From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:05:48 GMT

In article <20154@plains.NoDak.edu> ksrao@POWER.EEE.NDSU.NODAK.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.155100.5571@oracorp.com>, narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana) writes:
><In article <3379@creatures.cs.vt.edu< juvvadi@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Ramana R. Juvvadi) writes:
><<In article <1992Aug30.202729.519@udel.edu< godura@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura) writes:
><<
><<
><<
><<To sum up, I don't think Kashmir should be treated specially. We need to
><<treat all the states equally. I am in favour of autonomy to every state
><<including Kashmir.
><<
><<
><<<Ruchir.
><<
><<Ramana
><
><This is interesting! There is lot of political talk on autonomy,
><but no body mentions how much autonomy there is already in
><the fedaral framework.
><
><States are allowed to tax and raise revenues! 
><
><States are allowed to spend their own way the moneys acrueing
><to them.
><
><States are allowed to police! The federal government does not police
><states! It is because the states are thoroughly incompetent in enforcing
><the law and order that time and again the center had to step in.
><
><States can enact their own laws with regard to education, curriculum,
><and educational practices and instituitions. These are autonomous
><rights that the state has. 
><
><What kind of autonomy that people are talking about that is not delivered
><in the fedaral constitutional framework! 
><

>      Granted that the federal framework provides autonony for the states if
>they want to excercise and toe the line of the central government. I will come
>to it later
>

No! The constitution provides for these rights of states. No state need
to toe the line of the federal govt in order to exercise these rights.
If for some political reasons the states rights are abridged, then the
states have every right to go the supreme court to seek a redressal.
Many states do not do that, particularly if it becomes a useful
political stick to disinform the masses and arouse the people's
emotions: NT Rama Rao is the case  point; he did not go to the
supreme court. He went terrorising people and arousing their
emotions with words "Andhrula Aatma Gauravam!".


>
><When people talk of autonomy, they actually mean political autonomy
><alias the breaking of the constitutional link between the center and
><the states. When stated without proper substance to the argument,
>       What is required is political autonomy and that is what people are
>talking. I do not think anybody who talks of autonony is saying that there
>should be no link between centre and the states but the kind of links we now
>have should be severed.
>
There is no such thing as political autonomy that does not whittle away
the constitutional link between the center and the states. It is a glib
talk to say, "no we mean political autonomy, but not for breaking the
link in the federalist constitution". The goal is pretty subtle, because
proponents of that autonomy do say to the people, what rights the 
states have? How they have been used to positive effect by the states?
What hindrences are there to the exercise of those rights? Why any
demanded additional rights are necessary to solve the states developmental
problems?

They all cloud it under one banner! Autonomy! For what? Rule by thugs!

><autonomy demands are a subtle attempts at breaking the union.
><
><
><Let us look at a state's ability to raise taxes. They can set the 
><tax rates for agricultural landholdings, urban real estate and
><indeed rural real-estate. At least in AP, the Panchayats can levy
><tax on rural real-estate (nonagricultural) and spend the same.
><Unfortunately none of the states tax the agricultural sector
><adequately. 
><
><There is another argument that is given! The center takes away
><the monies and disposes by itself the monies. But the monies that
><the center takes away are returned back to the states according to
><an agreed formula! Indeed some of the poorer states benifit as
><a result of this accomadation. Look at the subsidies on fertilizers!
><All of the agricultural states receive (indirectly) these subsidies.
><These subsidies are revenues acrueing to the states!
><
><Educational funding (like UGC and the like). Again the investment
><on education is ploughed back from the center's kitty into the
><state.
><
><Some states which are not adjacent to an enemy territory may
><legitimately complain that defense expenditure gets disbursed
><unevenly between states. Again one has to look at the broader 
><spectrum.  Because some states adjacent to enemy territory receive 
><the bulk of the expenditure for frontline installations and the
><stationing of personnel, nonfrontline states (like Karnataka, 
><Andhrapradesh, to name a few) receive the bulk of the defense 
><industrial expenditure. So they are getting back the monies
><that the center takes!
><
><I have yet to come across one single state that managed its economy
><better than the center's management of the national economy! Don't
><tell me Punjab is an example! No actually not. Punjab's success
><is in large part attributable to early investment in agricultural
><sector (with a short jestation perid). States like Orissa and
><Bihar which have rich mineral resources required (and require)
><large jestation periods to breakeven on the investment. I think
><if you ask a common man on the street "who will you trust?"
><the common man will reply that it is the center. All the politicians
><that we have in the states are bozos. Like NT Rama Rao dispersing
><people's money (at rs 2 kilo of rice) like his grandfather's
><property.
><
><just to mention the otherside of the autonomy story!
><....kt
>

