M.A. (POLITICAL SCIENCE) PART II PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) SEMESTER-IV ( POLITICS)

LESSON NO. 2.1 AUTHOR DR. J.S. BRAR

THE DEMAND FOR STATE AUTONOMY The framers of the Indian constitution decided to have a federal setup in the country. But the Indian federal system is unique in many respects. While it has some features of the classical federal systems, there are a few others which are characteristic of peculiar Indian setting. Infact, the framers of the constitution considerably moderated the federal principle in order to make the centre sufficiently powerful so as to meet all types of contingencies. The large size of the country and abnormal situation arising out of partition weighted very heavily with the framers of the constitution. The British legacy of centralization provided additional justification for keeping the centre strong. Consequently, while distributing powers between the centre and the states, the framers of the constitution gave overriding powers to the centre in legislative , administrative and financial spheres. The autonomy provided to the states within their own sphere was of a limited nature and the centre could interfere in their sphere of jurisdiction on one pretext or the other. The Indian Federal system, with strong centralising tendencies, worked satisfactorily during the first two decades after independence. As the Congress was the ruling party both at the centre and the states. The powerful position of Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister of the country and the emergence of powerful chief minister in the states like Partap Singh kairon., G B Pant, Mohan Lal Sukhadia, etc. also helped in maintaining smooth relations between the centre and the states. However, the establishment of non-congress ministries in some states after 1967 completely changed the political situation. It led to the beginning of a new era of confrontation between the centre and the opposition ruled states. It was out of this conflict between the congress party and the opposition parties, which became ruling parties in some of the states that demand for state autonomy initially arose. The Bases of the Demand for State Autonomy : Serious concern for state autonomy lias been voiced by different political parties of both national and regional variety for different reasons. Some of the important bases of the demand for state autonomy are a under : 1. Socio-Cultural Basis : India is a country inhabited by people professing different religions and belonging to different ethnic, linguistic and cultural group. As such people inhabiting different regions believe that their separate religious social and cultural identities could be protected only if their respective regions are given considerable autonomy. The demand for state autonomy in states like Nagaland, Mizoam, Assam, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir has arisen out of such considerations.

63 M.A. (Political Science) Part II64 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) The overriding powers of the Central government and its attempts to bring these regions in the national main stream are viewed by the local people as attempts to destroy their separate identities. 2. Economic Basis : The demand for state autonomy has also arised because of vast economic disparities among different regions of the country. Infact, the developmental process has not produced uniform economic growth in all parts of the country. There are some states which are sufficiently developed both industrially and agriculturally while a few others continue to be completely backward. There disparities in the level of development of different regions have produced tensions in the Indian federal system. The states which could not reap the benefits of economic development accuse the centre of deliberately ignoring them. Whenever attempts are made by the Central government to level down these economic disparities by earmarking special funds for the backward states, it is resented by the more developed states. As the developmental process in the states has gained momentum, all states demand extra funds from the centre to meet their expenses. But the centre is not in a position to cope with these ever increasing demands for more financial help . Sometimes the decisions of the Central government in granting financing financial assistance to the sates are taken on the basis of political consodeaions. The opposition ruled states often complain of step motherly treatment on the part of Central Government in giving financial help. The states have, therefore, started demanding restructuring of centre-state relations so as to get more financial resources. 3. Political Basis : The demand for state autonomy has also been voiced because of political considerations. A large number of Non-Hindi speaking s states are being ruled by the opposition parties. Strong regional parties have come into existence and started challenging the position of the central ruling party in different parts of the country. The in Punjab, the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir the D.M.K in Tamil Nadu the Telgu Desam in Andhra and the CPM in Tripua and West Bengal have succeeded in ousting the Congress form power. In order to consolidate their hold in their respective states and keep the Congress out of power permanently, the regional parties have joined hands in demanding more powers for the states. Some opposition parties which are otherwise national parties have also joined hands with the regional parties on this issue in the hope that they would be in a position to replace the Congress Party at the Centre with a coalition of all opposition parties. The growth of regional parties has strengthened regionalism in India. As these parties talk in a regional idiom, they are not in a position to have an overall national perspective on important issues. The demand for state autonomy, has thus come to M.A. (Political Science) Part II65 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) be viewed as a struggle between haves and have nots. Undoubtedly, the existing system, with emphasis on centralisation of powers, suits the interests of the rich industrialist class in the country. But the rich peasantry which has emerged as the rulling elite at the state level is not prepared to tolerate the existing system and wants a redistribution of powers between the centre and the states. Main Features of the Demand for State Autonomy : The demand for state autonomy, being voiced by various regional political parties has the following important features. 