. TheResolution, in fact, reflected the prevalent valuesystem of India in the early 1950s, which wascentered around self sufficiency in industrialproduction. The Industrial Policy Resolution1956 – was a landmark policy statement and itformed the basis of subsequent policyannouncements.

1960s and 1970s

Before independence there was a strongtendency for ownership or control of much ofthe large-scale private industrial economy to beconcentrated in managing agencies, whichbecame powerful under the British because theyhad access to London money markets. Throughdiversified investments and interlockingdirectorates, the individuals who controlled themanaging agencies controlled much of the pre-independence economy. Private trading andindustrial conglomerates existed under theBritish and continued after independence. Thegovernment viewed the conglomerates withsuspicion, believing that they often manipulatedmarkets and prices for their own profit.

After independence the governmentinstituted licensing controls on new businesses,especially in manufacturing, and on expandingcapacity in existing businesses. In the 1960s,when shortages of goods were extensive,considerable criticism was leveled at traders formanipulating markets and prices. 'MonopoliesInquiry Commission' (MIC) was set up in 1964to review various aspects pertaining toconcentration of economic power and operationsof industrial licensing under the IDR Act, 1951(Industries Development and Regulation Act).While emphasizing that the planned economycontributed to the growth of industry, the Reportby MIC concluded that the industrial licensingsystem enabled big business houses to obtaindisproportionately large share of licenses whichhad led to pre-emption and foreclosure ofcapacity.

Subsequently, the Industrial Licensing PolicyInquiry Committee (Dutt Committee), constitutedin 1967, recommended that larger industrialhouses should be given licenses only for settingup industry in core and heavy investment sectors,thereby necessitating reorientation of industriallicensing policy. In 1969, The Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act wasintroduced to enable the Government toeffectively control concentration of economicpower. The MRTP Act, 1969 defined largebusiness houses as those with assets of Rs. 200million and above. Large industries weredesignated as MRTP companies and were noteligible to participate in industries that werereserved for the Government or the Small scalesector.

The new Industrial Licensing Policy of 1970classified industries into four categories. Firstcategory, termed as ‘Core Sector’, consisted ofbasic, critical and strategic industries. Secondcategory termed as ‘Heavy Investment Sector’,comprised projects involving investment of morethan Rs. 50 million. The third category, the‘Middle Sector’ consisted of projects withinvestment in the range of Rs. 10 million to Rs. 50million. The fourth category was ‘DelicensedSector’, in which investment was less than Rs. 10million and was exempted from licensingrequirements.

Structural deficiencies, such as the need forinstitutional changes in agriculture and theinefficiency of much of the industrial sector, alsocontributed to economic stagnation. Wars with


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

China in 1962 and with Pakistan in 1965 and1971; a flood of refugees from East Pakistan in1971; droughts in 1965, 1966, 1971, and 1972;currency devaluation in 1966; and the first worldoil crisis, in 1973-74, all jolted the economy.

Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act1970, which was designed to provide thegovernment with additional information on thestructure and investments of all firms that hadassets of more than Rs. 200 million, to strengthenthe licensing system in order to decrease theconcentration of private economic power, andto place restraints on certain business practicesconsidered contrary to the public interest. Theact emphasized the government's aversion tolarge companies in the private sector, but criticscontended that the act resulted from politicalmotives and not from a strong case against bigfirms. The act and subsequent enforcementrestrained private investment. The extensivecontrols, the large public sector, and the manygovernment programs contributed to asubstantial growth in the administrativestructure of government.

The government also sought to take on manyof the unemployed. The result was a swollen,inefficient bureaucracy that took inordinateamounts of time to process applications andforms. Business leaders complained that theyspent more time getting government approvalthan running their companies. Many observersalso reported extensive corruption in the hugebureaucracy. One consequence was thedevelopment of a large underground economyin small-scale enterprises and the services sector.

Industrialization occurred in a protectedenvironment, which led to distortions that, afterthe mid-1960s, contributed to the saggingindustrial growth rate. Tariffs and quantitativecontrols largely kept foreign competition out ofthe domestic market, and most Indianmanufacturers looked on exports only as aresidual possibility. Industry paid insufficientattention to the quality of products,technological development elsewhere, andeconomies of scale. Management was weak inmany private and public plants.