>       There are two things in the constitution which severely limits the
>'autonony' of the states that the constitution provides. One is the oft-used
>Article 340. It has been used innumerable times to dismiss legitimate state
>governments in the interests of the 'coutr' (read of the central government)
>The other one is that 'the residual subjects will be the subjects of the Union
>Government' If these two articles are repealed, the Constitution of India does
>provide for autonomy. There would not have been a problem of Kashmir, Punjab or
>Assam with Central government as a party to the dispute. 
>

Autonomy advocates have to present candid arguments suggesting a constitutional
illegality in the dismissal of state governments by the federal govt. Where
state govt have been dismissed unconstitutionally, the courts would have
decided the issue, provided the parties concerned had taken the matter
with them. 

Where such dismissal occurred, it occurred because the party in power at
the state lost majority (as in the case of NT Rama Rao govt), or the
state govt were playing hand-in-glove with the terrorist organizations
(more specifically the fascist Karunanidhi govt and his terrorist cousins LTTE)
that is contrary to the security interests of the union, and similarly
in Punjab! Whether Mrs. Gandhi engineered defections from Akalis by
bribing them is secondary to the constitutional application of the
law! The Akalis have a price, and she paid that bought them. They
should never have established a price for themselves. 

Actually the center having the power to dismiss a state government
(and that power is subject to judicial review; no body can stop it)
is the only instrument with which goonda raj can be stopped in its
track. There are so many antinational elements (traiotors) amongst
them the DMK that require to be checked. 

>       But the structure of our political parties is a VERY BIG obstacle to the
>principal of autonony. It is a very sad state of affairs when half the
>passengers on an Indian Airlines flight from Hyderabad to Delhi (an exageratin
>of course) are the dissidents who WANT permission from AICC to topple
>Janard(h)ana Reddi. What is the necessisty of AICC intervening in the affairs
>of the CLP of Andhra Pradesh. I am giving jusy Congress as an example. The same
>thing applies to Jana Singh, Janata Party, Communists and everybody. As long as
>the Federal Poltical Party controls the State Political Party the talk of
>autonony has no meaning. If the two political parties are different as they are
>in the US, there will automatically state autonony as it is enjoyed in the
>United States.

Who should lead the state govt whether X or Y is a legitimate issue
for the party, whether it is Congress or BJP or the loonies. We follow
a system of parliamentary democracy based on the British model. Even
in Britain leaders come and go. Leaders are stabbed in the back and 
in the dary! For labour party it is smoke-filled rooms. For conservatives,
it is the queen's smile!

Autonomy is an exercise of the rights of the people vis a vis the center.
The constitution provides for it> If we produce political deadwoods
as leaders, then they don't fight for the given constitutional rights
of the states. I have yet to come across one specific instance where
state leaders have sold their state's rights. Actually it has not
happened, and I have yet to see a single instance in which the center 
(under reasonable circumastances) did damage a state's cause.

All this talk of autonomy is pumped for generating bigotted sentiment
and for self-survival of politicians, not of people.

>
>
>      
>
>K. Sankara Rao                          e-mail ksrao@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu
>
>Department of Electrical Engineering
>North Dakota State University
>Fargo, ND 58105  USA
>
>Phone:  (701)237-7217  (o)
>        (701)235-9912  (h)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian