Editorial: Centre Should Respect States More

Centre-State relations are making headlines with Chief Ministers not directly dependent on the Congress high command in isolated Delhi for survival, standing up against the Centre’s aggressive attempts to intrude upon one more aspect underlining the federal make-up of the country. The latest point of divergence strikes off from the Centre’s attempts to purloin more powers away from the States by claiming more say in matters of law and order. National security is being invoked to push through the latest intrusion. Unfortunately, in the process, National Interest is being sidelined. National security is not the Centre’s responsibility alone and it is offensive to even suggest that State Government’s are not motivated enough to deliver on this count. The manner in which security agencies not required by law to work in coordination with State governments bulldoze local interests and refuse to take anyone into confidence is understood well enough by all border people to distrust any moves to have forces with their masters in distant Delhi posted among them. While the voices from the margins are easily drowned out because of their miniscule presence in Parliament, now that larger states are at the receiving end of such overtures, the issue has made the news. This is not an attempt to underplay the importance national security, but instead, an effort to highlight the heightened levels of suspicion with which every arm of our democracy is now engaging each other. The judiciary is growing increasingly dismissive of the executive and the legislative, the Centre distrustful of the States and vice versa, the executive scoffs at the legislative and the legislative blames the executive for non-delivery of policy initiatives. And then there is the Fourth Estate which censures everyone. At a very shallow level, each attitude wins applause [not so much for a correct stand as for running some other agency down], but scratch deeper and very quickly the damage being wreaked on the country at large stands exposed. When the arms empowered by the Constitution keep busy pushing and pulling at each other, clichéd as it may sound, the task of nation-building suffers.
There is enough being written about the latest spat between the states and the Centre with regard to the NCTC, so we will stay away from that debate here. What we will highlight here is a growing fixation at the Centre to direct other aspects of State affairs like development, and the pitfalls that remain unaddressed. Finance, generating revenue and deciding expenditure, is rested in the control of individual states by the Constitution which saw India strongest as a federal structure. And yet, increasingly, especially when it comes to the affairs of smaller states like Sikkim, the Centre is exerting more control. At one level, this comes by way of centrally sponsored schemes. While many sees these as ‘good’ initiatives, most CSS efforts stumble the moment they leave the doors of babus in Delhi who scheme them. This is not because of ‘rampant corruption’ alone, but more so because of an overbearing set of conditions which come attached to such schemes. These one size fits all conditions decided in Delhi are not only impractical, but also impossible to ensure across the board. When the start itself poses a challenge, making compromises and taking short-cuts follows easily. For example, the cost analysis for a road cannot follow the same percentage break-ups in hills states as they would in the plains. Even in hilly terrains, the cost analysis will differ depending on aspects like remoteness, weather conditions and access to labour and materials. And yet, a copy-paste model is extended everywhere with the controls held by the Centre which does not understand ground situations. It is important for States to demand that funds, even when tied to specific goals, be released with the processes and priorities left in the control of individual states. The MG-NREGA for instance could be made more effective if it was kept open to course corrections and adjustments which would ensure that the final aim of financial security for rural households was delivered. In its present structure, it forces implementating agencies to settle for tokenism or undertake superfluous projects just so that the wages can be dispensed. To drive home the point, sample this: Included in the Rs. 1,400 crore plan outlay announced for Sikkim for the last financial year 2011-12, Rs. 161.55 crore was for JNNURM projects and Rs. 117 crore for something that goes by the acronym AIBP. Through the year, Sikkim received a miniscule Rs. 37 crore under JNNURM and nothing through AIBP. For a long while one has blamed bureaucrats for having failed the State by not preparing good enough DPRs to receive the earmarked funds. On closer enquiry, it becomes clear that this is only part of the problem and a larger contributor to such cosmetic offers not materialising is Delhi’s refusal to either release the funds or understand how pricing and projections work in States like Sikkim. We are witnessing the same with the red-tape tying up earthquake restoration funds. Irrespective of what one may think of Sikkim’s bureaucrats or politicians, the idea that a whirlwind visit by Central Government officers can decide whether Sikkim’s claims are genuine or not should offend everyone here. There is definitely a trust deficit at play across the country, and there are also very valid reasons for this general lack of faith, but that still does not justify the supercilious attitudes which lace the Centre’s engagements with the States. Smaller states like Sikkim have had to suck it all in and play subservient, but now, with the federal structure gaining strength with the rise of regional parties in larger states, the colonial carryovers are getting challenged. Once Delhi learns to work with the States instead of constantly trying to bypass them, maybe things will work better, until then the larger issues facing the nation will be lost in the din of posturing and muscle flexing.