80s: THE WATERSHED YEARS

Beginning in the late 1970s, successive Indiangovernments sought to reduce state control ofthe economy. Progress toward that goal was slowbut steady, and many analysts attributed the

stronger growth of the 1980s to those efforts. Therealization started occurring to country that asituation as usual approach might have to bechanged, but country needed a shock to do thecourse correction, which came in early 1990s.

The rate of growth improved in the 1980s. Ahigh rate of investment was a major factor inimproved economic growth. Investment wentfrom about 19 per cent of GDP in the early 1970sto nearly 25 per cent in the early 1980s. India,however, required a higher rate of investmentto attain comparable economic growth than didmost other low-income developing countries,indicating a lower rate of return on investments.Part of the adverse Indian experience wasexplained by investment in large, long-gestating,capital-intensive projects, such as electric power,irrigation, and infrastructure. However, delayedcompletions, cost overruns, and under-use ofcapacity were contributing factors. Privatesavings financed most of India's investment, butby the mid-1980s further growth in privatesavings was difficult because they were alreadyat quite a high level. As a result, during the late1980s India relied increasingly on borrowingfrom foreign sources

POLICIES AFTER 1991

Until 1991, India’s policy makers followedmisguided policies that closed the economy tointernational trade, erected inefficient industriesunder state guidance, riddled the private sectorwith extraordinarily cumbersome and detailedregulations, and suffocated private economicactivity with controls and bureaucraticimpediments. Then in 1991, the bigbreakthrough happened. Spurred by a balanceof payments crisis, Indian policy makers turnedto technocrats such as Manmohan Singh, whopromptly began the process of liberalizing theeconomy. Trade barriers were slashed, foreigninvestment was welcomed, the license raj wasdismantled, and privatization began. Theeconomy started to boom, with software exportsand call centers leading the way.

Foreign lending had virtually dried up, thegovernment was forced to sell 20 tonnes of goldto the Union Bank of Switzerland in March 1991to tide over its immediate transactions. By July1991, foreign exchange reserves were down to amere two weeks' import cover despite loans fromthe IMF. The country was at the edge of default.

New Economic Policy of 1991 was a


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

Structural Adjustment Program that allowedIndia to qualify for aid from the World Bank andIMF. In 1990, India faced an economic crisis andwas on the brink of default on its debts. Withinweeks of announcing the reform package, thegovernment devalued the rupee by 23 per cent(The devaluation of the rupee had beenadvocated by the World Bank since October1990, when it recommended a 20 per centdevaluation), raised interest rates, and effectedsharp cuts in subsidies on food and fertilizersand transfers to public enterprises. Over the nextsix months, it abolished the complex system ofindustrial and import licensing, liberalized tradepolicy, and introduced measures to strengthencapital markets and institutions.

Among other measures, the new policiesannounced by Prime Minister P.V. NarasimhaRao in July 1991 included allowing foreign firmsto own a 51 per cent stake in joint ventures inIndia instead of the previous 40 per cent. Thegovernment also eliminated requirements forsome 7,500 licenses, eliminated financial supportfor in form of export subsidies, and allowedexporters to keep 30 per cent of their net foreignexchange earnings (an increase from 5-10percent).

On December 5, 1991, the World Bank madeits largest Structural Adjustment Loan to date:$500 to India. The watershed reforms containedin the first budget the new Narasimha Raogovernment submitted in June excited the Bank,and fast track negotiations began. Initially, Indiawas to receive $300 million, followed by theremaining $200 million a year later if thestructural adjustment policies it agreed toremained in place.

Before 1991, India was a nation with politicalindependence but no economic freedom. If thelicense and permit tied India down, they alsostifled individual aspirations. In the early 1990s,India's post independence development patternof strong centralized planning, regulation andcontrol of private enterprise, state ownership ofmany large units of production, tradeprotectionism, and strict limits on foreign capitalwas increasingly questioned not only by policymakers but also by most of the intelligentsia.During this period, considerable progress wasmade in loosening government regulations,especially in the area of foreign trade. Manyrestrictions on private companies were lifted, andnew areas were opened to private capital.

