Indian Government and Politics 4

INDIAN GOVERNMENTAND POLITICS

Vol. IV

CONTENTS

Preface

1. Impact of Centre-state Relations on Indian Politics 1

2. Problems in Centre-state Relations 32

3. Nature of Party System in India 84

4. State, Regional, Cast Based Political Parties 124

5. Election Commission and Electoral Reformsin India 178

6. Politics of Communalism and Secularism in India 218

7. Regionalism 244

8. Democratic Decentralisation-Structure,Pattern and Trends 304

9. Indian Experience with Democracyand Development 328

Bibliography 351

Index 355

Impact of Centre-state Relations on Indian Politics 1

1IMPACT OF CENTRE-STATE

RELATIONS ON INDIAN POLITICS

INTRODUCTION

As we all are well aware of the federal structure of the Indianpolitical system. To take this discussion further, you will see theimpact of center-state relations on Indian politics.

Despite comprehensive provisions, the relations betweencenter and states have not been smooth. The Indian states haveaddressed the task of coping with the tensions arising in differentregions of the country by resorting to a variety of means, dependingupon the particular facet-economic, political, constitutional orlinguistic-involved in each specific conflict. Shifts have occurredin the major thrust of centre-state in conflicts and contradictionssince Independence which by virtue of their magnitude and inview of the political actors involved can be best analysed byappropriate periodization. The interest of these conflicts for thestudent of politics stems from the following main considerations:

(1) Major political tensions within the ruling party at thecentre-the ruling Congress party in its differenttransmogrifications, undivided Congress, Congress (R),and Congress-I, except during the brief post-emergencyinterregnum of 1977-9/1980-as well as tensions betweenit and a wide variety of opposition parties, which offermore or less plausible alternative centres of power indifferent regions (and also at the centre, albeit in coalition)2are clearly reflected in the unfolding of centre-state tensionsin any given period.

Indian Government and Politics Impact of Centre-state Relations on Indian Politics2 3

(2) Major economic tensions have tended to follow parallellines. On the one hand, the contradiction between therising urban and rural working classes (consisting ofunskilled, semi-skilled and skilled industrial workers, andtheir multiplex trade unions rooted in the major politicalformations in the country-Congress, the Communist Partyof India (CPI), the Socialist Party (SP), the Janata party(JP), and the Communist Party of India-Marxist CPI(M);and unevenly and sporadically organized agriculturalworkers and poor peasants) and the ruling classes has, atleast since me early 1970s, been successfully deflected bythe state. Not only have working class organizationsbecome fragmented and emasculated, but also theideological underpinnings which imparted class 'militancy'to them have been undermined as a consequence of theemergence of a number of trade union satrapies of whichBombay textile mill workers under Datta Samat constituteout the most recent and dominant example.

At the same time, the logic of economic developmentunder Indian conditions of dependence and unevenness4has rendered the working class as a whole unstable incomposition. The instability of the working class, duringrecent decades, has been endemic due to the rationalizationof industry and sudden shifts from labour intensive tocapital-intensive production, and the large-scale trans-formation of subsistence agriculture into cash cropagriculture. As a result, widespread displacement of labourhas occurred, leading to the expansion of marginalized,unorganized and seasonal migrant labour forces whichare, politically and economically even than the unionizedworkforce.

On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, there hasan intensification of the horizontal contradiction withinthe dominant class during recent decades. The conflict, atleast in the short run, between the industrial bourgeoisie(which has been, on the whole, the greatest beneficiary ofcentral planning and public sector expansion policies ofthe central government) and the rising rich and middle

peasant classes (which have effectively displaced the'feudal' landed classes of the colonial period) has not beeneasy To contain. By adopting the green revolution strategy,the Indian state created conditions under which thedevelopment of agriculture took place along lines thatensured not only a sharp differentiation of rural classesand contradiction between them in me countryside (i.e.between the rich and middle peasants on the one hand,and the poor peasants and landless labourers on the other,but also a divergence of interests between the industrialbourgeoisie and the rural rich.

This horizontal conflict has been activated since 1972 whenfor the first time, India attained self-sufficiency in food.Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the tension between theindustrial capitalist forces and the rural rich has beenaggravated, with centre-state relations providing thepolitical arena in which it is manifested. Except during thebrief period (1978-9) when Chaudhuri Charan Singh wassuccessively Finance Minister and caretaker Prime Minister,the central government has been seen invariably as thecustodian, by and large, of the interests of India's nationalindustrial bourgeoisie in this conflict. Over the last twodecades, the state governments (especially in regions wherethe green revolution has been successful-for examplePunjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh) have emerged as thenatural champions of the interests of the rich and middlepeasant classes. This aspect of power sharing between thecentre and the states has undergone some modificationsince the assumption of power by the Rajiv Gandhigovernment.

(3) Cultural and linguistic differences, which have no doubtcontributed to the political idiom specific to centre-staterelations right from Independence, are generally given toomuch or too little importance in the two major strands ofthe literature functionalist and Marxist. Whilst politicaland economic conflicts develop centre-state conflictdimensions of their own, conflicts involving linguistic andcultural (and even communal) dimensions have tended toassume significance under certain circumstances.


First, language and culture are emphasized (especially in theregions lying outside the Hindi-speaking heartland of India,embracing Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan)as features unique to the different 'nationalities' comprising India.9Demands for an equitable distribution of political power andprivileged access for weaker regions to economic resources areoften couched in the language of demands for greater autonomyfor the different states as well as for a more generous investmentof central plan resources in remoter regions far away from the'heartland'. Second, poorer states which do not have an active'producing' class capable of accumulating surplus throughagricultural or small industrial economic activities have shownthemselves to be specially skilled in raising the banner of rebellionagainst the centre.

Thus the Assam agitation must be distinguished frommovements such as Udayachal, Jharkhand and Gorkhalandmovements in which the sheer despair of oppression by a majoritycommunity is believed to justify rebellion. The difficulties in therelations between the centre on the one hand, and on the other,small but strategically significant states on India's periphery canbe legitimately viewed in terms of pressures generated by theruling elements of the various 'nationalities' involved. Thus, forexample, the ruling elements in the societies of Jammu and Kashmirand the 'seven sisters' of the north-east (with the exception ofTripura), which may be more or less adequately characterized as'nonproductive' petit bourgeois forces, have been involved duringrecent decades in constant agitation to secure increased flow ofresources from the centre and the state governments' right toexercise control over them.

In the existing literature on the cultural and linguisticdimensions of centre-state relations, one strand lays far too greatan emphasis on aspects relating to such questions as 'Hindiimperialism', 'unitarization of the federal polity,12 by manipulatingthe Indian Constitution, and 'foreign influences'.13 Another strandtends (mistakenly) to dismiss these as unimportant in preferenceto locating centre-state conflicts in the tensions and contradictionsbetween classes qua classes, without providing a detailed empiricalcharacterization of the class configuration developing in India

and of the role played by the Indian state in the process of itsunfolding.

Only very tiny segments of the literature show evidence ofan appreciation of the complex character of the inter-weavingbetween linguistic/cultural and political/economic factorsunderlying centre-state conflicts in independent India.

During the first four decades of Independence, three majorshifts have occurred in the pattern assumed by centre-state conflicts.The original impetus for these was provided by the cultural andlinguistic divisions between heartland or hinterland states in whichHindi is spoken and the states/regions on the periphery in whichnon-Hindi languages predominate. Whilst the importance of thecentre-state conflicts of the 1950s for the unity of India wasmagnified and exaggerated out of proportion outside India, theywere viewed within India as no more than teething troubles ofthe new federation in which power was shared between like-minded politicians and mutually compatible economic groups inthe states and at the all-India level. Even so, it is worth rememberingthat intra-Congress rivalries between state-level leaders and thecentre did take place in the political atmosphere surrounding anot-as-yet sufficiently fortified Indian state.

As political opposition to the Congress party grew in thestates on the periphery, apparently cultural and linguisticdivergences acquired economic overtones and developed intocompetition between different segments of the ruling elements ina number of states for control over the executive power ingovernments. With electoral success, state-based 'nationality'movements in regions such as Tamil Nadu, along with muchweaker national opposition parties have been able to mount asteadily accelerating challenge to the centre's power.

The relationship between the Congress party and theopposition parties in general and provincially based oppositionin particular was modulated in a rapidly changing politicalatmosphere in which the Indian state was being steadilystrengthened and its coercive power was becoming capable ofever more rapid deployment throughout the country. Even so,within a period of less than two decades ending with theEmergency, centre-state relations had come full circle with the


dawning of the realization that the era of massive centralizationof power in the state as in the central ruling party did notautomatically result in the victory of the centre over the states.However, since the end of the Emergency, and to an even clearerextent since the induction of the Rajiv Gandhi government topower, an entirely new chapter of co-existence between rivalsegments of power holders at the centre and in the states seemsto have been begun in the history of independent India.

The periodization suggested in this article is as follows: (1) theera of linguistic and cultural differentiation within a frameworkof unchallenged unity and integrity of the Indian state (1947-67);(2) the era of centralization following the challenge from the states(1967-77); (3) a brief interregnum of attempts to redress the balanceof influence in favour of the centre (1977-84); and (4) the era ofcoalition and co-existence between the centre and the states (from1985).

The political emphasis of the Indian Constitution rapidlyshifted from a confederal to a federal to a unitary conception ofthe Indian union during the brief life time of the ConstituentAssembly.18 The overwhelming popularity of the Congress partythroughout the country at the time of Independence, ensuring ahomogeneous government at the centre as well as in all the states,enabled the Indian government to successfully create theimpression that the Constitution was federal in character andpower would be shared between the two levels of governmentrather than imposed by the centre on the states.

The pressure in favour of linguistic states intensified duringthe initial stages in the provincial Congress organizations in thenon-Hindi regions, except in Tamil Nadu where a wide spreadpopular opposition to Hindi led by non-Congress elements wenthand in hand with demands for a Tamil state defined by the,regional language which emanated from the Tamil Nadu PradeshCongress. Very early on, the Indian state established a double,standard in the measures that it adopted to deal with massagitations (for example the linguistic agitation of Telugu-speakingAndhra people led by the Congress) and class agitations (forexample the Telengana agitation, also in Andhra) led by theCommunist Party of India (CPI). Even though national leader (for

example Nehru) were not nearly as keen after Independence asthey had been before on the idea of linguistic states, the Congressparty organization (which continued to bear the imprint of SardarPatel's style of functioning even after his demise) was not averseto the idea of strengthening the state governments a means ofmaintaining its mass following.

During the period 1947-57, there was no other party in any(the Indian states which posed a sustained electoral challenge tothe Congress.20 With the CPI tamed after Telengana into aparliamentary opposition force (after being forced to all but giveu its insurrectionary or revolutionary role) and the Congress atthe helm both at the centre and in the states, the centre appearto yield to linguistic pressures in line with the ruling partycommitment, during the nationalist struggle, to redivide Indiainto politically homogeneous states reflecting the country's nationalunity in cultural/linguistic diversity.

As a result of the recommendations of the high poweredStates Re-organization Commission (SRC), large new states we]brought into existence: Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujaratand Karnataka. Nevertheless, the general understanding of thenon contradictory (in fact, even mutually complementary)character, the power-holders at the centre and in the statesunderlying the first great spurt of recarving the internal boundariesof multilingual India did not extend to three specific areas.

In the case of Uttar Pradesh, a powerful argument wasadvanced by K.M. Panikkar (one of the three members of the SRC)to the effect that the opportunity provided by linguistic events toredraw state boundaries should also be taken advantage of todivide the administratively unwieldy and economically unevenlydeveloped state of Uttar Pradesh into two more viable states. Thisrecommendation, in the form of a lengthy dissenting minute, wasgreeted with such hostility by the ruling party that it was widelybelieved to be animated by a touch of 'Hindi imperialism' and 'hegemonism of the north'.

The linguistic demands of the Punjabi-speaking population,largely but not exclusively Sikh in composition, 22 were ignoredby a provincial leadership dominated by Hindus which engagedin political manipulation of the linguistic census in such a manner


as to create a false impression to the effect that the Punjab wasa largely Hindi-speaking region. Nehru believed that the Punjabshould be regarded as a special category of state (bordering as itdoes on Pakistan) to which the restrictions of 'unitarism' ratherthan the flexible adjustments characteristic of 'federalism' oughtto apply.

In the case of Assam, compounded by the rising tensions ofthe north-east as a whole, the linguistic conflict which took on anew dimension (by virtue of the fact that the economic, educationaland administrative life of the state was dominated by an immigrantupwardly mobile Bengali community, and the economic future ofthe mass of the people belonging to the Assamese linguistic/cultural nationality was being imperiled by the regular exodus ofBengali people-mainly poor Muslim peasants and h labourers-from East Pakistan into Assam) was not given the attention thatit deserved until it exploded into a big violent for the first timein 1962. In the north-east as in the north-west arguments of nationalintegrity, unity and security were invoked to suppress politicaldemands in Assam that were met as a of course in other parts ofthe country.

By and large, however, 'federal' India, during the period 67,was characterized by political homogeneity. The power state, asindeed power in the states, was wielded by the political forcerepresented by the Congress. No great conflict had yet surfacedbetween the captains of industry who envisaged a dominant rolefor the state in the modernization of the economy on the one hand,and on the other, the newly 'rural rich' whose interests in thestates were largely represented by the Pradesh Congress leadersin control of executive power.

During this period, significant economic changes wereintroduced mainly through the instrument of central planningexpansion of industry throughout the country under the a thestate, the widening of the market accompanied by its penetrationof wider and wider sections of the population, the increased scopefor the expansion of private industry in general and small andmedium industries in particular, and the up of the whole of thecountry to entrepreneurs from any it wishing to invest, produceand sell, contributed to a pro economic unification of India and

of giving its rising industrial bourgeoisie a 'national' (asdifferentiated from a sectional, re or partial) identity. The Indiannational bourgeoisie, for it welcomed these changes and theopportunities that they pre for industrial expansion anddiversification.

The agrarian economy of India, also in the throes of far-reaching transformation, however, presented a somewhat differentpicture. Indian agriculture was even more unevenly developedthan Indian industry. The social and political changes requiredto place Indian agriculture on a modem footing were enormousin comparison to the modest beginnings which most Congressgovernments were prepared to contemplate during the first threefive-year plans Even though the days of the pre-capitalist landlordclass of the colonial period were numbered, feudal relations ofproduction continued to exercise sway in many parts of India.28The rise of a new class of more or less 'capitalistically' orientatedrich and middle peasantry (drawn largely from the ranks of the'tenantry' of the colonial era) on the one hand, and on the other,the emergence of a 'wage' conscious landless labour class andpoor peasantry (in place of bonded serfs in a state of perpetualindebtedness) with a potential claim to the land tilled by them,was a slow process, the full dynamic of which had not yet begunto unfold itself.

The drama of subsequent decades, located in a plot dividingthe agrarian and industrial segments of the Indian capitalist classinto mutually antagonistic elements-combining together toconstitute an increasingly fractured ruling class impinging upona rapidly fragmenting political system-was scarcely discernible,except as a distant portent, so long as Congress successfullyappeared to perform the tasks of a ruling umbrella party capableof serving the interests not only of antagonistic classes but alsoof mutually antagonistic segments within the same class. On theeve of the fourth general election (1967), India presented a picture,the main components of which were a considerably more powerfulstate (than at Independence), capable of exercising coercive poweron the mass of the population more or less at will, an economydominated at the national level by the state acting mainly in theinterests of the national bourgeoisie and a rising class of as yet


not strongly differentiated rich and middle peasantry, and a polityin which the intra-party differences of the Congress revolve roundthe question of the relative autonomy of the states within federalframework of the Indian constitution were rapidly yield place toconflicts of a substantial nature between the Congress party onthe one hand, and on the other, the national and regional positionparties belonging to the entire political spectrum from left to theright.

The failure of successive Congress administrations at thecentred in the states to alleviate the harsh economic conditions ofthe of the Indian people led to widespread alienation anddisaffection throughout the country which were reflected in thedisastrous performance of the ruling party in the 1967 generalelection in a number of states and in its much reduced majorityin the Lok Sabha.

Of the several opposition governments which took power inthe sates during the interregnum between the indecisive fourthgeneral election and the much more decisive fifth general election971), the government of Tamil Nadu led by the Dravida MunnetraKazhagam (DMK) party was the first to take on board the, questionof centre-state relations on a political level in a systematic manner.In the other states where the Congress party had lost control,executive power was wielded for brief uncertain periods(interspersed with intervals of President's rule under the Governor)far-flung coalitions. They were inherently unstable by virtue oftheir eclectic political colouration, and their sole purpose seemed..be to keep themselves afloat in the face of the machinations ofCongress party which manifested a decisive proclivity toencouraging defections from almost all non-cadre parties(especially the Hindi-heartland states) with the aid of monetaryand other incentives.

On the left of the political spectrum, the 1964 split of theundivided CPI had the effect of hamstringing the much morepopular CPI(M) in West Bengal, Tripura, and Kerala. For theCPI(M) was, on the one hand, not well placed (especially in WestBengal) to cope with opposition from Naxalites or CommunistParty of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI-M-L) elements withoutunleashing violence and resorting to desperate measures, whilst

on the other, it was unable to prevent the CPI from slipping intothe role of the Trojan horse of the left by edging closer and closerto the new brand of shibboleth socialism that the ruling party waspropagating during the run up to the 1971 general election.

Although the CPI(M) did raise the issue of centre-state relationsduring the 1967-9 United Front experiments in Kerala, West Bengaland Tripura (in which it shared executive power with other parties),its substantive contribution to the debate had been minimal TheRajamannar Report, commissioned by the Tamil Nadugovernment, was the first detailed official document published bya state government to deal with various aspects of the political,financial and economic relations between the centre and states.The ruling party at the centre was much more concerned duringthis period with refurbishing its image in the eyes of the mass ofthe Indian electorate, whilst the Indian state embarked upon astrong programme of containing popular unrest, of destabilizingpopularly elected but opposition-controlled state governments,and of attempting to emasculate and crush left parties in generaland the CPI(M) in particular. The already impressive and farreaching coercive power wielded by the Indian state apparatuswas further augmented in the performance of these repressivetasks by repeatedly invoking the need to safeguard India's unity,integrity, and security from internal and external threats.

The strategy adopted by the leadership of the Congress partyto improve its public standing consisted of provoking an internalsplit aimed at cleansing the organization of the baleful influenceof the so-called 'Syndicate' and entrenching the sway of a catchybrand of pseudo-radical populism championed by those inpositions of influence who favoured a greater centralization ofpower.

It was, in fact, during this period that the practice was begunof the central organization of the party imposing its own nomineesfor the Chief Ministership of Congress-ruled states and of changingtheir incumbents at will. At the same time, the practice ofdemocratic election of office-bearers at various levels within theparty was brought to an indefinite standstill. Thus even thoughthe immediate reason behind the 1969 crisis within the party wasprovided by intra-party differences over who should be the


Congress nominee in the presidential election (1969), theorganizational changes initiated during the 1969-70 period wereto have far reaching effects on the internal working of the Congressparty, on the role of the Indian state in dealing with legitimateopposition, and on the role of the Indian Constitution and themachinery of government established under its provisions.

During the period 1969-75, attempts were made by the centreto clamp down on opposition which manifested itself mainly inthe form of trade union agitation by organized sections of labour,a brief but unconvincing return on the CPI(M)'s part torevolutionary activigr38 after its retreat from the parliamentarypath compelled by the ruthless application of state power againstthe organization and its cadres, and the mass movement (especiallybut not only in Bihar and Gujarat) against corruption under JayaPrakash Narayan's leadership.

Compared to these large-scale manifestations of discontent,the challenge-already watered down in content and portent dueto years of less than incorruptible exercise of power, to say theleast-posed by a regional opposition party in control of executivepower in a single state (DMK of Tamil Nadu) was negligible. Thecentre under the Congress party and the Tamil Nadu state underDMK had become habituated to a regimen of co-existence withoutwires being crossed between the two sides about the extent ofleeway a state could expect from the centre. All thisnotwithstanding the political wisdom enshrined in the celebratedRajamannar Report.

The impetus for the Indian Emergency (1975-7) was thusderived not from any contradiction between the differentinstruments of federal power representing the centre and thestates, but predominantly from political challenges that sprangfrom outside the confines of government and which wereinterpreted by the Indian state as a threat to its integrity andsecurity rather than as demands for a new democratic mandatefor the control of its power. The full impact of the Emergency canonly be understood against a background of three relatedconsiderations. First, with the success of the green revolution,powerful political forces rose to the surface in a number of regionswhich represented the interests of the 'rural rich', more specifically

the rich peasantry and the middle peasantry. Whilst the Congressparty was in a position to put itself forward as the champion ofthe interests of the rich and middle peasant classes through theranks of its regional elites, its influence among these classes wasbeing eroded for two major reasons:

(1) The centre came under increasing pressure from industrialcapital to release some of the surplus derived fromagriculture for furthering the industrialization andmodernization of the Indian economy. With theachievement of self-sufficiency in food, it was argued, thebalance between industrial capital and agricultural capitalshould be reconstituted by government policy at the statelevel aimed at reducing grants, keeping down procurementprices and introducing a measure of agricultural taxation.

(2) The rural poor (and in particular, landless labourers andpoor peasants), largely consisting of low caste people andMuslims, who looked up to the Congress party which theysupported in elections, bore the brunt of local oppressionby landowning castes whose interests were served by theruling party as well as several regionally based oppositionparties. Over a period of time, the rural poor becamedisenchanted with the Congress as well as with other non-left regional parties. Except in Kerala, West Bengal andTripura where the CPI and CPI(M) had shown themselvescapable of introducing limited but enlightened land reform,and in Karnataka where the relative lack of entrenchedrich peasant power enabled the Congress Chief MinisterDevraj Urs to implement (during the 1970s) a liberal landand agricultural policy, the plight of the poor peasantryand landless labourers rapidly worsened throughout Indiain an economic atmosphere of downward differentiationleading to an expansion of the ranks of agricultural (andespecially landless) labourers. The Emergency simplyadded a new dimension of state oppression and tyrannyto the economic and social oppression that they sufferedin their daily lives. All the more ironic, in view of thegovernment's claim in its 20-point (and Sanjay Gandhi'sfive-point) justification of the Emergency that it was solely


inspired by concern for the welfare of the poor andoppressed.

Moreover, the 1969 split, far from healing the rift within theCongress, simply had the effect of opening the floodgates offactionalism, groupism and dissidence even wider. In order todeal with the process of internal disintegration and the momentumrapidly gained by the growing contradiction within the partybetween those in control of state power (for example the centralleadership personified in the Prime Minister) on the one hand,and on the other, the Pradesh-level leaders, power wasconcentrated in the hands of a coterie which enjoyed the confidenceof the Prime Minister and her family.

The Pradesh Congress organizations were pitted againstopposition parties (for example, the Bharatiya Kranti Dal [BKD]and its various subsequent fragmentations and transmogrifications)which put themselves forward as champions of the rich andmiddle peasant classes in their struggle against a centre eager toseize the political opportunity to compel them to agree to a policyof transferring surplus from agriculture to industry by reversingthe terms of trade between the two sectors of the economy. Theywere also confronting the central Congress leadership which tookadvantage of endemic dissidence within the ruling party to imposeits own nominees as Chief Ministers of Congress-ruled stategovernments and leaders of the various Pradesh Congressorganizations.

The Pradesh Congress organizations were thus underminedand their leaders (with individual exceptions) lost touch with themass of the people. At the same time, money power became asubstitute for mass contact. A huge parallel economy fuelled byblack market money became the engine through which such abasic transformation of the Congress organization was achievedin such a brief period of time. Several leaders who had a talentfor making the right contacts with black market barons emergedwithin the organization resulting in support for the governmentbeing purchased rather than won by argument and persuasion.The Indian state did little to curb the black economy which, fromthe early 1970s onwards, had become the demi-goddess presidingover the fortunes of the ruling party of the government.

Further, the literature on political developments in India rightlylays stress on the enormous increase in the coercive power of thestate during the last quarter of a century and the consequentundermining of democratic processes, values and elementaryliberties guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. At the sametime, popular democratic resistance to the government's arbitrarypolitical behaviour has also markedly increased during the lasttwo decades, though it is not invariably manifested in a concertedmanner except when electoral opportunities become availableEstablished political parties including cadre-based organizationshad failed to provide adequate leadership in channeling populardiscontent in a democratic and constructive manner. However,during the Emergency, they did take part in a joint organizeddemocratic resistance4 to the central government's arbitrary rulewhich spread far beyond the confll1es of party-based action tomass-based opposition. The success of such a general strategy ofopposing the emergency was reflected in the resounding defeatsuffered by the ruling party at the center and in a majority of thestates in the general and state legislative assembly elections h in1977.

Centre-state relations, during the 1969-77 period, werepractically reduced to a state of near non-existence as a problemsof federal politics in India. Unitarism triumphed under the aegisof a strong state whose power was controlled by a ruling partywhich had lost its democratic mainspring. Centre-state relationswere, at Independence, orchestrated in accordance with anequilibrium model in which politically homogeneous states onone hand and the centre on the other acted as countervailed forcesin the evolution of a powerful post-colonial state. At end of theEmergency and on the eve of the 1977 general elections however,they had undergone a paradigm shift characterized a puissantcentre presiding over a federation of thoroughly feeble states.

The Indian state itself was no longer controlled by a popularmass party functioning through a complex and reticulatedorganization but by a clique of powerful elements which couldrelied upon to strike terror among potential opponents of newbrand of politics. The 1977 elections exposed the shallowness ofthe achievements of the Congress as the ruling party a helped


reverse the process of paradigmatic shift described in a section bystrengthening democratic opposition to the regime and once againbringing out the question of centre-state relation into the open asone of fundamental importance, for the future of the Indian state.

The 1977 general election provided the first occasion for thetransfer of the control of state power from the Congress party theloose-knit Janata coalition representing a variety of ruling classinterests50 without putting on an artificial gloss of homogeneity.to cover their disparateness and contradictions. Even though thenew ruling coalition, unlike the Congress party, was both or-ganizationally and ideologically weak, it did preside over a state,which had become immensely strengthened during the previousthree decades.

Despite its impressive majority in the Lok Sabha, Janata'sgrasp of state power was, however, severely compromised by itslack of political clout and by the chronic inability of its ageingleaders to unite together on a positive programme. The abruptchange from an autocratic unitarist to an entropic polyglot patternof wielding state power was accompanied by centrifugal tendenciesplaguing the very heart of the political system in its day-to-dayfunctioning.

Yet the new leaders (who were uncompromisingly'constitutionalist' in their determination to restore the primacy ofparliamentary institutions and their practices-in spirit as in letter)shared the political orientation of their predecessors on the questionof centre-state relations. They were not basically sympathetic todemands for increased autonomy from the states except in certainwell-defined spheres, and certainly not when they were couchedin combative political terms. Their grounds for believing that astrong centre and weak states did not represent an unhealthycombination were similar to the arguments advanced by theCongress party when it was in power.

The sudden removal of the Congress party from the centre,followed by the election of a number of state governments led byparties other than the Congress 54 breathed new life into thequestion of centre-state relations which had been put underconstitutional sedation following the systematic destabilizationby the centre and the Congress party of the non-Congress state

governments during the period 1967-70. The resurgence of interestin this question in post-Emergency India was manifested in threedifferent forms.

(1) States in which there was a strong tradition of Congressrule, where its popularity had not suffered during theEmergency, found themselves on the defensive for thefirst time since Independence. Their governmentsattempted to raise the question of the autonomy of statesby protesting against imagined encroachments by thecentre which was under the control of the traditionalopposition forces. The very act of restoring the Constitutionto its pre-1975 condition by the new government at thecentre was criticized by the Congress Chief Ministers ofthe soud1ern states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh,and by the Pradesh Congress organizations as a deliberateattempt to curtail state autonomy. In the event, not muchpolitical mileage could be derived from such protests.

(2) Following Janata's landslide victory in the 1977 generalelection, a number of non-Congress governments wonmajorities in the state assembly elections that followed inits wake in many states. Janata, CPI(M)-led United LeftFront (ULF) and other governments took control ofexecutive power based on substantial majorities in theassemblies. In putting the centre-state relations issue backon the political agenda, the leaders of these new rulingparties/coalitions were seeking not to confront the centrebut rather to raise a number of crucial questions affectingeconomic development. 58 In other words, the questionof centre-state relations was raised by a number of stategovernments as a means of readjusting the relationsbetween the two sides and of achieving a modus vivendithat would take account of genuine economic and politicalgrievances. Despite the new Prime Minister's personalreluctance to depart from his predecessor's general line onthe subject, the Janata government-itself new to the art ofwielding political power and accustomed much more toan oppositional than to a governmental role was, by andlarge, prepared to accommodate these pressures mainly


by a return to the Constitution and by reactivating suchinstruments as the National Development Council (NDC).The Janata government also reviewed the process ofplanning, specifically with the aim of bringing about amutually acceptable readjustment of fiscal allocations bythe centre to the states, and of initiating agriculturalprocurement policies from a much more differentiatedperspective than that to which the centre had beenaccustomed in the past under successive Congress PrimeMinisters.

(3) From the perspective of centralists/unitarists, agitationfor greater political autonomy for the states assumed itsmost dangerous form whenever it was advanced in thename of more or less direct mass democratic politicalparticipation of aggrieved segments of the people. Thusin the Punjab, in Jammu and Kashmir, in Assam, and inseveral of the north-eastern states, pressure for a radicalreordering of centre-state relations did not arise duringthis period (1977-84) from political parties/coalitions incontrol of state governments as such. Rather, it arose frompowerful political movements enjoying a degree of masspopularity which they were in a position to augment bycarrying the banner of political protest and by raisingdemands of a basic nature which would have been stifledin the past by a powerful centre on the grounds that stateson India's periphery were specially sensitive and vulnerableto foreign penetration and infiltration.

During the Janata interregnum, these popularly based forcesseriously reared their heads for the first time with the covertencouragement of Congress-whose main aim was to expose thepolitical weakness of the Janata, to undermine it by exploiting itsinner contradictions, and to bring its rule to an end by whatevermeans available.

In the Punjab, the Congress-I strategy took the form ofsupporting Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a fundamentalist Trojanhorse within the political sphere of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)and the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC).As a result, the SAD-led government (1977-80) was successfully

destabilized more or less simultaneously with the bringing downof the Janata itself.

It is important to note that the Janata party in particular andthe Janata government as a whole were deeply opposed to thefundamentalist Sikh political forces which gave an entirely newtwist not only to the spirit of the Ananadpur Sahib resolution, butalso to the question of state autonomy itself. They were equallydisapproving of the Assam students' movement and of populistmovements such as the Mizoram National Front (MNF). But unlikethe Indira Gandhi (Mark I) government (in its 1969-7 phase)which deployed all the political and governmental power at itscommand to thwart such movements, the Janata coalition founditself too much at odds internally to be able to give attention tothese new tensions and contradictions entering the picture (centre-state relations in the aftermath of the ruling Congress party'sdefeat.

When Congress-I was returned to power in 1980 under IndiraGandhi (Mark II), the crises which it had helped keep stoked uwhen it was out of power had already become firmly embeddedin the political life of the country. My aim here is to outline thestrategy adopted by the new Congress-I government to deal witcentre-state tensions during its four years in power.

The Janata was a weak and badly organized political coalitionwhich accidentally gained control over an extremely powerfulstate. The weakness of the ruling coalition during the 1977interregnum was reflected in the reduced effectiveness of the statein dealing with political tensions and conflicts. By the same tokenwhen the Congress-I took power, its hold over the state wasqualitatively different from what it had been under the IndiraGandhi (Mark I) government.

Democratic opposition in different forms, once given apowerful voice not only by parties other than the Congress-Ienjoyed executive power in certain states, but also by mass-basedopposition movements challenging the centre's right to limit thedemocratic rights of the people, could 110 longer be stifled.Congress was returned to power by an electorate which foundJanata wanting, but which had by no means forgotten theEmergency forgiven its perpetrators. There was no doubt in 1980


that if Congress-I government was elected as a lesser evil and notas popular alternative to the Janata.

The reinheritance of state power by the Congress-I in 1980was marked by two other major shifts in Indian politics. First, theagricultural bourgeoisie had emerged as a formidable nation-Iforce capable of claiming a share of central state power. It wasno longer to be confirmed to the narrower limits of state politicChowdhury Charan Singh, as caretaker Prime Minister Qu1 1979-January 1980) became the political symbol of the insisted demandsin favour of a shift in the terms of trade between industrial andagriculture which had gathered momentum during the mid 1970s.Even though it was not yet in a position to sustain itself in controlof the commanding heights of state power, the agriculture andbourgeois class had so successfully entrenched itself in the statestructures that no ruling party (including Congress-I) could affordto underestimate its importance. The increased political restiveness of a number of state governments-not limited only to thosegoverned by opposition parties but also extending to suchimportant Congress-I-ruled states as Maharashtra-should beviewed as a reminder that India's agricultural bourgeoisie hascome to stay as a dominant class force with considerable potentialfor national cohesion in the foreseeable future.

Second, during its brief tenure, the Janata government, releasefrom the stranglehold of its predecessor's socialist shibboleths andslogans, embarked upon the second stage of the Indian state's taskof strengthening capitalist development in India. It took theinitiative to open up the Indian manufacturing industry to powerfulthrusts of foreign and multinational capital under the guidanceof George Fernandes, the 'socialist' Minister for Industries. Thetask of financing the engines of capitalist development of thegigantic, but nevertheless chronically dependent, Indian economywould, the Janata government believed, require substantialparticipation of foreign capital.

Whilst eager to continue the Janata policy of encouragingforeign capital in Indian industry, the Indira Gandhi (Mark II)government was unable to reverse the democratic political trendsset in the country as a consequence of the re-emergence of self-confidence among different (and especially the relatively deprived)

segments of the ruling class and its supporters among the petit-bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia (as well as organized labor duringthe 1977-80 interval.

Notwithstanding attempts made by the Indira Gandhi (MarkII) administration to reintroduce the Emergency by the backdoor,indecision and drift were the characteristic features of its policytowards the various regionally based opposition parties andpopular movements in different parts of India. The Prime Ministercontinued to espouse the view that opposition to the centre wasipso facto against the interest and integrity of the nation. But theruling party which controlled state power was far too riven byinternal dissension (the main feature being the revolt of theagricultural middle classes) and by conflicts appearing in theseemingly menacing guise of protests by different nationalities,to prevent the creeping paralysis of the system of conflictmanagement that a democratic polity backed by a powerful stateought to be in a position to wheel into action.

Paradoxically, the centralizing and autocratic approachadopted by the Indian government to centre-state relations andto such regionally based opposition to the centre as the Assamstudents' movement, as exemplified in a repeated resort toPresident's rule in the offending states, had the effect of exposingthe limitations of deploying the main force in the form of anunbridled use of the coercive power of the state apparatus in orderto stifle democratic dissent. At the same time, not only was theCongress-I severely defeated in a series of state legislative assemblyelections during the period 1982-4, but also essentiallydemocratically organized opposition to the centre in such statesas the Punjab, Assam, and Jammu and Kashmir quickly acquiredan overlay of communalism and 'extremist' violence. OperationBluestar and the eventual assassination of the Prime Minister thusappeared as the obverse and reverse of the same coin.

Indira Gandhi's efforts to restore the balance of influence incentre-state conflicts in favour of the centre failed because she wasnot willing to change her political methods of the early 1970s inthe changed socio-economic circumstances of the 1980s. The Janatacoalition had an adequate understanding of the tensions brewingin the relations between the national industrial bourgeoisie and


the agricultural bourgeoisie which could only be resolved byloosening the political grip of the centre over the states and byestablishing a broad consensus between the different opposingsegments of the ruling class dominating different spheres of theeconomy and in acute competition with each other for resourcesfor development. Its failure lay in its inability to build a rulingpolitical party capable of reflecting such a consensus as analternative to the Congress party.

The failure of the Indira Gandhi (Mark II) government lay inthe fact that the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge the needfor a coalition between the agricultural and industrial (as well asother) segments of the dominant class, preferring instead animmobilized state to a centre in which different interests wouldbe reflected as they manifested themselves at the level of the stateand in society at large. In an epoch demanding power-sharingbetween competing segments of the ruling class, the anomalouspolitical behaviour of the Indira Gandhi (Mark II) governmentresulted in a petrifaction of the centre's resources for compromiseand consensus.

Rajiv Gandhi's government (from 1985) has not departed fromthe style of functioning of the Indira Gandhi (Mark IT) government;however, its instinctive understanding of the social and economicforces at odds with one another in the Indian polity is somewhatmore pragmatic and less rigid than that of its predecessor. Thedevelopment of centre-state relations during the present periodmust be viewed within a larger framework of the major tensionsand contradictions of contemporary Indian society.

Under the Rajiv Gandhi government, the rhetoric of forgingahead into the twenty-first century is being used to justify in-egalitarian policies as well as an economic strategy directed towardsan expansion of industrial capacity and towards increasing theresilience of industrial capital. Whilst the economic trend set in1977 of injecting significant amounts of international andmultinational capital has been given an additional fillip by thepresent government, the Janata government's policy of even-handed treatment of the industrial and agricultural bourgeoisieno longer fits in with its general economic orientation. The needsof the agricultural bourgeoisie-a crucial class rooted in the states-

which are committed to a general policy of modernization,expansion of its productive base, and a more rapid reproductionof capital in its sphere (all with the continued aid of the state) canno longer be given the same importance as those of the industrialbourgeoisie.

It is a characteristic feature of the Indian political economythat agricultural and industrial capital cannot, in the long run,expand simultaneously within an indigenous framework. Eachsegment of the bourgeoisie would inevitably regard thepreponderant development of the other as taking place at itsexpense. In recent years this trend has been increasingly discernible.

Dependent capitalist development under acutely unevenconditions of development of production relations cannot takeplace without giving rise, in the long run, to conflicts betweendifferent segments of capital or without transforming existingintra-ruling class conflicts from a basically non-antagonistic to anincreasingly antagonistic state. But in adopting Rajiv Gandhi asits most favourite candidate to date for piloting the ship of stateinto the future, the industrial bourgeoisie of India may have beenprematurely confident of the potential for growth inherent inIndian capital and of its own capacity to withstand, even with theaid of state power, the vigorous onslaught of the rural rich thatis bound to follow sooner than might be anticipated. It is againstthis general background that centre-state relations during thefinal phase of this discussion must be viewed.

Since its accession to power under Rajiv Gandhi's leadership,Congress-I has had to face sixteen state legislative assemblyelections. Of these, ten states went to the polls within six monthsof the eighth general election (1985). State legislative assemblyelections in the Punjab (1985), Assam (1986) and Mizoram (1987)were called on the basis of accords signed between the governmentat the centre and leaders of popular movements based in thestates. Of the three most recent state legislative assembly elections(March 1987), those in West Bengal and Kerala were regularquinquennial ones required under the Constitution. The electionin Jammu and Kashmir took place after a brief interruption ofPresident's rule during which a deal had been hammered outbetween the National Conference (NC) (led by Farooq Abdullahf


and the Congress-I. These developments throw into bold reliefthree trends of importance for the future of centre state relationsin India.

In the heartland states and in the states in peninsular India,the Congress-I's strategy of frightening the electorate by meansof warnings that state governments controlled by parties otl1erthan Congress-I could be starved of development resources wascounter-productive to varying degrees. The sense of disgruntlementof local elites (predominantly rural in character, with some linkswith the wider economy through small industrial enterprises,especially in the south) laced with popular support for 'democratic'values (in the given context) led to opposition parties beingreturned to power with comfortable majorities. In Uttar Pradeshand Bihar, the Dalit Mazdoor Kisan Party (DMKP) emerged as asubstantial force on the opposition benches of the legislative'assembly with the Congress-I in a majority.

In Maharashtra, the People's Democratic Front (PDF), acoalition representing powerful agrarian interests, established itselfas substantial presence in the assembly, though not in a majority,after a successful campaign demanding crop protection insuranceby the state and better procurement prices for jowar and cotton.the Congress-I's two-pronged strategy of dealing with a potentialcrisis in Maharashtra consisted of replacing the locally chosencompromise candidate for Chief Minister's post by a more powerfulfigure from the central cabinet and of wooing Congress-S, themost influential segment of PDF, back into the Congress-I fold.

The case of Maharashtra also illustrates a fundamentalweakness f the political organization of the Congress-I. We havealready voted that the erosion of internal democracy was animportant 'actor in the debilitation of the ruling party in a numberof states. central dictation as to who should be Chief Minister aswell as the arbitrary removal and replacement of elected andincumbent chief Ministers of the Congress-I-ruled states withlightning rapidity and without proper consultation have sharpenedthe contrast between them and the states in which executivepower is held by opposition parties which invariably functionaccording to well recognized democratic principles, practices andprocedures.

The second broad trend relates to tensions arising in state:closely linked to the heartland where a political backlash ha:affected the relations between the different segments of the regionalelite. In Gujarat, for example, where the numerical proportionbetween 'forward' and 'backward' classes/castes80 is man balancedthan that prevailing in states such as Tamil Nadu, say the policyof showing positive discrimination towards 'backward' castes,pursued by successive Congress governments of the state, wasbelieved by 'forward' castes to have resulted in unfair disadvantageto them over the years in the spheres of education, employment,social welfare, etc.

The movement led by the late Jayaprakash Narayan duringthe mid-1970s against government corruption caught on in a bigway in Gujarat. After the Emergency, however, fresh agitation forsocial and economic justice was mounted by the socially 'forward'but by then deeply aggrieved castes. Their leaders claimed that'forward' castes had indeed been rendered economically 'backward'as a result of three decades of Congress governments' policyaffecting their interests.

The central government, led successively by Janata, IndiraGandhi's Congress-I, and Rajiv Gandhi's Congress-I has beenunable to deal with this intra-elite strife in Gujarat in an effectivemanner because of the fear that (1) a reversal of the policy of'reservation' under pressure would be a cure worse than the diseasebecause well-entrenched political and socio-economic forcesrepresenting the interests of 'backward' castes/classes would beup in arms81 and (2) Gujarat is not alone in facing the problemof the imbalances where decades of working a policy of 'reservation'has come home to roost in the form of new pressures whichcannot be satisfactorily dealt with by a mechanical reversal ofexisting policy.

The case of Gujarat is of particular significance in view of thefact that its relations with the centre have always been close, evenas its influence on the national economy has been considerable.

But the ruling Congress-I, which was returned to power inthe state legislative assembly election with a sizeable majority, idso completely miscalculated the mood of the middle class elementsbelonging to the 'forward' castes, that its administration IS brought


to a halt by strikes and social clashes within weeks assumingpower.

The centre's response to the crisis in Gujarat s to change theChief Minister rather than to give political leadership by tacklingthe question of 'reservation' in a sensitive manner. Thus eventhough Gujarat poses no great threat to the existing scheme offederal relationships in India, it illustrates the practically intractablenature of the socio-economic tensions and contradictions that canemerge under the specific conditions of adjusting political powerrelationships between unequally developed segments of rulingelites exemplified in the context of this discussion.

To the third tier of development of centre-state relations incontemporary India belongs the far more complicated questionsled by those states in which the economic logic of protest is overlaid by a clearly augmented consciousness of cultural, communal,linguistic, jurisprudentially and other forms of neglect on e partof the Indian state.

At the present moment, Punjab and, Assam clearly belong tothis category, but the states on India's periphery (for exampleJammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states such as Mizoram)are equally susceptible to such pressures. Such social and culturalaspects of their role accrue to these peoples as minorities or separatenationalities (not to be confused with 'nations')86 and they canonly be brought into the mainstream by taking cognizance of theirsusceptibilities which have been suppressed by a stepping up ofcoercion on the part of the state apparatus.

The Rajiv Gandhi government's initiatives in respect of thePunjab question have, to date, wavered between extending the /live branch of conciliation to the aggrieved Sikh community in thehope of isolating Sikh 'extremists' on the one hand, and on theother, lapsing into a continuation of the repressive policyorientation of the Indira Gandhi (Mark II) government.

The Longowal-Rajiv Gandhi accord (1985) seemed to open afresh chapter of healing the rupture between the centre and thestate of Punjab based on a serious attempt on the former's partto remove the political, social and economic grievances embodiedin the Anandpur Sahib resolution of the SAD. But the Akali Dal

government which took power in September 1985 received noreal support from the centre which was content to blame thepopularly elected state government for the persistence of terrorismand of tension and conflict between the Sikh and Hinducommunities. Not a single undertaking by the centre outlined inthe Longowal-Rajiv Gandhi accord was carried out.

Apart from the centre's belief that the administration of Punjabcould not be left entirely in the hands of the government dulyelected for the purpose, 8 it was subject to enormous pressurefrom elements within Congress-I, particularly in neighboringHaryana89 (and, to a lesser degree, Rajasthan) which successfullyfrustrated even the tentative moves which the Indian governmentappeared to be ready to initiate in relation to the demands ofPunjab.

The Punjab situation deteriorated despite Chief MinisterBarnala's determination to sustain the credibility and viability ofthe SAD government until, finally, the centre dismissed it (May1987) on the ground that it was no longer capable of restoring lawand order. In fact, however, the immediate motivation fordismissing the popularly elected government of Punjab andimposing President's rule lay in the fact that the state legislativeassembly election in Haryana was fast approaching in which theCongress I would have to acquit itself well if the massive erosionof the popularity of the Rajiv Gandhi government as signified inthe results of the March 1987 state legislative assemblies' electionsin different parts of India was to be staunched.

The Punjab and Assam crises point out different dimensionsof the question of centre-state relations. In Punjab, the maindifficulty arose from the Sikh view of the link between politics andreligion on the one hand, and on the other, the reluctance of theHindus to identify themselves primarily as Punjabis rather thanas a part of the Hindu mainstream of India. The crisis engulfingAssam arose out of the indigenous Assamese population feelingoutnumbered and marginalized in its own home ground. To somedegree the problem faced by the Assamese in relation to theBengalis and Bangladeshis has also been experienced by thedifferent 'tribal' peoples of the north-east in relation to non-tribalsettlers in their midst.


By 1973, the proportion of indigenous Assamese to the totalpopulation of the state had dropped by over 20 per cent to wellbelow 50 per cent, spreading alarm among a population which,only in 1967, had achieved a new stability with the formation ofMeghalaya. The formation of Bangladesh, far from allaying thefears of the indigenous population, aroused anxiety afresh witheach successive wave of Bangladeshi immigration into Assam.

The ruling party at the centre and in Assam was unconcernedabout the impact of this massive influx of Bengali Muslims for theunderstandable reason that they, in contrast to the Assameseinhabitants of the Brahmaputra valley (in the upper reaches ofAssam), could be relied upon to give electoral support to theCongress.

But the resulting social disruption posed a threat to thecommunally organized agrarian economy of the state because thenew immigrants who were accustomed to radically differentmethods of cultivation sought to establish themselves on the landthat they cultivated as individual owners.

The defeat of the Congress party in the state legislativeassembly election in 1978 was followed by the emergence of amass movement, led by the students, highlighting Assamesegrievances. It focused attention on one main demand arising outof a grievance going back to the 1960s. Declaring that the EastPakistan/Bangladeshi immigrants were 'foreign' nationals, thestudent movement demanded that they should be repatriated totheir 'homeland' or sent to any other part of India. The Janatagovernment of the state (1978-80) was paralyzed by strikes,blockades, and demonstrations, which evoked massive supportfrom the population.

When the Indira Gandhi (Mark II) administration took power,the Janata administration in Assam was summarily dismissed. Itsplace was taken by a much less popular Congress-I administrationwhich was defeated in the legislature within a short time. Thestate could not be governed by the centrally appointed bureaucratswho stepped into the political vacuum resulting from the collapseof elected government. The student-led movements continued todemand that the Assamese people and not the centre had the right

to disenfranchise 'foreign nationals' in the state as a prelude toexpulsion. A constitutional imbroglio of unparalleled intensitywas thus injected into the very heart of the dispute between thecentre and the state of Assam. Even though the central governmentmaintained a pretence of keeping negotiations alive with thestudent leaders, the Prime Minister was unwilling to resolve thedispute in a spirit of accommodation.

The state legislative assembly election, called in February1983, ended in widespread mayhem and murder. A governmentof questionable legitimacy was installed in power in a politicalatmosphere which reeked of divisions between Assamese and'tribals', Assamese and Bengalis, Hindus and Muslims, and Hindusand Christians.

The Rajiv Gandhi government's approach to the Assamquestion appeared to be at least as positive in character as itsPunjab initiative.

The new Prime Minister seemed to appreciate that in orderto maintain the status quo in broad terms in the country as awhole, the national 'ruling classes' ought to share state power withpolitical forces dominant in the various regions.

The Assam accord was signed in an improved atmosphere asa prelude to a fresh state legislative assembly election.99 It isworth noting that the original demands of the student leaderswhich had been rejected by the Indira Gandhi (Mark II) governmenton the grounds that they were constitutionally impertinent andinjurious to India's integrity were accepted by the Rajiv Gandhigovernment on purely pragmatic considerations.

By thus distancing itself from the lame duck Congress-Igovernment, on the eve of the 1985 state assembly election, thecentre weakened its already enfeebled position even further. InOctober 1985, the student movement gave birth to the Asom GanaParishad (AGP), the first regional party in Assam's history whichcame to power on a platform emphasizing its simultaneouslynational and regional character.

The communal polarization of the state had reached suchserious proportions that the new government was obliged to beginits career cautiously under the careful scrutiny of the All Assam


Students' Union (AASU) which has kept its identity entirelyseparate from that of AGP.

During the last seventeen months of its existence, the AGPgovernment has not been signally successful in gaining thecooperation of the centre in the implementation of the AssamAccord, especially with reference to the 'foreigners issue'. Withthe centre far too slow to respond to these pressures and theAASU radicalizing rapidly on the issues underlying the tensionsengulfing Assam since the mid-1970s, the AGP government haslost a good deal of its initial momentum As in the Punjab, so tooin Assam the centre has been caught in a contradiction betweenan awareness of the need to enlist the cooperation of regionalelites and an unwillingness to modify the centralist orientation ofthe Indian state to which the Indian government has long becomehabituated.

During the last four decades, independent India has undergonea transformation from a homogeneous polity in which power wasshared between the centre and the states under the control of theruling Congress party into one in which control is shared betweena centre which has continued to be governed by the Congressparty and the states in which a variety of different parties (ofwhich the Congress-I is one) have won executive power in thelegislative assemblies.

A vigorous and determined effort on the part of the IndiraGandhi (Mark I) government to prevent this change from settingin by destabilizing non-Congress state governments and imposingthe central leadership's writ on Congress-controlled stategovernments in an arbitrary manner failed. But the Indian statehas continued to grow in power and has been able to increase itscoercive capacity steadily throughout the post-Independencephase.

Since the end of the Emergency, attempts have been under-way to accommodate the horizontal conflicts between the twomain I segments of the ruling class (namely, the national industrialbourgeoisie and the regional bourgeoisie, mainly but notexclusively rural in character). These have resulted in theemergence of fairly stable regional parties well entrenched in a

number of states, in a strengthening of national parties such asthe CPI(M) and Janata in certain states, and in enhancing theinfluence of the rural element in the agriculturally importantstates where Congress control of the state legislative assembly isbecoming predicated more and more on its capacity to collaborateand to share power with its competitors. India may well be onthe verge of a new era of power having in which, despite newuncertainties over the correct constitutional relationship betweenthe elected representatives in control of state power on the onehand and the indirectly elected President on the other, powerfulstates can benefit from a strong Indian state controlled at thecentre by a coalition of parties representing diverse ruling classinterests.

Indian Government and Politics Problems in Centre-state Relations32 33

(called the United States of America) they gave it that is to thefederation-only such powers and functions as were considered bythem absolutely necessary to make the federation work and topromote the interest of the people most effectively and promptly.There was, therefore, a good deal of negotiations, bargainingadjustment and compromise before the Constitution was finallyagreed upon and implemented. Only limited powers were givento the federation and the residue of powers was vested in thefederating states, that is, the powers that were not given to thefederal Government and were not explicitly denied to thefederating states resided with them, that is, with the states.

India a Union of States and not a Federation-Why

In India, the situation in which the federal polity was createdwas different from what it prevailed hi America. Here, there wereno independent sovereign political entities feeling any compulsionis necessity to get together and create a new federal authority. Itwas an outside authority-the British Parliament-that decided toset up, by indirect elections, a Constituent Assembly to frame aConstitution 1m India, and it was this Assembly that drafted andadopted the Constitution on 19 November 1949. I

The framers of the Constitution were influenced, in their task,by a variety of factors. The first was, of course, the status of IreProvinces into which the country stood divided on the eveConstitution-making. These Provinces were not independentsovereign entities. They were, rather, administered on a unitarybasis Government of India headed by a British Governor-General.Although autonomy was introduced in the Governors' Provincesunder the Government of India Act, 1935, the' powers of theCouncil m Ministers and Provincial Legislatures were considerablycircumscribed by the "special responsibilities" of the Governorswho were, in the discharge of those "responsibilities," responsibleto the Governor General and not to the Provincial Assemblies. TheChief Commission' Provinces were under the direct administrativecontrol of the Government General. Thus, whatever powers werebeing enjoyed by the Provinces had been delegated to them bysome superior and central authority. In such a situation, theycould not have any decisive voice in the distribution of financial,

2PROBLEMS IN CENTRE-STATE

RELATIONS

INTRODUCTION

In the last chapter, you have seen the impact of center staterelations on Indian politics, now you will see the problems incenter-state relations. This discussion centers on problems mainlycreated by the distortion of constitutional laws and politicallymotivated.

In the realm of modern constitutional governments federationswere formed by and among sovereign independent states whenthose states realised that they had some common interest, objectivesand purposes which could be promoted and safeguarded betterif they all joined hands. When and where such a realizationoccurred, the states concerned entered into a covenant and created,by the terms of that covenant a new state they called the 'federal'state. The powers, functions and responsibilities of governancewere divided between the federating units and the federation.While making this division the federating units were influencedby the economic and political conditions prevailing at the time thefederation was created and by the circumstances under which itwas created. In the modem period, 'a federation was set up forthe first time by the thirteen Colonies, situated on the Atlanticcoast of North America, which fought their War of independenceagainst Great Britain, and which, after becoming independent in1783, decided to transform themselves into a federation.

When those Colonies met in a convention in 1787 atPhiladelphia to frame a Constitution for the new federal State


a large number of independent states in Asia and Africa in thenear future and the question of their economic reconstruction anddevelopment were issues that presented big challenges and calledfor concerted efforts. These could not be met if India were weak,divided or involved in something like a civil strife. In order toavoid all these, it was considered vital that the Central Governmentshould be strong and powerful.

Because of these considerations the framers of the Constitutiondid not, anywhere in the Constitution, use the word "federation";they preferred to describe India a Union of states. Federation wassomething in the nature of a contract implying equal or almostequal status for all the parties, but the framers of the Constitutionhad no such status for the states in their mind. They did dividegovernmental power between the Centre and the states and madethe states autonomous in their own sphere, but the states wereto exercise that autonomy within the framework of the over-allsuperiority and predominance of the Centre. If and when therewas a conflict between the two, the States were obliged to submit.

Presenting the draft Constitution before the ConstituentAssembly Dr B.R. Ambedkar said: "It establishes a dual politywith the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery, eachendowed with sovereign power to be exercised in the field assignedto, them built Constitution. The Union is not a league of states,united in a loose relationship, nor are the states the agencies ofthe Union deriving powers from it Both the Union and the statesare created by the Constitution; both derive their respectiveauthority from the Constitution. The one is not subordinate to theother in its own field: the authority of the one is coordinate withthat of the other." He; in fact concluded that the Indian Constitutionwould be "both unitary as well as federal according to therequirements of the time and circumstances."

N.V. Gadgil, a member of the Constituent Assembly, said: "Idoubt whether there is a single individual either here or outside,Oil, party here or outside which has stood or stands: for acompletely Unitary State." K.M. Munshi, a distinguished statesmanand member of the Constituent Assembly, held the.view that theConstituent made.India "a quasi-federal Union invested withseveral important features of a unitary government." In the State

legislative and administrative powers, 'Ii: Princely states were, ofcourse, given under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the rightto accede to the Indian Dominion on a "negotiated basis," but theirgeographical, political and financial situation mal" it well-nighimpossible for them to enter into much negotiations, As such, theframers of the Constitution were free to grant them the powersand authority which they considered necessary and proper.

More important than the status of the Provinces and theprincely states was the question of the integrity arid stability ofthe CI the years to come. India was a vast and populous countrywith deep diversities of races, religions, languages, traditions,cultures and regions, and all of them were contending forrecognition and languages, traditions, cultures and regions, andall of them were contending for recognition and growth. Thecentrifugal forces had always been strong in the country's history,and these did not die down with the attainment of Independence.The Constitution-makers, many of whom were distinguishedhistorians, jurists and farsighted statesmen, perceived the vitalneed of a strong Central government which would keep in checkthose disintegrating forces. and safeguard the solidarity,sovereignty and integrity of the country. The problems created bysome of the big Princely states and the terms and conditionspresented by the Chamber of Princes to negotiate their accessionto the Dominion of India firmed up the thinking of the Constitution-makers that India should have a strong and powerful governmentat the Centre.

The third factor uppermost in the mind of Constitution-makerswas that the function and responsibilities of modern welfare Statewere so vast and complex and the plans of economic reconstructionand development were so much inter-dependent that only a CentralGovernment equipped with sufficient resources and authoritycould discharge them with speed and success.

The founding-fathers of the Constitution were also consciousof the vast responsibilities and obligations which a free Indiawould have to undertake in the international arena. Theestablishment of the United Nations and numerous SpecializedAgencies, the commencement of the Cold War between the SovietUnion and the United States, the possibility of the emergence of


applicability. This provision appeared to be superfluous, becauseParliament should not, and would not enact a law which it couldnot get enforced, and obviously the laws passed by Parliamentcould not be enforced outside the territory of the Indian Union.Its laws, however, could cover offences committed by Indiancitizens outside India, and the person involved in the breach ofa law could be punished when he (or she) entered the Indianterritory.

All the possible subjects of administration the Constitutionmakers could think of, were classified into three legislative lists-the Union Legislative List, the state Legislative List, and theConcurrent Legislative List. There were 97 subjects in the UnionList, 66 subjects in the state List, and 47 in the Concurrent List.Article 246 provided that Parliament had exclusive power tolegislate with respect to matters included in the Union List, thatstate Legislatures had exclusive power to make laws with respectto subjects in the state List and that Parliament and stateLegislatures were entitled concurrently make laws with respectto matters in the Concurrent List. Predominance of Parliament

In spite of a clear demarcation in the law-making power ofParliament and state Legislatures, Parliament was assignedpredominant position in the general legislative field. If a matterhappened to be included both in the Union List and these if therewas ever a conflict between them the Union List prevailed.Similarly, if there was an overlapping between the ConcurrentLists, the Union List was paramount. And tht1 List had priorityover the state List.

Power of Parliament to Legislate with Respect to any matter inthe State List in National Interest

The predominance of parliament in the sphere of law-makingwas established-by several of the Constitution. Article 249, forinstance, provided Rajya Sabha declared by a resolution supportedby not less than two-thirds of the members present and votingthat it was necessary expedient, in the national interest thatParliament should with respect to any matter enumerated in thestate List specified resolution, it became lawful for Parliament tomake laws for whole or any part of the territory of India with

of West Bengal &', Union of India, the majority judgement of theSupreme Court, while commenting upon the nature of theConstitution observed that it was, "not true to any traditionalpattern of federation." The minority judgement stated that India'sConstitution was "a federal structure with a strong bias towardsthe Centre." Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, a former Chief Justice ofIndia, opined that though the Constitution "partakes of some ofthe characteristics of federal structure, it can be said to be federalin the true sense of the term.

Many foreign scholars also looked at the Constitution thesame way. Sir Ivor Jennings, for example, wrote: "India has afederation, with a strong centralizing tendency." K.C. Wheareobserved that India has a "quasi-federal" Constitution. W.H. Morris-Jones held the view that Indian federalism was a kind of"cooperative federalism where bargaining took place between theCentre and the stales but ultimately a solution came out arid bothagreed to cooperate, Benjamen N Schoenfeld held the view thatthere was a tendency of centralism in the Indian federation, butthat was not because of its structural framework but because ofits socialistic goals and centrally-devised plan development.Because of these views on the nature of the Indian O1nstitutionProfessor Alexandrowicz had been led to remark that 'India is acase sui generis" (Latin for "altogether unique").

The Indian Constitution was, in fact, not a federation but anew contrivance designed to meet the special requirements of thecountry.

LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRE AND STATES

The executive authority of a government was co-extensivewith its legislative competence and, therefore, the framers of theConstitution took utmost care in distributing law-making powersbetween the Union and the states. In Article 245, they laid downthat Parliament might make laws for the whole or any part of theterritory of India, and the Legislature of the state might make lawsfor the whole or any part of the state. While there were territoriallimits to the laws of state Legislatures, clause (2) of Article 245provided that there would be no such limitations on the laws ofParliament. It could enact laws, which had extra-territorial


the Legislature of the state, prevailed and the law made by theLegislature of the state was to the extent of repugnancy but solong only as the law made by" Parliament continued t6 haveeffect, inoperative.

Power of Parliament to Legislate for Two or more States byConsent

Parliament also became entitled to legislate for two or morestates by their consent. Article 252(1) provided that if it appearedto the Legislatures of two or more states to be desirable that anyof the matters with respect to which Parliament had no power tomake laws for the states except as "provided in Articles 249 and250 should be regulated in such states by Parliament by law andif resolutions to that effect were passed by all the Houses of theLegislatures of those states it became lawful for Parliament to passan Act for regulating that matter accordingly, and any Act sopassed applied to such states. Such a law could also apply to anyother state if it was adopted afterwards by the Legislature thereof.Any Act so passed by Parliament could be amended or repealedonly by an Act of Parliament. Article 252 became applicable onlywhen at least two states joined. Once any subject of the state Listwas placed under the competence of Parliament, the stateLegislatures stood excluded from that field.

Legislation for giving Effect to International Agreements

In the field of international relations, only the UnionGovernment acted and the state Governments had no competence.Sometimes, the Union Government entered into such obligationswith foreign powers as were of general application all over thecountry. In order that such obligations were implemented, it wasdeemed essential that the Union Government should havesufficient power to do so.

It was, therefore, provided in Article 253 that Parliament hadpower to make any law for the whole or any part of India forimplementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any othercountry or countries or any decision made at any internationalconference, association or other body. This provision entitledParliament to legislate even in respect of those subjects that wereincluded in the state List.

respect to that matter during the period the resolution remainedin force. Such a resolution remained in force for such period, notexceeding one year; be specified therein. The Rajya Sabha, however,could extend period of such a resolution for a further period ofone year from the date on which it would otherwise have ceasedto operate. A law made by Parliament, which Parliament wouldnot but for the pass resolution by-the Rajya Sabha have beencompetent to rnake, ceased to have any effect on the expirationof a period of six months'!, resolution had ceased to be in, force,except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before theexpiration of that period. This provision enabled the Rajya Sabha,which represented the states, to put in the Concurrent List anymatter that was of local concern but had assumed national'importance. The Rajya Sabha could do so any time, emergencyor no emergency.

Power of Parliament to Legislate with Respect to any in the StateList if a Proclamation of Emergency was in Operation

If the security of India was threatened either by war oraggression or internal disturbance, and the President issued aProclamation of Emergency, under Article 352, the constitutionbecame, for all practical purposes, unitary. Article 250 clause (1)entitled Parliament to make laws for the whole of India or anypart thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in thestate List. No such provision was made in the Constitutions of theUnited States, Australia and Canada and the powers of the FederalGovernments to deal with emergent situations were enhanced bythe interpretations of the courts. The framers of the IndianConstitution did not like to leave things to the determination ofthe Courts and made a constitutional provision to enable theUnion Government to become sufficiently strong to deal with anemergency situation. A law made by Parliament under Article 250clause (1) ceased to have effect on the expiration of a period ofsix months after the Proclamation had ceased to operate.

Articles 249 and 250 did not restrict the power of thestate.Legislatures to make any law which under the Constitutionthey had the power to make, but if any provision of law madeby Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by


been reserved for the consideration of the President and hadreceived his assent. This provision was made to enable the Presidentto ensure that provision for compensation for the property takenpossession of or acquired was made in the Bill. A proviso toArticle 200 slated that the Governor should not assent to, butshould reserve for the consideration of the President, any Billwhich in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, soderogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger theposition which that Court was by the Constitution designed to fill.

Sometimes, a controversy might arise between the stateLegislature and the High Court of that state (as it did in early 1964between the U.P. Legislative Assembly and Allahabad High Court)and Legislature might adopt a Bill adversely affecting thejurisdiction and authority of the High Court The above provisionin Article 200 was made to enable the President to safeguard theauthority and independence of the judiciary.

Articles 200 and 201 provided for Presidential assent (0 Billsof the state Legislatures, but prescribed neither a-time limit withinwhich to give or refuse to give, assent nor the principles or criteriaaccording to which the assent was to be given or withheld. UnderArticle 200, the Governor could reserve a Bill of the state Legislaturefor the consideration and assent of the President. Whether hewould do so in his discretion or on the directive of the Unionauthorities had not been stated in the Constitution. The generalimplication, however, was that the Governor would reserve theBill for the consideration of the President only if some importantpolitical issues were involved.

Under Article 304 (b), the Legislature of state might by lawimpose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade,commerce or intercourse with or within that state as might berequired in the public interest, but no Bill or amendment for thispurpose should be introduced or moved in the Legislature of astate without the previous sanction of the President..

If the President issued a Proclamation of Emergency underArticle 360 arising out of financial difficulties, he might direct anystate to reserve a money Bills or financial Bills for his considerationafter these were passed by the Legislature of the state.

Inconsistency between Union and State Laws

Both Parliament and the Legislatures of states were competentto enact a law concerning any subject of the Concurrent ListSometimes, the provisions of a Union law might conflict withprovisions of a state law on the same subject. Article 254 madeprovision for such a contingency. II provided that the law madeby Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made bythe Legislature of a state, shall prevail, and the law made by theLegislature of the state shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void.But if the state law on a subject of the Concurrent List had beenreserved for the consideration of the President and had receivedhis assent, it shall prevail in that state. But Parliament was entitledto enact at any time any law with respect to the same matterincluding a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing thelaw so made by the Legislature of the state.

Power of Parliament to Legislate for States in Case of Failureof Constitutional Machinery

The predominance of Parliament was further established byArticles 356 and 357 of the Constitution. Article 356 stipulated thatif the President was satisfied that a situation had arisen in whichthe government of a state could not be carried on in accordancewith the provisions of the Constitution, he might declare that thepowers of the Legislature of that state would be exercisable by orunder the authority of Parliament. Parliament might, Article 357provided, delegate the law-making power to the President. Theeffect of Article 356 would be that the Legislature of the state inquestion would stand dissolved or suspended and the law makingpower would vest in Parliament during the period the Proclamationof Emergency remained in force.

Union Government's Control over State Legislation

Not only Parliament enjoyed predominance over law-makingin the states; the Union Executive also exercised some control.Clause (3) of Article 31 (dealing with Right to Property) providedthat if the Legislature of a state adopted a Bill providing forcompulsory acquisition of movable or immovable property forpublic purposes, such a Bill would not be effective unless it had


subject matter of which the Legislature of the state had no powerto make laws. These provisions empowered the Centre to makeuse of the state administrative machinery for the purpose ofenforcing the laws of Parliament. Any extra costs of administrationincurred by the state in connection with the exercise of thosepower and duties were paid by the Centre.

When a Proclamation of Emergency had been issued by thePresident under Article 35T, the Union Executive could givedirections to any state as to the manner in which the executivepower thereof was to be exercised. Similarly, when the Presidentissued a Proclamation of Financial Emergency under Article360;.the executive authority of the Union extended,"to the givingof directions to any state to observe such canons of financialpropriety" as might "be deemed necessary' and adequate for thepurpose."

If and when any state failed to comply with, or to give effectto, any direction given by the Union under provisions of theConstitution, the President could, under Article 356, conclude thata situation had arisen in which the, government of the state couldnot be carried on in accordance with the provisions' of theConstitution. Such a conclusion might lead to the invoking ofArticle 356 and to the promulgation of President's rule in thatstate:

Financial Relations between' Centre and States: Money is thelife-blood of all governments without which they could not functionand undertake obligations to improve the lot of the people. Thesources from which finances were raised were several, but taxesupon the people and levies on various items of use were the mostimportant source. Since in a federal polity two sets of governmentoperated, it was necessary that each of them had funds. Theframers of the Constitution, therefore, distinctly demarcated thesources from which the Union and the states derived revenues.

Taxes and Duties Levied Exclusively by Centre: The followingtaxes enumerated in the Union List and any other tax notenumerated instate and Concurrent Lists and which might betermed as "residuary lax" could be levied only by the UnionGovernment: taxes on income other than agricultural income;

Administrative Relations between Centre and States

The law-making powers of Parliament and state Legislatureswere clearly defined in the Constitution, but the territory in whichthe Union laws operated was divided into states. If these lawswere to be enforced in different states it was essential that theUnion Government were given enough administrative or executivepower to do so,. The Constitution-makers provided, in Article 256,that the executive power of each state shall be so exercised as toensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and withany existing laws which applied in that state. The same Articlestipulated that the executive power of the Union would extendto the giving of such directions to a state as would appear to theGovernment of India to be necessary for that purpose.

Control of Union Over States in Certain Matters

In order to enable the Union Government to exercise effectivecontrol over the entire country, the states have, Article 257stipulated, to so exercise their executive power as not to impedeor prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, andthe Government of India might give to a state such directions asmight appear to it necessary for that purpose. It might direct astate to construct and maintain means of communication whichit might declare to be of national or military importance, thoughusually the Union Itself would construct and maintain means ofcommunications as part of its functions with respect to Naval,Military and Air Force works. Parliament might declare highwaysor waterways to be national highways and national waterways,and the Union might direct a state to take steps necessary for theprotection of the railways within the state.

Power of Union to Confer Powers etc. on States in CertainMatters

The President was empowered to entrust, either conditionallyor unconditionally, to the Government of a state with its consentfunctions in relation to any matter to which the executive powerof the Union extended. Further, Parliament might confer powersand impose duties upon the state or officers and authorities thereofin respect of a Jaw which applied in that state, and about the


not be sufficient to meet their requirements of economic andindustrial development and, therefore, they made provision forthe sharing of Union revenues by the states. Article 268 enumeratedduties which were levied by the Union but were collected andappropriated by the states. These were stamp duties and dutiesof excise on medicinal and toilet preparations which werementioned in the Union List. The proceeds of any such dutiesleviable within any state in any financial year did not form partof the Consolidated Fund of India, but were assigned to that state.

Taxes Levied and Collected by Union but Assigned to States:There were: duties in respect of succession to property other thanagricultural land; estate duty in respect of property other thanagricultural land; terminal taxes on goods or passengers carriedby railway, sea or air; taxes on railway fares and freights;-taxesother than stamp duties on transactions in stock exchanges andfuture. markets; and taxes on the sale or purchase of newspapersand on advertisements published therein. The net proceeds fromthese taxes and duties were assigned to the states in accordanceto the principles formulated by Parliament by law (Article 269).

Recognizing that the states would not be viable without Centralsubvention, the Constitution-makers provided, in Article 270, forthe compulsory sharing to the net proceeds of tax on income otherthan agricultural income. This tax was levied and collected by theUnion, but net proceeds were distributed between the Union andthe states.

Article 272 provided that the Government of India shall levyand collect duties of excise other than such duties of excise onmedicinal and toilet preparations-as were mentioned in the UnionList, and the sums collected might be distributed between the-Union and the states. This was only a permissive provision, andthe sharing of sums depended upon the Centre's convenience.

The Union Government levied and collected export duty onjute, produced in the states of. Assam, Bihar, Orissa and WestBengal. These four states got from the Union, for a period of tenyears from \he commencement of the Constitution, grants-in-aidin lieu of that share. Article 275 made provision for grants fromthe Union to certain Slates. Such grants were made to those states

duties of customs including export duties; duties of excise. ontobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India except(a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption; opium, Indian hempand other narcotic drugs and narcotics, but including medicinaland toilet preparations, containing alcohol or any substanceincluded in sub-paragraph (c f this entry; corporation lax; taxeson the capital value-of the assets; estate duty in respect of \propertyother than agricultural land; duties in respect of succession, toproperty other than agricul~1 land; terminal taxes on goods orpassengers carried by ran, sea" taxes. on railway fares and freights;taxes other than stamp duties on transactions in stock exchangesand future markets, rates of stamp duty in respect of bills ofexchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills of lading, letters ofcredit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, debentures, proxiesand receipts; taxes; on the sale or purchase of newspapers and onadvertisements published therein; and fees in respect of any ofthe matters in the Union List.

Taxes and Duties Levied Exclusively by States: There weretaxes which only the state governments could levy, collect andutilize. These were: land revenue including its assessment andcollection; taxes on agricultural income, duties in respect ofsuccession to agricultural land; estate duty in respect of agriculturalland, taxes on lands and buildings; taxes on mineral rights; exciseduties on alcoholic liquor for-human consumption and opium etc;taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, useor sale therein, taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity;taxes on advertisement other 'than advertisements published inthe newspapers; taxes on goods and passengers carried by roador on inland waterways; taxes on vehicles; taxes on animals andboats; taxes on professions, trades, callings and employment;capitation taxes; taxes on luxuries, including taxes onentertainments, amusements, betting and gambling; and stampduty in respect of documents other than those specified in theprovisions on the Union List.

Distribution of Revenue between Union and States: While thetaxes levied by the states were exclusively utilized by them, thetaxes levied by the Union were not so used by it. The Constitution-makers realized that the financial resources of the states would


in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitutioncould impose a tax (unless the President by order providedotherwise) in respect of any water or electricity stores, generated,consumed, distributed or sold by any authority established byParliament for regulating or developing any inter-state river orriver valleys. This provision was made to promote theestablishment of inter-state multipurpose river-valley projects.On the basis of the principle of reciprocal immunity, Article 289exempted property and income of a state from Union taxation.But this did not prevent the Union from imposing any tax inrespect of a trade or business of any kind carried on by or onbehalf of the government of a state.

The scheme of the distribution of legislative, administrativeand financial powers between the Union and the states discussedabove clearly and beyond any doubt established the predominanceof the former over the latter.

In addition to exercising control over the states through theabove-mentioned powers the Union Government regulated andcontrolled the functioning of state governments through a numberof constitutional and extra-constitutional agencies" andinstruments. More important of these were the wide and extensivepowers of the Planning Commission, the allotment of funds andsubsidies for schemes of socio-economic development, thedeployment of the Central Reserve Police and after the passageof the Forty-second Constitution Amendment Act, the deploymentof any of the three wings of the Armed force for the purpose ofdealing with any grave situation of law and order-in any state,the use of the office of the Governor and the promulgation ofPresident's rule under Article 356, and finally the dominance ofthe High Command of the political party ruling at the Centre overthe party apparatus at the state capitals.

Strains in Centre-State Relations

The constitutional framework of Union-state relationshipworked reasonably well during the 17-year period from 1950 to1966. There were occasions during this period when strains werewitnessed, particularly when the Union Government set aside theconstitutional machinery in a state and imposed President's rule

which undertook schemes of development, with the approval ofthe Government of India, for the purpose of promoting the welfareof the Scheduled Tribes and raising, the level of administrationof Scheduled Areas. The state of Assam was entitled to specialgrants for promoting the welfare of the tribal areas. The amountof such grants in each case was determined by Parliament.

The state Legislatures were entitled, under Article 276, to levytaxes for the benefit of the state or of a municipality, district board,local board, or other local authorities in respect of professions,trades or employment's. Any law imposing such a tax would notbe invalid on the ground that it related to a tax on income. Thetax levied by the states under Article 276 on one person in one,ear could not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees.

Borrowing Powers of Union and States: The framers ofConstitution, realizing that the Union and state governments wouldnot be able to raise sufficient funds through taxation, madeprovisions to enable them to borrow on the security of theirConsolidated Funds. Article 292, which authorized the UnionGovernment to do so, placed no territorial limitations, though itdid provide for limitations as to the amount which was to be fixedby Parliament from time to time. While the states could alsoborrow upon the security of their Consolidated Fund, Article 293provided that they could do so only within the territory of India.The Government of India might, subject to conditions laid downby Parliament, make loans to any state or give guarantees inrespect of loans raised by any state. A, state might not withoutthe consent of the Government of India, raise any loan if therewas still outstanding 'any part of a loan which had been madeto the state by the Government of India or by its predecessorGovernment, or in respect of which a guarantee had been givenby the Government of India or by its predecessor Government.

Exemption of Union Property from State Taxation: Article 285exempted the-property of the Union from all taxes imposed bya state or by any authority within a state unless Parliament by lawprovided otherwise. The states were also prohibited from imposingany tax on electricity consumed by the government of India orconsumed in the construction, maintenance or operation of anyrailway by the Government of India. Similarly, no law of a state


The stale bosses of these parties were hardly entrenched intopower that they began to speak the language of conflict, threats,warnings and complaints.

GRIEVANCES OF STATES AGAINST CENTRE

Specific Grievances

The grievances and complaints of the states rule by the nonCongress parties against the Central Government were both specificand general-that is, specific grievances of individual states generalof all those states. Among the specific grievances of Kerala forexample, one was that the Centre was not supplying it adequatefood grains. The then Chief Minister, E.M.S. Namboodripad (CPlMarxist), hinted, on 18 May 1967, that if the Centre failed to fulfillits commitment to his state he would be compelled to makearrangement from China. He demanded a share of Kerala's foreignexchange earnings.

During March-April 1969, relations between the UnionGovernment and the United Front Ministry of West Bengal ledby Ajoy Mukherjee became strained on the issue of GovernorDharam Vira's address to the Legislature. While addressing thetwo Houses jointly on 6 March, Vira omitted two paragraphs ofthe speech prepared by Ajoy's Cabinet which described thedismissal of his United Front Ministry in November 1967 by himas "peremptory" and "unconstitutional." The parties constitutingthe United Front expressed great resentment; and the CPM, oneof its constituent units, demanded his immediate:.recall, because"no normal relations"-could be established between him and theMinistry. Chief Minister Mukherjee asserted that in theappointment of the next Governor his Government should beconsulted. But the Central Government rejected both the demands,and this made the relations between the Centre and the WestBengal Government very tense.

The Chief Minister of Punjab, Gurnam Singh, accused theCentre, on 28 June 1969, of "political dishonesty" in respect of thedemarcation of Punjabi Suba and the determination of the futureof Chandigarh. The Kamataka Chief Minister, Veerendra Patil,complained, in November 1970, that the Chief Ministers notbelonging to the Congress Party were "humiliated" by the,Centre,

under Article 356. This was done in East Punjab on 20 June 1951;in Patiala and East Punjab States Union on 5 March 1953; inAndhra on 15 November 1954: and in Travancore-Cochin on 23March 1956. In all these cases, the Opposition parties criticizedthe Congress Government at the Centre for not giving them theopportunity of forming an alternative government. They allegedthat the Congress Party was not willing to tolerate a non-Congressgovernment in any state. Allegations during this period were alsomade that the governors were not impartial in the discharge oftheir duties, particularly when non-Congress parties happened tobe in power in some states, and that they had, become instrumentsin the hands of the Congress Party leadership to serve its politicalends. There was, however, no open confrontation between theUnion and the aggrieved state, and the complainants quieteddown after the event passed off.

This phenomenon was due mainly to two factors: thecharismatic leadership of Prime Minister Nehru and the rule ofthe congress Party at the Centre and in most the states. Nehru wasalmost in unquestioned control of the government and partymachine, and most of the Government and party leaders tookdictation from him. In fact depended upon him for a politicalcareer in the country. The grievances and complaints of stategovernment leaders, if at all, were sorted out at the party-level,and either these were removed or brushed aside irremovable. Arecalcitrant state leader was either subdued or was ousted fromthe government or the party organization as the case might be.

End of Congress Party Predominance-Era of Union-statecooperation ended partially after the death of Nehru on 27 May1964 and largely after the fourth General Election held in February1967. After Nehru, none within the ranks of the Congress Partycould command that much of respect and awe, and the affairs ofthe party and the governments at the Centre and in the statesPassed into the hands of a group of leaders that in later yearsbecame known as the 'Syndicate'. After the fourth General Electionthe Party's dominant at the centre and in some states declinedconsiderably. Its majority in the Lok Sabha was reduced from 361in 1962 to 282 seats, and in six states out, of seventeen non-Congress parties formed united front or coalition governments.


Security Force. Several Central enterprises and undertakings, suchas the steel mills, ammunition factories, the post and telegraphoffices and railways etc., were spread over all the states, and intimes of strikes, lock-outs and violent demonstrations these becamethe object of violence and arson, The CRP units were deployedin almost every state and Union Territory, and these were aversatile force trained and equipped to deal with armed hostilesas well as anti-social elements. These units were pressed intoservice, according to the contention of Union Home Ministry,whenever there was danger to Central Government undertakingsor property and the state government's ability to afford adequateprotection appeared to be in doubt.

The maintenance of law and Order was, under theConstitution, a state subject, and the state governments assertedthat the CRP and BSF units should be deployed within theirterritories by the Centre only when asked for by them. In 1968,serious trouble developed between the Centre and Kerala over-this issue. On 19 September of that year, the Central Governmentemployees all over the country went on strike, and the situationin certain-places took a violent turn. Without consulting, or eveninforming, the Kerala Government in advance Home MinisterY.B. Chavan dispatched a battalion of CRP into that state to guardCentral Government offices there. He also asked the stategovernment to take action against such persons as were incitingor intimidating Central Government's loyal employees. ChiefMinister Namboodripad protested against Chavan's action, andhis Cabinet decided to withdraw, with the permission of thecourts, all cases connected with the strike other than those involvingviolent attacks on persons and property. The Union Governmenttook a serious view of this decision, and told the state governmentthat its action was "illegal" and "unconstitutional."

On 8 April 1969, the Defense Security Corps personnel at theGun and Shell Factory Cossipore (West Bengal) resorted to firingto disperse a violent mob of workers, and this resulted in thedeath of five persons. The United Front and its trade union wing,the Rashtriya Sangram Samiti, called a 24-hour "Bangia Bandh"(stoppage of work), and the strike was a total success. Chavanannounced the setting up of a single-member commission of

and that they were not taken into confidence in respect of "Centralpolicies and latest international developments." He even allegedthat Union Ministers visiting his state capital lured MLAs todefect to their party and topple his Government. He further saidthat while the Union Ministers were accorded all hospitality bythe state Governments, the state Ministers not even got interviewswith the Union Ministers in New Delhi with ease and grace.

Mahamaya Prasad Sinha, Chief Minister of Bihar, got disgustedwith the Centre and appealed to the Soviet Union to come to hisstate's aid to meet the famine situation there. C.B. Gupta and Mrs.Sucheta Kripalani complained while Chief Minister of UttarPradesh, that the Centre had neglected their needs, and that thehunger and poverty of four crores of people in 28 eastern districtsof the state had not evoked much response from the Centre,though its purse strings opened tip for some of other states whichrequires "political nursing."

R.N. Singh Deo, Chief Minister of Orissa, demanded thelocation of a second steel plant in his state, and threatened massagitation if that were not done. He alleged that the attitude of theCentre-towards Orissa was "intransigent, indifferent anddiscriminatory." The Rajasthan leaders described the attitude ofthe Union Government towards their state as "most apathetic."The Chief Executive Councillor of the Union Territory of Delhi,V.K. Malhotra, heading a Jan Sangh Government, alleged that theCentre was assuming an "anti-Delhi" posture, and. that its policieswere "stifling" Delhi's welfare plans,

There were only a few of the many specific grievances of thestates against the Union. In fact, the number was much larger, andeach of the states ruled by the non-Congress parties felt aggrievedon many more grounds. Situations of confrontation continued tooccur very often, and views were expressed that the integrity ofthe Indian Union was likely to shatter and disintegrate.

General Grievances

Apart from the specific grievances and complaints of thestates against the Centre there were five complaints of a generalnature, One of those was in relation to the use of paramilitaryforces, such as the Central Reserve Police (CRP) and the Border


and 27 ceased to be state subjects and became for all practicalpurposes Union subjects. Even items like razor blades, paper,gums, shoes, match sticks, house-hold electrical appliances,cosmetics, soaps and other toilet requisites passed under the Centraldomain. Over-centralization, it was pointed out by state leaders,had resulted in poor rate of economic growth and the consequentpoverty of the people Supply and distribution of essential itemsof daily use, such as sugar, wheat, kerosene, rice and vanaspatighee, were also brought under Central control, and complaintswere often made by the state leaders that the supply anddistribution of these commodities were handled-by the UnionMinisters with political motives. These commodities became, itwas alleged, instruments of winning elections in the states.

The third grievance of the states against the Union Governmentwas that it was encroaching upon their autonomy even in respectof those subjects that had been included in the state LegislativeList, and that the Indian Union of states had in actual practicebecome a unitary state. In order to check the increasing trendstowards centralization, the state leaders began to demand thatthey should be given more powers. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister,M. Karunanidhi, urged amendment of the Constitution for thispurpose. Namboodripad felt more excited on this issue and said,on 19 April 1971, that unless the states were given maximumautonomy there was "every likelihood of Bangladesh beingrepeated in India."

The fourth general complaint of the states against the Centrewas that the Centre had not shared taxes with them in the spiritof the Constitution, that they had to perform the ever-wideningfunctions in development and social services, but matching financeswere not being transferred to them from the Centre, and thatunder the existing system of allocation of funds the rich states gotmore and poor slates less, resulting in an ever-widening gap.Apprehending lest the Central assistance to the states should bemade selectively and on political considerations, the framers ofthe Constitution had provided for an independent agency,; aFinance Commission, under Article 280. The duty of theCommission was to make recommendation to the President as to(a) the distribution between the Union and the states of the net

inquiry to enquire into the facts and circumstances relating to thefiring. The Deputy Chief Minister, Jyoti Basu (CPI-Marxist),resented the appointment of the commission without consultingthe state government. He told newsmen in Calcutta: "It seems thecentre is in no mood to cooperate" with the inquiry commission.He even accused the Centre of "insulting" the people of Bengal"dislodging"' the first United Front Ministry in 1967. The ChiefMinister of Punjab, Gumam Singh, also resented the deploymentof CRP units in his state, and asserted that those units could notact without authority from the state government.

The Union Government maintained in all these cases of proteststhat it had the unfettered right of stationing CRP and BSF unitsanywhere it liked to protect the country from internal subversionor external threats.

Through the Forty-second Constitution Amendment Act, Mrs.Gandhi's Government made it amply clear that the CentralGovernment had the unquestioned right to deploy not only, theCRP and BSF units but also the units of the armed forces in anystate "in aid of the civil power."

The second general grievances of the states against the Centre(and on this matter there was not much difference betweenCongress and non-Congress-ruled states except that the Congress-ruled states did not say it as vociferously) was that the Centre hadmonopolised the control of industries, trade, the commerce andProduction and distribution of goods. They argued that thesewere subjects of the state Legislative List-industries in entry 24;trade and commerce in entry 26; and production, supply anddistribution of goods in entry 27-but that taking advantage of theconstitutional provisions (that Parliament could regulate them innational interest) the Center had brought them virtually under itsown control. Parliament had passed in 1951 the Industries(Development and Regulation) Act, specifying those industrieswhich had to be controlled by the centre in national interest TheAct as originally passed was fair and reasonable and rightly gaveto the Centre control over vital and strategic industries. But incourse of time, more and more industries were brought within thepurview of the said Act, and the result was that the constitutionalscheme was considerably subverted. The subjects of entries 24,26


become another "super-government," and that through financialcontrol, it had made the states subservient to the Centre. Demandswere put forth that the Planning Commission should be made anindependent autonomous body and should not merely be a wingof the Central Government.

Discretionary grants from the Central Government to thestates flowed directly, and these were outside the discipline ofboth the Finance Commission and the Planning Commission.After the Gadgil formula, transfers were affected by the PlanningCommission according to a certain criteria, but the direct transferswere purely discretionary. And their volume grew uptremendously over the years.

The last, and the fifth in number, general complaint of thestates against the Centre, which very often embittered theirrelations, was the promulgation of Presidential rule in the states.With the exception of a few cases in which the imposition of-Central rule was welcomed even by the state governments andthe leaders of Opposition parties, on most such occasions the stepwas resented by the parties and the politicians adversely affectedby the Central move. After the fourth General Election unitedfront governments could not last for their full term of five years.The Ministry was dismissed; the Assembly was dissolved and thestate was placed under Central rule. Almost in all cases when thishappened, the Centre was accused of maneuvering their downfalland the Governors were accused of acting at the behest of theCentre. The gubernatorial office, it was often alleged, had becomean instrument in the hands of the Central Government to topplenon-Congress party governments in the states.

Proposals and Suggestions for Smooth Union States Relationship

In the wake of the fourth General Election the issue ofrelationship between the Centre and the states became a subjectof serious public concern in the country. Distinguished jurists,constitutional experts journalists and statesmen suggested waysand means to establish that relationship on the basis of cordialityand cooperativeness. A seminar organised by the Bar Council ofIndia in April 1967 maintained that the powers and duties of thePresident and Governors in regard to the suspension of a state

proceeds of taxes which were to be, or might be, divided betweenthem; and (b) the principles which should govern the grants-in-aid of the revenues of the states out of the Consolidated Fund ofIndia. But the mechanism did not work well, because the FinanceCommissions that were set up from time to time handled andcontrolled only the statutory grants-in-aid, and the quantum ofmoney at their disposal was very limited. The bulk of the fundsassigned by the Union to the states fell within the category ofdiscretionary grants, and these were made on the recommendationsof the Planning Commission. Whereas the Finance Commissionwas the creation of the Constitution, and its recommendationswere by law and convention binding on the Centre, the PlanningCommission was the offspring of the Union Government.

The powers and scope of activity of the Planning Commissionwere so wide and extensive that they covered almost the entirefield of government activity. All plans of economic developmentof the country were prepared by the Commission; all broad targetswere fixed by it and the ordering of priorities was done by it...Fundsfor the various schemes of development and projects were allocatedby the same body. The state governments, of course, preparedtheir own plans, but the final shape was determined only aftertheir representatives had held discussions with the PlanningCommission. The targets and priorities fixed by the PlanningCommission had to be born in mind by the planners in the states,and if it were not so, the state plans were either substantiallymodified or scuttled.

Thus, the, Planning Commission, controlled the developmentalactivities of call the states. Even the legislative activities of thestate governments relating to such subjects of the state List asagriculture, education, health and cooperation passed.into thehands of the Planning Commission. Very often, the PlanningCommission made such grants as were tied up with particularprojects, and the state governments were obliged to use them forthat purpose only. There was, in fact, hardly any developmentalactivity of the state governments where the Planning Commissionwas not involved, and the composition of the Commission wassuch that amounted to the domination 01 the Union Government.Voices were, therefore, raised that the Planning Commission had


the President could control the policy and action of the states wereapplied to present conditions, and if the view that the Presidentwas bound in all circumstances by the "aid and advice" of theparty in power at the Centre was pursued, a conflict between theCentre and states was inevitable. He spoke in terms of the supra-ministerial powers of the President, and argued that the reservepowers of the President should be utilised to protect the structureof the Constitution.

Dr A. Appadorai and B. Shiva Rao argued in favour of thesetting up of an inter-state Council in order to avoid Centre-stateconflicts. Such a Council, they said, should comprise the ChiefJustice of India, the former Chief Justices of India, former Presidentsand Vice Presidents, former Prime Ministers and Deputy PrimeMinisters and the Attorney-General. To such a Council, they said,could be referred important matters such as the promulgation ofPresident's rule in a state the appointment of Governors, inter-state boundary disputes or presidents assent to a Bill passed bya state legislature and reserved by the Governor his assent. Theadvice of the Council, Appadorai maintained, should be bindingupon the President even if that conflicted with-the one tenderedby the Council of Ministers. Others who were interviewed NathPai, C.N. Annadorai, Jyoti Basu, A.B. Vajpayee, and BhupeshGupta-suggested that the best way to avoid center state conflictwas that the Centre should show imagination, understanding anda spirit of accommodation, and that it should grant the statesadequate finances without discrimination between Congress andnon-Congress governments.

In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government set up a three-membercommittee headed by P.V. Rajamannar to inquire into and examinethe question of Union-state relations, and make recommendations-to strengthen the fabric of Indian polity. Its main recommendationswere six. First an inter-state Council comprising Chief Ministersof all the states or their nominees with the Prime Minister as itschairman should be set up. No decision should be taken by theCentre, with the exception of issues relating to Defence and ForeignAffairs, without consulting the inter-state Council if that decisionwas likely to affect the interest of states. Second, the PlanningCommission, as constituted presently, should be disbanded, and

government in case of the breakdown of constitutional machineryneeded fuller investigation, that the Planning Commission shouldbe made an independent autonomous body, and that the FinanceCommission should be-made a permanent body and its scopeshould be widened so that it could deal not only with statutorybut also with discretionary grants.

K. Subba Rao observed at that seminar that since differentparties held power in different states the emphasis hereafter shouldbe "more on cooperation than on control, more on patriotism thanon authoritarianism, more on healthy competiti6n in commoninterests than on regimentation, more on service than on power,more on well conceived conventions than on expediencies, moreon objective appraisals of the state's problems than on a partisanapproach." Supreme Court Judge M. Hidayatullah, who later onbecame the Chief Justice of India and for some time acted asPresident of India, stated that the "Constitution will be put tosevere strain unless the states are given a freer rein in legislative,administrative and financial matters." A former Attorney-General9f India, M.C. Setalvad, (now dead) who presided over the seminar,regretted that during the last several years the Centre haddeveloped a tendency to dictate policies to states in numerousfields. This, he said, had killed initiative in the states. He expressedhappiness that the fourth General Election had ended "thisstranglehold of Delhi." A few other speakers at the seminarexpressed the view that no Centre-state conflict would occur if theconstitutional provisions were followed in "letter and spirit," if theinterests of the nation as a whole remained the guiding factor oftheir policies, and if the Central Government raised itself abovenarrow party considerations and conducted itself as the nationalgovernment rather than a party government.

A few weeks after this seminar, the regional correspondentsof The Hindustan Times in New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta andMadras interviewed constitutional experts, eminent politiciansand Ministers on the issue of Centre-state relations, and all thosewho were interviewed underlined that the relationship should beregularized on a more rational basis in view of the changed politicalsituation. K.M. Munshi said that if the view held during theNehru regime that the Congress Prime Minister under cover of


come into play due to the game of defections that was started byMLAs to seek offices, and that the Governors had, by and large,exercised their discretionary powers in the matter of selection ofChief Ministers, dismissal of Ministries and summoning andproroguing of Legislatures in accordance with the set principles.

The position of the Union Government on the complaint ofstates-that funds to them were allocated on political considerations-was that the distribution of funds was by and large just and theevidence of this was that while in.the early years of the IndiaRepublic there had been a certain degree of Central discretion,that discretion had later on been replaced by a convention thatthe National Development Council determined the quantum ofgrants and aid.to the states. The states' share of revenues, it waspointed out, had been stepped up. While the first FinanceCommission handled about Rs 52 crores, the fifth Commissiondisbursed Rs 800 crores.

Congress Governments in States again-End of Centre-StateTensions

In the thinking of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the best, andprobably the only guarantee of harmony and cooperation betweenthe Centre and the states was the rule of her own party everywhere-at the centre and in the states. And this was what she sought todo throughout her stewardship of the country's government andpolitics. In each of those states where the non-Congress partieshad formed location governments, Mrs. Gandhi maneuvered eitherthe rule of the Centre under Article 356 or a Congress Partygovernment or a government that was favourable to her rule atthe Centre. The details of her. moves and counter-moves havebeen discussed in the chapter on coalition politics, but here a briefaccount might be desirable. After a General Election in Kerala on17 September 1970, Achuta Menon, leader of the CPI-led UnitedFront, formed a Ministry with the support of 56 Congress MLAs.Later on, some Congress MLAs joined his Government as Ministers.After the fourth General Election West Bengal remained underPresident's rule for most of the time. Uttar Pradesh passed intothe Congress fold, and Kamlapati Tripathi formed Ministry thereon 4 April 1971. Bihar had Ministries either with Congress support

its place must be taken by a statutory body, consisting of scientific,technical, agricultural and economic experts, to advise the stateswhich should have their own planning boards. Third, the FinanceCommission should be set up on a permanent basis and thereshould be a larger devolution of taxes in favour of the states sothat their dependence upon the Centre minimised. Fourth, 'theRajamannar Committee recommended the transfer of severalsubjects from the Union and Concurrent Legislative Lists to thestate Legislative List. Fifth, the Governor should be appointed bythe President in consultation with the state Cabinet or some otherhigh power body that might be set up for the purpose, and oncea person held held this office he should not be appointed to anyother office under the government. And sixth, the High Courtsof states should be the highest courts for all matters falling withinthe jurisdiction of states. Cases involving the interpretation of theConstitution could, however, continue to be brought before theSupreme Court.

UNION GOVERNMENT TURNS DOWN SUGGESTIONS FORREFORMS

In view of the threats and warnings from state Chief Ministersand another Opposition party leaders, Prime Minister IndiraGandhi called for a careful study of the issue of union staterelations. The proposals and suggestions for reform made fromdifferent quarters were analysed and examined by the homeMinister, and the government reached the conclusion that theConstitution-of the country sufficiently sound, that no amendment-of the Constitution to redefine Union-state relations was necessaryand that if was not the Constitution, but the politics of the countrythat was faulty and confused.

Referring to the problems of law and order, Home MinisterChavan maintained that those were not purely a police matter,but were "expressions of social, political and economic tensions"and took various forms communal riots, youth unrest, extremistpolitical philosophies and industrial and labour disputes-and theCentre intervened only when the situation was considered beyondthe control of state governments. Replying to the critics ofGovernors the Home Minister maintained that their powers had


There were no elections in the remaining five states-Nagaland,Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh in March 1972, asmid term elections had taken place there, and the Assemblies hadnot yet completed their full term of five years. In Nagaland, theleader of the Naga Nationalist Party, Hokishe Sema, had formeda government on 22 February 1969. Later on, his Ministry wentout of office due to defections, and Central rule was promulgatedthere. When election was held there in February 1974, the NagaNationalist Party lost the. majority support, and the UnitedDemocratic Front leadert Vizol, formed, on 27 February, aGovernment His Ministry also fell from power on 9 March 1975,because of defections, and two weeks later President's rule waspromulgated there. Due to the strategic importance of Nagalandthe Central Government kept a vigilant eye upon all politicaldevelopments there.

Elections were held in Uttar Pradesh and Orissa in February1974, and in both the states Congress Party came into power.Tamil Nadu continued to be ruled by the DMK and its ChiefMinister, Karunanidhi continued to confront the Centre with adefiant posture.

In order to keep the Congress Party leaders in power in statecapitals Mrs. Gandhi endeavoured not only to ensure their victoryat the polls, but also to ensure that her proteges remainedundisturbed and unchallenged by their rivals within the party.Whenever the Chief Ministers were accused of corruption, mal-administration and self-aggrandizement not only by the leadersof Opposition parties but also by the MPs and MLAs of theCongress Party Mrs. Gandhi protected and supported the ChiefMinisters. For instance, there were serious allegations againstHaryana Chief Minister, Bansi Lal, and Himachal Pradesh ChiefMinister, Y.S. Parmar, and demands were made that inquirycommittees shouid be set up by the Centre to look into theirconduct. But Mrs. Gandhi turned down their demands and assertedthat there were no prima facie cases for such an action. Similarly,the dissenters in UP Congress, which included in their ranksMIAs and-MPs, asked for the removal of Chief Minister KamlapatiTripathi, but their agitation was cowed down. In Madhya Prade6h,five Congress Ministers in the Ministry of P.C. Sethi resigned from

or was ruled by the Centre after a lot of political turmoil. The samewas the fate of Punjab. The Congress leader, Nandini Satpathi,formed Ministry in Orissa in the summer of 1971. When in July1970, Himachal Pradesh became a full-fledged state, it had aCongress Ministry. With the exception of Tamil Nadu andNagaland, other states had Congress Ministries. Among the UnionTerritories, the Congress was in power in Manipur, Tripura andPondicherry. With the exception of Delhi, Where Jan 5angh wasin power, other Union Territories were ruled directly by the Centre.

Fifth General Election for sixteen state Assemblies and theLegislatures of two Union Territories was due to be held in FebruaryMarch 1972. The country had just then, in December 1971, foughta war with Pakistan over the Bangladesh issue, and leaders ofseveral Opposition parties expressed the view that elections forthe Assemblies should be postponed for some time in order tosave the country from the huge expenditure involved in thatexercise. But professing to be ~ a great constitutionalist and ademocrat Mrs. Gandhi took the view that the election should beheld according to schedule. The real reason why she took thisstand appeared to be that due to victory over Pakistan her imagein the country had gone high and she wanted to Cash on it.

The election was, therefore, held, and her party got majorityof seats in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat,Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya pnidesh,Rajasthan, Assam, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir and Tripura.In all these states the Congress Party was installed into power onits own strength.

In the Meghalaya Assembly the Congress could secure only9 out of 60 seats and therefore could not form the government.In Manipur; which had become a full-fledged state in January1972, the Congress obtained 17 out of 60 seats. It was, however,able to form the Ministry with the support of other MLAs.

In the metropolitan Council of Delhi, the Congress got 44 outof 56 seats, and its leader Radha Raman formed the Governmentin Goa, the Congress could secure only 1 out of 30 seats and theleader of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, DayanandBandodkar, formed the Government.


it sought the dissolution of nine states Governments of the CongressParty. On 18 April, Home Minister Charan Singh addressed aletter to the Chief Ministers of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh.. Bihar.. West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, andRajasthan-suggesting to them that they should advise theirGovernors to dissolve the Assemblies and facilitate the holdingof fresh elections' as soon as possible thereafter. The reasons givenby the Home Minister for the proposed step were several First,the total or almost total rout of the Congress Party in the LokSabha election was, to a considerable extent, the consequence ofthe excesses and atrocities perpetrated during the period ofEmergency. And since all the nine states mentioned above carriedout the directions of the Central Government 1n suppressing allhuman rights and freedoms and also committed atrocities on theirown, they had no right to remain in office as they apparently hadlost the confidence of the electorate. The basic democraticimperative underlying the Constitution was, it was contended,that a government should remain in office only so long as itenjoyed the confidence of the people and not only that it merelyenjoyed the confidence of the state Assembly.

The second reason for seeking the dissolution of the stateAssemblies was that a climate of uncertainty and widespreadsense of diffidence at all levels of administration had come toprevail in those states. The uncertainty was visible, it was said,in the want on haste with which decisions of considerableimportance had been taken in total disregard of financial andadministrative proprieties and consequences. It was also manifestin the handling of day-to-day problems of law and order and alsoin the disrespect shown to the political authorities by the civilauthorities. The Home Minister claimed to be receiving reportssuggesting that there was near-paralysis of normal functioning ofgovernments in the nine states.

The third argument in favour of Charan Singh's advice to theChief Minister was that the state Assemblies, with the exceptionof Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, had already completed their legalterm of five years and they were functioning on "borrowed time",as their term was extended through the Forty-second ConstitutionAmendment Act which was pushed through Parliament by a

their posts and demanded the ouster of the Chief Minister, butthe Congress High Command persuaded them to withdraw theirresignations and left Sethi untouched. The dissidents held by D.P.Mishra were told that they and no genuine case for a change inleadership.

The third step Mrs. Gandhi took in the same direction wasto intervene in the politics of thuse states where there was rivalrybetween two or more Congressmen for Chief Ministership. Forinstance, Hardeo Joshi and Ram Niwas Mirdha were contendingfor the Chief Ministership of Rajasthan in October 1973. The PrimerMinister drafted Swaran Singh, then External Affairs Minister, tomanoeuvre a unanimous choice. And on his appeal, Mirdhawithdrew from the contest and Joshi was elected. In Bihar, 25 ofthe 40 Ministers asked Chief Minister Kedar Pandey to resign, andwhen the latter refused to oblige them, the Centre intervened,installed Abdul Ghafoor in his place and, thus, saved the CongressMinistry from disintegration. The Gujarat Chief Minister,Ghanshyam Oza, was threatened by dissident Congressmen witha no-confidence motion in mid-June 1973. Mrs. Gandhi intervened,asked him to resign and Chimanbhai Patel was sworn in on 18July as the new Chief Minister. In the Union Territory of Delhi,a group of dissident Congressmen submitted to Mrs. Gandhi amemorandum demanding the removal of Radha Raman as theChief Executive Councilor, but they were snubbed and told thatthey would be black-listed if they continued their agitation againstRaman.

The strategy of the Prime Minister worked well and servedher political interests fully. When in June 1975, she chose to imposeInternal Emergency in the country the state governments lent herfull support and cooperation. They implemented her decreesungrudgingly and without demurring

Janata Government Seeks Dissolution of Congress-ruled States-Situation of Confrontation

In the third week of January 1977, Mrs. Gandhi took thedecision to end the Emergency era and hold election for the LokSabha. That election was held in March and resulted in theformation of Janata Party Government at the Centre. Next month,


April were "extraneous" to Article 356. A seven-memberConstitution bench headed by Chief Justice M.H. Beg gave on 29April, 1977 a unanimous verdict which read: "We are unanimouslyof the opinion, for reasons to be mentioned later, that the suitsand writ petitions should be dismissed. We accordingly dismissthe same and as a consequence reject the prayers for injunctionsor interim orders..."

The full judgement was delivered by the Court on 6 May ofthe same year, and each Judge, delivering his individual judgement,gave different reasons for the same conclusion. They upheldunanimously the doctrine of judicial review, and stated that thepromulgation of Presidential rule in a state could be reviewed bythe Supreme Court in spite of the fact that Article 356 had beenamended by the Forty second Constitution Amendment Act to theeffect that the President's satisfaction-that the government of thestate cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution"shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in anycourt on any ground."

Chief Justice Beg observed: "Whenever the exercise of powerto issue a proclamation under Article 356(l) of the Constitutionhas been challenged in a High Court it has been held that sufficiencyof grounds on which the order is based could not be questioned.

"As it happened in the case, the reasons for the contemplatedaction were set out in the Union Home Minister, Mr. CharanSingh's letter to the Chief Ministers, dated 18 April, and theUnion Minister for Law, Justice and-Company Affairs, Mr.Shanti Bhushan's talk on All India Radio four days later. Theywere considered by the Court which unanimously pronouncedthem to be germane to the President's exercise of his powerunder Article 356."

Chief Justice Beg stressed that the court was only concernedwith legal rights to dissolve or legal obstacles to dissolution. Theview of the Law Minister that there was an overwhelmingly largeelectoral verdict in the states against the ruling party there andthis situation justified action under Article 356 was "largely apolitical and moral issue," and it, was "impossible to substitute ourjudgement for that of the Union Government on such a matter."

"repressive dictatorial" regime of Mrs Gandhi during the periodof Emergency without any mandate from the electorate to do so.It was also contended that the five year term of the Lok Sabhahad really expired, and it did not have the continued mandate tosuch an important Act as the Forty-second Amendment.

The last, and probably the most important, reason for seekingthe holding of fresh elections in those nine states (and this wasnot mentioned in the Home Minister's letter) was that election forthe Presidency of the Indian Republic was due to be held(Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed had expired on 11 February 1977) aroundthe 11th of August of that year and the Janata Government leaderswanted their own candidate to win it. Whatever the impotencyof the Presidential office politically, it was very importantconstitutionally and the new leaders wanted to ensure that theoccupant of the Rashtrapati Bhawan should be a person whowould assist, and not hinder, them in undoing the wrongs of theEmergency era and in fulfilling the promises they had made tothe people of India on the eve of the Lok Sabha poll.

Congress-ruled States seek Supreme Court Protection-Petitionsare Rejected

All the nine states to whose Chief Ministers Charan Singh hadsent the above letter rejected the Home Minister's advice. Findingthat the authorities at the Centre were determined to bring abouta dissolution of the Assemblies six state governments filed suitsbefore the Supreme Court and prayed for injunctions restrainingthe Union Government from doing so. The states that did so wereRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Biharand Orissa. Three MLAs of Punjab filed writ petitions underArticle 32, which dealt with the right to move the Supreme Courtto enforce Fundamental Rights. Their complaint was that if theLegislative Assembly of the state of Punjab was dissolved by theActing President they would be deprived of their right to receivesalary as members of the Assembly and the salary being propertythere would be unconstitutional infraction of their right to propertyunder Article 19(1)(1).

During the hearing, counsel for the state governments arguedthat the grounds mentioned ir, the Home Minister's letter of 18


dissolution of the Legislative Assembly." They held that "thecontention of the petitioners-was clearly unsustainable, and notedthat there could be no doubt that if there was a threatened violationof Fundamental Right the person concerned was entitled toapproach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and claim relief byway of 'Injunction. "But they said, "difficulty here in the way ofthe petitioners is that it is not possible to say that by the threateneddissolution of the Legislative assembly any Fundamental Right ofthe petitioners would be infringed. It is only where there isdirect.invasion of Fundamental Right or imminent danger of suchinvasion that a petitioner can seek relief under Article 32. Theimpact on the Fundamental Right must be direct and not indirector remote."

Union Government Dissolves Assemblies

Within a couple of hours after the Supreme Court's verdicton 29 April the Union Cabinet met to discuss the situation, andit did not take long for it to decide to go ahead with its plan. Thedraft of the nine Proclamations under Article.106 reached theoffice of Acting President B.D. Jatti at about 8 P.M. but Jatti signedthe order after about 24 hours. An official Press release said thatthe Ministries in the nine states-Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, ' West Bengal, Orissa, Punjab, Haryanaand Rajasthan had "vacated" office and that those states had beenplaced under President rule till the completion of fresh electionslikely to be held in the middle of June.

On 22 April, Jatti issued an executive order saying that theMetropolitan Council of Delhi had ceased to exist and that electionsto a new Council would be held "at the earliest."

He also issued an order directing that the Chief ExecutiveCouncillor and other Executive Councillors in Delhi "shall ceaseto hold office."

Congress Leaders Denounce Centre's Move

While the leaders of the Janata, Party, of the Congress forDemocracy, of the Akali Dal and CPM, non-party leaders likeAcharya J.B. Kripalani, Jayaprakash Narayan and VijayalakshmiPandit, newspaper men, pro-Janata party intellectuals and the

On the same issue, Justice Bhagwati and Justice Gupta remarked:"This is not a case where just an ordinary defeat has been sufferedby the ruling party in a state in the elections to the Lok Sabha.There has been a total rout of candidates belonging to the rulingparty. In some of the plaintiff states, the ruling party has not beenable to secure a single seat. Never in the; history of this countryhas such a clear and unequivocal verdict been given by the people,never a more massive vote of no-confidence in the ruling party.When there is such crushing defeat suffered by the ruling party,and the people have expressed themselves categorically againstits policies, it is symptomatic of complete alienation between theGovernment and the people. It is axiomatic that no governmentcan function efficiently and effectively in accordance with theConstitution in a democratic set-up, unless it enjoys the goodwilland support of the people."

Dealing with the question of directive by Charan Singh to theChief Minister concerned in the suits, their Lordships said thateach state had sought a declaration that the directive of the HomeMinister was "unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires of theConstitution and an injunction restraining the Union of Indiafrom giving effect to this directive was essential." They observed:

"We fail to see how such declaration or injunction. can begranted by the Court. The directive of Mr. Charan Singh isnothing but an advice or suggestions to the Chief Minister ofeach plaintiff state to recommend to the Governor for dissolutionof the Legislative Assembly of the concerned state. It has beenwrongly described as directive. It has no constitutional authoritybehind it. It is always open to the Home Minister of the CentralGovernment to give advice of suggestions to the Chief Ministerof a state and the Chief Minister may accept or reject suchadvice or suggestion as he thinks fit."

Dealing with the writ petition of three Punjab MLAs underArticle 32, the Supreme Court held that "no one had a FundamentalRight to continue as a member of a Legislative Assembly." Theyobserved: "It is true that if petitioners cease to be members of theLegislative Assemblies, they would lose their right to receive asalary, but that would be the result of their ceasing to be membersof the Legislative Assembly and not the direct consequence-of the


Centre-State Relations during Janata Party Regime

The writ petitions of the six states and. three Punjab MLAshaving been rejected by the supreme Court elections were heldfor the Assemblies of "nine states" on June 10, 12 and 14, 1977.Elections were also held in the state of Tamil Nadu and the UnionTerritory of Pondicherry, because both of them were then underCentral rule. The Union Territory of Delhi, whose MetropolitanCouncil was also dissolved along with the "nine states", also wentto the poll. In seven of ten states and in one of the two UnionTerritories (Delhi), toe Janata Party obtained the majority of seats,and its leaders formed governments there. Those states were:Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh andHaryana. Later on, a Janata Party government headed by GolapBorbora was formed in Assam also. This party had been the allyof the.Akali Dal, and its leaders joined the Ministry of that partyin Punjab with Prakash Singh Badal as the Chief Minister.

All other states and Union Territories had non-JanataMinistries. In Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah was thehead of the National Conference Government. West BengalGovernment was headed by the CPM leader, Jyoti Basu. M.G.Ramachandran was the head of AIADMK Ministry in Tamil Nadu.Tripura had a Janata CPM coalition Ministry headed by RadhikaRanjan Gupta. Mrs. Sashikala Kakodkar formed a government ofthe Maharashtrawad Gomantak party in the Union Territory ofGoa, Daman and Diu.

On 2 July 1977, AIADMK leader, S. Ramaswamy, had formeda Ministry in Pondicherry, but it went out of office after sixteenmonths due to political instability and the Union Territory wasplaced under President's rule on 12 November 1978. Karnatakahad a Congress Ministry headed by Devraj Urs though it wentout of office on 31st December 1978 when the state was broughtunder President's rule. Kerala had a democratic front Ministry.Andhra Pradesh was being ruled by Congress (I) leader ChennaReddy. Maharashtra had a Congress (I) Congress coalition Ministryheaded by Vansantrao Patil.

Shortly after coming into power Prime Minister Desai declaredthat the Centre's attitude towards the non-Janata governments in

masses in general. welcomed the dissolution of state Assemblies,the top leaders of the Congress Party such as its President,Brahmanand Reddy and Y.B. Chavan, described it as a "dictatorialact" and "a blow to the federal democratic structure" of the country.The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, N.D. Tiwari, described thestep as "sad and unfortunate" in the constitutional andparliamentary history of India. The Punjab Congress leadersincluding Cabinet Ministers described it as "wholly immoral,unconstitutional and complete negation of its own electionpromises." The Rajasthan Chief Minister, Harideo Joshi, called theaction as "absolutely undemocratic." The Chief Minister of MadhyaPradesh, S.C. Shukla, described it as a "dictatorial act." HaryanaChief Minister B.D. Gupta said that the Janata Party had takenshelter of the Forty-second Constitution Amendment Act whichit intended to scrap.

The legal luminaries of the Janata Party quoted several worldrenowned jurists and experts of constitutional law in support ofthe step taken by them. For instance, Sir William Anson wasquoted as having opined that the Crown could force dissolutionof Parliament whenever there was "reason to suppose that a Houseof Commons and the majority of'1he electorate are at variance."A.C. Dicey was quoted as having written in his well-known bookon British constitutional law that "there are certainly combinationsof circumstances under which the Crown has a. right to dismissa Ministry command a Parliamentary majority, and to dissolvethe Parliament by which the Ministry is supported." The reasonwhy a House could, in accordance with the Constitution, bedeprived of power and of existence was that an occasion hadarisen in which there was fair reason to suppose that the opinionof the House was not the opinion of the electors. A dissolutionwas in its essence an appeal from the legal to the political sovereign.Sir A.B. Keith held the view that the Crown might force dissolutionif necessary by dismissing the government, if it thought if necessaryfor giving the will of the people its just course." Dr Eugene A.Forsey, a Canadian authority on constitutional law and writer ofa book titled, The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament in theBritish Commonwealth, also expressed the view held by Anson,Keith and Dicey.


in Bihar and thereby undermined the position of the Chief Ministerbelonging t6 the BLD group of Charan Singh.

In retaliation to this, three Ministers opposed to the Jan SanghChief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Shanta Kumar, tenderedtheir resignations and thereby plunge his government into a seriouscrisis. Devi Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana, removed-from hisMinistry four Ministers-three of them belonging to the erstwhileJan Sangh and the fourth actively supported by them-and he wasreported to have decided to ban RSS "shakhas" and its otheractivities.

Devi Lal belonged to the BLD. The Janata-ruled states were,thus, grouping up behind Charan Singh-Raj Narain on the oneside and Morarji Desai and his Jan Sangh colleagues on the other.In early June 1978, Ram Naresh Yadav, Chief Minister of UttarPradesh and belonging to the BLD, had succeeded in winningconfidence vote when challenged by the Jan Sangh dissidents ledby S.P. Malviya, but he was subsequently ousted from his officeand his place was taken by Banarsi Das who too belonged toCharan Singh group within the Janata Party and formed JanataParty (Secular).

Following the footsteps of Charan Singh who became thePrime Minister after the resignation of Desai Ministry the ChiefMinisters of Bihar, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh convertedthemselves into Janata Party (Secular) and obeyed the directivesof the Centre with great pleasure. And the Chief Ministers ofRajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, who did notdo so, struggled for their survival.

Due to the internecine quarrels within the Janata Party thestates, particularly the non-Janata-ruled ones, became bolder andvocal in their demand for greater autonomy. Jyoti Basu launchedalmost a campaign for more powers for the states, and the ChiefMinisters of Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Punjab activelysupported.

Basu's argument was that a strong and unified India couldonly be one in which the democratic aspirations and thedistinctiveness of the people of different states were respected andnot treated with disdain. When Charan Singh was reduced to the

the states and Union Territories would be the same,as towards theMinistries of his own party, and that the Government would fullyprotect and promote the interests of the states.

In later months, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the DMK in TamilNadu, the Nagas, the Mizos and the CPM governments in WestBengal, Kerala and Tripura almost consistently demanded moreautonomy for the states.

On a number of occasions and from a number of forums theycriticised the Centre for ignoring their demand for more and moreautonomy which, they thought, would bring about thedevelopment of the states. DMK, which at one stage talked evenof secession from the Indian Union, clamoured that the statesshould be given the maximum of powers and authority to managetheir affairs themselves.

On 21 August 1978, the Chief Ministers, attending the meetingof the National Development Council, called for measures toensure a higher proportion of total transfer of resources from theCentre to the states. On 24 January 1979, the Chief Minister ofOrissa expressed dissatisfaction over the progressive erosion offinancial autonomy of states.

CPM Chief Minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu, urged theCentre on 15 April 1979 that the Centre should immediately initiatediscussion with state governments on decentralisation of powers.He complained that the Centre was encroaching into the domainwhich did not belong to it. On 28 April of the same year,Namboodripad and Bhupesh Gupta accused, while speaking atthe all-India conference on regional disparities, the Centre of notgiving the states sufficient autonomy and power for theirdevelopment. All the speakers at the conference almostunanimously expressed the view that regional disparities wereincreasing and they all held the Centre responsible for thatphenomenon.

The state governments became all the more assertive anddefiant when they found the Desai Government breaking up. Aserious crisis had rocked three Janata-ruled states in April 1979.Thirteen Ministers and three Parliamentary Secretaries belongingto erstwhile Jan Sangh, resigned from Karpoori Thakur's Ministry


Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu that they submit the resignationsof their respective Ministries to the Government, and that theGovernors should dissolve their Assemblies. On 29 January, theChief Ministers of the above-mentioned states' warned the PrimeMinister to keep her hands off the states and stop her topplingexercise.

The Lok Dal organised a huge demonstration in Lucknow on4 February for,launching the "dissolve Lok Sabha agitation" as amove to counter the dissolution of state Assemblies, The protestors,who were led by Raj Narain and Madhu Dandawate etc. wereraising slogans like" Agar Vidhan Sabha Bhang Hogi to Lok SabhaBhee Bhang Hogi," "Sun Lo Dilli Ki Rani, Nahi Chalegj AbManmani", Maa Bete Ki Goondagardi Nahi Chalegi" and "BanarsiDas Mat Ghabrana, Saath Tumahre Naya Zamana".

On the same day (February 4), the Orissa Chief Minister,Nilomani Routray, said the ruling Lok Dal government. wouldnot surrender to "intimidation" and would "resist with full force"any attempt by the Centre to topple it About a week later, PunjabChief Minister, Prakash Singh Badal warned the Centre that itwould be responsible for all consequences if it attempted to dissolvenon-Congress(l) state Assemblies on one pretext or the other.Jiwan Singh Umrangal said a morcha would be launched if stateassemblies were dissolved.

On 12 February, the Janata Party leader, Jagjivan Ram, saidthere was no justification for the dissolution of the state Assemblies.Acharya Kripalani and M.C. Chagla, in a joint statement,condemned the Centre's purported move to dissolve theAssemblies and called it a violation of the Constitution and amockery of the federal polity for purely party gains.

All these warnings, threats and exhortations had no effect,and on 17 February Mrs. Gandhi dissolved the Assemblies of thenine states, dismissed their governments and took over theiradministration in her own hands.

While the proclamations issued by Rashtrapati Bhawan gaveno reasons for the dissolution of the Assemblies the Law Minister,Shiv Shanker, said in a four-page statement that there were threemain reasons for that step. The first reason, he-pointed out, was

status of a caretaker Prime Minister only, the states adopted amore defiant attitude and began to ignore Central directives openly.For instance, on 5 October 1979, the President promulgated thePrevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies ofEssential Commodities Ordinance.

Under this Ordinance, the state governments were requiredto constitute advisory boards. These were to be set up in accordancewith the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the appropriateHigh Court and were to be presided by a sitting Judge of the HighCourt and were to be assisted by not less than two other retiredor serving High Court Judges.

The state governments were required to place before theadvisory board within three weeks from the date of detention thegrounds on which an alleged black marketeer was detained. Withthe exception of Nagaland, no other state government even initiatedthe process of constituting the advisory boards. In several othermatters also, the state governments, particularly belonging toother political parties, ignored the Central directives, and due toits internal weaknesses the Centre found itself helpless to chastisethem.

Mrs. Gandhi's Government Dissovles "Nine" State Assemblies

In January 1980, Mrs. Gandhi again came into power at theCentre. Having tried her tactic so successfully in the past andhaving learnt from the fate of the Janata Party Mrs. Gandhi soughtto establish the hegemony of the Centre over the states.

She had learnt from history that the best way of suppressingand controlling fissiparous forces in the country was to make theCentral authority strong and effective and to keep the stategovernments submissive and subservient. And she had also learntthat the best way to do it was political, and neither constitutionalnor legal. So, the first major step she took in, that direction wasto seek the dissolution of the Legislative Assemblies in nine statesand hold fresh poll.

The Home Minister in her Ministry, Zail Singh, began to saythat he would be 'advising' the Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh,Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Orissa, Gujarat,


it could get only 30 seats in a House of 234-128 of these havinggone to All India ADMK.

While the Assemblies of nine states mentioned above weredissolved, those of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were spared.In Haryana Chief Minister Bhajan Lal had defected to Congress(D alongwith his whole group of MLAs shortly after the LokSabha poll, and in Himachal Pradesh Ram L.al had formed aCongress (I) Ministry on 14 February 1980 after the resignationof Janata Party Chier minister Shanta Kumar due to defection ofsome of his supporters.

Andhra Pradesh and Kamataka were already being ruled bythe Congress (I) and Mrs Gandhi admirers were safely saddledinto power there. In Manipur, a Congress (I) led coalition Ministryhad been formed on 14 January 1980 under the Chief Ministershipof R.K. Dorendra Singh. In April 1980, a Congress (I) backedMinistry led by S.C. Jamir had been formed in Nagaland. Thisparty however, suffered a setback in early June, and a regionalparty-the Naga National Democratic Party-came into power there.The state of Sikkim had a Congress (I) backed Ministry.

The Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh had a Congress (I)Ministry headed by Gagong Apang since 18 January, 1980. AIADMK Congress (I) coalition Ministry headed by D.Ramachandran had come into power in Pondicherry on 16 January1980.

The position in other states and Union Territories when Mrs.Gandhi came into power at the Centre was like this: West Bengalhad a CPM led Ministry headed by Chief Minister Jyoti Basu. InJanuary 1980, the Congress (I) led United Democratic FrontGovernment of Kerala gave way to the CPM and its allies whowon 93 seats out of a total of 140 seats, and the CPM which hadbeen out of power for nearly a decade staged a spectacular comeback to govern the state along with its allies, all of whom werenot described as leftists.

The state of Tripura had a CPM Government headed by NripenChakraborty; Tamil Nadu passed under the rule of the All-IndiaADMK; Assam was under President's rule ever since thecommencement of agitation on the "foreigners" issue there, and

that the states run by the non-Congress (I) parties had delayedthe ratification of the Forty-fifth Constitution Amendment Billwhich provided for the reservation of seats for the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Government, he said, feared that those states might blockother progressive legislation in the future also. The second groundfor dissolution was that the massive victory of the Congress (I)in the Lok Sabha poll showed that the non Congress (I) partieshad lost the confidence of the people, and that, therefore, they hadno moral and legal right to stay on in office.

The third reason given was that the Opposition parties hadadopted a "negative attitude" even though the Prime Minister hadsought their cooperation in the administration of the country.

She said that the attitude of the Opposition parties whichmoved an amendment to the motion of thanks to the Presidentialaddress in the Rajya Sabha "was symptomatic of their non-cooperation," and that trend was likely to lead to complicationsand problems "which would arise in the smooth working of theGovernment.

Apart from these, there was still a fourth, and probably moreweighty, reason. One-third members of the Rajya Sabha were dueto retire on 2 April 1980. Mrs. Gandhi's party was already inminority in that House, and the danger was that if the electionswere held on the basis of the Assemblies ruled by the Janata Party,the Lok Dal and other non-Congress (I) parties it would not beable t<;> increase its strength there.

The elections were held on 28th and 31st May (1980), and theresults were as under:

The Congress (I) secured two-third majority in Gujarat (getting140 out of 182 seats), Rajasthan (obtaining 131 seats out of2(0), Madhya Pradesh (obtaining 246 out of 320 seats), Orissa(securing 115 out of 147 seats) and Uttar Pradesh getting 305out of 425 seats). In Maharashtra, it secured 185 out of 288seats, thus getting absolute majority. In Punjab also, the Congress(I) got absolute majority, securing 63 out of 117 seats. In Bihar,Mrs Gandhi's party obtained 150 seats out of 288. Only inTamil Nadu, the COngress (I) suffered a serious debacle where


"biggest onslaught" on democratic Opposition. The GeneralSecretary Of the CPI, C. RajeSWara described it as the Centre's"arbitrary action" in its drive for absolute power. West BengalChief Minister Jyoti Basu felt perturbed, and said the Centre'smove had imperiled democracy in the country.

Drawing attention to Union Minister, A.B. Ghani KhanChoudhry's statement that his party would not rest content untilthe CPM Government of West Bengal was thrown into the Bayof Bengal and Mrs. Gandhi"s statement after her visit to Narainpurin UP that state Governments not cooperating with the Centre inthe implementation of Congress (I) policies would have t? go.Namboodribpad called for a mass upsurge at the all-India levelagainst the "Indira-Sanjay authoritarianism" at the Centre. '

The Akali Dal termed it as a second Emergency. Dr MangalSein, leader of the Haryana Janata Legislature Party, said: "Mrs.Gandhi has come in her true colours. The step has proved thatshe cannot tolerate the Opposition. The caucus is again backaround her."

The President of the Shiromdni Gurudwara PrabandhakCommittee, G.S. Tohra, assailed the dissolution move and said thereasons given for that step were "filrnsy and untenable." AcharyaKripalani called the Assembly dissolution as the erosion of India'sfederal polity. This, in effect, aihounted to saying: "I will condemnan action as evil when I am not in power, but as soon as I cometo power, I shall do the same thing and consider it right." BhupeshGupta called the step as "illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional."

Whatever the merits and demerits of dissolution and whateverthe arguments for and against, Mrs. Gandhi's Government tookthis step mainly because the Janata Government had taken itearlier. It was nothing short of vindictiveness. Even the numberof the state Assemblies was somehow managed to be the same-nine-no more, no less.

Changes in Centre-State Ties Sought

The Congress (I) leadership at the Centre had installed itsown governments in the states and Union Territories in the hopethat such governments would submissively carry out the behests

the Union Territory of Delhi, was under the direct rule of theCentre. All other Union Territories were similarly under Centralrule.

Thus, the hegemony of the Congress (I) at the Centre and inmost of the states and Union Territories was re-established, andthe ground was prepared for Union-state harmony andcooperation.

Non-Congress (I) Parties Assail Mrs. Gandhi's Move

The steps Mrs. Gandhi took to instal into power in the statesand Union Territories governments of her own party evokedsharp and prompt reaction from non-Congress (I) leaders. TheJanata Party General Secretary, Surendra Mohan, said that thedecision of the Central Government was a "blatant misuse ofauthority."

Madhu Dandawate called it the "most undemocratic step andan infringement on the democratic rights of the people who electedtheir Assemblies." The CPM Chief Minister of Kerala's leftdemocratic front, E.K. Nayanar, said that the Central decision hadproved beyond doubt that the hopes, that the mistakes of theEmergency would not be repeated, were misplaced.

Punjab Chief Minister Badal said that the dissolution of theAssemblies was "unconstitutional, undemocratic and totallydictatorial action."

Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhairon Singh Shekhawat noted'that the "dissolution of the state Assemblies is only a formalannouncement of the dictatorship in the country." MaharashtraChief Minister Sharad Pawar said the Centre's step amounted tothe destruction of democracy and the Constitution framed byAmbedkar.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Sunder Lal said the Congress(I) had not learnt any lesson from the last two elections and wasreverting to its old ways of working. CPM secretary-generalNamboodripad said the Prime Minister was so busy in destabilizingthe non-Congress (I) state governments that she had no time evento form her full-fledged Cabinet. The Politbureau of this partycommented that the dissolution of the nine-Assemblies was the


ties with the Centre, any attempt to discriminate against his statejust because it was ruled by non-Congress government would bestrictly resisted. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister FarooqAbdulla warned, on the following day, that "dangerousconsequences" could follow if the Centre did not ensure adequateaid to his state.

In early February, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M.G.Ramachandran, resorted to a fast to protest against the Centre'sneglect of his state in the allotment of rice. In the third week ofMarch, the issue of Centre-state relations entered into a newphase.

The four non-Congress (I) Chief Ministers of Karnataka,Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry formed a Councilto review the fiscal relations between the Centre and states andto discuss other matters of common interest. The conclave of theseChief Ministers demanded changes in the Constitution "toaccommodate and give pull play to the flew definitions of Centrestate relationship." The 'Council, it was hoped, would expand toinclude more-Chief Ministers.

Central Government Sets Up Sarkaria Commission to ReviewCentre-State Relations

Realising the importance of Centre-state interdependence inthe Indian political system and finding that the non-Congress(I)state governments and Opposition leaders were assuming aconfrontations posture Mrs Gandhi announced, on 24 March (1983),the setting up of a Commission to go into the question of Centrestate arrangements. The Commission was set up under thechairmanship of R.S. Sarkaria, a retired Judge of the SupremeCourt, and was asked to recommend such changes in the existingCentre-state arrangements as might be appropriate within thepresent constitutional framework."

The non-Congress (I) Chief Ministers' hailed the PrimeMinister's announcement and described it as a "good move." Theyexpressed the hope that issues like the appointment and transferof Governors and tile misuse of Article 356 by the Centre wouldbe re-examined and causes of heart-burning would be removed.They, however, whipped up their invectives against the Centre,

of the Central authorities without questioning, and to that extentthe scheme was quite successful. But the states ruined by non-congress (I) parties refused to behave the same way. They feltaggrieved for a variety of reasons and began to give expressionto their grievances from time to time.

The AIADMK Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M.G.Ramachandran, had hardly been entrenched into office that hebegan to speak the language of confrontation with the Centre. On10 June 1980, he said that his Government would not tolerate theCentre's tendency to treat' the states as a panchayat or amunicipality: The whole of the North East regian comprising fivestates and two. Unian Territaries-Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura,Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram-was in themidst of terrible violence and anarchy. The government and peapleaf that regian were apenly defying the authority of the Centre. TheChief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Abdulla, accusedthe Centre, on 8 May 1980, of creating law and order problemsin the states with the about of toppling non Congress(I)governments there.

In view of the increasing strains between the Centre and thenon Congress (I)-ruled states, the President of India, Sanjiva Reddy,said that it had became "almost impassible" for the Centre to dealwith the multifarious problems of the states promptly,andefficiently. He urged greater autonomy for the states.

In the wake of Reddy's statement non-Congress states andleaders of Opposition parties became mare vehement in theirdemand for greater autonomy far the states. Andhra Chief Minister,N.T. Rama Rao rapped on 4 December 1982, the Centralgovernment for continuing its "absolute strangle held aver theplanning and execution of programmes of states, making progressimpassible." On 26 December, BJP President Vajpayee said thestates had been reduced to third class municipalities under theCongress (I) rule, and Centre-state ties must be reviewed in thelight of experience gained in the functioning of the country'sConstitution far the past three decades.

Kamataka Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde said on 13January 1983 that while his Government wauld seek very friendly


seminar sought more financial powers for the states. The ChiefMinister of Jammu and Kashmir alleged that the Centre wasadopting a step-motherly attitude towards his state. He allegedthat the Congress (I) leaders in all those states where the non-Congress (I) parties were in power were, in collusion with thecongress (I) High Command, manoeuvring to topple thosegovernments, and that they were using the Governors for thatpurpose.

The leaders of Opposition parties alleged time and again thatbehind the plea of a strong Centre, the Prime Minister and hercolleagues in the Government and her party organisation wereweakening the states by concentrating all powers and financialresources in their own hands, that the Raj Bhawans had becomethe refuge of "unwanted politicians or discarded bureaucrats",and that the Centre would be strong only when the states werealso strong. They expressed displeasure over the slow progressof the Sarkaria Commission's work, and demanded that the entireframework-of centre-state relationship needed, to be re-examinedand re-adjusted.

The party ruling at the Centre and in most of the states andUnion Territories made counter-attacks. On 15 July 1983, the PrimeMinister assailed, the non-Congress'(I) Governments for havingdeveloped an attitude of constant confrontation" with the Centre,and asserted that they were interest only in weakening' the centreand ousting her from Premiership. She decried the formation ofthe council by the four southern Chief ministers and said that thatwas "ail uncalled for agitational approach", and the beginning ofa "parallel sort of arrangement."

She refuted all the above allegations and asserted that thecharge that the charge that was not giving them adequate fundswas just not true, that funds allocated for specific projects remainedunspent, and that they were working against the Centre whichbreeded "indiscipline and retarded progress."

Thus, the allegations of the states against the Centre andcounter allegations of the Centre against the states continued andthe federal structure of the Indian polity operated under greatstrains," The Congress (I) leadership learnt the lesson that the'

and they probably did so to wrest more favourable report andrecommendations from the Sarkaria Commission.

Supporting the "just complaints" of the states against the"flagrant, and repeated abuse of Article 356 by the Centre, arbitraryappointment and. transfer of High Court judges, unilateralconstitution of the Planning Commission and, misuse of radio andtelevision, the national executive of the BJP urged.the Presidentto invoke Article 263 of the Constitution to constitute an inter-state council to take care of these and' other inter-state and Centre-state issues.

On 5 May, N.T. Rama Rao said that the states were "neitheradversaries nor supplicants to the Centre, but partners in thedemocratic' endeavour for creating an egalitarian society in whichpeople of different states would have equal opportunities fordevelopment." He decried the drift towards more and moreconcentration of power in the Centre's hands. A few days later,West Bengal Chief minister Basu accused the Centre ofdiscriminating against his state in manners of industrialdevelopment on political considerations.

On 5 August, the Karnataka Chief Minister called for thedecentralization of political and administrative power to avert thebalkanization of the country. A superpower attitude by the Centre,he said, had generated a feeling of injustice among the states, andthat institution like the Planning Commission and the ReserveBank had become mere departments of the Executive.

A three-day seminar sponsored by the Karnataka StateEconomic and Planning Council in early August called for thesetting up of an inter-state council to review the whole issue ofCentre-state relations. In later months, the Chief Ministers of allnon-Congress (I)-ruled states and leaders of all Opposition partiesjoined hands in asking for more powers for the states and a re-examination of Centre-state ties.

A two-day all-India seminar on Centre-state relations inHyderabad city regretted that the states had wholly becomedependent upon the Centre for all their 'financial needs, and thatthe sources of revenue of the states had been abridged by certainactions of the Central Government. Most of the speakers the


Centre-state relations would be smooth and harmonious onlywhen a single party ruled at both the centres of power, and it wastowards that end that it always worked. Some leaders of thisparty, such as C.M. Stephen, at one time its general secretary,asserted that they had a right to lure MLA's to their party fromthe ruling group. They not only fomented defections but alsoorganized agitation's, demonstrations and violence to topple non-Congress governments.

While the Centre-state controversy was going on, the SarkariaCommission complained that it was, not receiving full cooperationfrom the Central and state governments. Addressing the Press inBhubaneswar in early July 1985, Justice Sarkaria lamented that asmany as 13 state Governments had not," even responded to thequestionnaire that had been issued of the Commission. He oftencomplained of neglect, and its term of office was being extendedagain and again.

Union-State Disputes or Disputes between States-Provision ofan Inter-State Council

'Envisaging that disputes between the Union and the statesor between states were quite likely to arise in a federal system ofGovernment the Founding-fathers of the Indian Republic madeprovision in Article 143 for an inter-state Council.

That Article stipulated that if at any time it appeared to thePresident that 'the public interests would be served by theestablishment of a Council charged with the duty of (a) inquiringinto and advising upon disputes that-may have arisen betweenstates; (b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some orall of the states or the Union and one or more of the states, havea common interest or (c) making recommendation upon any suchsubjects and in particular, recommendations for better coordinationof policy and action with respect to that subject, it shall be lawfulfor the President by' order to establish such a Council and todefine the nature of the duties to be performed by it and itsorganization and procedure.

This provision merely gave the Centre discretion as to thetiming of setting up such a Council, and did not permit him toignore the setting up of the Council. This subject came up for

discussion on several forums and-levels, but the Council was notset up.

As late as 5 April 1989, the then Home Minister Buta Singhtold the Lok Sabha that the Government had not accepted theSarkaria Commission recommendation for the establishment ofthe inter-state Council.

The Governments of the states also had their own reservationsand apprehensions about the setting up such a Council. TheNational Front Government also did not clearly define its position,though it approved the proposal to set up an inter-state councilas recommended by the Sarkaria Commission, which went intothe entire gamut of Union-state relations.

Indian Government and Politics Nature of Party System in India84 85

every country. They exist not only in the democratic countries butalso in totalitarian states, though they differ in their purposes andfunctions.

DEFINITION

There are various definitions offered by different writers onpolitical party. Gettle defines 'political party as a group of citizens,more or less organised, who act as a political unit and who bythe use of their voting power aim to control the government andcarry out their general policy.' Ranny and Kendall define a politicalparty 'as an autonomous organised group that makes nominationsand contest election in the hope of eventually gaining andexercising control of the personnel and policies of government.'Prof. R.N.Gilchrist defines a political party 'as an organised groupof citizens who profess to share the same political views and whoby acting as a political unit, try to control the government.

Politics is a contest among different interests and groupsorganised or unorganized for influence over the politics of thegovernment. Four elements are necessary to constitute a group ofpersons into a political party 1) People must be organised. Withoutorganisation it is difficult to carry out

INTRODUCTION

Classification of political party systems-single party system,bi-party system, multi party system Functions of party systems

Objectives

The plan of the lesson is to teach you the different types ofparty systems in the world and their functions. commonprogrammes. 2) What binds the people together is a commonbelief in certain principles. There may be differences in detail, butall of them must agree in fundamentals 3) A political party seeksto carryout its policies by constitutional means and by capturingthe government. It is the ballot box, which gives them power 4)political party, exists to promote the national interests asdistinguished from the sectarian or Communal interests.

Sir Edmund Bruke defines a political party "as a body of menunited for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interests

3NATURE OF PARTY SYSTEM IN

INDIA

Political parties are indispensable for the successful functioningof democracy. Modern democracies are representative or indirectdemocracies. The citizens of a state elect the representativesperiodically at election. Political parties put up the candidates andpresent their programmes and appeal to' the electors to vote fortheir candidates. The party, which secures the majority at election,forms the government and implements the programmes, whichthey had put before the electorate and are approved by them.

The political parties have come to occupy the most influentialand dominating position in the process of democratic government.Yet they are an extra-legal growth. No democratic constitutionmentions the existence of a political party.

There were no political parties during the initial stages ofsome of the major democracies of today. Unlike other politicalinstitutions, it is not created by or not even referred to in anyconstitution. But later it has become as indispensable as theconstitution itself. In Britain where the party system 6riginated,it is still outside the legal framework of the state.

. But without political parties the British constitution, whichis mainly based on conventions is unworkable. Similarly the makersof the constitutions of USA abhorred political parties, becausethey thought, it would encourage division, strife, and manipulation.But within a few years the party system became the mainstay ofAmerican democratic system. Presently Political parties influence,control and dominate almost the entire game of politics in almost


liquidated either as a consequence of the positive law or by force.The Single party thus, becomes the engine of the whole life of thenation. Party instead of remaining a means to democracy becomesthe end.

A single party system is, therefore, totalitarian. All the authorityof the state is concentrated in a, single integrated political party.It even absorbs the state instead of merely acting on its behalf.Any single authority by its nature is total. It has no otherauthority at its side with which it must divide the exercise ofpower. Its authority, accordingly, embraces all aspects of humanlife and every form and phase of community's life. It was nationalunity for the Nazis and fascist and it is social unity with incommunists

MERITS OF SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM

Single party system can provide a stable government, sinceit has monopoly over the government and politics and there is noopposition to dislodge it from Power 2) It is suited for undevelopedstates which cannot afford the wasteful luxury of frequent electionsand expensive election campaigns 3) It can provide an efficientgovernment and can bring rapid prosperity to the country 4)There will be no conflict between the party and the government,since members of one are also members of the other. This providesfor smooth functioning of the government 5) A single party systemis able to achieve national and social unity 6) It helps to avoidclasses and cleavages and clashes of interests in society.

DEMERITS

1) The main defect of one party system is that, since the partyhas a monopoly over the government and politics of the nation,it would tend to become tyrannical and irresponsible. It ruthlesslysuppresses and eliminates all oppositions 2) There is no alternategovernment that can be formed and no genuine option for thepeople at the election 3) One party system leads to totalitarian rulewhere the political and social get identified with each other 4) Itleads to the rule of the elite and the supreme leader becomesunrestrained 5) It is prone to commit mistakes and repeat themsince there is no opposition to criticize them.

upon some particular principles in which they are all agreed."The political parties in the present form came to existence onlya couple of centuries ago. Before that as Maciver says, there wereonly 'trends of opinion, popular clubs, philosophical societies andparliamentary groups, but no real political parties.' Political partieshave become indispensable only after the introduction of universalsuffrage. When the voting right has passed on to the masses, itbecame necessary to organize, educate, and canalize the voters togain control of the government and this led to the formation ofpolitical parties.

CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Party system is a term used by political scientists to identifycertain general characteristics of political parties in a country. Themost common criterion used is the number of parties. It does notaccount all the parties in existence but only those which have beenstrong enough and able to secure a substantial amount of votesand form the government or to form a recognized opposition inthe near future. On this basis we may classify the party into 'singleparty', 'bi-party' and 'multi-party' systems.

SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM

Single party system is referred to a party system where only'one party' dominates in the politics of that country. There maybe other parties, but they are not popular, influential and strongenough to secure substantial amount of votes to form governmentor an effective opposition. However now a days the term singleparty system is referred to denote the single party dominance intotalitarian states. The Nazi party of Germany during thedictatorship of Hitler, the Fascist party of Italy during thedictatorship of Mussolini and the Communist party of China areexamples of single party system.

In a single party system the authority of the party is totalitarian.They are organised like well disciplined armies, they have anideology and the faith in it is unflinching and dogmatic like areligious order. Single party system aims to canalize the politicallife of the country in a single way. The life of the nation isregimented to the pattern of that party and opposing parties are


Demerits

(1) A two party system can lead to a very strong executive.Supported by a majority in the legislature, the cabinet canestablish its dictatorship.

(2) In this system the choice of the voters is limited to onlytwo alternative policies and programmes. It helps to createpolarization of vested interests and party prejudices. Itmay ignore minority interests.

(3) In a bi-party system the ruling party might ignore theopposition or even public opinion because it is secure byvirtue of its majority. It can be removed from power onlythrough a general election. Similarly if the opposition istoo strong the work of the government is hampered by toomuch of criticism.

(4) A two party system implies that both the parties must bewell disciplined and the rigidity of the party disciplinenullifies the freedom of the party members to make theirown decisions.

Multi Party System

A multi party system is that in which at least three or moreparties regularly secure a substantial number of votes and publicoffices and usually a single party is not able to secure an absolutemajority to form the government. The result of such a situationis coalition government.

In a multi-party system, there are number of major parties,each well organised on an ideology of its own and has considerableinfluence over the national politics. In a general election., It is veryrare for one single party to win a majority of votes or seats in thelegislature to form the government. Multiparty system prevails inmany countries of Europe. Presently India also can be includedin this category. Most of the parties differ in name in differentcountries but closely resemble in their ideology, organisation,policies and programmes.

Merits

(1) It is more democratic than any other system. Since variousparties represent various ideologies, interests and shades

BI-PARTY SYSTEM

A BI-party system is that in which only two parties regularlysecure substantial portion of the votes and public offices and inwhich the two major parties alternate in the exercise of power.Such system might also contain many other minor parties, whichwill nominate the candidates for election, but rarely win morethan a fraction of the votes or elect any candidate. In a two partysystem the political opinion is polarized into two major parties.In the election, the party, which secures a majority in the legislature,forms the government and the other forms the opposition. In thepresidential form, the candidate of one of the parties is elected asthe president and the same party or the other will have majorityin legislature m-party system is prevalent in countries such asUSA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Ina BI-party system, the parties are moderate and are normally ofbroker type rather than of missionary type. Their views are usuallyidentical.

Merits of Bi-party System

(1) A two party system ensures stability. A majority in thelegislature in such a context will be a decisive majorityand-'not a relative majority. A cabinet supported by sucha majority can be strong and masterful. It can effectivelyimplement its programmes and can give forceful leadershipin the legislature.

(2) In a BI-Party system the election is simple. It presents justtwo alternatives to the electorates, making it easy for themto choose. Besides a two party system provides an alternategovernment, an alternate policy and an alternateleadership.

(3) There is less chances of corruption in this system becausethe ruling party is not obliged to satisfy any other partyby allowing or ignoring or defending some politicalcorruption for their support to retain the ministry.

(4) In a two party system the responsibilities are easilyidentified. One party rules and the other forms theopposition. The leaders of both the parties and the peopleknow the responsibilities of each.


Functions of Political Parties

Democracy and Political parties go hand in hand. Parties canexist under other conditions too, but can flourish most in ademocratic state, as the representative government is the bestmedium for the expression of public opinion. Political parties,accordingly, perform certain indispensable functions.

(1) Political parties organize and fight elections on adetermined program, which is put before the electorate.They choose the most capable and popular persons whohave a chance of winning the election, as their candidate.

(2) Political parties assist in the formulation and expressionof the general will by organizing and winning the election.They bring order out of chaos of multitude of voters byputting the programmes of the party before them andsecure their approval or disapproval.

(3) Political parties educate the people and mould publicopinion. They use all available media like press, platformand various other vehicles of propaganda. Political partiesact as 'brokers of ideas.

(4) Political parties put into practice the public opinion whichthey have been instrumental in molding. Control over thegovernmental machinery gives the party adequateopportunity to fulfil its promises. While the majority partyforms the government, the minority parties subject theparty in power to a searching criticism.

(5) Political parties secure harmony of action among thevarious departments of government. 'It is the work of theparties to find these disconnected organs into a unity andsecure the harmonious co-operation of the entiregovernment' It is a unifying agency which makesdemocracy workable.

(6) Political parties also co-ordinate the members of thelegislature. It keeps them under some sort of discipline.The legislative chambers cannot function smoothly withoutparty whip. In its absence the legislature would be a babelof tongue.

of opinion, a combination of these parties in a coalitiongovernment naturally reflect various shades of publicopinion, hence more democratic.

(2) In a multi-party system the government is more sensitiveand responsive to public opinion. It cannot ignore anysection of interest or opinion as it would sometimes leadto the downfall of the ministry.

(3) In a multiparty system people have enough choice. Peoplecan vote for a party, which they think, represent andwould work for their interests.

De-merits

(1) The main drawback of multi-party system is the instabilityof the government. Since it is almost always a coalition ofheterogeneous political parties, it is very likely to collapseon simple reasons.

(2) Tthe legislature becomes a hot-bed of intrigues and 'horsetrading'. Alliances and counter-alliances are formed amongthe parties adversely affecting the efficiency and stabilityof the government.

(3) There is no continuity of policy or programmes for thegovernment. Each party puts forward its own ideology,policy and plans to the electorate. They might even bemutually opposing. After the election, a coalition is formedon a common minimum programme. But each party isenthusiastic to give more consideration to its own policiesand plans.

(4) The government is compelled to make any politicalcompromise and grant concessions to the constituentparties in order to remain in power. This leads to politicalcorruption.

(5) Multi-party system confuses the voters. In this system thechoice becomes very wide and hence confusing. Out of thewelter of manifestoes and programmes the elector has tochoose only one. The general masses of electors arebewildered by the complexity of choice.

(6) Finally in this system the community is divided intomutually opposing political groups.


fold of Congress and have a name Congress in their party name.Before the 1999 elections some senior members of the INC wereforced to resign because they questioned the leadership of SoniaGandhi. These people have created the National Congress Partyto participate in 1999 elections.