1. Allocation of More Financial Resources to the States : Under the existing constitutional arrangements, the states do not have adequate financial resources and are totally dependent on central help. Deliberate attempts on the part of central government to under mine the resources of the states and the inability of the Financial Commission to raise the share of the state's national income has further worsened the situation. With the hardening of the economic situation during the seventies as a result of the conflict with Pakistan over Bangladesh, the successive droughts and the rocketing oil import bill, the states have further diminished. The increase in the salaries and clearness allowance of the state has further reduced the availability of resources for planned economic development of the states within their own sectors. Consequently, the states have become dependent on central loans and the resultant indebtness of the states has produced considerable stresses and strains in centre state relations. The supporters of the demand for greater financial autonomy to the state advance many arguments to prove their case. It has been pointed out that the federal system is basically a response to objective social realities which are always changing. As such, the centre state relations must tend to adjust to the prevailling circumstances. With the passage of time, the developmental responsibilities of the states have increased enormously without any corresponding increase in their resources. The cenralisation of resources cannot adequately meet the challenge of development particularly in view of the large size of the country. It is therefore necessary that the financial dependence of the states should be reduced to the minimum. It is being demanded that the financial resources of the states should be augmented by transferring some subjects from the union list. The quantum of hared resources should be increased by including customs, exports duty and corporation tax in the divisible pool. The scope of grants in aid should be enlarged. Among other things the discretion of the union executive. whether exercised through the Planning Commission or otherwise, should be reduced to the minimum. Apart from financial resources, the states also resent the control of the central M.A. (Political Science) Part II66 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) government over heavy industry. As a result of the Seventh Amendment to the Indian constitution, no heavy industry can be set up anywhere in the country without obtaining a licence from the Central government. The Central government, however misuses this power and sometimes discriminate against those states which are being rule by opposition parties. It is therefore being demanded that the states should be liberated from the control of the Central government so far as setting up of heavy industry is concerned. 2. Demand for putting an end to the Discreditionary Powers of the Governor : The framers for the Indian constitution expected the role of a constitutional head in state politics. But since 1967 some of the governors have abandoned this role and tried to act in a partisan manner. They have misused their discretionary power to favour the ruling party at the centre. The Governor have misused their power of appointment and dismissal of the Chief Ministers summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Assemblies reserving a state bill for the consideration of the president and of recommending president's rule in a state. In fact, the Governors have adopted different approaches on different occasions while dealing with similar problems which fall in sphere of their discretionary power. For example , the Governor is expected to invite the leader of the single largest party in the Assembly to form the government in case no political party in having an absolute majority. But the governors abandoned this principle after 1967 and started following the principle of making their own assessment to find out as to who is in a position to form the government. Similarly, the Governors have not followed a uniform procedure while dismissing state ministries and recommending the imposition of presidents rule in a state. The Governors have also followed a partisan approach in matters of summoning, proropguing and dissolving the Assemblies. It is thus clear that after 1967 the Governors instead of acting as constitutional heads, have become the agents of the Central government. They have misused their powers to favour the ruling party at the centre. Consequently, it is being demanded by the states that the office of the Governor should either be abolished or proper guidelines should laid down so as to enable the governors to exercise their discretionary powers in an impartial manner. Some political parties have also demanded the abolution of Art. 356 which enables the Governor to impose president rule in state. 3. Demand for putting an end to Central Interference : The state governments, particularly those being ruled by the opposition parties have expressed serious concern against the interference of the Central government in the administration of the states. The partisan role of the governors at the instance of the Central government and the attempts of dislodging the chief ministers, have come in M.A. (Political Science) Part II67 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) for sharp criticism. Similarly, the states have shown resentment against the interference of the Central government through central services like the I.A.S. and I.P.S. The interference of the Planning Commission in the formulation and implementation of development plans of the states is another irritant. The states are therefore, demanding such autonomy as would completely protect them against central interference. The Demand for an Effective Machinery to Settle Disputes : There are frequent conflicts between the Central government and the state governments on the one hand and on the states themselves on the other. But there is no effective machinery to settle these disputes. The constitution provides for setting up an Inter-State Council to settle all types of disputes among the states. But this part of the constitution has remained a dead letter and inter-State Council has never been set up. Consequently, all disputes among states and between the states and the central government are decided in accordance with the wishes of the central government. It has been noticed that Central government acts in a partisan manner while deciding such disputes. It is not in a position to rise above petty political considerations. The role of the Central government in the Punjab-Haryana dispute over territories and river waters amply demonstrates this point. Consequently, the states demand the setting up of an impartial machinery for the settlement of such disputes. Evolution of the Demand for State Autonomy : The Indian Federal system experienced no serious crises in the first two decades after independence. the