However, India remains one of the world's mosttightly regulated major economies. Manypowerful vested interests, including private firmsthat have benefited from protectionism, laborunions, and much of the bureaucracy, opposedliberalization. Besides, many analysts agree thatthe poor suffered most from the increasedinflation rate and reduced growth rate.

India’s economic performance during thefirst three decades since independence waschristened the “Hindu” rate of growth, a termconnoting a disappointing but not disastrousoutcome. That cliché, of course, is graduallylapsing into disuse thanks to the remarkabletransformation in India during the last twodecades. Since 1980, its economic growth ratehas more than doubled, rising from 1.7 per cent(in per-capita terms) in 1950-1980 to 3.8 per centin 1980-2000. Shackled by the socialist policiesand the “license-permit-quota raj” (to use Rajaji’smemorable phrase) of the past, India used toserve as the exemplar of development strategiesgone wrong. It has now become the latest posterchild for how economic growth can be unleashedwith a turn towards free markets and opentrade. India has yet to catch up to China’sgrowth rates, but thanks to its solid democraticinstitutions and impressive performance ininformation technology, the country isincreasingly vying with, if not displacing, Chinaas the country of the future in the eyes of manyknowledgeable observers.

By the early 1990s, economic changes led tothe growth in the number of Indians withsignificant economic resources. About 10 millionIndians are considered upper class, and roughly300 million are part of the rapidly increasingmiddle class. Typical middle-class occupationsinclude owning a small business or being acorporate executive, lawyer, physician, white-collar worker, or land-owning farmer. In the1980s, the growth of the middle class wasreflected in the increased consumption ofconsumer durables, such as televisions,refrigerators, motorcycles, and automobiles. Inthe early 1990s, domestic and foreign businesseshoped to take advantage of India's economicliberalization to increase the range of consumerproducts offered to this market.

As India moved into the mid-1990s, theeconomic outlook was mixed. Most analystsbelieved that economic liberalization wouldcontinue, although there was disagreement


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

about the speed and scale of the measures thatwould be implemented. It seemed likely that Indiawould come close to or equal the relativelyimpressive rate of economic growth attained inthe 1980s, but that the poorest sections of thepopulation might not benefit.

By the mid-1990s, the number of sectorsreserved for public ownership was slashed, andprivate-sector investment was encouraged inareas such as energy, steel, oil refining andexploration, road building, air transportation,and telecommunications. An area still closed tothe private sector in the mid-1990s was defenseindustry. Foreign-exchange regulations wereliberalized, foreign investment was encouraged,and import regulations were simplified. Theaverage import-weighted tariff was reduced.

Despite these changes, the economyremained highly regulated by internationalstandards. Moreover, although import dutieshad been lowered substantially, they were stillhigh compared to most other countries. Politicalsuccesses in the mid-1990s by nationalist-oriented political parties led to some backlashagainst foreign investment in some parts of India.In early 1995, official charges of servingadulterated products were made against a KFCoutlet in Bangalore, and Pepsi-Cola productswere smashed and advertisements defaced inNew Delhi. The most serious backlash occurredin Maharashtra in August 1995 when theBharatiya Janata Party led state governmenthalted construction of a US$2.8 million 2,015-megawatt gas-fired electric-power plant beingbuilt near Bombay (Mumbai in the Marathilanguage) by another United States company,Enron Corporation. However these incidentsremained more of an aberration.

It is important to characterize appropriatelythis attitudinal change that took place in the early1980s. A distinction need to be made between apro-market and a pro-business orientation. Theformer focuses on removing impediments tomarkets, and aims to achieve this througheconomic liberalization. It favors entrants andconsumers. A pro-business orientation, on theother hand, is one that focuses on raising theprofitability of the established industrial andcommercial establishments. It tends to favorincumbents and producers. Easing restrictionson capacity expansion for incumbents, removingprice controls, and reducing corporate taxes (allof which took place during the 1980s) are

examples of pro-business policies, while tradeliberalization (which did not take place in anysignificant form until the 1990s) is the archetypalmarket-oriented policy.