The INC is in the Indian political arena prior to India'sindependence. There were other parties, which were establishedafter independence, and, for some period, were challenging thecontinuous rule of the Congress, some of them were almostvanished from the political arena.

The first political party which, was seen as challenging theCongress continuous rule was Swatantra Party. It was establishedin 1959 and was supported by some big businessmen. It opposedthe socialism policy of the Congress It had members in the LokSabha until 1977. Another party, which challenged the Congressparty but later on almost vanished from the political arena, wasJanata Party. Janata Party was the first political party in India toestablish a non-Congress government when it won the 1977elections. Janata Party was established before the 1977 elections.The person responsible for the formation of Janata Party wasJayaprakash Narayan, called in short JP. JP was a freedom fighterand a social activist. Many in India respected him and saw in hima moral figure.

In the early 1970s the reign of Indira Gandhi began to showsigns of corruption and dictatorship and there was a generalfeeling that liberal democracy is coming to an end. JP openlyattacked Indira Gandhi's policy and asked other leaders to expresstheir views about the dangers. Between 1975-77 emergency rulewas declared. During this period many of Gandhi's political rivalswere arrested and put behind the bars. Censorship was enforcedon Indian press. The justice system was restricted and turned into'puppet show' of the government. The people also suffered a lotfrom this emergency rule. Under the birth control policy manypeople were forced to have sterilization. Even so Indira Gandhiwas sure that the Indian people would support her because hergeneral intention was to make India a better place and so shedeclared elections in 1977.

(7) Political parties 'Canalize politics and keep the nationpolitically alive, They are links which keep the individualin touch with the government.'

Apart from these main functions enumerated above, thepolitical parties perform many other functions. It co-ordinate thefunctions of the executive and legislative branches of governmentespecially in a presidential form of government. It helps to maintaindiscipline in legislature. Some parties establish youth organisationto mobilize young electorates, conduct study classes establishlibraries and run charitable institutions.

National Parties

National parties are political parties which participate indifferent elections held all over India. Some of the national partieshave their origin even before India's independence.

The oldest national party in India is the Indian NationalCongress (INC). In was established in 1885 as a pro-British Indianorganization. Later on it became the main voice of India's freedomstruggle. After India's independence, the British passed theadministration of India to the leaders of the Indian NationalCongress.

Until 1966 the Congress was a stable party. In 1966 IndiraGandhi became the leader of the Congress and Prime Minister ofIndia. From this period the Congress lost its stability. Some of theveteran members of the Congress did not accept her leadershipand they tried to dispose her. In 1969 the Congress split and heropponents established a new Congress part. But still INC was thelargest and ruling party of India.

Indira Gandhi's Congress lost the 1977 elections to the JanataParty. A few months after the defeat, another split happened inthe Congress party. The party of Indira Gandhi was called Congress(I), the initial denoting of her name. During this period manymore splits and coalitions occurred within the different Congressparties. Some of these new party members including its foundersreturned later on to the Congress (I) party and the party wasrenamed Indian National Congress. But there are others who leftthe INC at different periods and established parties outside the


Janata Dal. This party was made up of former Janata Party, LokDal and some INC members. In the 1989 elections this party camesecond after INC but it managed to establish a coalition governmentwith other parties. This coalition was called National Front. Thisfront also broke up after two years.

The largest party today is the Bhartiya Janata Party. The BJPbegan its political career after India's independence with onlythree members in the first elections held in 1952. The BJP is aHindu nationalist party, which draws its inspiration fromHinduism. This party sees in India a Hindu state and it emphasizesHindu pride and Hindu past of India.

This party was established after India's independence, but itsorigin is also pre-independence. In the 19th century a Hindunationalist organization, Arya Samaj, was established. The ideasof this organization influenced another Hindu organizationestablished later in British India, the Hindu Mahasabha. HinduMahasabha opposed the secular Congress philosophy and wantedto establish a Hindu state in British India. Another Hinduorganization in British India was Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS), meaning national volunteers organization. One person whobelonged in different stages of his life to these two organizationsassassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. After his assassinationthese two organizations were outlawed for sometime.

The leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, Shyam Mookherjiresigned from the party and established with the members of RSSa new Hindu nationalist party, which was named Jana Sangh.This party had moderate ideas than the its former components.In its first two decades the party's major holds were in northIndia's Hindi speaking regions, because this party supportedturning Hindi into the national language of India (see OfficialLanguage of India). In 1977 this party was an important factionof the Janata Party. In the 1980s it broke from the Janata Party andchanged its name to Bhartiya Jana Sangh. Later on it renameditself as Bhartiya Janata Party.

There are also other national parties, which were establishedin India. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party was established in the1980s. But even though this party is a national party, its representsonly the oppressed classes of India. Samajwadi Party was

To prevent her victory different political parties organized asone party. This party was called Janata Party. The main factionsof this party were, Congress (O), Lok Dal, Jan Sangh, and otherparties. This party won the 1977 elections and Morarji Desai becamethe Prime Minister of India. But this party as it was formed didnot survive for a long time. This party which was actually a groupof factions with one desire to defeat Indira Gandhi, did not findany thing common among its members after they defeated Gandhi.As long as JP was alive, the different factions still stayed together.But after his death in 1978 a clear split occurred in the Janata Partybetween Morarji Desai's supporters and Charan Singh's supporters.In 1979 Morarji Desai resigned as Prime Minister and othermembers tried to replace Prime Minister. During this periodJagjivan Ram, an untouchable according to strict Hindu society,was very near to become a Prime Minister. But finally CharanSingh of the Lok Dal faction was proclaimed the new PrimeMinister. A few weeks after Charan Singh became the PrimeMinister, because of the instability in the coalition, the presidentdeclared on new elections.

In 1980 new national elections took place in which IndiraGandhi's Congress again won the elections. Later on after theseelections, different factions of the Janata Party broke up from theJanata Party and established their own parties. Among these partieswere Jan Sangh which later on was renamed Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) and is today the largest party in India. Janata Party continuesto survive, but is very small. In the 1996 elections it did not winany seat in the national elections and in the 1998 elections it wononly one seat.

Another political party which, was actually a political bloc ofdifferent factions and managed to form a government was JanataDal. This party was established because of the claim that therewas corruption in the Congress government. In 1984 Rajiv Gandhiformed the Congress government. The finance minister of hisgovernment was VP Singh. VP Singh found out that a Swedishcompany, Bofors, was bribing some senior members of theCongress. Singh tried to investigate this affair. Gandhi movedhim from the office and made him Defence Minister, but Singhresigned from the government and started a new party called


culture on the south Indians (see Aryans and Dravidians). Theparty demanded to reserve the government jobs for Dravidiansand not to 'immigrant' Brahmans. In 1972 this party split and anew party was founded by MC Ramachandaran and it was namedAll India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (AIADMK). In 1987Ramachandaran died and Jayalalita inherited him. In the last fewyears these Tamilian pride parties have moderated their ideologiesand before the 1998 elections the AIADMK even cooperated withBJP, which is considered as a north Indian party.

In Andra Pradesh, also in south India, Telegu Desam wasfounded in 1982 by Telegu film actor, NT Rao. The ideology ofthe party is similar to the ideology of the AIADMK, which is localcultural pride. In the Telugu Desam case, the local cultural prideis of Telugu culture.

Another one state party is Akali Dal and its main hold is inPunjab, north India. This party is considered a state party, butactually it is a religion oriented party whose followers are theSikhs. This party also has its origin prior to India's independence.Before independence this party demanded from the British aseparate entity for the Sikhs in Punjab. During the independenceperiod these demands were delayed for a while. Afterindependence this party began demanding special status for theSikh culture and the Punjabi language. They struggled for a Punjabistate with a Sikh majority within the Indian Union and recognitionof Punjabi as a distinct language. They succeeded in forming theestablishment of Punjab in 1966, but it had a very small majorityof the Sikhs (see Internal map of India). But they also succeededin obtaining the recognition of Punjabi as a distinct language andnot as a dialect of Hindi (see Official languages of India). Lateron the Akali Dal broke up into some factions. Some of the militantfactions of the Akali Dal demanded an independent Sikh state tobe called Khalistan. But the dominant Akali Dal faction in Punjabwants Punjab to be a part of Indian Union.

In Assam in east India and in Maharashtra in west India thereare political parties which came into existence because of thediscriminatory feelings of the local 'sons of soil' population.

In British India, Assam was a British province. For someperiod the British attached Assam to the neighboring Bengal

established in 1992. Two communist parties, Communist Party ofIndia (CPI) and Communist party of India-Marxist (CPM) are alsonational parties. There are some parties who have national agendasbut participate only in certain regions of India and not all overIndia. For example Forward Bloc (see also Subhas Chandra Bose)which participates in elections only in West Bengal and neighboringBihar.

Regional Parties

Regional parties are parties whose main holds are in onecertain state and mostly they participate in the elections onlywithin that state. Most of these regional parties have agendafitting certain culture dominant within that state. Some of theseregional parties also participate in neighboring states, which haveconstituencies with culture similar to the first state. Different stateparties were established at different periods because of differentreasons. Some even have origins prior to India's independence.

In Tamil Nadu in south India, two main state parties are AllIndia Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (AIADMK) and DravidaMunnetra Kazagham (DMK). Of these two parties the DMK is theveteran party. The origins of these parties are prior to India'sindependence. The main ideology of this party is Tamil nationalpride. Before India's independence there were two Dravidianparties. One was Independent Party, which demand anindependent Dravidstan in south India. Other was Justice Party,which had a Dravidian pride ideology. After India's independence,the Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) was established fromthe merger of these two parties in the former state of Madras, insouth India. This party first demanded an independent Dravidstanfor all of south India. Later on the demand was changed toindependent Tamil state. Finally this party compromised on aTamil Nadu state within the Indian Union.

In the beginning this party was anti-north Indian. Theyopposed to any entrance of any kind of cultures of north India.They specially attacked the attempt to introduce Hindi languagein Tamil Nadu (see also Official languages of India). This partymembers also saw in the Tamili Brahmans agents of north Indiawho immigrated to south India to enforce to north Indian Aryan


There are other state parties in India. To name a few there are,National Conference in Kashmir, Haryana Vikas Party in Haryana,Manipur People's Party in Manipur, Maharashtrawadi Gomantakin Goa, Sikkim Democratic Front in Sikkim and many other parties.People who broke away from larger national parties, like theCongress founded some state parties. For example the West BengalTrinamul Congress, Tamil Manila Congress, Kerala Congress.There are also communist state parties.

Congress Parties

The oldest national party in India is the Indian NationalCongress (INC). In was established in 1885 as a pro-British Indianorganization. The real purpose of the British in establishing thisorganization was to continue to rule India with the help of liberaland pro-British Indians. Later on this organization became themain voice of India's freedom struggle.

Among its founders were Surendranath Benarjee, DadabhaiNaoroji and Justice M. G. Ranade. Before founding of the Congress,Justice M. G. Ranade had established an organization based onthe ideas of the 'Brahmo Samaj' with the aim of social and religiousreforms in India. One of Ranade's disciple, G. K. Gokhale, becamethe leader of Indian National Congress till 1915.

Gokhale was considered by Mahatma Gandhi as his politicalguru. Mahatma Gandhi, more than any other Indian, is identifiedwith modern India's creation.

After India's independence, the British passed theadministration of India to the leaders of the Indian NationalCongress. Mahatma Gandhi who was the father figure of theCongress party, suggested to transform the Indian NationalCongress into a charity organization, because the main cause ofthe Congress party was achieved. But the other leaders of theCongress did not accept his proposal and the Indian NationalCongress became a political party with a secular, socialist anddemocratic tendency.

During its independence, two Congress leaders JawarharlalNehru and Vallabbhai Patel wanted to be the first Prime Ministerof India. Nehru, who was younger, was secular and socialistoriented, while Patel was more Hindu nationalist oriented.

province. During this period the Bengalis held many seniorgovernment posts. Later on Assam again became a separateprovince, but the government posts were still hold by the Bengalis.In the 1960s and the 1970s many Bengali oriented peopleimmigrated to Assam. In the 1980s the Asom Gana Parishad wasfounded with an agenda to give back Assam to the Assamesepeople.

In Maharashtra, in west India, the local population is knownas Maharashtrians. Their language is known as Marathi. Sometimesthe Maharashtrians are also known as Marathi. The capital ofMaharashtra is Mumbai, formerly Bombay. During the Britishrule, the city of Bombay was the capital of Bombay State. TheBombay State included in it regions of present day Maharashtraand present day Gujarat.

The main language of Gujarat is Gujarati. The Gujaratis arethe business communities of India. The city of Bombay was thebusiness center of India. Many business communities from Gujaratsettled in Bombay and were the important business communityof Bombay. But the majority of the population of Bombaywas Marathi and they were the working classes of the city.Many Indians from all around India also immigrated to Bombayto find a better future. This made Bombay the largest Indiancosmopolitan.

In 1960 Bombay State was divided into Maharashtra andGujarat. Bombay the cultural capital of the Marathis and theGujaratis was made capital of Maharashtra. After Maharashtrawas established, a general feeling among many Marathis, was thatBombay is ruled and governed by 'foreigners'. Their main targetswere not the Gujarati business communities, but immigrants whoarrived from all over India and settled in Bombay. So these peopleestablished the Shiv Sena party. This party which began as aprotest movement of the Marathis in Bombay, slowly becamepopular all around Maharashtra. This party ideology was spicedwith Hindu-Marathi nationalist pride. Its rivals consider this partyas a fanatic and anti-Muslim party. According to the party policy,many places in Maharashtra were renamed with Marathi orientednames. For example Bombay was renamed back to its originalname Mumbai.


'puppet show' of the government. The people also suffered a lotfrom this emergency rule. Under the birth control policy manypeople were forced to have sterilisation. Even so Indira Gandhiwas sure that the Indian people supported her because her generalintention of making India a better place and so she declaredelections in 1977.

Her party lost the 1977 elections to the Janata Party. A fewmonths after the Congress defeat in the elections, another splitoccurred in the Congress party. The party of Indira Gandhi wascalled Congress (I), because of the initial of her name. During thisperiod many more splits and coalitions occurred within thedifferent Congress parties. Former Congress member Sharad Pawarestablished one such party of the Congress during this period. Heeven established a government in the state of Maharashtra withthis party which later on was known as Congress (S). Anotherparty was established in Uttar Pradesh. Some of these new partymembers including it establishers like Sharad Pawar returnedlater on to the Congress (I) party and the party was renamedIndian National Congress.

But there are others who left the INC at different periods andestablished parties outside the Congress and have a name Congressin their party name. For example Mumta Benarjee establishedWest Bengal Trinamool Congress in West Bengal before the 1998elections.

Moopanar established Tamil Maanila Congress in Tamil Nadu.And there are more other such parties. There were some Congressmembers who resigned from the Congress and established partieswithout having the name Congress in their party name. Forexample Lok Dal that was established in the 1960s by CharanSingh and Janata Dal, which was established by VP Singh afterresigning from the INC in the late 1980s. Before the 1999 electionssome senior members of the INC were forced to resign becausethey questioned the leadership of Sonia Gandhi. These peoplehave created the National Congress Party to participate in 1999elections.

Sonia Gandhi who lead the INC in the 1999 elections is thewidow of Rajiv Gandhi, the elder son of Indira Gandhi. She was

Mahatma Gandhi wanted the young Jawarharlal Nehru to beIndia's first Prime Minister and therefore Patel withdrew hiscandidacy.

Before independence the Congress was a roof organizationand it included many factions. After independence the Congressleaders changed the structure of the party and established a newpolitical agenda. The different factions in the Congress couldeither join the new agenda or leave the Congress. Some left theCongress and established other political parties outside theCongress. And so some new political parties were establishedamong them the Socialist Party of India and Forward Bloc

Until 1950 the Congress was under the influence of these twoleaders. After Patel's death in 1950, Congress came under fullinfluence of Jawarharlal Nehru. Nehru died in 1964, withoutappointing an heir. The party chose Lal Bahadur Shastri as thenew leader. In 1966 Shastri arrived in Tashkent, in former SovietUnion to sign a cease-fire agreement with Pakistan. Shastri diedin his sleep in Tashkent. After Shastri's death, some Congressleaders competed for the leadership of the party. Surprisingly theinter party election was won by the less favourite candidate,Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi was Jawarharlal Nehru's daughter(and had no family relations with Mahatma Gandhi). Some of theveteran members of the Congress did not accept her leadershipand they tried to dispose her of. In 1969 the Congress split up intotwo parties.

The veteran members of the Congress established the Congress(O) party, while Indian National Congress was recognised asCongress (R). Of these two parties the INC was the larger anddominant party. The Congress (O) was no threat to Indira Gandhi'sCongress.

Indira Gandhi was a very centralist leader. She pulled all thestrings in the party and was seen as the dictator of her party. Sheplanned to inherit her party to her younger son, Sanjay Gandhi.Between the years 1975-77 Indira Gandhi proclaimed emergencyrule. During this period many of Gandhi's political rivals werearrested and put behind the bars. Censorship was enforced onIndian press. The justice system was restricted and turned into


considered as a Russian agent in India until the emergence ofPrestroika in Russia. Of these two parties the CPM is the strongerparty. Their main strength was in West Bengal in east India andin Keralla, south India.

Along with these two national level communist parties, thereare also communist parties who act only within one state. Suchparties exist in West Bengal, Tripura and Keralla. There are alsosome communist oriented violent local organisations that tried tofulfil the communist ideology with violent methods. These groupsattacked big landlords, government representatives andgovernment property. These groups are sometimes called Maoistgroups or Naxalite groups, because of the place named Naxalbariwhere first such violent attempt took place

BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY

The BJP is unique among India's political parties in that neitherit nor its political predecessors were ever associated with theCongress. Instead, it grew out of an alternative nationalistorganization--the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS--NationalVolunteer Organisation). The BJP still is affiliated with the networkof organizations popularly referred to as the RSS family. The RSSwas founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. Until 1928a member of the Congress with radical nationalist political leanings,Hedgewar had grown increasingly disenchanted with theleadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Hedgewar was particularly criticalof Gandhi's emphasis on nonviolence and civil disobedience, whichhe felt discouraged the forceful political action necessary to gainindependence. He established the RSS as an organization thatwould provide training in martial arts and spiritual matters torejuvenate the spiritual life of the Hindu community and buildits unity.

Hedgewar and his successor, M.S. Golwalkar, scrupulouslyendeavored to define the RSS's identity as a cultural organizationthat was not directly involved in politics. However, its rapidlygrowing membership and the paramilitary-like uniforms anddiscipline of its activists made the political potential of the RSSapparent to everyone on the political scene. There was considerablesentiment within the Congress that RSS members should be

born in Italy to a European Christian family. She met Rajiv Gandhiin England and married him. Indira Gandhi intended to inherither party to her younger son Sanjay. But Sanjay died in a planecrash in 1980. So Indira Gandhi forced her elder son, who had nointerest in politics, to resign from his job as a pilot and join politics.In 1984, her Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Gandhi. RajivGandhi was proclaimed her heir. He was Prime Minister of Indiauntil 1989. In the 1991 election campaign a suicide bomberassassinated him. The Congress appointed Narsimha Rao as itsnew leader. After losing the 1996 elections Rao resigned. Forsometime Sitaram Kesari was the leader, but many Congressmembers saw in Sonia Gandhi as the new leader and gave herlot of respect. They thought that the Congress needs a 'Gandhi'as its leader to attract votes.

COMMUNIST PARTIES IN INDIA

In the early 19th century a new philosophy in political worldemerged and it was Marxism. Many people in India wereimpressed by Marxist ideas and many communists from aroundthe world arrived in India to teach and preach the communistphilosophy. After the communist revolution, which occurred inRussia in 1917, many in India wished to cause same kind ofrevolution in India against the British. Under inspiration fromMoscow the Communist Party of India (CPI) was established.Like other communist parties in the world, this party's membersalso had strong relations with Moscow and Moscow dictated itsactions. This party did not support the freedom struggle, whichwas organized by the Indian National Congress and saw it as astruggle organized by rich businessmen.

After India's independence, many Indian leaders blamed theCommunist party as a Russian agent and as a party actingaccording to orders from Moscow. In 1957 this party won the stateelections held in Keralla, in south India, and so gave the worlda precedent in which people democratically elected a communistregime.

In 1964 the Communist Party of India split into two parties.The new party added the word Marxist to the party name andis called in short, CPM. The CPI, between these two parties was


name, its choice of a green and saffron flag similar to that of theJanata Party rather than the solid saffron flag of the old JanaSangh, its adoption of a decentralized organizational structurealong the lines of the Janata Party rather than the more centralizedmodel of the Jana Sangh, and its inclusion in its working committeeof several non-Jana Sangh individuals, including Sikandar Bakht--a Muslim. The invocation of Gandhian socialism as one of theguiding principles of the BJP rather than the doctrine of "integralhumanism" associated with the Jana Sangh was another indicationof the impact of the party members' experience in the Janata Partyand "J.P. movement."

The new synthesis, however, failed to achieve political success.In 1984 the BJP won only two seats in the parliamentary elections.In the wake of the 1984 elections, the BJP shifted course. Advanireplaced Vajpayee as party president. Under Advani's leadership,the BJP appealed to Hindu activists by criticizing measures itconstrued as pandering to minorities and advocating the repealof the special status given to the Muslim majority state of Jammuand Kashmir. Simultaneously, it cooperated more closely withother RSS affiliates, particularly the VHP. During the 1980s, theBJP-VHP combine developed into a dynamic political force throughits brilliant use of religious symbolism to rouse the passions of thepublic. The BJP and VHP attained national prominence throughtheir campaign to convert back to Hinduism members of theScheduled Castes who had converted to Islam. The VHP alsoagitated to reclaim the Babri Masjid site and encouraged villagersthroughout the country to hold religious ceremonies to consecratebricks made out of their own clay and send them to be used inthe construction of the Ramjanmabhumi Temple in Ayodhya.

In the general elections of 1991, the BJP expanded its supportmore than did any other party. Its number of seats in the LokSabha increased from eighty-five to 119, and its vote share grewfrom 11.4 percent to 21.0 percent. The party was particularlysuccessful in Uttar Pradesh, where it increased its share of the votefrom 7.6 percent (eight seats) in 1989 to 35.3 percent (fifty seats)in 1991, and in Gujarat, where its votes and seats climbed from30 percent (twelve seats) to 52 percent (twenty seats). In addition,BJP support appeared to be spreading into new areas. In Karnataka,

permitted to join, and, in fact, on October 7, 1947, the CongressWorking Committee voted to allow in RSS members. But inNovember 1947, the Congress passed a rule requiring RSS membersto give up their affiliation before joining. The RSS was banned in1948 after Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member, assassinatedMahatma Gandhi. The ban was lifted in 1949 only after the RSSdrafted an organizational constitution that was acceptable to thegovernment. Intensely loyal RSS members refused to give up theiraffiliation to join the Congress and, instead, channeled their politicalenergies to the Jana Sangh (People's Union) after its founding in1951.

The Jana Sangh grew slowly during the 1950s and 1960s,despite the efforts of RSS members, who quickly took control ofthe party's organization. Although the Jana Sangh succeeded indisplacing the Hindu Mahasabha (a communal party establishedin 1914 as a counter to Muslim separatists) as the preeminentparty of Hindu activists in the Indian political system, it failed todevelop into a major rival to the Congress. According to politicalscientist Bruce Graham, this failure occurred because of the JanaSangh's inability "to transcend the limitations of its origins," inparticular, its identification with the Hindi-speaking, northernheartland and its Brahmanical interpretation of Hinduism ratherthan the more inclusive and synergetic values of popular Hinduism.However, the experience of the Jana Sangh during the 1970s,especially its increasing resort to populism and agitational tactics,provided essential ingredients for the success of the BJP in the1980s.

In 1977 the Jana Sangh joined the Janata Party, which defeatedIndira Gandhi and the Congress (I) in parliamentary elections andformed a government through the end of 1979. The rapid expansionof the RSS under Janata rule soon brought calls for all membersof the RSS family to merge with Janata Party affiliates. Ultimately,intra party tensions impelled those affiliated with the Jana Sanghto leave the Janata Party and establish a new party--the BJP.

The BJP was formed in April 1980, under the leadership ofAtal Behari Vajpayee. Although the party welcomed members ofthe RSS, the BJP's effort to draw from the legacies of the JanataParty as well as that of the Jana Sangh were suggested by its new


as a strong and prosperous nation with a progressive andenlightened in outlook.

The main agendas are:

o Making India a Developed Nation and a Great Power by2020

o Broadening and deepening of economic reforms, based ona self-reliant approach

o To fulfill the basic needs in education, healthcare, housing,cultural development.

o Commitment to women's all-round empowerment ·Intensifying dialogue with Pakistan to find a lastingsolution to all bilateral issues

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

The Congress has, by any standards, remarkable politicalaccomplishments to its credit. As the Indian National Congress,its guidance fashioned a nation out of an extraordinarilyheterogeneous ensemble of peoples. The party has played animportant role in establishing the foundations of perhaps the mostdurable democratic political system in the developing world. Asscholars Francis Robinson and Paul R. Brass point out, the Congressconstituted one of the few political organizations in the annals ofdecolonialization to "make the transition from being solerepresentative of the nationalist cause to being just one elementof a competitive party system."

The Congress dominated Indian politics from independenceuntil 1967. Prior to 1967, the Congress had never won less than73 percent of the seats in Parliament. The party won every stategovernment election except two--most often exclusively, but alsothrough coalitions--and until 1967 it never won less than 60 percentof all elections for seats in the state legislative assemblies.

There were four factors that accounted for this dominance.First, the party acquired a tremendous amount of good will andpolitical capital from its leadership of the nationalist struggle.Party chiefs gained substantial popular respect for the years in jailand other deprivations that they personally endured. The sharedexperience of the independence struggle fostered a sense of

its vote rose from 2.6 percent to 28.1 percent, and in West Bengalthe BJP's share of the vote expanded from 1.6 to 12.0 percent.However, the elections also revealed some of the limitations of theBJP juggernaut. Exit polls showed that while the BJP receivedmore upper-caste support than all other parties and made inroadsinto the constituency of Backward Classes, it did poorly amongScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, constituencies that it hadlong attempted to cultivate. In Himachal Pradesh, MadhyaPradesh, and Rajasthan, three state governments run by the BJPsince 1990, the BJP lost parliamentary seats although its share ofthe vote increased. In Uttar Pradesh, where the BJP also woncontrol of the state government in 1991, veteran political analystPaul R. Brass cogently argued that the BJP had reached the limitsof its social base of support.

The limits of the BJP's Hindu nationalist strategy were furtherrevealed by its losses in the November 1993 state elections. Theparty lost control over the state-level governments of HimachalPradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh while winningpower in Gujarat and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Inthe aftermath of the Hindu activists' dismantling of the BabriMasjid in December 1992, the evocative symbolism of theRamjanmabhumi controversy had apparently lost its capacity tomobilize popular support. Nevertheless, the BJP, by giving moreemphasis to anticorruption and social issues, achievedunprecedented success in South India, where it won 28 percentof the vote and came in second in elections in Karnataka inNovember 1994. In the spring of 1995, the BJP won state electionsin Gujarat and became the junior partner of a coalition with ShivSena (Army of Shivaji--Shivaji Bhonsle was a seventeenth-centuryMaratha guerrilla leader who kept Mughal armies at bay) inMaharashtra. In view of the potential demise of the Congress (I),the BJP stands poised to emerge as India's largest party in the1990s.

The aim of the party is to establish a democratic stateguaranteeing equality of opportunity and liberty of faith andexpression. It commits itself to 'Sarva Dharma Sambhav' andvalue based politics. The Party stands for decentralization ofeconomic and political power. The Party pledges to build up India


of the sixteen state legislatures that held elections. The proximatecauses of the reversal included the failure of the monsoons in 1965and 1966 and the subsequent hardship throughout northern andeastern India, and the unpopular currency devaluation in 1966.However, profound changes in India's polity also contributed tothe decline of the Congress. The rapid growth of the electorate,which increased by 45 percent from 1952 to 1967, brought aninflux of new voters less appreciative of the Congress's role in theindependence movement. Moreover, the simultaneous spread ofdemocratic values produced a political awakening that mobilizednew groups and created a more pluralistic constellation of politicalinterests. The development of new and more-differentiatedidentities and patterns of political cleavage made it virtuallyimpossible for the Congress to contain the competition of itsmembers within its organization. Dissidence and ultimatelydefection greatly weakened the Congress's electoral performance.

It was in this context that Indira Gandhi asserted herindependence from the leaders of the party organization byattempting to take the party in a more populist direction. Sheordered the nationalization of India's fourteen largest banks in1969, and then she supported former labor leader and ActingPresident Varahagiri Venkata Giri's candidacy for president despitethe fact that the party organization had already nominated themore conservative Neelam Sanjiva Reddy. After Giri's election,the party organization expelled Indira Gandhi from the Congressand ordered the parliamentary party to choose a new primeminister. Instead, 226 of the 291 Congress members of Parliamentcontinued to support Indira Gandhi. The Congress split into twoin 1969, the new factions being the Congress (O)--for Organisation--and Mrs. Gandhi's Congress (R)--for Requisition. The Congress(R) continued in power with the support of non-Congress groups,principally the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the DravidaMunnetra Kazhagam (DMK--Dravidian Progressive Federation).

With the Congress (O) controlling most of the partyorganization, Indira Gandhi adopted a new strategy to mobilizepopular support. For the first time ever, she ordered parliamentaryelections to be held separately from elections for the stategovernment. This delinking was designed to reduce the power of

cohesion, which was important in maintaining unity in the faceof the party's internal pluralism.

The second factor was that the Congress was the only partywith an organization extending across the nation and down to thevillage level. The party's federal structure was based on a systemof internal democracy that functioned to resolve disputes amongits members and maintain party cohesion. Internal party electionsalso served to legitimate the party leadership, train party workersin the skills of political competition, and create channels of upwardmobility that rewarded its most capable members.

A third factor was that the Congress achieved its position ofpolitical dominance by creating an organization that adjusted tolocal circumstances rather than transformed them, often reachingthe village through local "big men" (bare admi) who controlledvillage "vote banks." These local elites, who owed their positionto their traditional social status and their control over land, formedfactions that competed for power within the Congress. The internalparty democracy and the Congress's subsequent electoral successultimately reinforced the local power of these traditional elitesand enabled the party to adjust to changes in local balances ofpower. The non-ideological pragmatism of local party leadershipmade it possible to co-opt issues that contributed to oppositionparty success and even incorporate successful opposition leadersinto the party. Intra-party competition served to channelinformation about local circumstances up the party hierarchy.

Fourth, patronage was the oil that lubricated the party machine.As the state expanded its development role, it accumulated moreresources that could be distributed to party members. The growingpool of opportunities and resources facilitated the party's abilityto accommodate conflict among its members. The Congress enjoyedthe benefits of a "virtuous cycle," in which its electoral successgave it access to economic and political resources that enabled theparty to attract new supporters.

The halcyon days of what Indian political scientist Rajni Kotharihas called "the Congress system" ended with the general electionsin 1967. The party lost seventy-eight seats in the Lok Sabha,retaining a majority of only twenty-three seats. Even moreindicative of the Congress setback was its loss of control over six


the expiration of the five-year term of the Lok Sabha, she calledfor new elections in March 1977. The major opposition partyleaders, many of whom had developed a rapport while they wereimprisoned together under the Emergency regime, united underthe banner of the Janata Party. By framing the key issue of theelection as "democracy versus dictatorship," the Janata Party--thelargest opposition party--appealed to the public's democratic valuesto rout the Congress (R). The vote share of the Congress (R)dropped to 34.5 percent, and the number of its seats in Parliamentplunged from 352 to 154. Indira Gandhi lost her seat.

The inability of Janata Party factions to agree proved theparty's undoing. Indira Gandhi returned to win the January 1980elections after forming a new party, the Congress (I--for Indira),in 1978.

The Congress (I) largely succeeded in reconstructing thetraditional Congress electoral support base of Brahmans (seeGlossary), Muslims, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes thathad kept Congress in power in New Delhi during the three decadesprior to 1977. The Congress (I)'s share of the vote increased by 8.2percent to 42.7 percent of the total vote, and its number of seatsin the Lok Sabha grew to 353, a majority of about two-thirds. Thissuccess approximated the levels of support of the Congressdominance from 1947 to 1967. Yet, as political scientist MyronWeiner observed, "The Congress party that won in 1980 was notthe Congress party that had governed India in the 1950s and1960s, or even the early 1970s. The party was organizationallyweak and the electoral victory was primarily Mrs. Gandhi's ratherthan the party's." As a consequence, the Congress's appeal to itssupporters was much more tenuous than it had been in previousdecades.

Indira Gandhi's dependence on her flamboyant son Sanjayand, after his accidental death in 1980, on her more reserved sonRajiv gives testimony to the personalization and centralization ofpower within the Congress (I). Having developed a means tomobilize support without a party organization, she paid littleattention to maintaining that support. Rather than allowingintraparty elections to resolve conflicts and select party leaders,Indira Gandhi preferred to fill party posts herself with those loyal

the Congress (O)'s state-level political machines in nationalelections. Mrs. Gandhi traveled throughout the country,energetically campaigning on the slogan "garibi hatao " (eliminatepoverty), thereby bypassing the traditional Congress networks ofpolitical support. The strategy proved successful, and the Congress(R) won a dramatic victory. In the 1971 elections for the LokSabha, the Congress (R) garnered 44 percent of the vote, earningit 352 seats. The Congress (O) won only sixteen seats and 10percent of the vote. The next year, after leading India to victoryover Pakistan in the war for Bangladesh's independence, IndiraGandhi and the Congress (R) further consolidated their controlover the country by winning fourteen of sixteen state assemblyelections and victories in 70 percent of all seats contested.

The public expected Indira Gandhi to deliver on her mandateto remove poverty. However, the country experienced a severedrought in 1971 and 1972, leading to food shortages, and the priceof food rose 20 percent in the spring of 1973. The decision by theOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) toquadruple oil prices in 1973-74 also led to inflation and increasedunemployment. Jayaprakash (J.P) Narayan, a socialist leader inthe preindependence Indian National Congress who, after 1947,left to conduct social work in the Sarvodaya movement (sarvodayameans uplift of all), came out of retirement to lead what eventuallybecame widely known as the "J.P. movement." Under Narayan'sleadership, the movement toppled the government of Gujarat andalmost brought down the government in Bihar; Narayan advocateda radical regeneration of public morality that he labelled "totalrevolution."

After the Allahabad High Court ruled that Mrs. Gandhi hadcommitted electoral law violations and Narayan addressed amassive demonstration in New Delhi, at Indira Gandhi's behest,the president proclaimed an Emergency on June 25, 1975. Thatnight, Indira Gandhi ordered the arrest of almost all the leadersof the opposition, including dissidents within the Congress. In all,more than 110,000 persons were detained without trial during theEmergency.

Indira Gandhi's rule during the Emergency alienated herpopular support. After postponing elections for a year following


to panchayat and municipal government institutions. Oppositionparties, many of whom were on record as favoring decentralizationof government power, vehemently resisted the Congress (I)initiative. They charged that the initiative did not truly decentralizepower but instead enabled the central government to circumventstate governments (many of which were controlled by theopposition) by transferring authority from state to local governmentand strengthening the links between central and local governments.After the Congress (I) failed to win the two-thirds vote requiredto pass the legislation in the Rajya Sabha on October 13, 1989, itcalled for new parliamentary elections and made "jana shakti"(power to the people) its main campaign slogan.

The Congress (I) retained formidable campaign advantagesover the opposition. The October 17, 1989, announcement ofelections took the opposition parties by surprise and gave themlittle time to form electoral alliances. The Congress (I) also blatantlyused the government-controlled television and radio to promoteRajiv Gandhi. In addition, the Congress (I) campaign once againenjoyed vastly superior financing. It distributed some 100,000posters and 15,000 banners to each of its 510 candidates. It providedevery candidate with six or seven vehicles, and it commissionedadvertising agencies to make a total of ten video films to promoteits campaign.

The results of the 1989 elections were more of a rebuff to theCongress (I) than a mandate for the opposition. Although theCongress (I) remained the largest party in Parliament with 197seats, it was unable to form a government. Instead, the Janata Dal,which had 143 seats, united with its National Front allies to forma minority government precariously dependent on the support ofthe BJP (eighty-five seats) and the communist parties (forty-fiveseats). Although the Congress (I) lost more than 50 percent of itsseats in Parliament, its share of the vote dropped only from 48.1percent to 39.5 percent of the vote. The Congress (I) share of thevote was still more than double that of the next largest party, theJanata Dal, which received support from 17.8 percent of theelectorate. More grave for the long-term future of the Congress(I) was the erosion of vital elements of the traditional coalition ofsupport for the Congress (I) in North India. Alienated by the

to her. As a result, party leaders at the state level lost their legitimacyamong the rank and file because their positions depended on thewhims of Indira Gandhi rather than on the extent of their popularsupport. In addition, centralization and the demise of democracywithin the party disrupted the flow of information about localcircumstances to party leaders and curtailed the ability of theCongress (I) to adjust to social change and incorporate new leaders.

When Rajiv Gandhi took control after his mother'sassassination in November 1984, he attempted to breathe new lifeinto the Congress (I) organization. However, the massive electoralvictory that the Congress (I) scored under Rajiv's leadership justtwo months after his mother's assassination gave him neither theskill nor the authority to succeed in this endeavor. Rajiv did,however, attempt to remove the more unsavory elements withinthe party organization. He denied nominations to one-third of theincumbent members of Parliament during the 1984 Lok Sabhacampaign, and he refused to nominate two of every five incumbentsin the state legislative assembly elections held in March 1985.

Another of Rajiv's early successes was the passage of the Anti-Defection Bill in January 1985 in an effort to end the bribery thatlured legislators to cross partisan lines. Speaking at the IndianNational Congress centenary celebrations in Bombay (officiallycalled Mumbai as of 1995), Rajiv launched a vitriolic attack on the"culture of corruption" that had become so pervasive in theCongress (I). However, the old guard showed little enthusiasmfor reform. As time passed, Rajiv's position was weakened by thelosses that the party suffered in a series of state assembly electionsand by his government's involvement in corruption scandals.Ultimately, Rajiv was unable to overcome the resistance withinthe party to internal elections and reforms. Ironically, as Rajiv'sposition within the party weakened, he turned for advice to manyof the wheelers and dealers of his mother's regime whom he hadpreviously banished.

The frustration of Rajiv Gandhi's promising early initiativesmeant that the Congress (I) had no issues on which to campaignas the end of his five-year term approached. On May 15, 1989, justmonths before its term was to expire, the Congress (I) introducedamendments that proposed to decentralize government authority


which together account for more than 25 percent of all seats inParliament. In Uttar Pradesh, the number of seats that theCongress (I) was able to win went down from fifteen to two, andits share of the vote dropped from 32 percent to 20 percent. InBihar the seats won by the Congress (I) fell from four to one, andthe Congress (I) share of the vote was reduced from 28 percentto 22 percent.

The Congress (I) problems in these states, which until 1989had been bastions of its strength, were reinforced by the party'spoor showing in the November 1993 state elections. Theseelections were characterized by the further disintegration of thetraditional Congress coalition, with Brahmans and other uppercastes defecting to the BJP and Scheduled Castes and Muslimsdefecting to the Janata Dal, the Samajwadi Party (Socialist Party),and the BSP.

Strong evidence indicates that the Congress (I) would havefared significantly worse had it not been for the assassination ofRajiv Gandhi in the middle of the elections. A wave of sympathysimilar to that which helped elect Rajiv after the assassination ofhis mother increased the Congress (I) support. In the round ofvoting that took place before Rajiv's death, the Congress (I) wononly 26 percent of the seats and 33 percent of the vote.

In the votes that occurred after Rajiv's death, the Congress (I)won 58 percent of the seats and 40 percent of the popular vote.It may also be that Rajiv's demise ended the "anti-Congressism"that had pervaded the political system as a result of his family'sdynastic domination of Indian politics through its control over theCongress.

Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomberaffiliated with the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) during a political campaign in May 1991. Only after hisassassination did hope for reforming the Congress (I) reappear.The end of three generations of Nehru-Gandhi family leadershipleft Rajiv's coterie of political manipulators in search of a newkingpin.

The bankruptcy of the Congress (I) leadership was highlightedby the fact that they initially turned to Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv's

Congress (I)'s cultivation of Hindu activists, Muslims defected tothe Janata Dal in large numbers. The Congress (I) simultaneouslylost a substantial share of Scheduled Caste voters to the BSP inHaryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh and to the IndianPeople's Front in Bihar.

To offset these losses, the Congress (I) attempted to play a"Hindu card." On August 14, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled thatno parties or groups could disturb the status quo of the BabriMasjid, a sixteenth-century mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.The mosque was controversial because Hindu nationalists claimit was on the site of the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram and that,as such, the use by Muslims was sacrilegious (see Vishnu, ch. 3).

Despite the court ruling, in September the Congress (I) enteredinto an agreement with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP--WorldHindu Council), a conservative religious organization with closeties to Hindu nationalists, to allow the VHP to proceed with aceremony to lay the foundation for the Ramjanmabhumi (birthplaceof Ram) Temple.

(The VHP had been working toward this goal since 1984.) Inreturn, the Congress (I) secured the VHP's agreement to performthe ceremony on property adjacent to the Babri Masjid that wasnot in dispute.

By reaching this agreement, the Congress (I) attempted toappeal to Hindu activists while retaining Muslim support. RajivGandhi's decision to kick off his campaign less than six kilometersfrom the Babri Masjid and his appeal to voters that they vote forthe Congress (I) if they wished to bring about "Ram Rajya" (therule of Ram) were other elements of the Congress (I)'s strategyto attract the Hindu vote (see Political Issues, this ch.)

The 1991 elections returned the Congress (I) to power but didnot reverse important trends in the party's decline. The Congress(I) won 227 seats, up from 197 in 1989, but its share of the votedropped from 39.5 percent in 1989 to 37.6 percent. Greater divisionwithin the opposition rather than growing popularity of theCongress (I) was the key element in the party's securing anincreased number of seats. Also troubling was the further declineof the Congress (I) in heavily populated Bihar and Uttar Pradesh,


(in Haryana), where Rao's supporters lavishly praised the primeminister and coercively silenced his opponents.

However, Rao's image was damaged in July 1993 after HarshadMehta, a stockbroker under indictment for allegedly playing aleading role in a US$2 billion stock scam in 1992, accused Rao ofpersonally accepting a bribe that he had delivered on November4, 1991. The extent of the press coverage of the charges and theirapparent credibility among the public was evidence of thepervasive public cynicism toward politicians. Rao's stock in theparty and Congress (I)'s position within Parliament were greatlyweakened.

On July 28, 1993, his government barely survived a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. Rao's position was temporarilystrengthened at the end of 1993 when he was able to cobbletogether a parliamentary majority. However, support for Rao andthe Congress (I) declined again in 1994. The party was rocked bya scandal relating to the procurement of sugar stocks that cost thegovernment an estimated Rs6.5 billion (US$210 million; for valueof the rupee--see Glossary) and by losses in legislative assemblyelections in Andhra Pradesh--Rao's home state, where he personallytook control over the campaign--and Karnataka.

The Congress (I) again lost in three of four major states inelections held in the spring of 1995. The political fallout in NewDelhi was an increase in dissident activity within the Congress(I) led by former cabinet members Narain Dutt Tiwari and ArjunSingh and other Rao rivals who sought to split the Congress andform a new party.

The Party boasts of the leadership of what can be said the firstpolitical family of the country. The dynasty goes back to the timeof Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister. His daughter,Indira Gandhi, active during the years of the freedom strugglewas the natural heir to the throne.

The suspension of democratic institutions during emergencyearned her many critics and also led to the birth of many anti-Congress factions. Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. RajivGandhi, then a political novice, swept the polls through theapparent sympathy wave. His tragic assassination again brought

Italian-born wife, to lead the party. Sonia's primary qualificationwas that she was Rajiv's widow. She had never held elected officeand, during her early years in India, she had expressed greatdisdain for political life.

However, although she did not assume a leadership role, shecontinued to be seen as a "kingmaker" in the Congress (I). Heradvice was sought after, and she was called on to lead the partyin the mid-1990s. An unusual public speech by Sonia Gandhicriticizing the government of P.V. Narasimha Rao in August 1995further fueled speculation that she was a candidate for politicalleadership.

Sonia Gandhi's refusal in 1991 to become president of theCongress (I) led the mantle of party leadership to fall on Rao. Raowas a septuagenarian former professor who had retired frompolitics before the 1991 elections after undergoing heart-bypasssurgery. Rao had a conciliatory demeanor and was acceptable tothe party's contending factions. Paradoxically, the precariouslypositioned Rao was able to take more substantial steps in thedirection of party reform than his predecessors. First, Rao had todemonstrate that he could mobilize popular support for himselfand the party, a vital currency of power for any Congress (I)leader.

He did so in the November 15, 1991, by-elections by winninghis own seat in Andhra Pradesh unopposed and leading the partyto victory in a total of eight of the fifteen parliamentary by-elections. By the end of 1991, Rao had succeeded in initiating thefirst intraparty elections in the Congress in almost twenty years.

Although there was widespread manipulation by local partybosses, the elections enhanced the legitimacy of party leaders andheld forth the prospect of a rejuvenated party organization. Theprocess culminated in April 1992 at the All-India Congress (I)Committee at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, where elections wereheld for the ten vacant seats in the Congress Working Committee.

In the wake of the Tirupati session, Rao became less interestedin promoting party democracy and more concerned withconsolidating his own position. The change was especially apparentin the 1993 All-India Congress (I) Committee session at Surajkund


SAMTA PARTY

Samata Party was formed in 1994 when a faction lead byGeorge Fernandes and Nitish Kumar broke away from Janta Dal.The reason was that the party ideology had shifted to casteism.George Fernades rose to fame during 1977-79 for his oppositionto multinational companies. He was the key figure behind packingoff Coca cola from India then. He campaigned against BJP callingit a communal party. In 1996 Samata Party came into alliance withBJP and won on eight seats, six in Bihar and one each in UttarPradesh and Orissa. Before this it was largely based in Bihar only.In 1998 elections again in alliance with BJP it won twelve seats,ten from Bihar and two from Uttar Pradesh.

Since then the two leaders George Fernandes and Nitish Kumarwere Union Ministers in the NDA government; George Fernandesthe Defence Minister and Nitish Kumar the Railway Minister.More recently with yet another split in Janta Dal, SP has been ableto rope in Janta Dal Led by Sharad Yadav, Lok Shakti led byRamakrishna Hegde and Samata Party on a single platform forthe NDA. In October 2003, it announced that it will be mergingwith the Janata Dal (United) Party. It is part of the ruling coalitionthe National Democratic Alliance.


o Oppose and end communalism

o Eradicate corruption at all levels

o Increased security of the nation

COMMUNIST PARTIES

The Communist Party of India (CPI) was founded on December26, 1925, at an all-India conference held at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,in late December 1925 and early January 1926. Communistsparticipated in the independence struggle and, as members of theCongress Socialist Party, became a formidable presence on thesocialist wing of the Indian National Congress. They were expelledfrom the Congress Socialist Party in March 1940, after allegationsthat the communists had disrupted party activities and were intenton co-opting party organizations. Indeed, by the time thecommunists were expelled, they had gained control over the entire

the Congress to power in 1991, with PV Narasimha Rao as thePrime Minister. The Congress popularity nose-dived mainly dueto the involvement of its leaders, including Narasimha Rao, in thevote buying case during a confidence vote and other corruptioncharges.

In 1999 Mrs. Sonia Gandhi entered politics and took the reinsof the party. This was the time when the party most needed thesupport of the Nehru-Gandhi Family. Now she has matured inthe game and is again leading the party in General Elections 2004.The party in her leadership plans the comeback to power.


o Generation of more jobs

o Eradication of poverty

o Step up public investment in agriculture

o One-third reservation for women

o Commission for the problems of North Eastern States

BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY

The BSP was formed in 1984 by Kanshi Ram who has remainedparty leader ever since. The party emerged from Kanshi Ram'searlier activity promoting the interests of Scheduled Castegovernment employees. Kanshi Ram was able to promote theorganisation in the states of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana andMadhya Pradesh.

Although the BSP is recognised by the Election Commissionas a national party it effectively functions on certain North Indianstates only. Its ideology is based on the argument that the majorityare oppressed by the select upper class. It aims to change thisusing the government power.

Mayawati and Kanshi Ram are the two key figures of theparty. The BSP first entered the election fray in 1984 but didnotdo well. It started to rise in the post alliances era. While in powerin 1995, the BSP was clouded in several controversies. It still hasrisen with it's limited following based on the cast credentials. Itssingle point program is the upliftment of dalits.


In the 1990s, the CPI (M) enjoys the most political strengthof any communist group. Nationally, its share of the vote hasgradually increased from 4.2 percent in 1967 to 6.7 percent in 1991,but it has largely remained confined to Kerala, Tripura, and WestBengal. In Kerala the CPI (M) in coalition with other partieswrested control from the Congress and its allies (frequentlyincluding the CPI) in 1967, in 1980, and in 1987. Support for theCPI (M) in Kerala in general elections has ranged from 19 percentto 26 percent, but the party has never won more than nine ofKerala's twenty seats in Parliament.

From 1977 to 1989, the CPI (M) dominated Tripura's stategovernment. It won two parliamentary seats in 1971, 1980, and1984, but it lost all of its seats in 1977, 1989, and 1991. In WestBengal, the CPI (M) has ruled the state government with a coalitionof other leftist parties since 1977, and, since that time, the partyhas also dominated West Bengal's parliamentary delegation.Support for the CPI is more evenly spread nationwide, but it isweak and in decline. The CPI share of the parliamentary vote hasmore than halved from 5.2 percent in 1967 to 2.5 percent in 1991.

In 1982 a CPI (M-L) faction entered the parliamentary arenaby forming the Indian People's Front. In the 1989 general elections,the front won a parliamentary seat in western Bihar, and in 1990it won seven seats in the Bihar legislative assembly. However, theIndian People's Front lost its parliamentary seat in the 1991parliamentary elections when its vote in Bihar declined by some20 percent. Leded by Somnath Chatterjee, the CPI-M took 5,5%of vote in last legislative election (May 2004) and it has 53 MPs.It formed with the Communist Party of India (CPI), and two otherleft-wing groups, the Left Front, that has 59 MPs and 7,6%. Theysupport new India National Congress' government, but withouttaking part in it.

JANTA DAL

Janata Dal is an Indian political party which broke off fromthe the Janata Party. It first came to power in 1989, after allegationsof corruption, known as the Bofors affair, caused Rajiv Gandhi'sCongress (I) to lose the elections. The National Front coalition thatwas formed consisted of the Janata Dal and a few smaller parties

Congress Socialist Party units in what were to become the southernstates of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh.

Communists remained members of the Indian NationalCongress although their support of the British war effort after theGerman invasion of the Soviet Union and their nationalist policysupporting the right of religious minorities to secede from Indiawere diametrically opposed to Congress policies. As a result, thecommunists became isolated within the Congress. Afterindependence, communists organized a peasant uprising in theTelangana region in the northern part of what was to becomeAndhra Pradesh.

The uprising was suppressed only after the central governmentsent in the army. Starting in 1951, the CPI shifted to a moremoderate strategy of seeking to bring communism to India withinthe constraints of Indian democracy. In 1957 the CPI was electedto rule the state government of Kerala only to have the governmentdismissed and President's Rule declared in 1959.

In 1964, in conjunction with the widening rift between Chinaand the Soviet Union, a large leftist faction of the CPI leadership,based predominantly in Kerala and West Bengal, split from theparty to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI (M).The CPI (M)-led coalition victory in the 1967 West Bengal stateelections spurred dissension within the party because a Maoistfaction headed a peasant rebellion in the Naxalbari area of thestate, just south of Darjiling (Darjeeling).

The suppression of the Naxalbari uprising under the directionof the CPI (M)-controlled Home Ministry of the state governmentled to denunciations by Maoist revolutionary factions across thecountry. These groups--commonly referred to as Naxalites--sparked new uprisings in the Srikakulam region of AndhraPradesh, Bihar, and other parts of West Bengal.

In 1969 several Naxalite factions joined together to form a newparty--the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)--CPI (M-L). However, pursuit of insurrectionary tactics in the face of harshrepression by the government along with an array of ideologicaldisputes kept Naxalite factions isolated in their local bases.


in the government, and had outside support from the BJP and theCommunists. V. P. Singh was the Prime Minister. In November1990, this coalition collapsed, and a new government headed byChandra Shekhar which had the support of the Congress (I) anda faction of the Janata Dal came to power. This coalition fellshortly causing new elections in June 1991 which brought theCongress back to power.

Its second spell of power started in 1996, when the Janata Dal-led United Front coalition came to power, with outside supportfrom the Congress, choosing H. D. Deve Gowda as their PrimeMinister. Congress (I) withdrew their support in less than a year,hoping to gain power with the support of various United Frontconstituent groups, and Inder Kumar Gujral became the nextJanata Dal Prime Minister. His government fell in a few months,and in February 1998, the Janata Dal-led coalition lost power tothe BJP. This party has had several splits. Amongst the largersplinter groups include the Rashtriya Janata Dal, which rules thestate of Bihar, and the Janata Dal United Party, whose leaderGeorge Fernandes is India's Defense Minister. Several smallersplinter groups also exist.

NATIONALIST CONGRESS PARTY

The Nationalist Congress Party was formed on May 25, 1999,by Sharad Pawar, P.A. Sangma, and Tariq Anwar after they wereexpelled from the Congress (I) Party for questioning why SoniaGandhi should be leader, when she was born an Italian citizen.In January 2004, Sangma quit the NCP to join with NEPF asSharad Pawar was getting closer to NCP's enemy Sonia Gandhi.The NCP considers itself a progressive, secular party that standsfor "democracy, Gandhian secularism, equity, social justice, andfederalism." It positions itself as a moderate, left-leaning alternativeto the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress. The party'selection symbol is an analog clock that reads 10:00. NCP Policies:

o Establishment of a national agricultural policy

o Establishment of a national policy to empower women

o Review and revision to the national health policy to adda separate sub-component on women's health

o Integrated implementation of a national nutrition policyto merge and coordinate various services provided bydifferent government departments and agencies

o Citizenship law reform to stipulate that high offices ingovernment be confined to natural-born Indian citizens

o Reserving for women one-third of the seats in parliamentand in state legislatures

o Enactment of a competition law to protect against corruptpractices

o Enactment of a bio-diversity law to protect bio-diversityand intellectual property

o Enactment of a law establishing an independent telecastingauthority

Indian Government and Politics State, Regional, Cast Based Political Parties124 125

Justice Party, in 1944 Ramaswamy renamed the party the DravidaKazhagam (DK--Dravidian Federation) and demanded theestablishment of an independent state called Dravidasthan. In1949, charismatic film script writer C.N. Annadurai, who waschafing under Ramaswamy's authoritarian leadership, split fromthe DK to found the DMK in an attempt to achieve the goals ofTamil nationalism through the electoral process. The DMK droppedits demand for Dravidasthan in 1963 but played a prominent rolein the agitations that successfully defeated attempts to impose thenorthern Indian language of Hindi as the official national languagein the mid-1960s. The DMK routed the Congress in the 1967elections in Tamil Nadu and took control of the state government.With the deterioration of Annadurai's health, another screen writer,M. Karunanidhi, became chief minster in 1968 and took controlof the party after Annadurai's death in 1969.

Karunanidhi's control over the party was soon challenged byM.G. Ramachandran (best known by his initials, M.G.R.), one ofSouth India's most popular film stars. In 1972 M.G.R. split fromthe DMK to form the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(AIADMK). Under his leadership, the AIADMK dominated Tamilpolitics at the state level from 1977 through 1989. The importanceof personal charisma in Tamil politics was dramatized by thestruggle for control over the AIADMK after M.G.R's death in 1988.His widow, Janaki, herself a former film star, vied for control withJayalalitha, an actress who had played M.G.R.'s leading lady inseveral films. The rivalry allowed the DMK to gain control overthe state government in 1989. The AIADMK, securely under thecontrol of Jayalalitha, who was cast as a "revolutionary leader,"recaptured the state government in 1991. However, since 1980, theCongress (I), usually in alliance with the AIADMK, has won amajority of Tamil Nadu's seats in Parliament.

After three decades of Congress rule, the politics of AndhraPradesh during the 1980s also became dominated by a charismaticfilm star who stressed regional issues. In 1982 N.T. Rama Rao(popularly known as N.T.R.), an actor who frequently playedHindu deities in Telugu-language films, formed the Telugu Desam.The party ruled the state from 1983 to 1989. It also won thirty ofAndhra Pradesh's forty-two parliamentary seats in 1984. With the

4STATE, REGIONAL, CAST BASED

POLITICAL PARTIES

INTRODUCTION

Given India's social, cultural, and historical diversity, it isonly natural that regional parties play an important role in thecountry's political life. Because of India's federal system, stateassembly votes are held in an electoral arena that often enablesregional parties to obtain power by espousing issues of regionalconcern. Simultaneously, the single-member district, first-past-the-post electoral system has given the advantage to nationalparties, such as the Congress, which possess a realistic chance ofgaining or retaining power at the national level and the opportunityto use central government resources to reward their supporters.Although regional parties have exercised authority at the statelevel, collectively they receive only from 5 to 10 percent of thenational vote in parliamentary elections. Only during thegovernments of the Janata Party (1977-79) and the National Front(1989-90) have they participated in forming the central government.However, as India's party system becomes more fragmented withthe decline of the Congress (I), the regional parties are likely toplay an important role at the national level.

Regional political parties have been strongest in Tamil Nadu,where they have dominated state politics since 1967. Regionalparties in the state trace their roots to the establishment of theJustice Party by non-Brahman social elites in 1916 and thedevelopment of the non-Bhraman Self-Respect Movement,founded in 1925 by E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker. As leader of the


Abdullah's death in 1982, with his son, Farooq Abdullah.Friendship, however, did not prevent Nehru from imprisoningSheikh Abdullah when he became concerned that the "Lion ofKashmir" was disposed to demand independence for his state.Ultimately, Sheikh Abdullah struck a deal with Indira Gandhi,and in 1975 he became chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

The National Conference remained Jammu and Kashmir'sdominant party through the 1980s and maintained control overthe state government for most of the period. In parliamentaryelections, it won one of Kashmir's six parliamentary seats in 1967,none in 1971, two in 1977, and three in 1980, 1984, and 1989.However, popular support for the National Conference was badlyeroded by allegations of electoral fraud in the 1987 state elections--which were won by the National Conference in alliance with theCongress (I)--and the widespread corruption of the subsequentstate government under the leadership of Farooq Abdullah. Therewas little popular sympathy for Farooq Abdullah and the NationalConference even after the government was dissolved andPresident's Rule declared in 1990.

Jammu and Kashmir remained under President's Rule through1995, and the absence of elections makes it difficult to ascertainthe extent of the National Conference's popular support.Nevertheless, it appears that Farooq and the National Conferenceremain discredited.

During the late 1980s, the AGP rose to power in Assam onthe crest of Assamese nationalism. Immigration to Assam--primarily by Muslim Bengalis from neighboring Bangladesh--hadaroused concern that the Assamese would become a minority intheir own state. By 1979 attention was focused on the controversialissue of determining how many immigrants would be allowed onthe state's list of eligible voters. The Congress (I), which gaineda substantial share of the immigrants' votes, took a more expansiveview of who should be included while the Assamese nationalistorganizations demanded a more restrictive position. An attemptto hold state elections in February 1983, and in effect to force theAssamese nationalists to accept the status quo, resulted in abreakdown of law and order and the deaths of more than 3,000people. The subsequent formation of a Congress (I) government

objective of enhancing Andhra Pradesh's regional autonomy,N.T.R. played a key role in the formation of the National Frontcoalition government in 1989. However, in the 1989 elections, theTelugu Desam won only two parliamentary seats and lost controlover the state government to the Congress (I). It was able toimprove its showing to thirteen seats in Parliament in the 1991elections. The Telugu Desam returned to power in Andhra Pradeshafter winning the state legislative assembly elections in November1994.

The Akali Dal (Eternal Party) claims to represent India's Sikhs,who are concentrated primarily in Punjab. It was first formed inthe early 1920s to return control of gurdwaras (Sikh places ofworship) to the orthodox Sikh religious community. During the1960s, the Akali Dal played an important role in the struggle forthe creation of Punjab as a separate state with a Sikh majority.Even with the majority Sikh population, the Akali Dal's politicalsuccess has been limited by the Congress's ability to win votesfrom the Sikh community. The Akali Dal won nine of Punjab'sthirteen parliamentary seats in the general elections of 1977 andseven in 1984 but only one in the 1971 and 1980 elections. Similarly,the Akali Dal headed coalition state governments in 1967 and1977 and formed the state government in 1985, but it lost stategovernment elections to the Congress (R) in 1972, and to Congress(I) in 1980 and in 1992. As the 1980s progressed, the Akali Dalbecame increasingly factionalized. In 1989 three Akali Dal factionsran in the elections, winning a total of seven seats. The Akali Dalfactions boycotted parliamentary and state legislative electionsthat were held in February 1992. As a result, voter turnout droppedto 21.6 percent, and the Congress (I) won twelve of Punjab'sthirteen seats in Parliament and a majority of seats in the legislativeassembly.

The National Conference, based in Jammu and Kashmir, is aregional party, which, despite its overwhelmingly Muslimfollowing, refused to support the All-India Muslim League (MuslimLeague--see Glossary) during the independence movement; insteadit allied itself with the Indian National Congress. The NationalConference was closely identified with its leader, SheikhMohammed Abdullah, a personal friend of Nehru, and, after


Caste-Based Parties

One irony of Indian politics is that its modern seculardemocracy has enhanced rather than reduced the political salienceof traditional forms of social identity such as caste. Part of theexplanation for this development is that India's political partieshave found the caste-based selection of candidates and appealsto the caste-based interests of the Indian electorate to be an effectiveway to win popular support. More fundamental has been theeconomic development and social mobility of those groupsofficially designated as Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes.Accounting for 52 and 15 percent of the population, respectively,the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes, or Dalits as theyprefer to be called, constitute a diverse range of middle, lower,and outcaste groups who have come to wield substantial powerin most states. Indeed, one of the dramas of modern Indian politicshas been the Backward Classes and Dalits' jettisoning of theirpolitical subordination to upper castes and their assertion of theirown interests.

The Backward Classes are such a substantial constituency thatalmost all parties vie for their support. For instance, the Congress(I) in Maharashtra has long relied on Backward Classes' backingfor its political success. The 1990s have seen a growing numberof cases where parties, relying primarily on Backward Classes'support, often in alliance with Dalits and Muslims, catapult topower in India's states. Janata Dal governments in Bihar andKarnataka are excellent examples of this strategy. An especiallyimportant development is the success of the Samajwadi Party,which under the leadership of Mulayam Singh Yadav won the1993 assembly elections in India's most populous state, UttarPradesh, relying almost exclusively on Backward Classes andMuslim support in a coalition with the Dalit-supported BSP.

The growing support of the BSP also reflects the importanceof caste-based politics and the assertiveness of the Dalits inparticular. The BSP was founded by Kanshi Ram on April 13,1984, the birthday of B.R. Ambedkar. Born as a Dalit in Punjab,Kanshi Ram resigned from his position as a government employeein 1964 and, after working in various political positions, foundedthe All-India Backward, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other

led by Hiteshwar Saikia was widely viewed in Assam asillegitimate, and it was dissolved as part of the terms of the AssamAccord that was signed between Rajiv Gandhi and Assamesenationalists on August 15, 1985. The Assam Accord also includeda compromise on the voter eligibility issue, settled the issue of thecitizenship status of immigrants, and stipulated that new electionswere to be held in December. The AGP was formed by Assamesestudent leaders after the signing of the accord, and the new partywon the December 1985 elections with 35 percent of the vote andsixty-four of 108 seats in the state legislature.

The victory of the AGP did not end the controversy overAssamese nationalism. The AGP was unable to implement theaccord's provisions for disenfranchising and expelling illegal aliens,in part because Parliament passed legislation making it moredifficult to prove illegal alien status. The AGP's failure to implementthe accord along with the general ineffectiveness with which itoperated the state government undercut its popular support, andin November 1990 it was dismissed and President's Rule declared.As the AGP floundered, other nationalist groups of agitatorsflourished. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) becamethe primary torchbearer of militant Assamese nationalism whilethe All Bodo Students' Union (ABSU) and Bodo People's ActionCommittee (BPAC) led an agitation for a separate homeland forthe central plain tribal people of Assam (often called Bodos). By1990 ULFA militants ran virtually a parallel government in thestate, extorting huge sums from businesses in Assam, especiallythe Assamese tea industry.

The ULFA was ultimately subdued through a shrewdcombination of ruthless military repression and generous termsof surrender for many of its leaders. The ABSU/BPAC-led massagitation lasted from March 1987 until February 1993 when theABSU signed an accord with the state government that had beenunder the Congress (I) control since 1991. The accord providedfor the creation of a Bodoland Autonomous Council withjurisdiction over an area of 5,186 square kilometers and 2.1 millionpeople within Assam. Nevertheless, Bodo agitation continued inthe mid-1990s as a result of the demands of many Bodo leaders,who insisted that more territory be included under the BodolandAutonomous Council.


o Rashtriya Janata Dal

o Rashtriya Lok Dal

o Samajwadi Party

o Telugu Desam Party

o Telangana Rashtra Samiti

o Trinamool Congress

o Shiv Sena

ROLE OF PRESSURE GROUPS AND INTEREST GROUPS

Interest Group

According to Bentely society is nothing more than the complexof groups that compose it. 'Social system is a sort of mosaic ofgroups. It is, therefore, through it that the various groups seek torealise or maximise their interests. A groups may be defined as'a certain portion of the men of a society, taken, however, not asa physical mass cut from other masses of men, but as a mass ofactivity, which does not preclude the men who participate in itfrom participating like wise in many other group activities.' Agroup represented a pattern of processes rather than a static from.A group, as such emerges only when the interaction among itsindividual members are both relatively by one group upon certainother groups, in a social system. Group, thus is mass of activitydirected by interest, and the social system, which consists of alarge number of groups, makes the arena for the interaction ofgroup activity. Therefore we may say that it is the interest, whichleads to the organization of groups.

Political parties, as we know, are the organizations for allkinds of political activities. Besides political parties, people whohold similar views and interests may form an organisation totranslate their views or interests into reality. These groups ororganizations may be religious, social, political, occupational orcommercial. Some groups are organised at the national level whilesome are at the state or local level. But each one is organised toprotect and further some particular interest of its members. Someof the interest groups are well organised while some are not.Today in every country, particularly in democracy, we see a

Backward Classes, and Minority Communities EmployeesFederation (BAMCEF) in 1978. Although both the BAMCEF andBSP pursue strategies of building support among BackwardClasses, Scheduled Tribes, and Muslims as well as Dalits, KanshiRam has been most successful in building support among theDalit Chamar (Leatherworker) caste in North India. In theNovember 1993 Uttar Pradesh state elections, Ram's BSP achievedthe best showing of any Dalit-based party by winning sixty-sevenseats. At the same time, the BSP increased its representation inthe Madhya Pradesh state legislature from two to twelve seats.On June 1, 1995, the BSP withdrew from the state government ofUttar Pradesh and, with the support of the BJP, formed a newgovernment, making its leader, Mayawati, the first Dalit ever tobecome a chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. Observers as doomedbecause of political differences, however, saw the alliance.

State parties:

o All India Forward Bloc

o All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

o Akali Dal

o Asom Gana Parishad

o Bihar Peoples Party

o Biju Janata Dal

o Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

o Himachal Vikas Congress

o Indian National League

o Indian National Lok Dal

o Janata Dal (Secular)

o Janata Dal United Party

o Jharkhand Mukthi Morcha

o Kerala Congress (Mani faction)

o Muslim League

o National Conference

o People's Democratic Party

o Revolutionary Socialist Party


This is achieved by exerting pressure on the individuals andparties who can bring about the desired results. Therefore, anyinterest group using pressure tactics as a means to achieve theirends may be called a pressure group. The pressure groups arevery active in all democratic countries. There are informal andformal interest groups. Since almost invariably, formal groups arebetter organized, financially and numerically stronger, and morelikely to have developed contacts with public officials than informalgroups, they would seem to provide most effective channel forinfluencing the government. Some of the pressure groups areformed to achieve a specific purpose. They are called 'single issue'or 'ad-hoc pressure groups. Some others are organized onpermanent basis.

In modern society, pressure groups can be found among thenumerous voluntary associations, such as labor unions, tradesassociations, and reform groups, that have some intercst at stakein politics. However, essentially the same phenomenon as themodern pressure-group existed in other times when society wasnot so mobile and associations not so voluntary.

"Almost every interest in medieval society," writes Helen Gam"almost every element in its make-up, has left its trace on thelegislation of council and parliament." She listed the principalsources of legislative activity as: "The directive or planning urgein the ruler, the need for clarifying and defining experience by thejudicature, and the demand from the ruled for redress of grievances." This last source, "public" demand, meant, especially by the endof the fifteenth century, about what it means today, although theinterests have changed somewhat. The medieval pressure-groupswere the legal profession, the clergy, the nobility, the landowners,the sheriffs and bailiffs, the merchants, and the leaders of localities.Also, developing continuously as an influence on lawmakingthrough the late medieval and early modern periods was thenotion of the commonweal, often a mere pretense or rationalizationand yet often truly advanced.

Modern pressure-groups have grown in close relation to thevarious party systems. When there are many parties, a numberof such interest groups can be absorbed into the party system.Then the problem of pressure groups becomes almost inextricable

bewildering number of such groups. There are consumer societiesto solve the problems of consumers, the bus passengers associationto solve the problems of bus passengers of a region, the parentsand teachers association to solve the problems of students andschools etc. These are called interest groups. They are formed toprotect some particular interest. A person can be a member ofdifferent associations simultaneously. These interest groups mayormay not indulge in political activities. Their mission is to protecttheir particular interest for which it was formed.

Interest groups, therefore, are associations formed by a groupof like-minded people to protect and further some specific interestor interests.

Pressure Groups

Pressure groups are those interest groups, which directly orindirectly exert pressure on the political and administrativemachinery of the nation in order to win a decision in their favour.Pressure groups are not political organisations. They do notnominate their members for election nor do they intend to capturegovernmental powers. They only influence public policy bypressure tactics to safeguard their specific interests. They pressurisethe party leaders, members of the legislature or some influentialbureaucrats or whoever can tilt the policy and decisions of thegovernment in their favour.

Although, the type of groups and the method they employvary from one political system to another. Groups are involvedsignificantly in the decision-making process in all countries. Someof the pressure groups are well organised and wield lot of powerand influence. The national association of manufacturers in theUnited States is an example. It is an organisation of the big businessgroups and spend. millions of dollars to influence the governmentaldecisions. In Kerala we have many such pressure groups organisedand unorganised, strong and weak. The Merchants association,Private Bus owners association, various trade unions, studentsunion, MES, NSS, SNDP, etc are examples of pressure groups.Each pressure group has its own interest to protect and to achievethat; a change in the policy or decision of government may benecessary.


schoolteachers. But the propagation of such beliefs is certainly notthe primary purpose of such organizations, thus distinguishingthem from promotional groups. The second reason is that somegroups--for instance, organized churches--fall between the twotypes; they can simultaneously pursue advantages for their ownsect and seek to inculcate a distinctive set of values in a wholesociety.

Categories Defined by Structure

In primitive or developing societies, the most prominent typeof interest group is the natural (i.e., primordial or communal) one--that is, one based on kinship, lineage, neighbourhood, or religiousconfession. In Western, industrialized societies, though such groupsdo sometimes retain influence (as do the nationalities in Latviaand Belgium), the most prominent interest group is theassociational (i.e., secondary or factitious) type, like the tradeunion or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is deliberatelycreated to serve defined purposes. Often, associational (orfactitious) groups are created for the sake of the specializedpurposes of the first type; the Indian Workers Union, for instance,was created from the community of Indian persons in Britain.Within the class of associational groups, further qualificationsmust be made:

1. Not all associational groups possess formal structure. "WallStreet" in the United States, or the "City" in London, thoughconsisting of a loose network of persons or functions, maynevertheless exert powerful collective pressures.

2. Some associational groups are collectivities; but others aresingle, discrete organizations. Thus General MotorsCorporation exerts its own strong influence vis-à-vis theU.S. government irrespective of the influence of the moregeneral employers' organization to which it possiblybelongs, like the National Association of Manufacturers.

3. Some associational groups are temporary or ad hoc. Suchare the so-called anomic groups, such as enraged Frenchfarmers who come together briefly to put logs across roadsin order to draw governmental attention to their grievances.

4. Some associational groups are "latent." There may be acommon interest among certain members of the public

from the general study of the political parties. In England, whereone kind of two-party system exists, pressure groups play a roledifferent from the role they play in America, where another kindof two-party system exists. In England, until recently, a smallgroup drawn from the same social class had been able to representdominant landed, religious and commercial interests. Manymembers of Parliament incarnated the values that might haveotherwise prompted strong and numerous pressure groups.

But in America, society has been for a long time relativelyclassless. The politician has been an individualist, footloose bycomparison with his British counterpart, free to bargain and willingto deal with a variety of opposing groups. Furthermore, theAmerican economy is tremendously diversified, the populationexceedingly heterogeneous, and the political structure greatlydecentralized and unintegrated. The formal structure of thegovernment cannot reflect faithfully any large part of the interests,which must seek informal ways of influencing the government.

TYPES OF INTEREST/PRESSURE GROUP

Categories Defined by Purpose

Within the broad definition of interest groups, two polar typesare recognizable: first, interest groups proper, such as trade unions,farmers' unions, and employers' associations, which have as theirprimary purpose the enhancement of the advantage of theirmembers; and, second, promotional groups, such as the societiesfor the prevention of cruelty to children or various voluntary reliefagencies, which exist primarily or entirely to enhance the advantagenot of their own members but of the population, even perhapsto the discomfort or disadvantage of their own members. Someof these, such as churches or various evangelizing groups, existto promulgate a distinctive set of values to be applied to societyas a whole.

The distinction between interest groups proper andpromotional groups is not sharp for two reasons. In the first place,most interest groups proper sincerely believe that in furtheringtheir own material advantage they are also serving that of societyas a whole--by promoting "free enterprise" or a healthy and wealthybody of farmers or a well-paid and enthusiastic corps of


community as a whole by influencing the governmental policy ontaxation, licensing, import and export, tariff etc. The NationalAssociation of Manufacturers of the United States, The BritishChamber of Commerce, All India Manufacturers Association, andThe Indian Chamber of Commerce are some of the examples. Theother business pressure groups are organized to protect the interestof one particular industry, e.g., The textiles manufacturersassociation, private bus owners association, etc.

Agriculture:-Like business-men the agriculturists also havetwo types of pressure groups, One to protect the interests of theagriculturists as a whole such as National farmers union and theother to speak for a particular agriculture sector, such as theNational Co-operative milk producers Association, Coffee GrowersAssociation, Rubber Planters Association, etc.

Labour:-In every democracy with a capitalistic economicsystem, there is bound to be some conflict between the employersand the employees. The employers and the employees haveorganised pressure groups. The employee's organisation is alsocalled trade unions like CITU, AITUC, INTUC, etc.

Professionals:-The professionals like the doctors, lawyers,teachers have their own pressure groups to protect and promotetheir economic and' other interests. The Indian Medical Association(lMA), The Bar Association, All Kerala Private college TeachersAssociation (AKPCTA) etc are example. Religious and community:-In all modern democracies there are many religious and communitypressure groups to promote their interests, such as the practiceand propagation of their religion, running of educationalinstitutions, publishing literature, etc. The Hindu Maha Sabha,The Jama-ate-Islami, The Muslim Educational Society, The NairService Society are some of the examples. Apart from these majorcategories many other pressure groups are seen effectivelyfunctioning in many countries. Students, minority communities,ethnic groups, etc form these pressure groups.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Power Elements

Even in the most pluralistic of the Western liberal democraticstates, it is wrong to picture public policy as simply the result of

even though these individuals may not have combinedinto a formal or informal organization. The individualsmay be unaware that they have a common interest or, ifaware, see no reason to defend or promote it. Or, even ifthe members consciously wish to defend or promote aninterest, the laws may restrict or control their ability toassociate for such a purpose.

Categories Defined by Political Activity

If or when any interest group tries to influence the governmentin the pursuit of its aims, it becomes a "pressure group." Not allinterest groups proper try to exert influence on governments;many (such as businesses and trade unions) do so only as a partof their more general activities of promoting their own interests.Promotional groups, on the other hand, spend much or all theirtime precisely in trying to influence the government to favourtheir aims. Groups such as an anglers' association may, therefore,turn into pressure groups for a time--the time when they seek toinfluence the government for one of their purposes--and thenrevert to simple interest-group status. A pressure group is thereforedefinable as "any interest group that is not a part of the governmentand does not itself seek to govern the country in its own name,but does seek to influence that government for its own purposes."

Difficulties of definition arise, however. Some groups areneither a governmental agency nor entirely a private group. Inautocratic states, Communist or otherwise, for instance, tradeunions are often controlled by the government or the governingparty. In the Western liberal democracies, again, agencies like theTennessee Valley Authority (in the U.S.) or the British BroadcastingCorporation, though subject to the overriding control of thegovernment, enjoy substantial autonomy in certain broad areas.

Also, as noted at the beginning of this article, some pressuregroups eventually turn into political parties, or vice versa.

KINDS OF INTEREST/PRESSURE GROUPS

Business:-Most of the modern democracies with a capitalisticeconomic set up have business pressure groups. Generally theyare of two types. One to protect the interest of the business


3. Prestige lends a group the ability to get a favourable initialhearing from government and public, even though itsnumbers may be small and its wealth meagre.

4. Organization consists notably of the ability to brieflegislators and administrators well and quickly, to mobilizemembers and the public rapidly, and to receive advanceintelligence of likely trends in policy.

5. Socioeconomic leverage is strong among some groups (suchas trade unions) that can disrupt social life and low amongothers (such as consumers associations).

6. Militancy consists of making an effective nuisance ofoneself, so that, hopefully, governments will be willing to"buy" time or peace.

7. Specialized information and skills add the weight ofauthority.

8. Electoral strength refers to the power of some groups that,though poorly organized or having a low density,nevertheless command wide support in the electorate andso find themselves courted by rival political parties.

TACTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Organization: Any group with an objective must be properlyorganized. Organization brings strength. An organized group canbetter mobilize their resources and put their whole weight behindtheir move to achieve their objectives. The unorganised or informalgroups cannot achieve anything substantially. On the other hand,well-organised pressure groups like the trade unions are forcesto be reckoned with. They can influence the governmental policyto a great extent.

Lobbying: Lobbying is a term used to refer to process of thepressure groups persuading the public officials to act accordingto their wishes. The terms originated from the word 'lobbies'attached to legislative chambers were the members of thelegislature and their guests can meet and talk.

But it does not mean that only the members of the legislaturesare subjected to lobbying. All the public servants are targets oflobbying by pressure groups.

a parallelogram of group forces. The groups are themselvesrestrained by institutions, procedures, and public beliefs. Amongthe institutions, the most important are the public bureaucracy,the political parties, and the independent branches of thegovernment (the executive, legislature, and judiciary--or somecombination of these, depending on the structure of government).To the extent that each or all of these institutions have strongtraditions, no interest group supplants them but instead has todeal with them. The governmental procedures in force also affectgroups' performance.

To the extent that public issues are traditionally subject topublicity and wide discussion, groups are limited in the kind ofactivities that they can pursue. They are constrained by publicbeliefs as to what is in "the public interest," by what is a properor improper procedure, or by what causes are respectable andwhat are not. If any of these three entities--institutions, procedures,or public beliefs--become feeble, interest groups can intrude intothem. By allying with or gaining power over the parties, thelegislature, or the bureaucracy, for instance, groups can tend tosubstitute themselves for such organs in the decision-makingprocess.

Inside every country the power that pressure groups wieldagainst the government and that each group wields relative to itsrivals depends on a combination of the following variables, someof which are mutually dependent:

1. Density is the ratio of actual membership to potentialmembership. The higher the density, the more"representative" is the group of all the people whoseinterests it purports to represent and the greater will bethe inclination for governments to recognize and consultit. On the other hand, too wide a membership brings withit internal cleavages, so that on certain issues theorganization may not be able to tender clear-cut advice or,indeed, may have to refrain from offering advice altogether.

2. Wealth not only helps a group to develop a skilledmanagement and bureaucracy but also enables it topropagandize and to finance political parties.


the Government and Interest Groups. This systematic connectionbetween governments and interest groups is characterized by fivepatterns:

1. PLURALIST INTEREST GROUP SYSTEM: This system ischaracterized by many kinds of autonomous associationalgroups and multiple groups representing the same sectorof society. This is typified by multiple groups that arefurther fragmented which results in conflicting andfragmented articulation. All groups press their demandssimultaneously on policymakers and the implementingbureaucracies. The US is a good example.

2. DEMOCRATIC CORPORATIST INTEREST GROUPSYSTEM: This system is characterized by centralizedinterest groups who impact on policy. This system appearsto have a closer coordination between organizationsmaking demands for groups in a particular sector of society.The lack of autonomy for these group systems isdetrimental or has serious consequences in a politicalsystem. If interest groups in this system are deniedexpression may result in an outbreak of violence. Thesubordination of interest groups by political parties maylimit the adaptability of the political process.

3. CONTROLLED INTEREST GROUP SYSTEM: This systemis composed of organized groups which are penetratedand dominated by other institutions such as parties andbureaucracies. A specific example would be the Communistsystem.

4. NEOCORPORATISTS GROUP SYSTEM: These systemsare organized, specialized associations which seek toadvance or defend interests by influencing and contestingcollective choices. The large focus of is on governmentaccountability and binding decisions on society. This grouptends also tends to focus on government responsiveness.

5. PATRON-CLIENT NETWORK GROUP SYSTEM: Of allthe systems this is the most primitive structure of all politics.This system reflects the human interaction out of whichlarger and more complicated political systems arecomposed. It is a system where personal dependency and

Public Opinion: In advanced democracies, the public opinionis a vital means to influence the policy of the government. Thepressure groups, therefore, organize public opinion in favour oftheir objectives to influence the government.

Political Allegiance: Some pressure groups actively associatewith political parties. They identify with one or the other partyand use it to achieve their objectives. They can exert considerablepressure on the party leadership to get the nomination of theircandidates in the election or in the ministry. The British tradeunions have a great voice in labour party.

Electioneering: Some pressure groups, on the other hand,wish to keep away from being openly identified with one or theother party. They do not maintain any allegiance to any politicalparty. They pick up the candidate who can be relied upon to work.Then during the election they work for the success of suchcandidates. They do everything required in an election to ensurethe victory of such candidates.

Strike: Resorting to general stoppage of work to achieve someof their objectives is a common tactic used by many pressuregroups. Almost all the pressure groups use this weapon one-wayor the other. The pressure groups of the employees resort tostoppage of work, the employers' resort to closure of factories andthe merchants close the shops, all ultimately leading to the sameend. Some of the pressure groups use violence too to achieve theirobjectives.

Bandh and Gherao: Literally bandh means 'closure' that, maybe likened with total strike of all, including offices, shops, markets,transport and the like. The instances of bandh illustrates that itis a mischievous and mob manipulation. Gherao impliesencirclement or confinement of the employers by the employeesfor coercing them to meet their demands as per their ownsatisfaction.

Relationship Between Interest/Pressure Groups andGovernments: Interest/Pressure Group Systems

The nature of interest groups existence is to influencepolicymakers which results in some type of relationship between


emphasis and delivery of policies, rather than the policiesthemselves.

The greater importance of the media in politics, anddevelopments in media technology. Groups now have morepowerful weapons at their disposal to organise themselves andcampaign; a good example of this at the international level wasthe 1999 Seattle pre-ministerial meeting that was effectivelysabotaged by groups organised through the internet. On a moreday to day basis, the growth in news coverage, and the declinein deference towards government by TV journalists, gives groupsmore exposure and potential impact on public opinion.

Criticisms put Forth against Pressure Groups

o They are selfish

o Too powerful and not in the public interest

o They sometimes adopt undesirable tactics

o The wealthy sections of society have a district advantagein that they are better organised.

o A threat or necessity

An Analysis-whether Pressure Groups are Good or Bad

Unfortunately, no formula can say which of these variousindividual pressures that have been described are good and whichbad. Pressure in itself, obviously, is neither good nor bad. One caninfluence the government to his own financial profit; but one canalso influence the government to relieve famine in India. This isas true of individuals we are now discussing as of the socialgroups we shall discuss below. The student must determine in hisown mind the extent to which the pressure of an individual orgroup is for an unjustified personal benefit or for a justified largercause.

If one has no settled standards for making such evaluations,he ought to turn to some of the moral philosophers for help.Aristotle's Ethics, Plato's Republic, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations,Augustine's Confessions, Dante's Divine Comedy, and Spinoza'sEthics are only a few of the older works that can help one toformulate his ethical position on general questions of politics. The

loyalty are central. It is the driving idea behind feudalismand political machines. This network tends to rely on astatic pattern of overall policy formation. As collectiveinterests become broader, personal networks tend tobecome regulated, limited, and incorporated into broaderorganizations. Today, this pattern is often reflective oflesser developed countries.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ROLE OF PRESSURE GROUPS

The study of the pressure groups occupies a very importantplace in modern political system. There was a time when thesegroups were viewed as alarms and moral indignation. It was heldthat they lead to the distortion of the democratic process. However,pressure came up to be gradually recognized by society as anindensible pasrt of it. Today they are not regarded as a necessaryevil but as a healthy factor in poltical dynamics. Today, pressuregroups are organisations of people with a common interest whichwant to influence but not become the government; they tend tohave a narrow range of issues they are concerned with, or just oneissue. They have certainly become a more significant politicalforce in recent years, because of a number of factors:

The trend towards a more plural society. Society and votershas become less class based and more pluralistic, in that it consistsof a greater variety of groups and interests; these are less suitedto be represented by mass membership parties. We can note thedecline in party membership and rise in pressure groupmembership.

The more diffuse nature of policy making. Policy making isless concentrated in the party hierarchy and now includes a widervariety of participants such as think tanks, advisers, governmentagencies, and interest groups. This is described by Phillip Nortonas 'policy sectorisation'. Since there are more points of access itis reasonable to suggest that the opportunities for influence bypressure groups are greater.

The decline in political ideology and the new politics ofconsensus. Parties are less dogmatic about their beliefs; this in partis due to the new consensus that is broadly centrist, and basedaround the free market economy. Politics is therefore more about


Pressure groups improve the quality of government.Consultation with affected groups is the rational way to makedecisions in a free society. It makes government more efficient byenhancing the quality of the decision making process-theinformation and advice provided by groups helps to improve thequality of government policy and legislation.

Pressure groups are a product of freedom of association, whichis a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. Freely operatingpressure groups are essential to the effective functioning of liberaldemocracy in three main ways: they serve as vital intermediaryinstitutions between government and society; they assist in thedispersal of political power; and they provide importantcounterweights to balance the concentration of power.

Pressure groups enable new concerns and issues to reach thepolitical agenda, thereby facilitating social progress and preventingsocial stagnation. For example, the women's and environmentalistmovements.

Pressure groups increase social cohesion and political stabilityby providing a 'safety-valve' outlet for individual and collectivegrievances and demands.

Pressure groups assist the surveillance of the government byexposing information it would rather keep secret, therebyreinforcing and complementing work of opposition throughpolitical parties. Pressure groups thereby improve theaccountability of decision makers to electorates.

Although few people would deny that pressure groups playan important role in British politics, critics have argued that thisrole may not be the one suggested by the pluralist model.

Pressure groups improve participation, but in an unequalway, benefiting the well organised but disadvantaging the weaklyorganised. In this sense, they work against-not in favour of-thepublic interest.

Pressure groups themselves may not be representative of theirmembers. Their officers are not usually elected. Few groups haveprocedures for consulting their members. As a result, the viewsexpressed by group officials may not be shared by the group'smembers.

problem is not an easy one, and we shall touch on it again in thenext to last chapter.

Nowhere is it more apparent than in the debate over pressurepolitics that most people consider their own ideas legitimate andtrue and those of their opponents illegitimate and false. The merefact that a person advocates reforms on behalf of others does notargue in itself for his goodness. Napoleon almost ruined Franceby policies that sought glory for that country.

For some, pressure groups are a fundamental part ofdemocracy. To others, pressure groups undermine the wholeprinciple of democracy. Democracy is a system of governmentwhere decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles withrepresentatives elected at periodic elections where political equalityand political freedom allow the voter an effective choice betweencompeting candidates in a secret ballot. How do pressure groupsfit in with this concept?

In the pluralist model of democracy, pressure groups play anessential role. Political parties cannot provide adequaterepresentation for the full range of diverse interests and opinionsin a modern democracy because their key function is to aggregateinterests into a coherent political entity capable of governing thecountry. Pressure groups enable particular interests and causes tobe heard and to exert influence in public decision and decision-making. Yet it is precisely the representation of specialist interestsand of single issues which may give cause for concern, both interms of the methods used to achieve objectives and of the unduepower and influence which particular lobbies can exert.

Pluralists believe that pressure groups overcome thedemocratic deficit that builds up as most people's politicalparticipation is to cast a vote every five years, this leading topeople having little or no influence over decisions made betweenelections, and minority views not being represented. Pressuregroups increase participation and access to the political system,thereby enhancing the quality of democracy. They complementand supplement electoral democracy in two main ways: first, byproviding an important mechanism by which citizens can influencegovernment between elections; and second by enabling opinionsto be weighed as well as counted.


Women suffrage:-For long time men alone were consideredto be fit to enjoy the right to vote. In nineteenth century J.S.Milladvocated the cause of women and insisted that they also shouldbe given the right to vote. However only in the twentieth centurywomen were enfranchised. Even in Switzerland till recently womenwere deprived of this right. This system is known as "universalmanhood suffrage."

Joint Electorate and Communal Electorate: Under, the systemof joint electorate, all the voters belonging 'to a constituency votetogether for a particular candidate. A person who is elected froma constituency represents all the voters irrespective of their caste,and religious differences.

Whereas under communal electorate separate representationscan be given to religious or linguistic minorities. The BritishGovernment introduced the communal representation in India.British government gave separate representation to Muslims andlater on to Sikhs. Under the Government of India Act 1935,provision was made for separate representation to IndianChristians, Anglo-Indians, And Europeans. The scheduled castesalso were put in separate category. Under the constitution of Indiajoint electorate have been provided for.

Open Ballot and Secret Ballot System: Under the open ballotsystem the voters vote publicly. Before the introduction of secretballot, a voter was required to go to the polling station and markpublicly or write on the ballot paper the name of the candidatefor whom he wishes to vote. The ballot boxes were also kept inpublic. This system was quite popular in nineteenth century. Inmodern times it is not used.. Under the secret ballot system thevoter castes his vote secretly. The voter cans caste his vote to anycandidate he likes without anyone knowing about it. The voteris 'given a ballot paper, in which he can mark by a seal on thename or symbol of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. Insecret ballot system, the elections can be conducted peacefullywithout any disturbances.

Single and Multiple Member Constituency: Under single-member method the whole country is divided into as manyconstituencies as there are seats to be filled up and one memberis returned from each constituency. Each constituency should

Although the views of pressure groups may sometimes beconsidered, they are likely to be ignored if they do not confirmwith the ideology or agenda of the decision makers.

Pressure group activity gives people hope that they can makea difference. This hope is a distraction. The ruling class wouldrather that people put their energies into pressure group activities,which do not question the fundamentals of the system than intopolitical activity, which seriously challenges the right of the eliteto govern.

Group opposition can slow down or block desirable changes,thereby contributing to social immobilisation.

The in-egalitarian way that some groups operate increasessocial discontent and political instability by intensifying the senseof social frustration and injustice felt by disadvantaged andexcluded sections of the population.

ELECTION AND PROCESS OF POLITICISATION

India is known as one of the largest democracy of the worldwhereby people of India choose their representatives directly toformulate the government and make the laws of the country. Thestudents should learn about the how the electoral system worksin India and what are the different types of ways to be representedin the electoral system.

Process of Election

Universal suffrage:-In all progressive countries universal adultsuffrage has been introduced. All men and women who haveattained the age of majority are given the right to vote.

The only limitation is that of the age. The persons who arespecifically excluded are the minors, lunatics, hardened criminals,paupers and aliens.

Excluded classes:-Although the right of voting is to be givento all, there are certain persons living in a state who cannot begiven that right. The right to vote is a political right, which canbe extended only to citizens. Hence aliens have no right to vote.Voters should also possess some moral qualifications. The rightof voting should not be given to those who are mentally unfit.


directly by the people themselves but by their representatives. Ina representative democracy people elect their representatives toexercise the power of the state. The people are the ultimaterepository and the source of sovereign power. They-delegate it totheir representatives for a limited period. They are-given a mandateby the people to carry out their will. In a representative governmentall the organs of it, like the legislature, executive and judiciary areto be elected by the people. But in actual practice judiciary, in mostof the democracies are not elected. The executive is elected directly,or indirectly appointed. Therefore, when we discuss about modernrepresentative government, at least the representatives, directlychosen by the people constitute the legislature.

J.S. Mill defines representative democracy, as one in which"the whole people or some numerous portion of them exercise thegoverning power through deputies periodically elected bythemselves." For the functioning of representative democracypolitical parties are indispensable. Elections are contested throughpolitical parties and representatives elected are the nominees ofthe party. Each political party submits its programme before thepeople and the party, which secures majority in election, becomesentitled to form the government. The party in power endeavorsto implement the programmes, which the people have approved.Thus representative democracy attribute the ultimate source ofauthority to the people.

Representative government as distinguished from directdemocracy is based on the principle that popular sovereignty canexist without popular government. The primary means by whichthe people exercise their sovereignty is the vote. Those who arequalified by the law of the state to elect members of the legislatureform the electorate. The right to elect the representative is knownas franchise. Minors, lunatics, aliens etc. are deprived of this right.A person who enjoys the right to vote is known as a voter or anelector. Thus the electorate consists of the whole population of thestate minus those who cannot vote. The electorate forms the popularsovereign in a democracy. The nature and structure, the rules andpractices regarding the voting systems vary from state to state.Different theories exist about the franchise. Thus, there are differentsystems of franchise.

have a minimum number or voters as are sufficient to elect arepresentative. In India, the whole country is divided into 542parliamentary constituencies and the Lok Sabha has a strength offive hundred and forty two. Garner, holds that the single memberconstituency system "increases the responsibility of the voter inchoosing his representative and at the same time, perhaps,intensifies the interest of the representative and increases hisresponsibility to his constituency."

In multiple member constituency system, constituencies arelarger in size. From each constituency two or more representativesare sent to the legislature. In this method each voter has as manyvotes as there are' seats to be filled. Such a system gives greaterfreedom in selection and persons with superior qualities can bereturned to the legislature. In this system the local interests do notdominate and the members can think in terms of the nation asa whole. This method is adopted for the purpose of 'proportional,representation of different interests in the country.

By-election: At the time of general election all the seats in thelegislature may be filled up. However there are possibility thatcertain seats lay fall vacant before the next general election. In-such cases, by elections are, conducted to fill the vacancies

Types of Representative: There are two views regarding theessential nature of an elected representative. According to one, heis simply an agent or delegate, who has to vote in the legislatureaccording to the instructions of his constituent. The other holdsthat a representative is a senator, who is chosen for his superiorwisdom and integrity, and who is, therefore, free to use his bestjudgement upon the issues he is called upon to decide. The formermay be called the theory of 'instructed representation' and thelatter of 'unrestricted representation.'

THEORIES OF REPRESENTATION

We live in an age which is no parallel to the small states ofantiquity. Modern states are large states with enormous area andpopulation. Its structure and problems are complex and varied.It is, therefore, physically impossible for the people to meet togetherand deliberate on diverse economic, social and political problems.The will of the state is, accordingly formulated and expressed not


2. Leads to National Unity:-The system of Universal AdultFranchise is quite essential for the maintenance of nationalunity. If only a section of the people are given the rightto vote, then the entire people of the state would notconsider the government as their own. The people wouldbe divided into two groups and the people who do notenjoy the right to vote may not extend willing co-operationto the government. If the system of Universal AdultFranchise is introduced, then all the citizens would considerthe state as their own.

3. Laws are universal in application:-Laws of the state affectall alike. They are not meant for a particular communityor a section of the people. It is only when right to vote isextended to all the people, the entire population wouldfeel that the laws are framed in accordance with theirwishes.

4. Maintenance of peace and order:-The application ofUniversal Adult Franchise will help maintain peace andorder in the state. All people would obey' the laws if theyare framed in accordance with their wishes. People wouldalso extend their willing co-operation to the governmentand the laws would never be violated. All this will helpin the maintenance of peace and order in the state.

5. Political Education:-An important merit of Universal AdultFranchise is that, it gives political education to the people.When all the people participate in election, they are boundto think about the problems of the country and try to findsolutions for the problems. Political parties also explaintheir viewpoints to the people regarding national issues.It will lead to the articulation of public opinion. In theabsence of political education democracy will be a farce.

6. It creates spirit of self-respect:-When every body gets achance to participate in election, people will develop aproud feeling that they have a share in the government.They think themselves a very important part of themachinery of the state. This feeling of importance wouldcreate spirit of self-respect and make them law abidingcitizens.

The primary problem that naturally arises in the system ofelections is the question who, should be entitled to vote? It is aquestion of dispute both in theory and practice. It was widely heldby theorists in the nineteenth century that every individual has'the inalienable and sacred right' to participate in the governanceof the country and that no one could be deprived of this 'uponany pretext'. The declaration of the Rights of Man asserted 'thelaw is an expression of the will of the community, all citizens havethe right to concur, either personally or by their representatives,in its formation." But writers like Bluntschli, J.S. Mill and HenryMaine argue that all the people of a state should not be givenfranchise. Franchise, according to them; is a sacred right, whichrequires judicious exercise of judgement. The illiterate and ignorantpeople cannot be given this right, because they are incompetentto exercise it properly. Hence certain restrictions are laid on thebasis of sex, race, property or education. Thus, the universal adultand the restricted adult systems of franchise are the two mainpatterns in existence.

UNIVERSAL ADULT FRANCHISE

By Universal Adult Franchise we mean that every person,both male and female, above the age of maturity, irrespective ofcaste, color, creed, property, education or profession, is entitledto enjoy the right to vote in the elections. The idea underlying thisprinciple is that the ultimate sovereignty lies with the people asa whole and not with a particular section of the society. At presentnearly all the civilized countries like England, USA, France, India,etc. have adopted this principle of 'Adult Suffrage' and accordinglyall adults enjoy the right to vote. The age of attaining maturityis fixed by the state. In England and India it is 18 years and inSwitzerland 20 years.

Arguments in Favor of universal Adult Franchise: Theprinciple of Universal Adult Franchise possesses some fundamentalmerit. The merits are as follows.

1. It is In accordance with democratic principal Democracyis a government of the people, by the people and for thepeople. If the principle of Universal Adult Franchise is notintroduced, it will be the negation of the principles ofdemocracy.


all people pay taxes either directly or indirectly and thelaws are applicable to all the people equally.

3. Universal manhood suffrage:-Some people are of theopinion that the women should not be given the right tovote. The women, according to them; are physically weakand are not capable enough to take an active part in politics.Their proper place is home and not the political field.Their participation in politics will disturb the peace athome. We cannot agree with this argument also in modernage as women are taking a very active and intelligent partin politics.

4. Inequality of citizens:-According to some critics ofUniversal Adult Franchise, all the people are not equal.They argue that nature has not created everybody equaland as such all the people cannot be given similar kindof work. Therefore, right to franchise should remain anexclusive privilege of those who are capable of exercisingit properly.

5. Franchise Is not a right but a responsibility:-Many scholarsconsider that the right to vote is not a right but aresponsibility. Hence the responsibility of electing therepresentatives should become the prerogative of thosewho are capable of using it properly. If it is extended toundeserving people, there are every chances of misusingit. Therefore, they argue that the right to vote should beextended only to the capable and educated people.

There is no doubt that the system of Adult Franchise has beencriticized on various grounds and various arguments have beenadvanced against it, but the fact remains that the merit of AdultFranchise outweigh its demerits. In the absence of Universal AdultFranchise democracy is incomplete and it cannot be a success.Therefore, in modern time almost all the countries have adoptedthe system of universal 'Adult Franchise.'

TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATION

Territorial or geographic composition of constituencies hasbecome the prevalent form of representation in most of the

7. Chances of Revolution Is less:-Where there is universalAdult Suffrage, the government represent the entire massof public. Since the government represents alilhe people,no section of the society will oppose its actions. They canchange the government if it does not function in accordancewith the wishes of the people. Hence there exist hardlyany chance of agitation, violence and revolution.

ARGUMENT AGAINST ADULT FRANCHISE

Writers like Bluntschli, J.S. Mill and Henry Maine argue thatall the people of a state should not be given franchise. Franchise,according to them; is a sacred right, which requires judiciousexercise of judgement in the election of representatives. The criticsof Universal Adult Franchise advance the following arguments insupport of their viewpoints.

1. Illiterate and ignorant people should not be given the rightto vote:-The right to vote is not a natural right. In fact itis a sort of special privilege which is conferred only onthose persons who have the necessary qualification toexercise it judiciously. J.S. Mill argued that "I regard it aswholly inadmissible that any person should participate insuffrage without being able to read, write and perform thecommon operations of Arithmetic. Universal teaching mustprecede Universal enfranchisement. The exclusion of aclass is justified when that class is likely to make adangerously bad use of the vote." Therefore it is arguedthat only educated persons must be given the right to vote.

2. Ownership of property a base of franchise: According tothe exponent of this theory, those persons who ownproperty in the state.and pay taxes should only be giventhe right to vote. In such case the representatives couldframe the laws in accordance with the wishes of thetaxpayers.

Macaulay is of the opinion that if the people who do notpossess property are given the right to elect and to getelected, then the administration will come under the controlof the poor and they will waste the national wealth. Butwe cannot subscribe to this argument in modern time, as


In other words there is no direct relation between thepopular votes a party gets and the number of seats it gainsin the legislature.

(e) In a multi cornered contest a candidate who secures onlya minority of total votes may be declared elected as thesystem requires only relative majority to win a seat.

Functional Representation

Many political scientists like G.D.H. Cole, Duguit, Webbs andGraham Wallace are of the opinion that territorial representationis inadequate as it does not give representation to different interestsand professions. The interest of a doctor is different from that ofa lawyer, and the interest of a laborer is quite different from thatof a mill owner. The representative interest of both the doctor andthe lawyer and also the laborer and the Mill owner. If the samerepresentative tries to represent the interest of the differentcategories of professions, he cannot do justice to any of them.Hence these writers are of the opinion that the Territorialrepresentation should be replaced by the system of functionalrepresentation.

In this system, the citizens are divided into constituencies onthe basis of their economic functions or occupational interests.There will be separate constituencies for farmers, industrialworkers, manufacturers, teachers, journalists, doctors, lawyers,government employees and housewives etc. Accordingly seats foreach profession should be fixed in the legislature. The voters ofeach profession should elect their representatives to the legislature.The supporters of Functional representation argue that democracycan be successful only if all the professions get adequaterepresentation in the legislature.

Merits of Functional Representation

1. All Aspects of National Life Get Representation:-. On the basisof Functional representation all the great forces of nationallife get representation. Industry, Commerce,Manufacturing, processing and even religion would findrepresentation in the legislature.

2. Democracy becomes Real under the System of FunctionalRepresentation:-According to G.D.H. Cole "real democracy

democracies of the world. In this system the whole electorate ofthe country is divided into territorial constituencies which electone representative, if it is a single member constituency or morethan one, from a multi-member constituency. The representativerepresents the constituency from where he is elected. All citizensliving in that constituency elect him and he represents the opinionof all the people of his constituency. In a territorial constituencysystem the whole population of a state is divided into;constituencies with more-or-less equal number of voters. The'election commission de-limits the constituencies to accommodatethe increase of voters in each constituency after every census.

Merits of Territorial Representation

(a) Territorial representation makes election procedure simple,practical and convenient. It ensures the principle ofequality, namely "One person, one vote."

(b) It develops a close and intimate relationship between thevoters and the representatives due to the limit of the areaof the constituency and the size of the population.

(c) Territorial system entails lesser election expenditure dueto the limit of the area of the constituency.

(d) It avoids the complex problems associated with functionalrepresentation and provides a stable majority in thelegislature.

De-merits

(a) Territorial representation will tend to promote spirit oflocalism and parochialism, among the representatives. Therepresentatives will lose the national perspective and tendto become parochial.

(b) The representatives will try to magnify the local issuesconcerning their constituencies to the neglect of nationalinterests

(c) Due to the restriction of choice of candidates from thesame constituency often persons who are mediocre, getticket to contest election.

(d) In this system, often the number of seats a party obtainswill be dis-proportionate to the percentage of votes it gets:


3. Functional Representatives do not always Safeguard FunctionalInterests: It has been pointed out that functionalrepresentative do not enter into active politics and carevery little about the interest of their profession.

4. Functional Representatives do not Represent National Interest:Each member of the legislature should be considered asthe representative of the whole nation. If a person is electedon the basis of functional representation he cannotrepresent the nation.

5. Man is' not only a Functional Entity: It is true that professionalways has great impact on the life of an individual. Butthere are many other aspects, like, moral, social and politicalbesides profession, which need be taken care of. The personelected on the basis of Functional representation cannotrepresent all other aspects of individual life. HenceFunctional representation is considered harmful to theinterest of the society and the nation.

Proportional Representation

Citizen's participation in the process of government is a veryimportant aspect of modern political thought. As democracy is agovernment of the people, by the people and for the people, weshould ensure maximum participation of the people in the processof the government. Democracy vests the ultimate sovereignty inthe people and they exercise it through their representatives electedperiodically. Democracy may be broadly classified into two, directand indirect democracy. In the former, citizens directly take partin the deliberations while in the latter the general public choosestheir representative to sit in deliberations. Due to the enormousgrowth of population and extension of territory of the modernstates, direct democracy is unworkable and thus is replaced byindirect or representative democracy. Therefore choosing the righttype of representative is of vital importance for the success ofdemocracy. In the earlier periods of history, the right to choosethe representatives was limited to the property owners, taxpayersand males. But universal suffrage has become the accepted rulein almost all the modern states. There are two methods of electingthe representatives. When voters themselves cast their votes and

is to be found not in a single omnipotent Assembly butin a system of coordinated functional representativebodies." Here each profession gets representation in thelegislature. Hence the legislature always functions in theinterest of all the professions.

3. One Representative cannot Represent all the Functions andInterests:-In the system of territorial constituency, oneperson represents all the people and all the professions ofthe constituency. One representative cannot do justice todifferent interests and points of view of his constituency.

The advocates of Functional representation have been theGuild socialists, the syndicalists, and the Italian Fascists. Pluralistshave also supported the system of Functional representation. Theirmain argument is that, it is a better way of obtaining representationfor a cross section of interests in the legislature. Graham Wallaceis of the opinion that second chamber in the legislature shouldessentially be organised on the basis of Functional representation.He argued that the lower chamber should be organised on thebasis of Territorial representation and this chamber should protectthe general interest of the people. But the second chamber shouldbe organised on the basis of Functional representation to safeguardthe interests of different professions.

Demerits

There are several weakness in the system of Functionalrepresentation. It is pointed out that in this system Functionbecomes so important that it obscures the individual.

1. Functional Representation Destroys the unity of Legislature:This system divides the legislature into various groups.The members representing each profession will try tosafeguard the interests of their own profession. Thelegislature will become faction ridden and no memberwill do anything to promote national interest.

2. Classification of Function is Difficult: It is quite difficult toclassify the various professions and to determine thenumber of seats to be allotted to each profession. It makesthe whole election procedure very complex.


cases, a minority party or group is always defeated in the electionand therefore, the followers of such party or group cannot getadequate representation. As our society is divided into manypolitical, racial, linguistic, religious and communal groups, andeach group put up their candidate in the election, invariably themajor political parties bag the seats. All other candidates put upby various minority groups are defeated and thus not represented.

These groups may be present in all the constituencies buthave no adequate strength to win the election in any constituency.In a real democracy all the sections should be adequately orproportionately represented. In order to avoid such anomaliesand to ensure representation to all 'se'iHh9ns of the populationand to make democracy more realistic, 'some,' other electoralsystems are invented. The scheme of proportional representationaims at giving adequate representation to minorities. In envisagesdifferent plans, but all plans are not varieties of proportionalrepresentation. The varieties of proportional representation are'Hare system' or scheme of 'single transferable vote' and the 'listsystem'. The rest are schemes of minority representation. Minorityrepresentation aims at giving representation of some kind to theminorities, but not in proportion to the number of their votes.Whereas proportional representation gives representation tominorities, in proportion to their voting strength. According tothis system, the percentage of seats allotted to a party or groupin the legislature' is in proportion to the percentage of the totalpopular votes it has secured in the election. For instance if party'X' has secured 5% of the total votes in the election it will get 5%of the total seats in the legislature. The aim of this system is toensure representation of all sections of the population proportionateto their numerical strength. There are two types of proportionalrepresentation. Both these systems require a multi-membersconstituency and the candidate is declared elected not on securingmajority votes but a minimum quota of votes required to win.

Hare System

Thomas Hare formulated this system in 1851. The planadvocated by Hare an English man in his book, "The election ofrepresentatives" was introduced in Denmark by Andrae, a minister,in 1855. Since then it was popularized in both the countries. Hence

elect the representative, the method of election is direct. If thevoters elect only intermediaries, who constitute the electoral college,and the latter finally elect the representatives, it is indirect election.

Before we proceed further, we may examine the meaning ofcertain commonly used words in the parlance of election. Vote isa means to express one's choice or option. Any person who enjoysthe right to vote is a voter. Election is the process of choosing arepresentative from two or more contestants by voting. Any personwho has the right to participate in the election is an elector andthe whole body of electors is called the electorate. The right to voteis called suffrage and right to suffrage is called franchise.

Minority Representation

It is very often maintained that the existing system ofrepresentation does not give representation to the whole people.A candidate who secures majority of votes is declared electedwhatever be the margin of votes by which he wins. A successfulcandidate represents the views of' his electors whereas others whohad supported an unsuccessful candidate remainunderrepresented, no matter with what insignificant margin ofvotes their candidate might have lost. Sometimes the situationbecomes still worse as only a minority is represented and themajority is left out without representation. Suppose there are fourcandidates contesting an election; we may name the candidatesABC and D and total electorate is ten thousand. In the electionA gets 2600 votes, B gets 2580 votes, C gets 2520 votes and D gets2300 votes and the candidate A is declared elected. In this case'A' represents 26% of the total electorate and the remaining 74%are not represented.

This way if a party secures majority of seats in the parliamentfrom all over the country and forms the government, it will bein reality a minority government; because they represent only asmall minority of the total population. Hence they do not reflectthe will of all and do not carry a mandate of the majority, whichis against the principles of democracy. A true democracy shouldrepresent the will of all. It is therefore, maintained that minoritiesshould be adequately represented. If they cannot secure duerepresentation, then it is not real democracy. In certain other


number of seats to be filled. Then, the quota divides the totalnumber of votes polled by each party list and the result is thenumber of representatives to which each party is entitled. If allthe seats are not filled up, the party, which has the largest fractionalsurplus, get the remaining seats. In this system the party enjoysabsolute discretion in appointing the representatives. If anyonedies, the party appoints a substitute and there is no by-election.According to this system, each party is allotted certain numberof seats proportionate to the votes secured by it in the election.This is a simple system and followed by the Scandinavian countries,Switzerland and Belgium..

OTHER SYSTEM OF MINORITY REPRESENTATION

The ideal behind both Hare and List system of proportionalrepresentation are to ensure representation for all the minorityparties or groups in proportion to their numerical strength. Butminority representation is different from proportionalrepresentation. All systems of minority representation only ensuresome kind of representation to the minorities not necessarilyproportional to their strength. Some of the systems of minorityrepresentations are discussed below.

The Limited Vote Plan

This system works in multi-member constituencies of at leastthree seats. Each voter is entitled for a fewer number of votes thantotal number of candidates to be elected and he cannot give morethan one vote to one candidate. These votes must be distributedto as many candidates as there are votes to cast. For example, ina five-member constituency the voters are allowed to vote onlyfor four candidates or even less. The result is that the minoritiescan get one or two seats. This system was used in England, Italy,Portugal and Japan at various times, but no longer in use anywhere.

The Cumulative Vote System

This system also works in a multi-member constituency. Eachvoter has as many votes as the number of candidates to be electedand is allowed to give all the votes to one candidate or one voteeach to each candidate or distribute them in any manner he likes.For example, if there are five members to be elected from a

it has been called Hare or Andrae system. It is also calledpreferential system because of the preference, which a voter isrequired to give to the candidate. This system can work only ina multi-member constituency of at least three seats. There is noupper limit, although Lord Courteny suggested a fifteen-memberconstituency as a reasonable limit. According to this system totalnumber of candidates to be elected is determined at first. Totalnumber of voters also should be known. From these two facts aminimum

'quota' is calculated. To secure election every candidate isrequired to obtain a certain quota of votes. The quota representsthe number of votes necessary for the election of a candidate.Different methods are followed to determine the quota. Thesimplest is to divide the number of votes cast by the number ofseats to be filled up, and the quotient is taken as the quota or thenumber of votes necessary to elect candidate. But Droofs in 1881found that in constituencies of 3 to 8 members, sometimes-inaccurate results are achieved in the practical operation of thissystem. Hence he suggested his own method of finding out thequota. It is found by dividing the total number of vote's cast byone more than the number of seats to be filled in and adding oneto the result-:

Quota = Total Number of votes +1

Number of set +1

Thus if the total votes cast were 7000 and there are 7 seats tobe filled, in, the quota required to get a candidate elected will be.

7000 +1

7 + 1 875 + 1 = 876 votes

split his votes and cast them to any party he likes or cast somevotes to one party and some to other parties. In other words ifa voter has five votes he can vote for three candidates from onelist and two candidates from another list. But he cannot give morethan one vote to anyone candidate. A voter has, as many votesas there are number of seats. All votes cast in favor of differentcandidates on the list are counted as votes for the list itself.

The number of votes required to secure a candidate's electionsis determined by dividing the total number of votes cast by the


electorates, where voters of each community voted separately forcandidates of their own community. The second method was thereservation of seats under a system of joint electorates as in thecase of Scheduled Castes. The system of communal representationhas been abolished from the Indian Republic as the division ofpeople on the basis of religion is harmful to the interest of thenation.

Merits of Proportional Representation

According to J.S. Mill "Proportional Representation is amongthe greatest improvements yet made in the theory and practiceof government." Its merit is that, it secures representation evento the smallest minority. It gives every voter a real representativein whose choice, he has a hand. It brings about justice in the matterof representation of all sections of political opinion. When everyinterest is duly represented, election does not degenerate into agamble. It offers an easy solution of the baffling problems ofminority representation and the legislature becomes truly a mirrorof public opinion and, as such, is a representative Assembly ofthe nation. It is only under such conditions that democracy reallyworks as a government of the people. Then proportionalrepresentation stands for the security of minority and goes againstthe tyranny of the majority. Finally it is based upon politicalopinion rather than on territorial area.

Demerit

There are certain serious defects found in the scheme ofproportional representation. It is the experience of many countries,which have experimented with it that this scheme leads to thegrowth of a large number of parties. The Mushroom growth ofparties each wedded to its separate and sectional interests withoutany regard to the interests of the nation as whole, is against theinterest of the nation. Such a system will encourage disintegration,questioning the national solidarity. Further this system will leadto the formation of coalition government.

Thus proportional representation renders cabinets unstable,destroys their homogeneity and makes parliamentary democracyunworkable. It multiplies the number of groups in the legislaturethereby destroying the national character of the legislature and

constituency, it is the option of the voter to either give all his fivevotes to one single candidate, or give one vote to each, or distributethem in any other way. This system is also known as plumbingsystem. In this method even a small minority can get representationby plumbing all their votes to one candidate. The cumulative votesystem prevails in the legislature of the' state of Illinois in theUnited States.

THE SECOND BALLOT SYSTEM

This system can work only in a single member constituency,where according to the relative majority principle, the highestpolled candidate is declared elected. When there are only twocandidates contesting election for a single seat, one who securessimple majority is declared elected. But when there are more thantwo candidates, it may happen that the candidate elected securesonly a relative majority and not an absolute majority. For example,if in a constituency, three candidates are contesting; candidate 'A'may secure 5000 votes candidate 'B' 4000 and candidate 'C' 3000votes. 'A' has secured a majority over 'B' and 'C' but candidateBand C have more votes between them than the votes secured by'A'. Candidate Band C together have secured 2000 more votesthan candidate A.

The representative elected under such an electoral systemrepresents only a minority of voters. To avoid such an unjustnature of representation the system of second Ballot is adoptedto choose between the two highest polled candidates aftereliminating all others in the first election. Who ever gets a majorityof the votes in the second election will be declared elected as therepresentative.of that constituency. This system, in fact, does notensure minority representation,' but ensures that the electedcandidate represents the majority opinion of the electorate.

Communal Representation

A novel device of representation of minorities found its originin India during the British rule. Communal representation wasintroduced with a view to giving representation to differentreligious minorities. Every religious community secured a separaterepresentation. This was done in two ways. Firstly by separate


parliamentary constituencies are determined by an independentDelimitation Commission, which aims to create constituencieswhich have roughly the same population, subject to geographicalconsiderations and the boundaries of the states and administrativeareas. How Constituency Boundaries are drawn up Delimitationis the redrawing of the boundaries of parliamentary or assemblyconstituencies to make sure that there are, as near as practicable,the same number of people in each constituency.

In India boundaries are meant to be examined after the ten-yearly census to reflect changes in population, for which Parliamentby law establishes an independent Delimitation Commission, madeup of the Chief Election Commissioner and two judges or ex-judges from the Supreme Court or High Court. However, undera constitutional amendment of 1976, delimitation was suspendeduntil after the census of 2001, ostensibly so that states' family-planning programmes would not affect their politicalrepresentation in the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas. This has ledto wide discrepancies in the size of constituencies, with the largesthaving over 25,00,000 electors, and the smallest less than 50,000.

Reservation of Seats: The Constitution puts a limit on thesize of the Lok Sabha of 550 elected members, apart from twomembers who can be nominated by the President to represent theAnglo-Indian community. There are also provisions to ensure therepresentation of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, withreserved constituencies where only candidates from thesecommunities can stand for election. There was an attempt to passlegislation to reserve one third of the seats for female candidatesbut the dissolution of Lok Sabha for the 1998 election occurredbefore the bill had completed its passage through parliament.System of Election Elections to the Lok Sabha are carried out usinga first-past-the-post electoral system. The country is split up intoseparate geographical areas, known as constituencies, and theelectors can cast one vote each for a candidate (although mostcandidates stand as independents, most successful candidatesstand as members of political parties), the winner being thecandidate who gets the maximum votes.

Parliament: The Parliament of the Union consists of thePresident, the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya

makes it an area of sectional and particular interest. In the wordsof Sidwick the group representation will inevitably tend to increasepernicious class legislation. The system of proportionalrepresentation is sufficiently complicated. The Hare system puzzlesthe voters and places them under the mercy of the countingauthorities. In the list system there is, the danger of corruption.Candidates are tempted to employ unfair and corrupt means fortheir inclusion in the party list. It encourages party maneuveringand enables the group managers to arrange the list in such a wayas to secure majority for their own nominees. It also increases theinfluence of the party bosses. On these grounds it is now generallybelieved that the introduction of proportional Representation isnot desirable.

Electoral System in India

India is a constitutional democracy with a parliamentarysystem of government, and at the heart of the system is acommitment to hold regular, free and fair elections. These electionsdetermine the composition of the government, the membershipof the two houses of parliament, the state and union territorylegislative assemblies, and the Presidency and vice-presidency.

Indian Elections-Scale of Operation

Elections in India are events involving political mobilisationand organisational complexity on an amazing scale. In the 1996election to Lok Sabha there were 1,269 candidates from 38 officiallyrecognised national and state parties seeking election, 1,048candidates from registered parties, not recognised and 10,635independent candidates. A total number of 59,25,72,288 peoplevoted. The Election Commission employed almost 40,00,000 peopleto run the election. A vast number of civilian police and securityforces were deployed to ensure that the elections were carried outpeacefully. The direct cost of organising the election amounted toapproximately Rs. 5,180 million.

Constituencies and Reservation of Seats

The country has been divided into 543 ParliamentaryConstituencies, each of which returns one MP to the Lok Sabha,the lower house of the Parliament. The size and shape of the


Uttar Pradesh, with 425 members; the smallest Pondicherry, with30 members. President and Vice-President The President is electedby the elected members of the Vidhan Sabhas, Lok Sabha, andRajya Sabha, and serves for a period of 5 years (although they canstand for re-election). A formula is used to allocate votes so thereis a balance between the population of each state and the numberof votes assembly members from a state can cast, and to give anequal balance between state and national assembly Parliamentmembers. If no candidate receives a majority of votes there is asystem by which losing candidates are eliminated from the contestand votes for them transferred to other candidates, until one gaina majority. The Vice President is elected by a direct vote of allmembers elected and nominated, of the Lok Sabha and RajyaSabha.

The Single Transferable Vote System

Election for the members of the Rajya Sabha and the Presidentare carried out using the single transferable vote system. Thesingle transferable vote system is designed to ensure more diverserepresentation, by reducing the opportunity for blocks of votersto dominate minorities. The ballot paper lists all candidatesstanding for election and the voters' list them in order of preference.A threshold number of votes, known as the 'quota' is set, whichcandidates have to achieve to be elected. For presidential electionsthe quota is set at one more than half the number of votes, ensuringthat the winner is the candidate who gets a clear majority.

For the Rajya Sabha the quota is set at the number of votesthat can be attained by just enough MPs to fill all the seats butno more. Votes that are deemed surplus, those given to candidateswho have already got a full quota of votes, or votes given tocandidates who are deemed to be losing candidates, are transferredaccording to the voter's listed preferences, until the right numberof candidates have been elected. Independent Election CommissionAn independent Election Commission has been established underthe Constitution in order to carry out and regulate the holding ofelections in India. The Election Commission was established inaccordance with the Constitution on 25th January 1950. Originallya Chief Election Commissioner ran the commission, but first in1989 and later again in 1993 two additional Election Commissioners

Sabha (Council of States). The President is the head of state, andhe appoints the Prime Minister, who runs the government,according to the political composition of the Lok Sabha. Althoughthe government is headed by a Prime Minister, the Cabinet is thecentral decision making body of the government. Members ofmore than one party can make up a government, and althoughthe governing parties may be a minority in the Lok Sabha, theycan only govern as long as they have the confidence of a majorityof MPs, the members of the Lok Sabha. As well as being the body,which determines whom, makes up the government, the LokSabha is the main legislative body, along with the Rajya Sabha.

Rajya Sabha-The Council of States: The members of theRajya Sabha are elected indirectly, rather than by the citizens atlarge. Rajya Sabha members are elected by each state VidhanSabha using the single transferable vote system. Unlike mostfederal systems, the number of members returned by each stateis roughly in proportion to their population. At present there are233 members of the Rajya Sabha elected by the Vidhan Sabhas,and there are also twelve members nominated by the Presidentas representatives of literature, science, art and social services.Rajya Sabha members can serve for six years, and elections arestaggered, with one third of the assembly being elected every 2years. Nominated members The president can nominate 2 membersof the Lok Sabha if it is felt that the representation of the Anglo-Indian community is inadequate, and 12 members of the RajyaSabha, to represent literature, science, art and the social services.State Assemblies India is a federal country, and the Constitutiongives the states and union territories significant control over theirown government. The Vidhan Sabhas (legislative assemblies) aredirectly elected bodies set up to carrying out the administrationof the government in the 25 States of India. In some states thereis a bicameral organisation of legislatures, with both an upper andLower House. Two of the seven Union Territories viz., the NationalCapital Territory of Delhi and Pondicherry, have also legislativeassemblies. Elections to the Vidhan Sabhas are carried out in thesame manner as for the Lok Sabha election, with the states andunion territories divided into single-member constituencies, andthe first-past-the-post electoral system used. The assemblies rangein size, according to population. The largest Vidhan Sabha is for


as polling and counting officials. Who can vote? The democraticsystem in India is based on the principle of universal adult suffrage;that any citizen over the age of 18 can vote in an election (before1989 the age limit was 21). The right to vote is irrespective of caste,creed, religion or gender.

Those who are deemed unsound of mind, and people convictedof certain criminal offences are not allowed to vote. There hasbeen a general increase in the number of people voting in Indianelections. In 1952 61.16 per cent of the electorate voted. By 1996the turnout for the general election was 57.94 per cent. There havebeen even more rapid increases in the turnout of women andmembers of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who hadtended to be far less likely to participate in elections, and votingfor these groups has moved closer to the national average. TheElectoral Roll The electoral roll is a list of all people in theconstituency who are registered to vote in Indian Elections. Onlythose people with their names on the electoral roll are allowedto vote.

The electoral roll is normally revised every year to add thenames of those who are to turn 18 on the 1st January of that yearor have moved into a constituency and to remove the names ofthose who have died or moved out of a constituency. If you areeligible to vote and are not on the electoral roll, you can applyto the Electoral Registration Officer of the constituency, who willupdate the register.

The updating of the Electoral Roll only stops during an electioncampaign, after the nominations for candidates have closed.Computerisation of Rolls The Election Commission is currentlyundertaking the computerisation of the electoral rolls throughoutIndia, which should lead to improvements in the accuracy andspeed with which the electoral roll can be updated.

This has already been completed in the northern states ofHaryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh and the Eastern state ofTripura and Rolls in the new computerised format put to use forthe general Election in 1998. Electors' Photo Identity Cards In anattempt to improve the accuracy of the electoral roll and preventelectoral fraud, the Election Commission has pressed for the

were appointed. The Election Commission is responsible for theconduct of elections to parliament and state legislatures and to theoffices of the President and Vice-President.

The Election Commission prepares, maintains and periodicallyupdates the Electoral Roll, which shows who is entitled to vote,supervises the nomination of candidates, registers political parties,monitors the election campaign, including candidates' funding. Italso facilitates the coverage of the election process by the media,organises the polling booths where voting takes place, and looksafter the counting of votes and the declaration of results.

All this is done to ensure that elections can take place in anorderly and fair manner. At present, there are two ElectionCommissioners appointed by the President. Chief ElectionCommissioner can be removed from office only by parliamentaryimpeachment. The Commission decides most matters by consensusbut in case of any dissension, the majority view prevails.

Election Commission: Present composition Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh-Chief Election Commissioner Mr. T.S. Krishna Murthy-ElectionCommissioner Mr. B.B. Tandon-Election Commissioner ChiefElection Commissioners Sukumar Sen: 21 March 1950 to 19December 1958 KVK Sundaram: 20 December 1958 to 30 September1967 SP Sen Verma: 1 October 1967 to 30 September 1972 DrNagendra Singh: 1 October 1972 to 6 February 1973 T Swaminathan:7 February 1973 to 17 June 1977 SL Shakdhar: 18 June 1977 to 17June 1982 RK Trivedi: 18 June 1982 to 31 December 1985 RVS PeriSastri: 1 January 1986 to 25 November 1990 Smt VS Ramadevi:26 November 1990 to 11 December 1990 TN Seshan: 12 December1990 to 11 December 1996 Dr. MS Gill: 12 December 1996 to 13June 2001 J.M. Lyngdoh: 13 June 2001 (afternoon) to present TheCommission has its headquarters in New Delhi, with a Secretariatof some 300 staff members. At the state level a Chief ElectoralOfficer with a core staff of varying numbers, is available on a fulltime basis.

At the district and constituency level, officers and staff of thecivil administration double up as Election officials. During actualconduct of elections, a vast number of additional staff aretemporarily drafted for about two weeks. They function mainly


The Election Commission, which decides the schedule forelections, has to take account of the weather-during winterconstituencies may be snow-bound, and during the monsoonaccess to remote areas restricted-, the agricultural cycle-so that theplanting or harvesting of crops is not disrupted, exam schedules-as schools are used as polling stations and teachers employed aselection officials, and religious festivals and public holidays.

On top of this there are the logistical difficulties that go withholding an election-sending out ballot boxes, setting up pollingbooths, recruiting officials to oversee the elections. Who can standfor Election? Any Indian citizen who is registered as a voter andis over 25 years of age is allowed to contest elections to the LokSabha or State Legislative Assemblies.

For the Rajya Sabha the age limit is 30 years. Candidates forthe Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Sabha should be a resident of thesame state as the constituency from which they wish to contest.Every candidate has to make a deposit of Rs. 10,000/-for LokSabha election and 5,000/-for Rajya Sabha or Vidhan Sabhaelections, except for candidates from the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes who pay half of these amounts.

The deposit is returned if the candidate receives more thanone-sixth of the total number of valid votes polled in theconstituency. Nominations must be supported at least by oneregistered elector of the constituency, in the case of a candidatesponsored by a registered Party and by ten registered electorsfrom the constituency in the case of other candidates.

Returning Officers, appointed by the Election Commission,are put in charge to receive nominations of candidates in eachconstituency, and oversee the formalities of the election. In anumber of seats in the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabha, thecandidates can only be from either one of the scheduled castes orscheduled tribes. The number of these reserved seats is meant tobe approximately in proportion to the number of people fromscheduled castes or scheduled tribes in each state.

There are currently 79 seats reserved for the scheduled castesand 41 reserved for the scheduled tribes in the Lok Sabha. Numberof Candidates The number of candidates contesting each election

introduction of photo identity cards for voters. This is a massivetask, and at present over 338 million have been provided.

The Commission is providing ways and methods to deal withthe problems with the issue of cards, and difficulties in keepingtrack of voters, especially the mobile urban electorate. When doelections take place? Elections for the Lok Sabha and every StateLegislative Assembly have to take place every five years, unlesscalled earlier.

The President can dissolve Lok Sabha and call a general electionbefore five years is up, if the government can no longer commandthe confidence of the Lok Sabha, and if there is no alternativegovernment available to take over. Governments have found itincreasingly difficult to stay in power for the full term of a LokSabha in recent times, and so elections have often been held beforethe five-year limit has been reached.

A constitutional amendment passed in 1975, as part of thegovernment declared emergency, postponed the election due tobe held in 1976.

This amendment was later rescinded, and regular electionsresumed in 1977. Other measures have been taken to adjust thetimetable of elections when civil unrest has made the holding ofelections problematic.

Disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir, the Punjab, and Assamhave led to the postponement of elections. Holding of regularelections can only be stopped by means of a constitutionalamendment and in consultation with the Election Commission,and it is recognised that interruptions of regular elections areacceptable only in extraordinary circumstances. Scheduling theElections When the five-year limit is up, or the legislature hasbeen dissolved and new elections have been called, the ElectionCommission puts into effect the machinery for holding an election.

The constitution states that there can be no longer than 6months between the last session of the dissolved Lok Sabha andthe recalling of the new House, so elections have to be concludedbefore then. In a country as huge and diverse as India, findinga period when elections can be held throughout the country is notsimple.


party either at the Centre or in the State to ensure that a level fieldin maintained and that no cause is given for any complaint thatthe ruling party has used its official position for the purposes ofits election campaign. Once an election has been called, partiesissue manifestos detailing the programmes they wish to implementif elected to government, the strengths of their leaders, and thefailures of opposing parties and their leaders.

Slogans are used to popularise and identify parties and issues,and pamphlets and posters distributed to the electorate. Ralliesand meetings where the candidates try to persuade, cajole andenthuse supporters, and denigrate opponents, are held throughoutthe constituencies.

Personal appeals and promises of reform are made, withcandidates travelling the length and breadth of the constituencyto try to influence as many potential supporters as possible. Partysymbols abound, printed on posters and placards. Polling DaysPolling is normally held on a number of different days in differentconstituencies, to enable the security forces and those monitoringthe election to keep law and order and ensure that voting duringthe election is fair.

Ballot Papers and Symbols

After nomination of candidates is complete, a list of competingcandidates is prepared by the Returning Officer, and ballot papersare printed. Ballot papers are printed with the names of thecandidates (in languages set by the Election Commission) and thesymbols allotted to each of the candidates. Candidates of recognisedParties are allotted their Party symbols. Some electors, includingmembers of the armed forces or government of India How thevoting takes place Voting is by secret ballot. Polling stations areusually set up in public institutions, such as schools and communityhalls. To enable as many electors as possible to vote, the officialsof the Election Commission try to ensure that there is a pollingstation within 2km of every voter, and that no polling stationsshould have to deal with more than 1200 voters.

Each polling station is open for at least 8 hours on the dayof the election. On entering the polling station, the elector is

has steadily increased. In the general election of 1952 the averagenumber of candidates in each constituency was 3.8; by 1991 it hadrisen to 16.3, and in 1996 stood at 25.6. Some commentators havecriticised the openness of the nomination process, arguing that itis far too easy for 'frivolous' candidates to stand for election, andthat this confuses the electoral process.

Certain remedial measures have been taken in August 1996,which included increasing the size of the deposit and making thenumber of people who have to nominate a candidate larger.The impact of such measures was quite considerable at theelections which were subsequently held in Uttar Pradesh inOctober, 1996, where the number of contestants Come down quitesignificantly.

In 1998 the number of nominations for the Lok Sabha hascome down to, an average of per constituency and % lower thanthe figures for 1996. Campaign The campaign is the period whenthe political parties put forward their candidates and argumentswith which they hope to persuade people to vote for theircandidates and parties. Candidates are given a week to put forwardtheir nominations.

These are scrutinised by the Returning Officers and if notfound to be in order can be rejected after a summary hearing.Validly nominated candidates can withdraw within two daysafter nominations have been scrutinised.

The official campaign lasts at least two weeks from the drawingup of the list of nominated candidates, and officially ends 48 hoursbefore polling closes. During the election campaign the politicalparties and contesting candidates are expected to abide by a ModelCode of Conduct evolved by the Election Commission on the basisof a consensus among political parties.

The model Code lays down broad guidelines as to how thepolitical parties and candidates should conduct themselves duringthe election campaign. It is intended to maintain the electioncampaign on healthy lines, avoid clashes and conflicts betweenpolitical parties or their supporters and to ensure peace and orderduring the campaign period and thereafter, until the results aredeclared. The model code also prescribes guidelines for the ruling


registered-unrecognised parties. How a party is classifieddetermines a party's right to certain privileges, such as access toelectoral rolls and provision of time for political broadcasts on thestate-owned television and radio stations-All India Radio andDoordarshan-and also the important question of the allocation ofthe party symbol.

Party symbols enable illiterate voters to identify the candidateof the party they wish to vote for. National parties are given asymbol that is for their use only, throughout the country. Stateparties have the sole use of a symbol in the state in which theyare recognised as such Registered-unrecognised parties can choosea symbol from a selection of 'free' symbols.

Limit on Poll Expenses

There are tight legal limits on the amount of money a candidatecan spend during the election campaign. In most Lok Sabhaconstituencies the limit as recently amended in December,1997 is Rs 15,00,000/-, although in some States the limit isRs 6,00,000/-(for Vidhan Sabha elections the highest limit isRs 6,00,000/-, the lowest Rs 3,00,000/-).

Although supporters of a candidate can spend as much asthey like to help out with a campaign, they have to get writtenpermission of the candidate, and whilst parties are allowed tospend as much money on campaigns as they want, recent SupremeCourt judgements have said that, unless a political party canspecifically account for money spent during the campaign, it willconsider any activities as being funded by the candidates andcounting towards their election expenses.

The accountability imposed on the candidates and parties hascurtailed some of the more extravagant campaigning that waspreviously a part of Indian elections. Free Campaign time on stateowned electronic media By a recent order of the ElectionCommission, all recognised National and State parties have beenallowed free access to the state owned electronic media-AIR andDoordarshan-on an extensive scale for their campaigns duringelections.

The total free time allocated extends over 122 hours on thestate owned Television and Radio channels. This is allocated

checked against the Electoral Roll, and allocated a ballot paper.The elector votes by marking the ballot paper with a rubber stampon or near the symbol of the candidate of his choice, inside ascreened compartment in the polling station.

The voter then folds the ballot paper and inserts it in a commonballot box which is kept in full view of the Presiding Officer andpolling agents of the candidates. This marking system eliminatesthe possibility of ballot papers being surreptitiously taken out ofthe polling station or not being put in the ballot box. PoliticalParties and Elections Political parties are an established part ofmodern mass democracy, and the conduct of elections in Indiais largely dependent on the behaviour of political parties.

Although many candidates for Indian elections areindependent, the winning candidates for Lok Sabha and VidhanSabha elections usually stand as members of political parties, andopinion polls suggest that people tend to vote for a party ratherthan a particular candidate.

Parties offer candidates organisational support, and by offeringa broader election campaign, looking at the record of governmentand putting forward alternative proposals for government, helpvoters make a choice about how the government is run. Registrationwith Election Commission Political parties have to be registeredwith the Election Commission.

The Commission determines whether the party is structuredand committed to principles of democracy, secularism andsocialism in accordance with the Indian Constitution and woulduphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Parties areexpected to hold organisational elections and have a writtenconstitution.

The Anti-defection law, passed in 1985, prevents MPs or MLAselected as candidates from one party forming or joining a newparty, unless they comprise more than one-third of the originalparty in the legislature.

Recognition and Reservation of Symbols According to certaincriteria, set by the Election Commission regarding the length ofpolitical activity and success in elections, parties are categorisedby the Commission as National or State parties, or simply declared


equitably by combining a base limit and additional time linkedto poll performance of the party in recent election. Splits andmergers and anti-defection law Splits, mergers and alliances havefrequently disrupted the compositions of political parties.

This has led to a number of disputes over which section ofa divided party gets to keep the party symbol, and how to classifythe resulting parties in terms of national and state parties. TheElection Commission has to resolve these disputes, although itsdecisions can be challenged in the courts. As of 1998 there are 7National Parties, and 35 State Parties, with 620 registered-unrecognised parties.

Election Petitions Any elector or candidate can file an electionpetition if he or she thinks there has been malpractice during theelection. An election petition is not an ordinary civil suit, buttreated as a contest in which the whole constituency is involved.Election petitions are tried by the High Court of the State involved,and if upheld can even lead to the restaging of the election in thatconstituency. In the 1996 general election xx election petitionswere upheld, and in x constituencies the result was countermandedand bye-elections held.

Supervising Elections, Election Observers

The Election Commission appoints a large number ofObservers to ensure that the campaign is conducted fairly, andthat people are free to vote as they choose. Election expenditureObservers keeps a check on the amount that each candidate andparty spends on the election. Counting of Votes After the pollinghas finished, the votes are counted under the supervision ofReturning Officers and Observers appointed by the ElectionCommission. After the counting of votes is over, the ReturningOfficer declares the name of the candidate to whom the largestnumber of votes have been given as the winner, and as havingbeen returned by the constituency to the concerned house.

Media Coverage

In order to bring as much transparency as possible to theelectoral process, the media are encouraged and provided withfacilities to cover the election, although subject to maintaining the

secrecy of the vote. Media persons are given special passes toenter polling stations to cover the poll process and the countinghalls during the actual counting of votes. Media are also free toconduct Opinion Polls and Exit Polls.

By a recent set of Guideline issued, the Election Commissionhas stipulated that the results of opinion polls can not be publishedbetween two days before the start of polling and after the closeof poll in any of the constituencies. Results of exit polls can onlybe published or made otherwise known only after half an hourof the end of polling hours on the last day of poll 28th of Februaryin the present election of 1998.

Indian Government and Politics Election Commission and Electoral Reforms in India178 179

in the conduct of elections, the Election Commission has theresiduary powers under the Constitution to act in an appropriatemanner.

A CONSTITUTIONAL BODY

Election Commission of India is a permanent ConstitutionalBody. The Election Commission was established in accordancewith the Constitution on 25th January 1950. The Commissioncelebrated its Golden Jubilee in 2001. Originally the commissionhad only a Chief Election Commissioner. It currently consists ofChief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners,for a long time, though, it had only the Chief ElectionCommissioner.

For the first time two additional Commissioners wereappointed on 16th October 1989 but they had a very short tenuretill 1st January 1990. Later on 1st October 1993 two additionalElection Commissioners were appointed. The concept of multi-member Commission has been in operation since then, withdecision making power by majority vote.

APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF COMMISSIONERS

The President appoints Chief Election Commissioner andElection Commissioners. They have tenure of six years, or up tothe age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They enjoy the samestatus and receive salary and perks as available to Judges of theSupreme Court of India. The Chief Election Commissioner can beremoved from office only through impeachment by Parliament.

TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS

The Commission transacts its business by holding regularmeetings and also by circulation of papers. All ElectionCommissioners have equal say in the decision making of theCommission. The Commission, from time to time, delegates someof its executive functions to its officers in its Secretariat.

ELECTION MACHINERY

The Commission has a separate Secretariat at New Delhi,consisting of about 300 officials, in a hierarchical set up.

5ELECTION COMMISSION AND

ELECTORAL REFORMS IN INDIA

The chapter flashes light on how election process is conductedin India and how it is handled under the ages of ElectionCommission, an extra-constitutional body. And what are reformsintroduced by election commission with the change of time.

India is a Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic and thelargest democracy in the World. The modern Indian nation statecame into existence on 15th of August 1947. Since then free andfair elections have been held at regular intervals as per theprinciples enshrined in the Constitution, Electoral Laws andSystem.

The Constitution of India has vested in the ElectionCommission of India the superintendence, direction and controlof the entire process for conduct of elections to Parliament andLegislature of every State and to the offices of President and Vice-President of India.

ELECTORAL LAWS AND SYSTEM

Elections are conducted according to the constitutionalprovisions, supplemented by laws made by Parliament. The majorlaws are Representation of the People Act, 1950, which mainlydeals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 which deals, in detail, withall aspects of conduct of elections and post election disputes. TheSupreme Court of India has held that where the enacted laws aresilent or make insufficient provision to deal with a given situation


and the Finance Ministry of the Union Government. The lattergenerally accepts the recommendations of the Commission for itsbudgets. The major expenditure on actual conduct of elections is,however, reflected in the budgets of the concerned constituentunit of the Union-State and Union Territory. If elections are beingheld only for the Parliament, the expenditure is borne entirely bythe Union Government while for the elections being held only forthe State Legislature, the expenditure is borne entirely by theconcerned State. In case of simultaneous elections to the Parliamentand State Legislature, the expenditure is shared equally betweenthe Union and the State Governments. For Capital Equipment,expenditure related to preparation for electoral rolls and the schemefor Electors' Identity

EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE BARRED

In the performance of its functions, Election Commission isinsulated from executive interference. It is the Commission whichdecides the election schedules for the conduct of elections, whethergeneral elections or bye-elections. Again, it is the Commission,which decides on the location polling stations, assignment ofvoters to the polling stations, location of counting centres,arrangements to be made in and around polling stations andcounting centres and all allied matters.

ELECTION SCHEDULE

The Commission normally announces the schedule of electionsin a major Press Conference a few weeks before the formal processis set in motion. The Model Code of Conduct for guidance ofcandidates and Political Parties immediately comes into effectafter such announcement. The formal process for the electionsstarts with the Notification or Notifications calling upon theelectorate to elect Members of a House. As soon as Notificationsare issued, Candidates can start filing their nominations in theconstituencies from where they wish to contest. These arescrutinised by the Returning Officer of the constituency concernedafter the last date for the same is over after about a week. Thevalidly nominated candidates can withdraw from the contestwithin two days from the date of scrutiny.

Two Deputy Election Commissioners who are the senior mostofficers in the Secretariat assist the Commission. They are generallyappointed from the national civil service of the country and areselected and appointed by the Commission with tenure. Directors,Principal Secretaries, and Secretaries, Under Secretaries and DeputyDirectors support the Deputy Election Commissioners in turn.There is functional and territorial distribution of work in theCommission. The work is organised in Divisions, Branches andsections; each of the last mentioned units is in charge of a SectionOfficer. The main functional divisions are Planning, Judicial,Administration, Information Systems, Media and Secretariat Co-ordination. The territorial work is distributed among separateunits responsible for different Zones into which the 35 constituentStates and Union Territories of the country are grouped forconvenience of management.

At the state level, the election work is supervised, subject tooverall superintendence, direction and control of the Commission,by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, who is appointed bythe Commission from amongst senior civil servants proposed bythe concerned state government. He is, in most of the States, a fulltime officer and has a team of supporting staff.

At the district and constituency levels, the District ElectionOfficers, Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers,who are assisted by a large number of junior functionaries, performelection work. They all perform their functions relating to electionsin addition to their other responsibilities. During election time,however, they are available to the Commission, more or less, ona full time basis.

The gigantic task force for conducting a countrywide generalelection consists of nearly five million polling personnel and civilpolice forces. This huge election machinery is deemed to be ondeputation to the Election Commission and is subject to its control,superintendence and discipline during the election period,extending over a period of one and half to two months.

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE

The Secretariat of the Commission has an independent budget,which is finalised directly in consultation between the Commission


parties.

The Commission holds periodical consultations with thepolitical parties on matters connected with the conduct of elections;compliance of Model Code of Conduct and new measures proposedto be introduced by the Commission on election related matters.

Advisory Jurisdiction and Quasi-Judicial Functions

Under the Constitution, the Commission also has advisoryjurisdiction in the matter of post election disqualification of sittingmembers of Parliament and State Legislatures.

Further, the cases of persons found guilty of corrupt practicesat elections which come before the Supreme Court and HighCourts are also referred to the Commission for its opinion on thequestion as to whether such person shall be disqualified and, ifso, for what period.

The opinion of the Commission in all such matters is bindingon the President or, as the case may be, the Governor to whomsuch opinion is tendered.

The Commission has the power to disqualify a candidate whohas failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within thetime and in the manner prescribed by law. The Commission hasalso the power for removing or reducing the period of suchdisqualification as also other disqualification under the law.

Judicial Review

The decisions of the Commission can be challenged in theHigh Court and the Supreme Court of the India by appropriatepetitions. By long standing convention and several judicialpronouncements, once the actual process of elections has started,the judiciary does not intervene in the actual conduct of the polls.Once the polls are completed and result declared, the Commissioncannot review any result on its own.

This can only be reviewed through the process of an electionpetition, which can be filed before the High Court, in respect ofelections to the Parliament and State Legislatures. In respect ofelections for the offices of the President and Vice President, suchpetitions can only be filed before the Supreme Court.

Contesting candidates get at least two weeks for politicalcampaign before the actual date of poll. On account of the vastmagnitude of operations and the massive size of the electorate,polling is held at least on three days for the national elections. Aseparate date for counting is fixed and the results declared foreach constituency by the concerned Returning Officer. TheCommission compiles the complete list of Members elected andissues an appropriate Notification for the due Constitution of theHouse. With this, the process of elections is complete and thePresident, in case of the Lok Sabha, and the Governors of theconcerned States, in case of Vidhan Sabhas, can then convenetheir respective Houses to hold their sessions. The entire processtakes between 5 to 8 weeks for the national elections, 4 to 5 weeksfor separate elections only for Legislative Assemblies.

Indian Elections, the Largest Event in the World

Conduct of General Elections in India for electing a newLower House of Parliament (Lok Sabha) involves management ofthe largest event in the world. The electorate exceeds 668 millionvoting in 800,000 polling stations spread across widely varyinggeographic and climatic zones. Polling stations are located in thesnow-clad mountains in the Himalayas, the deserts of the Rajasthanand in sparsely populated islands in the Indian Ocean.

POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE COMMISSION

Political parties are registered with the Election Commissionunder the law. The Commission ensures inner party democracyin their functioning by insisting upon them to hold theirorganizational elections at periodic intervals. Political Parties soregistered with it are granted recognition at the State and Nationallevels by the Election Commission on the basis of their pollperformance at general elections according to criteria prescribedby it. The Commission, as a part of its quasi-judicial jurisdiction,also settles disputes between the splinter groups of such recognisedparties.

Election Commission ensures a level playing field for thepolitical parties in election fray, through strict observance by themof a Model Code of Conduct evolved with the consensus of political


New Initiatives

The Commission has taken several new initiatives in the recentpast. Notable among these are, a scheme for use of State ownedElectronic Media for broadcast/telecast by Political parties,checking criminalisation of politics, computerisation of electoralrolls, providing electors with Identity Cards, simplifying theprocedure for maintenance of accounts and filling of the same bycandidates and a variety of measures for strict compliance ofModel Code of Conduct, for providing a level playing field tocontestants during the elections.

New Initiatives

The Commission has taken several new initiatives in the recentpast. Notable among these are, a scheme for use of State ownedElectronic Media for broadcast/telecast by Political parties,checking criminalisation of politics, computerisation of electoralrolls, providing electors with Identity Cards, simplifying theprocedure for maintenance of accounts and filling of the same bycandidates and a variety of measures for strict compliance ofModel Code of Conduct, for providing a level playing field tocontestants during the elections.

NEED FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS

The health of a democracy depends on the choice ofrepresentatives and leaders, which in turn is directly linked to theway political parties function and elections are conducted. Whilewe have outstanding men and women in public life, flawedelectoral process is increasingly alienating public-spirited citizensfrom the political and electoral arena. The persons best equippedto represent the people find it impossible to be elected by adheringto law and propriety. If elected, decent citizens cannot survive forlong in elective public office without resorting to, or conniving in,dishonest methods. Even if they survive in office, their ability topromote public good is severely restricted.

Indian people have often been changing governments andelected representatives. However, this change of players has littlereal impact on the nature of governance. Even if all those electedlose, and all losers are elected, the outcome is not substantially

MEDIA POLICY

The Commission has a comprehensive policy for the media.It holds regular briefings for the mass media-print and electronic,on a regular basis, at close intervals during the election period andon specific occasions as necessary on other occasions. Therepresentatives of the media are also provided facilities to reporton actual conduct of poll and counting.

They are allowed entry into polling stations and countingcentres on the basis of authority letters issued by the Commission.They include members of both international and national media.The Commission also publishes statistical reports and otherdocuments which are available in the public domain. The libraryof the Commission is available for research and study to membersof the academic fraternity; media representatives and anybodyelse interested.

The Commission has, in co-operation with the state ownedmedia-Doordarshan and All India Radio, taken up a majorcampaign for awareness of voters. The Prasar Bharti Corporationwhich manages the national Radio and Television networks, hasbrought out several innovative and effective short clips for thispurpose.

International Co-operation

India is a founding member of the International Institute forDemocracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, Sweden.In the recent past, the Commission has expanded internationalcontacts by way of sharing of experience and expertise in the areasof Electoral Management and Administration, Electoral Laws andReforms. Delegates of the Commission have visited Sweden, U.K,Russia, Bangladesh, and the Philippines in recent years. ElectionOfficials from the national electoral bodies and other delegatesfrom the several countries-Russia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Indonesia,South Africa, Bangladesh, Thailand, Nigeria, Australia, the UnitedStates and Afganistan have visited the Commission for a betterunderstanding of the Indian Electoral Process.

The Commission has also provided experts and observers forelections to other countries in co-operation with the United Nationsand the Commonwealth Secretariat.


the people end up being losers. This is then followed by anotherrejection vote in the next election and the vicious cycle keepsrepeating. Where the candidate cannot muster money or musclepower, he stands little chance of getting elected irrespective of hisparty's electoral fortunes.

Increasingly in several pockets of the country, people arespared even the bother of having to go to the polling station.Organized booth capturing and rigging is ensuring victory withoutpeople's involvement.

There is much that is wrong with our elections. Flawed electoralrolls have become a menace. About 40% errors are noticed inelectoral rolls in many urban areas, and bogus voting in townsexceeds 20%, making our elections a mockery. Purchase of votesthrough money and liquor, preventing poorer sections from voting,large scale impersonation and bogus voting, purchase of agentsof opponents, threatening and forcing agents and polling personnelto allow false voting, booth-capturing and large scale rigging,bribing polling staff and police personnel to get favors and toharass opponents, use of violence and criminal gangs, stealingballot boxes or tampering with the ballot papers, inducing orforcing voters to reveal their voting preferences through varioustechniques including 'cycling' etc, illegally entering the pollingstations and controlling polling process all these are an integralpart of our electoral landscape. No wonder the ElectionCommission estimate that more than 700 of the 4072 legislatorsin States have some criminal record against them!

Many scholars wonder how despite massive irregularities theelectoral verdicts still seem to largely reflect public opinion, andhow parties in power often lose elections. The answers are simple.Happily for us, though parties in power are prone to abusingauthority for electoral gains, there has never been any seriousstate-sponsored rigging in most of India. The irregularities arelargely limited to the polling process alone, and most of the pre-polling activities including printing and distribution of ballotpapers, and post-polling activities including transport and storageof ballot boxes and counting of ballots are free from any politicalinterference or organized manipulation. That is why parties inpower have no decisive advantage in manipulating the polls, and

altered. This sad situation calls for a change in the rules of thegame, and citizens cannot be content with mere change of players.

Perceptions Macro level vs. Micro level

The elections are largely plebiscitary and the people vote fora platform or a leader or a promise or, as is seen more often, voteto reject the incumbent government or party in power.

The individual candidate's ability is rarely an issue in ourelectoral politics. At the same time party workers and localoligarchies do not regard election as an opportunity to vindicatetheir policies or ideologies. In most cases, election of their chosencandidate is merely an opportunity to have control of state powerand resources, to extend patronage selectively to people of theirchoice, to get pliant local bureaucrats appointed in plum postings,to humiliate and harass the inconvenient employees who wouldnot do their bidding, and increasingly to interfere in crimeinvestigation and prosecution by doctoring evidence, influencinginvestigation and letting criminals loyal to them go scot-free andimplicating people opposed to them in criminal cases.

In the midst of this, governance is an irrelevant and ofteninconvenient ritual without any meaning to those in power andwithout any positive impact on the people. At the macro levelwhen we examine a whole state or the country, the electoralverdict does broadly reflect public opinion. More often than notthis verdict is a reflection of the people's anger and frustration andis manifested in the rejection vote, or their support to a leader,promise or platform. However, at the local level, caste or sub-caste, crime, money and muscle power have become thedeterminants of political power.

All parties are compelled to put up candidates who can musterthese resources in abundance in order to have a realistic chanceof success. While political waves are perceived around the timeof election or afterwards, at the time of nomination of candidatesall parties are uncertain about their success and would naturallytry to maximize their chances of success at the polls by choosingthose candidates who can somehow manipulate or coerce thevoters. As a net result, irrespective of which party wins, the natureof political leadership and quality remain largely the same, and


of ours, who have entered politics with deep understanding ofpublic affairs and passion for public good and survived withhonesty for any length of time over the past four decades. Thereis no activity more vital and nobler than governance. In the truesense, politics is about promotion of happiness and public good.But if the best men and women that society can boast of are eitherprevented or repelled or rendered incapable of surviving in thepolitical arena, then that governance is bound to be in shambles.

Democracy is the only system which demands constantselection, nurturing and development of capable leadership. If thebest men and women society can offer are repelled by the politicalprocess and politics acquires a pejorative connotation, the resultis collapse of ethics in public life, and with it public confidencein governance. With the most competent and qualified personseschewing politics, paralysis of governance is the inevitableconsequence. With all decisions geared towards somehow winningelections and retaining power or to amass individual wealth atthe cost of the public, the people are swindled. This legal plunderensures that public goods and services are of appalling qualityand wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of a civilizedsociety or growing economy. Public exchequer will soon bedepleted and fiscal collapse will be imminent. Sadly, all these uglyfeatures of a dysfunctional democracy are evident in contemporaryIndia.

ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

In India, traditionally parties have been seen as pocketboroughs of those at the helm. Often there are entry barriers tomembers. Communist parties have always had a somewhat strictmembership admission procedure, which is generally uniform inits application. The mainstream parties which are mass-based andhave no rigid membership norms, however, have been erectingbarriers of entry to all persons who are potential threats to thecurrent leadership. While ordinary, faceless members are admittedas cannon-fodder with ease, the potentially influential membersare not always welcomed with open arms. Similarly, even thefaintest criticism of party bosses on any issue is taken as an actof indiscipline, often leading to suspension or expulsion. Again,

electoral verdicts broadly reflect shifts in public opinion. However,the massive irregularities in polling process make sure thatcandidates who deploy abnormal money and muscle power havea distinct advantage. Sensing this, most major parties have cometo nominate 'winnable' candidates without reference to their abilityand integrity.

Thus, the use of money power and muscle power is sanctionedby almost all the parties, and often they tend to neutralize eachother. The net result is that candidates who do not indulge in anyirregularity have very little chance of being elected. Electionexpenditure-mostly for illegitimate vote buying, hiring ofhoodlums and bribing officials-is often ten or twenty times theceiling permitted by law. Criminals have a decisive or dominantinfluence on the outcome in many parts of India, and have oftenbecome party candidates and won on a large scale.

New Entrants into Politics

If we examine the new entrants into politics over the pastthree or four decades in the country, very few with intellect,integrity, commitment to public service and passion forimprovement of the situation could enter the political arena andsurvive. Almost every new entrant has chosen politics exactly forthe wrong reasons. A careful analysis shows that heredity andfamily connections are the commonest cause for entry into politics.Those who have large inherited or acquired wealth and havedecided that investment in politics is good business closely followthis. In recent years, many local muscle men, whose services wereearlier sought for extortion or vote-gathering, are now directlyentering the fray and gaining political legitimacy.

A few persons have entered politics out of personal loyaltyto, and close contacts with those in high public office. People withvery high visibility on account of great success in massentertainment like sports or films have also been increasinglydrawn into the vortex of politics. Occasionally, accidents of fateare pitch-forking certain individuals into elective public office. Ifwe exclude these methods of heredity, money power, musclepower, personal contacts, high visibility, and accidents of fate,there will not be even a handful of persons in this vast country


opposition is instantly snuffed out. Suspension, expulsion, instantremoval from office, denial of party tickets, all these and moreweapons are fully available to leadership if there is any whiff ofopposition. If the party is in power, state machinery is used forparty ends, and more often to perpetuate absolute control overthe party and state, with cynical disregard to propriety and publicgood. All positions in the regional and local units are nominatedby the party leader. Every party functionary owes his or herposition to the grace and good will of the 'High Command'. Mythsand images are assiduously propagated to perpetuate personalpower. No other party functionary or leader is allowed to sharethe limelight. The moment a local or rival national leader is gainingin popularity, he is immediately cut to size, removed from office,and if necessary expelled from the party to deny him a politicalbase, and force him into political wilderness.

Membership rolls are not available, and when prepared areoften spurious. Elections are not held, and if held are rigged.Musclemen often take over party meeting and conferences atvarious levels, and fisticuffs and violence are quite common. Allparties, without exception, nominate candidates for public officethrough the dictates of the leadership or high command.

All funds are collected clandestinely and spent at will tofurther augment personal power. State level 'leaders' are nominatedby the 'high command'. When a party is elected to office in anyState, the legislature party leader, who will be Chief Minister, isnominated by the central leadership, and formally anointed in afarcical 'election'. Often sealed covers are sent indicating the nameof the person chosen as Chief Minister by the party leadership.There are instances in which persons who did not command thesupport of even a handful of legislators became Chief Ministers.Even candidates for public office in local government electionsand cooperatives are decided by the party's central leadership.

When the party obtains a majority in a local election, againthe zilla parishad chairman or other functionaries are decided bythe party bosses far removed from the scene. In short, politicalparty functioning has become totally autocratic, oligarchic,unaccountable and undemocratic. The whole political processand all democratic institutions are systematically subverted. Party

when leadership changes in the party, the same member who wasearlier punished for rebellion is welcomed back with alacrity.There are countless instances of such disgraceful autocracy in allmajor political parties in India.

The political parties, which exhibit such authoritariantendencies in protecting the privileges of those in power andnipping in the bud any potential threat to individual dominancehave not shown the slightest sense of shame or remorse inassiduously cultivating and recruiting known criminals, corruptpersons and charlatans and rogues. Such shady elements arecourted and welcomed, while decent and dignified citizens areshunned and often rejected. No major mainstream party has anypublished membership rolls. Spurious membership and disputesarising out of it are only too well known to all of us in respectof major political parties. As a net result, parties have often becomea collection of greedy, corrupt and unscrupulous persons, who arewilling to use any method, however ugly, immoral, violent orbrutal, to perpetuate their hold on state power. By virtue of entrybarriers and expulsion powers in the hands of party bosses, noreal rejuvenation of parties with injection of fresh blood is possible.All idealistic, talented youngsters are often repelled by the parties,and undesirable elements find a haven in them.

As a perceptive political observer commented some yearsago, in Indian political parties, 'the man who wears the crown isthe king'. Leadership is often acquired through undemocraticmeans and retained by the power of patronage, nomination andexpulsion, rather than the support of members. This paved wayfor oligarchies and unaccountable and un-elected coteriesdominating and manipulating the political process. Partyleadership, however illegitimate the ascent to it may be, givestotal control of the party apparatus and resources. Through totalmonopoly over candidates' choice, the leadership's access to, andcontrol over, levers of state power is complete and unchallenged.Given the fact that most parties are dominated by only one leader,and not even a small group, 'monarchy' is the correct descriptionof party leadership.

Once in office, the power of leadership is absolute, and controlof resources is awesome. Any potential dissidence or principled


shows that the hope of new parties emerging and spawning a newculture rejuvenating the political process is a pipe dream. Theemergence of a successful new political party itself is a rarephenomenon in modern world. The emergence Telugu DesamParty in Andhra Pradesh was one such rare example. Acombination of unusual circumstances-a strong-willed, extremelypopular leader who became an idol to millions as a successful filmstar, absence of a viable political alternative to the dominantruling party, people's disgust with mis-governance and corruption,and a strong anti-establishment sentiment have brought about amajor political change in 1983 in Andhra Pradesh.

However, as events have shown, the same new party hasbecome a replica of Congress, and has conformed to the iron lawof Indian politics-'all mainstream, centrist parties imitate Congressand become its clones'. This fate is seen in varying degrees inmany parties.

The Janata of 1977, which took birth from the anger of people,and its various progeny; BJP, which claimed indigenous culturalroots and promised a brave new world, and yet lost is sheen inoffice within a few months; the regional parties like the twoDravidian parties, whose origin was based on cultural regionalism;the Shiv Sena, which rose out of urban middle class frustration;the many other religious, tribal, caste, and regional ethnic partieswith bases all over India all these have proved to be no differentfrom Congress in organizational ethos and internal functioning.Of the three truly ideology-driven parties, Swatantra party andSocialists disappeared, and Communists continue their policy ofsplendid isolation and democratic centralism, unmindful of thetectonic shifts in global and Indian politics.

From this bird's eye view of Indian political parties, it is clearthat we, as a people, have stakes in their functioning and future.The moment they seek power over us, and control over stateapparatus, they forfeit their claim to immunity from public scrutinyand state regulation based on reasonable restraints. This isparticularly true in a climate in which they have proved to beutterly irresponsible, unaccountable and autocratic, perpetuatingindividual control over levers of power and political organization,entirely for personal aggrandizement, pelf and privilege.

leaders have become medieval potentates, with the sole intent ofsurvival in power, and bequeathing their office to their familymembers or chosen successors.

Public Scrutiny and Regulation

It does not require any great analysis or insight to understandthat undemocratic political parties cannot nurture, sustain orstrengthen a democratic society. The most critical need is to reformparties and make them open, democratic and accountable. Basicdemocratic principles of member control, elected representativesfrom lower tier electing leadership at higher levels, openmembership rolls, fair and free elections, no power to centralparty over regional and local units, easy and effective challengeto incumbents, no recourse to expulsion or removal of potentialrivals, and no nominated office holders at any level, should beintegral to the functioning of any political party.

The question then is, can the political parties be left to managetheir own affairs democratically? Past experience shows that it isfutile to expect parties to become democratic on their own. Throughlong years of neglect, democratic processes have become fragile.The coteries, individuals and families controlling parties are sofirmly entrenched that there is no realistic hope of members beingallowed to organize themselves and challenge the leadership andprocedures. It will be somewhat naïve to except the party leadersthemselves to initiate the process of party reform, which willundermine their own unaccountable and often illegitimate personalpower. Nor is there hope that democratic elections for publicoffices will automatically force reform on parties. As the choicesoffered to the public are between Tweedledom and Tweedledee,no matter which party wins, the picture remains unchanged andimmutable.

We as a people have an abiding and legitimate interest in theaffairs of parties. As we have seen, parties are by no means privateclubs looking after their personal interest. They are the enginesof democracy and instruments of governance in society. They seekand acquire power over us, and in reality have effective, andunbreakable monopoly over power. The power of the party cartelscannot be checked by forming new parties. Experience everywhere


every rupee of expenditure, hundred rupees has to be recoveredto sustain the system. One rupee election expenditure normallyentails at least a five-fold return to the politician.

To share five rupees with the political class, the rent-seekingbureaucracy has to recover about Rs.50. In order to extort Rs.50from the public, there should be delay, inefficiency, harassment,humiliation and indignity worth Rs.500 heaped on the innocentcitizens! To take the example of a major State, it is estimated thatabout Rs.600 crores (6 billion) has been spent by the major politicalparties in the general elections for Parliament and LegislativeAssembly in 1999. This expenditure can be sustained only whenthe returns are of the order of at least Rs.3000 crores (30 billion),which in turn is translated as extortion of Rs.30000 crores (300billion) from the public by the vast bureaucracy. The inconvenience,humiliation, the lost opportunities and the distortion of marketforces are often worth ten times the actual corruption.

Unaccounted and illegitimate election expenditure is thustranslated into huge corruption siphoning off money at everylevel. In addition, this ubiquitous corruption alters the nature ofpolitical and administrative power, and undermines market forces,efficiency and trust on a much larger scale, retarding economicgrowth and distorting democracy. Cleansing elections is the mostimportant route through which corruption and mis-administrationcan be curbed.

The Curse of Defections

People also have come to realize that their vote has no sanctityafter the election. Even if a candidate gets elected on a platform,there is no guarantee that their representative will not defect toa party with an entirely different agenda and ideology and betraythe people's verdict purely for personal gain. Public office is seenas private property and in handling it the trust reposed by votersis of little consequence. Personal honor and commitment to acause are at a premium in a system which rewards defections anddoes little to penalize political malfeasance.

Let us now briefly examine the Tenth Schedule of theconstitution, incorporated by 52nd Amendment popularly knownas the Anti-defection Act. These provisions have a major bearing

Therefore, in a deep sense, the crisis in political parties is anational crisis, and has to be resolved by a national effort. Thisleads us to the inescapable conclusion that there should be internaldemocracy in parties, regulated by law, and monitored andsupervised by statutory authorities.

Every party, by law, should be obligated to practice internaldemocracy in all respects. The details of functioning can be leftto the party's own constitution, but it should conform to the broadprinciples of democracy stated clearly in law. The actual practiceof internal democracy should be verifiable by an external agency,say the Election Commission. Mandatory publication ofmembership rolls of political parties at local level, election ofleadership at every level by secret ballot supervised by the ElectionCommission, a comprehensive prohibition on nominations of officebearers or expulsion of rivals, a well-established system to challengethe leadership of incumbents at every level, and justifiability ofthese internal democratic processes through special tribunals-allthese measures could form the basis of any meaningful reformand regulation of political parties. Extreme care and caution should,however, be exercised to ensure that a party's democratic choicesof leadership or its espousal of policies are not in any way directlyor indirectly influenced by law or external monitoring agencies.The party leaders and its policies should be judged only by thepublic, in the market place of ideas and in elections.

Election Expenditure-Root Cause of Corruption

Excessive, illegal and illegitimate expenditure in elections isthe root cause of corruption. Often the expenditure is 10 to 15times the legal ceiling prescribed. Among elected representatives,almost everyone violates expenditure ceiling laws. Most electionexpenditure is illegitimate and is incurred in buying votes, hiringhoodlums or bribing officials. Abnormal election expenditure hasto be recouped in multiples to sustain the system. The high riskinvolved in election expenditure (winner-take-all process), thelong gestation period required for most politicians who aspire forlegislative office, the higher cost of future elections, the need toinvolve the vast bureaucracy in the web of corruption (with 90%shared by the large number of employees)-all these mean that for


should matter. Party whips have no place on such issues, and aremanifestly illegitimate, and are probably unconstitutional.

However, once the law gives the same enforceability to allwhips, the legislators have no choice but to obey, or riskdisqualification. We cannot allow such a conspiracy of a groupof individuals in the name of a party to distort all public debateand legislation. By throttling legislators and preventing them fromgiving concrete expression to their legitimate views, Anti-defectionAct made them captives to irresponsible party leaderships in analready authoritarian and unaccountable party hierarchy. Thusall dissent is stifled and smothered, whereas collective plunder ofthe state goes on merrily unchecked. At the same time defectionscontinue in a systematic and organized manner, thwarting people'swill.

SYSTEMIC INERTIA

As a net result of these distortions, elections have lost theirreal meaning as far as the people are concerned. It is often temptingto blame the illiterate and poor citizens for this plight of ourdemocracy. But in reality it is the democratic vigor and enthusiasticparticipation of the countless poor and illiterate voters, which hassustained our democracy so far. However, most people haverealized with experience that the outcome of elections is of littleconsequence to their lives in the long run. If, by a miracle, allwinners in an election lose, and all their immediate rivals areelected instead, there will still be no real improvement in thequality of governance.

This remarkable inertia and the seeming intractability of thegovernance process have convinced citizens that there is no reallong-term stake involved in electoral politics. Therefore manypoor citizens are forced to take a rational decision to maximizetheir short-term gains. As a result the vote has become apurchasable commodity for money or liquor. More often it is asign of assertion of primordial loyalties of caste, religion, group,ethnicity, region or language. Very often without even any materialinducement or emotional outburst based on prejudices, the sheeranger against the dysfunctional governance process makes mostvoters reject the status quo.

on parties, public discourse and legislative and parliamentaryvoting. The Anti-defection Act was obviously well-intentioned,and was meant to ensure that the people's mandate is respected,and elected legislators do not violate the trust reposed in themby the public. Candidates are generally elected on the basis of theplatform and a party, and their defection, often in return formoney or favors, is a gross insult to democracy. However, theAnti-defection Act completely failed to prevent defections. Thereare countless instances of defections in Parliament and Statelegislatures since 1985, after the law came into effect. The onlynovel feature now is that individual defections invitedisqualification for legislative office, and therefore there is noincentive for such defection.

However, collective defection is now legitimate and amplyrewarded. The provision that if 1/3 legislators defect, it is a splitin the party and is permissible is a classic case of missing the woodfor the trees. It is tantamount to saying that if an individualcommits a murder, it is a crime; but if a group does it, it is perfectlylegitimate! As a result splits are engineered, and constitutionalcoups are planned with meticulous precision, and carefulconspiracy. Politics is reduced to the ugly numbers game in thelegislature, without any sense of fairness, principle or obligationto the electorate. At the same time, as the Uttar Pradesh case ofdefections by Bahujan Samaj Party legislators showed, partisanSpeakers can actually create new arithmetic, hither to unknownto man! In effect, the anti-defection provisions have completelyfailed in achieving the intended result.

There is, however, one major unintended result of the Anti-defection Act. Once the law provided that violation of party whipon any vote attracts disqualification, party legislators who mayhonestly differ on a piece of legislation are now forced to submitto the will of the leadership. The ill-conceived legislation on muslimwomen's maintenance after the Supreme Court verdict in ShahBano case is one sad example of such a case. An even moreshameful episode is the whip issued by Congress Party to its MPsin the impeachment case of Justice Ramaswamy. Parliament sitsas a court while deciding on impeachment matters, and onlyevidence of wrong doing and the judgment of individual MPs


4. Section 8(4) of RP Act, 1951 gives a grace period of threemonths to incumbent legislators before disqualificationcomes into effect in case they are convicted of an offence,or if an appeal is filed within three months, until theappeal is disposed of by the court. Unfortunately thisprovision was misinterpreted by election officialsconsistently until 1997, and any candidate, who had beenconvicted but filed an appeal, was exempted fromdisqualification until the appeal was disposed of. TheElection Commission gave guidelines in 1997 effectivelyclosing this loophole.

Problems:

1. Many known criminals are still in the electoral fray andoften get elected. The problem is getting worse withsuccessive elections.

2. The conviction rate in criminal cases is a pitiful 5-6%

3. Disposal of criminal cases is excruciatingly slow, and mostcases take years to dispose of. Technically, the murderersof Rajiv Gandhi were perfectly free to contest elections inIndia for 7 years after the dastardly crime until 1998 whenthey were convicted, provided they are Indian citizensand are otherwise eligible. This obviously is anunacceptable situation.

4. If the persons facing criminal prosecution are disqualifiedindiscriminately, there is a real danger of trumped upcharges against political opponents. This is particularlylikely in a system in which police function directly underthe control of the government, and the government hasspecific powers to withdraw prosecution, orderinvestigation and grant parole and pardon.

5. Mafia dons and organized gangs often escape evenprosecution for want of tangible evidence.

6. There are rowdy sheets and history sheets opened by thepolice against certain individuals with criminal record.

7. The period of disqualification under RP Act 1951 forconviction varies with the offence, and this variation doesnot always seem to have a rational basis. Annexure 2 gives

Often this rejection of the government of the day isindiscriminate and there is no rational evaluation of the alternativesoffered. In short, even the illiterate, ordinary voter is making arational assumption that the vote has no serious long-termconsequences and the choice is between Tweedledom andTweedledee. Therefore he is attempting to maximize his short-term material or emotional gain!

Obviously, this situation calls for urgent and practical electoralreforms along with fundamental governance reforms to enhancepeople's empowerment and participation.

These electoral reforms should address the following concerns:

1. Criminalization of politics.

2. Abuse of unaccounted money power.

3. Electoral irregularities of flawed electoral rolls, personation,false-voting, rigging and booth capturing.

4. Autocratic, unaccountable political parties.

5. The curse of defections for personal gain

DECRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS

Present Status:

1. Sections 8, 8A and 9 of RP Act, 1951 provide fordisqualification of persons convicted of specified offences.The list is comprehensive and reasonable.

2. The provisions obviously failed to achieve the desiredresult. The Election Commission pointed out that morethan 700 of the 4092 legislators at state level have criminalrecord against them.

3. Lok Satta released a list of 45 candidates, most of themnominated by major parties in

Andhra Pradesh in the general election for Lok Sabha andVidhan Sabha in 1999. The names of about 20 more personswith suspected criminal record could not be revealed forwant of verifiable evidence. With the backing of majorpolitical parties, several of them were elected. Severalcitizens' initiatives made similar efforts elsewhere.


whether or not the opening of such History sheet or Rowdysheet is valid. The order of the Sessions Judge shall bebinding on the police authorities.

6. Every candidate for an elective office shall file at the timeof nomination before the returning officer an affidavit onthe lines given in Annexure 4 and the nomination of thosepersons who do not file such an affidavit shall be rejected.

7. If any misleading or incorrect information is furnished inthe affidavit, or if any facts are concealed, such a personshall be disqualified for a period of, say twelve years. Incase such a person has been already elected, his electionstands nullified and he shall be disqualified for twelveyears. In such cases a complaint shall be filed before theElection Commission, whereupon the Commission shallissue notices to the compliant and the candidate and aftersummary enquiry give its decision within 90 days fromthe date of complaint. The decision of the ElectionCommission shall be final and binding.

8. Similar disqualification provisions should be incorporatedin respect of elections to local governments.

Note: A few critics have expressed the concern thatdecriminalization efforts might inadvertently hurt the interests ofthe dalits and backward classes. Given the power-centered natureof our society and the iniquitous nature of our polity, there isalways the danger of influential sections manipulating the systemin their favor and marginalizing disadvantaged sections. Alsooften the so called upper castes may remain in the back groundand use the dalits and OBCs as canon fodder to execute crimes,thus escaping disqualification.

However, empirical evidence shows that criminalization ofpolitics is not the monopoly of any caste group. In fact, there aremore organized criminal gangs with political connections amongthe so called upper castes. When criminal record of candidates iscarefully compiled, there are more upper caste candidates withsuch a record. Also once disqualification is applicable to all crimeviolent as well as white-collared, there is greater probability of theprovisions being applicable to all sections equitably. For instance

a table indicating the offence and the period ofdisqualification.

8. While the list of offences under Sections 8,8A and 9 of RPAct 1951 is fairly large and comprehensive, certain offencesseem to have been left out. Annexure 3 gives an illustrativelist of offences conviction for which should incurdisqualification as recommended by the Law Commission.

Possible Proposals for Electoral Reform

1. The anomalies in respect of period of disqualification maybe corrected broadly in line with the recommendations ofthe Law Commission.

2. The punishments for certain offences should be altered,and certain new offences should be included, so that thereare more rational criteria for disqualification of candidatesas proposed by the Law Commission. The list shouldinclude conviction for corrupt electoral practices undersection 99 of RP Act, 1951

3. Any person against whom criminal charges are framed bya magistrate for any offence listed under section 8 of RPAct 1951 or any warrant case should be disqualified tocontest in elections as long as charges are pending againsthim/her.

4. Any person in respect of whom a History sheet or a Rowdysheet or a similar record by whatever name it is called, hasbeen opened and is kept open in any police station withinthe Indian union in accordance with the provisions of theappropriate laws or police standing orders, should bedisqualified as long as such History sheet or Rowdy sheetis kept open.

5. In order to ensure that there is no misuse of this provisionto harass political opponents, a safeguard should beprovided in the form of judicial scrutiny. Any person whois aggrieved by the opening of History sheet or Rowdysheet and who wishes to contest the election may appealto the Sessions Judge at least two months before the dateof election notification, and thereupon the Sessions Judgeshall hold a summary enquiry and decide within a month


Finally, when there is overwhelming distortion in electoralpolitics and money power and criminal involvement have cometo dominate elections, effective and far-reaching reforms arerequired to safeguard public interest. Tentative and half-heartedreforms will fail to cleanse our political and electoral system.

PROPOSALS FOR CAMPAIGN FUNDING REFORM

Pre-Conditions for Public Funding

1. Political Party regulation to ensure internal democracy

2. Party candidates to be democratically selected by secretballot by members or their elected delegates

3. Democratic selection of candidates

4. Decriminalization of politics

5. Rectification of defects in electoral rolls

6. Elimination of voting fraud through introduction of voteridentity cards and electronic voting.

7. Strict disclosure and penalty norms

Essential Elements of Public Funding

1. Transparent

2. Verifiable

3. Non-Discretionary

4. Incentive for performance

5. Encourage private resource mobilization

6. Prevent fragmentation

7. Fair to new parties and independents

8. Finite cost to exchequer

9. Equal treatment of all candidates

Measures to Encourage Political Funding-Tax Incentives andCeilings

1. All individual contributions to candidates or parties forpolitical and election activity shall be 100 % exempt fromincome tax subject to a ceiling of, say Rs.10,000. Totalceiling on contributions from an individual to all candidates

if willful defaulters of bank loans are disqualified, there is greaterchance of influential sections being made accountable.

There are other concerns expressed about the fairness ofdisqualification of candidates facing criminal charges or thoselisted as rowdy sheeters etc. Firstly only charges framed by amagistrate in warrant cases after prima facie enquiry are included.Once there is judicial application of mind, it acts as a reasonablesafeguard to protect individual interest. Secondly, there have tobe certain reasonable standards with uniform and objectiveapplication, and there can never be absolute certainty about aperson's guilt. There are cases of conviction which are set asideon appeal. There are known cases of innocent persons havingbeen found guilty of capital offences and executed. If we wish toapply exacting standards, we should wait until the final appealis heard, which obviously defeats the objective of decriminalizationof politics. Thirdly, there are fears that police records about rowdysheeters etc could be highly subjective and arbitrary. In fact, thecriteria for opening such records are well laid down and areobjective. To eliminate the risk of political manipulation, a provisionis made for judicial determination of the fairness of the policerecords at the level of the Sessions Judge.

Fourthly, when there is a clash between the society's right tohave fair and proper representation in legislatures and theindividual's right to represent the people, clearly society's rightstake precedence over individual right. The right to contest electionsis not a fundamental right. The harm done by denying an occasionalinnocent person a chance to contest is much less than allowinga criminal to be elected. In fact the balance today has swungagainst decent citizens in elections, and this distortion ought tobe corrected.

Fifthly, these proposals are meant to reduce the role of criminalsin politics, and cannot in themselves be adequate to eliminate theflaws and distortions in the criminal justice system.

That requires a different, and far-reaching reform effort.However, the failure to reform, the criminal justice system cannotmilitate against reform of the electoral system. Electoral reformis central to the fairness of representation and health of ademocracy.


disclosure shall be: a. Donors: fine equal to ten times thecontributions and imprisonment for six months. b.Candidates: disqualification for six years, fine equivalentto ten times the amount not disclosed, and imprisonmentfor at least one year. c. Parties: de-recognition and de-registration for five years, fine equivalent to ten times theamount not disclosed, and imprisonment of office bearersfor three years.

2. The parties shall file returns every year, and after everyelection. The candidates shall file an audited statementafter the election. The penalty for not furnishing auditedaccounts shall be:

a. Candidates: disqualification for a period of six yearsor until accounts are furnished, whichever is later.

b. Parties: de-recognition of the political party untilaccounts are furnished.

c. Every political party and candidate shall submit theaudited statement of accounts to the ElectionCommission as well as the Income Tax authorities inthe prescribed proforma. Every political party andcandidate shall make available to the public the auditedaccounts for the financial year by September 30,through print and electronic means. Copies shall bemade available to any member of the public by theElection Commission on payment of a nominal fee, aswell as publishing them electronically.

4. Every candidate shall disclose his/ her income and assetsalong with those of his family members at the time of thenomination. There shall be annual disclosure of incomeand assets of elected legislators and their family members.False or incomplete disclosure will invite confiscation ofundisclosed properties and assets, disqualification for sixyears and imprisonment for three years. Non-declarationwill invite automatic disqualification.

5. The Election Commission shall be the final authority toreceive statements of income, and assets as well as politicalcontributions and expenditure, their verification and

and parties put together shouldn't exceed Rs.50,000 in acalendar year.

2. 100% tax exemption for all corporate contributions witha ceiling of 5% of the net profit not exceeding Rs. 50 lakhsfor national parties and Rs. 10 lakhs for state parties.

3. Corporate contributions shall be subject to the followingnorms:

- As mentioned above no contribution shall exceed 5%of the net profit.

- A company which receives state subsidy or has adecision or contract or license pending withgovernment shall not contribute.

- Contributions by Public Sector enterprises areprohibited

- Prohibited to individual candidates.

Measures to prevent abuse of office:

1. Government shall not issue any advertisements containingthe name of a person or party or photograph of any leader

2. No government advertisement shall be issued listing anyachievements of a particular government.

3. Government transport or infrastructure shall not be usedfor political campaigning

4. No contribution shall be received from any person orcorporate body in respect of whom any decision or licenseor contract or claim of subsidy or concession of any natureis pending with the government.

Measures to Enforce Disclosure and Accountability-Penalties

1. Every individual contribution totaling Rs.1000/-or moreand every corporate contribution to candidates or politicalparties for any political activity shall be disclosed with fullparticulars of identity, address and other details of donors.All contributions exceeding Rs. 500 /-shall be by chequeonly. Both the donor and recipient shall be obliged tomake full disclosure to the Election Commission and theIncome Tax authorities. Penalty for non-disclosure or false


3. There shall be election debates telecast and broadcast liveby all electronic media as per the directions of the ElectionCommission.

Gist of Proposals for Public Funding

1. Rs. 10 per vote polled.

2. Independent and party candidates to be treated on par aslong as they pass the threshold of 10 % of valid votespolled in the constituency to become eligible for publicfunding.

3. Party gets 1/3 of the eligible funding, and candidatereceives 2/3 of the funding.

4. Parties to receive 50 % of advance @ Rs.5 per vote basedon their performance in earlier elections.

5. Independents to be reimbursed after the poll.

6. Stringent enforcement and strict penalties for non-compliance of disclosure norms.

Cost of Public Funding

- Population 101 crore

- Estimated no. of eligible voters 60 crore

- Actual votes polled (at 60%) 36 crore

Exclude 40% from funding on account of eligibility criteriaand limits imposed 10% voting threshold, ceiling limits, matchingfunds, funds raised by parties and candidates.

- Balance required for funding:

22 crore. Funding cost at Rs.10 per vote is Rs.220 crores forthe Lok Sabha elections, to be borne by the Union government.

Funding cost for State Assemblies may be Rs. 250 crore onaccount of likely higher percentage of voting. This will be borneby the States.

A Public Fund for Political and Campaign Funding

1. The Union and States shall start such Public Funds.

2. All contributions from individuals and corporate bodieswill receive the benefit of 150 % tax exemption withoutsubject to any ceiling.

auditing, and determination of false disclosure or non-disclosure. The Commission's determination ofnoncompliance on an application or suo motu shallautomatically invite penalty ten times the amount anddisqualification for six years, and in case of parties, de-recognition and deregistration for five years. Ordinarycriminal courts or special courts appointed for the purposewill have jurisdiction to try related offences and sentencethe guilty to imprisonment.

Measures to Limit Campaign Expenditure

1. There shall be a reasonable ceiling on expenditure inelections as decided by Election Commission from time totime. All expenditure including that incurred by a politicalparty or any individual or group to further the electoralprospects of a candidate shall be included in the electionexpenditure.

2. Penalty for violation of ceiling shall be a fine equal to five times the excess expenditure. Penalty for willfulnon-disclosure of any expenditure shall be disqualificationof the candidate for six years, fine equal to ten timesthe non-disclosed amount and imprisonment for sixmonths.

3. There shall be reasonable ceilings fixed on television/radio/newspaper advertisements.

4. During election time, rallies held under covered roofsalone shall be permitted, and outdoor public rallies shallbe prohibited. However, there shall be no restrictions onall other campaign related individual or group activities.

Measures for Indirect Public Funding-Media

1. Free television and radio time shall be given in state mediato registered parties as prescribed by the ElectionCommission.

2. Private electronic media shall earmark time for recognizedparties as prescribed by the Election Commission forelection-related campaign. The licensing conditions shouldbe suitably amended by law.


3. The irregularities are largely limited to the polling processitself. In fact most electoral politics is now reduced tomanipulating the polling process including influencingappointment of election and polling officials in certainstates.

4. Electoral registration law is near-perfect. However, theprocedural flaws allow for serious distortions.

5. Prior identification of the voter by verifiable means is notinsisted upon as a precondition for voting. Therefore falsevoting by impersonation is unchecked.

6. The only check is the opportunity for the polling agent ofa candidate to object (challenged vote). However, oftenpolling agents do not know all the voters. In urban areasit is impossible to have knowledge of even a fraction ofthe voters. Sometimes the polling agents are in conclusionwith opponents. There are areas where the dominance ofone caste or group is so pronounced that polling agentsmay not even be available for certain candidates, or whenavailable, are intimidated.

7. Tendered ballots are given to those voters in whose namea vote was cast earlier by impersonation, and who canestablish their identity. However, the provision is notwidely known. Even if a tendered vote is cast, under thepresent law it has no validity. In fact the false vote alreadycast and inserted in the ballot box is counted, and thelegitimate vote cast as tendered vote is kept in a sealedcover separately, and is not counted. This sealed cover isopened only in the event of a court order on an electionpetition. In effect, impersonation is rewarded in elections.

8. A tendered vote is indisputable proof of rigging. No matterwhat form rigging takes, its one inevitable manifestationis a false vote being cast in the name of another person.Tendered vote is thus the surest means of provingpersonation and rigging, provided there is great publicityand voters attach value to tendered vote.

9. Use of ballot papers involves several logistical difficultiesincluding printing of ballots, large scale personnel

3. The Public Fund shall be operated by the ElectionCommission, and candidates and parties will be fundedfrom that fund as per the norms.

Miscellaneous

1. The Election Commission shall be the final authority todetermine compliance or otherwise of these norms, andto impose penalties.

2. Public funding to party candidates shall be contingentupon the party candidates being selected democraticallyby secret ballot by members of the party or an assemblyof elected representatives of the party members in theconstituency.

3. Any expenditure to give inducements to voters, distributegifts, bribe public officials involved in conduct of election,or hire any workers or gangs for any unlawful activityshall be unlawful. Penalties for such unlawful expenditureshall be disqualification of the candidate for six years, afine equivalent to ten times the expenditure incurred andimprisonment for three years.

4. Every candidate shall make a declaration of his/her incomeand property at the time of nomination, along with incomeand properties of the members of his family. False orincomplete declaration shall be invite disqualification forsix years and imprisonment for one year. Non-declarationwill invite automatic disqualification. The ElectionCommission shall determine the compliance of thisprovision and make public these declarations. The ECshall be the final authority to decide on complaints of falsedeclaration.

MEASURE FOR CURBING POLLING IRREGULARITIES

Present Status

1. In the actual conduct of elections, the pre-polling activitiesincluding printing of ballot papers etc are fool-proof andlargely free from any irregularities.

2. Similarly the post-poll activities including transport andstorage of ballot boxes and counting are fool proof andthere are effective safeguards against mischief.


2. Voter identity cards shall be mandatory in any election.The exercise of distribution of these voter identity cardsshall be completed within one year. All other suitablemeans of identity ration card, driving license, pattadarpass book, bank pass book, passport, credit card, employer'scertificate, tax receipt etc shall be permitted in lieu of voteridentity card.

3. Electronic voting machines shall be introduced in everypolling station.

4. Ballot papers shall be limited to those on official electionduty or members of the armed forces. Measures shouldbe evolved to facilitate voting of such persons in time.Proxy voting for soldiers on duty by their relations withprior authorization is one such method.

5. If the tendered votes in a polling station exceed 1% of thevalid votes polled, there shall be automatic re-polling inthat polling station.

6. If the tendered ballot papers are below 1% in a pollingstation, they shall be counted as normal ballot papers.(The vote polled by a legitimate voter is thus counted.Tendered ballots may not be relevant if voter identitycards are universally implemented and identification ismade mandatory. Rules need to be framed regardingtendered votes in case of Electronic Voting Machines).

INTERNAL DEMOCRACY IN POLITICAL PARTIES

Present Status

1. Art 19 of the constitution accords citizens the right to formassociations, thus implicitly recognizing the right to formpolitical parties.

2. Election symbols (Reservation and Allotment) order, 1968,issued by the Election Commission under Art 324 of theconstitution, read with the provisions of RP Act, 1951 andconduct of Election Rules 1961 provides for recognition ofpolitical parties.

3. A party will be recognized by the Election Commission asa State-level party and allotted a common symbol for its

deployment, tampering with ballot papers, forcible entryinto a polling station and at times massive rigging byrapid unauthorized stamping of ballots and insertion inballot box.

10. Voter identity cards are introduced, and the law and ruleshave been amended. However, though Rs.1000 crores havebeen spent, identity cards have not been made mandatoryfor polling.

11. Electronic voting machines (EVM) can now be used, andthe law has been amended. EVM technology is available,and they have been used successfully on pilot basis inselect constituencies. They can be manufactured on largescale and their introduction actually reduces electionexpenditure in the medium and long-term. EVMs alsoreduce the scope for rigging, and make polling simplerand counting faster.

Proposals for Reform

1. The local post office shall be made the nodal agency forelectoral registration

a. Electoral rolls for the polling stations covered by thepost office shall be made available to citizens acrossthe counter for a price. They can be purchased like anypostal stamps or stationery.

b. Copies of electoral rolls shall be displayed and madeavailable for scrutiny when asked.

c. The forms of registration, deletion of names andcorrection (in English and local language) shall bemade available to citizens free of cost or for a nominalprice of say, 10 paise.

d. All such forms shall be received by the post office andacknowledgement given to the applicant. They shallthen be forwarded to the electoral registration officials.

e. The post office shall maintain a register showing detailsof applications, and shall receive action taken reportsfrom electoral registration officials. This register shallbe open to public for scrutiny.


easily formed. The only effective way of improving thequality of a democracy is by improving the functioning ofpolitical parties.

5. Entry into a party is often tightly and arbitrarily controlledby the leadership. Strict, but objective and uniform normsas applicable to communist parties are welcome. But inmost mainstream parties the leadership denies membershipto those with the potential to challenge their position.Similarly persons utterly opposed to party's stated ideologyare admitted as members when it suits the leadership.

6. Disciplinary powers are invoked and expulsions areresorted to habitually only to safeguard the position ofleadership of a party. No healthy debate and democraticdissent are tolerated.

7. Leadership choices at various levels are rarely made bydemocratic voting. In most parties, internal elections arerarely held, or when held, are perfunctory. Evenmembership rolls are not available.

8. Party leadership is utterly unaccountable to its membersas well as the public regarding contributions made andexpenditure incurred.

9. Choice of candidates is left to the discretion of the partybosses. There are no democratic procedures of memberchoice and secret ballot for candidate selection.

10. Party policies are rarely debated or decided in party fora.Members have no role in shaping party's policies.Manifestoes are written in a cavalier manner, and if theparty is elected to office, promises are disregarded withimpurity.

Proposals

1. Membership of a party should be open to all citizens ofIndia, subject to their subscribing to the party philosophy,and uniform membership norms and barriers of entry.

2. Rules governing membership of the party and registers ofcurrent members should be available and open toinspection by any member of the party or therepresentatives of Election Commission.

candidates if it has been engaged in political activitycontinuously for five years, and had obtained at least oneout of 25 members of Lok Sabha or one out of thirtymembers of State Legislative Assembly or 4% of the totalvalid votes caste at the election in the State.

4. A party satisfying these conditions in four or more statesis recognized as a national party.

5. The symbols allotment order, 1968 has been recognized bythe Supreme Court as a self-contained code and can betreated as one of the important land marks in the evolutionofregulation of political parties. (RP Bhalla). The Courtupheld the order in the Sadique Ali Vs Election Commissionof India, case.

6. Section 77 of RP Act, 1951, amended in 1974 mentions apolitical party for the first time in a statute. This amendmentexcludes expenditure incurred by a party from thestatement of accounts lodged by a contesting candidate.

7. Tenth Schedule was added to the constitution in 1985through 52nd amendment. This is the only reference topolitical parties in the constitution. Tenth Scheduleprovides for disqualification of members for voluntarilygiving up membership of a political party or violatingparty whip.

8. Section 29A was inserted in the RP Act 1951 makingprovision for registration of political parties with theElection Commission.

Problems

1. Parties have become arbitrary, autocratic andunaccountable.

2. As parties are integral to democratic politics, theirundemocratic functioning has weakened Indian democracyand politics.

3. The choice of candidates for the voters is essentially limitedto parties. Non-party candidates have very little say inelections.

4. As a party represents decades of effort, dreams, aspirations,history, nostalgia and emotions, new parties cannot be


8. There shall be democratic election by members throughsecret ballot for filling all vacancies of office bearers andthe highest executive body. The executive committees atvarious levels shall be elected at least every second calendaryear.

9. All decision making in party organs shall be by majorityvote, and the ballots shall be secret at the executivecommittee, delegates' and representatives' assemblies.Voting at other levels shall be secret if the members askfor it.

10. Party's assets, receipts, income and expenditure shall beaudited and the audited statements shall be furnished tothe Election Commission by September 30 next. Publicshall have access to there records and may obtain copiesfrom EC on payment of a nominal fee.

11. All contributions more than Rs. 1000 shall be disclosed tothe public and the Election Commission. The commissionshall make available copies to the public on payment ofa nominal fee. Any violation of disclosure norms shallinvite de-recognition and imprisonment of members ofexecutive committee for three years.

12. Candidates for election to any public office must be chosenby secret ballot. The nomination procedure shall begoverned by the party statutes. A person may only benamed as party candidate in a constituency if he or shehas been selected in an assembly of party members in theconstituency or in a special general assembly ofrepresentatives elected for this purpose. The candidatesand the representatives for the assemblies of representativesshall be selected by secret ballot.

Selection of candidates for other public offices shall be by secretballot at the appropriate level.

13. A provision similar to Article 21 of the German Basic Lawshould be incorporated in the constitution to facilitateeffective regulation of parties. "21(1) political parties shallparticipate in the formation of the political will of thepeople. They may be freely established. Their internal

3. There shall be internal mechanisms for adjudicatingdisputes within the party, including those concerning theinterpretation of the party constitution.

4. Disciplinary action shall not be initiated on the groundsthat a member has opposed the leadership or espoused aview contrary to the leadership's view.

5. The party constitution should contain provisions on:

a. The name, register office and activities of the party,

b. The admission and resignation of members,

c. The rights and duties of members

d. Admissible disciplinary measures against membersand their exclusion from the party,

e. The general organization of the party,

f. Composition and powers of the executive committeesand other organizations

g. The preconditions, form and time limits for conveningmeetings of members and representatives and theofficial recording of resolutions.

h. Matters which may only be decided upon by a meetingof members and representatives.

i. An overall vote by members and the procedures to beadopted when the party convention has passed aresolution to dissolve a party or merge with anotherparty. The result of the overall vote determines whetherthe resolution is confirmed, amended or rescinded.

j. The form and content of a financial structure whichsatisfies the rules of financial accountability

6. A member may only be expelled from the party if he orshe deliberately infringes the statutes or acts in a mannercontrary to the principles or discipline of the party andthus seriously impairs its standing.

7. The Election Commission decides upon appeals onexpulsion from the party. The rights to appeal to a highercourt is guaranteed. Decisions must be justified in writing.


automatic disqualification irrespective of the number ofmembers defying party whip.

2. A 'split' in a party shall be recognized only after dueprocess in the actual party fora with one month's noticeto the Election Commission. A split in a legislature partyshall be recognized only in the event of a split in the partyafter following due procedure.

3. In case of such a legitimate and recognized split, the personswho form the splinter group shall not be disqualified forviolation of the whip issued by the original party.

4. In the event of such a legitimate split, the persons whoform the splinter group shall not be eligible for ministerialoffice for at least one year.

5. Whip shall not be issued to members of Rajya Sabha orlegislative council.

6. Whip does not apply to ordinary Bills or on impeachmentmotion to remove constitutional functionaries.

7. Violation of party whip on matters other than finance billand confidence or no confidence motion shall not invitedisqualification, through it may entail disciplinary actionby the party.

8. The Election Commission shall be the competent body todetermine whether or not a member is disqualified andto recognize a split.

organization must conform to democratic principles. Theymust publicly account for their assets and for the sourcesand use of their funds. 21 (3) Details shall be regulatedby federal laws."

Anti Defection-Changes in the Tenth Schedule

Problem

The present provisions of Tenth Schedule under Article 102(2) and 191 (2) of the constitution gave rise to several anomalies

1. These provisions incorporated in 1985 failed to preventdefections. Countless defections took place subsequentlywithout incurring disqualification.

2. Individual defections invite disqualification, whereascollective defections are amply rewarded.

3. Speakers have tended to act in a partisan manner often.Even when defecting members did not constitute one-third of the party members in the legislature, Speakerssometimes did not disqualify members. The case ofdefection of members of BSP in UP Assembly is a classicexample.

4. Since Tenth Schedule applies to any vote in the legislature,legislators who may honesty differ on a piece of legislationare forced to submit to the will of the leadership. MuslimWomen's Bill brought in to nullify Supreme Court's verdictin Shah Bano case, the whip issued by congress party inJustice Rama Swamy's impeachment case are two tellingexamples.

5. 'Splits' are engineered in legislature parties without anyreal split in the party.

6. As whip applies to Rajya Sabha, the party with people'smandate in Lok Sabha has no pportunity to persuadeRajya Sabha to approve any legislation on merits. Onlybackroom deals with party leaders can facilitate Unionlegislation.

Proposals:

1. Any voting on a finance bill or confidence motion or no-confidence motion against party whip shall invite

Indian Government and Politics Politics of Communalism and Secularism in India218 219

interests of the followers of another religion The third stage ofcommunalism is reached when the interests of the followers ofdifferent religions or of different 'communities' are seen to bemutually incompatible, antagonistic and hostile. Thus, thecommunalist asserts this stage that Hindus and Muslims cannothave common secular interests, that their secular interests arebound to be opposed to each other.

HISTORY OF COMMUNALISM IN INDIA

Communalism emerged as a consequence of the emergenceof modem politics, which marked a sharp break with the politicsof the ancient or medieval or pre-1857 periods. Communalism; asalso other modem views such as nationalism and socialism couldemerge as politics and as ideology only after politics based on thepeople, politics of participation and mobilization, politics basedon the creation and mobilization of public opinion had come intoexistence. In pre-modem politics, people were either ignored inupper class based politics or were compelled to rebel outside thepolitical system and, in case of success, their leaders incorporatedinto the old ruling classes.

Many perceptive Indians recognized this. Jawaharlal Nehru,for example, noted in 1936: 'One must never forget thatcommunalism in India is a latter-day phenomenon, which hasgrown up before our eyes.' Nor was there anything unique aboutcommunalism in the Indian context. It was not an inevitable orinherent product of India's peculiar historical and socialdevelopment. It was the result of conditions which have in othersocieties produced similar phenomena and ideologies such asFascism, anti-Semitism, racism, Catholic-Protestant conflict inNorthern Ireland, or Christian Muslim conflict in Lebanon.

The communal consciousness arose as a result of thetransformation of Indian society under the impact of colonialismand the need to struggle against it. The growing economic, politicaland administrative unification of regions and the country, theprocess of making India into a nation, the developing contradictionbetween colonialism and the Indian people and the formation ofmodem social classes and strata called for new ways of seeingone's common interests. They made it necessary to have wider

6POLITICS OF COMMUNALISM AND

SECULARISM IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

Before we discuss' the growth of communalism in modemIndia, it is perhaps useful to define the term and point to certainbasic fallacies regarding it. Communalism is basically an ideologywith which we have lived so long that it appears to be a simple,easily understood notion. But this is, perhaps, not so.

Adherence to a religious system is not communalism.Attachment to a religious community or religiosity is notcommunalism. On the other hand using a religion or a religiouscommunity against other religions or communities and againstthe nation and its development is communalism. Communistideology consists of three basic elements or stages. First, it is thebelief that people who follow the same religion have commonsecular interests. This is the first bedrock of communal ideology.These different communities are alleged to have their own leaders.Those who talk of being national, regional, or class leaders aremerely masquerading; beneath the mask they are only leaders oftheir own communities. The best they can do is to unite ascommunal leaders and then serve the wider category of the nationor country..

The second element of communal ideology rests on the notionthat in a multi-religious society like India, the secular interests,that is the social, cultural, economic and political interests, of thefollowers of one religion are dissimilar and divergent from the


the Indian economy. The resulting economic stagnation and itsimpact on the lives of the Indian people, especially the middleclasses, produced conditions which were conducive to divisionand antagonism within Indian society as also to its radicaltransformation.

Throughout the 20th century, in the absence of modemindustrial development and the development of education, healthand other social and cultural services, unemployment was anacute problem in India, especially for the educated middle andlower middle classes who could not fall back on land and whosesocio-economic conditions suffered constant deterioration. Theseeconomic opportunities declined further during the GreatDepression after 1928 when large-scale unemployment prevailed.

In this social situation, the nationalist and other popularmovements worked for the long-term solution to the people'sproblems by fighting for the overthrow of colonialism and radicalsocial transformation. In fact, the middle classes formed thebackbone both of the militant national movement from 190.5 to1947 and the left-wing parties and groups since the 1920s.Unfortunately there were some who lacked a wider social visionand political understanding and looked to their narrow immediateinterests and short-term solutions to their personal or sectionalproblems such as communal, caste, or provincial reservation injobs or in municipal committees, legislatures, and so on.

Because of economic stagnation, there was intense competitionamong individuals for government jobs, in professions like lawand medicine, and in business for customers and markets. In anattempt to get a larger share of existing economic opportunities,middle class individuals freely used all the means at their disposal-educational qualifications, personal merit as also nepotism, bribery,and S.J on. At the same time, to give their struggle a wider base,they also used other group identities such as caste, province andreligion to enhance their capacity to compete. Thus, someindividuals from the middle classes could, and did, benefit, in theshort run, from communalism, especially in the field of governmentemployment. This gave a certain aura of validity to communalpolitics. The communalist could impose his interpretation of realityon middle class individuals because it did have a basis, however

links and loyalties among the people and to form new identities.This also followed from the birth of new politics during the lasthalf of the 19th century. The new politics was based on thepoliticization and mobilization of an ever-increasing number ofthe Indian people.

The process of grasping the new, emerging political realityand social relations and the adoption of new uniting principles,new social and political identities with the aid of new ideas andconcepts was bound to be a difficult and gradual process. Theprocess required the spread of modem ideas of nationalism,cultural-linguistic development and class struggle. But wherevertheir growth was slow and partial, people inevitably used the old,familiar pre-modem categories of self-identity such as caste,locality, region, race, religion, sect "and occupation to grasp thenew reality, to make wider connections and to evolve new identitiesand ideologies. Similar developments have occurred all over theworld in similar circumstances. But often such old, inadequateand false ideas and identities gradually give way to the new,historically necessary ideas and identities of nation, nationalityand class. This also occurred on a large scale in India, but notuniformly among all the Indian people. In particular, religiousconsciousness was transformed into communal consciousness insome parts of the country and among some sections of the people.

This was because there were some factors in the Indiansituation which favored its growth; it served the needs of certainsections of society an~ certain social and political force. Thequestion is why did communalism succeed in growing during the20th century? What aspects of the Indian situation favored thisprocess? Which social classes and political forces did it serve?Why did it become such a pervasive part of Indian reality? Thoughit was not inherent or inevitable in the situation, it was not a mereconspiracy of power-hungry politicians and crafty administratorseither. It had socio-economic and political roots. There was asocial situation which was funneling it and without which it couldnot have survived for long.

Above all, communalism was one of the by-products of thecolonial character of Indian economy, of colonialunderdevelopment, of the incapacity of colonialism to develop


therefore a middle class question par excellence. The main appealof communalism and its main social base also lay among themiddle classes. It is, however, important to remember that a largenumber of middle class individuals remained, on the whole, freeof communalism even in the 1930s and 1940s. This was, inparticular, true of most of the intellectuals, whether Hindu, Muslimor Sikh. In fact, the typical Indian intellectual of the 193 Os tendedto be both secular and broadly left wing.

There was another aspect of the colonial economy that favoredcommunal politics. In the absence of openings in industry,commerce, education and other social services, and the culturaland entertainment fields, the Government service was the mainavenue of employment for the middle classes.

Much of the employment for teachers, doctors and engineerswas also under government control. As late as 1951, while 1.2million persons were covered by the Factory Acts, 3.3 millions gotemployment in government service. And communal politics couldbe used to put pressure on the Government to reserve and allocateits jobs as also seats in professional colleges on communal andcaste lines. Consequently, communal politics till 1937 wasorganized around government jobs, educational concessions, andthe like as also political positions-seats in legislative councils,municipal bodies, etc.-which enabled control over these and othereconomic opportunities. It may also be noted that though thecommunalists spoke in the name of their 'communities,' thereservations, guarantees and other 'rights' they demanded werevirtually confined to these two aspects. They did not take up anyissues, which were of interest to the masses.

Above all, communalism developed as a weapon ofeconomically and politically reactionary social classes and politicalforces-and semi feudal landlords and ex-bureaucrats (whom Dr.K.M. Ashraf has called thejagirdari cIasses) merchants andmoneylenders and the colonial state. Communal leaders and partieswere, in general, allied with these classes and forces. The social,economic and political vested interests deliberately encouraged orunconsciously adopted communalism because of its capacity todistort and divert popular struggles, to prevent the masses fromwas a specific feature of Indian social development-in several

partial, perverted and short-term, in the social existence and socialexperience of the middle classes.

Gradually, the spread of education to well-off peasants andsmall landlords extended the boundaries of the job-seeking middleclass to the rural areas. The newly educated rural youth could notbe sustained by land whether as landlords or peasants, especiallyas agriculture were totally stagnant because of the colonial impact.They flocked on the towns and cities for opening in governmentjobs and professions and tried to save themselves by fighting forjobs through the system of communal reservations andnominations. This development gradually widened the social baseof communalism to cover the rural upper strata of peasants andlandlords.

Thus, the crisis of the colonial economy constantly generatedtwo opposing sets of ideologies and political tendencies amongthe middle classes. When anti-imperialist revolution and socialchange appeared on the agenda, the middle classes enthusiasticallyjoined the national and other popular movements. They thenreadily advocated the cause and demands of the entire societyfrom the capitalists to the peasants and workers.

Individual ambitions were then sunk in the wider social vision.But when prospects of revolutionary change receded, when theanti-imperialist struggle entered a more passive phase, manybelonging to the middle classes shifted to short-term solutions oftheir personal problems, to politics based on communalism andother similar ideologies. Thus with the same social causation,large sections of the middle classes in several parts of the countryconstantly oscillated between anti-imperialism and communalismor communal-type politics. But there was a crucial different in thetwo cases. In the first case, their own social interests merged withthe interests of general social development and their politics formeda part of the broader anti-imperialist struggle. In the second case,they functioned as a narrow and selfish interest group, acceptedthe socio-political status quo and objectively served colonialism.

To sum up this aspect: communalism was deeply rooted inand was an expression of the interests and aspirations of themiddle classes in a social situation in which opportunities forthem were grossly inadequate. The communal question was,


and Muslim tenants fought zamindars together. Similarly, asbrought out in earlier chapters, most of the agrarian strugglesafter 1919 stayed clear of communal channels. The peasants andworkers and the radical intelligentsia succeeded in creatingpowerful secular peasants' and workers' movements andorganizations, which became important constituents of the anti-imperialist struggle.

It is important to note in this context that Hindu zamindarsin Bengal had acquired control over land not because they wereHindus but as a result of the historical process of the spread ofIslamic religion in Bengal among the lower castes and classes.Hindu zamindars and businessmen acquired economic dominanceover landed capital in Bengal at the beginning of the 18th centuryduring the rule of Murshid Quli Khan, religiously the most devoutof Aurangzeb's officials and followers.

Under his rule, more than seventy-five per cent of thezamindars and most of the taluqdars were Hindus. The PermanentSettlement of 1793 further strengthened the trend by eliminatingon a large scale both the old Hindu and Muslim zamindarfamilies and replacing them with new men of commerce whowere Hindus. Similarly, the predominance of Hindus amongbankers, traders and moneylenders in northern India dated to themedieval period.

The dominance these strata acquired over rural society underBritish rule was the result not of their being Hindu but of theimportant economic role they acquired in the colonial system ofexploitation. In other words, colonial history guaranteed the growthand economic domination of merchant-moneylenders; medievalhistory had guaranteed that they would be mostly Hindus.

Communalism represented, at another level, a strugglebetween two upper classes or strata for power, privileges andeconomic gains. Belonging to different religions (or castes) theseclasses or strata used communalism to mobilize the popularsupport of their co-religionists in their mutual struggles. This was,for example, the case in Western Punjab where the Muslimlandlords opposed the Hindu moneylenders 'and in East Bengalwhere the Muslimjotedars (small landlords) opposed the Hinduzamindars.

parts of the country. The religious distinction coincided withsocial, and class distinctions.

Here most often the exploiting sections-landlords, merchantsand moneylenders,-were upper caste Hindus while the poor andexploited were Muslims or lower caste Hindus. Consequently,propaganda by the Muslim communalists that Hindus wereexploiting Muslims or by the Hindu communalists that Muslimswere threatening Hindu property or economic interests couldsucceed even while wholly incorrect. Thus, for example, thestruggle between tenant and landlord in East Bengal and Malabarand the peasant-debtor and the merchant-moneylender in Punjabcould be portrayed by the communalists as a struggle betweenMuslims and Hindus.

Similarly, the landlord-moneylender oppression wasrepresented as the oppression of Muslims by Hindus, and theattack by the rural poor on the rural rich as an attack by Muslimson Hindus. For example, one aspect of the growth of communalismin Punjab was the effort of the big Muslim landlords to protecttheir economic and social position by using communalism to turnthe anger of their Muslim tenants against Hindu traders andmoneylenders, and the use of communalism by the latter to protecttheir threatened class interests by raising the cry of Hindu interestsin danger. In reality, the struggle of the peasants for theiremancipation was inevitable. The question was what type ofideological political content it would acquire. Both thecommunalists and the colonial administrators stressed thecommunal as against the class aspects of agrarian exploitation andoppression. Thus, they held that the Muslim peasants and debtorswere being exploited not as peasants and debtors but because theywere Muslims.

In many cases, a communal form is given to the social conflictnot by the participants but by the observer, the official, thejournalist, the politician, and, finally, the historian, all of whomprovide a post-facto communal explanation for the conflict becauseof their own conscious or unconscious outlook. It is also importantto note that agrarian conflicts did not assume a communal coloruntil the 20th century and the rise of communalism and that toonot in most cases. In the Pabna agrarian riots of 1873, both Hindu


What were the different ways and policies, or acts of omissionand commission, through which the British encouraged andnurtured communalism? First, by consistently treating Hindus,Muslims and Sikhs as separate communities and socio-politicalentities, which had little ji1 common. India, it was said, wasneither a nation or a nation-in-the making, nor did it consist ofnationalities or local societies, but consisted of structured, mutuallyexclusive and antagonistic religion-based communities. Second,official favor and patronage were extended to the communalists.Third, the communal Press and persons and agitations were shownextraordinary tolerance. Fourth, communal demands were readilyaccepted, thus politically strengthening communal organizationsand their hold over the people. For example, while the Congresscould get none of its demands accepted from 1885-1905, the Muslimcommunal demands were accepted in 1906 as soon as they werepresented to the Viceroy. Similarly, in 1932, the Communal Awardaccepted all the major communal demands of the time.

During World War II, the Muslim communalists were given,a complete veto on any political advance. Fifth, the British readilyaccepted communal organizations and leaders as the realspokesperson for their 'communities,' while the nationalist leaderswere treated as representing a microscopic minority-the elite.Sixth, separate electorates served as an important instrument forthe development of communal politics. Lastly, the colonialgovernment encouraged communalism through a policy of non-action against it. Certain positive measures which the state alonecould undertake were needed to check the growth ofcommunalism. The failure to undertake them served as an indirectencouragement to communalism. The Government refused totake action against the propagation of virulent communal ideasand communal hatred through the Press, pamphlets, leaflets,literature, public platforms and rum ours.

This was in sharp contrast with the frequent suppression ofthe nationalist Press, literature, civil servants, propaganda, and soon. On the contrary, the Government freely rewarded communalleaders, intellectuals and government servants with titles, positionsof profit, high salaries, and so on. The British administrators alsofollowed a policy of relative inactivity and irresponsibility in

COMMUNALISM IN BRITISH INDIA

British rule and its policy of Divide and Rule bore specialresponsibility for the growth of communalism in modem India,though it is also true that it could succeed only because of internalsocial and political conditions.

The fact was that the state, with its immense power, couldpromote either national integration or all kinds of divisive forces.The colonial state chose the latter course. It used communalismto counter and weaken the growing national movement and thewelding of the Indian people into a nation. Communalism waspresented by the colonial rulers as the problem of the defense ofminorities. Hindu-Muslim disunity-and the need to protect theminorities from domination and suppression by the majority-wasincreasingly offered as the main justification for the maintenanceof British rule, especially as theories of civilizing mission, whiteman's burden, welfare of the ruled, etc., got increasinglydiscredited.

Communalism was, of course, not the only constituent of thepolicy of Divide and Rule. Every existing division of Indian societywas encouraged to prevent the emerging unity of the Indianpeople. An effort was made to set region against region, provinceagainst province, caste against caste, language against language,reformers against the orthodox, the moderate against the militant,leftist against rightist and even class against class. It was, ofcourse, the communal division, which survived to the end andproved the most serviceable. In fact, near the end, it was to becomethe main prop of colonialism, and colonial authorities were tostake their all on it.

On the other hand, communalism could not have developedto such an extent as to divide the country, if it did not have thepowerful support of the colonial state. In this sense, communalismmay be described as the channel through which the politics of themiddle classes were placed at the service of colonialism and thejagirdari classes. "In fact, communalism was the route throughwhich colonialism was able to extend its narrow social base tosections of workers, peasants, the middle classes and thebourgeoisie whose interests were otherwise in contradiction withcolonialism.


beneficiaries of the so-called Muslim rule. They tended to defendand glorify all Muslim rulers, including religious bigots likeAurangzeb. They also evolved their own version of the 'fall' theory.While Hindus were allegedly in the ascendant during the 19thcentury, Muslims, it was said, 'fell' or declined as a 'community'throughout the 19th century after 'they' lost political powercommunalism, whose removal was basic to tackling or solving thecommunal problem. Here we must distinguish between religionas a belief system, which people follow as part of their personalbelief, and the ideology of a religion-based socio-political identity,that is, communalism.

In other words, religion is not the 'cause' of communalism,even though communal cleavage is based by the communalist ondifferences in religion-this difference is then used to mask ordisguise the social needs, aspirations, conflicts, arising in non-religious fields. Religion comes into communalism to the extentthat it serves politics arising in spheres other than religion. K.M.Ashraf put this aspect in an appropriate phrase when he describedcommunalism as 'Mazhab ki siyasi dukandari' (political trade inreligion Communalism was not inspired by religion, nor wasreligion the object of communal politics-it was only its vehicle.Religion was, however, used as a mobilizing factor by thecommunalists.

Communalism could become a popular movement after 1939,and in particular during 1945-47, only when it adopted theinflammable cry of religion in danger. Moreover, differing religiouspractices were the immediate cause of situations of communaltension and riots. We may also note that while religion was notresponsible for communalism, religiosity was a major contributoryfactor. (Religiosity may be defined as intense emotionalcommitment to matters of religion and the tendency to let religionand religious emotions intrude into non religious or non-spiritualareas of life and beyond the individual's private and moral world.)Religiosity was not communalism but it opened a person to theappeal of communalism in the name of religion. Secularizationdid not, therefore, mean removing religion but it did mean reducingreligiosity or increasingly narrowing down the sphere of religionto the private life of the individual.

dealing with communal riots. When they occurred, they were notcrushed energetically. The understanding the socio-economic andpolitical forces responsible for their social condition, to preventunity on national and class lines, and to turn them away fromtheir real national and socio-economic interests and issues andmass movements around them.

Communalism also enabled the upper classes and the colonialrulers to unite with sections of the middle classes and to utilizethe latter's politics to serve their own ends oppressed as the Hindumasses, and there were Hindu zamindars, nobles and rulers alongwith Muslim ones, these writers declared that all Muslims wererulers in medieval India and all Hindus were the ruled. Thus, thebasic character of a polity in India was identified with the religionof the ruler. Later the culture and society of various periods werealso declared to be either Hindu or Muslim in character.

The Hindu communalist readily adopted the imperialist viewthat medieval rulers in India were anti-Hindu, tyrannized Hindusand converted them forcibly. All communalist, as also imperialist,historians saw medieval history as one long story of Hindu-Muslimconflict and believed that throughout the medieval period thereexisted distinct and separate Hindu and Muslim cultures. TheHindu communalists described the rule of medieval Muslim rulersas foreign rule because of their religion.

The talk of 'a thousand years of slavery' and 'foreign rule' wascommon rhetoric, sometimes even used by nationalists. Above all,the Hindu communal view of history relied on the myth thatIndian society and culture had reached great, ideal heights in theancient period from which they fell into permanent and continuousdecay during the medieval period because of 'Muslim' ruleand domination. The basic contribution of the medieval period tothe development of the Indian economy and technology, religionand philosophy, arts and literature, and culture and society wasdenied.

In turn the Muslim communalists harked back to the 'GoldenAge of Islamic achievement' in West Asia and appealed to itsheroes, myths and cultural traditions. They propagated the notionthat all Muslims were the rulers in medieval India or at least the


and they should join the national mainstream that their future layin unison with, and not in separation from, the rest. of the Indianpeople, and that they should wipe out the stigma that they wereresponsible for the division of the country.

But these ideas did not go very far, and many Muslimorganizations and individuals preached that the Muslimcommunity should organize itself separately to protect its interests,culture, language, and religion. The Jamaat-e-lslami advised theMuslims not to take part in the first General Election under theConstitution of Independent India, on the ground that the electionwould not establish an Islamic state. A section of the Jamaat-ul-Ulemai Hind, an organization of Muslim divines and. intellectuals,also talked the same way. The remnant of the Muslim Leaguedemanded, in 1948, separate electorates for the Muslims. It wentinto eclipse during the 1950s, but reappeared on the eve of thethird General Election. On 29 October 1961, a split occurred withinits ranks when Mohammad Raza Khan broke away from theparent body and formed a new All-India Muslim League. Headvised the Muslims to support the Congress candidates as, hethought, the Congress Party was the best protector of Musliminterest. But the General Secretary of the original League, IbrahimSuleiman Sait, continued to claim during the 1960s that hisorganization was "the sole representative body of the Muslims,"and that it "alone speaks for the Muslims of India."

In order to emphasize Muslim interests and lend support onlyto such political parties as promised promotion of those interests,the Muslims from all parts of India held in New Delhi, on the eveof midterm poll for the Lok Sabha in March 1971, an All-IndiaPolitical Convention. The Convention adopted half a dozenresolutions, emphasizing the interests of the Muslims. Theseresolutions related to the security of life and property of theminority communities, protection of Urdu, reservation of posts inservices, preservation of the status' of the Aligarh MuslimUniversity, and elections on the basis of proportionalrepresentation. The Convention set up an all India PoliticalConsultative Committee for the purpose of coordinating theactivities of the organizations affiliated to it. While declaring thatthe Committee would not put up its own candidates, it said that

The Reasons of Growth of Hindu-Muslim Communalism inIndia

It would be pertinent to examine as to why Hindu-Muslimcommunalism continued to persist in post-1ndependence era.Before doing so, it would be appropriate to understand what wasmeant by communalism. In common parlance, communalism wasunderstood to mean a sentiment of enmity towards other religiouscommunities with prejudice against and possible aggressivenesstowards the individuals belonging to them. Positively speaking,it was interpreted to mean attachment to one's own communityand to its preservation and concern for the upliftment of itsmembers.

But actually speaking communalism was much more complexphenomenon and was generated by a variety of factors. Duringthe period' of British rule Hindu Muslim communalism was dueto deep diversities in respect of places of worship, holy books,method of worships, religious festivals, social customs and waysof daily life, language and standard of living. And of course, theBritish policy of "divide and rule" played a very important part.After the end of British rule, while these differences remained, afew new elements of discord were added. These were: separatismand isolationism among the Muslims their religious orthodoxyand obscurantism, and their economic backwardness, role ofPakistan, Hindu chauvinism and government inertia. Let us discusseach one of them in detail.

Separatism and Isolationism among Muslims

The first foremost reason for Hindu-Muslim discord was thetendency of the Muslim masses to keep themselves aloof from themajority community and isolate themselves from the secular-nationalistic politics of India. On the eve of and immediately afterIndependence, some Muslim leaders, such as Mohammad Ismailand Nawab Ismail Khan, realized that the support of the demandfor Pakistan by the Muslims of non-Muslim majority provinceswas a great mistake. They sought to retrieve the situation afterIndependence and advocated among their co-religionists that theyshould support and strengthen the hands of those political partiesand individua1s who stood for secularism and economic justice,


Muslims did not make much appeal to the electorate. The Muslimleadership by and large continued to keep their brethren alooffrom the national mainstream.

In view of the mid-term poll of the Lok Sabha that wasscheduled to be held in January 1980, several Muslim organizationsmade efforts to unite all Muslims in order to obtain for the minoritycommunity greater protection against communal riots and againstpolitical and economic stagnation. On 27 September 1979, theworking committee of the Jamaat-ul-Ulema-eHind decided tolaunch a satyagraha from 2 October of the same year to boast theefforts then being made for a united stand by all Muslims in theelections. The All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, which allieditself a non-political body, convened a conference for the samepurpose.

That conference was attended by the representatives of theMuslim League, the Muslim Majlis, the Jamaat-e-Islam the Jamaat.e-Ulema, the Ittehadul Musulmeen, the National League, theTameer e-Millat, the Awami Action Committee and several Muslimyouth organizations. It set up a committee for the purpose ofcoordinating and implementing its decisions. It set up a committeefor the purpose of coordinating and implementing its decisions.A few days later, four Muslim parties-the Muslim League, theMuslim Majlis, the Ittehadul Musulmeen and the National League-formed a "National Muslim Front" to negotiate with nationalparties on seat adjustments for the mid-term poll. That Frontdemanded reservation of seats in the Lot Sabha for Muslims andreservation of jobs for them in armed forced and other securityforces. The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid of Delhi, Abdulla Bukhariwho wielded considerable influence among Muslim voters innorth

India, demanded 20 per cent reservati.on f.or Muslims in thelaw-enforcing machinery, in the administration, in the UnionCabinet and in the Lot Sabha. He made a deal with Mrs. Gandhi,because she offered to fulfill his demand if elected in the election,and urged his followers to vote for Congress (I) candidates. Mostof the Muslim leaders asserted from time to time that their brethrenhad been the worst sufferers since Independence, and that theirinterests had always been neglected by national leadership. Such

it would act as "a sort of clearing house" giving guidelines to thoseMuslim organizations which chose to do so.

Ansar Harvani, a former member of Parliament, disclosedthat the mastermind behind the Muslim Convention was one AliKhan, who was closely associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami. TheJamaat, he said, had close links with the Akhwane Musalmeenwhich was allegedly responsible for the overthrow of PresidentSukamo of Indonesia, and with Anjuman Subhan-ul Musalmeenwhich had made successive attempts to assassinate the latePresident Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic.

Apparently out of disappointment with the performance ofthe Congress party governments at the Centre and in states inameliorating the lot of the Muslim masses the Muslim Leaguebecame, in early 19705, more active, and set up branches inimportant towns and cities of those states where the Muslimswere in a sizeable number. A unit of the Muslim League wasformed in Uttar Pradesh on 5 August 19,73 and many Muslimsleft other political parties and joined it. Another organization ofthe Muslims' of Uttar Pradesh came into existence by the nameMuslim Majlis and began to preach the cult of separation ofMuslims from the Hindus. On the occasion of election to the UPAssembly in 1974, it made a deal with the SSP and the BKD tocontest a fixed number of seats with the support of those parties.

A few Muslim leaders decried the activities of theseorganizations and urged the Muslim masses to join hands withSecular-nationalist forces in the country. Sheikh MohammedAbdulla lambasted at the League, held it responsible for thepartition of the country and regretted that the Muslims had notadjusted themselves to changed circumstances of the country.Some liberal and enlightened Muslim scholars expressed the viewthat the Muslim League was not the answer. to the problems ofthe Muslim community, and that its future lay in unison with, andnot in separation from, the' Hindus. It was worth noting thatdespite all the communal propaganda of the Muslim sectional andcommunal organizations the candidates of the Muslim Leagueand Muslim Majlis did not get much success in state Assemblyelection in February 1974 (Muslim League got only one seat whileit contested 51), and the communalism of either the Hindus or the


Government that if it made any attempt to amend the MuslimPersonal Law the Muslims all over the country would considerit an attack on Islam and they would not hesitate from offering'any sacrifice "to prevent this greatest catastrophe." This conferenceas well as Muslim league leader, Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait, declareda few months later, that Article 44 of the Constitution calling fora Uniform Civil Code could not be applied to the Muslim PersonalLaw and that the Muslims refused to accept any move to changeit by Parliament. In view of this accumulating pressure thegovernment authorities declared that the Muslim personal Lawwould not be modified.

Similarly, several Muslim organizations including the MuslimLeague and the Muslim Majlis held, on 10 March 1973, a two-dayAll-India Aligarh Muslim University Convention in New Delhiand demanded "radical changes" in the 1972 Muslim University(Amendment) Act and the restoration of the management of theUniversity to the Muslim community. Three weeks later, theWorking Committee of the Jamaat-ul-Ullema-i-Hind demandedan amendment of that Act to restore the "original" character ofthe Aligarh Muslim University. On 22 April 1973, the MuslimLeague declared that it would contest the elections in Uttar Pradeshon the issue of AIigarh Muslim University. Act. When the electionwas held, in February 1974, it made that issue as one of its mainplanks. Quite a large section of the Muslim community continuedto feel strongly about the preservation of the minority characterof the Aligarh Muslim University. In order to placate them almostall political parties promised in their manifestoes issued on theeve of January 1980 mid-term poll for the Lok Sabha that theywould take steps in that direction. When Mrs. Gandhi's Congressformed government at the Centre the requisite legislation waspassed.

A militant section of the Muslim community formed in April1970 in Delhi a "sena" (army) to protect the rights of Muslims. Itselected a flag with a green ground and a white moon and a redstar on it. Within hours of the formation of the "sena" a municipalcouncilor from the Jama Masjid area, Dr Z.A Abbas Mullick, heldout a threat that if the Nizamuddin mosque and graveyard werenot repaired "within 24 hours" the Muslims would resort to "direct

utterances continued to widen the gulf between the twocommunities of the country.

Religious Orthodoxy and Obscurantism among Muslims

Another factor which bred communalism in the post-Independence period was religious orthodoxy and obscurantismamong the Muslims. The Jamaat-e-Islam~ Majlis-e-Mashawarat,Muslim League and Muslim Majlis fostered anti-modem ideas,the 'obscure and medieval glories Of Islam, the supremacy andsignificance of religion in individual life and the basic andfundamental differences between the Hindu and Muslim cultures,personal laws, and ways of living and thinking. Even the futureof Aligarh Muslim University, ta which the Union Governmentwanted to transform into a national institution from a minorityone was emphasized time and again as an issue involving thecultural identity of the minority community.

The All-India Political-Convention, held in early 1971, warnedthe Government of India not to interfere in the "Personal Law"of the Muslims. This was being done at a time when even thepeople of Pakistan and other Muslim countries were modifyingthe "Personal Law", based on the Shariyat in several respects.Towards the end of December 1972, a conference of Muslimscholars, divines and political leaders was held in Bombay. Thiswas presided over by Maulana Qari Mohammed Tayyeb of theDar-ul-Aloom, Deoband in Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh,and was inaugurated by the Rector of the Arabic Academy DrYusuf Najmuddin. Among those who attended the conferencewere representatives of the Muslim League, Muslim Majlis, Shiaconference Jamaat-e-'Pabligh~Jaamat. uJ.Ullema-i-Hindi, Jamaat-e-lslam~ lttehad-ul-Muslmeen, Delhi, ilie Islamic ResearchInstitute, Lucknow,Sulemani Bohra Community and the SunniJamaat. Besides, some people from Aligarh Muslim Universityalso attended.

This conference adopted a resolution which said: "We havelost everything-the government, our honor, property and the Urdulanguage-and if attempts are made to take from us our religionand the Personal Law given by God himself, we will be left withnothing to fall upon." The resolution warned the Union


University in 1961, President Ayub Khan said the riots couldnot have occurred without the connivance of the Indianadministration. The then High Commissioner of that country inNew Delhi, Agha Hilaly, described it as 'organized killing' ofMuslims by 'militant Hindu communalists,' and called it an 'actof barbarism'. Similarly, when there were riots in Kashmir, in thewake of the theft of the holy relic, the then Pakistani ForeignMinister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, alleged on January 1, 1964 that thetheft had been 'permitted' by the Indian occupation authoritiesand their puppets as part of India's plan to reduce the Muslimmajority in Jammu and Kashmir to a minority, by bringing hometo its Muslim population the feeling that lives, honor and religionof Muslims were not safe and that, therefore, they must leave thestate. Mass protest demonstrations, at which the speakers incitedthe crowds to prepare for a 'holy war' (Jehad), were held in severalcities of Pakistan.

The Pakistani political leadership, the Mullahs and the Maulvisand the Press reacted the same way whenever there was somecommunal trouble in India. During the riots commencing from13 August 1980 in Moradabad exaggerated reports were publishedin the Pakistani newspapers. By August 19, the number of theMuslims alleged to have been killed went up to 600. TheGovernment-owned Pakistani Times wrote editorially: "If therehad been no Pakistan we who live here enjoying the fruits offreedom and holding our heads high, would have met the samefate as the unfortunate Indian Muslims…" The editorial said furtherthat "the Muslim situation in India would not improve, and thatthe Islamic countries should take up the issue. This idea wasechoed by some others, including Maulamf Mufti Mahmud andMian Tufail Mohammed, leaders of the' now defunct PakistanNational Alliance which had supported General Zia-ul-haq'sGovernment since the fall of Z.A. Bhutto's Government in July1977. The Zia Government sought to capitalize on these riots todivert the attention of its own people who had 'started agitationfor free elections and the.formation of a democratic government.

Moreover, Pakistan did all this partly to wean the IndianMuslims away from secular-nationalistic forces in India and partlyto either put more restraints upon the Hindus living with his

action." All these indicated that while the rest of the countrymenwere struggling to transform themselves from medievalism tomodernization and were taking to new ways of living and ideasof thinking many of the Muslims were thinking only of PersonalLaw, graveyards, mosques and things of that sort.

Economic Backwardness of Muslims

An inevitable consequence of religious orthodoxy andobscurantism in fast-changing world was the economicbackwardness of the Muslim masses. The anti-Muslim policyfollowed by the British for about a century after the disintegrationof Mughal Empire reduced them to poverty and brought most ofthem to the level of starvation.

The Industrial Revolution which the British brought to Indiafrom Europe deprived the Muslim artisans and craftsmen of theirmeans of livelihood. Their position did not improve even 'whenthe British reversed their policy during and after the last quarterof the nineteenth century, because once thrown into oblivion theybecame inward-looking, took shelter behind religion and obscuretraditions, and discarded modernity including western scientific,technological and literary education. The situation did not changeeven after Independence. ill-equipped with educational talent,they could not secure an adequate quota of public services or anadequate share of trade and industry. The inevitable consequenceof this was frustration and demoralization and this, on occasions,burst forth in the form of violent and lawless activities againstthose who appeared to be better placed in services, trade, andindustry.

Role of Pakistan

The existence of Pakistan on the two sides of India during1947 and 1971 was another factor which encouraged, in fact goaded,communalism in this country. Whenever there was a Hindu-Muslim flare-up, the Pakistan leaders, radio and the Press, withoutcaring to know which community was responsible for it, blurtedout stories of genocide of Muslims by the Hindus, and accusedthe Government of India of 'connivance' in the 'crime'. For instance,when there was a riot at Aligarh Muslim


demanded territory from Pakistan for the rehabilitation of Hindurefugees in India, and urged the "liberation" of Pakistan occupiedareas of Kashmir. In its third General Election manifesto (1962)it emphasized, inter alia, Bhartiya Sanskriti and maryada (cultureand civilization) and called upon the Congress government toabandon the policy of "appeasement" of Pakistan and the IndianMuslims. It stressed promotion of Hindi and Sanskrit Languages.

In the summer of 1966, the Jan Sangh spearheaded a movementto protect the cow and advocated a ban on cow slaughter. OnNovember 7 of that year, an estimated crowd of 100,000 peopledemonstrated in support of their demand in front of Parliament.A Hindu religious leader and high priest of Puri temple,Shankaracharya Niranjan Nath, undertook an indefinite fast topress the demand, and another similar leader, ProbhudattBrahmachari, threatened to do the same, but he was arrestedbefore he could do that.

Because of political considerations, the Jan Sangh made onlyan oblique reference to its anti-Muslim slant in its fourth GeneralElection manifesto by stating that the Congress Government'appeased separatist, disruptionist and anti-national forces." Afterimproving its fortune considerably in that Election it becamemore vehement in its anti-Muslim harangue. The All-Indiadelegates" session of the Jan Sangh at Patna demanded in December1969, the "Indianisation" of all fissiparous elements, especiallythose overtly or covertly believing in the "two-nation" theory. Anextremist leader of the Jan Sangh, Balraj Madhok, said on 12February 1970: "Islam will have to be lndianised if Indian Muslimsare to become nationalists." "The present face of Islam" he said,"it's most dangerous." He observed that so long as "the biggest denof communal and anti-national activities" was allowed to function,the Indianisation of the Muslims was not possible.

The RSS also continued the anti-Muslim harangue. Its c!1ieleader, M. S. Golwarkar, in his book A Bunch of Thoughts, wrotethat Indian nationality was founded on Hinduism. He called theMuslims, Christians and Communist as "internal threats" whocould "qualify" for Indian nationality only if they broke awayfrom their "extra territorial moorings" and learnt to respect Hindutraditions. On November 22, 1970, he advised Hindus to take

territory or to create fear in their minds so that they ran away toIndia. But the illiterate Indian Muslims carried the impression thatPakistan was their benefactor, advocate and well-wisher, and thatshe would save them, if need be "against the onslaughts of Hindufanaticism." With such a frame of mind, they did not hesitate toindulge in acts of violence and rioting whenever there was anopportunity. This was largely true about the orthodox and militantsection of the Muslim community.

Hindu Chauvinism

The Muslim religious orthodoxy obscurantism, and separatismhad its reaction on the Hindu community and it becamechauvinistic. Hindu chauvinism existed in the pre. Independenceperiod; it was then fomented by the Hindu Mahasabha, the AryaSamaj and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). Theseorganization emphasized Hindu culture in a "predominately Hinduland" stressed Hindutva, Hindu rashtra and Hindu bhasha (Hindi),and glorified Aryavarta-the land of a magnificent culture andancient civilization. The culture of not only the British but of theMuslims as well was depicted as "alien".

The chauvinism of these organizations became stronger afterthe partition of the country, and not only were Hindu beliefs,values and institutions emphasized with greater vigor andfanaticism, well planned movements were started to enforce andpropagate them. In early October 1950, the Hindu Mahasabhaopened its doors to non. Hindu minorities, but emphasized thatonly those who had "stakes" in the country and were willing tosafeguard them under the system of "Hindu rashtra" would beadmitted to the organization. Thereafter, it went into oblivion andengaged itself in non-political activities, by and large. Essentiallya socio-cultural organization, the Arya Samaj, organized, in June1956, a civil disobedience campaign in Punjab in support of itsdemand for securing a "rightful" place for Hindi in the educationaland administrative fields.

The real leadership of Hinduism passed into the hands of theJan Sangh, the political wing of the RSS. On the eve of the secondGeneral Election held in 1957 the Jan Sangh called for theannulment of partition and the restoration of "Akhand Bharat,"


Besides these, another facto appeared to be that theconsolidation of Hindu forces and increasing Sanskritisation-involving the eclipse of Urdu language from schools and collegesand the unwillingness of government authorities to take effectivemeasures to promote its teaching, the move of die UnionGovernment to change the ethos and character of the AligarhMuslim University, the All-India Radio's broadcasts of purelyHindu religious songs and prayers, particularly on occasions ofeven national festivals, the expounding of Hindu beliefs andreligious practices in schools where Muslim children also studied,and the unwillingness of governments to ban purely Hinduorganizations such as the RSS and the Jan Sangh, created a feelingin the Muslim mind that while talking of secularism the rulerswere bent upon making India a land of Hinduism. During warwith Pakistan in September 1965, while Muslim soldiers andgenerals also gave their lives for the defence of India, the Muslimmasses were not assigned civil defence duties such as control oftraffic and routine police duties which were entrusted to RSSvolunteers. Steps like these created complexes and apprehensionsin the Muslim mind.

Moreover, the administrative machinery of the Union andstate governments proved unworthy of the task. On occasions,allegations were made, usually by the Muslim community, thatthe police, including its intelligence wing, did not take timelyaction either to avert a flare-up or to stop it when started, that thegovernment officials, mostly Hindus, connived when the majoritycommunity was on the offensive, that the government did notprovide adequate relief and assistance when they (the Muslims)were the victims of onslaughts, and that even after those whoindulged in communal violence had been caught were notpunished. The Central Government did not ban the communalparties, reportedly, on the ground that that would beunconstitutional. Even if that were true the amendment of theconstitution in that regard were not feasible the Governmentcould have used the Preventive Detention Act or the Defence ofIndia Rules or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or theMaintenance of Internal Security Act for suppressing the activitiesof the Plebiscite Front in Kashmir or of the Mizo National Front

heed of the danger to India from those who had "invaded 1,000years ago" and were now "taking advantage of our endurance."He stated that India meant "Hindu rashtra, "and that Indian culturewas basically Hindu culture. Addressing a rally in Jaipur a littlelater, the RSS chief asserted that Pakistan was born "due to Muslimenmity against India."

When in December 1970, the AIl-India Muslim PoliticalConvention demanded separate electorate for the Muslims, theHindu Mahasabha broke its long silence, and said the move wasfraught with grave consequence. In a resolution, it stated thatthose Muslims who still sought separate privileges on the basisof 'two-nation theory' should be sent to Pakistan "on governmentlevel". In early January 1971, efforts were made to form a "HinduSena" to counter the "Muslim Sena". The convener of the All-IndiaHindu Sena, Ranjan Baba Satyarathi, said the Sena would be"closer" to Jan Sangh which was a "nationalist party." The ShivSena in Maharashtra originally directed against Communists andtrade unionists, adopted in mid-1970, a violently anti-Muslimstance. Its chief leader, Bal Thackeray, denounced the "greenmenace of Islam". In the Shiv Sena journal he wrote: "Hindusshould not only remain Hindus, but the fanatic Hindus anddedicated crusaders of their religion. I am not ashamed to say thatI am a fanatic Hindu." A good number of Musalmans looked atthe Hindus through the eyes of such organizations and theydeveloped a belief that the Hindu community could not safeguardtheir interest and well-being. Hence, they became communal-minded and developed a dislike for the majority community.

Government's Inertia

Hindu-Muslim communalism persisted in the country due tothe failure of union and state governments also to tackle theproblem squarely and firmly. No serious attempt was made toexamine the problem rationally arid in all its aspects, and wheneverthere was a flare-up the non-Congress parties were made thescapegoat and were blamed for it. The tendency of the rulers wasto treat the Hindu-Muslim riots as a law and order problem wholethe malady had its roots in economic disparity, social backward-ness and religious and cultural diversities of the two communities.


The basic issue is, can we find a solution to communal or suchproblems in a non-mobilized and a conciliatory political system,like one in India? Perhaps some thing can be done by having morediscipline among party leaders and workers on sectarian issuesand other similar measures but the real cure must penetrate thesocial structure itself. Already a point of contradiction has beenreached today between the available administrative structure andthe level of socio-economic development of people, between thelegitimate expectations for growth and the inadequacy of thepolitical arrangement that impedes such a growth. The experienceso far has proved that the adopted approach based on capitalisticpostulates has failed to deliver goods to the common man belongingto the so-called minority or majority. Given the present model andthe relationship between production and distribution in the world,given the western style of industrialization we Are pursuing, wemay produce nothing but consumerism, corruption, revolts,disorder and ultimate the collapse of the democratic order.

The only alternative, therefore, is that the transformation ofthe social system and economic development have to go together.A political system based on the concept of freedom will survivein the measure in which values are generally expressed in everydaylife and in opportunities of common people in human and socialrelationship at the level of the community. There can be no successin the system unless it envisages justice to all and ensures equalityin practice. Economic equality and justice are the basis of integratedsociety. It presents a vital and unifying goal, and is a necessityfor harnessing the energies and initiative of the people in all fieldsof activity. The solutions have to be economic and political andnot legal or administrative. The problems should be tackled at thatlevel. Without this, high-sounding exhortation and platitudes like"unity in diversity" or "composite culture" will be of little help inachieving the goals of national integration.

of the Naga hostiles in Assam or the Naxalites in West-Bengal andother parts of the country.

During the 19-month-period of Emergency in the country, theMuslims suffered as much as the Hindus. The members of the RSSand the Jamaat-e-lslami lived together, dined together andexchanged views together in jails, and shed prejudice against eachother. When the Emergency ended and elections for the LokSabha and ten state Assemblies and two Union Territories wereheld in March and June 1977 respectively the members of the twocommunities voted together without any preference for their owncommunity. The leaders of the Muslims, such as Abdulla Bukhari,the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid of Delhi, campaigned shoulderto shoulder with the leaders of Janata Party from the same platformand in the same language, and for a time it appeared as ifcommunalism had disappeared from the country. But thatphenomenon did not last long, and Hindu-Muslim riots began toreoccur. In order to win elections to get into law making bodiesthe political leadership worked up the communal sentiments ofthe electorate and exploited those sentiments to serve theirnefarious ends. Whereas the Hindu-Muslim communal diversitiesserved the interests of foreign masters upto 1947, these continuedto be fully exploited by the indigenous leadership in the post-Independence period.

AN ANALYSIS

The experience of past four decades in India suggests that itis wrong to think that just with the modrenisation of the medievalsociety, with economic development and the secular pretensionsof the government process of ascriptive identity building or themajority and minority problems can be liquidated. On the contraryit suggests that the realities of social and economic antagonismsarising out of generation and articulation of demands in a backwardplural society undergoing development through westernizedcapitalist, path can be marked by a religious vocabulary. Hencethe alleged problem of communalism or parochialism, which isa normal human phenomenon having its root deep in the historicalevents and human psychology cannot be solved by stigmatizingthis or that group.

Indian Government and Politics Regionalism244 245

Tamil ("We Tamil") organized a joint campaign throughout Madrasstate for the secession of Madras from India and for making it anindependent sovereign state of Tamilnad. They burnt publicly themaps of India minus "Tamilnad".

On 30 January 1961, another organization, by the name ofTamil Arasu kahagam, launched an. agitation for the renamingof Madras state as "Tamil Nadu". A little later, the DMK proposedthat the states of Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Mysoreshould secede from the Indian Union and form an independent"Republic of Dravida Nad."

But this proposal did not enlist much support outside Madras.On 9 April 1961, several leading members of the DMK left theparty and formed a new party called the Tamil National Partyunder the leadership of E.V.K. Sampath, a member of Parliament.It decried the DMK proposal and, instead, advocated a radicalamendment of the Constitution so that India would become ahighly decentralized federation of autonomous linguistic states,each of which would "have the right to secede." The CentralGovernment, this party proposed, should be formed with theconsent of all states and it should control only such subjects ofnational importance as defence and foreign-affairs. Several DMKmembers of the state Assembly and of Madras Corporation,including the Mayor of Madras, V. Munuswami, joined this party.

The DMK, however, continued to carry on its campaign foran independent Dravidian state. Its programme found wideacceptability. It contested the third General Election to the stateAssembly on the issue, and it won 50 seats, while it had got only15 seats in the second General Election. Its strength in the LokSabha rose from 2 in 1975 to 7. During a debate in the Rajya Sabhaon 1 May 1962, its leader, C.N. Annadurai, maintained that thepeople of southern India were of a stock different from that of thenorth. He alleged that the South had been "ignored" and "neglected"by the Union Government in the successive five year plans forIndia's socio-economic development.

Prime Minister Nehru denounced what he called the"Balkanization" (dismemberment) of India, and said that the DMK'sdemand for secession from the Indian Union was "manifestlyoutrageous".

7REGIONALISM

INTRODUCTION

Till now you are well aware of the divisive issues in Indianpolitics. Now you will see the regionalism in Indian politics,which is another major issue trying to destabilize the country.

Regionalism was the first and foremost manifestation of thediversity of India. Whereas communalism meant the love of thecommunity preference to the nation, regionalism meant the loveof particular region in preference to the country and in certaincases, preference to the state of which the region was a part.Whereas communalism was limited largely to two communities,namely, Hindus and Muslims, regionalism was a country-widephenomenon, and often took the form of well-conceived and well-organized agitations and campaigns. It assumed in the politicalfield, mainly, four forms: demand of people of certain states forsecession from the Indian Union, demand of people for separatestatehood, demand for full fledged statehood, and inter-statedispose. Each of these was important in itself and needed a fullerdiscussion.

SECESSION FROM INDIA

Dravida Munnetra Kzhagam in Tamil Nadu

The first and most challenging form regionalism took was thedemand of the people of certain states to secede from the IndianUnion and become an independent sovereign state. The first suchexample was the Tamil community of the state of Madras. On 5June 1960, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Nam


the DMK Government and expressed the hope that it would notforce the DMK to deviate from its constitutional and peacefulfight for state autonomy. His complaint was that under the existingconstitutional arrangements, the states were pitifully dependentupon the Centre, and that the. Central Government neitherrespected the sentiments of the people in states nor appreciatedtheir needs and problems. He, therefore, suggested that in orderto bring about the speedy and sustained growth of the people thestates should be accorded the maximum autonomy. He even heldout the threat of adopting "other methods" for achieving his goal,though he did not specify what those methods would be. Theemphasis, however, shifted secession to autonomy.

Being regional party, the DMK always sought to pick up localissues to work up people's passions in order to stay on in power.In the last week of May 1974, Tamizhar Padukappu Peravai (TamilProtection Organization) took out in Madras city a procession andthe participants shouted anti-Malayali slogans like "drive outMalayalis" and give employment to Tamilians alone. They tookoath "not to-allow any non-Tamilians like Malayalis" to head anyundertaking, political party or government in Tamil Nadu. Theprocessionists stoned two theaters screening Malayalam picture,damaged hoardings and ransacked the auditorium of one of them,and indulged in other acts of violence and lawlessness. On theday following this occurrence, Chief Minister Karunanidhi declaredthat his Government favored reserving 80 per cent of the jobs inthe government and private sectors for local people.

An appeal to this effect was immediately issued by theauthorities. On 9 December 1974, the founder leader of the DMKE.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, threatened secession of Tamil Naduif the Center failed to abolish the caste system before the Republic26 January 1975. The two-day conference of this party said thatif the Centre did not end the caste distinction which dividedsociety into Brahmins and non-Brahmins "we will proclaim thatwe are not citizens of this country." In its manifesto released on11 February 1977, on the eve of elections to the Lok Sabha inMarch, the DMK reiterated its demand for autonomy and assertedthat such a demand could neither be construed as "anti-national"nor as "secession-oriented." In later years also, the DMK led by

In view of the disintegrating trends in the country, Parliamentadopted, in early October 1963, the Sixteenth Constitution(Amendment) Bill which:

(1) enabled Parliament to make laws providing penalties forany person questioning the sovereignty and integrity ofIndian Union, and

(2) laid down that a candidate for election to Parliament orstate Legislature would have to undertake, by oath oraffirmation, to bear true faith and allegiance to the IndianConstitution and to uphold the country's sovereignty andintegrity.

In consequence of this amendment, the DMK, on 3 Novemberof the same year, dropped from its programme the demand fora sovereign independent Dravidian federation (Dravidanad) andits secession from the Indian Union. Instead, a new Article to theparty's constitution was added, and the party's objective, therefore,was declared to be the formation of a "Dravida Union" of Madras,Mysore, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala with as large powers aspossible within the framework of the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia and of the Constitution.

The agitation went on unabated. In mid-September 1970, theDMK convened in Madras city a "state Autonomy Conference,"and its leader, V.B. Raju, MP criticized "Delhi's attitude" in tryingto administer state's subjects, holding the states as its "debtors"and using its "financial strings" to control them. In the last weekof April 1971, Chief Minister Karunanidhi. threatened thatseparation of Tamil Nadu from the Indian Union "would becomeunavoidable" if the demand for state autonomy continued to beneglected for long.

On 19 September, he repeated the threat and said that hisparty (DMK) was prepared to launch an agitation to secure stateautonomy. At one stage, he even demanded a separate flag forTamil Nadu. He continued to repeat his demand for the autonomyof states time and again. On 5 March 1975, he expressed hispreparedness to undergo imprisonment like Sheikh Abdullallah,if he could achieve the demand of state autonomy. A week later,he accused the Central Government of "insulting and humiliating"


autonomy' to the state. At a meeting held at Anandpur Sahib onOctober 16 and 17, 1973, the Akali Dal adopted a resolution,generally known as Anandpur Sahib Resolution, containing itsdemands. This resolution stated that certain areas which had beentaken away from Punjab and had been intentionally kept apartshould be immediately merged with Punjab under oneadministrative unit, and that in the new Punjab, the Centralintervention should be restricted to Defence, Foreign Affairs, Postsand Telegraphs and Currency and Railways.

A different version of the. Anandpur Sahib Resolution wasput forth by the Akali (Talwandi Group) at a World SikhConvention at Anandpur Sahib in April 1981. Its resolution statesthat an autonomous region in the north of India should be set upforthwith wherein the Sikhs' interests were constitutionallyrecognized as of primary and special importance, and that theSikh Autonomous Region may be conceded and declared asentitled to frame its own constitution and may enjoy all powersexcept Foreign Relations, Defence and General Communications.

Yet another version of the Anandpur Sahib Resolutionauthenticated by Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, President of theAkaIi Dal was issued in November 1982. This version asked forthe merger of all Punjabi-speaking areas "to constitute a singleadministrative unit where the interests of the Sikhs and Sikhismare specially protected." In September 1981, the CentralGovernment received a list of 45 demands, but the followingmonth, these were cut down to 15. These could be grouped intothree broad categories, viz, (i) those which concerned the Sikhcommunity as a religious group; (ii) those which related to otherstates besides the Punjab; and (iii) those of a general nature. 'Themain religious demands were as under:

(1) Amritsar should be granted the "holy city" status on thepattern of Haridwar, Kashi and Kurukshetra:

(2) A radio should be installed at the Golden Temple to relaykirtan;

(3) Sikhs should be permitted to travel by air on domestic andinternational flights with kirpan on their person; and

(4) An All India Gurudwara Act should be enacted.

Karunanidhi and the All India Anna-DMK led by M.G.Ramachandran the two Kazhagarns which dominated Tamil Nadupolitics continued to clamour for more and more autonomy forthe states.

THE AKALI DAL IN PUNJAB

The Sikh community, following the lead of Master Tara Singh,had demanded, during the freedom struggle, an independentstate, to be called Khalistan, for itself. Immediately afterIndependence, Tara Singh demanded a Sikh state consisting of theGurgaon district of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States'Union (PEPSU). On 2 November 1949, he demanded a "SikhProvince" of east Punjab, declaring that the Hindus of East Punjabhad become "narrow minded communalists and that the Sikhscould not "hope' to get a fair deal at their hands."

During the 1950's and early 1960's, the Sikhs of Punjab carriedan agitation; often times violent, for a Punjabi suba and eventuallythis demand was conceded by the Centre on 1 November 1966.This did not satisfy all the Sikhs, and those of them who followedSant Fateh Singh revived the idea of a Sikh "homeland." Theyemphasized that the establishment of a "socialist democratic Sikhhomeland in north India" was the true and the only goal of theSikh politics. A general secretary of this faction, Dr. Jagjit SinghChauhan, toured several countries to mobilise Sikh opinion infavour of Sikhistan and even planned to set up the headquartersof his "rebel-government" of Sikhistan at Nankana Sahib (birthplace of Guru Nanak) in Sheikhupura district of West Pakistan.News appeared in the Press on 30 September 1971 that the PakistanGovernment was considering giving Vatican status to NanakanaSahib. Sant Fateh Singh considered him as going too far andacting against the policy and programme of his faction of theAkali Dal and expelled him. This was done because any demandfor secession from the Indian Union would have been a violationof the sixteenth Constitution Amendment Act and would haveattracted penal action.

Having realised that secession from the Indian Union wouldnot be possible, the Akali leadership started talking ofdecentralisation of political power and the granting of greater


community Sikh passengers would be free to carry kirpans whichdid not exceed 22.8 cms in length and whose blade did not exceed15.24 cms on domestic flights.

About the Akali Dal demand for the enactment of an All IndiaGurdwara Act, bringing all historical gurdwaras situated indifferent parts of the country under the purview of oneadministration the Government position was that such an Actwould have far-reaching implications, that it would involve thestate governments, (where the gurdwaras were located) and themanagements of those gurdwaras, and that such an Act could bepassed only after a consensus, needed for such an Act, was reached.

With regard to the distribution of surplus waters in Ravi andBeas rivers an agreement had been concluded in December 1981between the Governments of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthanon the one side and the Central Government on the other. TheCentral Government took the position that if the Akali Dal wasnot satisfied with that, the matter could be referred to a tribunalpresided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court to determineafresh the allocation of surplus waters.

The demand regarding territories proved to be the mostcontentious. The Shah Commission had recommended in 1966that Chandigarh be given to Haryana, but in order to pacify thePunjab, Mrs. Gandhi had announced in 1970 that Chandigarhwould go to Punjab, that a part of Fazilka Tehsil (including Abohar)of Ferozepur district of Punjab would be transferred to Haryana,and that as regards other claims and counter-claims for thereadjustment of inter-state boundaries a commission would beappointed. This decision could not be implemented due to thesubsequent change in the attitude of the Akali Dal which demandedthat while Chandigarh should be transferred to Punjabimmediately, all other claims and counter-claims, including thoserelating to Abohar and Fazilka, could be referred to a commission.On June 2, 1984, the Prime Minister, in a broadcast to the Nation,reiterated that Chandigarh could be given to Punjab providedHaryana got its share of some Hindi-speaking areas which werein Punjab then.

Regarding the Akali Dal demand relating to Centre-staterelations the authorities in New Delhi set up, in June 1983, a

Demands which related to other states besides the Punjabwere mainly two: first, the distribution of the water of rivers Beasand Ravi, and second, claims about territory. The issue of riverwaters affected the Punjab, Rajasthan and the state of Haryanaand the territorial dispute involved the Punjab and Haryana.

The Akali Dal's demands of a general nature involved theCentre and all other states of the Indian Union. As per theAnandpur Sahib Resolution, the Akali Dal took the position thatthe progress of the states entailed the prosperity of the Centre and,for this, suitable amendments must be made in the Constitutionto give more rights and autonomy to the states. Besides this, it wascontended, the Sikhs should be accorded "special" rights as aNation.

Shortly after receiving the Akali Dal's demands, the PrimeMinister invited representatives of the Akali Dal to a meeting on16 October 1981. Thereafter, she met them again on two occasions,in November 1981 and April 1982. The process of consultationsand discussions went on, sometimes secretly and sometimesopenly, and between November 16, 1982 and May 26, 1984, ninerounds of parleys were held, sometimes in New Delhi andsometimes in Chandigrah, between the Akali Dal representativesand the authorities of the Central Government. In the course ofthese, the Centre accepted several of the Akali demands. Forexample, it was announced that Hardwar, Kashi and Kurukshetradid not enjoy any 'Holy City' status, that no such status could beconferred to Amritsar, and that the sale of meat, liquor and tobaccowould be banned (and was subsequently banned) in a demarcatedarea around the Golden Temple as well as the Durgiana Templein Amritsar. While the Government authorities told the Akali Dalrepresentatives that private radio broadcasting facilities were notallowed to any group anywhere in the country as a matter ofnational policy they offered to arrange for direct relay of shabadkirtan from the Golden Temple through the Jullundhar station ofAll India Radio. About the Akali Dal demand that Sikhs travelingby air should be permitted to carry kirpans on domestic as wellas international flights the Government took the position thatafter the hijacking incident of September 1981 certain restrictionswere imposed, but that in deference to the sentiments of the Sikh


state of Punjab. In fact the moderate leadership of the Akali Dallost control over the extremists who gained the upper hand overthe agitation. After his release from detention, Bhindranwala andhis armed followers shifted their headquarters from Chowk Mehtato Guru Nanak Niwas within the Golden Temple complex, andfrom there the extremists and terrorists were directed, weresupplied arms and training and were given refuge after they haddone the 'job' assigned to them.

The tension generated by the Akali Dal agitation gaveencouragement to various militant groups who joined it. Onesuch group was the Dal Khalsa. It was originally established inIndia on 13 April 1978 with the avowed object of demanding thecreation of an independent sovereign Sikh state. It advocated theuse of violence to achieve its objectives. Jaswant Singh Thakedar,Mukh Panch of the Dal Khalsa, said, "Political power is not servedto anybody on a platter; nor can it be acquired through Bhakti.Without a guerilla warfare and without an armed revolt it wouldbe impossible to achieve our aim". "Political power", he said,"flows out of the barrel of a gun." It established branches in theUK and West Germany. It openly incited communal passions. On26 April 1982, it claimed responsibility for serious acts of sacrilegeagainst Hindu temples and declared its attention of repeatingthem. A cow slaughter campaign with grave potential foraggravating communal tension was threatened.

Another militant group which joined hands with the AkaliDal agitation was the National Council of Khalistan. Dr JagjitSingh Chauhan, the self-styled leader of the movement, proclaimedhimself to be the "President of the National Council of Khalistan".He first raised the slogan of Khalistan at a Press conference inLondon in September 1971, Balbir Singh Sandhu became itsSecretary-General. He (Chauhan) undertook tours of the Westerncountries to work up the Sikh sentiments and exhorted the Sikhsin India not to pay taxes and to resort to disobedience and totalnon-cooperation with the elected government in Punjab. Headvised Longowal and Bhindranwala to form a full fledgedgovernment and parliament of their own. Along with membersof the Dal Khalsa and others he established contacts with leadersof the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front in the UK and with

Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice Ranjit SinghSarkaria to examine and review the working of existingarrangements between the Union and states in regard to powers,functions and responsibilities in all spheres and recommend suchchanges as might be appropriate. This should have satisfied theAkalis as it did the other Opposition parties which also had raisedthis issue, but the Akalis were adamant that the Governmentshould make specific mention of the Anandpur Sahib Resolutionwhile referring the matter to Sarkaria Commission.

Among their other demands, the Akali Dal representativesemphasised the following two as issues of special concern tothem: (i) grant of second language status to Punjabi language inHaryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, and (ii) stoppingthe uprooting of Punjabi farmers from the Terai areas of UttarPradesh.

The Central Government adopted a conciliatory posture, butit seemed the Akalis were not prepared for a compromise andwanted the acceptance of their demands in to. In April 1981, theyhad held out a threat to launch a morcha (agitation) if theirdemands were not conceded. The radical elements within theAkali Dal led by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala were not satisfiedwith the outcome of negotiations between the Centre and themoderate Akalis led by Harchand Singh Longowal, and theycommenced violent activities involving the killing of innocentmen, women and children, destruction of public and privateproperty, and advocacy of communalism and sanction for themost heinous crimes against the state.

On 24, April 1980, the spiritual head of the Nirankaris, BabaGurcharan Singh had been assassinated because he opposed thefundamentalist Sikhs, and in September 1981, a prominentjournalist of Punjab, Lala Jagat Narain, was murdered because hecriticised and denounced the politics of murder and violence.Bhindranwala was arrested in connection with his murder, anda few days after this, Some Sikh extremists hijacked to Lahore anIndian Airlines plane.

Akali Dal did not disapprove the merciless killings and refusedto acknowledge the close Connection between its agitationalprogramme and the violence which has developed in the entire


perpetrators of the worst types of crimes. Large quantities ofweapons of offensive character and communication equipmentwere stored within the places of worship. This clearly showed thatthe agitationists were planning for a full scale insurgency with theobject of seceding from the Indian Union. The Government hadalso gathered from the intelligence reports that some foreignpowers, which were not named for diplomatic reasons, werehelping and assisting the terrorists with the object of weakeningthe Indian polity.

In such circumstances, it became absolutely' essential for theCentral authorities to take steps to break the well-entrenchedbastions of terrorism and secessionism. On 1 May 1982, the DalKhalsa and the National Council of Khalistan had been declaredas unlawful associations. About two years later, both of theseorganisations were banned. In the wake of increasing terroristactivity, Punjab and Chandigarh were declared disturbed areasunder the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special PowersAct. The National Security Act was made more rigorous througha Presidential Ordinance.

On 2 June 1984, the Central Government decided to call inthe Army in aid of the civil authority to check and control theextremist, terrorist and communal violence in Punjab and theUnion Territory of Chandigarh. On the following day, the entryof foreigners into Punjab was prohibited. By the early hours ofJune 3, Army formations moved into Punjab and Chandigarh.Within a few days, the 'Operation Blue-star', as it came to becalled, was completed, and all the terrorists were either killed orarrested.

Those who surrendered voluntarily were taken into custody.With this, the first phase of the Operation was over, and thesecond phase, namely flushing out the terrorists from their hide-outs in the country-side was undertaken. On July 15, the "TerroristAffected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance was promulgated bythe President and the Government acquired wide-ranging powersto establish special courts for trial of certain specified offences,heinous in nature and impinging upon the security and territorialintegrity of the country. The Ordinance extended to the whole ofIndia except Jammu and Kashmir.

Sultan Mohd. Chaudhry, the President of the Azad J & K MuslimConference to explore whether "we can discuss the issue of theSikhs and Kashmiris and work together." Chauhan issued a mapoutlining the boundaries of the Khalistan state and claimed supportfor his objective from many US congressmen and governmentleaders.

The third militant group to join the Akali Dal agitation wasthe Babbar Khalsa and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. The Jatha startedmainly as a religious group, but it extended support to other Sikhpolitical and extremist organisations, particularly the BabbarKhalsa, which was its political offshoot. It looked upon the Jewishstruggle for the creation of Israel and the National Liberationstruggle of the Kurds as models for organising its activities. It wasestablished in India in 1978, and its branches were set up inCanada, the US, the UK, Holland and West Germany. BabbarKhalsa looked upon Pakistan, as a natural and cultural neighbourof the Sikhs ready to assist their movement. The members of thisgroup talked about plans to organise a. Khalistan Liberation Army.On 20 May 1983, Talwinder Singh Parmar, its Jathedar overseas,claimed that the Babbar Khalsa was responsible for the murdersof Lala Jagat Narain, the Nirankaris and others in Punjab. Thisgroup openly incited the Sikhs to initiate action to achieve theiroriginal target of the Sikh quam (Nation), namely the establishmentof an independent entity.

The fourth militant group which identified itself with theAkali Dal agitation was the All India Sikh Students Federation(AISSF). It was originally founded in 1944 to inculcate love for theteachings of the great Gurus among Sikh youths, but in the 1978,it was taken over by the extremists, and its members began to killand indulge in other acts of violence. From June 1983 onwards,an organised attempt was made to use Gurmat camp to propagateextremism and communal ideology and to impart training inarms. Pro-Pakistan and pro-Khalistan slogans were defiantly raisedin several camps. The Alkali Dal and the terrorist groupsentrenched themselves in the Golden Temple complex andconverted it into the main base for operations against those whoappeared to be the opponents of their cause. Many other gurdwarasin Punjab also became the sanctuary for criminals and the


Search' to flush out the terrorists from the Golden Temple Complex.This operation lasted only for fourteen hours, but it led to a splitof the Akali Dal Legislature Party.

Twenty-seven of its members left the party and formed aseparate group. The Barnala Ministry having been reduced to aminority began to look for support towards other MLAs, andseveral Opposition parties offered to keep it in office. Twosecessionist organisations-Dal Khalsa and the National Council ofKhalistan-were declared illegal under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1987. The situation in Punjab, however, againbecame grave and the Central and state authorities becameseriously concerned about it. In early 1990s the Tehrik-e-Huriyat(Movement for the liberation of Kashmir) was formed and itsconstituent units were banned. Those units were Jamayit Islami,the JK league of the people, Mahaze Azadi Islamic Institute ofStudents and Duktrani Milat etc. These organisations joined handswith several groups and 'factions fighting for the formation ofstate of a separate Khalistan. The situation became extremelyserious during 1999-92. The advocates of a separate state ofKhalistan took to terrorist and militant activities and got supportand incitement from Pakistan. On 25 February 1992, Beant Singhbecame the Congress Chief Minister and terrorist activities wereconsiderably controlled. The state seemed to be taking toParliamentarism.

North-eastern Region-Mizoram

Another area of the country where secessionist movementswere launched was the north-east region comprising Assam,Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur and ArunachalPradesh, jointly known as the "seven sisters." Let us first take upMizoram. The people of the Mizo Hill district of Assam with anarea of 8,200 square miles and population of about 200,000demanded secession not only from Assam but from the IndianUnion itself. They demanded the formation of an "independentMizo state" comprising also the Mizos of the contiguous areas ofEast Pakistan and Burma. They formed the Mizo National Front(MNF) to press their demand. The Union Government, naturallyturned down their demand, and took to repression. The Mizos

As a result of the Army action, the situation in Punjab improvedconsiderably, but many Sikhs were feeling injured in self-esteemand some of the terrorists, who had not been yet mopped up,continued to indulge in acts of sabotage and arson, both in Indiaand abroad. Some of the Akali Dal leaders continued to talk oflaunching a stir to "free" the gurdwaras from the control of securityforces and also to counter the situation created by the "kar seva"started by Nihang chief, Baba Santa Singh, at the Akal Takht inthe Golden Temple complex. The Government, on the other hand,was determined not to allow terrorism to raise its head in Punjabagain. Never before since Independence the country wasconfronted with such a challenge to its integrity and security fromwithin.

On 31st October 1984, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated by hertwo Sikh bodyguards in her own bungalow in New Delhi, andthat led to a very tense and explosive situation in the country. Inorder to get out of this, the Central Government authorities starteda dialogue with a moderate faction of the Akali dal, and thateventually resulted in what was described by the Indian Press asan "historic accord" on 25th July 1985, between Prime MinisterRajiv Gandhi on the one side and the Akali dal chief, HarchandSingh Longowal, on the other. It provided for the transfer ofChandigarh to Punjab and some Hindi speaking areas to Haryana,the rehabilitation of those discharged from the Army and referenceof the Anandpur Sahib resolution to the Sarkaria Commission thathad been set up by the Centre to examine the whole gamut ofUnion-state relations and make recommendations for changes ifnecessary.

In September 1985, general election was held for the stateAssembly in Punjab, and the Akali Dal led by Surjit Singh Barnalacame into power. There was some respite in the crisis riddenPunjab, and the "Punjab problem" as it became known was notresolved. The terrorists and extremists restarted their violent andsubversive activities, and the Golden Temple complex againbecame the centre of anti-national elements. A Panthic Committeeof five members issued, on 29 April 1986, a call of "Khalistan", andthe situation in the Punjab became very grave. Next day at about5 p.m. the army and para-military forces resorted to "Operation


During February 1973, and again in February 1974, theGovernment authorities held informal discussion with some ofthe underground leaders, but there was no result. The hard coreamong them took, as the then Union Home-Minister, Uma ShankerDixit, put it, a "very unreasonable attitude." The situationdeteriorated considerably. On 1 December 1974, the 'Mizo NationalArmy' issued notice to the effect that "all Indian nationals nowin Mizoram are hereby ordered to leave Mizoram before 1 January1975. The responsibility for violation of this order shall lie uponthe defaulters." The ultimatum having expired, the MNF whippedup its terrorist activities. On 13 January, two gunmen, wearinguniforms of sub-inspectors of police, walked into the conferenceroom of the Inspector General of Police at Aizawl and shot himdead along with the Deputy Inspector General and thesuperintendent of Police. This ghastly crime caused seriousuneasiness in New Delhi, and the authorities there launched Armyoperations in a big way to suppress the rebels. They also decidedto hold no talks with the underground Mizo leaders, unless anduntil they ended their violence.

It was pointed out by the Development Minister of Mizoram,R. Thagliana on 26 April 1975 that the atrocities being inflictedupon the youth of the Union Territory by the security forces weresending more and more of them into the ranks of the undergroundsecessionists. It was, of course, a widely-known fact thatCommunist China was helping the Mizo hostiles with money andarms with the ultimate objective of creating lawlessness andanarchy in the north-east region of India.

The Pakistani collusion with the Chinese authorities wasanother factor behind the activities of the Mizo rebels. In orderto deal with the grave situation the Union Government authoritiesdevised more stringent measures, one of them being a move, inearly May 1975, to make the provisions of the Maintenance ofInternal Security Act (MISA) more rigorous.

But these too had little effect. On 3 June, Chief Minister Chungasaid that the rebel elements "are very active" and the situation "isnot under control yet." However, about a year later, the MNFdecided to give up arms and secessionist plea and acknowledgedthat all problems between the rebel Mizos and the Union

organized armed agitation and commenced guerrilla warfare. Inthe wake of the Chinese aggression line October 1962, the MNFwas banned, and all its operations were declared illegal under theDefence of India Rules. But their activities continued and spreadto the Cachar Hills of Assam and the then Union Territory ofTripura. Civil administration in the Mizo Hill broke down almostcompletely.

On 2 May 1968, the Union Government alleged that the Mizoswere in league with the Nagas and the Chinese who were armingand training them. It also alleged that Pakistan was assisting therebel Mizos-an allegation described by Rawalpindi as "totallyfalse". The Union Government detained hundreds of Mizos underthe Preventive Detention Act. When on 31 December 1969, thatAct expired, the Government of Assam issued an ordinanceproviding for preventive detention and the Mizos continued tobe held. Their operations, however, continued. In January 1971,a three-member delegation of the MNF led by its President Chungamet the Prime Minister and other Union Government leaders inNew Delhi, and in memorandum submitted to Indira Gandhi,they said that the Mizos were frustrated because of the injusticedone to them by dividing their homeland during British rule,because of the political instability brought about by the Assamgovernment, and because of the economic instability and hardshipsas a result of mismanagement by the Assam Government.

Instead to talking about secession from India and forming an"independent Mizo state, they demanded in 1971 a referendumover the question of statehood for the Mizos. In order to satisfytheir political aspirations, the Union Government made the MizoHills a Union Territory, and it was inaugurated by Indira Gandhion 21 January 1972. It was named Mizoram. The UnionGovernment spent crores of rupees to improve the lot of thepeople there so as to bring them into the mainstream of India, butthe success achieved was only limited. Many extremists whowould be content only with an independent state outside theIndian Union continued their violent and terrorist activities underthe leadership of Laldenga. Quite a few of them sneaked to Chinato obtain arms and training there in guerrilla tactics of warfareso as to face the Indian Border Security Force.


Centre would grant the status of statehood to Mizoram, but therebels would have, first, to lay down arms.

On 9 November 1979, Laldenga spelt out the terms on whichhis followers would lay down arms and negotiate for a politicalsolution of the Mizoram problem. He said that Mizoram shouldbe accorded a protected constitutional status similar to Kashmirand Nagaland, that an interim government headed by an"underground" man should be constituted to enable theunderground elements to be "psychologically and materiallyrehabilitated," and that the charge of treason-"and offencepunishable by hanging"-against him must be withdrawn beforethe "quit Mizoram" movement (that was launched by other leadersof the MNF when he was under detention in New Delhi) couldbe terminated. The Union Government authorities refused toconsider Laldenga's offer, and took the position that it would giveno quarter to insurgency as a means of sorting out politicaldifferences, and that a policy that gave the impression that"'insurgency pays" would be strictly avoided.

The underground members of the MNF took to violence againand posed a serious threat to law and order in the Union Territory.Joining hands with others in the North-Eastern region, they raisedthe demand that the non-Mizos should quit Mizoram. A noticeto this effect was served upon them in June 1979. From then on,the outlawed MNF sought to discredit the People's ConferenceMinistry handed by Brigadier Saito in order to capture power.When Mrs. Gandhi again came into power at the Centre in January1980, the Mizo leadership opened negotiations with herGovernment in order to bring peace to the Union territory after14 years of insurgency.

In the third week of July, Laldenga discussed with the PrimeMinister a "plan of action" for finding out a permanent politicalsolution to the Mizo insurgency, and the parleys resulted in a"cease-fire" agreement between the two leaders. This' providedthat with effect from the midnight of 31 July, the Mizo insurgentswould stop all rebel activities, including fresh recruitment andcollection of taxes and the revocation of the "quit Mizoram" noticeto non-Mizos, and the Government, on its part, would suspendall operations by its security forces against hostile activities. With

Government would be resolved within the framework of theConstitution. After long deliberations and secret discussions apeace accord was signed at New Delhi on 11 July 1976 betweenhim and the authorities of the Central Government Laldengaacknowledged Mizoram to be an integral part of India, agreed tofind a solution of all problems peaceably, undertook to abjureviolence and to suspend all activities and finally to bring intocamps all his followers and to deposit their weapons.

The ink on the Delhi accord had hardly dried up that Laldengahimself incited his followers to scuttle its implementation. TheMNF launched, in March-April 1977, a massive drive for enrollingfresh volunteers to its depleted ranks and arranging their trainingin guerrilla warfare in China.

On 9 May 1977, the Congress Ministry of Mizoram headedby Chhunga resigned following the expiry of the 5-year term ofthe Assembly, and two days later the Union Territory was placedunder President's rule. The 30-member Assembly was dissolved.The Union authorities took to suppression of rebels again.Hundreds of them surrendered but the secessionists were notwholly wiped out.

For about one year there was neither war nor peace in Mizoram.There was no war because after 12-year-old warfare there was lullin war-like operations on the part of Mizo insurgents, and therewas no peace, because thousands of them were getting trainingin the use of more sophisticated arms across the border inBangladesh and Burma, On 2 July 1979, the MNF insurgentsstruck again and attacked with automatic weapons at thetransmission centre of All India Radio, Aizawl and the Mizorampolice complex. Towards the end of that month, a plot came tolight that the outlawed MNF had planned to carry out blitzkriegon Aizawl and liquidate some VIPs including the Lt. Governor,the chief Minister and senior civil and police officers. It had alsoplanned to blow up the AIR transmitter, cut off water supply tothe capital and to disrupt all communications between Mizoramand the rest of the country. Military operations were launchedwith full force, and the Janata Party Government took the positionthat unless the MNF abjured violent and.the path of confrontation,there could be no talks. Its leader, Laldenga, was told that the


the dismissal of the Mizoram Chief Minister Brig. T. Sailo and hisown appointment in his place as a precondition to resume thetalks. The Government of India did not accept it and on 20 January1982, imposed a ban on the MNF under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for carrying on secessionist activities.

The outlawed MNF then demanded that the Mizoramadministration be carried on by the Lt. Governor with the helpof a council of advisers headed by itself. This proposal too wasturned down by the Central authorities and Laldenga who hadbeen staying on in New Delhi as the guest of the Government ofIndia to carry on the talks was told that he was free to leave thecountry. Thereafter, the MNF volunteers took to guerrilla activitiesand served upon the non-Mizos a notice to leave the UnionTerritory by 21 June 1982.

The Central authorities continued to send "peace feelers" tothe underground headquarters to resume the negotiations, but theMNF took the position that it would not talk without Laldengawho lived in the United Kingdom and was reluctant to come toNew Delhi for this purpose. For about two years the issue remainedfrozen, though the insurgent activities continued.

In April 1984, Mrs. Gandhi said, in the course of a visit toAizawl, that the Union Government would be prepared to holdtalks with the MNF provided the rebels renounced violence andagreed to settling the dispute within the framework of theConstitution. The Mizos were losing zeal for a state continuousinsurgency and had begun to yearn for peace and normaldemocratic politics. The successful general election in Mizoramtestified to this. The Church leaders made renewed efforts to getthe rebels and the Government talk again. In view of thesedevelopments, Laldenga made a conciliatory statement in Londonin May, and in July he wrote to the Prime Minister that as solutionof the Mizo problem within the framework of the Constitutionwould be acceptable to the MNF, provided special protection wasaccorded to the Mizos in the matter of trade and commerce andalso provided Mizoram was made the seat of High Court.

The Union Government authorities considered these demandsas unconstitutional. The talks between them and MNF chiefLaldenga, however, continued, and on 30 October 1985 a

the enforcement of the "ceasefire", the two sides, it was agreed,would confer about how to solve the Mizo problem within theframework of the Constitution. The cease-fire accordingly cameinto force, and the Mizos were jubilant that peace had returnedto their strife-tom home-land.

But the calm that prevailed in the Union Territory proved tobe deceptive. Laldenga adopted a contradictory posture. On theone side he sought to convince his erstwhile colleagues thatMizoram's future lay with India, and he told the Government ofIndia that he was sincerely trying to find a solution to the vexedproblem within the framework of the Indian Constitution. And,on the other hand, he directed the commanders of the MizoNational Army, the armed wing of the MNF, to keep their powderdry. Accordingly those commanders took full advantage of thesuspension of military operations to regroup their forces, to restoretheir communication links, to reestablish their ideological cells inremote hamlets, to raise funds, to collect rations, to build up stocksof medicines, to establish fresh arms and ammunition dumps andto take refresher course in guerrilla warfare for their men. Thus,while there was talk of peace the MNF and the Mizo NationalArmy prepared for war.

In early March 1981, Laldenga put before Mrs. Gandhi a fivepoint plan to solve the Mizo problem, and the Prime Ministerallowed him to visit the MNF headquarters in the Arakan Hillsin Burma to discuss the situation with other leaders of the MNF.On his return from there he stated on 5 April that the MNFwanted a greater Mizoram state which should include large partsof Tripura, Manipur and Assam. He also said his followers wanted"'some sort of autonomy" for Mizoram guarded by a constitutionalamendment. He stressed that the Mizos were different, that theywere ethnically and culturally Mongolian and Christian by religion,and that the majority of others were Indo-Aryan, governed byHindu ethics and philosophy. The hawks within the MNFleadership, thus, sought to continue to struggle rather than agreeto a solution within the Indian Union.

The MNF carried on secessionist activities and the MizoNational Army continued to attack the security forces, civilianand government employees and the citizens. Laldenga demanded


change in the present set-up 'in full consultation with the Nagapeople "subject to the unity, integrity and security of the IndianUnion." The Assam Government announced a reward of Rs. 5,000for the arrest of Phizo and 37 of his accomplices and charged themof a number of crimes punishable with death. It convened, on 22-26 August 1957, a convention of loyal Naga leaders in Kohima.This convention adopted, unanimously, a resolution demandingthe integration of the Naga areas as a single administrative unitunder the Indian External Affairs Ministry to be administered bythe Government of Assam on behalf of the President of India. Thisproposal meant the abandonment of the demand for anindependent Naga state and was envisaged as an "interimarrangement" pending a permanent political settlement withinthe Indian Union. Another resolution of the convention appealedto the Naga rebels still in arms to "give up the cult of violence"and to "cooperate for the good of our land and the free developmentof our people according to our traditions." The Government ofIndia welcomed both the resolutions, and in July 1960, anagreement was reached between the Indian Union and the NagaPeoples' Convention.

On 24 January 1961, President S. Radhakrishnan promulgatedthe Nagaland (Transitional Provisions) Regulations which madethe following provisions for the adminjstration of Nagaland duringthe transitional period before the attainment of full statehood:

(i) An Interim Body of 45 elected representatives of the Nagatribes would act for three years, as an advisory council tothe Governor who, in its recommendation, would appointnot more than five of its members to serve as an ExecutiveCouncil;

(ii) The Interim Body would be empowered to discuss andrecommend on matters of administration involving generalpolicy and development schemes, etc; and

(iii) The Executive Council would assist and advise theGovernor in the exercise of his functions. The InterimBody was sworn in on 18 February 1961 in the presenceof General S.M. Srinagesh, Governor of Assam, who actedconcurrently as Governor of Nagaland. Imakongliba Aowas elected Speaker of the Interim Body_and Dr Shilu Ao

breakthrough was attached. Accord was reached on modalitiesfor laying down arms by the rebels and in the wake of this acoalition government was formed by the MNF and Congress (I)with Laldenga as the Chief Minister. In the-third week of February1987, general election for the 40-member Assembly was held, andthe MNF got 25 seats, whereas Congress (I) could secure only 12.On 20 February, a 'new Ministry with Laldenga as the ChiefMinister was sworn in, and on the same day Mizoram was madethe 23rd state of the Indian Union. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhiassured full support to the MNF Government, and Laldengaassured full cooperation to the Centre Nagaland.

Another area of the North-east region where secessionistmovement and an agitation for an independent sovereign statetook place wasthe Nagaland. Numbering about 400,000 dividedinto over twenty tribes differing widely in language and customs,the Nagas lived in the Naga Hill districts and in the Tuengsangdivision on the Indo-Burmese frontier. There was a Naga minorityin northern Manipur and about 100,000 in the adjoining areas ofBurma, but neither of these two groups gave active support to theseparatist movement. The Nagas of the Naga Hill district weremore advanced, and they were in the forefront of the movement.Zapo Phizo was their leader, and they had formed the NagaNational Council to carryon the agitation. In February 1950, Phizoheld a plebiscite on the issue of Naga independence, and 99 percent of the Nagas were proclaimed to be in favour of a sovereignindependent state. In 1952, he organized a boycott of the firstGeneral Election and this was "a great success." In April of the'same year, he said that the Naga's case would besubmited to theUnited Nations if difficulties arose. In the spring of 1955, the NagaNational Council organised serious disorders and violence, andthe, Army had to be called in to suppress their onslaughts. Nearly300 Nagas were killed, and the area in which they operated wasdeclared a "disturbed area."

Six Naga leaders repudiated Phizo's violent methods andseparatist movement. In September 1956, they met Prime MinisterNehru, and put forward proposals for the unification of all Nagaareas under a single administration. Nehru assured them that assoon as peace was restored the Government would consider any


The Union Government adopted a stem attitude, announcedthat greater autonomy for Nagaland was out of question, anddeclared the "Naga National Council," the "Naga RevolutionaryGovernment," and the "Naga, Revolutionary Army" as illegalbodies. The Army operations suspended eight years earlier, wereresumed, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 wasrigorously, enforced. As a result, most of the hostile Nagas gaveup violence and came out into the open. The "Prime Minister" ofthe Naga Revolutionary Government, Scato Wsu, and former"General" Zuharto surrendered, and they offered to cooperatewith the rest of the country.

On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the state ofNagaland (1 December 1973) Mrs. Gandhi visited Kohima andexhorted the Nagas to join the task of building the state as aprosperous unit of the Indian Union. She served a warning uponPhizo and a few of his accomplices that no talks would be heldwith them for any settlement 'Outside the constitutional provisions.On 2 September 1974, the underground Naga National Counciland its allied organisations were banned. The ban also applied tothe so-called Federal Government of Nagaland, Naga Army,Kimhao (upper house), Tarar Hoho (assembly of representatives)and the Federal Supreme Court.

All these measures of repression and suppression failed towipe out the Naga insurgency. News continued to appear in theIndian newspapers in the early months of 1975 that the Nagaswere sneaking into China and Burma to obtain arms and trainingthere with the object of making yet another effort to secede fromthe Indian Union and form an independent sovereign state oftheir own.

On 11 November 1975, the Governor.of Nagaland, L.P. Singh,entered, on behalf of the Government of India, into an agreementwith the "known real representatives" of the underground Nagaorganisations at Shillong. On their part, the rebel Nagas acceptedthe Constitution "unconditionally," abjured violence and agreedto surrender all arms and ammunition and to give up the demandfor independent Nagaland. The Union Government agreed tosuspend the operation of the MISA, to release gradually the 200Nagas in detention and to condone the acts of violence and other

as Chairman of the Executive Council. On 21 August 1962,Nehru introduced in the Lok Sabha the state of NagalandBill and the Thirteenth Constitution (Amendment) Bill,and after easy passage,,both the Bi1ls received thePresident's assent. On 4 September 1962, Nagaland becamethe sixteenth state of the Indian Union. It comprised theNaga Hill districts and the Tuengsang Tribal Area. Thenew state was inaugurated by the President on 1 December1963. The first General Election for the Interim Body(Assembly) was held on 10-16 January 1964, and NagaNationalist Party leader,' Dr Shilu Ao, was sworn in asChief Minister.

Although the Indian Army broke up large rebel concentrationsand destroyed their hide-outs, the rebel Nagas numbering about1,500 regrouped themselves and adopted "hit and run" tactics insmall groups. The hard core of hostile lea4ership in the Naga Hillswith a fairly large following and stocks of arms and ammunitionremained intact Most of them operated in the Burmese fr9ntierarea. After the formation of the state of Nagaland these rebelsbecame desperate and resorted to more severe violence and actsof arson.

They assassinated the Chief Minister, Shilu Ao, and formedthe "Naga Revolutionary Government." Phizo fled to London tocanvass support for an independent state of Nagaland from theWestern countries. He and his London host, Rev. Michael Scott,went to New York to talk the Naga case in the United Nations,but they could not enlist much support there. Then, Phizo turnedtowards Communist China and Pakistan-the two grievous enemiesof India-and obtained large quantities of arms and ammunition.These countries also provided political support and facilities fortraining the Nagas in the art and technique of guerrilla warfare.Equipped with these, the followers Of Phizo whipped up theirdrive for more terror, ambushes and assassinations. Hundreds oftheir political opponents were done to death. One 7 August 1972,even the Chief Minister of Nagaland, Hokishe Serna, was madethe object of attack, though he escaped death. The guerrilla activitiesof the Naga hostiles reached an all-time high in the first half of1973.


the National Socialist Council of Nagaland led by Muivah andSwu, operating in close league with the Chinese.

In the meantime, the United Democratic Party led by Vizoland the Naga National Party led by J.B. Jasokie sought to run theNagaland politics through parliamentary means. Both of theseparties merged into one and created tbe Nagaland NationalDemocratic Party (NNDP). This party came into power inNovember 1980, with Jasokie as the leader. The Congress (I)endeavored to enter itself into Nagaland politics. It contested theelection for the state Assembly in November 1982, and in a Houseof 60 members secured 24 seats, the same number as won-by theNNDP. The Congress (I) Central leaders descended on Kohimawith capitals in hand and won-over 8 independents into theirfold. S.C. Jamir, the Congress (I) leader, was sworn in as ChiefMinister, and Mrs. Gandhi's party, thus, emerged the dominantpolitical culture in the north-east The process of normalisationand constitutionalism, it appeared, began to take roots in the state,though the secessionist elements had not been wholly wiped off.State Assembly elections were held in February 1993 and Congressemerged as the largest single party.. Its government was formedon 25 February 1993.

Stir in Assam against Non-Assamese

A more serious manifestation of regionalism appeared inAssam, a state of the north-east region. The Assamese organisedthe Lachit Sena on the pattern of Shiv Sena of Maharashtra, andin the summer of 1967, that Sena launched an agitation againstthe immigrants from other states of the Indian Union, particularlyagainst the Rajasthanis who owned much of the industry in thestate. First, the agitation took the form of posters and leafletsasking the non-Assamese to leave the state. Then, the Lachit Senaworked up the sentiments of students and on the Republic Day,26 January 68, they called for the boycott of the celebrations asa protest against the Centre's unwillingness to contour theirdemands and-they attacked the shops and industrialestablishments of the non-Assamese. Justice K.C. Sen, who hadbeen appointed by the Central Government to inquire into thesituation, reported that the Assam Government was absolutely

offences committed by the underground Nagas during the periodof insurgency. This agreement was welcomed by the NNO GeneralSecretary, J.B. Jasokic, who thought, it would bring "permanentpeace" in the state.

But some hard liners among the rebel Nagas made franticefforts to scuttle the "Shillong Peace Accord," as it came to beknown. They recruited fresh volunteers, established contact withthe rebel gangs across the border in Burma and resumed Chinatraffic for training and arms.

During his visit to London in the second week of June 1977to attend the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers,Morarji Desai conferred with Phizo to explore the possibility ofpermanent ease and harmony between the Centre and the Nagas,but nothing tangible emerged out of their deliberations. Phizoshowed his unwillingness to accept that Nagaland was one of the22 states of the Indian Union. A few months later a Janata Partyleader, S.M. Joshi, talked to Phizo to discuss ways of ending thesecessionist insurgency in Nagaland, but the thing came out ofthese, talks either. Several erstwhile rebel leaders met as emissariesof Phizo to Charan Singh and Y.B. Chavan, Prime Minister andHome Minister respectively of the caretaker government, to reopenthe dialogue with the Centre to arrive at a solution, but theseparleys also produced no result.

In the third week of May 1980, the Nagaland Peace Council,an organisation of those who wanted to resolve the Nagalandproblems within the framework of the Constitution, convened inKohima the All-Naga People's Conference, and about 500representatives of the 14 major tribes of Nagaland participated.A consensus was reached that the "Shillong accord" was a faitaccompli and had to be the basis for sorting out the remain 19problems confronting Nagaland. 'None of the top undergroundlc.aders of the secessionist movement took part in the conference,and in July, two of them, T.H. Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu, calledupon their followers to get ready for a protracted war for "theliberation of Nagaland". A manifesto circulated among the peoplesaid: "We rule out the illusion of saving Nagaland through peacefulmeans. It is arms and arms again that will save our nation andensure freedom to tbe people". This manifesto was circulated by


said: "Bye bye India", and it alleged that the Centre was adoptinga "colonial policy" towards Assam. The posters spoke of "UnitedStates of Asom".

Since the Bengalis living in Assam were subjected tointimidation a counter agitation against Assam was launched inWest Bengal by the Youth Congress (I) and the Chhatra Parishad,the party 'sstudents organisation, to make the Assam studentsrealise the "folly" of their ways and to "restore good sense" tothem. The agitation in Bengal also became increasingly violent,and for a moment the two states appeared to be on a war path.In the summer of 1985, Assam became involved in a border disputewith Nagaland and this led to the exchange of fire, the displacementof some 31,000 persons in Assam and the stoppage of traffic onthe Assam-Nagaland border. An accord was, however, soonreached on the intervention of the Central authorities.

Secessionist Stir in Manipur

Manipur was another of the "seven sisters" in the north-eastregion where secessionist stir was launched. Manipur was formedby valleys inhabited by Meiteis and hills inhabited by tribes,mainly Nagas and Kukis. About 250 years ago, the Meiteis, whoformed 60% of the population, were "forcibly converted" toVishnava Hinduism. One of their organisations, Manipur NationalFront, told the Meiteis that Vaishnavism had led to their downfallby teaching them to abstain from meat, wine and war. That theyhad a glorious past, but that now they had to play second fiddleto the tribals and the mayangs. This organisation wanted theMeiteis to go back to their pre-Hindu religion, Sanamabi, so thattheir martial qualities were revived.

They formed various armed groups which openly advocatedthe secessions of Manipur from the Indian Union. The chief amongthem were: People's Liberation Army, a Maoist organisation ledby Biseswar Singh, the People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak,the Red Army and the Revolutionary People's Front, formerlyknown as the Armed Revolutionary Government of Manipur. Allthese organizations were banned by the Centre on 26 October1979 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. By,June 19.81, the People's Revolutionary Party was believed to have

"indifferent" to the agitation against the non-Assamese, and thatthe anti-social elements had been encouraged by that indifference.On instructions from New Delhi the Assam Government tookstern action against the Lachit Sena volunteers, and the situationcame under control.

In the later months of 1979, an agitation against the inclusionof "foreigners" in the electoral rolls developed in Assam under theleadership of two organisations called the All-Assam GanaSangram Parishad and the All-Assam Students Union. Between1964 and 1971, about 1,000,000 people had entered into Assamfrom what then was East Pakistan prior to the creation ofBangladesh, and about 2,00,000 of them had been, allegedly,registered as voters. The Central Government declared these"refugees" as entitled to Indian citizenship. The above twoorganisations demanded the detection, disenfranchisement anddeportation of these "aliens": The tripartite talks carried on betweenthe AASU and the AAGSP on the one side and the CentralGovernment and Opposition parties on the other proved abortive.In February 1983, elections were held for the Legislative Assemblyof Assam, but these were opposed and boycotted by the nationalistand student groups who considered them as "illegal". Only 10 percent voters cast their votes, and the violence that occurred duringthe voting resulted in the massacre of several thousand people.The Congress (I) got 90.of the 108 seats that were filled and itsleader, Hiteswar Saika, was sworn in as the Chief Minister on 17February. On the same day, President's rule was formally revoked.The AASU and the AAGSP decided to topple the "illegally" electedMinistry of Saika because the electoral rolls contained the namesof "a large number of foreigners".

Although, the Assam agitation was initially launched on the"foreigners" issue, the extremist groups took advantage and startedintimidating the non-Assamese speaking people on the one sideand accusing the Centre of neglecting Assam on the other. Towardsthe end of December 1979, posters exhorting the people of thenorth-east to unite and recreate a "golden Assam" appeared in theSibsagar district of Upper Assam. These posters urged the peopleto disrupt transport links with the rest of the country, so that teaand oil were not supplied to areas outside the region. One pamphlet


formation of an independent state by force. The tribals killedhundreds of Bengali immigrants (500 were assassinated in oneday on 13 June 1980) and the Bengales assaulted the tribals anddestroyed their hearths and homes as-and when possible. The antiforeignism became the main theme of the tribal movement, becausethe tribals felt that after the independence of the country they hadbecome a minority in their own land, and that while "outsiders"had occupied the more fertile and developed lowlands theycontinued to live in dispersed villages in the forests and hillswhich covered the major part of the state. The "anti-foreignism"in Tripura was supported by similar movements in other parts ofthe north-eastern region.

Unrest in Meghalaya

Meghalaya was another state of the north-east region wherean alarming situation developed in the later months of 1979.There, the agitation was directed not only against immigrantsfrom Bangladesh but also against all non-tribal people, mainly theBengalis. The hostility between the tribals and non-tribals oftendubbed as "outsiders" was even sharper in Meghalaya thananywhere else in the, sensitive north-east, with the possibleexception of Tripura. The non-tribal people from other states wereevicted from their homes, and their names were removed fromthe electoral registers, on the pretext that they were not Indiancitizens. The cause of unrest was a feeling of neglect by theauthorities in New Delhi. The prevailing sentiment was: "The restof India does not see us. If seen, we are not recognised. If recognised,we are not remembered. And we are not heard."

An attempt was made to divert the unrest along constitutionallines. General election for the 60-member state Assembly was heldon 17 February 1983. Twenty-five seats were won by Congress (I),15, each by the Hill State People's Democratic Party and the AllParty Hill Leaders Conference, 2 by the Public DemandsImplementation Convention and 3 by independents. After all theprincipal parties had claimed the right to attempt to form agovernment, a coalition agreement was apparently reachedbetween the HSPDP and the APHLC to constitute a new MeghalayaUnited Parliamentary Party, with B.B. Lyngdoh as leader. He was

disintegrated but the People's Liberation Army remained, and incooperation with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland itresorted to violent activities to pursue the secession of Manipurfrom the Indian Union. It served "quit Manipur" notice on non-Manipuris, attacked them and killed many civil Governmentofficials and the security force. The Meitei organisations indulgedin acts of looting and intimidation of civil population andmaintained contacts with foreign countries who assisted themwith money, arms and training.

Their rebellious activities were not new, but were rather acontinuing process, but they got a new momentum in late 1970and early 1980 because of "utter neglect" from New Delhi.Unemployment among the educated youth, widespread corruptionin administration, non-implementation of development projectand, above all, the "loss of Meitei identity" were the factors thatled to the resurgence of secessionist stir in Manipur. That stir gotsupport even from Chief Minister Rajkumar Dorendra Singh whodescribed it as good and national.

Unrest in Tripura

Another state of the north-east where regionalism waswitnessed was Tripura. During the 1970s, the tribals there agitatedfor their rights and privileges as original residents of the state,because they were reduced to a minority with the migration intotheir state of thousands of Hindu Bengalis from East Pakistan. Thesituation was worsened because a Bengali organisation by thename Amra Bengali" resisted the attempts of the Government toimprove their lot. The CPM Government of Nripen Chakravorty,which first came into power in December 1977 and then again inJanuary 1983 as a result of elections for the 60-member stateAssembly, offered to the tribals an autonomous council, but it wasnot accepted to them because the powers that were proposed tobe conferred upon it were much less than what they had beenaspiring for.

They set up the Tripura Upajati Jaba Samiti to fight for theircause. A militant organisation, known as Tripura Sena, was alsoorganised, and in collusion with the Mizo National Front it carriedon acts of terrorism and armed rebellion inside Tripura, for the


the "United States of Assam" were formed with the object ofcreating an independent state in the region through armedrebellion. In addition, the" Amra Bengali" and the Anand Margcirculated pamphlets and leaflets calling for "Bengalisthan".

The secessionist elements in all the five states and two UnionTerritories were, it was alleged, receiving military training inBurma and China. The pamphlets being circulated stressed theneed for the "formation of a secret society at different levels withunderground headquarters under a single leadership-with strictdiscipline, code and conduct". For a time, it appeared as if thewhole of the north-eastern region was going to break away fromthe Indian Union; although that did not happen.

DEMANDS FOR SEPARATE STATEHOOD

Reorganization of States

Another manifestation of regionalism in the post-Independence era as the demands in several parts of the countryfor separate statehood. The framers of the Constitution hadabolished the then-existing designation of the constituent units,namely Provinces, and styled them as states.

The states were classified into three categories as set forthbelow. In category were included the formerly-known Governor'sProvinces. These were Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh(formerly Central Provinces), Madras, Orissa, Punjab (formerlyEast Punjab), Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces of Agraand Oudh), and West Bengal. The former Princely states wereincluded into category B states. These were Hyderabad, Jammuand.Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and East PunjabStates' Union, Rajasthan,-Saurashtra and Travancore-Cochin. Thesewere either big Princely state that survived the process ofintegration of states formed by the merger of about 275 smallerPrincely states.

Formerly known as Chief Commissioner's Provinces comprisedthe C category of states. These were Ajmer (formerly Ajmer-Merwara), Bhopal, Bilaspur, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,Kutch, Manipur, Tripura and Vindhya Pradesh, about 6 Princelystates were merged into these states.

sworn in as Chief Minister on 2 March 1983. A rival coalitionknown as Meghalaya Democratic Front was formed by CaptainSangma with Congress (I) support and from others and he replacedLyngdoh on 2 April of the same year. The state began to moveon the lines of parliamentanimism and the anti foreign stirsubsided, at least for the time being

North-East as a Whole in Crisis

As discussed above Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura,Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram comprising thenorth-eastern region of India were in the midst of turmoil. Thewar-cry changed from place to place. In Assam, the rumpus wasover the issue of "foreigners", and the wan posters there screamed:"Indians go back". In Mizoram, where the outlawed Mizo NationalFront had taken up arms to achieve its goal of "independent"Mizoram, hen was let loose on the "vais" or "outsiders". In distutbedManipur, a sustained drive was made to get rid of "mayangs" of"aliens". In strife-tom Meghalaya, the ultras day in and day outchanted: "Meghalaya for Meghalayan Tribals", and the slogan wasraised "kill "the Bengalis". The "chief of the Public DemandsImplementation Convention, Martin Narayan, justified the killingfor "self-preservation". In Nagaland, the hostile Nagas carried oninsurgent movement for secession from the Indian Union at regularintervals. In Tripura, the disgruntled tribals, led by B.K.Rankhal,rallied under the "Banner of Tripura Tribal National VolunteerForce, to carry on their armed crusade against the 12 lakh Bengalisettlers from erstwhile East Pakistan who had made them aminority in their own homeland. Arunachal Pradesh borderingChina was the only territory to have eluded the contagion ofrebellion, but it too had an unstable polity.

Towards the late seventies an underground organisation ofrebels called "NAMMAT" comprising the five states and twoUnion Territories of the north-east region was formed withheadquarters in northern Burma with the objective of setting upan independent federal state in the region. The chief of thisorganisation was T. Muivah who had been, at one time, oustedfrom the leadership of the underground Naga organisation. Twoother organisations called-the "Seven Units Liberation Army" and


basis. These units should cover virtually the entire Country, and(b) "territories" which for vital strategic or other considerationscould not be joined to any of the states and should, therefore, beCentral1y-administered.

The SRC suggested that the "Territories" might include theexisting category C' states that were not to be merged and category'territories. These "Territories", it was proposed, should berepresented in Parliament, but there should be no division ofresponsibility in 'respect of them. "Democracy in these areas," theSRC observed, "should take the form of the people being associatedwith the administration in an advisory rather than a directivecapacity."

Keeping in view' the recommendations of the SRC, Parliamentpassed, in April 1956, the States Reorganization Bill, and the stateswere reorganised, largely on the basis of language. The distinctionbetween category A and B states was ended, and category C stateswere abolished. Some of them were merged into the newly-createdstates and others were re-designated as Union Territories. Thenumber of states after reorganisation was reduced to fourteen.These were Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Kerala,Madhya Pral1esh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan,Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir.

The Union Territories after the reorganisation of states were:Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Andaman andNicobar Islands and Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands.When after the military action Goa, Daman and Diu were takenover by India in December 1961, Parliament passed, in March1962, the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Bill, and theformer Port1,lguese possessions were made a Union Territory.

As a result of Agreement on 21 October 1954, between Indianand French Governments the fQur former French settlements-(Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam) were ceded to Indiain May 1956, although the de jure transfer took place a little later.These four settlements were unified into one under the name ofPondicherry, and this was added to the list of Union Territories.Afier the reorganisation of Punjab in November 1966, Chandigarhcity was also made a Union Territory. Thus, the number rose tonine.

Apart from these categories of states there were territoriesspecified in Part D of the First Schedule of the Constitution. Thesewere Andaman and Nicobar islands.

The states in A and B categories were almost identical instatus except that while the former were headed by a Governorthe latter were headed by a Rajprimukh. Category C states wereplaced under the direct control of the Union Government andwere administered on a unitary basis. In regard to Andaman andNicobar islands the Union Government exercised not only completeexecutive authority but also legislative power.

The disparity in the status of the constituent units of theIndian Union was incongruous, but this was allowed to continuebecause at the time of Independence there existed three categoriesof administrative units, namely Governor's Provinces, ChiefCommissioner's Provinces and Princely states, and the framers ofthe Constitution were involved in more urgent and complicatedtasks, and they wanted to take up the issue of reorganisations ofthe constituent units at some appropriate time. The three-tierclassification was not made by the British rulers on any rationalor scientific basis, but was, rather, the consequence of circumstancesattending the growth of. British power which took more than ahundred years. Whenever some fairly large territory was acquiredor annexed a separate administrative unit was formed with someminor adjustment with other Provinces. This was largely donefrom political, military and economic considerations. Ideas ofethnic or linguistic homogeneity hardly influenced the decisionof foreign masters in this matter. Once the Republic had beenfounded in 1949-50 the people began to clamour for linguistichomogeneity, and the state of Andhra was formed, more or lesson linguistic basis, on 1 October 1953. This was given the statusof 'A' class state.

Realising that the issue of reorganization of states could notbe postponed for long the Union Government set up, in 1953, aCommission, known as State Reorganisation Commission (SRC).After considering all the relevant facts the SRC recommended thatthe constituent units of the Indian Union should be classified onlyinto two categories: (a) "states" forming primary constituent unitshaving a constitutional relationship with the Centre on a federal


contribute towards the cost of building a 'new capital for Gujarat.The Union Government decided to bifurcate the state. On 8 March1960, the Bombay Reorganisation Bill providing for division of thebilingual state from 1 May 1960 into Marathi-speaking andGujarati-speaking, states to be known as Bombay and Gujarat wasplaced before the Assembly pnor 'to its submission to Parliament.It was passed three days later. 'The Lok Sabha adopted it on 19April, and Rajya Sabha on 23 April. Two days later, the Billreceived President's assent. The new states came officially intobeing at midnight of 30 April 1960. Now, the number of statebecame fifteen. When on 1 December 1963, the state of Nagaland(to which reference has been made already) was created the numberof states went up to sixteen.

Demand for Separate Vidarbha State

As stated earlier, the SRC had recommended that the Marathispeaking districts of Madhya Pradesh should be formed into aseparate state of Vidarbha. But this was not accepted by theCentral Government, and those districts were formed part of thestate of Bombay. The people there felt aggrieved, but they wereoffered by the Bombay Government certain assurances that theirinterests would be well safeguarded. When in 1960 a proposal forthe bifurcation of Bombay was under consideration the demandfor the creation of separate state of Vidarbha was revived. SomeCongress MLAs from the Nagpur area strongly demanded theformation of Vidarbha. They were influenced in their views bydislike of the declined political importance of Nagpur which until1956 had been the capital of Madhya Pradesh. Many otherCongressman expressed the opposition to this demand. On 4December 1969, the Congress Working Committee adopted aresolution opposing the formation of a Vidarbha state, butrecommending that adequate arrangements be made for theprotection of Vidarbha's interests and the status of Nagpur.

As a result, the Government of Bombay gave an assurance,on 14 March 1960, that the state Government would move toNagpur for a definite period every year, that at least one sessionof the Assembly would be held there every year, that a separatedevelopment board would be set up for Vidarbha,.and thatexpenditure on development in the different regions would be in

Demands for Further Reorganisation of States

The reorganisation of states on linguistic basis did not solvethe problem finally; it, rather, made it more complicated. Theaspirations of people in several parts of India for a separate politicalentity got a new impetus, and in order to satisfy those aspirationsthey began to organise agitations and campaigns. The first suchdevelopment took place in the state of Bombay.

Bifurcation of Bombay

The SRC had recommended that Bombay should remain abilingual state, that the Gujarati-speaking states of Saurashtra andKutch and Marathi-speaking districts of Hyderabad should beincorporated in Bombay, and that the, Marathi-speaking districtof Madhya Pradesh should form a Separate state to be known asVidarbha. These recommendations were adopted after prolongedcontroversy except that the Marathi-speaking districts of MadhyaPradesh were added to Bombay and not made a separate state ofVidarbha. This settlement aroused bitter opposition and violentrioting by supporters of Marathi and Gujarati states took place inBombay city and Ahmedabad on several occasions during 1955-56. In Bombay city and Maharashtra both the left and right wingopposition parties united, on the eve of second General Election,in the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti to advocate a separateMaratha state with Bombay as its capital. In Gujarat, a similaralliance, Mahagujarat Janata Parishad, was formed to agitate fora separate Gujarati state. As a result of the acyvities of both ofthese organisations the Congress Party, which stood by the SR'Crecommendations, lost many seats in the Lok Sabha and the stateAssembly. Chief Minister Y.B.Chavan made efforts to bring about"emotional integration" between Maharashtrians and Gujaratis,but his efforts bore no Fruit.

In August 1956, the Congress Working Committee approveda proposal to divide Bombay into two states. The dispute whetherBomber city should-be included in a Maratha or a gujarati state(which was the main factor leading to Union Government'sdecision in 1956 in favour of a bilingual state) was settled by acompromise solution. It was mutually agreed that Bombay wouldbecome the capital of the Maharashtra state and she would


number of essential subjects of common interest were to be assignedto the regional federation, and the functioning of the rest of thesubjects was to be left to the federating units. The APHLC agreed,OR f8 January 1967, to accept this proposal, but shortly after, theAssam Pradesh Congress Committee expressed its disapproval ofthe arrangement and took the view that the hills and plains ofAssam were closely interlinked that the existence and developmentof the one without the other was impossible, and that theirseparation would jeopardize the security and defence of the area.This made the APHLC rigid, and it revived demand for a separatehill state.

In December 1967, an announcement was made by the APHLCthat if the Union Government failed to announce proposals forthe reorganisation of Assam in the Budget session of Parliament,its members would resign from the Assam Legislature. This wasnot done, and on 25 May 1968, nine APHLC members of theAssembly representing the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo Hillsresigned..on 9 September, complete harta/ was observed inShillong (the capital of Assam which was situated in the KhasiHills area) and the non-violent agitation spread to other towns.Two days later, the Union Government agreed to create theautonomous hill state in Assam, and in late April 1969, Parliamentpassed the Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Bill,authorizing the Government to do so. In December of the sameyear, Parliament adopted the Assam Reorganisation Bill, and on2 April 1970, the hill state, known as Meghalaya, was inauguratedby Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

This was an autonomous state within Assam, and wasprovided with its own Legislature and Council of Minister. Butthis did not satisfy the aspirations of the people, and on 30September 1970, the Meghalaya Assembly unanimously resolvedto request the Union Government to convert the autonomousstate into a full-fledged state. This demand was eventuallyconceded in January 1972. This raised the number of states toeighteen.

The reorganisation of Assam, however, was not complete.The Bengali-speaking people of the Cachar Hills of Assamcomplained that their rights and interests were not safe in the

proportion to their population. This did not satisfy all the peopleof the Vidarbha region. They formed Nag Vidarbha AndolanSamiti to campaign for the creation of Vidarbha state. On 30March 1961, serious rioting and violence took place in and aroundNagpur. The police had to open fire and several lives were lost.But with the lapse of time the movement for Vidarbha subsided,although casual demands continued to be made from time totime.

Bifurcation of Punjab

The Punjabi-speaking people of the state of Punjab, mainlySikhs, under the leadership of the Akali Dal, demanded a separatePunjab i-speaking state and the Hindus, under the leadership ofthe Jan Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha and the Arya Samaj urged theunion of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Patiala and East PunjabStates Union into a "greater Punjab" containing a Hindu majority.Both sides resorted to agitation, violence, strikes, demonstrationsand fasts sometimes "fast unto death." The Centre did not concedetheir demands. Sant Fateh Singh, leader of one of the two factionsof the Akali Dal, held out a threat that if by 25 September 1966the demand for a Punjabi-speaking suba were not conceded hewould burn himself to death. The situation in Punjab became verytense. Apprehending a danger to the integrity and security of thecountry, the Centre decided, on 1 November 1966, to divide Punjabon linguistic lines. The Punjab i-speaking districts formed the stateof Punjab; seven Hindi-speaking districts formed the state ofHaryana, and the Hindi-speaking hilly areas of Punjab contiguousto Himachal Pradesh were transferred to that state. The numberof states now went up to seventeen

Reorganisation of Assam

The state of Assam, with Burma on its east and East Pakistanon its south, contained elements, apart from the Mizos and theNagas, that clamoures for a separate political entity. First amongthem were non-Assamese tribal people living in the areas of Garo,Khasi Jaintia, and the Mikir and north Cachar. They formed theAll-Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC) and demanded aseparate hill state. The Union Government agreed to reorganiseAssam on a federal basis. Under this arrangement, a limited


the deputy Chief Mjnister would be drawn from Telengana andvice versa.

On the basis of this agreement, the state of Andhra Pradeshwas reformed on 1 November 1956. But the agreement did notwork were, and the people of Telengana began to express theirdissatisfaction and resentment. Voices were raised throughout the19608 that they should be separated from Andhra Pradesh, anda separate state of Telengana should be created. The students ofOsmania University coming from the Telengana region developedan apprehension that they would not be able to completesuccessfully with Andhra students, and that their futureemployment opportunities would be jeopardised. In January 1969,they launched an agitation demanding that the' agreement of 1956should be implemented "fully and sincerely." At first, the agitationwas generally peaceful, but later on it became violent.

The then Chief Minister, Brahmanand Reddy and 44 MLAsannounced that all Andhras appointed to posts reserved for thepeople of Telengana would be immediately transferred to Andhraregion, and all the vacancies thereby occurring would be filled byqualified candidates from Telengana, and that the revenue surplusfrom Telengana would be utilized only for the development ofthat, region. Following this announcement, the agitation for aseparate state of Telengana was called off.

When the families of Andhra civil servants returned fromTelengana the students of Andhra launched a' counter agitation.With this, the Telengana agitation also revived. The Telenganaleaders formed a. Praja Samiti to press their demand for a separatestate. The situation became so tense and menacing that troops hadto be called in-to maintain peace and order.

An announcement by the Prime Minister: on 26 March 1969,that steps would soon be taken to redress-the grievances of theTelengana people, had no effect, and the movement for thebifurcation of Andhra Pradesh became violent, leading to thedestruction of government property, firing by the police on unrulymobs and the arrest of hundreds of people including theTelenganaPraja Samiti (TPS) Chairman, Madan Mohan. A numberof prominent Congressmen announced their support for theseparatist movement.

hands of the Assam Government which, they alleged, was notproviding adequate facilities for the study of Bengali in educationalinstitutions. They, therefore, demanded a separate state, of theirown. The move became quite strong, particularly among the "youngblood" during early 1973. But the Union Government turned downtheir demand and told them that they should learn to live withthe rest of Assam.

Demand for Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh

The States Reorganisation Commission had recommended inits report in 1955 that the multi-lingual-state of Hyderabad shouldbe broken up, and the Kannada-speaking areas thereof should bemerged with the state of Mysore and the Marathi-speaking areaswith the state of Bombay. The Commission had also recognised,that there were strong arguments in favour of the union of theTelugu-speaking-area of Hyderabad state (known as Telengana)with Andhra in a single elugu-speaking state, but it did not suggestthat step immediately because of the existence of a feeling amongthe people of Telengana that they might be "swamped andexploited" by the more-highly educated people of Andhra. TheCommission, therefore, had recommended that Telengana shouldbe a separate state, but that a provision should be made for itsunion with Andhra after the third General Election "if a two-thirds majority of the Legislature of Telengana expressed itself infavour."

But the Union Government decided to unite Telengana withAndhra, of the ground that resultant uncertainty would retardTelegana's economic development. As a condition for union theCongress Party leaders of Andhra and Telengana concluded in1956 the following accordingly (i) all members of the state Assemblyfrom Telengana region would form a Regional Committee to dealwith matters relating to that region; (ii) the entire revenue fromTelengana would be spent on the development of that region, ofcourse after meeting its proportionate share of the commonexpenditure of the state of Andhra Pradesh; (iii) the recruitmentto government posts in Telengana region carrying a salary of upto Rs 500 a month would be made for five years only from amongthe persons who had lived in Telengana for at least fifteen years;and (iv) when the chief Minister of the state came from Andhra


These two developments cast gloom in the TPCC circles, andit directed its thirty-five MLAs and twelve MLCs to withdrawtheir support from Reddy's Government. Union Defence Minister,M.R. Krishna, Parliament member Akbar Ali Khan, and a labourleader, G. Sanjiva Reddy, sought to bring about a rapprochementbetween the TPCC/TPS and Andhra Pradesh Government leaders,but both sides stuck to their positions.

In mid-November 1970, a TPS candidate, Madan Mohan,defeated a Congress Party candidate, V.P Rejeshwar Rao, in theSiddipet by election. The candidate of the Communist Party ofIndia that stood for a united Andhra Pradesh gave a very pooraccount. In the wake of this victory, TPS leader M. Chenna Reddyurged the Union and state Government leaders "to read the writingon the wall and to concede the demand for a separate state ofTelengana."

But the Prime Minister, rather curtly, that Andhra Pradeshwould not be bifurcated. In late December 1970, President Giridissolved the lok Sabha and ordered fresh election. Apprehendingthat the indignant TPS might tilt the balance in favour of theOpposition parties Indira Gandhi offered new proposals to it, andinvited Brahmanand Reddy and TPS leader Mr. M. Chenna Reddyfor talks on the basis of her proposals. While TPS leader insistedon a firm assurance on the future status of Telengaria anddemanded that Congress should nominate all the 14 Lok Sabhacandidates from Telengana. On the advice of the TPS, the ChiefMinister told the Prime Minister that the "separatists" should begiven no quarter, and that the Congress should fight them in theelection. The talks ended in fiasco. The TPS contested the electionon the basis of a separatist programme and won ten seats.

Thereafter followed tortuous negotiations between Mrs.Gandhi and TPS leader Chenna Reddy, and eventually a "six-point" agreement was reached. The TPS agreed to merge itselfwith the Congress. The Prime Minister was authorised to reviewthe situation after three years and to decide conclusively whetherthere should be a separate Telengana. The other provisions of theagreement provided that the Telengana Regional Committee wouldbe accorded statutory status, that the constitutional validity of the"Mulki Rules" on employment opportunities for the Telengana

On 11 April, the Prime Minister announced an eight-pointprogramme to assure that the pace of development and expansionof employment opportunities would be accelerated, but this hadno effect, and the TPS leader, Mrs. T.N. Sadalakshmi, declaredthat the agitation for a separate state would continue. On 26 May,t I TPS launched a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign. TheCongressmen of Telengana held a convention on 1 June, supportedseparation from the Andhra, seceded from the Andhra PradeshCongress Committee, and formed an independent TelenganaPradesh Congress Committee (TPCC), with Konda LakshmanBapuji as its President. Mr. M. Chenna Reddy assumed thechairmanship of the TPS. The Bharti.1a Kranti Dal and the separatestate of Telengana and the local units Of the SSP, PSP familiesRepublican Party took active part in the agitation The CommunistParty of India and the CPM opposed the demand.,: Some universityprofessors, retired civil' servants, a former Chief Justice of theHyderabad High Court and some businessmen submitted 'to theGovernor a memorandum protesting against "the repressivemeasure of the state Government to crush the Telenganamovement" and emphasizing that "either separation nor a unitedAndhra Pradesh, should be imposed on an unwilling people.They demanded that President's rule should be promulgated inAndhra Pradesh and thereafter the peoples' wish whether theywanted separation from or unity with Andhra should beascertained.

Eight Ministers in Brahmanand Reddy's Government, whocame from the Telengana region, resigned, and said that theywould work among the people "in order to create a psychologicalclimate conducive to achieving full integration of the two regionsof Andhra Pradesh." The Chief Minister also placed his resignationin the hands of the Congress Parliamentary Board, so that thewhole issue could be examined dispassionately and freely. In themeantime, the agitation-closure of business, demonstrations, strike,destruction of property and police firing-continued unabated.

On 6 August 1969, Home Minister Chavan reiterated theGovernment's intention not to split Andhra Pradesh to create aseparate state of Telengana. Shortly after this, Brahmanand Reddywithdrew his resignation from the Chief Ministership.


relating to, inter alia, any requirement as a residence within a stateas a condition for employment by that state Continued in forceuntil altered, replaced or amended by Parliament) and, therefore,demanded valid' even after the formation of Andhra Pradesh.

As Hyderabad city, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, was inTelengana the Supreme Court ruling implied that all the posts inthe state secretariat, including those of Judges, might be held onlyby people born in Telengana or who had lived there for 15 years.

In November 1972, an agitation for the abolition of "MulkiRules" commenced in Andhra, and the students took the leadingpart. They demanded that Andhra should be made a separatestate. The situation became very grave and the army had to becalled in to assist the civil authorities in maintaining order.

On 27 November, Mrs. Gandhi put forward a compromiseplan whereby-(a) the "Mulki Rules" would apply only to non-gazetteed and junior posts; (b) in the secretariat and the office ofheads of department of the state Government the Rules wouldapply for filling the second vacancy in every unit of three vacanciesin non-gazetted posts; and (c) they (Rules) would cease to operatein Hyderabad after 1977, and in the rest of Telengana, after 1980:"Mulki Rules" Bill, incorporating these provisions receivedPresident's assent on 30 december 1982. This Act evoked strongopposition.on both'Andhra and Telengana, the people in Andhrademanding the abolition of "Mulki Rules" and those in Telannganainsisting on their enforcement. Seventy-three of the 141 CongressMLAs from Andhra demanded the separation of Andhra fromTelengana, and they, as well as 11 Congress MPs from Andhra,called on the people to paralyse the government by refusing topay taxes. They launched a violent agitation, and the stateadministration virtually collapsed.

In view of this situation Chief Minister Narasimha Raosubmitted, on 17 January 1973, the resignation of his Ministry onthe advice of the Central leaders. On the following day, President'srule was promulgated in the state in a bid to prevent bifurcationof the state and 1to restore law and order. The Assembly wassuspended and not dissolved. This was done in the hope thatagitation and violence would end, and it would become possibleto revive the popular rule. Rao's exit did not stem the agitation.

people would not be challenged, that separate five-year plans forthe Telengana region would be drawn up, and that a person fromTelengana would become the Chief Minister. According to thisagreement, Brahmanand Reddy resigned from Chief Ministershipand P.V. Narasimha Rao occupied this office.

Many in the Telengana region apprehended in the wake ofthis agreement that TPS led by Chenna Reddy might sabotagetheir fight for a separate state of Telengana. On 10 January 1971,they formed a rival TPS with Satyanarayan Reddy of the SamyuktaSocialist Party as their leader. While the former TPS came to termswith the reality of the post-election situation; the latter TPScontinued its fight, though on a low key.. It was lent support bythe Organisational Congress, the SSP, the Swatantra Party. On theeve of the fifth General Election to state Assemblies in March 1972the. rival TPS passed a resolution stating that nothing short ofseparate statehood for Telengana would satisfy the people there.

When in 1956, Telengana region of Hyderabad was unitedwith Andhra to form Andra Pradesh the "Mulki Rules" wereretained, though in a modified form, to ensure that the highereducational standards prevailing in Andhra did not placeTelenganas at disadvantage in competing for employment These'Rules' had been introduced in 1919 by the Nizam of Hyderabad,and government posts and admission to educational institutionswere reserved exclusively for persons who had been born in thestate or who had lived there for 15 years. Although 85 per centpopulation of the state of Hyderabad was Hindu all importantposts were held by the Muslims. The original purpose of the"Mulki Rules" was to discourage Muslims of other areas frommoving into Hyderabad state to take advantage of that situation.

Violating the "six-point" agreement, some people from theAndhra region challenged the 'Constitutional validity of the "MulkiRules", and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the "MulkiRules" were unconstitutional, as they violated Article 16(2) of theConstitution which stated that no citizen shall be ineligible for anypublic employment on grounds of, inter alia, residence. On appeal,the Supreme Court held, on 3 October 1972, that the "Mulki Rules"were covered by Article 35(b) (which laid down that any law inforce immediately before the commencement of the Constitution


Both sides did not change their basic stand, namely thebifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, but they considered the formulaas the best "under the circumstance." Leaders from both sidesendorsed the formula and a climate for the restoration of popularrule was created. Since Narasimha Rao was not able to end violenceand the state had to be brought under President's rule it wasthought necessary to replace him by another more-widelyacceptable Chief Minister. But the Congress Legislature Party wasnot able to agree upon the issue of leadership. On 1 December1973, it adopted a resolution, unanimously authorising the PrimeMinister to select a leader. Her choice fell upon J.Vengal Rao whohad been the Home Minister in the Brahmanand Reddy's Cabinetand Industries Minister in the Government of Narasimha Rao.'On 10 December 1973, he and a 15-member Council of Ministerswere sworn in, and the ll-month old President's rule in AndhraPrapesh ended. Shortly thereafter, the Union Governmentintroduced in Parliament the Constitution (Thirty-third)Amendment Bill to give constitutional authority to the six-pointformula. It was passed by the Lok sabha on 18 December. TheHouse also passed the Bill to provide for the repeal of the "MulkiRules." The problem appeared to have been resolved. But the six-point formula did not work to the satisfaction of the separatistsin Telengana. They formed the Telengana Rights ProtectionCommittee for the purpose of restarting a campaign for the creationof a separate state of Telengana.

This Committee held on 21 July 1974, a one-day conventionwhich adopted a number of resolutions. The main resolution saidthat the convention believed that the' future of Telengana lay inthe realisation of its demand for a separate identity. It also saidthat while the government and politicians might "indulge inunscrupulous political games" the public would continue to strivefor a separate state. It warned the Central Government that ifearly steps were not taken to fulfil the aspirations of the Telenganapeople they would be "constrained and forced to take steps tousher in Telengana' state" and the Centre would be responsiblefor the consequences. Although no such steps were initiated theseparatists in Andhra Pradesh continued to give vent to theirfeelings of unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

On 21 January, Congress leaders of Andhra decided to resignfrom the party, and declared that if by 5 February, a separateAndhra state was not formed "a revolution unprecedented inhistory" would take place. On the same day, the Congress leadersof Telengana formed the Congress Forum for Separate Telenganato work for immediate separation from Andhra. The agitation inboth the regions became widespread and violent.

In order to suppress these activities the Union Governmentdeployed a battalion of Central Reserve Police, and according tothe allegation of G. Larchanna, Chairman of the Praja Parishadand a member of the Central Action Council which wasspearheading the separate Andhra agitation, about 300 personswere shot dead. Although violence subsided the separatistmovement continued. On 1 February 1973, Larchanna warned theCentre that if a separate state of Andhra was not formed "the massupsurge would snowball into a larger movement in Andhra seekingseparation from the Indian Union." He also declared that the issueof separation was "not negotiable."

Apprehending lest the situation should deteriorate beyondcontrol the Central Government began to work for a negotiatedsettlement. After protracted talks spreading over a period of sixmonths a six point formula was devised. This was as under:

(1) "Mulki Rules" and Telengana Regional Committee will go.

(2) Local candidates will be given preference for directrecruitment to non-gazetted posts, and the same coursewill be followed for the posts of tehsildars junior, engineersand civil assistant surgeons and jobs under the local bodies.

(3) A high-powered tribunal will be constituted to deal withservices' grievances.

(4) A state-level planning board with sub-committees fordifferent backward areas will be constituted.

(5) A new Central university will be established at Hyderabadto augment existing educational facilities, and preferencewill be given to local candidates for admission toeducational institutions.

(6) The Constitution will be amended to the extent necessaryfor implementing the above points.


launched an agitation in April 1993, for the formation of a separatestate for them. This was done by the Gorkha National LiberationFront. Subhas Ghesing was their leader. The agitation, however,did not get much momentum.

The Tribals living in about 1,400 villages of the Singhbhumdistrict of Bihar, known as Kolhans, sought to establish anindependent "Kolhanistan" in the Chaibasa region of that district.In October 1987, they formed an organisation called the KohlanRaksha Sangh to agitate for the fulfilment of their demand. Theirleaders visited London, Geneva and New York to seek recognitionfor the "Kohlan Government" and also to seek membership of theUnited Nations. In November 1983, the Kohlan Raksha Sanghsubmitted a memorandum to the chairman of the CommonwealthHeads of Government meeting in New Delhi (CHOGM). Theextremists among the Kohlans took to murders and abductionsand both the Central and state Government felt seriously concernedabout their activities.

Demands for Full-Fledged Statehood

Yet another manifestation of regionalism in India was thedemand of Union Territories for full-fledged statehood. On 4September 1962, the Lok Sabha, and on 7 September, the RajyaSabha passed the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Billenabling Parliament to create local legislatures for some of theseTerritories. The Territories covered by this Bill were HimachalPradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Pondicherry and Goa, Daman andDiu. The remaining Union Territories-the Andaman and NicobarIslands, the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindive Islansd and Delhi~ were excluded from the scope of the Bill. Those Territories feltaggrieved, and started a campaign against the discriminatorypolicy of the Union Government.

On 28 March 1969, Minister of State for Home Affairs, V.C.Shukla, stated on the floor of the Lok Sabha that the policy of theGovernment was either to merge the Union Territories with theadjoining bigger states or convert them into full-fledged states"when the conditions become proper" except in those cases whereit was absolutely essential to keep them as Union Territories.These exceptions, he said, were Delhi, the Andaman and Nicobar

Separate Statehood Demands in Other Parts of India

A new form of regionalism which came to the fore in the 1970swas the demand for separate statehood in several states of theIndian Union. The Assam Plains Tribals demanded a separateUnion Territory for themselves. The told the Prime Minister, on20 December 1973, that the Assam state Government waspersistently oppressing the tribals, and that it was impossible forthem to live under the Assamese. The people of the former princelystate of Mysore demanded separation from the Karnataka districts.The hilly region of Kumaon and TehriGarhwal in Uttar Pradeshaspired for a state of their, own. BKD leaders Charan Singh andthe Jan Singh leaders demanded, from time to time, the bifurcationof UP in three states. Such a step alone, they said, would lead tothe development of the people inhabiting the largest state in' thecountry. On the eve of General Election for the Legislative Assemblyof UP in February 1974, eight hill districts Uttar Kashi. Tehri-Garhwal, Chamoli, Pithoragar, Almora, Naini Tal and Dehra Dun-in a communication to the chairman, Delimitation Committee,demanded more seats. It was argued that the UP hill people hadsuffered from chronic maladies due to inadequate representationin law-making bodies.

The ascension of Janata Party into pqwer in March 1977 revivedthe demand of these districts for an Uttarakhand, on grounds thatthe development of their region had been neglected. A remark byJayaprakash Narayan in November 1977 favouring smaller statesgave a fillip to divisionists everywhere. The "westerners" wantedan "Agra" or a "Meerut" state, with claims to Dehra Dun or a "Braj"state with parts of Rajasthan; the mid-westerners clamoured forRohilkhand; the south-westerners said they must.have aBundelkhand with some districts' of Madhya Pradesh; the south-easterners demanded a trans-Vindhya state; and finally theeasterners agitated for a "Bhojpur" state.consisting of parts ofUttar Pradesh and western Bihar, with Varanasi as its capital.

During 1980 and early 1981, the Gorkha League representingsome four lakh Nepalis living in the Darjeeling district of WestBengal raised the cry for "Gorkha Land", a separate state forNepalis, but the Central Government turned down their demandas not feasible. After a seven-year lull the hill people of Darjeeling


Demand for Bodoland

An All India Union of Students and the Bodoland People'sUnion demanded the creation of a separate state of Bodoland. Attimes the agitation became violent and aggressive, but neither theGovernment of India nor that of Assam was willing to concedetheir demand. On 2~ February 1993, the three sides signed anagreement (the Tripartite Agreement) and it provided for thecreation of an autonomous council within the boundaries of Assam.This council was to comprise 2,000 villages of and 38 vitaldepartments of the state government.

INTER-STATE BOUNDARY DISPUTES

Maharashtra-Mysore Boundary Dispute

Yet another form of regionalism was the dispute between oramong states of the Indian Union. The first such dispute tookplace between Mysore and Maharashtra. As stated earlier, on 8March 1960, the Bombay Reorganisation Bill providing for divisionof Bombay into Marathi-speaking state to be known as; Bombayand Guiarat was placed before the Assembly prior to its submissionto Parliament. This led, to an intensification of the controversyover those marathi-speaking areas, including the towns of Belgaum,Nipani and Karwar, which in 1956 had been included in Mysore(where the regional language was Kanarese) and which hadrecently been the scene of a civil disobedience campaign organisedby the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti (the alliance of Oppositionparties in the-Marathi area of Bombay) in favour of their indusio!)in Bombay. On 11 March the Bombay Legislative Assemblyadapted a resolution "strongly urging the Central Government toinitiate immediate steps and pursue them with a view to arrivingat a just and satisfactory settlement of the border." On the otherhand, the Mysore Legislature adopted, on the same day, aresolution requesting the 'Central Government to reaffirm that theboundary settled under States Reorganisation Act 1956, wouldnot be disturbed except for minor readjustment agreed to by thestates concerned.

The controversy dragged on. On 5 April 1966, the MaharashtraGovernment demanded that the areas in dispute should be mergedwith Maharashtra before the fourth General Election that is before

Island, the Laccadive, Minicoy am;! Amindive Islands. Thisannouncement encouraged those who had been agitating for thatstatus for the past several years. The members of Parliament fromHimachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Goa, Daman and Diu,political parties in those Territories assorted that from the pointof view of population and land area they deserved full-fledgedstatehood. The demand of Himachal Pradesh was conceded bythe Union Government on 31 July 1970, and it became thenineteenth state of the Indian Union. In January 1972, the UnionTerritories of Manipur and Tripura were also granted the statusof full-fledged states, and, thus, the number of states rose totwenty-one.

The politicians of the Union Territory of Delhi also raised acry that in view of its large population and financial viabilityDelhi should be made a full-fledged state, but the UnionGovernment turned down their demand, mainly on the groundthat Delhi was the country's capital, and separate statehood forit would not be in the national interest. However, in order tosatisfy the aspirations for the people for participation in law-making the Union Government set up a Metropolitan Councilcomprising 56 members. This did not satisfy the Delhi politicalleaders, and they continued to urge from time to time that nothingshort of' complete statehood would solve the problems of thepeople of Delhi. But the Union Government took a firm stand, andDelhi continued to be a Union Territory.

After the formation of Janata Party Government at the Centre,the state leaders of this party," such as Vijay Kumar Malhotra andChowdhry Brahm Prakash, approached the Centre forexpeditiously granting full fledged statehood to Delhi. Whilecampaigning for Metropolitan Council elections in June 1977,they asserted that if elected to power the Janata Party wouldpersuade the Centre to fulfill the aspirations of the people ofDelhi, but the authorities of the Janata Government appeared tobe reluctant to concede their demand. Mrs. Gandhi's Government,formed in January 1980, was also not in favour of ' granting thestatus of a full-Hedged state to the Union Territory of Delhi, andDelhi continued to be a Union Territory. However, steps weretaken to satisfy their aspirations in November 1993.


Parliament. But the Mysore Chief Minister, an OrganisationalCongress leader, turned down the proposal. The OrganisationalCongress Parliamentary Party, the Mysore MPs belonging tovarious political parties and the Mysore state Legislators told theCentre that they would "do all within their power" if a decisionwere 'imposed' upon Kamataka.

In the midst of accumulating pressure, the Minister of Statefor Home Affairs, K.c. Pant, laid, on 18 December 1970, the MahajanCommission report on the table of the Lok Sabha. and he declaredthat the Government had not been able to resolve conflict and wastherefore, seeking a verdict of Parliament. There was a loud uproar,and for the first time in the life of Parliament the Opposition MPsfrom Mysore staged a dharna inside the House. Mysore ChiefMinister Virendra Patil called Pant's step "a virtual surrender topressures from Maharashtra and Kerala," and said that "onlythose who cry the loudest get justice". There was mob violencein several Towns of Mysore, and the railways and other officesand establishments became the object of attack. A special sessionof the Mysore Assembly called in to discuss the Centre's placingof the report before Parliament, adjourned amidst dharna anduproar. A subsequent session, however, adopted by anoverwhelming majority a resolution urging the Union Governmentto introduce a Bill in Parliament and secure its adoption forimplementation of the recommendations of the Mahajancommission.

Mahdrashtra Chief minister, V.P. Naik welcomed the step ofthe Union Government. The Maharashtrians maintained calmwhen the Mysoreans attacked the Marathi-speaking people andtheir property in the Mysore areas bordering Maharashtra. TheGovernment took steps to see that no retaliatory activities tookplace against the Kannada-speaking people living in any part ofMaharashtra. The Shiv Sena also behaved with restraint, eventhough the Marathi newspapers published provocative headlines.Parliament did not, or could not, take a decision on the MahajanCommission report for three long years, and the people in bothMaharashtra and Karnataka (new name of the Mysore state givenby Parliament in 1973) became restive. Marathi-speaking peoplein Belgaum, Karnataka town, were attacked and humiliated by

February 1967. A unanimously adopted resolution of both Housesof Maharashtra 4gislature warned the Union Government that the"non-fulfilment of this demand will not only prove harmful to theinterests of the state but also to the unity and integrity of thewhole nation." The Union Government appointed, on 17 October1966, a one-man commission, added by a former Chief Justice ofIndia, Mehr Chand Mahajan, to investigate the dispute not onlybetween Mysore and Maharashtra but also between Mysore andKerala. The then Mysore Chief Minister, S. Nijalingappa, declaredthat while his Government was willing to make small boundaryadjustments it would not discuss the question of the Marathi-speaking areas being claimed by Maharashtra.

The Shiv Sena, led by Bal Thackeray, commenced a violentagitation involving virulent propaganda and physical assaultsagainst south Indians living in Maharashtra professedly to protectthe economic interest of the "native" Maharashtrians. Nijalingappaasked Maharasttra Chief Minister V.P. Naik to curb this"goondaism." The Chief Minister of Madras, Annadurai, describedthe Shiv Sena activities as "atrocious and barbarous." An "anti-Shiv Sena movement" was commenced in Madras, and the northIndian settlers there were asked quit the state.

On 7 February 1969, the Shiv Sena organised an agitationagain. Bal Thackeray was arrested under the Preventive DetentionAct, and this made the agitators riotous. About 50 persons werekilled in police firing. In the midst of this turmoil" the MahajanCommission submitted its report. The Sampoorna MaharashtraSamiti consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha, both wings of theCommunist Party of India, the SSP and the Peasants' and Workers'Party rejected the report outright, reiterated the demand that theMarathi-speaking areas of Mysore should be merged withMaharashtra, and urged that the dispute should be solved on "justlinguistic principles."

The Mysore leaders, including the new Chief Minister VirendraPatil, on the other hand, insisted that the recommendations of theMahajan Commission should be implemented in toto, and thatthere should be no "deviation" from them.

Confronted with two irreconcilable views, Prime MinisterIndira Gandhi proposed that a decision in the matter be left to


The Shiv Sena volunteers directed their activities against theKeralites too, although the dispute between Maharashtra andKerala was for different reasons. The Kerala Chief Minister,Achutha Menon, wrote to the Prime Minister seeking Centralintervention to secure the protection of Malayalees (people ofKerala) living in Bombay. During 1985, the Shiv Sena even talkedof stopping the influx of "outsiders" into Bombay, demanded a cutoff date and suggested 1972 or 1974, and it was supported by theCongress (I) Chief Minister Vasantrao Patil. This was a terriblyparochial outlook and endangered the country's unity andemotional integrity.

Punjab-Haryana Dispute over Chandigarh

Even after the decisions of the Union Government to bifurcatePunjab into two states of Punjab and Haryana those statescontinued to quarrel over their boundaries and mutual relationship.They did not like the creation of common links between them suchas a common Governor, a High Court and a University. On 2November 1966, seven followers of Sant Fateh Singh resignedfrom the Punjab Legislative Assembly as a protest against theexclusion of Chandigarh and other Punjab-speaking areas fromPunjab. The Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee President, ZailSingh, demanded the inclusion of Chandigarh and other Punjab-speaking areas into Punjab. On 5 December 1966. Sant FatehSingh announced that he would begin a fast in the Golden Templeand.would burn him self on 27 December if the demands werenot conceded by then. Six of his followers also made similarannouncement. Baghwat Dayal Sharma, the then Chief. Ministerof Haryana, was not willing to "surrender even an inch of itsterritory to anyone." On 10 December, he said that if the issue ofChandigarh was reopened the discussion would also have toembrace the Hindi-speaking areas that had been included inPunjab.

The President of the Arya Samaj, Yograj Suryadev, started anindefinite counter-fast in Chandigarh as a protest against theSants "undemocratic" action in holding out the threat of resortingto a fast. The dispute over Chandigarh continued, and efforts atdifferent levels to solve it failed. The situation became graveinvolving threats, violence, strikes and demonstrations. Ultimately,

the Kannada-speaking people and lot of violence and damagetook place. The trouble was sparked off by certain remarks whichthe Minister for Municipal. Administration, B. Basavalingappa,made against the Kannada language, against Mahatma Gandhi,and against Gita and the Gods.

He also spoke of "5,000-yearold injustice to Harijans." Threepersons were killed in Athani town of Belgaum district on 12December 1973, when a Kannada-speaking mob stoned the shopsand houses of Marathi-speaking people and the police resortedto firing. As a reaction to this, the Shiv Sena in Bombay and otherMaharashtra towns incited violence and attacks on Kannadigans.A Shiv Sena MLA, Pramod.

Navalkar, threatened, on 11 December, on the floor ofAssembly that "thousands of Shiv Sainiks would march intoBelgaum to ensure the safety of the Marathi-speaking people"there. In the wake of this, the violence became more widespreadand the anti-Kannadigan mobs attacked Udipi hotels and shops.Much damage was done to property and severed lives in bothMaharashtra and Kamataka were lost when police resorted tofiring to control the situation. Hundreds of arrests were made inboth the states. On 16 December, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeraysaid that he would see that the entire civic life in Greater Bombaywas paralysed to protest against the atrocities committed on theMarathi-speaking people in Kamataka.

The Kamataka Chief Minister, Devaraj Urs, made an appealto the Maharashtra Chief Minister to check violence on the borderdispute. In the last week of December 1973, the two Chief Ministersconferred in New Delhi with the Prime: Minister and the HomeMinister. Both of them stuck to their respective positions and theparleys ended in failure. The Union Government began to toywith the idea that the status quo might continue. On 25 January1974, the Shiva Sena again went on rampage in Bombay city andlooted an estimated 250 Kannadigan-run Udipi hotels, smashedthe glass fronts of banks and firms and assaulted a large numberof people in crowded areas. Chief Minister Urs asked the Centreto order a probe into these incidents. Relations between the twostates became tense, and the 'outsiders' in both the states continuedto be subjected to harassment and violence.


were no agitations, demonstrations and strikes. The obvious reasonfor this was that both the states had Congress Party Chief Ministers,and neither of them was prepared to incur the wrath of theCentral leadership. On 20 February 1975, Union Home MinisterK. Brahmanand Reddy announced in the Rajya Sabha thatChandigarh would continue to be a Union Territory for "sometime longer".

Nobody talked about this issue during the period of InternalEmergency, because all Political life in the country had come toa dead end. The Janata Party 'Government at the Centre did nottake any decision on the thorny issue, because it did not want toannoy the two state Governments belonging to its own party.When Mrs. Gandhi formed a new Ministry at the Centre in January1980, the Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana received theirclaims to the city of Chandigarh, but after the formation of Congress(I) Ministries in both of these states the Prime Minister advisedboth the state Governments not to reopen the issue fo' the timebeing. The issue was reopened during the Akali Dal agitationlaunched in the summer of 1981 and continued thereafter.

Haryana's Thrust for "Vishal Haryana"

After having had a separate state of their own, a section ofthe people of Haryana, led mainly by Rao Birendra Singh, beganto talk of Vishal (greater) Haryana, and claimed ten districts ofwestern Uttar Pradesh and Alwar and Bharatpur districts ofRajasthan. They argued that inadequate resources, a top heavyadministration and economic backwardness would retard theprogress of Haryana, and if Vishal Haryana could be created thenew state would become "the granary ofIndia." A separate ppliticalparty, known as Vishal Haryana Party, was formed to agitate forthe' formation of Vishal Haryana, but the Union Governmentdisfavoured the move, and' the efforts of Rao Birendra Singh andhis followers did not bear any fruit.

Inter-State Disputes on River Waters

In addition to the above inter-state disputes, there were scoresof disputes among the states over the sharing of river waters. Themain disputes were over the water of Narbad; Krishna and Cauveryrivers. The dispute over the water of river Narbaoa was among

the Union Government announced, on 29 January 1970, thatChandigarh would be merged with Punjab, that Haryana wouldbe compensated for giving up its claim to the city by the transferof 114 Hindi-speaking villages of Fazilka tehsil, including Fazilkaand Abohar towns, in Punjab, that Haryana would get a Rs. 20crore grant-cum-Ioan for building up its capital within a periodof five years, and that during the intervening period Chandigarhwould be a Union Territory, and both Haryana and Punjab woulduse it as their capital. This period was also to be utilised for: (1)setting up of commission to settle the boundary claims betweenHaryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh; and (2). suitablyamending the Punjab Reorganisation Act to give effect to thedecisions. It was then assumed that that Act would be amendedin the Budget session of Parliament (of 1971).

This decision satisfied neither Punjab nor Haryana. The thenChief Minister of Punjab, Gurnam Singh, called it "preposterous,unjust and arbitrary," and the people of Haryana, probably underincitement from their leaders, resorted to hatals, demonstrationsand protests. The tempers, however, cooled down with the lapseof time.

But the future of Chandigarh remained in cold storage. Neitherthe Central Government took any step to amend the PunjabReorganization Act nor did it set up the boundary commission.The Haryana Government did not construct a new capital; it didnot even select a site for the purpose. It took the position that itdid not do so because it might select a place for the new capitalin an area that would come to it in implementation of the awardof the boundary commission. It felt sore that Chandigarh, that wasin any case to go to Punjab, was continuing to prosper and developwith the central funds while the Fazilka-Abohar region that wasto come to it, was not getting even its normal share of developmentbecause the Punjab Government was not investing anything forits growth.

The Haryana Government often demanded that the region beplaced under the Central administration. Although' Punjab didnot have any option it was unhappy over the prospect of the richcotton-growing areas of Fazilka tehsil going to Haryana. Evenwith disappointment in the circles of both Governments there


Valley Authority to work out proper and economic utilisation ofthe Cauvery waters and its apportionment among the three states.This authority comprised technical personnel from the three states,and a representative of the Central Government was its Chairman.It was agreed that the decision of this authority would be bindingon the three states. Thus, a long-standing dispute came to an end.However, it resurfaced in the later years and the disputes betweenKarnataka and Tamil Nadu is still not resolved.

There was controversy among the states of Punjab, Jammuand Kashmir, Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh over theconstruction and ownership of their dam project that was supposedto generate huge power and provide irrigation facilities to thestates. This dam was to submerge 700 acres of land in Punjab,12,000 acres in Jammu and Kashmir and 1,000 acres of HimachalPradesh. The right end of the dam and 12,000 acres of the proposed20,000 acres lake were to fall in Jammu and Kashmir. This damwas to utilise the Ravi waters and was likely to cost one hundredcrores of rupees. The project continued to hang fire for severalyears because Punjab claimed its sole ownership. The CentralGovernment authorities made it clear to the Punjab Governmentthat because of the special constitutional position of Jammu andKashmir land there could be acquired only for the Centre and notfor another state. In view of this, Punjab dropped its sole ownershipclaim in January 1973, and the Union Government decided to setup an inter-state board comprising representatives of thebeneficiary states. Agreement on the construction of Their Damwas concluded on 3 October 1977.

There were many other disputes involving the distribution ofthe waters of other rivers, but these were of minor importance.Some of these were resolved through mutual negotiations,' andsome others remained unsettled. It was worth noting that in allthese cases the state Chief Ministers behaved like spokesmen ofindependent nations and endeavoured to obtain the maximumfor their own state. It appeared as if India was a multi-nationalcountry. In early February 1981, the Government of Mrs. Gandhi,confronted with lots of other complicated problems, announcedthat it would not disturb the status quo unless the states concernedcame up with solutions that were acceptable to them.

Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra. Theirdifferent points of view led to delay in the completion of vitalirrigation and power projects, including the Nawgaon dam.

While the shares of Maharashtra and Rajasthan were agreedupon through mutual negotiations between the Chief Ministersof the two states the claims of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh werereferred, in October 1972, to the Prime Minister "to see how fartheir points of view can be reconciled and how far the gaps canbe narrowed." The Prime Minister was not able to give her decision,and the issue was referred to a tribunal. This tribunal also failedto find a solution acceptable to the contending parties. In earlyMarch 1975, Union Agriculture Minister, Jagjivan Ram, conveneda meeting of the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan, Maharashtra andMadhya Pradesh and the Advisor to the Governor of Gujarat(which then was under President's rule) and they reached anaccord on the construction of eight irrigation projects utilising theNarbada waters. This accord was considered as "major stepforward."

Another inter-state dispute was over the distribution of thewaters of Krishna River among the states of Maharashtra, Mysore(Karnataka) and Andhra Pradesh. Each of the three put divergentclaims. Their dispute was referred by the Central Government toa tribunal headed by Justice R.S. Bachawat in April 1969 foradjudication. On completion of its proceedings the tribunalsubmitted "unanimous report" to the Union Ministry of Irrigationand Power in the last week of December 1973, and the Ministrycalled upon the three states to draw up viable schemes for the bestutilisation of the Krishna waters. While the MaharashtraGovernment expressed general satisfaction over the report thetwo former Chief Ministers of Karnataka, Nijalingappa andVeerendra Patil, expressed the view that "irreparable damage"was caused to the interest of their state by the Krishna tribunal.The Andhra Chief Minister, J. Vengal Rao, made no immediatecomment on the report, but appeared to be generally unhappy.

Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala quarreled over theutilization of the Cauvery river waters. However, through themediatory role of Jagjivan Ram, the Chief Ministers of these statesagreed, on 29 November 1974, to the setting up of a Cauvery


of Central funds and grants. Had there not been one-party rule(that of Congress) at the Centre and in most of the states and theUnion Territories there was every possibility that the structure ofIndia's federal polity would have tumbled down.

The third factor that gave rise to regional and parochialtendencies in the country was the personal and selfish ends of thepoliticians. The country had hardly become independent that anaked struggle for power among them began. Beginning from theCongress Party the contagion spread to other parties. Theweakening of the Central authority, and in some cases, of the stateauthority, was considered by the regional and state leaders of allparties as vital to enhancing their own authority and power, andthey did not hesitate from propagating regionalism among thepeople.

Moreover, the creation of more and more states means moreGovernors, more Chief Ministers, more Ministers and more MLAs,and these were what the politicians in India cared for. The narrowand sectarian instincts of the ignorant masses were at times stirredup by the professional politicians to serve their own narrow ends,and on minor pretexts or grounds, they got ready to break theheads of their own fellowmen and destroy their hearths andhomes, sometimes in the name of community, sometimes in thename of language and very often, in the name of their region orstate. The evidence of this assertion was that regional disturbancesand agitations occurred only when political leaders and politicalparties worked up the passions of the people in that direction.

Why Regionalism Grew

It would be clear from the foregoing narration thatparochialism and regionalism were a conspicuous phenomenonof India's political life. It would be pertinent now to examine asto why it grew. It grew largely due to three factors. Foremost andfirst among these was the problem of economic and socialdevelopment of the Indian society. During the days of the strugglefor freedom, the people all over the country had been told by thepolitical leaders that all their sufferings and economic hardshipswere the result of British rule, and that if they wanted to extricatethemselves from those hardships they should unite to end thatrule.

Once that goal had.been reached the people, whoseexpectations had been roused immensely, began to feel that theremoval of poverty and the eradication of their suffering was athand. The new Constitution of the country assured the massesthat the governments at the Centre and states would take stepsto organize village panchayats, provide work, old age andunemployment relief, just and humane conditions of work, aliving wage for workers, free and compulsory education to childrenand better sanitation and hospitals and would protect their religionand places of workship. By declaring India a secular State, theConstitution also guaranteed that the governments would not beinfluenced by religion in the determination of public policies andexecutive decisions. The Union Government devised Five-YearPlans, fixed priorities of the sectors of growth and laid down/targets of industrial and agricultural production.

But all these-went awry, and the people were offered nothingbut disappointment, more hardships, more exploitation and moredistributive injustice. Instead of caring for the interests of thecountry as a whole they became narrow-minded and begun toclamor for the progress of their own state or region..

Closely connected, in fact intermingled, with this was thesecond factor which fomented regionalism. That was the increasingawareness of the people in the more backward parts of India thatthey were being neglected in the matter of education and jobopportunities, in the setting up of plants and factories, in theconstruction of dams and bridges, and above all, in the allocation

Indian Government and Politics Democratic Decentralisation-Structure, Pattern and Trends304 305

further reserved places for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,determined by their proportion of the local population. The placesreserved for scheduled castes and tribes must also adhere to theone-third allocation to women. Mayors are elected both directlyand indirectly in the urban sector. Mayors and councillors areelected for a fiveyear term of office. In the urban sector there aresingle member wards throughout. The average number of electedmembers per authority is 21.15 In the urban sector, allmunicipalities are required to establish ward committees chairedby the local ward councillor, with the election of ward officersdefined in state municipal law. These structures are consultativeand also play a role in monitoring the delivery of services. Theyhave no budget to spend. All states have legislation making theseobligatory, but few have yet been established.16 Councils workwithin a committee system, in which councillors deliberate andreport with recommendations to full council for decisions.17 Inthe rural sector women make up 31.3 per cent of all councillors.18In the urban sector they make up one-third. By law it should beone-third across all local government bodies. The women memberselected under the reserved places represent a ward like any othermember. Six months prior to local elections, one-third of thewards are earmarked for women representatives. At the followingelection these wards lose their women-only status, and a furtherthird of the municipality's or panchayat's wards are designatedfor women candidates only.

URBAN COUNCILS

The following standing committees are obligatory: finance,education, water supply and sanitation, and housing. The standingcommittees are deliberative bodies only. Decision-making powersremain with the full council. Councils have the discretion toestablish a wide range of other committees. In two states, WestBengal and Madhya Pradesh, a mayor-in-council system has beenintroduced. These mayors are directly elected for five years withexecutive powers. In other municipal bodies mayors are electedfor one year at a time. In some they are elected for two years-halfthe full term of the council. Where there is a mayor-in-councilsystem, a cabinet-style executive committee is appointed by themayor.

8DEMOCRATIC DECENTRALISATION-STRUCTURE, PATTERN AND TRENDS

INTRODUCTION

The 1950 Constitution of India promoted the establishmentof village panchayats but entrusted local self-government to thestates. Although this directive principle was followed to someextent, it was not universally adopted. However in1992 the 73rdand 74th Amendments to the constitution gave recognition andprotection to local governments.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

The main division is between rural and urban areas. Urbanlocal government is single tiered, with three categories ofauthorities: Nagar Panchayats (emergent urban areas), municipalcouncils and municipal corporations. There are 3,694 localgovernment bodies in the urban sector. In the rural sector localgovernment may be single-tiered, two-tiered or three-tieredaccording to state (see Table 2).14 There are gram panchayats(villages with an average population of around1,000), thepanchayat samitis (around 100 villages) and the zilla panchayats(around 1,000 villages or 1,000,000 people). There are some 6,459zilla panchayats, 5,930 panchayat samitis and 240,588 grampanchayats across India.

DEMOCRATIC AND POLITICAL STRUCTURES IN LOCALGOVERNMENT

All councillors are directly elected by a first-past-the-postsystem. One-third of all seats are reserved for women. There are


councils (municipalities) differ from state to state, but generallythe executive officer is the head of the administrative service,assisted by deputy executive officers and other officers. The healthofficer is responsible for health services in the municipal area.

INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY

Citizens' charters have been put in place in the cities. Citizenscan appeal to the municipality for redress, or to the state ministryresponsible for local government.

DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICE DELIVERY COMPETENCE

Local government is responsible for a limited number ofservices-water supply and sanitation, waste disposal andmanagement, burials, street lighting and roads. More recently ithas been given a greater role in economic development and, inthe urban sector, has been given specific responsibility for povertyalleviation. It has a role in providing lower level education, thesecondary and tertiary levels being the responsibility of the states.Local government shares responsibility for public health andenvironmental protection with the states.

PANCHAYATI RAJ SYSTEM

The Three-tier Panchayati Raj

The Panchayati Raj is a three-tier system. It has Panchayatsat the root or village level, Block Samitis at the Block or Tehsil leveland the Zilla Parishads at the district level. In the previous chapter,you have read about the Village Panchayats, which are the basicunits of Panchayati Raj. The Block Samiti or the Khand Samiti isthe second layer of the three-tier system of Panchayati Raj. TheZilla Parishad or the District Council is the top layer in the three-tier system of Panchayati Raj. All the three institutions togetherlook after the needs and problems of the rural areas and they aretogether called the Panchayati Raj.

THE BLOCK SAMITIS

The Block Samitis in some areas are also called the KhandSamitis, while in others they are also called the Prakhand Samitis.

PANCHAYATI SYSTEM IN THE RURAL AREAS

The panchayats are situated in the rural areas of India. Intwenty-two states there are three tiers in the panchayati system,in one (Goa) there are two tiers, and in five (Jammu and Kashmir,Manipur,

Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland) there is one. States withpopulations of less than two million are not required to adopt thethree-tiered system. They are not strictly hierarchically organised,rather there is a division of duties between them. There is limitedcoordination role for higher levels of the panchayati authorities(see Annex A). State law establishes mandatory committees;consequently this may vary from state to state. However, generallyall have executive committees. The zilla parishads are requiredto have general, finance and audit, planning, social justice,education, health, agriculture and industrial committees. The grampanchayats have production, social justice and amenitiescommittees. Most states provide the panchayats with littlediscretion to establish other committees. Councillors are electedfor five-year terms. The elections for council leader can be director indirect, depending on state law. Honoraria are determined bythe state government

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFING

Local government staff are not recruited by a central Indianbody. However in some states there is a body for recruitment, inothers staff are recruited directly by the local authorities. Thebody responsible for recruitment is also responsible for discipliningand dismissal matters.

There are a number of officers required by law in the differenttypes of local councils, including municipal commissioner in themunicipal corporations, executive officer in the municipalities,health officer and sanitary inspector. The head of the paid serviceis normally referred to as the chief executive officer. The staffingstructure of first tier councils differs from state to state, but generallythe municipal commissioner is the head of the administrativeservice of the municipal corporations, assisted by deputy municipalcommissioners and other officers. The health officer is responsiblefor area health services. The staffing structures of second tier


to get more production by using improved seeds and manures,how to improve the breed of their cattle, how to learn scientificmethods of cultivation and how to make use of the differentfamily welfare programmes.

Sources of Income-Broadly, the income of the Block Samitiscomes from two sources(i) Taxes, (ij) Government assistance. TheBlock Samitis levy taxes on lands and houses, cattle and fairs andraise funds from the village for providing them expert services.The government assistance comes in the form of grants-in-aidfrom the State Governments.

THE ZILLA PARISHAD

The Zilla Parishad or the District Council is the highestinstitution of the Panchayati Raj in India. Just as the Block Samitiscoordinate the development activities of all the Panchayats intheir areas, similarly the Zilla Parishads coordinate the activitiesof the Block Samitis in the whole district.

Composition: The composition of the Zilla Parishad issomewhat similar to the composition of a Block Samiti, thoughon a bigger scale. It is composed of the following members:

(i) The Chairmen of the Block Samitis in the district.

(ii) Members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha representthe district.

(iii) Members of the Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishkd fromthe district.

(iv) Representatives of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes.

(v) Representatives of women.

The Zilla Parishad elects its Chairman and a Vice-Chairman.The Chairman presides over the meetings.

The Zilla Parishad and the Block Samitis appoint differentcommittees for efficient and smooth functioning of various'programmes. These sub-committees are composed from amongthe members themselves to look after such developmental worksas education, sanitation, public health, agricultural production,finance, social welfare and family planning.

The Block Samiti is an important link between the village Panchayaton the one side and the Zilla Parishad on the other.

Composition: The members of the Block Samitis are not electeddirectly. The Pradhans and the Panchas of the Village Panchayatswithin the Block choose their representatives to the Block Samitis.Besides these elected representatives, there are other members ofthe Block Samitis as well. They are:

(i) Chairmen of the Town Area Committees and the NotifiedArea Committees within the Block.

(ii) All the-members of the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, theLegislative Assembly and the Legislative Council electedfrom the Block concerned.

(iii) If there are no representatives of women and' ScheduledCastes in the Block Samiti then these members areappointed by the District Officer concerned. There mustbe two women members and four members asrepresentatives of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes in a Block Samiti.

The members of the Block Samiti elect a Block Chairman orthe Block Pramukh and a Vice-Chairman. The Chairman or theBlock Pramukh looks after the work of the Block Samiti and if themembers are not satisfied with his work they have the right toremove him by passing a vote of No-Confidence against him. Inhis absence, the Vice-Chairman looks after the work of the BlockSamiti.

The term of a Block Samiti is five years.

Functions: One of the main functions of the Block Samiti isto obtain money from the Government for various programmesto develop the Block.

The Block Samitis also provide services of experts to villagePanchayats of their area who give advice to the PanchayatCommittees for their development. For this purpose, the BlockSamitis have various experts such as agricultural experts, anengineer, an educational expert, a veterinary doctor and manyother experts to give advice on various works of rural development.These experts frequently visit the villages and tell the people how


Panchayat. A vibrant and enlightened Gram Sabha is central tothe success of the Panchayati Raj system. The year 1999-2000 hasthus been declared as the "Year of the Gram Sabha". StateGovernments have been urged:

o To vest in the Gram Sabha, powers on the lines envisagedin the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to theScheduled Areas) Act, 1996.

o To make a mandatory provision in the Panchayati Raj Actfor holding Gram Sabha meetings throughout the countryon the occasion of the Republic Day, Labour Day,Independence Day and Gandhi Jayanti.

o To make a mandatory provision in the Panchayati Raj Actspecifying separately, the quorum for Gram Sabhameetings, for ordinary meetings, meetings convened forspecial purposes and re-convened meetings due tocancellation of and earlier meeting for want of quorum.

o To make members of the Gram Sabhas aware of theirpowers and responsibilities with a view to ensuring massparticipation, particularly of the hitherto marginalised,groups, such as women and SCs/STs.

o To lay down procedures for the Gram Sabha to effectivelycarry out social audit of beneficiary oriented developmentprogrammes of the Ministry or Rural Development,particularly the legal powers of the Gram Sabha to orderrecovery or punishment for financial mismanagement.

o To evolve a plan of action for generating wide publicityfor Gram Sabha meetings.

o To evolve guidelines/procedures for holding Gram Sabhameetings and a model list of business for such meetings.

o To generate awareness as to the rights of the Gram Sabhawith respect to control over natural resources, land recordsand conflict resolution.

The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992envisages empowered Panchayats as institutions of self-government at the village level capable of:

o Planning and executing village level public works andtheir maintenance.

The Government appoints a Secretary of the Zilla Parishadwho is a permanent employee of the Parishad. He maintainsrecords and accounts.

Functions of the Zilla Parishad: The Zilla Parishad is the apexorganisation of the three tier system of Panchayati Raj. Its mainfunction is to help the village panchayats and the Block Samitisand to coordinate their work. It also gives advice to the governmenton the work of the Panchayats and the Block Samitis.

It prepares plans for the comprehensive development of thewhole district. It takes steps to increase agricultural productionand to improve sanitation in the rural areas.

It constructs good roads in villages.

Implementation of five-year Plans and other plans for ruraldevelopment are the responsibility of the Zilla Parishad.

Sources of Income: Its main sources of income are the following:

1. Financial grants from the Government.

2. Rent from the property owned by the Zilla Parishad.

3. Taxes levied on properties and fairs, etc.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ

The Panchayati Raj has many achievements to its credit:

(1) The Panchayati Raj system has brought about politicalawakening in rural India.

(2) The Panchayati Raj has brought the government close tothe people.

(3) The Panchayats have succeeded in improving the conditionof their respective villages by taking up welfare activities.

(4) Primary and adult schools run by the Panchayats havespread literacy and education among the rural people.

(5) The Panchayats have succeeded in drawing the attentionof the government officials to their problems.

Gram Sabha

Gram Sabha is a body consisting of persons registered in theelectoral rolls of a village or a group of villages which elect a


7. Sanitation and public health.

8. Supervision over the work of the government servantssuch as the Patwari, the Lekhpal, the police constable, thechowkidar, the vaccinator or the peon, and to report anycomplaint against them to the higher authorities.

9. Supervision of the Primary Schools.

Optional or Voluntary Functions:

The optional or voluntary functions of the Panchayats are asfollows:

1. Management of hospitals and maternity centers.

2. Management of village markets.

3. Management of veterinary hospitals for the treatment ofcattle.

4. Supply of good seeds and fertilizers.

5. Organizing recreation and entertainment programmes,such as Akharas, or village sports.

6. Opening and maintaining libraries.

7. Holding of village fairs.

Sources of Income:

For all these functions, the Panchayat needs money. Thevarious sources of its income are the following:

1. Taxes on houses and shops.

2. Taxes on fairs and markets.

3. Fees realized from registration of sale and purchase ofcattle.

4. Income from the sale of public property.

5. Government grants

The Nyaya Panchayat

Generally, there is one Nyaya Panchayat for three or fourvillages. Each Village Panchayat elects some members to the NyayaPanchayat. No person can be a member of both the PanchayatSamiti and the Nyaya Panchayat at the same time.

o Ensuring welfare of the people at the village level includinghealth, education, communal harmony, social justiceparticularly gender and caste based discrimination, disputeresolution, welfare of children, especially the girl child.

The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 alsoenvisages empowered Gram Sabhas as the Parliament of the Peopleat the grassroots level to whom the Gram Panchayats are solelyaccountable.

Office Bearers of the Panchayats

Village Pradhan or Sarpanch: The members of the VillagePanchayat elect one of their members as Sarpanch or the Pradhanwho is the Head-Panch or the President of the Panchayat. It is hisduty to call the meetings of the Panchayat and to preside overthese meetings.

The Panchayat Secretary: the District Magistrate or the DeputyCommissioner appoints The Panchayat Secretary. He is a salariedofficer who maintains the records and the registers of the workdone by the Panchayat. He also prepares accounts, etc. He is apermanent employee. Generally, he looks after the work of twoor three Panchayats.

Functions of the Village Panchayat

The functions of a Village Panchayat can be divided into twocategories:

(i) Essential or Compulsory, and

(ii) Optional or Voluntary.

Essential or Compulsory Functions: The essential orcompulsory functions of the Village Panchayats are as follows:

1. Construction and maintenance of village roads andwaterways.

2. Construction of culverts and roads.

3. Planting of trees.

4. Construction and repair of village wells and tanks.

5. Provision of clean drinking water.

6. Provision of lights on roads and streets.


levels namely, Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and VillagePanchayats respectively. These institutions are considered astraining ground for democracy and gives political education tothe masses. These institutions were established in 1959 based onthe philosophy of decentralization 4 and gram swaraj. Ruraldevelopment plans and programmes are implemented at thislevel so that fruits of development can accrue to the communitydirectly.

Both the Central and State Governments have appointedseveral Committees and Commissions for reviewing5 andrecommending reforms to strengthen Panchayati Raj during thelast three decades. Panchayati Raj that emerged in the states issubstantially in tune with Balwant Rai Mehta teamrecommendations though there are distinguishing differences fromstate to state. Another Committee of Panchayati Raj appointed bythe Central Government under the Chairmanship of Shri AshokMehta in 1978 is very important as it reviewed the system ofPanchayati Raj in different states in the country and recommendeda different structure of Panchayati Raj.

Starting with Rajstahan several states introduced PanchayatiRaj in quick succession. In a handsome tribute, Prof. Maddick 7describing the Mehta report "as an outstanding document andmodel of the way in which the growth of democratic institutitonsin the country one of vital importance. while inauguratingPanchayati Raj at Nagour, Rajstahan on October 2, 1959, Nehru8 said with understandable enthusiasm, "we are going to lay thefoundation of democracy or Panchayati Raj in India,".

The focus was still on community projects and N.E.S and hethought that the reason for slow progress was dependence onofficial Machinary, a situation which would be remedied, byPanchayati Raj. At a Seminar in Jaipur in Dec, 1964 Balwant RaiMehta clearly stated that community development is the object,the purpose, and Panchayati Raj is the instrument for implementingthe programme.

The draft fifth plan stated "The basic concept behindestablishing Panchayati Raj was to create rural local selfgovernment agencies reasonable for discharging certain selected

The Nyaya Panchayats can hear only such petty cases as tresspass, minor thefts and other cases of simple nature, whether civiI or criminal. They can impose fines up to one hundred rupees.If a party is not satisfied with its judgement, it can go in appealto the High Court. The \ ~yaya Panchayat cannot send a personto prison.

The establishment of the Nyaya Panchayats has a greatsignificance for the poor people because they save them fromundue expenditure and litigation on minor disputes. The casestried by these Panchayats are decided quickly and there is littlechance of misleading the panchayat by telling lie

Panchayati Raj Institutions since 1959

As the working of Panchayati Raj Institutions since 1959 hasbeen argued as successful in a few states and a failure in most ofthe states. It means that the system has been experiencing ups anddowns. Although, the concept of Panchayati Raj is a State subjectbut basically each state is free to evolve its own system dependingupon Local needs, circumstances administrative conveniences andexperiences. With the result, we have a variety of Panchayati Rajinstitutions with all kinds of combinations and permutations. Infact, their success or failure depends upon their structure, powers,function leadership, finances and state control. In a big countrylike India, changes in different aspects of these bodies have beentaking place as per the changing circumstances. Although thewhole activities of Panchayati Raj institutions are broad based buttheir resource base are very weak. As things stand today, the localeconomy is very weak which indicates that Panchayati RajInstitutions have very limited scope to impose taxes in theirjurisdiction.

Introduction of Panchayati Raj was hailed as one of the mostimportant political innovations in independent India. It was alsoconsidered as a revolutionary step. Panchayati Raj is a system oflocal self-government where in the people take upon themselvesthe responsibility for development. It is also a system of institutionalarrangement for achieving rural Development through people'sinitiative and participation. Panchayati Raj involves a three-tierstructure of democratic institutions at district, block and village


Revival of Panchayati Raj

The G.V.K. Rao committee 10 appointed by the PlanningCommission in 1985 to review the existing administrativearrangements for rural development strongly recommended forthe revival of Panchayati Raj institutitons all over the Country &highlighting the need to transfer power of state to democraticbodies at the Local level. The government of India their set upcommittee in June 1986 headed by L.M. Singvi. To prepare aconcept paper on the revitalization of the Panchayati Rajinstitutions, the Committee recommended that the Panchayati Rajshould be constitutionally recognized, protected and preservedby the inclusion of a new chapter in the constitution. It alsosuggested a constitutional provision to ensure regular, free andfair elections for Panchayati Raj institutions. Accepting theserecommendations of the Committee the central governmentheaded by late Rajiv Gandhi brought in the Constitution 12 64thamendment Bill which was passed by the Lok Sabha on the 16thAugust 1989. This was comprehensive Bill covering all vital aspectsof PRI 'S. Unfortunately, this Bill could not be enacted as it wasnot approved by the Rajya Sabha. In the year 1990, the issuesrelating to strengthening of Panchayati Raj institutions wereconsidered afresh and based on detailed discussions in the Cabinetcommittee set up for this purpose.

It was considered that a constitution Amendment Bill may bedrawn up afresh. The matter was brought up before a Conferenceof Chief Ministers held in June, 1990 presided over by the thenPrime Minister. The Conference endorsed the proposals for theintroduction of Constitution Amendment Bill and also the modelguidelines with the modification that the number of tiers in thePanchayati Raj structure, may be left to be decided by the Stategovernments and the arrangement for conduct of elections forPRI's may also be left to be made by the state themselves.

The Constitutitons Amendment Bill and model guidelineswere approved by the Cabinet in July 1990 and it was decidedthat there should be a Common Constitution Amendment Billboth for PRI's and Urban Local bodies.13 Further modificationswere made in the Bill on the basis of the discussions with theleaders of various political parties.

functions pertaining to development. Panchayati Raj is theinstrument of community development, the apparatus of rurallocal self government a means of reorganising districtadministration not adequately people oriented in its traditionalform and an agent of state government for certain purposes. Afterthe death of Nehru both national and inter national problems, andunderstandable anxiety over performance on the developmentfront; served to weaken this faith and Panchayati Raj came underattack.

During that time Hanson clearly stated, "if Panchayati Rajwas to function effectively, within a reasonably short span of time,as a development institution, its introduction had to beaccompanied by revolutionary changes in the social and economicstructure of the village. However, a little later, Panchayati Raj ishailed as the most important political invention of independentIndia, because through it, the massess of Indian people arebeginning, for the first time in their history, to experience therealities of democracy, in however, contradictory of distortedform.

Process of Decline

After the mid sixties, the process of decline started. In manystates a tendency to postpone the Panchayati Raj electionsindefinitely was noticeable. In some states, parallel bodies cameto be set up at the district level, thus reducing the role of PanchayatiRaj in development planning & implementation.

Main Problems

Started with great hope and enthusiasm some of the majorproblems and short comings that devoted in the workingPanchayati Raj institutions can be identified as:

(i) Election not being held on a regular basis.

(ii) Lack of adequate transfer of powers and resources toPanchayati institutions.

(iii) Lack of Panchayati Raj bodies to generate their ownresources such as tax on sale land.

(iv) Non-Representation of woman and weaker sections in theelected bodies.


of its being an effort to reach the Panchayats directly, bypassingthe States. The amendment finally became a reality duringNarasirnha Rao's time. The seventy-third and seventy-fourthconstitutional amendments have made some fundamental changesin our political structure and in the status of local institutions.These institutions now have constitutional protection. The twoamendments provide for the state legislatures making their ownlaws under the constitutional provisions for establishingPanchayats, Municipalities, etc. and conferring on them suchpowers and authority as may be necessary to enable them tofunction as institutions of selfgovernment. In every State, a three-tier system is envisaged. Panchayats are to be established at theVillage and district levels and at the intermediate level. Stateswhich have a population of less than two million, need not havethe intermediate level Panchayats.

The important thing is that now Panchayats have to be electeddirectly by the people in the same manner as members of thepopular houses at the Union and State levels are elected i.e. throughterritorial constituencies. For a Village Panchayat, the electoratewould be the Gram Sabha which would consist of those registredin the electoral rolls. These Panchayats cannot remain supercededfor long; fresh elections would have to be held within six monthsof the dissolution of a Panchayat. Secondly, in all panchayats,seats would be reserved for women, Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes. There shall be a fixed five year term for allPanchayats. They shall have their own budget, power of taxationand list of items in their jurisdiction. In their respective areas, thePanchayats shall be able to formulate their own developmentplans and implement them. Every State shall have a State Election.Commissioner for conducting Panchayat elections and I everyfive years a State Finance COmp1ission shall be constituted totake stock of the economic condition of the Panchayats.

