Centre-State Relations

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LIBRARY SCIENCE 1983—84 BY AYESHA PARVEEN Roll No. 5 Enrolment No. S-2473 Under the supervision of Mr. S. Hasan Zamarrud Lecturer DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SCIENCE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SCIENCE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH-20200\ (India) ^cto Jtr 3r, 1914 This is tc certify thf^t the iisscrtrftjon udb rnnnilm un er ry nurcruj sion an ^ ;'ji -ancc. ( -)/ Hasan Zanarrud LLoT_jHtrt Ji. DS646 A C K H O^ LED Q*iE M E M T S I feel great pleasure tp express my heartiest thanks towards Prof.M.H. RIZTI, University Librarian and Chairman, Deptt. of Library Science.Besj,<JeS putting necessary facili ties at ny disposal, we took a Keen Interest too In the conqpletlons of this irork.Hls patronage Indeed has always been a soturce of Inspiration. X am highly Indebted to my supervisor Mr* S. Hasan Zamarrud for his unbroken Interest and guldence In the completion of this dlsertatlon. Z am pertlcularly grateful to him for bringing about novel Ideas and encouraging sugges tions during the period of preparing this bibliography. As It Is, I stand deeply Indebted to my parents, who boosted my morale and courage In the course of vrltlng this dlsertatlons* ( /SyESHA PARVEEM ) CONTENTS PAGE PART ONE - INTRODUCTION • • • • • • - AIM« SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY - LIST OF PERIODICAL DOCUMENTED ,.• PART TWO - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY PART THREE - AUTHOR INDEX i. TITX£ INDEX PART ONE Introduction 1 Introduction India is a vast country with people of different languages, culture and history. Each State has its own peculiar needs and problems. Hence the States should have freedom of action and sufficient powers, legislative and executive, to sedure their progress without impairing the unity of the country. This is possible under a truly federal set up. In our country, unfortunately, the experience during the past twenty-five years after Independence is that the powers concentrated in the Centre have been so exercised as to inhibit the States and to deprive them of their initiative. There has been a strong tendency to work the Constitu tion as a unitary one treating the States as subservient to the Centre. It is a myth to say that Centre can be strong only if most of the powers are concentrated in the Centre. Thiru K, Santhanam, an elderly statesman, who was a member of the Consti tuent Assembly has critically examined the plea for strong Centre and says : a strong Centre is indispensable if India is not to dis integrate and dissolve in chaos. But I ... do not agree with those who equate strength with the range of formal constitutional powers. On the other hand, I am emphatically of opinion that by taking upon itself too many obligations in relation to the vast population spread over the length and breadth of India, the Centre will become incurably weak. It is only through concentra- tion on essential All-India matters and by refusing to share the responsibility in such matters with the States, while giving complete autonomy to the States in the rest of the field of Government, the Parliament and the Central Government can be really strong. The tendency towards vague unhealthy paternalism which has come to envelop Indian Federalism as a result of the dominance of a single party during the first two decades of independence is as bad for the Centre as it is unpleasant and provocative to the States 13. Historical Background The Federal concept in India represented a decision which was taken in 1930 as a result of the necessity of including the Indian (Native) States within the Indian polity. The Simon Commission (1927-1929) and the Butler Committee (1927-30) both visualised, even though as a distant ideal, a federal union for the whole of India. The picture emerged with dramatic swiftness at the Round Table Conferences held in London (1930-32) with the delegates of British India and those of the Indian States alike unaniomously accepting a federal idea as the immediate solution to the Indian Constitutional problem. The Government of India Act, 1935 which represented the culmination of the discussions which started with the Round Table Conferences, provided for a federal polity in India. India undoubtedly was a unitary State until 1937, when the Government of India Act 1935 came into force. By the Act of 1935, the British Parliament sought to set up a federal system in the same manner as it had done in the case of Canada, by creating autonomous units and combining them into a federation by one and the same Act. The Federation envisaged by the Act of 1935 was to come into force only after the Rulers, representing not less than half the aggregate population of the Indian States had signified their decision in favour of accession. The outbreak of the Second world War in 1939 abruptly terminated the negotiations, and on 11 September 1939 a formal official announcement was made supending all work in connection with the preparation for the federation. The Constituent Assembly was set up under the Cabinet Mission's plan of 16 May 1946. Under this plan, British Indian and the Indian States together were to constitute a Union of India with jurisdiction over the subjects of foreign affairs, defence and communications and with powers necessary to raise finances required for these subjects. All subjects other than Union subjects and all residuary powers were vested in the provinces. The Indian States were to retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union. The objective resolution moved in the Constituent Assembly by Nehru on 13th December 1947, envisaged a Republic of India where in the various territories would possess and retain the status of autonomous units together with residuary powers and exercise all powers and functions of Government and administration save and except such powers and functions as were vested in or assigned to the Union or as were inherent or implied in the Union or resulted there from. With the British Government's announcement of 3rd June 1947 of regarding the partitioning of the country, there was a decisive swing in favour of a strong central Government. Article 1 (l) of the Indian Constitution reads: "India that is Bharat, shall be a union of States". But a Union of States is not a unitary State though the word federal or federa tion does not occur any where in the Constitution, but the content of federalism has been incorporated in the articles of the Constitution. The word "Federal" seems to have been delibe rately ommitted on the plea that the tendency to disintegrated in our body-politic had been rampant since the dawn of history. Vi/hile introducing the draft Constitution on 4th November, 1948, Dr. Ambedkar said: "The word 'Union' has been used advisedly so that the Constituent parts may not have the freedom to get out". The Indian federal system was evolved out of an imperial unitary State; and the State in the Indian federation did not have the tradition of autonomy. The partition of the country had made the values of national unity and integrity more important than over before. The circumstances at the time of the Constitution persuaded our founding fathers to create a powerful union. The problems of independence, the partition of the country; the integration of native States, the need to repair the damage caused to the economy during the war and a score of other factors weighed heavily on the minds of the Constitution makers. The zeal for a federal form of Government, which originated in the 1935 Act, gave way to distinct towards more unitary features in the political structure. The States that were constituents in the beginning of the Union had possessed neither identity nor any individuality. But before the turn of the decade with inguistic reorganisation, the States with their distinctive individuality were born. When we adopted the Constitution, we had the 'alpha betical'. But by the passage of time the reorganisation of the States on linguistic basis has taken place and today the States are conscious of their identity. The evolution of the distinctive character of the States is a significant factor in the political development of this country. Our Constitution is so framed that it should work as a federal system but in times of war it is so designed as to work as though it were a nitary system. This was the view categori cally expressed by Dr. Ambedkar himself. The situation in which the framers of the Constitution looked at the problems was far different from the situation that obtained now. The overseeing role of the Centre is incompatible with the traditional ideals of federalism. By talking of a strong Centre we are just bypassing the real issue. The strength or stability of the apex of the federal pyramid is dependent on the base. Without a strong Centre and stable States where is the union? Those who talk a loud of a strong Centre ignore this reality. Weak State Governments do not automatically lead to a strong Union Government. The strength of the Union lies in the strength of the States. The Union and the Units both derive authority from the same source i.e. the Constitution — neither being the delegate nor the agent of the other. Since 1950, the Constitutional farme-work of the Union-State relations has remained unchanged but the character and substance of these relations have undergone substantial changes. The demands for the protection and articulation of regional diversities are urged with greater strength and they are likely to persist for long in the foreseeable future.

Load more