‘Tensions between Centre, states going out of hand’

Civil Society News, New Delhi

RELATIONS between the Centre and the states have been fraught. A recent meeting of NITI Aayog was not attended by the Opposition-ruled states with the exception of West Bengal whose chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, walked out half-way, saying she was being ignored.

Being in control and centralizing power have been the signature traits of the BJP-led Union government, especially so in its second term. It has led the states to feel insecure.

States where the Opposition parties have been in power have felt the heat of a political onslaught with even chief ministers being locked up and an agency like the Enforcement Directorate being given free rein.

Less visible but perhaps more serious are the challenges being posed to the delicate federal balance in the country. The BJP-ruled states have been as impacted as the Opposition ones with chief ministers being made beholden to an omnipotent Central government. States, no matter who is in power, it would seem, are being forced into retreat. 

What long-term impact does this trend have on development and governance in the country? Well-empowered and accountable states and cities are needed for economic and social progress. It is at the local level that all the action happens. 

Civil Society spoke to Anil Swarup, who as a secretary in the Union government worked closely with the states in departments as varied as coal and education.   

 

Q: The Centre and the Opposition-run states seem to be locked in endless combat. What do you think has brought this about? What is happening?

It is a totally unnecessary war that in the long term or even the medium term does enormous damage. I can only conjecture why this is happening. I can see four possible reasons.

First, there is apparent aggression on any issue taken up by the Centre which puts the state in an assumed role of adversary. This has certainly been so till the 2024 election. 

Second, I think there is an absence of consensus-building. Missing is the philosophy that you have to take people along to make things happen on the ground. I have always believed that the Centre is a fiction. Actual action happens in the states. And hence it is necessary and important to take them along. I have seen this government work from very close quarters in its first four years when I was there. It is not that the Centre and states will agree on everything. There were disagreements. The question is how do you resolve that disagreement now?

Third, there is an absence of a consensus-builder like Arun Jaitley. He was a guy who could talk to the states and take them along. Otherwise, GST would not have happened. GST happened because of his sagacity, his ability to negotiate, talk, discuss with the so-called adversaries — at least those who are seen as adversaries now.

I saw him operate very successfully, even in the case of coal reforms, when I was the secretary. Now, he was not my minister, but he played a phenomenal role in getting the states on board. Why I say this is because coal was a classic example of Centre-state cooperation. Coal existed in all Opposition-ruled states — West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha. And yet everything happened there. How did it happen? Because of the sagacity of Arun Jaitley.

The fourth reason is unease on the economic front. I think the problems relating to unemployment and so on are very serious ones. Now, if you are appearing to partner with the states, you can’t pass on the blame to them. So, when you have a blame game going on and there is a crisis, you want to find somebody to pass the blame to.

 

Q: What about BJP-run states? The Centre seems to be walking over them as well. Does this indicate an unwillingness to recognize the role of the state? In a sense, a much deeper problem in a federal system.

You know, the fundamental philosophy is of moving towards a unitary form of centralization. If your own party is there, no problem. If a chief minister is resisting you, change the chief minister. Get a man who’s a total yes-man. And that was evident in Madhya Pradesh, in Rajasthan. It is the reason for the tension building up in Uttar Pradesh. In a sense, it is not new. It is what Indira Gandhi did.

 

Q: The ‘double-engine sarkar’ idea strikes at the very roots of federalism, doesn’t it?

This happens in every evolving democracy. It happened during the 1970s when, before the Emergency, Indira Gandhi tried to dominate every state and had her own men there. It is natural when you have a dominant party ruling the Centre and a person who would like to be seen as the person who is doing things.

This is why I say the sagacity of someone like Arun Jaitley is needed. I mean, the Centre was still very dominant but the quest was to enter into a dialogue. If you’re only throwing salvos at each other, the communication stops. There will still be disagreement. There will be strong disagreement. But you will not have a situation where you have a NITI Aayog meeting to which all the Opposition leaders don’t come and then the only one who comes walks out. That’s a serious issue. Someone in the government has to maintain communication.

 

Q: What does this kind of conflict do to the development process in the country? You have been in health, education….

We can’t imagine the damage it is doing to the development of this country. As a secretary in the Government of India I did not convene a single meeting with the state governments in Delhi. I went to the states, sat with them, spent entire days with senior officers, with chief ministers and conveyed a value proposition to them.