Congress monopoly of political power both at the centre and in the states preluded the possibility of a conflict between the federal government and the federating units. The Congress High Command wielded unlimited authority and was in a position to resolve all types of disputes. But the period of harmonious relationship between the centre and the states come to an abrupt end after the General elections held in 1967. The Congress monopoly of power was broken and Non-Congress ministers were formed after the elections in as many as eight Indian states. But the Congress government at the centre was not prepared to tolerate the non-Congress ministries and tried to topple them on one petext or the other. The imposition of president's rule in some states at the instance of the Central government was resented by the opposition parties. They showed their resentment by demanding by demanding greater autonomy for the states. The DMK, which came to power in Tamilnadu after 1967 elections, was things first to raise the demand for state autonomy. It evolved a theory of the rights and powers of the states an voiced serious concern against the encroachments of Central Government in the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. It demanded the M.A. (Political Science) Part II68 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) restoration of the original balance of power between the centre and the states in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. Recommendations of Rajamanner Committee : A Committee was appointed by the DMK government in 1969 under the chairmanship of Rajamanner to examine the issue of centre-states relations and to suggest suitable amendments to the constitutions so as to secure greater to the state. The committee submitted its report in 1971 and recommended abolition of Articles 256, 257 and 339 which pertain to issue of the directives states by the Central government. It also recommended the constitution of a high powered commission to look into the whole issue of division of powers between the centre and the states as contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The commission viewed the subjects mentioned in the concurrent list as state subjects and demanded that they should be placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. It was further recommended by committee that residuary powers should be vested with the states. It also demanded the repeal of Article 249 which empowered the Rajya Sabha to bring any states subject under the legislative jurisdiction of the central government on the plea that it had assumed national importance. The Committee observed that the distribution of financial resources between the centre the states was unsatisfactory and needed immediate restructing. It also recommended that the Governor should be appointed by the president on the recommendation of state council or ministers. He should act as a constitutional head and not as an agent of the Central Government. The Rajamanner Committee further recommended that states should be given equal representation in the Rajya Sabha. But the recommendations of Rajamanner Committee were not acceptable to the central government because it considered them to be an expression of one sided thinking of a regional party like the DMK. The Committee failed to evolve a constructive and purposeful theory of centre-state relations. Akali Dal and the Demand for State Autonomy : Like the DMK the Akali Dal has also a champion of the demand for greater autonomy to the states. The leadership of Akali Dal expressed its views on this issue at the time of the reorganisation of the state in 1966 when it demanded that the newly created Punjab state should be accorded the same status and power which have been given to the state of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian constitution. The dismissal of the United front ministry in Punjab at the instance of Central Government and through defections engineered by it compelled the leadership of the Akali Dal to come out openly against central interference and demand greater state autonomy. In a resolution passed at its Batala conference held in 1968 the M.A. (Political Science) Part II69 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) Akali dal demanded a new equation between the centre and states based on the acceptance of the principle of autonomy of the federing units. But between 1969-71 the Akali Dal remained silent on this issue. In fact, the Akali Dal and the Akali Dal and the Jana Sangh were in power the state during this period and the leadership of the Akali Dal want to create a suspicion among the Hindus and the leadership of the Jana Sangh by becoming vocal on the issue of the state autonomy. However, the defeat of the Akali Dal in 1972 Assembly elections and is subsequent political wilderness compelled it to hard on the old theme. In October 1973, the Akali Dal Working Committee passed an important resolution, popularity known as Resolution, on state autonomy. The resolution demanded that the Jurisdiction of the Central government should be limited to only four subjects i.e. Defence Foreign affairs, communication and currency, All other subjects should be placed under exclusive jurisdiction of the states. The federating units should also have the right to frame their own constitutions. It as demanded the carving out of a new state in place of the present Punjab by including Punjab-speaking areas from the neighbouring states in it so as to ensure the dominance of the . The resolution also propounded the Sikhs are a nation theory. The Anandpur Sahib resolution was subsequently amended by Akali Dal in the All India Akali Conference held at Ludhiana in 1978. But there was no change in those parts which related to the restructuring of centre-state relations. The Akali Dal launched its in 1982 to get the resolution implemented. Consequently, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution become a subject of national debate. The opponents of the resolution argued that it would lead to the disintegration of the country. A weak centre which has jurisdiction over only four subjects cannot hold the nation together. But the Akali Dal maintained that real federalism cold be established only if the states were given autonomy as stipulated in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Communist Parties and the Demand for State Autonomy : The communist parties have also supported the demand for state autonomy. However, there is some difference between the stand of the CPI and the CPM of the issue. The stand of the CPM which is a rulling party in West-Bengal. Tripura and Kerala comes closer to the Akali Dal. Without specifying the actual number of subjects to be left under the jurisdiction on the Centre, the CPM has demanded transfer