Similarly, in the 74th Amendment, there are provisions for thesetting up of Nagar Palikas and Nagar Panchayats. In the matterof reservations, elections, power of taxation, formulation andimplementation of development projects, constitution of a FinanceCommission, fixed term, etc., the provisions are very similar tothose in the 73rd Amendment in respect of Panchayats

73rd and 74th Constitution Amendment perspective & Rebirthof Panchayati Raj: The Constitution 74th Amendment Billintroduced in the Lok Sabha on September 7, 1990 it could nothowever, be taken up in view of the political changes. AComprehensive amendment was introduced in the form ofConstitution Seventy Second Amendment Bill 1991 by the thengovernment. The Constitution 72nd Amendment Bill was passedin the Lok Sabha on Dec. 23, 1992. 73rd Amendment Act 1992 hascame into effect from April 24, 1993. The Constitution 73rd 14Amendment Act 1992 indicates states to establish three tier systemof strong viable and responsive panchayats at the Village,intermediate and district levels.

The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 and theConstitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 have added new PartsIX and IX A to the Constitution. Under these two parts, we haveas many as 34 new articles-243 to 243ZG-and two new schedulesviz. schedules 11 and 12. The 73rd Amendment gives constitutionalrecognition to the Panchayats and the 74th Amendment to theMunicipalities. Thus, to the Union and the States, a third tier ofgovernmental instrumentalities has been added. There is nothingentirely new about the institutions of Panchayats andMunicipalities. Both these have existed for long. There were localself government and Panchayati Raj laws in many parts of India.But, unfortunately these institutions were not able to functionsatisfactorily for any length of time. Often, they stood superceded.Despite the Gandhian approach of treating the villages as unitsof polity and Gandhi's love for Panchayati Raj institutions, Dr.Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly did not favor them andeven said some very harsh things like their being dens of corruption,localism, backwardness etc. Finally, as a compromise or aconcession to Gandhi's views, article 40 was included under thenon-enforceable Part V on the Directive Principles of State Policy.It said that the state shall take steps to organize Village Panchayatsand endow them with necessary authority "to function as unitsof self-government".

Hardly any attention was paid to article 40 until Prime MinisterRajiv Gandhi took serious interest and initiative to bring forwarda constitutional amendment. It was, however opposed on grounds


Rupees two crares every year for being spent in his! herarea on his/her recommendation on items mentioned inthe guide list. There are similar schemes placing funds atthe disposal of MLAs at the level of States. All the Itemson which these large funds can be spent at the discretionof MPs and MLAs are covered by the eleventh and twelfthschedules of the Constitution listing schemes to beentrusted to the Panchayats, Municipalities etc. The AreaDevelopment Schemes and the like are tantamount tolegislators' foray into the area of executive functions.Secondly, this may seem to be an affront to and a violationof the federal scheme as also of the basic spirit of PanchayatiRaj institutions.

(iii) Much can be said for and against the ex-officio membershipof local Lok Sabha members and M.L.A.s on the districtand intermediate level panchayats.

(iv) The ground realities indicate that, for their own reasons,those elected to Parliament and State Legislatures-the M.P.s,M.L.A.s and M.L.C.s-have not

(v) The details of functioning of the Local Governmentinstitutions are largely left to the initiative of the StateGovernments and are to be settled by them. The Stateshave passed vastly varied laws according to their ownperception of what and how much can be devolved on thelocal authorities. While the States naturally want the Unionto transfer more of effective legislative, executive andfinancial powers in wider areas to them, the question isto what extent they would be themselves willing todecentralise further down and share effective power withlocal self-government institutions. So far as the 73rd and74th Constitution Amendments are concerned, these donot themselves confer any powers on panchayats andMunicipalities

Reservation for Woman in Panchayati Raj Institutions

The Constitution 73rd Amendment Act in order to revive theexisting Panchayati Raj system due to its structural and functionalinadequacies has made mandatory on the part of the states thatthey would reserve a minimum of 30 per cent of seats to woman

Under the distribution of legislative powers between ! theUnion and the States, local government in both rural and urbanareas has been in the exclusive State List. As it is, all the States-some reluctantly-have already passed legislation as required underthe new constitutional provisions. Elections to local bodies havealso been held in almost all the States. Bihar is an exception. Also;the 73rd and 74th Amendments do not apply to the States ofMeghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir, theUnion Territory of Delhi, hill areas in Manipur and Darjeeling inW. Bengal. Also, these do not apply unless extended to ScheduledAreas and Tribal Areas under article 244. The Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment of the year 2000 has added a clause to article243M to provide that reservation of seats for the Schduled Castesunder article 243D shall not apply to the State of ArunachalPradesh. It was hoped that the new Panchayats and Municipalitieswould begin a new era of real representative and participatorydemocracy with nearly three and a half million elected represen-tatives-one third of them women-involved in the business ofgovernance all over India thereby bringing power to the peoplewhere it belonged.As things stood, matters causing some concernwere:

(i) The Constitution (87th Amendment) Bill, 1999 introducedby the Minister for Rural Development on 16 December1999 seeks to amend article 243 C of the Constitution witha view to give discretion to State Legislatures to providethat all the seats in panchayats at the intermediate anddistrict levels shall be filled by persons elected asChairpersons at the village level panchayats andintermediate level panchayats and also to providediscretion in the manner in which the Chairpersons of thepanchayats at the intermediate level or the district levelhave to be elected as has been allowed in case of panchayatsat the village level.The Amendment Bill followed a request contained in aresolution passed by the Andhra Assembly. The pendingBill is being used as an alibi for postponing elections tothe district and intermediate level panchayats.

(ii) The Area Development Scheme which places at thedisposal of every member of Union Paliament a sum of


V. What sort of training and orientation 18 would be requiredfor the newly elected Panchayati Raj bodies.

In a net-shell the 73rd Amendment had aroused a lot ofexpectations and it is to be expected that it would usher PanchayatiRaj Institutions in a new and dynamic role. The PRI in the districtcomprises of one Zilla Parishad at the district level, 7 PanchayatSamitis/ 4 Block Advisory Committee (BAC) at the Block leveland 155-Gram Panchayats/ 167 ADC Villages at the village level.The Chief Executive Officer (DM & Collector) Zilla Parishad,Additional Chief Executive Officer (ADM & Collector) ZillaParishad and Secretary Zilla Parishad (Member Secretary) are theOfficial Members in the Executive Committee of Zilla Parishad.The Executive Officer (Block Development Officer) PanchayatSamiti and the Secretary (Panchayat Extension Officer-MemberSecretary) are the Official Members in the Executive committeeof the Panchayat Samitis.

It consists of 21 directly elected members and 24 Ex-officiomembers. The Chairman of the different Panchayat Samitis/ BACsof the district, the MLAs elected from the constituencies fallingunder District and MPs of the two parliamentary constituenciesconstitute the Ex-officio members. All the Panchayat Samitis inthe district is being constituted from 22 directly elected membersand 29 Ex-officio members. Each Panchayat Samiti and ZillaParishad consist of 7 Standing Committees.

(i) Finance, Audit and Planning Committee (to be known asFinance Committee).

(ii) Education, Environment, Cultural, Health and SportsAffairs Committee (to be known as Education and HealthCommittee).

(iii) Communication, Rural Electrification and non-conventional Energy Committee (to be known as WorksCommittee)

(iv) Industries including Cottage Industry and SericultluralCommittee (to be known as Industries Committee).

(v) Social Justice Committee.(vi) Agricultural, Food, Irrigation, Cooperation, Fisheries and

Animal Husbandry Committee (to be known as AgricultureCommittee).

in their Panchayati Raj institutions so as to involve actively in thedecision making process. In accordance with the 73rd Amendment33 per cent of seats have been reserved for rural woman in thePanchayati Raj Institutions. The Statutory reservation of seats forwoman in Panchayati Raj bodies has provided an opportunity fortheir formal involvement in the development and politicalprocesses at the grass root level thereby to enabling them toinfluence the decision making process in the local governments.

Implications of constitutional 73rd & 74 Amendment: The73rd & 74th Constitutional Amendment 16 has been made tomany weakness. It has certain features which are binding on thestate legislature where they can go to discretion:

I. Constitutional Status to Panchayati Raj Institutions.II. Reservation of Seats for Weaker Section of Society.

III. Direct Election of Panchayati Raj, every five years at alllevels.

IV. Finance Commission to be set up by State Government todevolve funds and suggest ways of financing

V. Election Commission at State Level to Conduct PanchayatiRaj Elections.

All these elected bodies have now, been in position for morethan five years. It is thus, important to verify whether the aimsand objectives of the Constitutional amendment and the aspirationsgenerated by it have been met and if so, to what extent. Variousdiscussions, debates, conferences are being organized to see andmany issues are debated for new experience.

Panchayati Raj InstitutionsI. Devolution of finances to PRI's bodies.

II. Exercise of Power and responsibility by Panchayati RajInstitution.

III. What has been the impact of the reservations especiallyfor woman and to what extant this has helped the weakersection of society.

IV. Whether the PRI's in the new set up have improved theirposition regarding devolution of powers and financialresources in view of setting up State Finance and ElectionCommissions.


of Education, District Level Officer from Science and TechnologyDepartment, Assistant Director of ICAT Department, DeputyDirector of Physical Education, District Inspector of SocialEducation, one nominated Headmaster and Representative of theRamkrishna Mission.

The Official Members of Works Standing Committee comprisesof Superintending Engineer (PWD), Superintending Engineer(Electrical), District Level Officer of the Science and TechnologyDepartment, Executive Engineer RD Department, Senior DeputyCollector looking after Development Section of the office of theDM & Collector and the Executive Engineer (PWD) from differentDivisions of the district. Project Director DRDA, General ManagerDistrict Industries Centre, Officer-in-Charge of the ClusterConstituted for development of Sericulture and Handloom of theDistrict, Representative of KVIC and the Assistant MarketingOfficer / Assistant Development Officer of THHDC LTDconstitutes the Official Members in Industry Standing Committee.

District Tribal Welfare Officer, any Member of the MahilaCommission, District Inspector of Social Education, Representativeof State Social Welfare Board for the district and representativeof the Ramkrishna Mission constitutes the Official Members inSocial Justice Standing Committee.

The Official Members of Agriculture Standing Committeecomprises of Senior Collector looking after the Food and CivilSupplies in the office of the DM & Collector, Executive Engineerof concerned MIFC Division, Deputy Registrar CooperativeSocieties Deputy Director of Agriculture, Horticulturist, DeputyProject Officer (Soil Conservation), Deputy Director of Fisheriesand the Deputy Director of Animal Resources Development.

The Official Members of Poverty Alleviation StandingCommittee is constituted of the Conservator of Forest, AdditionalDistrict Magistrate & Collector, Project Director DRDA, ExecutiveEngineer RD Division, Deputy Director of Fisheries, Horticulturistand the Executive Engineer PHE. The Gram Panchayats in thenon-tribal areas and the ADC villages in the tribal areas are directlyresponsible to the villagers for all the development activities oftheir electoral constituency. The Gram Panchayat is regularly

(vii) Poverty Alleviation Programme, Social and Farm Forestry,Rural Housing and Drinking Water Committee (to beknown as Poverty alleviation Committee).

The number of members to be elected for each standingcommittee and the Zilla Parishad has been notified by the StateGovernment. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of thePanchayat Samiti and the Sabhadhipati and the SahakariSabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad are the Ex-officio members ofthe Standing Committees of the Panchayat Samities or the ZillaParishad as the case may be. Also, the Chairman of the PanchayatSamiti and the Sabhadhipati of Zilla Parishad shall be the Presidentof the Standing Committee in Finance, Audit and Planning of thePanchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad, as the case may be.

In case of Hrishyamukh Panchayat Samiti and AmarpurPanchayat Samiti, a member of the Panchayat Samiti other thanthe Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be eligible to serve onmaximum 3 Standing Committees. In case of other PanchayatSamitis, no member other than the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be eligible to serve on more than 2 StandingCommittees. Similarly, in case of DTZP, no member other thanthe Sabhadhipati and the Sahakari Sabhadhipati shall be eligibleto serve on more than 2 Standing Committees. The Ex-officiomembers of the Panchayat Samiti or Zilla Parishad could be electedas Members and Presidents of Standing Committees of PanchayatSamiti or Zilla Parishad, except, as the President of StandingCommittee for Finance, Audit and Planning.

The elections of the members of the Standing Committees andtheir respective Chairmans and Vice Chairman's are to be heldafter every 2 years for Panchayat Samiti and 5 years for ZillaParishad. Project Director DRDA, District Panchayat Officer,District Planning Officer, Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies,Development Officer Institutional Finance, District StatisticalOfficer, Lead Bank officer, Senior Deputy Collector looking afterRevenue Section of the Office of the DM & Collector and anominated Professor/ Assistant Professor of Economics are theOfficial Members of the Finance Standing Committee.

The Official Members of Education and Health StandingCommittee comprises of Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Director


THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ

The State Government has been given the power to pass thelaw for constituting the different institutions of Panchayati Raj.TheState Government helps the Panchayats by giving them financialgrants to carry out their plans for the village improvement. TheState Government keeps a strict watch on the work of PanchayatiRaj institutions and appoints a Secretary to maintain accounts andkeep records of the work done by these institutions. At the districtlevel, the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner looks after theirwork and coordinates the work of Panchayati Raj and the districtadministration. However, at the Block level, the Block DevelopmentOfficer or B.D.O does same work.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOCAL BODIES WITH THE STATE/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The State or the Central Government keeps some sort ofcontrol over the working of the local bodies, whether in the urbanor the rural areas. In some states, there is also a Minister for Localself-government who keeps a control on these local bodies. TheState Government keeps a strict watch on the finances of the localbodies. While the Government gives them grants, the State officialsregularly check their accounts. The permission of the StateGovernment is quite essential for levying any new tax or raisingany loan from the public. Above all, the very life of a local bodydepends on the goodwill of the State Government. The StateGovernment can dissolve any municipality or a corporation if itsworking is not found satisfactory.

But there exist cordial relations between the local bodies andthe State Government because both aim at the welfare of thepeople. The State Government intervenes only as a last resortwhen a local body fails to serve the people in a right manner.

To sum up, we can say that local bodies are the most importantorganizations in a democracy. They not only promote a sense ofcooperation among the people to solve their own commonproblems but also train them for higher responsibilities in Stateand Central Government.

conducting Gram Sabha, a forum of active participation by theelectorates in the constituency. The following agendas are beingnormally laid down and discussed in the Gram Sabha:

(a) Accounts of income & expenditure of the Gram Panchayat.

(b) Annual Administrative Report for the last financial year.

(c) Last Audit Note and resolutions regarding rectification.

(d) Budget of the Gram Panchayat for the current financialyear.

(e) Details of the receipt of fund and developmental activitiestaken up and completed during the last financial year.

(f) Likely receipt of fund and proposed developmentalactivities to be taken up during the current financial year.

As per the provisions of Panchayat Act, Gram Sansad has alsobeen constituted at the Gram Panchayat Constituency level (Wards)to involve citizens more in the development aspects of the GramPanchayat.

NEED AND IMPORTANCE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A local government is an institution, which is constituted tolook into local problems and to provide bare amenities to thepeople of a village, a town or a city.

A local government has a great importance of its own becauseof the following reasons. Firstly, local people know their problemswell and hence it is only they who can solve them better by takingpart in the local government. Secondly, the local people can gettheir work done better, quicker and cheaper at local level. Thirdly,the participation of local people in the local government generatesthe spirit of cooperation and hence the people readily pay theirtaxes. Fourthly, the local government also provides sufficient scopeto the elected representatives of the local people to acquire trainingand experience in administration.

It is interesting to note that Jawaharlal Nehru, our first PrimeMinister, had worked as a Chairman of the Allahabad MunicipalCommittee during the British rule and acquired much experienceof administration from there. Lastly, the local government alsolightens the burden of the Central and State Governments.

Indian Government and Politics Indian Experience with Democracy and Development328 329

while the measures of land reforms were adopted at rural level;programmes of massive industrialization was launched at urbanlevel.

No doubt that we embarked on the path of development insocial, economic and political realm. But it seems that though thesuper-structure seems to have strengthened, the foundations haveprogressively undermined.

CONFLICT BETWEEN REGENERATION AND DECAY

A critical study of Indian politics over the last fifty yearsconfirms that a lot about the 'decay' of political institutions-bothformal institutions of union as well as state and informal institutionshas been witnessed. Their autonomy, cooperate substance,organizational complexity, flexibility and strength, and theircapacity to respond to social groups have been eroded. Decay alsoentails degeneration in the behaviour of individuals and groups.Corrupt, unconstitutional and willfully destructive acts havebecome more common among politicians, bureaucrats and others.Politics and business have acquired a common objective-the profit.Elections have become ends in themselves. The Indian leadershipcompletely ignored, in actual practise, the need for making thedemocratic system fully serviceable to all sections of people. Therehas been a dangerous erosion of people's faith in the ability of thecivil administration to deliver the goods.

According to Rajni Kothari almost entire institutional orderhas very nearly broken down and undergone a series of changes;-

1. Displacement off a cabinet system by a Prime Ministerialsystem of governance,

2. Abrogation of Parliamentary supremacy over the executiveby first permitting the brute use of party majorities by theexecutive wing and then undermining the simplemechanics by frequent resources to defections,

3. To erosion of the federal frame work by recourse to similarpractices engineered from the very apex of the system,

4. The undermining of judicial independence and probity byexecutive manipulation of the concept of parliamentarysupremacy.

9INDIAN EXPERIENCE WITH

DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

In 1947 there was much that was old and much that was new.There was also a trauma of partition. Those at the helm had tosteer between the conflicting pressure of self-reliance, defence,development and income generation for the masses. The quest fora new identity was not a simple process entailing mere politicalindependence from foreign rule. There were the rising aspirationsof the people and the knowledge that these aspirations of thepeople and the knowledge that these aspirations could be satisfied.At the same time was the fact that political style of Indian people,on the whole, had not been terribly ideological. It was a perfectamalgamation of ideology, culture, and historical experiences.

In such milieu, with the proclamation of the new constitutionon January 26, 1950, India became the largest democracy of theworld. The most important task between the government was tobring social and economic changes. The government realized thatthis is possible only through centralized planning. It was, therefore,felt that India should endeavor to break new grounds byexperimenting with economic planning under a democratic patternof socialism.

Then, though our society was highly characterised by povertyand illiteracy, our founding fathers of the constitution tookcourageous steps to adopt adult franchise and to follow the practiseof secularism to strengthen our national unity. In economic sector,


values and culture leading to the homogeneous global culture.The second tendency is the growing consciousness of religiousidentity, which is leading to fundamentalist and separatistattitudes. The revival of religion as influenced the process ofsecularisation. It has encouraged conflicts, instability, divisiveness,rigidity and irrationality in Indian polity, against the norms relatingto accountability, legality, peace, stability integration and flexibility.In India, the rise of tribalism ethnicity and fundamentalism seemto go against secularisation and integration. Liberalism has lostthe importance.

The first vision was provocatively enunciated a few years agoby Francis Fukayama, a fellow of the Rand Corporation and a USstate department official. He prophesied that with the collapse ofcommunism, and in the absence of a competing ideology, liberaldemocracy based on five markets would sweep the globe. As aresult, the world would 'increasingly become a homogeneousmiddle class culture, in which there would be no place for globalconflict. Opposed to this utopia is the vision of Samuel Huntington,a professor at Harward, who argues that instead of tending to auniversal, homogeneous culture, the world is becomingincreasingly fundamentalist and separate. He defines the postCold War world into eight, distinct civilisations-the West, Islam,Confucian, Hindu, Japanese, Latin American, Slavic Orthodoxand possibly African. He believes that civilization consciousnessis increasing. And conflict between civilisation will supplantideological conflict and become the dominate form of globalconflict.

Like that of the growing fundamentalist movements inChristianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucian values or Islamicfundamentalism in Pakistan, the BJP as being the largest party inIndia leads to the movements of Hinduism. Everywhere is theyoung college educated middle class professionals who seem tobe most active in such movements. If the economic stagnation istaken away, illiteracy and poverty is eradicated and rapid growthis registered in the future, we have good reasons to expect thatthe lives of the majority in the 21st century will be freer, morehumane and prosperous than in the previous decades. Ongoinginstitutional decay can be controlled by creativity and strong

5. The uncalled for use of presidential powers first by the PMand then by the President and

6. Above all, the systematic erosion of party system.

Decay is not, however, the only trend in India's recent history.Certain countervailing trends also exit, the most important beingthe tendency towards political regeneration. This is the reverse ofpolitical decay. It means the restoration of the capacity of stateinstitutions and political parties to respond creatively to socialgroups.

According to Professor James Manor, more decay has occurredin the past years than political regeneration leading toaccommodation, accountability and legal procedures, betweenthe society and state. In his views, there are at least six types ofpolitical regeneration, some of which overlap. They are:

(i) the rebuilding of decayed institutions,

(ii) the creation of new institutions,

(iii) the creation of new programmes which enhance thecapacity of the state to respond creatively to society,

(iv) the reassertion of political or legal or constitutional normswhen they are in doubt,

(v) processes by which an existing institution steps in toperform tasks that are supposed to be performed and mayonce have been performed by other decayed or incapableinstitutions, and

(vi) processes by which an existing institution is strengthenedso that it can perform tasks that no other institution haspreviously performed. But the process of regeneration vaseroded due to the factors such as the' failure of the partysystem the leadership crisis, rise of corruption in publiclife, on life ratio of caste politics and criminalisation ofpolitics, the failures of mixed economy, etc.

Here, the two current events, which are relevant to the 21stCentury should be referred to. The first is the relentless push ofthe global economy and communications, supported avidly byour rapidly growing middle class, competitive markets and socialdemocracy. This phenomenon has influenced the middle-class


and this extensive gender-based inequality can be seen even inthe elementary matter of health-care and nutrition in many regionsof the country. By and large, the rural Indian women today donot see their situation as one of painful inequity and do not pinefor reform, even though the process of politicising of ruralpopulation has set in. They still do not value the importance oftheir freedom or status to their counterpart (men). The secondfailure relates to illiteracy prevailing in India. Since Independencein 1947, India has made a considerable progress in higher education,but remarkably little in elementary schooling.

In the last census, in 1981, only 41 per cent of the adultpopulation was found to be literate, while the proportion of literacyamong women was only 28 per cent. Elementary education hasnever received quite importance that other social objectives haveenjoyed in Indian public policy. For example, the reservationpolicy. Despite this, it has been observed that the Indian illiterateis not acutely unhappy about his being illiterate, and seekingeducation is not one of the more intense desires of the deprivedIndians.4 Against this background, John Rawls's theory of justice,which has contributed greatly to radical regeneration of modernpolitical philosophy and ethics or importance of individual freedomand safeguard the priority of primary goods, appear to have lostthe meaning, because of the variations in sex, age, inherentcharacteristics, environmental differences, etc., that are prevailingamong and within the groups of people.

One of the reasons for detailment of the women's reservationBill 1998, is insecurity among men. Men have started seeing theimpact of women panchayat leaders in local bodies. Thanks to theone-third reservation for women in Panchayats, making themcapable of battling age-old prejudices at home. Even then, electedPanchayat women leaders are facing unrecordable obstacles andchallenges such as physical threats, harassment, characterassassination from male colleagues, etc. They are sexually exploitedby male officials when they approach them for work.Uncomfortable at dealing with women leaders, the BDOs or otherofficers often brush them off saying, 'As you are illiterate, sendyour husband. Likewise, in most cases a coterie of male membershave conspired to bring a No-confidence motion against women

political will by our leadership. The most devastating result of thecollapse of a whole system of governance is filled by the BJP andits exhorts, providing an alternative to the system, setting thestage for virtually two-party system, though this change-overoverlooks the fundamentally varied and federal framework.3Today, by contrast, biggest vacuum is a social vacuum, becauseof the rise of the new social scenario and the economic challenge-i.e. the new rise of regionalism, ethnicity, the interplay of religionand class and the growing assertion of the Muslims and tribals.In this "vacuum", the most dismal has been the relation betweenMuslims and the Congress, followed by the dalits and the adivasisin the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid OR December6, 1992. The 1991 election was an aberration, as a result of RajivGandhi's assassination, in which the Congress system failed tosave its demise as Churchill-was reluctant to do vis-a-vis theBritish Empire.

PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS ARE STILLMISGOVERNED

Fifty years after Independence, India has shown remarkableresilience in working its democratic system. What is more importantis that India has now embarked upon a historic change in itsinstitutional framework of governance after the 73rd and 74thAmendments to the Constitution. This has heralded a system ofmulti-level governance from the Union to the State, to the district,to the panchayat samiti and finally to the village panchayat, besidesthe municipal bodies. There is no other parallel in human historywhere over three million elected representatives operate thepolitical system of the country including one million women. Infact, the decentralised process has been set into motion, but thestructural and procedural machanisms have eroded the spirit ofthe 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts. Our political parties are leastinterested in the empowerment of citizen, especially the womenclass, at the local levels. They do not like to see them coming topower..

As regards to the functioning of our Panchayati Raj system,the mention of the two major social failures is important. Oneconcerns gender inequity, i.e. disparity between women and men


of 'secular Brahmanism' of the modem India. The recent alienationof the backward castes and Dalits from the Congress Party is, inessence, a rejection of Nehruvian Brahminism. According toSwaminathan S. Ankleswariaaiyar, (Swaminomics of the SundayTimes, November 10, 1997), the dominating castes of Kshatriyas,Vaishyas and Brahmans re-attempted to keep continue theexploited masses of Dalit, Shudras, labour and artisan classes inmodern India through secular socialism to carve out their shareof influence. The base of it was 'power' and 'wealth' of the uppercastes of Brahmins (Priests), Kshatriyas (warrior landlords) andVaishyas (trader-money lenders).

The modern India created the new class of Brahmins on thebasis of the British education. His analysis is that the moderneducation created a new Brahminical class of the above citedcastes and they paid homage to a new God called 'Socialism'.Their base was not the old caste-based Brahminism (Be it Pt.Nehru or EMS Namboodripad or Jyoti Basu, etc. who wereBrahmins) but under a new secular variety of ideology. That wasthe situation when India became independent. The backwardcastes and dalits had for centuries cried out for salvation from theThakur and Bania. And the secular Brahmin offered to be thesaviour. Pt. Nehru and his socialist comrades offered a new dealto the oppressed masses through land reforms a dominant publicsector, and egalitarian laws. He told the masses, 'concentrate powerin our hands and we will lead you to the promised land'. He gotthe mandate, and so socialism arrived in India in 1950s.

Pt. Nehru did not impose government's intervention on thepeople. The people themselves cried out for the state interventionto save them from the Bania and Thakur. Zamindari abolitiongave the Shudras land, and gradually shudra castes (Yadavs,Vokkaligas, Nadars, et. al.) became dominant castes in rural areasover the whole country. New laws against untouchability and joband Parliamentary reservation for Harijans and tribals providedthem some succour. So they voted the secular Brahmins back topower, repeatedly.

It was irony that the socialist brand politicians of 1950s and1960s gradually succumbed to the temptation of office, thusabandoning morality or, dharma (duty or selfless service). They

'Pradhans and Sarpanchs', threatening them to act as they (male)went to operate the accounts of Pass-books. Caste discriminationstill prevails at the level of gram panchayats because of the failureof the system and proxies for men. The SC/ST women are doublyhumiliated and discriminated against by their male colleaguesand officials.

The democratic decentralization process has taken its roots,of course, through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments.But the ground reality is that the grassroots administration hasvirtually collapsed in most of the country. The administration isunresponsive to the basic needs of the masses. Fifty years afterthe Independence, our most villages are without the drinkingwater, schools without teachers and health-centres, withoutdoctors. The bureaucracy is not prepared to hand over their powersto the elected members at the grassroots level. The interferenceof the state government is a constant phenomenon in the affairsof appointments, postings or transfers. Consequently, our missionto mobilise panchayats and Anganwadi's plans for theimplementing of the schemes and programmes of girl-childeducation, eradication of poverty and illiteracy has not fairlyfulfilled. The grassroots bodies, therefore, are in a shambles in theabsence of the administrative and financial autonomy to be grantedto them. Mass-empowerment has yet not been geared up againstthe trends of centralisation, casteism and feudalism. Withoutautonomy, no accountability can be laid down.

India have some lessons to learn from the historic Scottishreferendum in which Scotland's district identity and culture hasbeen honoured in social sector against the direct control of imperialGovernment of England. Now Scotland enjoys full autonomy todeal with the areas like primary education, health, law and order,police system and other ethnic issues. It is a fit case of devolutionagainst over-centralisation.

IN SOCIALISM CASTEISM

At a time when casteism is equated with Mandalism orMayawati's version of Dalit liberalization, we are reminded toreconsider the thought of India's greatest socialist, Pt. JawaharlalNehru, whose perception of 'socialism' was perceived to be a sort


results and to rationalise it for the benefit of those for whom itwas claimed to be implemented. The fruits of reservation arebeing reaped only by the second generation of those whothemselves had availed its benefits and are well to do. Thesepeople are depriving the really downtrodden for whom the policywas intended. There is no justification for giving reservationbenefits to the children of those who have already improved theirlot. Instead, the benefit should be passed on to their other, lessprivileged, brethren who really need it.

Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma has rightly pointed out thatthe reservation policy has blunted the competitive edge of studentsfrom the north-east. It is time to review reservation in scientificand technical fields and in the matter of service promotions. Thepresent policy is nothing but a vote-catching gimmick. It is notserving the interests of those who genuinely deserve it. Now isthe time to prepare our youth to be competitive and achieve worldclass standards in every field rather than offer them crutcheswhich would make them parasites on society at the tax payer'scost.

Democratic capitalism does not celebrate the heroship of casteor religion based on feudal society. Instead, values, personal liberty,etc. are accorded. Therefore, India needs to prepare the groundrealities for the democratic capitalist society, so that poverty canbe taken away with and the mass education encouraged, especiallythe girl-child education, but the colonial-based infrastructure andthe feudal pattern shall have to be dismantled.

The objective of distributive justice and self-reliance must bekept in mind. Deng Xiao Peng's example of the People's Chinashifting the feudal agrarian economy into the egalitarian commandeconomy and then partially given a liberal dose of capitalistenterprise is before us to inspire.

It is known as market Socialism, thereby China is planningto meet the problem of unemployment and other social tensions.It is futile to think that reservation policy alone can emancipatethe under-privileged attitude of the more advanced castes andclasses. Educational facilities can help to expose social position.Social securities must be ensured.

revolved around the special relationship with 'power' and 'wealth'to perpetuate the sphere of influence of masses through theelectorate politics. The Nehru family background helped theCongress to alive the pattern of old casteism (Brahman) throughIndianised socialism. They used increasingly controls in the holyname of socialism and created patronage networks in Indianpolitics, without the care of the quality of the governance. Underthe impact of the reservation policy, especially after the fallout ofthe Mandal Commission report, these Dalit and backward classessoon realized where were they being taken for a ride.

They refused to depend on them, because they saw that badgovernance was there to stay. This resulted in the rise of casteistoutfits like the Samajvadi Party, the BSP, Janata Dal(R), etc. inNorth India. Thus, casteist socialism stands altered in India andit has lost the credibility to face the effect of market economy andliberalisation.

It is distressing that their Chief Ministers have not been ableto address the social evils such as land reforms, child exploitation,atrocities on women, population growth, backwardness, workinglabour conditions, caste discrimination, etc. in the rural life, whichhave circumscribed our path of growth and development.

It is afraid that the process of liberalization and the rise ofmarket economy is likely to re-establish the privilege position ofupper castes and their dominance over Indian politics. It is to beseen how the multitude of backward/ dalit castes will remain freefrom the influence of upper castes and how the dalit leadershipwill be able to have a social democracy in Indian political system.Mere vote-bank or reservation policy is not going to help themto solve the existing social evils. Social awareness is the onlysolution for which both education and development are a must.

REVIEW THE RESERVATION POLICY

As we have completed 50 years of Independence and we haveshifted from mixed economy to the 'Democratic Capitalism'through privatisation and liberalisation based on market economy,a fresh look at the policy of reservation policy is the need of thehour. It is to be analysed whether it has yielded the desirable


The status of women in society is not decided by the numberof seats they occupy in the legislature. In the advanced countrieslike the US, Japan and Singapore where women representationis 11 %, 8% and 3% respectively. But the status of the conditionof women in these countries is well and good, because of educationand development. Likewise, it is also not proven that only womencan strive for amelioration of the conditions of women. Mrs.Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister of the country for seventeenyears. But what did she do for enhancing the status of women iswell known. Unless social attitudes towards women changeradically, spurt of violence against women can not be stopped.The attitude of police personnel and judicial officers cannot beexpected to be different from the very society they come from.Therefore, what really needed for women is to be educated andeconomically self-reliant. There is a need to have 'code of crime'against women approved by the Parliament, and job opportunitiesshould be provided for women in the services like police andJudiciary, alongwith simplifying the procedures of system ofadministration of justice.

For the women empowerment, I am of the opinion thatgrassroot women's movements in India should be synthesisedwith the social movements theory, development theory andtheories of the State. For this, the urgent need is to mobiliseresources for poor women and to facilitate their participation inthe development process. With the help of the new economicpolicy, investment through MNCs and market economy, theleadership of grassroot activism should be linked with socio-economic problems facing the rural India.

LAW COMMISSION'S REPORT ON ELECTORAL REFORMS

India has been listed as the seventh most corrupt country inthe world. Even our Prime Minister and politicians haveacknowledged corruption at all levels, but they have been helplessto contain the fallout of it on our polity. Corruption has constituteda threat to our security concerns. Much efforts have been madefor radical electoral reforms and to make elections free and fair.The nexus between corruption, criminality and politics has beenexposed by the Election Commission in its statistics that 40 MPs

WOMEN EMPOWERMENT

The women empowerment issue has been a matter of seriousdebate since the UF Government mooted a plan to provide somereserved seats for. women in the Parliament and the stateassemblies, notwithstanding the fact that educationally backwardand politically corrupt country like ours, the plight of women, inevery walk of life is the worst. We have been boasting about theirempowerment. But can a handful of women solve the problemsof the majority of working women? Equality for women remainsa distant dream. In this context, two categories of women havemade an entry into politics. First, women from well-to-do families.Second, women who have their husbands in a political party, suchas Mrs. Rabri Devi. They are neither politically independent intheir thinking nor socially conscious about the conditions of womenin the countryside.

The first priority of women legislator should be to educatewomen and liberate them from religious orthodoxy, ignorance,and superstition. Unless educated women come forward withhonesty and sincerity to alleviate the sufferings of the poor andilliterate women, empowerment of a few women will not lead toprogress. Equality can be brought about or sustained only byensuring equal opportunities for all. Men have failed in this process.Now it is the turn of women as a class.

In terms of social transformation, the role of the SupremeCourt of India and its rulings in upholding the claims of thedivorced Hindu and Muslim wives have been landmark tostrengthen the position of women in society, vis-a-vis the existingpersonal laws of the respective communities. In all the rulingsfavouring women, the apex court has sought the application ofexisting legislation on gender issues and to modernize them onthe basis of the principle of equality before the law. But ourpolitical parties have shown scant respect to these verdicts vis-a-vis the women's legal rights. Assuming the role of the SupremeCourt as social reformer has evoked protest in political circles. Aneventual uniform civil code, therefore, remains a distant dreamin our political set-up. Women's non-violent movement can onlystir a wave against the prevailing feudalism, casteism andtraditionalism in society.


anything to the proposals made by the Election Commission onSept. 16, 1997, vis-a-vis Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951.

Apart from the suggestions mooted by the Law Commission,sweeping overhaul of administrative laws, as highlighted by theP.C. Jain report, is the need of the day. This Jain Commission wasappointed by the Centre on May 8, 1998 to review of the existingadministrative laws under the chairmanship of a former Secretaryto the Union Government, Mr. P.C. Jain, and it has submitted itsreport on 30 Sept., 1998. Accordingly, a complete overhaul ofabout 1300 laws/statutes/regulations that where enacted by theBritish rule needs updating as per our socio-economic-administrative needs. In short, the whole police-CBI-CVC structureoperating in the country needs drastic changes. There is a needto revitalise the entire criminal and civil justice system, besidessimplifying the procedures and processes laws are there, but theylack teeth when they come to deal with the people in power.

In India, the decay in the functioning of party system beganfrom the day, when 'conscience vote' plea was raised. It boggeddown the party discipline and split party-unity as well, thusgiving importance to individual at the cost of organisation. Itweakened the leadership as well as inner-party democracy. Thecountry has political parties but lacks the institutionalised partysystem.

Our CEC, M.S. Gill, was shocked and surprised at the role ofmoney in the Rajya Sabha elections held in June 1998. In theseelections, in the states like Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Bihar theofficial candidates got defeated because of the cross-voting by theMLAs, who, it is alleged, exercised their right to vote under theinfluence of money. It was unfortunate that, on the one hand, ourpolitical parties talk of electoral reforms in general and arrestingthe use of money, muscle power. On the other, parties yield someimmediate benefits of such malices.

Money and muscle power and the cross-voting trend can becurbed only through the modification in the existing anti-defectionlaw, which allows floor-crossing by a group of legislators whilean 1n,dividual's similar act is taken as a crime. It is like permittingdecoity but making theft a penal offence. The range of the AntiDefection Act, 1985, therefore, should be extended to the

and nearly 700 MLAs are currently facing criminal, murder,decoity, theft and rape charges. The statement has given a clearpicture of the nexus of criminality and politics.

The Law Commission has proposed a sweeping set of electoralreforms, including a 25 per cent increase in the strength of the LokSabha and state assemblies. Another key suggestion madespecifically to curb splits and mergers-is that once a member iselected on a ticket of a particular political party, he or she mustremain in that party until the House is dissolved.

The proposals have been made in a working paper submittedto the government by the Law Commission's chairman B. P. JeevanReddy to elicit the opinion and provoke a public debate on electoralsystems. To prevent criminals from entering politics, theCommission recommends that those against whom charges havebeen framed by a court be debarred from seeking elections. Alsoproposed is a quantum jump in deposits to discourage too manyIndependents from crowding the electoral fray.

The Commission has incorporated provisions of the 1990 Bill,which contained the original suggestions made by the GoswamiCommittee. The Commission would make its finalrecommendations only after getting a feedback from politicalparties the EC, Bar Association and eminent media personalities.The Commission proposes introduction of a "list system in additionto the existing 'first-past the-post' systems to curb the wastage ofvotes polled under the present system. Candidates often wonwith a mere 30 to 35 per cent of the votes cast, in which rest thevotes cast in favour of other candidates were wasted.

Surprisingly, an increase in the Lok Sabha and state assembliesis not an important as is to curb the trend of defections under theAnti-Defection law, and to prevent a flood of criminals againstpotential candidates on the eve of elections. The Law Commissionshould distinguish between non-serious rich candidates andserious poor candidates. The bounded-labour type of system shouldbe banned and the party-system structure must be democratisedunder the constitutional law. It is pathetic that the governmentof the day appears to wish its hands off any responsibility ofcurbing criminalisation of politics, as the government hardly did


and service class leadership have not yet thought of as to how toneutralise the role of the bureaucracy in this new emergingsituation. One of the-reasons for a failure of coalition politics hasbeen the deep-rooted nexus between the politicians andbureaucrats, apart from the criminal elements. This is the directfallout of politicisation of our civil services, which was done duringthe hay days of one-party rule dominance in India, especiallywhen Mrs. Indira Gandhi advocated the philosophy of committedcivil service to achieve the aims of socialist pattern of the society.

Each time whenever a new coalition government comes topower, many senior officials are re-shifted. This is anacknowledgement that our civil servants are really not neutraland impartial. They are compelled to be loyal to a class of politicalmasters. The pertinent question is whether the Indian coalitionpolitics would leave the general administration at the disposal ofthe bureaucracy. Since in India there are no established politicalparties and the politicians have their linkages with organisedcrimes and big houses, an amoral approach cannot be appliedwith the Indian bureaucracy, which deals with big" houses andorganised crimes.

In the wake of liberalisation movement and the entry of themultinationals, the political-cum-administrative corruption mayfurther increase to the extent that all the existing laws would behelpless to tackle a large number of unprincipled politicians andpolitical parties. Therefore, the basic need of the hour is how topersuade our political parties to agree to insulate the bureaucracyfrom corruption. They may have some lessons from the industrialdemocracies, which have done studies to manage and combinereasonable efficiency in administration and business transactionsand to inspire adequate level of confidence in their law and order.Though political corruption and an organised nexus exists there,it is not under effective control. India's bureaucracy should betrained in new ways and means in promoting the interests of thenew socio-economic situations and making its accountable for theperformance.

Mention may be made of the guidelines issued by the UrbanAffairs Minister, Ram Jethmalani on 5th October, 1998. The purposeof the guidelines has been to make the functioning of his Ministry

crossvoting against the official candidate's defeat. A similarrestriction is also needed for Independents joining any politicalparty. A legislator can not be allowed to make the travesty of trustsaddled on him by the electorate and at the same time defyhonesty with impunity.6

The campaign to get rid Parliament of criminals will be effectiveonly if it is accompanied by a campaign to put an end to theconcept of a representative as trustee. Sovereignty must residewith citizens in theory and in practice. Though this is not the placeto elaborate in details the kind of changes that are necessary,methods will have to be devised to give voters a say in the affairsof candidate selection. Ideally, all aspiring candidates should beknown in the constituencies they want to represent and shouldhave the endorsement of some section of the electors there. If thisnecessitates smaller constituencies, so be it. All candidates, whetherfrom 'recognised' parties or not, should have the same access toState facilities and funds; an MP must win at least 50 per cent ofvotes polled to get elected. Such changes will not only help endthe criminalisation of politics and make difficult for electedmembers to ride roughshod over the constituencies interests. Also,the privileges granted to them under Articles 105(1) and 218(1)must be reviewed, in order to make them subject to the rule oflaw.

We were shocked at the developments that took place in Oct.1997 in Uttar Pradesh, following the split in the BSP and defectionsin the Congress Party that led to the formation of Kalyan Singh'scoalition Government, as the loopholes of the Anti-Defection Act,1985, were used by the BJP and all the defectors were rewardedas ministers. The Speaker too was active in the game-plan ofdefections. Given this background, the Act must be reviewed, theSpeaker's role should be subject to judicial scrutiny and thedefectors must be held disqualified under the Act the movementthey change the party label.

POLITICISATION OF BUREAUCRACY

Notwithstanding the widespread acceptance that India hasentered an era of coalition politics, and the coalition pattern hasstarted functioning in our federal set-up, our politicians, media


(1) Scarcity of goods and service;

(2) Lack of transparency;

(3) Delay in procedure and redtapism;

(4) Cushions of safety; and

(5) The tribal instinct of people belonging to an organisationor a cadre to shield the black sheep amongst them.

In the CVC's view, the most common form of corruption inthe government department or financial institutions is collectivecorruption as well as 'exploitative corruption', which help thepublic servants to amass wealth by harassment or by virtue ofposition. And the CVC, too, is a product of these corrupt tendencies,which were revealed by former Union Home Secretary, Mr. N.N.Vohra in his report on 'criminalisation of politics', apart from thestrictures passed by the Supreme Court of India in certain casesof corruption. In this backdrop, the Vittal document on the Codeof Conduct and ethics for our officials may find good in terms ofevolving certain basic norms for a healthy bureaucracy. It is to beseen how the ethics is enforceable in letter and spirit.

Attention should be drawn at the poor or the tardyperformance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), whichis finding it difficult to cope with the mounting work-load trustedupon it by the courts. The present strength of this centralorganisation is 5,630, which includes officers and other staff. Ofthis strength, only 1,050 odd persons are available for investigativework, while it is work involves use of man-hours of more thanits capacity. Likewise, a large number of vacancies exist withinthe organisation. The vacancies at various levels are: DeputyInspector General (DIG): 39 per cent, Superintendent of Police(SP): 33 per cent, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP): 17 percent and 18 per cent for the post of inspector prevailed upto Sept.1998.

The new CBI Director, Tri Nath Mishra, who took charge ofthe agency in March 1998, has initiated several steps to expeditethe precessing of cases. The agency has also sought the setting upof more special courts so that CBI cases pending in other courtsare decided quickly. It has also sought better facilities, so thatmore trained staff could be brought on deputation. Meanwhile,

as open to public knowledge and scrutiny as possible. Thetransparency rule says, "India today ranks among one of the mostcorrupt countries in the world, due to lack of transparency.Corruption can be eradicated only if people have information.Right to information is the most fundamental right in a democracy.

Most of the corruption takes place because of the secrecy withwhich we deal with the files. There is no reason for secrecy in adepartment like urban affairs and employment, where files areexpected to be disposed of as per laid down rules.

Unfortunately, the Union Minister was locked horns with topofficials of his department on the question of transparentfunctioning. The Cabinet Secretary Mr. Prabhat Kumar, put onhold on those guidelines Note. The relationship betweenbureaucrats and their top political masters came under thespotlight. They-bureaucrats and Politicians-failed to playcomplementary roles to each other. It is a manifestation of thegrowing influence of bureaucracy over politics. Because of theemergence of insecurity in the civil services for the twin menaceof deteriorating performance, political instability, frequent transfersand over-politicisation, the interest group among officials continueto insist on status quo, in spite of the fact that there is an urgentneed to amend the statute to redefine the relations4ip betweenbureaucrats and their political masters in the new political situationand to make the administration more accountable, responsive andtransparent. This will, of course, help us to put a check oncorruption and to arrest the fallout of politician criminal bureaucratnexus.

Similarly, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Mr. N. Vittal,prepared the seven point code of conduct for all the Public SectorEnterprises (PSUs) officials to revamp the entire administrationand to infuse faith in the public officials, or a sense of accountability.The purpose of the 'Vittal document' is to have a humaneadministrative system against the poor quality of governance andthe issue of corruption. His strategy is to make bureaucracyaccountable, transparent, honest and considerate towards the ruleof law. In the opinion of the CVC, India enjoys the notoriety ofbeing the world's ninth most corrupt country because of thefollowing five basic factors, namely:


security-internal and external, in terms of South Asia is in danger.The country cannot ignore the drug menace, environmentalproblems, ethno communal problems and trans-border terrorism.However, care has to be taken that it is allowed to function as aneutral and autonomous body. This has been constituted on 19thSeptember, 1998.

CONSTITUTION IN COALITION ERA

Since the 1980s, there has been continuous public debate withinour country about the desirability of taking a second look at theConstitution of India, in the light of the rich experience ofdemocratic practice gained since 1947. This debate has acquireda new urgency in recent years, partly because of the instabilityof apex politics and partly also, because legal experts, individualpoliticians and organised political groups within the country feelthe need for some changes in our system of governance to renderit more efficient and open to popular expectations. The BJP-ledgovernment is more concerned about the days-functional of ourconstitutional law, and to this effect it has set-up a commissionto review the working of the present Constitution, which is thepart of priorities of the BJP-led National Agenda for governance.

According to Dr. Subhash C. Kashyup, the achievements andthe functioning of our Constitution during the last half a centuryare most significant, as the purpose of it to keep India united andintegrated from a highly heterogeneous has been achieved. Ofcourse, the Constitution has been the greatest force and its politicalsystem remained a vibrant.

Ever since it was enacted, it has been constantly under reviewthrough judicial interpretations and amendments from time totime. Even then, the decay in the functioning of key institutionshas been a matter of serious concern since the single partydominance era has eclipsed and the coalition period less emergesas the alternative of the former. No constitution thus, is 'final' orit could be 'bind down', as society changes.

Given this backdrop, the Constitution of India should beamended to keep abreast and the division of responsibilities givento the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. It should be recast tosolve the problems in the new context and changes.

the operation of the CBI has expanded much beyond its originalcharacter. Initially, it was created under the Special PoliceEstablishment Act, 1946, to investigate corruption in the publicsector and central government offices. But over the years evencriminal cases and economic offences like those in non-bankingsectors, which involve interrogation of people in thousands, havebeen added to its responsibilities. This has left the agency shortof trained manpower.

I believe that the hidden cleaves in the Constitution need tobe explored before we give up and talk of a 'Second Republic' orrewriting the Constitution. Instead the options constitutionallyavailable to the President need a more searching examination. Thegrey areas of permissible action and inaction of the head of stateneed exploration and elucidation. The future of coalitiongovernance of the country would be better served when itsPresident performs the role originally conceived for him-not thatof a mere constitutional figurehead, but that of the constitutionalconscience-keeper of the nation, because our elected Presidentrepresents the collective will of the people. He can and must useit to temper with occasional excesses of its representatives, whichseem to be unconstitutional, improper or even morally wrong onboth the occasions. Our President K.R. Narayanan receivedappreciation when returned the central proposals relating to theuse of Article 356 in UP and Bihar for reconsideration.

FORMING NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC)

The 12th Lok Sabha elections have thrown up an inconclusiveverdict, then we have to learn to live with the coalition governmentgovernance. In this situation, the importance to have an apexbody to deal with complex security issues in a coordinated fashion,can not be underestimated. Countries like the USA, UK and severalothers have similar bodies for consideration of security issues. InIndia, the V.P. Singh Government attempted to establish "two-tierNSC," but that was a half-hearted measure, it was never set-up.The way China and Pakistan have established a missile dealagainst India warrants the need to have more systematic andcoordinated approach between different branches of thegovernment on national security issues. Today, both kinds of


relation. All the developmental objectives have to have a timedimension in terms of goal achievement and their effect on society.

It is distressing that after a half century of Independence andprocess of democratic development, we are still faced with thequestion of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, very strange formof coalitional politics and government incapacitated to handle theemerging challenges. In fact, our planning policy has been basedon short-term goal; it is still defective and centralised. There havebeen overlapping in objectives and processes, and no properattention has been given to tribal, urban and agriculturaldevelopment. Therefore, in years to come, agricultural growth,labour-intensive manufactured export and regional disparity mustreceive utmost attention; landlordism must go and more intensivesto agriculture be given. Infra-structure development in terms ofroad, water for irrigation and drinking, primary health, educationand facilities, schooling, power supply, etc. must receive quickattention for the 21st century.

Since we have shifted from a socialist pattern to nationalisationand to liberalisation and market economy in 199091, our planningpolicy must be recast in terms of the people's expectations and theemerging challenges. We have miserably failed to moderate therise of population and to build empowerment of the poor, theweak and women and to ensure their participation effectively inthe growth through substantial improvement in education, skill,health and infrastructural investment.

Therefore, regional imbalances still persist and the impact ofGreen Revolution is unnoticeable, that is per capita income andthe rates of economic growth could not decline the poverty line.Providing free elementary education upto the age of 14, to allchildren remained an empty dream. Therefore, there is an urgentneed to link our challenges with that of the new planning designsand economic policies. Since we have accepted bureaucracy aninstrument in the fulfilment of our goals, it must be madeautonomous and accountable, especially in Public Sector, keepingin view the global competitiveness. Red-tape system will have tobe removed completely, as this factor has eroded the importanceof cost; time efficiency, profitability and credibility of the civilservices as a whole. Therefore, the veil of secrecy in governmental

However, utmost care should be taken that the reforms agendais not purloined by the professional lawyers as in the words ofNehru, India's Constitution "was purloined." The proposed reviewshould be without any pre-conditions or pre-conceived notions inregard to desirable changes. The Commission would have to keepan open mind, actively seek and welcome all suggestions andexamine them dispassionately on merits for their potential tosolve existing problems. Constitution is one matter where nothingshould be done in a hurry. All proposals for constitutional changeshave to be made with due regard to the 'basic features' doctrineeven though these have not been so far defined by the SupremeCourt in any majority judgement. These are to be determined ineach case on merits and for example, include the principles likesovereignty, socialism, secularism democracy and republicancharacter enshrined in the 'Preamble'. Constitutional revision doesnot necessarily imply any switch-over from Parliamentary patternto Presidential system. Other democratic options and suggestionsas discussed earlier should be accepted without biasedness andput into effect.

A FUTURISTIC VISION

Given prognosticative analysis, India needs to re-define itsgoals and objectives for the next century on the long-term basis.For the task of social, economic, administrative goal setting, wehave to re-look at our Constitution to remove the anomaly andthe prevailing inner, contradictions in the constitutional law, whichadversely affects our developmental goals. The contradiction is inbetween the interests of individual, group and social order. Oursocial and economic goals should be so set to harmonise withadministrative task and responsibilities.

In terms of developmental goals in the era of capitalist economyand liberalization, the various facets of economic developmentsuch as growth, GDP-GNP, per capita income, national income,growth of trade and industry, the role of public and private sectors,distribution system, etc. must be linked up with Equality, Justiceand Welfare. Focus should be on removing inequity, poverty andunemployment so as to enhance societal quality. Banishing povertymust be our main goal as poverty and unemployment have causal

Indian Government and Politics350 Bibliography 351

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, R.: Elements of Government, New York, Random House, 1960.Ali, A.: Mandal Commission Controversy, Delhi, Ajanta Publications,

1991.Amartya Sen: Action and India: Economic Development and Social

Opportunity, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999.Ashton, S.R.: British Policy Towards the Indian States, 1905-1939,

London, Curzon, 1982.Austin, Granville: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation,

Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966.Barber B.R.: Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age.

Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984.Bell, D.: The Coming of Post-industrial Society. A venture in social

forecasting, New York, Basic Books, 1973.Benefits Agency: One stop. Benefits Agency delivery, Leeds, Benefits

Agency, 1992.Best M.: The New Competition. Institutions of Industrial Restructuring,

Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990.Blau, M.: Bureaucracy in Modern Society, New York, Random House,

1956.Brierly, L.: The Law of Nations, New York, Oxford University Press,

1955.Burns D. Hambleton, R and Hoggett, P.: The Politics of

Decentralisation, Basingstoke, MacMillan, 1994.Chandra, R.: Judicial System in India, Lucknow, Print House (India),

1992.Charles Howard McIlwain: Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern,

N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1958.Chitta, R.: Mixo Polity and Political Modernisation, New Delhi, Vikas

Publishing House PVT LTD, 1998.

functioning must be removed by transparency, openness anddecentralisation.

Sadly, there is an all round decay of ethics, morals and valuesbecause of the impact of westernisation. Our family-system isunder severe strains. Caste and religion politics has hampered ourdevelopment and growth, for which the factors like exploitation,illiteracy, scarcity, corrupt practices, excess population, poverty,etc., have been responsible. Therefore, our crucial question is asto how to ensure protection of the family as basic human andsocial institution for welfare, happiness and peace of individualmembers within the group and the society in the 21st century.

If the 'family unit' is strengthened, India shall be able topreserve its cultural heritage and traditions and resist the impactof westernisation on our values, ethics and morals, which arerapidly in decay. Hence, Policy-makers must protect individualcitizen interest through family group. With the help of the 'statesystem' and democratic processes, social security or concerns mustbe our vital goal in the next century. Here, the empirical studiesmade by Professor Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winner ineconomics in 1998, needs utmost attention. His theory of economicsbelieves that the goal of the welfare of the poor can be achievedby the western model of economic growth. Globalisation can bea major force for prosperity only if it is backed by adequatenational policies in a conductive social and economic environment;otherwise globalisation would be counter-productive for thecountry's economy and social security net. Our policies plans,goals and objectives should cautiously marry with the process ofglobalisation and liberalisation of western model. In short, oureconomic reforms, which are still sadly in a state of unfinishedagenda, must be put in the top list of priority for our developmentand growth.

Indian Government and Politics Bibliography352 353

Clarke M. and Stewart J.: The Public Service Orientation, Luton,Local Government Training Board, 1986.

Cooper, T. L. : Handbook of Administrative Ethics, New York,Marcel Dekker, 2001.

Datta, V.N.: Sati: Widow Burning in India, New Delhi, Manohar,1990.

Davies .A.: Telecommunications and Politics. The SecentralisedAlternative, London, Pinter, 1994.

Derrett, J. : Religion, Law, and the State in India, London, Faber, 1968.Donald E. : Public Personnel Management: Contexts and Strategies,

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.Doulton, A.: Government and Community Information Services,

Oxford, Dragonflair and CDW & Associates, 1994.Efficiency Unit: Resource Management Systems, London, HMSO,

1995.Foreman-Peck J. and Millward, R: Public and Private Ownership of

British Industry 1820-1990, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994.Friedrich, J.: Constitutional Government and Democracy, Boston, Ginn,

1950.Garrett, J.: Managing the Civil Service, London, Heinemann, 1980.Gawthrop, L.C. : Public Sector Management Systems and Ethics,

Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984.Gerald, J. : Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration,

New York, Marcel Dekker, 1999.Goldman, H.: Co-ordination of Computerization of the Criminal Justice

System, London, Home Office, 1986.Greer P.: Transforming Central Government: the Next Steps Initiative,

Buckingham, Open University Press, 1994.Gyford J: The Politics of Local Socialism, London, George Allen and

Unwin, 1985.Hammer M. and Champy, J.: Re-engineering the Corporation, New

York, Harper Collins, 1993.Hans J. : Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,

New York, Knopf, 1960.Hazard, J.N.: The Soviet System of Government, Chicago, University

of Chicago Press, 1960.

Heimanson, Rudolph: Dictionary of Political Science and Law, N.Y.:Oceana Publications, 1967.

James, C. : The Moral Economy of the Peasant, New Haven, YaleUniversity Press, 1976.

Jarillo, J.C.: Creating the Borderless Organization, Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.

Jones, W.H.: The Government and Politics of India, London,Hutchinson, 1971.

Keane J.: Democracy and Civil Liberty, London, Verso, 1988.Kenneth C. Wheare: Modern Constitutions, New York, Oxford

University Press, 1951.Kumar, D.: Administration Report of the Political Agency, Agartala,

Tripura State Cultural Research Institute & Museum, 1995.Lenneal, J. : Urban Administrators: The Politics of Role Elasticity,

Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1988.Lingat, R.: The Classical Law of India, Berkeley, University of

California Press, 1973.Lipietz A.: Mirages and Miracles, London, Verso, 1987.Lucian, W. : Asian Power and Politics: the Cultural Dimensions of

Authority, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1985.Mackenzie, D.: Knowing Machines: Essays on Technical Change,

London, Mit Press, 1996.Manpong, C. M.: District Administration in Arunachal Pradesh, New

Delhi, Omsons Publications, 1993.Mary, W.: Asian Power and Politics: the Cultural Dimensions of

Authority, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1985.Michael, B.: The Politics of Succession in India, Connecticut,

Greenwood, 1976.Morris, W.H.: The Government and Politics of India, London,

Hutchinson, 1971.Norman, Uphoff: Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural

Development, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1984.Peddleton, E.: Public Administration and the Public Interest, New

York, McGraw-Hill, 1936.Politt. C: Managerialism and the Public Services, Oxford, Blackwell,

1993.

Indian Government and Politics354 Index 355

INDEX

Prahlad, K.: Governance and Public Administration for PovertyReduction, Salvador, Brazil, 1997.

Riggs, F.: Administrative Reform and Political Responsiveness, BeverlyHills, Sage Publications, 1970.

Robert, T.: Practical Public Management, New York, Marcel Dekker,1995.

Rosen, P.: Societies and Military Power: India and its Armies, Ithaca,Cornell University Press, 1996.

Rosenbloom, H. : Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law,New York, Marcel Dekker, 1994.

Rourke, E.: Bureaucratic Power in National Politics, Boston, LittleBrown and Company, 1978.

Scott, C. : The Moral Economy of the Peasant, New Haven, YaleUniversity Press, 1976.

Simon, D. : Public Administration, New York, Knopf, 1950.Stephen, P.: Societies and Military Power: India and its Armies,

Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1996.Sudarshan, R. : Human Development and Structural Adjustment,

New Delhi, McMillan, 1993.Sullivan, N.: Bureaucrats and Policy Making, New York, Holmes

& Meier, 1984.Thomas, R. : Elements of Government, New York, Random House,

1960.Thompson, J.: Organizations in Action, New York, McGraw-Hill,

1967.Thompson, V.: Public Administration, New York, Knopf, 1950.Victor G. : Law as a Political Instrument, New York, Random House,

1955.Vincent, R.: The French in India: From Diamond Traders to Sanskrit

Scholars, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, 1990.Wade, R.: Public Bureaucracy and the Incentive Problem, Washington,

D.C., World Bank, 1994.Whicker, L.: Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration,

New York, Marcel Dekker, 1999.Ziring, L.: An Introduction to Asian Politics, N.J., Prentice-Hall,

1977.

AAdivasis, 332.Administrators, 139, 220, 224,

227.Advertisements, 44, 45, 204,

206.Agreements, 39.Akali Dal, 18, 26, 68, 69, 70,

77, 97, 126, 130, 248,249, 250, 251, 252, 253,254, 256, 257, 280, 299.

All India Radio, 65, 175, 184,250, 260.

Ambedkar, 35, 76, 129, 318.Application, 12, 39, 151, 189,

202, 206, 338.Association, 39, 132, 135, 136,

137, 145, 340.

BBahujan Samaj Party, 118, 196.Bharatiya Janata Party, 103, 122.Boycott, 264, 269.British Rule, 98, 162, 225, 226,

230, 258, 302, 326, 341.Buddhism, 331.Business, 47, 98, 132, 136, 137,

179, 188, 221, 284, 311,320, 329, 343.

CCentral Government, 2, 3, 25,

29, 34, 35, 49, 51, 52,55, 56, 61, 63, 66, 76,

78, 79, 81, 113, 120, 124,241, 245, 246, 247, 249,250, 251, 252, 255, 256,260, 269, 270, 279, 288,289, 290, 293, 298, 300,301, 315, 317, 327, 346.

Chief Minister, 13, 24, 26, 27,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 61,62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 70,71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78,79, 80, 81, 127, 130, 191,246, 247, 257, 259, 260,263, 264, 266, 269, 270,272, 274, 278, 282, 283,284, 285, 286, 287, 289,294, 295, 296, 297, 298,300.

Citizenship, 123, 128, 270.Civilization, 238, 239, 331.Commencement, 34, 46, 47, 76,

286.Communication, 42, 255, 262,

290, 323.Communist Party, 2, 6, 10, 86,

96, 102, 109, 119, 120,121, 284, 285, 294.

Company, 65, 94, 204.Congress Party, 1, 5, 6, 7, 10,

11, 12, 13, 16, 22, 28,30, 48, 50, 55, 59, 60,61, 63, 68, 92, 93, 99,101, 111, 122, 196, 216,231, 232, 278, 282, 285,299, 303, 335, 342.

Indian Government and Politics Index356 357

Constituent Assembly, 6, 33, 35,318.

Constitution of India, 147, 178,304, 347.

Construction, 47, 105, 300, 301,302, 312.

Conviction, 199, 200, 202.Corporation, 44, 135, 136, 184,

245, 327, 331.Council of Ministers, 57, 289.Council of States, 166.Courts, 38, 51, 58, 176, 183,

206, 255, 345.Criticism, 89, 91, 189.Culture, 4, 96, 97, 112, 193,

228, 231, 238, 239, 240,243, 269, 328, 331, 334.

Customs, 44, 230, 264.

DDalits, 118, 129, 130, 201, 332,

335.Distribution, 4, 33, 44, 47, 52,

53, 54, 59, 180, 187, 211,243, 250, 251, 300, 301,307, 320, 348.

Doordarshan, 175, 184.

EEconomic Development, 2, 17,

47, 54, 129, 242, 243,245, 282, 307, 348.

Election Commission, 118, 154,164, 167, 168, 169, 170,171, 172, 173, 174, 175,176, 177, 178, 179, 180,181, 182, 187, 194, 198,199, 201, 204, 205, 206,207, 208, 211, 212, 213,214, 215, 217, 322, 339,341.

Emergency, 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15,17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 38,

40, 41, 43, 62, 63, 64,76, 77, 93, 100, 101, 110,111, 117, 170, 242, 299.

Evidence, 5, 59, 115, 117, 186,196, 198, 199, 201, 303.

Evolution, 15, 212.Exploitation, 224, 225, 302, 336,

350.

FFederalism, 36, 122.Federation, 5, 15, 32, 33, 35,

36, 109, 125, 130, 245,246, 254, 281.

Finance, 3, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59,94, 138, 181, 216, 217,305, 306, 309, 319, 322,323, 324.

Financial Relations, 43.Freedom, 41, 89, 92, 93, 99,

102, 117, 144, 167, 170,259, 265, 269, 290, 326,350.

Fundamental Rights, 64.

GGandhi, 3, 6, 19, 20, 21, 22,

23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,64, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77,79, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99,100, 101, 102, 103, 104,109, 110, 111, 112, 113,115, 116, 117, 118, 122,127, 128, 199, 233, 251,256, 258, 261, 262, 263,264, 267, 281, 285, 287,294, 296, 299, 301, 311,317, 318, 339, 343.

Governance, 32, 150, 185, 186,189, 192, 193, 197, 198,320, 329, 332, 336, 344,346, 347.

Governor, 10, 33, 41, 47, 49,57, 58, 66, 183, 260, 263,265, 267, 276, 284, 297,300.

Gram Sabha, 310, 311, 319, 326.

HHarijans, 296, 335.High Court, 41, 65, 72, 80, 110,

165, 176, 183, 263, 284,286, 297, 314.

Hindus, 7, 27, 29, 219, 224,225, 227, 228, 229, 232,236, 237, 239, 240, 241,242, 244, 248, 280.

IIndian Constitution, 4, 6, 10, 12,

15, 35, 36, 38, 174, 246,262.

Indian Elections, 164, 169, 174,175, 182.

Indian Government, 6, 21, 27,30, 362.

Indian Independence, 34.Indian National Congress, 92, 99,

100, 101, 102, 107, 110,112, 119, 120, 126.

Indian Polity, 22, 57, 82, 255,331.

Indian Society, 22, 219, 221, 226,228, 302.

Indian States, 1, 7, 118.Industry, 2, 8, 9, 14, 20, 128,

137, 155, 223, 236, 269,323, 325, 348.

Institute, 184, 234, 257.Irrigation, 300, 301, 323, 349.

JJanta Dal, 119, 121.Judgement, 36, 65, 66, 148, 150,

152, 314, 348.

Judgment, 196.Jurisdiction, 41, 58, 128, 182,

183, 206, 314, 319.

LLaws, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,

42, 43, 136, 146, 151,152, 153, 178, 184, 194,200, 216, 234, 246, 318,319, 321, 335, 338, 341,343.

Leaders, 5, 8, 14, 16, 17, 23,25, 29, 48, 50, 53, 55,58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68,69, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81,82, 88, 92, 93, 99, 100,102, 108, 109, 110, 111,112, 116, 118, 119, 128,132, 133, 173, 185, 192,194, 216, 218, 219, 223,227, 230, 232, 233, 234,236, 237, 242, 243, 253,254, 256, 258, 259, 261,262, 263, 264, 265, 268,269, 273, 280, 282, 283,285, 287, 288, 289, 290,291, 292, 294, 298, 302,303, 317, 333.

Legislation, 39, 40, 74, 113, 128,133, 145, 164, 165, 196,197, 216, 235, 305, 320,338.

Legislative Powers, 320.Legislature, 28, 36, 39, 40, 41,

42, 43, 49, 57, 77, 88,89, 90, 91, 92, 128, 130,132, 138, 139, 148, 149,154, 155, 156, 157, 159,162, 163, 170, 174, 178,181, 191, 196, 216, 217,246, 257, 281, 282, 289,293, 322, 339.

Liberty, 106, 337.

Indian Government and Politics Index358 359

Lok Sabha, 10, 16, 49, 63, 64,66, 73, 74, 75, 83, 93,105, 108, 110, 111, 112,117, 148, 164, 165, 166,167, 170, 171, 172, 174,175, 182, 198, 207, 212,216, 231, 233, 235, 242,245, 247, 266, 278, 279,285, 289, 291, 295, 308,309, 317, 318, 321, 337,340, 346.

MManagement, 21, 138, 180, 182,

184, 235, 307, 313.Mass media, 184.Media Policy, 184.Minority Representation, 159,

161, 162, 163.Movements, 4, 5, 18, 19, 21,

23, 28, 145, 221, 222,225, 228, 238, 257, 273,331, 339.

Mughal, 106, 236.Multi Party System, 85, 89.Municipalities, 79, 305, 306, 307,

318, 319, 320, 321.Muslim League, 126, 130, 231,

232, 233, 234, 235.Muslims, 13, 28, 29, 111, 113,

114, 115, 129, 130, 147,219, 224, 227, 228, 229,230, 231, 232, 233, 234,235, 236, 237, 238, 239,240, 241, 242, 244, 286,332.

NNational Movement, 221, 226.National Parties, 31, 92, 95, 96,

99, 124, 175, 176, 204,233.

Nationalist Congress Party, 122.

Nehru, 7, 8, 48, 57, 99, 100,115, 117, 118, 126, 127,219, 245, 264, 266, 315,316, 326, 334, 335, 336,348.

Nizam, 286.Nonviolence, 103.Nyaya Panchayat, 313.

OOccupation, 220, 237.Official Language, 95.Operations, 152, 182, 254, 258,

259, 260, 261, 262, 267.Opportunity, 7, 14, 48, 91, 106,

124, 167, 186, 209, 238,322.

PPanchayat Samiti, 313, 315, 323,

324, 332.Panchayati Raj, 307, 309, 310,

311, 314, 315, 316, 317,318, 321, 322, 323, 327,332.

Panchayats, 302, 304, 306, 307,308, 309, 310, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 318, 319,320, 321, 323, 325, 327,333, 334.

Parliament, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47,52, 64, 68, 69, 107, 109,111, 112, 113, 115, 117,121, 123, 125, 126, 128,133, 134, 158, 164, 165,167, 168, 178, 179, 181,182, 183, 195, 196, 232,235, 239, 245, 246, 253,277, 279, 281, 285, 287,289, 291, 292, 293, 295,298, 312, 321, 338, 339,342, 347.

Parliamentary System, 164.Party System, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,

89, 90, 107, 124, 133,134, 330, 332, 341.

Philosophy, 95, 102, 213, 228,262, 315, 333, 343.

Policy, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23,25, 26, 57, 83, 85, 88,90, 93, 98, 101, 120, 122,123, 132, 137, 139, 140,141, 142, 145, 184, 193,226, 227, 230, 236, 239,248, 250, 261, 265, 271,291, 318, 333, 336, 337,339, 349, 350.

President, 31, 38, 40, 41, 42,43, 47, 54, 56, 57, 58,64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 78,80, 82, 83, 88, 94, 105,109, 110, 116, 165, 166,167, 168, 170, 178, 179,182, 183, 232, 237, 249,253, 254, 255, 258, 265,266, 284, 285, 297, 312,324, 330, 346.

Prime Minister, 3, 14, 20, 21,22, 29, 48, 57, 58, 59,62, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,77, 81, 92, 94, 99, 100,102, 109, 116, 117, 118,122, 166, 245, 250, 251,256, 258, 261, 262, 263,264, 267, 268, 281, 283,284, 285, 289, 290, 294,297, 299, 300, 317, 318,326, 339.

Privileges, 175, 190, 225, 240,272, 342.

Production, 2, 9, 23, 52, 243,302, 306, 309, 310.

Professions, 44, 46, 155, 156,221, 222.

Prohibition, 194.

Promotion, 189, 231, 239.Protection, 24, 42, 51, 64, 231,

233, 247, 263, 279, 289,297, 304, 307, 319, 350.

Provisions, 1, 12, 40, 43, 44,46, 52, 56, 128, 165, 178,195, 196, 198, 200, 201,211, 214, 216, 259, 265,267, 285, 287, 311, 319,320, 326, 340.

RRajya Sabha, 37, 38, 74, 113,

165, 166, 167, 171, 216,217, 245, 279, 291, 299,308, 309, 317, 341.

Regional Parties, 13, 30, 96, 124,193.

Regionalism, 193, 244, 269, 272,275, 290, 291, 293, 302,303, 332.

Relations, 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10,11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,27, 32, 36, 39, 42, 43,47, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58,69, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,100, 102, 211, 220, 249,251, 256, 296, 327.

Relationship, 5, 31, 35, 47, 55,56, 79, 81, 140, 154, 243,276, 297, 327, 336, 344.

Religion, 27, 97, 137, 155, 163,169, 197, 218, 219, 220,221, 225, 227, 228, 229,231, 234, 236, 237, 240,262, 271, 302, 331, 332,337, 350.

Research, 184, 234.Reservation, 74, 118, 163, 164,

165, 174, 211, 221, 231,233, 320, 321, 322, 333,335, 336, 337.

Indian Government and Politics360 Indian Government and Politics 361

Revolution, 3, 12, 102, 110, 152,222, 236, 288, 349.

SSamta Party, 119.Satyagraha, 233.Scheduled Castes, 74, 105, 106,

111, 115, 129, 147, 163,165, 169, 171, 305, 308,309, 319.

Single Party System, 85, 86, 87.Society, 22, 80, 87, 94, 131,

133, 134, 135, 137, 141,142, 143, 145, 150, 152,157, 159, 189, 192, 201,218, 219, 220, 221, 222,225, 226, 228, 242, 243,247, 275, 302, 322, 328,330, 337, 338, 339, 343,347, 349, 350.

Speaker, 265, 337, 342.State Legislature, 41, 57, 128,

130, 181, 246, 322.Struggles, 223, 225.Supreme Court, 36, 56, 58, 64,

65, 66, 67, 69, 79, 114,165, 175, 178, 179, 183,196, 212, 251, 267, 286,287, 338, 345, 348.

TTrade, 2, 12, 14, 20, 41, 47,

51, 52, 132, 134, 135,136, 137, 139, 140, 229,236, 240, 263, 348.

UUnion Executive, 40, 43.Union Government, 38, 39, 42,

44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 181,207, 234, 241, 245, 257,258, 259, 261, 263, 267,276, 279, 280, 281, 282,288, 289, 291, 292, 294,295, 296, 297, 298, 299,301, 302, 341.

Union Territories, 60, 69, 70, 75,76, 78, 81, 166, 180, 242,274, 275, 277, 291, 292,303.

University, 231, 234, 235, 237,241, 283, 284, 288, 297.

VVice-President, 167, 168, 178.Vidhan Sabha, 73, 166, 171, 174,

175, 198, 309.Violation, 67, 73, 196, 206, 215,

217, 248, 259, 321.Violence, 10, 21, 51, 78, 82,

140, 141, 152, 187, 191,238, 241, 247, 252, 253,254, 255, 259, 260, 261,263, 264, 265, 266, 267,270, 280, 287, 288, 289,295, 296, 297, 339.

WWar of Independence, 32.Welfare, 14, 25, 34, 46, 50, 226,

309, 310, 312, 325, 327,348, 350.

Workers, 2, 51, 108, 135, 155,186, 208, 222, 225, 226,243, 302.

ZZamindars, 225, 228.Zilla Parishad, 191, 307, 308,

309, 310, 315, 323, 324.

Date post:	03-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abhimanyu5001
View:	301 times
Download:	17 times

Indian Government and Politics 4

Documents