You think that you passed an order and it will be implemented. Usually it is, but probably the extent to which it should be implemented and the spirit with which it should be implemented can happen only if you take stakeholders, the states, into confidence.

So how do you take them into confidence? It is not that you allow them to dominate. That’s not the question here. The question is whether you are able to convey a message to the states that what is being conveyed to them carries value for them.

 

Q: Conflict, on the other hand, brings the development process to a grinding halt. 

It’s not grinding to a halt. But we are a developing economy and the pace could be much faster if the people who have to make it happen on the ground are part of your entire process.

It is easy to have ideas. But for any idea to fructify and sustain over a period of time, it has to be politically acceptable, socially desirable, technologically feasible, financially viable, administratively doable, judicially tenable, emotionally relatable and environmentally sustainable.

For it to be emotionally accepted it is most important for stakeholders to feel that the decision is theirs. Without that, they don’t see any benefit in implementing that decision. That’s where the Centre-state relationship becomes very important.

 

Q: The Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have become instruments solely in the hands of the Centre. Isn’t this weakening them and distorting enforcement?

You are making an understatement. In fact, for me misuse and abuse of these Central agencies can lead to devastating effects. Crime and law and order are state subjects. It is under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that the Central government has appropriated for itself the authority of doing things without the consent of the state government. The CBI cannot enter a state without the consent of the state government.

The PMLA under the ED is a problem now. If the states decide to come down heavily on Central government officers, we are in serious trouble. Crime is under the state governments. If they start registering cases left, right and centre against Central government officers, they won’t be able to function in the state.

It’s already happening in Tamil Nadu. There were FIRs registered against ED officials and they can go ahead and even arrest them. Look at the consequences of what is happening now. It will have long-term consequences and will destroy governance.

I don’t know whether you recall this: a Central minister was arrested in Maharashtra when the other government was ruling the state. Look at the impact on governance. This is very serious. It needs to be resolved straightaway. Using, abusing and misusing any law enforcement agency is going to have long-term impact.

And state governments are waking up. They’re getting back their mojo post the last election. I think more state governments are going to become aggressive. And I hope they don’t, because then we are in serious, serious trouble. There will be a constitutional crisis. And you can’t keep dismissing state government after state government.

Governments like those in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu are quite capable of taking such actions against Central officers, even Central ministers. What do you do then? I mean, you can keep going to the court and getting bail. But then we’ll be wasting time on such issues. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Centre-state relations and one has to tread very carefully.

 

Q: In recent times we have seen the Centre destabilizing popularly elected governments. Delhi and Jharkhand are examples.

Dismissing or manipulating state governments has happened in the past, since the 1970s. It is nothing new. But now, instead of dismissing a government lock, stock and barrel, you manipulate and get people on your side. The methodology has changed but the consequences are nothing new.

 

Q: NITI Aayog set out by saying that states needed to be given their rightful place. And that each state was different with its own needs. What happened to that kind of thinking?

NITI Aayog should not be implementing things on the ground. It should work as the principal facilitator in the country. How do you do that? Things are happening in the states. If I were sitting there, I would pick up successful models so that they can be replicated. This should be the primary role of NITI Aayog. It should be showcasing successful models to other states and asking them how it can help in implementation.

It can be transformational. I did that in education. I used to have regional workshops where I used to call state governments to roadshow good work.

Instead, NITI Aayog has started inspirational districts on the lines of a 20-point programme. So, everyone is now cooking up data to be there at the top. They are making districts compete with one another. How will a district in Bihar compete with a district in Kerala? I mean, this is pointless. This type of computation does not work. You have to enable them. You have to learn from one another and then compete with one another. Here, even the adjoining district will not tell the other how they are able to succeed in a particular area because they’re competing with them. What is going on?

 

Q: The North-South divide has been growing. Is it just another manifestation of Centre-state tensions? How far do you think this is going to go?

You could look at its various dimensions. Economically, the per capita GDP in the southern states is higher. The rate of growth has been higher year on year, which means the gap is increasing. Socially, the South has handled caste and religion better. It may not be perfect, but while being more religious, people in the South are less communal. Similarly, they have come to terms with caste. And then comes delimitation, which means the South is not as politically powerful as the North. Given these factors we could be in serious trouble unless the situation is addressed.