Holier Than The Whole

The kaleidoscopic political patterns unfolding from across the states have led some of us to lament the loss of central authority. Is the strong Indian Union lost in the clamouring, and at times obdurate, voices from the regions? It’s an important question, for the din is getting louder by the day, extracting a concession one day, blocking a legislation on another and dictating foreign policy on yet another. Where, among these swiftly moving and changing images of strong state leaders and political aggregations, do we search for the idea of India?

Perhaps the time has come to expand our imagination and see the idea of national interest differently, see it, in fact, as emerging from the states. Real federalism involves a healthy partnership between the centre and the states. But the strong centre has been unravelling for a while and this trend will continue: all data show the bases of national political parties shrinking. We must now create legal-political structures that help channel regional forces into positive dynamism.

How well we do this depends on our ways of seeing and perceiving. Should we start seeing India as a confederation of powerful nation-states instead of a nation with many states? Let us accept the reality that the centre will no longer be in a position to suggest big policy even if that measure appears to be for the greater good, be it social or economic. UPA-I could push RTI and NREGA without the states complaining of their rights being impinged upon, because the Left parties, then an influential chunk, gave outside support. UPA-II can push nothing without hitting the brick wall of its own members.

Political chemistry is not just about numbers but also image. Earlier, Sonia Gandhi had a “post-sacrifice” halo around her, and her son Rahul too held promise. The prime minister was the icon of the middle class. Now that all the images have been dented, every suggestion made by the Congress-led centre is carefully examined for any real or perceived infringement of states’ rights. The BJP too has caught on to the idea and has for a while been taking the more-federal-than-you position vis-a-vis the Congress.

It’s interesting to see a party ideologically committed to a strong centre spout federalism as a political tactic. In contrast, like the emperor of a shrinking kingdom, the Congress leadership still appears to live in the fortress of their illusions, only conceding the imperial will under visible pressure tactics of those they seem to view as power-troopers.

But let us be very clear about what has happened in recent weeks. By giving the go-ahead to the Koodankulam nuclear plant, Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha has actually salvaged the nuclear dream of the prime minister. Simultaneously, both AIADMK and DMK forced a foreign policy shift when India voted against Sri Lanka’s human rights record.

From West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee dictated the railway budget. But the most interesting statement came from the biggest state powerhouse to emerge lately. After the new poverty line was announced, Mulayam Singh Yadav asked for the resignation of Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and all the commission members. Set up in 1950 with Nehru as the first chairman, the Planning Commission is, according to its website, mandated to come up with plans for “augmenting resources of the country” and “formulating plans for the most efficient and balanced utilisation of resources and determining priorities”. In other words, it’s the kind of institution that tells the states what to do. They don’t like it and Mulayam would like them all sacked!

So, are we condemned to anarchy? Not if we start thinking beyond the concept of “centre equals nation”, the position from which most of us in the English language media approach the national narrative. From the time the electoral mandate fractured in north India and the social order was turned upside down by the forces of Mandal (it had happened decades ago in the south), we have viewed the smaller parties as harbingers of trouble. They were first seen as the unwashed masses at the high table; now that many state leaders have turned out to be smart, strong men and women, we see them as obstinate immovable objects.

Something positive can come out of this pull-and-push if we devise ideas and create structures to involve the states in national policy. Engage with them not only about their region, but make them stakeholders in every national scheme. Let some bright ideas come out of the states, not just the people around Sonia and Rahul or the M&M (Manmohan-Montek) team. We need to reboot our minds or we will just be overwhelmed by the picture of apparent chaos.