'Centre’s coercion forcing satraps to come together and stand against it'

Wajahat Habibullah headed the National Commission for Minorities from 2011 till 2014

Wajahat Habibullah joined the Indian Administrative Service in 1968 and served the government for 37 years. He took over as the first chairperson of the Central Information Commission after his retirement in 2005. He also headed the National Commission for Minorities from 2011 till 2014. Habibullah, who is also an eminent author, shares his views with DH’s Shemin Joy on the debate on federalism.

Several Opposition-ruled states have raised questions about erosion in the federal character of the country. Do you agree with such an assertion?

Whether it was a contest or conflict, there has always been interaction between the Centre and the state since independence. Our Constitution is a unitary Constitution with federal bias. In other words, there is a certain amount of power that wrests with the states. You have the State List, Union List and a Concurrent List. There are some areas of convergence. Some central governments have been more assertive while some were less assertive. It also depended on which government was at the Centre. If there is a coalition government at the Centre, then they are normally catering more to some states because the coalition is formed by parties that are more powerful in states. So they lean more to the federal structure.

If it is an all-India party like the Congress or the BJP, the leaning is more towards the Centre. Presently, there are a number of issues. At present, we have a ruling party that has a majority on its own. So there are some new rules, new legislation which has challenged this federal bias. A good example is the (now-repealed) agricultural laws. Agriculture is in the State List and for very good reasons. Agriculture practice and products are diverse in our country. They have different requirements in different parts of the country. Certain areas are wheat growing, certain areas are rice growing, then there are forest areas.

The whole country is one of the most diverse in the world. Therefore, you cannot have a uniform law on agriculture. It is impossible. That is why a lot of powers have been given to states. These laws were passed in Parliament and people in some states welcomed it while in most states, especially those in the north-west, they staunchly opposed it. Part of the reasons was social but part of the reasons was also purely agriculture. Recently, there have been amendments to the All India Service Rules. These have come in for a lot of criticism and a lot of discussions. So the argument is that the AIS, particularly the IAS, is the steel frame of the whole of India. I don't agree with that. They are one of the elements which are used to hold the country together. So it was felt that any trend either towards centralisation or towards greater decentralisation could lead to the weakening of the service and thereby weakening of what is called the steel structure. But these are matters, of course, which can be a matter of discussion and debate.

What are the challenges, according to you, that the country faces on the question of maintaining federal structure?

Let me compare with the United States of America. It has a federal structure. In that federal structure, the President of the US is very similar to a European monarch of the 18th century. His powers are very limited. He has very strong powers in terms of foreign policy but in terms of economy, taxation and so on his powers are somewhat limited. His powers are also limited in police enforcement. Therefore, they have a number of central enforcement agencies like the FBI, CIA etc but they are not for dealing with internal law and order. In the US, every state has its own Constitution. There have been discussions here too earlier but not now.

In the US, every state is sovereign and has agreed to give up a specific part of its sovereignty to the federal government. In our country, it is a Union government. In a marriage, which is considered as a union, two people come together voluntarily. There is a union. So the voluntary aspect cannot be forgotten in the Union structure or federal structure. In our country, I have seen the argument, which was very well put by Rahul Gandhi in his speech in Parliament, that the country has been a Union and it was the same even during when the empires ruled. The empires were held together by mutual consent. When they were sought to be held together by force, they disintegrated. This is the warning that he gave. Therefore he cautioned that in a union, we must take the cooperation of all elements of that union which means the states.

You have been a bureaucrat for a long time and served under several governments. Has the relationship between states and the Centre has changed over the years? Or is this tension a regular feature?

Whether the relationship has deteriorated or not is a matter of opinion. India today or at least till recently was much stronger, more powerful, more united. I have seen India grow in the past over 70 years. India has grown stronger in the sense of being Indian. Earlier, people used to say they are Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali before they spelt Indian and this is very much there among those who are settled abroad. In India, we are conscious of the fact that we do not assert our state identity more strongly than our national identity. This goes for people from all over the country. This also goes for all communities, whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or Sikh. Now the conflict that is occurring is that this feeling is being weakened. Are we made to feel that because we are Tamil, we are not quite Indian? Because we are one community, maybe Muslim, we are not quite as Indian as others. This trend is there.

When we talk about federalism, the question of the role of Governors arises. Are the Governors acting as super Chief Ministers or agents of the Centre?

In my view, the post of Governor is totally irrelevant in a modern federal structure. As you know in the US, each state is ruled by the Governor, who is the Head of the State. He is not simply a ceremonial Head of the State. He is also elected to be the Governor. In our country, the Governors are selected by the Centre. Now the Constitutional provision for the Governor is only for safeguarding the interests of the Centre but not to govern on behalf of the Centre, except in an emergency and during President's Rule. In our country, the Governor's role is supposed to be ceremonial except when there is a Constitutional crisis. It is described in detail in the Constitution as to when it will become necessary. Now the Governors are playing a much more active role and not necessarily a constructive role. We saw the antics of the Governor in Maharashtra where he was appointed a party to form the government when it did not have the majority. These kinds of things are unprecedented and, to my mind, also unconstitutional.

You referred to the Maharashtra Governor. We also recently saw a Chief Minister blocking the Governor on Twitter. You referred to the role of Governors. What changes would you prefer in the role of Governors?

There is no need for a Governor in a federal structure like India. There is no need for the Centre to be represented in the state. The authority that represents the Centre is the government of the state. That represents the Union. We are a Union. In a federal structure, the Governor is the ruler who has voluntarily surrendered part of sovereignty to the Union. In a Union, you don't have anything like that. The state government comes under the Centre because it is part of the Union.

Earlier, you referred to the proposed amendments to the All India Service rules. The Centre argues that it faces a shortage of officers and these amendments are necessary. Isn’t there merit in that argument?

You have to juxtapose it against history. The rules have been the same since independence. The Centre never suffered a shortage for officers. The postings to the Centre were always considered prestigious. In the service, you worked towards earning a posting at the Centre. And when you are posted at the Centre, then (you want) to retain the posting at the Centre. Now the question is, when you say that people don't want to come to the Centre, I have to force them to come to the Centre, that is an argument, I think, that is remarkably foolish.

These days we also see the Chief Ministers coming together to fight for the cause of federalism. In such a scenario do you see political instability setting in?

Yes. Take the case of the Persian empire as it disintegrated. It was a highly unionised empire. The emperor was an absolute ruler. When it started disintegrating, how did it start? All the ‘satraps’ started coming together and conspiring against the Centre. If you are making a deal under threat, you induce them to come together to stand against you. You are presiding over a conflict in which there is destabilisation.

In such a scenario, what is the way out to ensure that the states and the Centre act according to the Preamble of the Constitution?

By acting in accordance with the principle, i.e. the Union. It is also common sense. The question is how do the states and the Centre get on together. It is like asking how the husband and wife get on together. It is through their personal relationship. They get on together if they have a good understanding and when they believe that one is not exploiting the other. It is all about treating the other as an equal. The same principle will apply.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: