FEDERALISM: POLITICS OF SECESSION.

Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar The Indian Constituent Assembly under the Presidentship of Dr. B.R Ambedkar thus pledged for a Secular Republic with its own form of Federalism. Federalism has been widely accepted as the form of government which involves two or more tiers within the polity, each with a measure of constitutional autonomy, each directly governing and being accountable to the people. Since federalism is a viable political and legal tool for addressing the critical issues of conflict that exist in a multi- cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic country, the makers of the Constituent assembly devised a system which best suited the prevailing conditions postBritish rule. However, in the absence of any track record or reliable radar to assess departures from the existing template of norms and yardsticks, which were derived from the then dominant models, jurists found it difficult to certify that the system was indeed federal. It was therefore declared Quasi-Federal. India is thus considered as a federal country with unitary features. The constitution of India explicitly adopted a federal political and administrative structure with enormous powers to the central government and assigned certain specified financial and administrative powers to the state governments. In India, the inequality of states, and of regions within states, has commonly generated tensions and dissatisfactions. Following are some of the basic reasons for these dissatisfactions: 1. Centralisation of power: India is an example of Cooperative Federalism wherein, the Centre or Union is stronger than the federal units or the States. The centre is strong enough to ensure that policies are formulated at this level (By the Parliament). An example of such powers is explained under Article 248 of the Indian Constitution, which provides the Union with Residuary powers. Another example of the Centre prevailing over the states is depicted through Article 201 of the Indian Constitution according to which, legislation by a State is subject to disallowance by the President, when reserved by the Governor for his consideration. There are numerous such examples of India having a strong Union which makes it all the more difficult for the state to govern themselves as many a times the Centre is seen as encroaching upon its interests. This leads to clashes and tension between the centre and the states. 2. Regional Aspirations: India is a Union of 28 states and 8 Union Territories wherein each state and Union territory is distinct in terms of Size, Population, Linguistics, Culture, etc and each aspires to fulfil the interests of its people. Unequal States give rise to the need for the constitutional recognition of inequality, to be built into the federal polity in ways which protect diversity without sacrificing unity or imposing uniformity. In India, the inequality of states, and of regions within states, has commonly generated tensions and

dissatisfactions. Asymmetrical federalism and special status provisions, including special fiscal regimes and incentives, have helped address these problems to some extent. But still there have been many instances where states have cried foul play and discrimination. 3. Financial Dependence: A salient characteristic feature of a Federal Government is legislative autonomy with financial dependence. We all know that the seventh schedule (ART-246) divides the Union and State powers into three lists i.e. Union list, state list and concurrent list, also, according to ART-254, with respect to the subjects of List-3 (on which both state and Union can make legislations), the law made by the Parliament (whether before or after state legislation), shall prevail while the law made by the state legislature shall be void to the extent of Repugnancy. This gives Centre an upper hand in the formulation of laws regarding finance even though they are against the interest of the state. As argued earlier, despite India claiming to be having Linguistic Federalism and Secularism as its guiding principles, there have been many voices in the country who think otherwise. These disagreements have been articulated in the past and even now through movements aiming towards outright Secession leading to bloody confrontations between insurrectionary groups and the Government security forces. Following are a few examples of this secessionist politics in India:

I. PUNJAB CRISIS: During the 19th century and the period during the partition of the
country in 1947, Punjab and Sikhs were the centre of the storm as unlike the southern states (Which had linguistic differences), the Sikhs had Religious differences. Another special feature about this case was the effects of partition itself as neither the Sikhs were given any special status after Independence nor were they included in the general process of Reorganization of states. After much deliberation, the Sikhs were provided with a Punjabi Suba with bare majority of the Shiromani Akali Dal, a Sikh religious political party with earlier bases from the Gurudwara Prabhandak committee. Also it faced three outstanding issues which have still not been solved: The status of the Capital city of Chandigarh shared as Capital between Punjab and Haryana. The status of some mixed Hindi and Punjabi speaking Hindu dominated regions. Division of the river waters for irrigation purposes among the two states. All these have led to a lot of disaffection and dissatisfaction which has in turn created a situation of internal conflict and movements demanding autonomy (Like Punjabi Suba Movement) or total independence (Like the Khalistan Movement).

II. ASSAM REORGANIZATION: In north-east India, especially in Assam, special problems

arose immediately after Independence which made the Reorganization of these territories a very difficult and violent process as the Government faced explicit, univocal demands from the non-Hindu tribal groups. Several sets of ethnic confrontations

intersect in Assam: between Hindus and Muslims, Linguistic groups (particularly Assamese and Bengali speaking), Residents and migrant population and the indigenous tribes. There have been numerous movements both peaceful as well as violent in the state and to further this revolution, many organizations like the All Assam Students Union (AASU), Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), etc have been created. The Asom Gana Parishad is a Regional political party in Assam which consists of a Hindu dominated alliance with the Plains tribals, plantation workers and Muslims. In 1985 this party came to power but faced multiple dilemmas in the form of the Bodo Movement by the tribals and the toughest till now struggle with the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) which was a militant and a violent movement. All this was because of their ties with the centre and the ULFA launched an altogether secession and independence movement claiming that they have lost faith in both AGP and the centre. This was not the end to the locals dissatisfaction as the state introduced the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act which was a Counter-Terrorist Legislation that gave state the authority to launch counterforce operations against the members of ULFA. This intervention was successful and the ULFA got divided and perished while the same happened to the aspirations of those who supported it.

III.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR SITUATION: The Kashmir issue has occupied a prominence
in Indian and South Asian domestic and international politics for over six decades now. Despite its special status and particular form of regional autonomy, the Central Government and political leaders have intervened as much or more in Kashmir since the time of independence than in any other state of the Union. Kashmir first saw a very strong centre-state alliance under the National Conference Government led by the peoples popular leader Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah but later the same government under the same leader propagated a notion of difference and covert support for Independence which landed Sheikh Abdullah behind bars. After this started a period of turmoil which saw a clash between the Hindu and Muslim population and an armed rebellion led by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). There are three prevailing explanations to the rise of insurrectionary and secessionist movements in Kashmir: The Indian Government has always been far too soft and permissive in issues of violations of the special acts like AFSPA, etc which leads to widespread discontent and anger as the Security forces misuse these acts to kill civilians and achieve awards and recognitions. There exists a prehistoric desire among the Kashmiri Muslims for a Muslim dominant state separate in existence from the Hindu majority country. The Indian state has failed in Kashmir like many other states to provide an economic environment in which a new generation of Kashmiris could sustain themselves with decent living conditions, permanent and reaping jobs, amenities to modern and developed lifestyle, etc.

Under our Constitution, it is possible for the Union Parliament to reorganise the states or alter their boundaries, by a simple majority in the ordinary process of legislation [ART4 (2)]. But it is not possible for the States of the Union of India, to exercise any right of secession or even advocate for secession as part of the freedom of speech (16 th Amendment to the constitution). It was only prior to 1970s that the Centre was seen as a councillor of last resort for its non-intervention in state politics. It was only after Indira Gandhi came into power that the Union Government began encroaching upon state policies to maintain its dominance at the centre.