Could Federalism Be The Real Solution Of NE India's Problem Of Insurgency
(Special Reference to the study of Naga's peace Talk)
- Part 1 -

Dr. Dhanabir Laishram *

A Map of North East India

In the first clause of our constitution defines our country as "India, that is, Bharat is a Union of States". The federal structure of our constitution flows from this definition and has been upheld by the apex court as a basic feature of our constitution. Over the years, there has been a steady erosion of the rights of the states and federal character of our constitution is being, slowly but steadily, converted into a unitary state structure. In other words maximizing zone of interference to the state by the centre is increasing more and more. It is also one of the factors of increasing political violence in the NE India. Even maximum contentions of agreement in between GoI and NSCN (IM) and even ULFA's talk in their ongoing peace process are also for bringing real federal relationship.

Patrick Hoeing, currently working on a project on federalism and identity in India, with a special emphasis on Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India, of the views that Federalism as a complex multi-layered system of governance has gained prominence in a discourse that is increasingly becoming polarized between attempts at building on the strengths of diversity in the pursuit of a multicultural society and tendencies of excluding identity markers seen as extraneous to the notion of the nation. Depending on the harmony that is struck in a particular (national) context, federalism is being portrayed as a recipe for meeting the demands of territorially based communities for autonomy or a resting point on the road to secession.

Academics usually argue one side of the case or the other, but the connective tissue between federalism and identity has rarely come under the scanner of political analysts and constitutional experts. His presentation is mainly concerned with to break new ground on the nexus of the two areas, which have generated considerable research interest separately, but hardly for the relationship have they shared. Moreover, in the context of ethnic identity claims, it has often been argued that discussing the principle of federalism, in whatever form, will not make a decisive difference for people who are determined to break away from the host state. There is force in this argument and yet, from a conceptual standpoint, self-determination and federalism overlap. The principal reason for peoples to aspire to borders of their own is the imposition of overly narrow limitations on their aspirations in existing political frameworks (Patrick Hoenig)

India sprang to life as anything but a natural federation. It was conflicted by strong regional aspirations within and ill-defined borders without; pockmarked with, as the national political elite would have it, yet to be integrated princely states; and released into independence after a long hard struggle, amid the pain and horrors of partition. In the period leading up to the Great Partition of 1947, the South Asian sub-continent was overflowing with ideas of what shape it could take. In the margins of colonial high table politics, there was no limit to visions and counter-visions of how to reconfigure the space that was soon to have been British India. Governance models that had a lot in common with what would later be called consociationalist schemes were in free circulation. Some historians blame the political leadership, in particular, depending on the ideological outlook, Nehru or Jinnah, others cite considerations of political economy, but whatever the reason, a confederation did not come to pass. The crown colony India disintegrated into what came to be India, Pakistan (East and West) and Burma. As a result, centre-state relations in India (as well as Pakistan) are characterized by an uneasy mix of unitary tendencies and regional aspirations.

Both India and Pakistan are routinely cited as federal countries in handbooks on federalism, but rhetoric aside, in deciding on the vertical dispensation of power, the Indian polity acted on two contradictory impulses. On the one hand, it tapped into a deep well of pride that finds expression in the celebration of ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural variety, such a distinct feature of South Asia. On the other hand, India's political class harbours, since partition, a deep sense of wariness toward all political manifestations turning in the direction of secession. It appears that federalism, though not quite as dirty a word as autonomy in post-war Sri Lanka, is seen by the Indian political establishment as a necessary evil rather than a political asset, a notion largely unchallenged by opinion-makers and the public at large. Meanwhile, alternative viewpoints exist. If federalism were to be considered as a theoretical framework for 'government of complexity', diversity might indeed overtake unity as an ordering principle of society.

The objections raised in respect to India's qualification as a federal state are threefold. Historically, the drafting committee was known to be given to centripetal leanings, which explains the introduction of provisions allowing for direct central intervention in state affairs, notably by means of President's rule. Legally, the power of national parliament to unilaterally slice new states from the territory of existing ones, "increase" or "diminish" the area or "alter the boundaries of any state" runs counter to the notion of clear delineation of powers, a prerequisite of a federal system (it does not matter much that state legislatures can express their views on any such decisions because they do not have the power to veto them). He concluded that "In short, politically, the centre of gravity has been steadily leaning towards the Union government in nearly all vital fields of policy-making, including security, welfare, development and education."

The Indian brand of federalism is vital for a comprehensive understanding of the way regions relate to each other and the centre. But to the extent federalism requires flexibility, cooperation and sophistication its level of implementation is also indicative of the central government's ability and preparedness to accommodate societal complexity. India, like Canada, constitutes an asymmetrical federation in the sense that some states have constitutionally guaranteed prerogatives setting them apart from the other states of the federation. However, in the case of India, rather unlike Canada, the affording of special status to a group or territorial entity never came easy. It was routinely preceded by hard bargaining, political turmoil and, in the lead-up to the creation of states of NE, armed struggle. Of the numerous unresolved puzzles in Indian security analysis, perhaps the most baffling is the geographical match of 'disturbed areas' allegedly requiring special laws and constitutionally recognized territories holding special autonomy. From that angle, the introduction of asymmetrical federalism may very well be seen as a ploy to help make a case for the denial of constitutional rights—notably the right to life—to people considered to be a threat to the state and therefore undeserving of protection (Patrick Hoeing).

