Even though the word ‘federation’ is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Article 1 states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”. At Independence, given the reality of a fragmented India prior to the British Raj, a strong Centre was imagined to strengthen the core while providing adequate division of powers between the Union government and the states, keeping in mind the scale, sheer diversity, and the urgency to institutionalise democratic instincts. The principal architect of the Constitution, Babasaheb Ambedkar, had noted, “The Indian Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it established what may be called a dual polity which will consist of the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery, each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them, respectively, by the Constitution”.
Subsequently, the Seventh Schedule, dealing with the division of powers between the Union (List I), State (List II) and the Concurrent (List III) lists, was made. The real value of federalism in India can be gauged from the empowerment it afforded the diverse regions and ethnicities within, to preserve personal/regional liberties, and deny the plausibility of majoritarianism, i.e., disallowing one government or group to dominate all powers. The federal spirit embedded in the Constitution has played an invaluable role in walking the talk of ‘unity in diversity’ in India.
But since Independence, all political parties have done their bit to diminish the constitutional spirit of federalism. Even the doyen of Indian democracy, Jawaharlal Nehru, cannot escape blame for starting the trend with the dismissal of the Kerala state government in 1959 by invoking Article 356. Nehru regrettably used it eight times, but Indira Gandhi an unprecedented 50 times! The use of Article 356 declined in the 1990s, but the federal spirit continued to be disrupted as other creative means were triggered by the Centre to usurp powers, and it has been especially so in the last eight years.
Also Read | For God’s sake, it’s patently unconstitutional!
States’ autonomy has been greatly curbed with the arbitrary approach to Good & Services Tax (GST) disbursements, and by encroachment on state subjects like agriculture, education, police, etc., without the mandated consultative mechanisms. Central executive actions that nipped away at the autonomy and sentiments of regions and minorities were packaged as nationalistic ‘masterstrokes.’ Even in the purely political realm, horse-trading of elected legislators (often using the dual ‘carrot and stick’ tactics) to jump ship, has reached a crescendo – an open and brazen plan to make India Opposition-mukt Bharat has been proudly presented. Effectively, India’s historical federalism has now come to be equated with systemic weakness. This is both disingenuous and opportunistic.
With this backdrop, to suggest ‘double-engine sarkar’, i.e., same party ruling at Centre and in the state, is craftily wily as it is aimed at achieving even further usurpation, centralisation and majoritarianism. It is tantamount to appropriation of the complete power structure – a doomsday scenario for any democracy. Inherent in the promise of ‘double engine’ is the unsaid seduction of special privileges, as also the coercive blackmail of deprivileging a region should it not opt for alignment with the partisan dispensation at the Centre. Like all things political, it is not explicitly stated but clearly implied. The easy-to-understand concept and accompanying underpinnings extracts the desired response from the electorate, who buy into the simplistic logic and apparent benefits/threats of ‘double engine’. The fact that it did, or did not, lead to quantifiable benefits of governance in the states which already have ‘double engine’ governments, e.g., Uttar Pradesh, is immaterial as facts are no longer the reality, perception is!
The ‘double engine’ expression was first used six months after the BJP had won the Lok Sabha elections in 2014 when Haryana and Maharashtra state Assembly elections were at stake. It was repeated subsequently, given its political appeal, and today as Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are set to vote, ‘double engine’ is being brazenly posited yet again. As electioneering gathered pace, with the top central leadership descending on the states several times to announce mega projects just weeks and days before the states were to go under the model code of conduct, the spiel of only ‘double-engine sarkar’ making possible ‘faster approvals for projects’ was put forth.
The ‘double engine’ bait is part-inducement (like the much-criticised ‘freebies’ galore) and part-threat (that if voters didn’t vote for the same party – the BJP – project approvals, grants, etc., would not be forthcoming to Opposition-ruled states), clearly diminishing fair play and federalism.
While promoting their partisan policies and their claimed outcomes is certainly par for the course, the ‘double engine’ theory is predicated on emotive notions and not facts. ‘Double engine’ only facilitates the sort of tearing hurry seen in pre-decided policies and laws pertaining to sensitive domains like agriculture, cooperatives, banking, etc., and then slamming them down the road of implementation, without the dignity of consultations or necessary debates. When implementation fails, fingers are pointed at the Opposition to make them look like “spanners in the wheel of development”. From demonetisation to the debilitating pandemic lockdown at four-hours’ notice, to the misuse of investigative agencies – the ‘masterstroke’ megalomania of striking suddenly may impress many about the purported intent and purpose of the government but the long-term impact is always less than welcome. Federalism is about respecting the ‘other’ while ‘double-engine’ is about obliterating the ‘other’.
Federalism is directly related to liberalism, and as the political and social environment become less liberal, consultative or inclusive, federalism will be an automatic casualty. Most institutions of checks-and-balances are already politicised, beholden and partisan in their outlook, it is only a matter of time before unilateralism gets normalised. Globally, federalism in democracies becomes weakened whenever the ‘cult of strongmen’ prevails, as that leads to centralisation of everything. ‘Double engine’ is yet another means of usurpation. It may not be illegal but it surely diminishes the last vestiges of opposition and vital dissent in a democracy. This is not the sort of strong central government that the founding fathers of India’s independence and Constitution envisaged.