of more subjects to the jurisdiction of the state in a memorandum submitted to the central government in 1979 the CPM demanded a substantial increase in the legislative powers and financial resources of the states. It also demanded the abolition of the office of the governor and abrogation of Article 356 which empowers the governor to impose president's rule in the state. M.A. (Political Science) Part II70 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) But CPI has taken a somewhat different position. It has demanded more financial resources to the states by transferring subjects from the union list to states list. The scope of 'grants in aid' should be suitable enlarged. The financial institutions should be made to invest more fore for the development of backward states and regions. It also demanded that the Finance commission and the Planning Commission should operate independently and the states should be associated with the formulation of plans. The National Development council should be made a statutory body and its broad relation to parliament should be clearly defined. Other Opposition Parties and State Autonomy : Some other opposition parties have also demanded greater autonomy for the states. The National Conference in Jammu & Kashmir and the Telgu Desam in Andhra have supported the demand for restructuring of centre state relations so as to the interference of the Central Government in the administration of the states. Interestingly both these parties have supported the stand of the Akali Dal on the Anandpur Sahb resolution and found nothing objectionable in it. Infact, both of them are regional parties and have often suffered due to the interference of the Central government. The demand for greater autonomy to the states has been supported by the BJP. But it wants to keep the centre strong while giving some measure of autonomy to the states. As the demand for state autonomy was voiced individually by different opposition parties from time to time, the central government did not consider it worthwhile to give a serious thought to it. But the opposition parties ultimately joined hands to put pressure on the Central Government for the acceptance of this demand. The opposition parties organised several conclaves in different parts of the country in 1983 to evolve a common approach for restructuring of centre state relations. As a result of this pressure and also due to agitation launched by the Akali Dal, the central government decided to set up a commission for examining the whole issue of centre state relations. the Sarkaria Commission invited suggestions from political parties, academicians and citizens for this purpose. The Report submitted by the Sarkaria Commission has recommended no major change in the existing arrangement. It has recommended that the existing provisions of the constitution should be properly implemented to ensure greater autonomy to the states. The central government has not taken any decision on the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. But it appears that in the absence of any major concessions to the states the demand for state autonomy will remain a live issue in future also. Critical Appraisal : It is evident from the foregoing that the demand for sate autonomy has arisen as a protect against the centralising tendencies in the Indian federal system. Infact many distortions creeped into the working of the federal system M.A. (Political Science) Part II71 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) in India after 1967 when Congress Party made all out attempts to topple opposition ministries in several states on one pretext or the to her. Finding no other way to safeguard themselves against frequent interference of the Central government, opposition parties, particularly those with a regional persuasion, demanded restructuring to centre-state relations. The demand was expressed in two different forms. On the hand regional political parties like the Akali Dal, National Conference and Telgudesam have demanded extreme type of autonomy in which the centre will have nothing else except a few subjects of national importance. But national parties like the CPI, the CPM, the BJP and Janata Party have adopted a more constructive approach and demanded state autonomy without in anyway jeopardising the position of the central government. The demand for state autonomy can also be viewed as a conflict among the elites ruling at the national level and those holding power at the regional level. The leadership of the Congress Party at the centre has often misconstrued this demand and counterpoised it with the unity and integrity of the country. Infact the existing arrangement under which the states are completely dependent on the centre suits the interests of the big industrialists. But the rapid development of the states and involvement of the citizens in developmental process require decentralisation of power. Let us hope that the central government would find out a middle path through which the requirement of a strong centre and autonomous states is fully met.

BOOKS SUGGESTED 1. National Power and State Autonomy (Ed.): K.R. Bombwall 2. Dynamic of Punjab Politics : Dalip Singh 3. Punjab : Past and Present (Ed.) : Gopal Singh

QUESTIONS 1. Discuss the main bases of the demand for State Autonomy in India States. 2. Discuss Akali Demand for State Autonomy as enshrined in Batala and Anandpur Sahib Resolutions. M.A. (POLITICAL SCIENCE) PART II PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) SEMESTER-IV (PUNJAB POLITICS)

LESSON NO. 2.2 AUTHOR : DR. J.A. KHAN

ANANDPUR SAHIB RESOLUTION The Anandpur Sahib Resolution is the most authoritative statement of the Akali Dal so far as Centre-State relations are concerned. It is known as magna of the Sikhs. It not only demands special status and privileges for he Sikhs but also discusses in detail the changes which the party envisages in the federal set up of our country so as to make it genuinely federal in character. The most important theme discussed in this Resolution relates to restructuring of Centre-State relations and decentralisation of powers. Such a restructuring, it is argued, is imperative not only for giving greater autonomy to the states but also to protect the linguistic, religious and cultural rights of the minorities. Such a reorganisation of Centre State relations is in conformity with the democratic traditions and shall pave the way for economic progress. The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to establish a federal polity in the country but successive Congress regimes made the Centre highly powerful through various amendments of the Constitution. The process of cenralisation of powers resulted in complete subordination of states to he Central Government. In such a situation it was not