The proposition of NE look at the inherent qualities of federalism would be valid question to resolve the vexed problem of political violence in the region. The best example is special federal relationship which was demanded by NSCN (IM) in this on going peace talk. Moreover pro talk group of ULFA also demanded like special federal relationship with the centre after the group dropped its primary demand for sovereignty. The group demanded constitutional and political arrangements, protection of the identity and material resources of the local indigenous population of the state besides financial and economic arrangements such as settlement of all royalties on mines, minerals, including oil, on a retrospective compensatory basis and rights of independent use for a sustainable economic development in future. Even it includes development of native force to man the borders and ethnic issues (The Sangai Express, 5.4.2012).

The constitution of India is federal in form unitary in spirit. So it is also known as quasi-federal. But on the other hand strengthening the federal system is necessary for satisfying the demands and aspiration of the people who are governed through state government and for transforming conflict situation of various states of India having political violence (Dhanabir L 2011). Therefore, centre-state relation is the arrangements between the union government and the states in regard to their powers, functions and responsibilities have always been a crucial issue. The basic structure remain to be one where legislative, administrative and financial powers are disproportionately concentrated in the union government with the states having a large number of responsibilities without sufficient autonomy. Along with significant socio-economic and political changes occurring in the post independent period, centre-state relations have also undergone some changes. The period since 1991, which witnessed a paradigm shift in the economic strategy from planned development to a market-oriented one, has also thrown up new issues and challenges for the federal setup. These have an important bearing on the functioning of our democracy as well as the well being of our people (Dhanabir L 2009).

The need for a thorough restructuring of centre-state relations, in order to correct existing imbalances and strengthen the federal system by empowering the states with genuine autonomous, is therefore being felt strongly. But it is still a controversial matter whether federal form of government would be more suitable for India, though a federal government has been established in India. So a small states having small number of MPs, always make argument that their representatives could not be Prime Minister and President, even cabinet minister in the union government from cradle to grave of political history of them because number of representation is based on population in this existing political system of India. It means that the small states like Manipur, Nagaland and Mizoram can't get such prestigious head of state and real executive of India.

Thus, the people of North East has always held that while the state structure in India is federal in name, most powers and resources are concentrated in the hands of the central government. It is also one of the important factors for the cause of political violence in the NE. The best example is demanding of autonomy by maximum numbers of insurgent group in NE except Manipur. Even one has witnessed that reactions coming out from the chief ministers of various states of India when Home Minister issued the order of constituting a National Counter Terrorism Centre(NCTC) located in the Intelligence Bureau(IB) in the states, NCTC has been given the powers to arrest and to search under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The NCTC has also been given the power to set up Inter-State Intelligence Support Teams. But the 'public Order' and 'police' is a state subject under the constitution of India, this action of the MHA amounts to encroachment upon the powers of the states. Similarly, some of the state governments have correctly come out against the proposed amendment in the Railway Protection Force Act which would confer the powers of state police offices to the RPF, which is violative of the constitutional division of powers between the centre and the states. Some of the valid points could be found in the following discussion.

What happened on 16 April 2012 at New Delhi meeting of the chief ministers on internal security convened by the Union Home Ministry? All the non-congress state's chief ministers opposed center's move to set up the National Centre for Counter Terrorism. Jayalalithaa, CM of Tamil Nadu , in her speech, hit out at the Centre for " encroaching on state powers" through the NCTC which was in " contravention" to constitutional provisions that accord priority status to police in the state list. Further she commented that "lack of consultation with the states and failure to take the states into confidence is a cogent commentary on the system of governance in the centre". On the same line Narendra Modi, CM of Gujarat, reacted that Centre was adopting a "non-consultative" approach with state governments on key security issues. He said Centre was creating a "state within a state" by considering changes to RPFAct and BSF Act which take away powers from the state police and meddling with subjects under the state list. On the matter of this NCTC, Mamata Banerjee( CM of Bengal) also makes strong argument that it upsets the federal structure of the country.

To be continued...

REFERENCES

- Gourachandra, Political Development in Manipur (1984-2002), Unpublished Thesis, Submitted to M.U.
- Patrick Hoenig is Visiting Professor at the Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He is currently working on a project on federalism and identity in India, with a special emphasis on Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India.
- Dhanabir Laishram, The Stitch, Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi, 2009.
- Dhanabir Laishram, The Middle Space, Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi, 2011.
- Jain S.N., Allocation of Taxing Power Between the Centre and the State, N.Sanajaoba(Ed) Basic Issues on Centre-State relation, Omson Publications, Gauhati, 1985.
- Approach Paper on Restricting of Centre-State Relation – A dopted by the Central Committee of the CPI(M) at its meeting held at Kolkata from October 12-14-2008.
- State Finance, Reserve Bank of India, Nov,2006; Handbook of Statistics on India Economy and Report of the 11th Finance Commission, June 2000.
- The Gist of Status of Discussions and Negociations on Various Issues Submitted By NSCN(IM) 2011.
- The Hindu, August 10,2009.
- The Sentinel, April 12, 2012.
- The Sangai Express
- The Seven Sister' Post.