Two decades of liberalization in India had afavorable impact on the overall growth rate ofthe economy. This is major improvement giventhat India’s growth rate in the 1970’s was verylow at 3% and GDP growth in countries likeBrazil, Indonesia, Korea, and Mexico was morethan twice that of India. Though India’s averageannual growth rate almost doubled in the eightiesto 5.9%, it was still lower than the growth ratein China, Korea and Indonesia.The pick up inGDP growth has helped improve India’s globalposition. Consequently India’s position in theglobal economy has improved from the 8thposition in 1991 to 4th place in 2001; when GDPis calculated on a purchasing power parity basis.The slowdown experienced by the Indianeconomy in the late 1990s, partially due to theEast Asian and Southeast Asian crisis and aglobal slowdown, continued at the turn of thecentury. The first few years of the newmillennium were turbulent with oil price hikes,the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US and a furtherglobal slowdown. Despite this, the Ninth Planperiod, 1996-97 to 2000-01, experienced anaverage GDP growth of 5.5 per cent per annumagainst the target of 6.5 per cent. Thisdemonstrated the post-reform Indian economy'sability to ride through crisis years, maintaininggrowth rates well above the 'Hindu rate' of 3 to3.5 per cent.

However, despite the low GDP growth in thefirst year of the Tenth Plan and the poorperformance of agriculture in the Plan period,2002-03 to 2006-07 growth rate was slightlybelow the Plan target of 8 per cent. It was a bigachievement. A critical aspect in this connectionis the savings and investment generated by theeconomy. Consistentely increasing rate of GrossDomestic Savings and Investment as aproportion of GDP in the new millennium led tothis type og growth rates. 'Demographicdividend' in the form of high savings rate wasgoings to continue as the already high proportionof the Indian population in the working agegroup. To ensure fiscal responsibility in view ofhigher groth rates, a step was taken with thepassing of the Fiscal Reforms and BudgetManagement Act (FRBMA) in August 2003. TheAct was aimed at ensuring fiscal prudence. Therules of the Act was aimed at ensuring that


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

revenue deficits be reduced by half per cent ormore of the GDP every tear and be eliminatedaltogether by 31 March 2009. The fiscal deficitwas to be reduced by 0.3 per cent or more of theGDP every year and by 31 March, 2009 it wasto be no more than 3 per cent of GDP.

The economy growth rates wereunprecedented 7.7% per year in the Tenth Planperiod. However even at the end of plan, manypeople in the country still lacked the basicrequirements for a decent living in terms ofnutrition standards, access to education andbasic health, and also to other public servicessuch as water supply and sewerage.Disadvantaged groups, especially the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes and the minoritieshad benefited less than they should have. Faster,inclusive and sustainable growth has to be themantra of government in such conditions.Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) began invery favourable circumstances. But mid way inthe plan period worst economic disaster (since1930 recession) hit the world and Indianeconomy also. The government scaled down theannual average growth rate of 9 per centenvisaged in the 11th Plan to 8.1 per cent in viewof the global economic meltdown that began in2008. According to official estimates, Indiaachieved an economic growth rate of around 8per cent during the 11th Five Year Plan period(2007-12). Though, economic growth has slippedto decades' low of 5 per cent in 2012-13, the firstyear of the 12th Five-Year Plan, due to poorperformance of farm, manufacturing and miningsectors, fundamentals of economy are strong andreturn of Indian growth story is expected sooner.Despite the global economic crisis that engulfedthe whole world Indian economy only sloweddown and did not go into a declining phase. Thatshows the resilience and inner strength of IndianEconomy.

A hard landing to the discussion is beingmade here, because the current economicsituation will need some time to settle down andonly after the present turmoil is over, one wouldbe able to give an account of presentdevelopments in a non passionate historical way.