possible to preserve the distinct linguistic and cultural identities of the religious minorities.. Consequently , there was a great resentment among the minorities and it posed a serious danger to the unity and integrity of the country. The Resolution, therefore, demands recasting of the constitutional structure of the country. On the real and meaningful federal principles... ot enable this states to play a useful role for the progress and prosperity of the Indian people in their respective areas by the meaningful exercise of their powers."1 The Resolution contains some definite proposals for restructuring the Centre- State relations in order to make the Indian Constitution truly federal. . It proposes that Centre's powers should be restricted to defence, foreign relations, currency and communications. All others powers should be vested with the states. The funds for running the Central departments should be provided by the states in proportion to their representation in the Parliament. The Resolution seeks complete legislative, financial and administrative autonomy for the states by limiting the authority of the Union government to only four essential subjects as referred to above. It would thus, enable the states to raise greater financial resources for their development and make them willing partners in the overal development of the country and thus strengthen the unity and integrity of the nation. It would also protect religious minorities against all kinds of discrimination. Like the federal system of USS and USSR, the Resolution 72 M.A. (Political Science) Part II73 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) also demands equal representation to all states in the Upper House of the Parliament. In order to ensure greater financial autonomy to the States, the Resolution lays particular stress on the need to break the monopolistic hold of the capitalist foisted on the Indian economy by 35 years of Congress rule in India. It lays emphasis on the re-drafting of the taxation structure of the Country in such a way that "the burden of taxation is shifted from the poor to the rich classes and an equitable distribution of national income is ensured."2 In order to protect the interest of Punjab farmers the resolution urges upon the union Government to bring a parity between the prices of the agricultural produce and that of industrial raw materials so that discrimination against such states which lack these materials may be removed. It wants to put an end to the explosion of the producers of cash crops like cotton, sugarcane, oil seeds etc. at the hands of the traders. In order to sure remunerative price to the farmers, it advocates the purchase of major crops by the Central government agencies. in order to make farming more remunerative, it demands perceptible reduction in the prices of farm machinery like tractors, tubewells and other agricultural inputs. Keeping in view the peculiar agrarian economy of the state, the Resolution demands the setting-up of the medium and heavy industry in Punjab. With a view to strengthening the support base of the among the peasants of the State, it demands complete exemption from wealth tax and estate duty on the land of farmers. It further advocates their raising of the ceiling limit of land from the present 18 acres to 30 acres. There are some purely regional demands in the Resolution. For example, control over head works should be transferred to the Punjab. Gross injustice and discrimination done to Punjab in the distribution of Ravi-Beas waters should be stopped. An international airport should be set up in Amritsar to boost the economy of the state. Moreover, sugar and textile mills should be set-up in Punjab for improving its agro-based economy. A perusal of the demands contained in Anandpur Sahib Resolution makes it clear that it concerned with the protection of the religious and cultural identity of the Sikhs by creating a congenial atmosphere. It is based on the assumption that for the protection of independent identity of the minorities in a multiethnic society like India. Its essential to have greater decentralisation of powers. It is only through greater independence and more autonomy to the States that one can make the minorities willing partners in the task of nation building. Keeping in mind the problems that the Sikh community as a minority is facing at present, the resolution demands a total restructuring of Centre-State relations and reorganisation of boundaries of the State with a view to establishing "pre-eminence of the Sikhs." The Resolution also contains some demands which are concerned with the M.A. (Political Science) Part II74 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) protection of the linguistic and cultural identity of the Sikhs as a minority. It demands the enactment of an All India Act, representation to the Sikhs living in other States in Government services, local bodies and State legislatures, installation of a broadcasting station at Amritsar for the relay of and second language status to the Punjabi languages in adjoining states of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir. It also demands an amendment to the relevant clauses of Hindu succession Act so as to enable women to have rights of the inheritance in the properties of their father in-law instead of their fathers. It also wants to put an end to the eviction of Punjab farmers in the Terai region in Uttar Pradesh and equality of treatment to the Sikh and Hindu Harijans in the country. However, the most controversial part of the Resolution relates to the political objectives of the Akali Dal. The Resolution states that the ultimate objectives of the Akali Dal would be to establish the "pre-eminence of the ". For this purpose, it advocates a organization of the boundaries of Punjab by including those Punjabi- speaking areas which presently are parts of territory of Haryana. Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.3 All these areas put together form one administrative unit where the interest of and sikhs could be protected. It is only through the creation of a congencial environment and political set-up that the interest of "Sikh Nation" could be safeguarded. Implications of Anandpur Sahib Resolution The Resolution almost went unnoticed by the general public and the leaders of other major political parties in India. However, it became a subject of public debate when Akali Dal launched a Dharm Yudh Morcha on 4 August, 1982 to get it implemented. It greatly influenced the course of political events during the past four years both in the state and at the national level. There has been a continuous debate on its positive aspects and its shortcomings as well. Its critics have spared no words to malign it and its supporters have defended it vigorously. The debate has not remained confirmed only to the leaders of political parties but also drawn the attention of academicians and public at large. In order to understand its deal implications and true significance, we shall have to efer to some of the important points raised in the country-wise debate on this Resolution. The opponents of the Resolution have criticised it on various grounds. In the first instance, they have criticised it for giving birth to a new theory that "the Sikhs are a separate nation". In common parlince the term Nation is understood as a community which has a separate history, culture and language and enjoys sovereignty over a definite area. By describing the Sikhs as a Nation and by demanding a specific area where their self identity could find a full expression, the Resolution (according to the critics) lays down the foundation of a separate Sikh state. The M.A. (Political Science) Part II75 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) emasculation of the Centre and increasing the autonomy of the States to near independence, with the centre helplessly dependent on them, along with the propositions about sikh nationhood and Sikh pre-eminence take it to the very "threshold of Khalistan".4 They further maintain that the objective of Anandpur Sahib Resolution is to establish the "pre-eminence of h the Khalsa" (Khalsaji Ka Bol-Baala). It is argued that in a democratic country, all political parties and religious communities have an equal right to share political power. The Anandpur Sahib Resolution on the contrary demands a new political set up, "where the interest of the Sikhs and sikhism are specifically to be protected" and where pre-eminence of the Sikhs is ensured, gone beyond the limits imposed by the the Constitution. Some critics have found fault with the federal framework proposed to be established in India in terms of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution as the Resolution leaves only foreign affairs, defence, currency and communication with the Centre and demands that the residuary powers should be vested with the states. The states should have their own constitutions and they would be liable to contribute to the central finances in direct proportion to their representation at the Centre. Such a federal scheme, if accepted in to would lead to disintegration of the country. In a situation to uneven economic development and growing regional pulls in the country, a strong centre is needed to protect the country from centrifugal forces. The opponents of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution maintain that a strong Centre is essential in India to safeguard the country from the intrigue of imperialists who are interested in de- stabilizing and balkanising India. The critics of the Resolution thus conclude that instead of demanding genuine decentralisation of powers, it is likely to strengthen the forces which are interested in disintegration of the country. It will not be possible for the central Government to protect the unity and integrity of the country by exercising only limiting powers as are envisaged in the Resolution. The opponents of Anandpur Sahib Resolution also do not agree with the arguments that autonomy to states in needed for preserving the separate cultural, linguistic and religious identities of the minorities in India. They maintain that inspite of the Reorganisation of States on linguistic basis, there continue to exist numerous minorities which have their distinct language, religion and culture. The interest of such minorities can be adequately protected by strong centre and not be making the centre totally weak and important. Moreover , the Resolution according to its critics, only talks about the linguistic, cultural and religious rights of only the Sikh community and has nothing to offer to the other minorities of India. A few scholars have found contradictions in different parts of the Resolution. For example, the Resolution wants to establish the pre-eminence of the Khalsa by carving out a new state which would include all those Punjabi-speaking areas which M.A. (Political Science) Part II76 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) have been left out of the state at the time of reorganisation of state in November 1966. But it is difficult to understand how such a step would help the Shiromani Akali Dal in achieving its political objectives as a large section of the population of these areas is dominated by Hindus. The inclusion of such areas in Punjab would give no political advantage to the Shiromani Akali Dal and instead would strengthen the position of its main rivals - the Congress party or the Bhartiya Janta Party. Due to the confusion in the words and phrases used in Punjab language, the intentions of the Akali Dal, thus, become suspect in the minds of its opponents. Similarly, Resolution demands purchase of foodgrains by the Central government agencies to ensure remunerative prices to the farmers, but otherwise wants to limit the authority of the Union Government only to four important subjects i.e. external affairs, defence, currency and communications. How cold the Central Government be expected to make purchases of food-grains from the farmers of Punjab under federal schemes envisaged in the Resolution. The Resolution has also been criticised because of its ambiguities and the inspiration that it gives to separatist and secessionist elements. Taking advantages of the slogan that the "Sikhs are a separate Nation", Ganga Singh Dhillon demanded associate status for the sikhs at the jointed Nations. Similarly, some protogonists of Khalistan, like Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan have interpreted and used the Resolution for the achievement of separate sikh state. Some statements issued by late Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale and his supporter also created doubts about the real meaning and significance of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. The critics of the resolution thus point out that it may not be the intention of the Akali Dal to demand a separate Sikh state, but the Resolution could be misinterpreted by anyone who wants to work in that direction. Some scholars have denounced the Anandpur Sahib Resolution because the demands that it makes could not be met within the frame-work of the Indian Constitution. It is argued that there are certain basic features of the Constitution which could not be altered by any-one. The Constitution has denied this right even to the parliament. The federal scheme envisaged in Anandpur Sahib Resolution, if accepted, would violate the basic postulates of the constitution, and as such, is untenable. Justification of Anandpur Sahib Resolution However, the protagonists of Anandpur Sahib Resolution have refuted all