A thousand mirrors

The Indian Union’s Constitution is a product of interests of the Centre, given that only Parliament and not the state assemblies can change it. If political forces of the states have to oppose central decisions, they need to do that through political agitation. The Centre sometimes fears this, especially in case of big states. Whichever is the ruling party at the Centre, it does not want to be seen completely opposed to a state’s popular mood because then that party’s state unit risks becoming politically marginalised. No wonder, Delhi-based media and think-tanks have for years propagated a virulent campaign against the so-called ‘regional’ forces, branding them disruptive to the ’national’ vision conjured up by the Congress and the BJP. While they dream of an India whose political space is contested and divided up neatly between the BJP and the Congress, the people of this subcontinent frustrate the Delhi apparatchiks. They elect political forces in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telengana and elsewhere, who put their state’s interest first, often refusing to become a jagirdar in an imperial system run from Delhi.

The laws that are enacted by Parliament (representing something intangible called the ‘Centre’) and the state’s political reality are often in opposition. Political reality is a cute word that signifies a ‘problem’ for the high-fangled ideals of Central laws. When translated into real-world terms, it means public opinion — the same public in whose name laws and constitutions are made.

According to the Indian Union’s Constitution, Centre can change territorial borders, take ‘foreign’ land, give away ‘own’ land and so on. The state assembly has no role in this nor does popular opinion of the affected state matter. The Land Boundary Agreement between the Indian Union and Bangladesh will enable exchange of certain pockets of land that lie surrounded by ‘alien’ territory (typically, a pocket of land completely enclosed by territories of another nation). There are political forces that whip up jihadi fervour on the supposed ‘holiness’ of every inch of ‘own’ territory. This absurd jingoism is in prominent display at the icy heights of Siachen, for which a hungry, diseased subcontinent pays through its nose. But when the loudest thikadars of ‘holiness’ decide otherwise, the sacrality of ‘own’ land somehow evaporates. This bluff cannot be called out because both the Congress and the BJP have always been in private agreement on these issues, irrespective of public posturing. In an unequal Centre-state relationship, the political opinion of a state can be ‘managed’ by offering ‘deals’ — that range from special grants to varying speed of investigations. This corruption must end.

Much of the Indian Union’s external affairs pertain to neighbouring nations. Some states of the Union share borders with these nations. These states must have more than a consultative role in issues pertaining to these neighbouring nations, especially if these agreements affect subjects in the ‘state list’. For example, land exchange has an effect on land revenue and other things in the state’s jurisdiction. In a democracy, public opinion in the states must be respected; near-unanimous resolutions in state assemblies have to have some value. On agreements with neighbouring nations, affected border-states must have veto power. This means, West Bengal (and others) and Tamil Nadu have to have an official say in Delhi’s dealings with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Delhi Dhaka Express must pass via Kolkata. A federal democratic republic like the Indian Union has to fundamentally renegotiate the division of power between the Centre and states in favour of the latter so that federalism and democracy survive in reality and not only in the unaccountable ‘spirit of the Constitution’.

The author is a commentator on politics and culture