LPG

India's leaders believed that industrializationwas the key to economic development. This beliefwas all the more convincing in India because ofthe country's large size, substantial natural

resources, and desire to develop its ownindustries. The Industrial Policy Resolution of1948 gave government a monopoly inarmaments, atomic energy, and railroads, andexclusive rights to develop minerals, the iron andsteel industries, aircraft manufacturing,shipbuilding, and manufacturing of telephoneand telegraph equipment. Private companiesoperating in those fields were guaranteed at leastten years more of ownership before thegovernment could take them over. Some stilloperate as private companies.The IndustrialPolicy Resolution of 1956 greatly extended thepreserve of government. There were seventeenindustries exclusively in the public sector. Thegovernment took the lead in another twelveindustries, but private companies could alsoengage in production. This resolution coveredindustries producing capital and intermediategoods. As a result, the private sector was relegatedprimarily to production of consumer goods.

The public sector also expanded into moreservices. In 1956 the life insurance business wasnationalized, and in 1973 the general insurancebusiness was also acquired by the public sector.Most large commercial banks were nationalizedin 1969. Over the years, the Central and StateGovernments formed agencies, and companiesengaged in finance, trading, mineralexploitation, manufacturing, utilities, andtransportation. The public sector was extensiveand influential throughout the economy,although the value of its assets was small relativeto the private sector.

Controls over prices, production, and the useof foreign exchange, which were imposed by theBritish during World War II, were reinstated soonafter independence. The Industries (Develop-ment and Regulation) Act of 1951 and theEssential Commodities Act of 1955 (withsubsequent additions) provided the legalframework for the government to extend pricecontrols that eventually included steel, cement,drugs, nonferrous metals, chemicals, fertilizer,coal, automobiles, tires and tubes, cotton textiles,food grains, bread, butter, vegetable oils, andother commodities. By the late 1950s, controlswere pervasive, regulating investment inindustry, prices of many commodities, importsand exports, and the flow of foreign exchange.

Export growth was long ignored. Thegovernment's extensive controls and pervasive


CHR

CHR

CHR

CHR

CHRONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

ONIC

LE

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS

IAS AAAAACADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

CADEM

Y

licensing requirements created imbalances andstructural problems in many parts of theeconomy. Controls were usually imposed tocorrect specific problems but often withoutadequate consideration of their effect on otherparts of the economy. For example, thegovernment set low prices for basic foods,transportation, and other commodities andservices, a policy designed to protect the livingstandards of the poor. However, the policyproved counterproductive when the governmentalso limited the output of needed goods andservices. Price ceilings were implemented duringshortages, but the ceiling frequently contributedto black markets in those commodities and totax evasion by black-market participants. Importcontrols and tariff policy stimulated localmanufacturers toward production of import-substitution goods, but under conditions devoidof sufficient competition or pressure to beefficient.

India's current economic reforms began in1985 when the government abolished some ofits licensing regulations and other competition-inhibiting controls. Since 1991 more "neweconomic policies" or reforms have beenintroduced. Reforms include currencydevaluations and making currency partially

convertible, reduced quantitative restrictions onimports, reduced import duties on capital goods,decreases in subsidies, liberalized interest rates,abolition of licenses for most industries, the saleof shares in selected public enterprises, and taxreforms. Although many observers welcomedthese changes and attributed the faster growthrate of the economy in the late 1980s to them,others feared that these changes would createmore problems than they solved. The growingdependence of the economy on imports, greatervulnerability of its balance of payments, relianceon debt, and the consequent susceptibility tooutside pressures on economic policy directionscaused concern. The increase in consumerismand the display of conspicuous wealth by theelite exacerbated these fears.

But forces of liberalisation, privatisation andglobalisation were not only strengthened withtime, but also the horizontal spread of area underthese forces increased at a faster rate. Promotionof FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) by means ofraising the cap, constitution of CompetitionCommission of India in place of MRTP Act,liberal act on foreign currency violations, easysanction for FDI and FII (Foreign InstitutionalInvestors) etc. point towards the abovementioned fact.

��

post independence consolidation and reorganization · them – junagadh, jammu and kashmir and...

Documents