arguments of their opponents and tried to prove that Anandpur Sahib Resolution is basically a document which is concerned with the restructuring of Centre-State relations and giving more powers to the states. The demand for greater autonomy has been raised not only by Akali Dal but also by other political parties like C.P.I., M.A. (Political Science) Part II77 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) C.P.M., D.M.K, Telugu Desam and National Conference. Much of the confusion about Anandpur Sahib Resolution, in their opinion, is the result of false propaganda of the Congress party which has resulted form its political calculations. A dispassionate discussions the Resolution would prove that most of the criticism raised against its is unfounded. It is pointed out that there is nothing wrong in calling the Sikhs as a Nation. A "Nation" according to dictionary meaning, is a group of people having a common language, history, race and culture who are sovereign in their areas. As such the recognition of the Sikhs as a Nation in Anandpur Sahib Resolution has led to the Fear that if the Resolution is accepted, the Sikhs might ask for the formation of a separate State. But such a contention is not accepted to those who support the Resolution. It is pointed that the 'Sikh Caum' (Sikh Nation) has been used right from the 18th century when Maharaja carved cut an independent Sikh State.5 The nationhood of the Sikhs was openly recognised by the A.I.C.C. in 1929 at Lahore when the President of the congress party, Jawaharlal Nehru declared in his Presidential address that the brave Sikh Nations, which has made immense sacrifices for the attainment of the independence from the British rule, and prior to that from the Mughal and Afghan invaders, deserves full rights to take part in the governance of free India.6 Even the British had recognised the nationhood of the Sikhs. They went to the extent of offering a separate State to the Sikh nation of the lines of Pakistan, but the Sikh leaders declined the offer and joined hands with the Congress with full confidence that all promises made in 1929 and thereafter would be fulfilled. It is thus, pointed out that the use of the world 'Sikh nation' in the Resolution is based on the historical precedents and does not necessarily imply to carving out of an independent sikh state. The sikhs want to recognition of their nationhood with the federal met-up of India. It is also pointed out that there is nothing wrong in the political goals of the Shiromani Akali Dal as envisaged in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. It lays down that Akali Dal would work, "to preserve and keep alive the concept of distinct and independent identity of the Panth and to create an environment in which national sentiments and aspirations of the sikh Panth will find expression, satisfaction and growth."7 It sees to establish the "pre-eminence of Khalsa". These objectives cannot be interpreted as a deliberate attempt on the part of Akali Dal to carve out a separate sikh state. The phrase "pre-eminence of Khalsa" simply connotes "the effulgence of the aspirations of the sikh people to remain in the forefront in every sphere and these words "Khalsaji Ka Balbala" have formed part of the daily Sikh prayer (Ardas) for over 300 years."8 Similarly, the reference in the Resolution to the fact that "the Akali Dal stands M.A. (Political Science) Part II78 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) for the creation of a congenial environment and a political set-up" does not overtly or covertly advocate the creation of a sovereign independent state out of the existing boudnaries of the Republic of India. As the sikhs are an important religious minority in India, the Resolution only visualises such arrangements in the political set up of the country where there interests are protected. These aspirations of the Akali Dal are fully in keeping with the premises made by Congress leaders to the Sikhs before independence. The Akali leaders often cite Jawaharlal Nehru's statement to the press in Calcutta in 1946 when he declared "the brave sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in providing an area and deep set up in the North wherein the sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom fully, for they richly deserve it."9 The advocately of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution point out that there are many parts of the Resolution amply proving Akali Dal's commitment to the unity and integrity of the country. True to that commitment, a demand has been made for decentralisation of powers which contains an in-built provision regarding the powers of Parliament and the State's contributions to the Central funds. It is also stated that Akali Dal would endeavour to have the Indian constitution recase on real federal principles. The Resolution itself states that the recasting of Centre State relations is essential, "to obviate the possibility of any danger to the national unity and integrity of the country and further enables the states to play a useful role for the progress and prosperity of the Indian people in their respective areas by meaningful exercise of their powers."10 On the basis of these arguments, the supporters of this Resolution believe that "there is not a single word even an oblique reference in the entire Anandpur Sahib Resolution which could denote it either as a secessionist or separatist."11 Recently in the Lok Sabha Election of December 1984, Rajeev Gandhi used it as a political tool in order to elicit the support of the Hindu vicers in favour of the Congress party and described it as "anti-national" and "unconstitutional", something which will lead to "diksctegration of the country". In fact, Rajiv Gandhi made this Resolution his pet theme in his election speeches and lambasted the Akali Dal for producing it and the opposition parties for supporting it. The fact remains that the main thrust of the Resolution is for greater autonomy to the states by restructing the whole federal framework. There is nothing wrong in this demands. The C.P.M. and D.M.K. and some other opposition parties have also made similar demands. The founding Fathers of our Constitution had envisaged a federal set-up for the country, but simultaneously gave more powers to the Centre keeping in view the special circumstances prevailing in he country on the eve of independence. However, with the passage of time, the situation has completely M.A. (Political Science) Part II79 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) changed. At present, the states have become totally dependent on the centre and have been reduced to the "status of municipalities." In order to reverse this trend and to give the states their rightful place in the federal set-up, it is essential to