The proposed Indian Constitution is a dual polity with a single citizenship. There is only one citizenship for the whole of India. It is Indian citizenship. There is no State citizenship. Every Indian has the same rights of citizenship, no matter in what State he resides. ..The Constitution of the Union and of the States is a single frame from which neither can get out and within which they must work” . — Dr Babasaheb B R Ambedkar while proposing the draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948
Delhi Government’s bizarre order to bar COVID19 patients from other states is fortunately overruled by the Lt. Gov. of Delhi. Still, it has raised many issues about the federal structure of Bharat, especially in the context of dealing with the Pandemic. As the numbers of Corona infected patients are increasing in certain states, and the heath management is now swiftly being handed over to the state administration, the issue of federal autonomy requires in-depth deliberation.
Kejriwal and AAP Government is not an exception but many State Governments ruled by Non-NDA parties are trying to score brownie points at this critical juncture of dealing with the health emergency. In a democratic setup, competitive federalism is a natural phenomenon, but it should lead to conflicting federalism.
The Constitution of Bharat gives primacy to the word, ‘Union’, and not ‘federation’. On December 13, 1946, with the Assembly Chairman Rajendra Prasad in the chair, Jawaharlal Nehru moved an eight-point resolution in the House – states that Independent Sovereign India, shall be a Union of all the territories specifically mentioned, including the princely states. Part one of the Constitution when the legal and geographical entity of Bharat is explained nowhere is the term ‘federation’ used, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the term ‘Union’ after a marathon deliberation.
Even Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar had emphatically clarified that “The Constitution of the Union and of the States is a single frame from which neither can get out and within which they must work”. It is amply clear that the Constitution makers wanted Bharat to be Union with a strong centre but dual polity for the administrative purpose.
The Supreme Court of Bharat since the famous judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 has considered ‘federalism’ including the financial powers of the states as the basic structure of Constitution. Still, it was mainly in the context of misuse of Constitutional provisions like Article 356 by the Union Government which got reiterated in the Bommai case of 1993. The highest court of the land is not called the Federal Court, but the Supreme Court of Bharat is a testimony of the integrated Union.
Civilisationally whenever we tried to assert ourselves based on narrow identities of regional interests, outside forces have taken benefit of it. From the Himalayas to the Ocean, the concept of one Rashtra has been our guiding spirit. The creation of states for the sake administrative convenience is just an arrangement. Decentralisation is desirable but not at the cost of unity and integrity. Whether people, land, water or other resources, it belongs to the entire nation. Using the idea of federalism as a tool to cover up the administrative failures in managing the health crisis is against the Constitutional and Civilisational spirit. It also works against the people of the same state. Dr Babasahed Ambedkar had hoped that Bharatiya Federation will not suffer from the faults of rigidity or legalism but will evolve with the distinguishing feature of the flexible federation. The Pandemic is a testing time for that flexible and cooperative spirit.
@PrafullaKetkar