restructure the existing pattern of centre-State relations without further delay. Similarly, territorial demands in the Resolution are in consonant with the principles laid by the state's Reorganisation Commission in 1956 and implemented by the Union Government elsewhere in the country. If the Resolution seeks the transfer or Punjab, all the left-our Punjabi speaking areas on the basis of contiguity and village as a unite, there is nothing objectionable in it. The supporters of the Resolution point out that all the demands made in the Resolution are within the limits of the Constitution. The Resolution, it is pointed out is an "inarticulate expression" of a regional party speaking for the sikh community. It seeks greater autonomy for the state of Punjab as well as for the other states. At the same time, the Resolution demands special status for the sikhs and certain specific territorial and other facilities for the people of the region.12 The federal formula in the Resolution, it is argued is based on The Simon Commission Report of 1930. The idea of an Indian federation was far too liberal and unacceptable to the British Parliament, which introduced the scheme of restricted distribution of powers between the centre and the provinces under the Government of India Act 1935. This was much less than the demand of the Congress party for greater amount of self-Government for the States. The Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) reiterated the earlier formula of huge federation as envisaged in the report of Simon Mission but the Constituent Assembly opted for the status-quo in Centre-State relations and stick to the restricted scheme laid down in the Act of 1935. In other words, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution is a continuation of an urged old demand for a true federation and cannot be termed as a separatist of secessionist move simply because it is sponsored by the Akali Dal a party expousing the cause of the Sikh community. The demand for special status for the sikhs in the Indian federal set-up is also within the limits of the constitution and can be included in Part XXI of the Constitution which lists a number of special provisions. These were introduced in the fifties to accommodate various religious and linguistic aspirations. Many special privileges were enjoyed by Maharashtrians, Gujratis, Telugus, Nagas, Assemmese, Manipuraries and Sikkimese under Article 371 and 371-A to 371-F. Similarly, Article 370 accords a special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir within the Indian Union. If every Community or every region is equal under the Indian Constitution thee should not be any one or any areas "more equal" than others. If it is not possible to grant special status to the sikhs, all such provisions as guaranteed in the earlier M.A. (Political Science) Part II80 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) para available to other communities should also be removed from the present Constitution of India. The supporters of the Resolution point out that its importance lies in the fact that it exposes many constitutional drawbacks in the working of the federal polity and suggests a meaningful scheme for restructuring the federal system of the country. "If Anandpur Sahib resolution sets the people thinking about constitutional reform and future regional developments, our statement in the years to come any acknowledge its positive contribution in this respect".13 Much of the criticism against Anandpur Sahib Resolution would become meaningless if one takes into consideration the fact that Anadpur Sahib Resolution is only a working paper for restructuring Centre-State relations and not an absolute thing with a finality of its own. If any portion of Anandpur Sahib Resolution is unacceptable to the Central Government, keeping in view the greater interest of the nation at large, further improvement could be suggested. It times becomes evident from the foregoing analysis that the Anandpur Sahib Resolution has been greatly misunderstood by its critics. Undoubtedly there are some phrases and sentences in the Resolution which could be misinterpreted in future, but much of the propaganda again it is based on political consideration to malign the sikh community. The ruling Congress party has deliberately interpreted it as something very dreadful and anti national. This was done simply was elicit the votes of Hindus in December 1984 Lok Sabha Elections. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India who has earlier described the Resolution as anti-national and secessionist has now agreed to refer the Anandpur Sahib Resolution to the Sarkaria Commission (which has been set-up to inquire into the make suitable suggestion for restructuring Centre-state relations). This fact shows that this Resolution contains some suitable guidance for reformulating the federal framework for India. This is also a fact that all the major opposition parties found nothing objectionable in its and had always lent support to the Akalis during the negotiations that was carried on between the Union Government and opposition parties. FOOT NOTES 1. The draft of new policy programme of Shiromani Akali Dal (Adopted by its Working Committee at its meeting held at Anandpur Sahib on 16-17 October, 1973). Jaspal Printing Press, Amritsar, 1977, p. 7. 2. The territories demanded in the Resolution include: Dalhousie in Gurdaspur, Chandigarh, Pinjore, Kalka and Ambala Sadar etc. in Ambala district, the 'Desh' area of Nalagrah, Shahbad and Gulha blocks of Karnal distirct, Tohana Sub- Tehsl, Batia block and Sarsa tehsil of Hissar district and six tehsils of Ganganagar district in Rajasthan. For details. Ibid., p. 20. M.A. (Political Science) Part II81 PAPER-VII (OPTION-II) 3. Ibid., p. 20. 4. Avtar Singh Malhotra, Save Punjab, Save India, Communist Party Publication, New Delhi, May 1984, p. 15. 5. Col. Atma Singh Pannu, Sikh Nationhood, The Spokesman (Weekly), 1 June, 1981, p.7. 6. Ibid., p. 7. 7. The draft of New Policy Programme of Shiromani Akali Dal, op. cit., p. 16. 8. Ajit Singh Sarhadi, Anandpur Sahib Resolution : A Demand well within the limits of the Constitution. The Spokesman (Weekly), 4 March, 1985, p. 5. 9. Jawaharlal Nehru , cited in D.R. Mankekar, High Stakes in Punjab, in Mainstream, vol. XXI, No. 4Q, 4 June, 1983, p. 6. 10. The draft of the New Policy Programme of Akali Dal, op. cit., p.7. 11. Anandpur Sahib Resolution, Neither anti-national or Un-Constitutional. The Spokesman (Weekly), New Delhi, November, 1984, p. 1 12. K.S. Grewal. The Resolution and the Constitution, The Tribune, Chandigarh 26 December, 1984. 13. K.S. Grewal, Anandpur Sahib Resolution - An inarticulate expression of a regional party speaking for sikh community. The Spokesman (Weekly), New Delhi, 7 January, 1985, p. 5