On this Republic Day, as we come together to commemorate the Constitution of India, we ask, whether it바카라s time for India to enter into a new federal negotiation, or will the consistent political lure of centralisation drown the federal principles of our Constitution.
The Indian Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it established what may be called a dual polity which will consist of the Union at the Centre and the States at the periphery each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution바카라.
- Dr B.R Ambedkar
바카라India, that is Bharat, is a union of states바카라바카라
India바카라s brand of federalism remains to be unique. Without any mention in the Constitution, which was adopted on January 26, 1950, the country바카라s polity follows a federal structure that is supposed to apportion the legislative power between the Centre and the States. Describing India바카라s federal structure, Ambedkar remarked that when times are normal India is a federal structure but during emergencies, states assume a unitary character.
However, unlike what happens in a classical federal structure, where states are vested with more power than the Centre, it바카라s the other way around in India. The legislative powers assigned to the Union, in our federal schem0however, have primacy over the powers given to the states. And with this, the current times are increasingly seeing a threat to the federal structure of the government with restricted devolution of Central powers.
The quarrels and negotiations of everyday politics have been increasingly challenging the Constitutional rules which stand to destabilise any union between the states and the Centre. Rather, the recent rulings of the Central government have deepened the divide between the Centre and the State, while the Opposition even struggles to see any union among each other.
Despite being described as a 바카라Unity in Diversity바카라, India has witnessed a growing obsession with 바카라oneness바카라 of everything --- the idea of 바카라One Nation, One Election바카라, 바카라One Nation, One Tax바카라, One Nation, One Ration Card바카라, the push for 바카라Union Civil Code바카라, propagating a 바카라double-engine sarkar바카라 of the BJP, and the implemented GST and so on --- disregarding and undermining the very essence of the country바카라s federal structure eroding the fiscal and, therefore, economic policy space of State governments.
Though B R Ambedkar, the chairperson of the drafting committee, was cautious while replacing the word 바카라Federation바카라 with 바카라Union바카라 to invoke the 바카라indestructible바카라 unity among differences and diversity, his next-generation compatriots started looking for the elusive 바카라oneness바카라.
In 'Is One Nation, One Election A Threat To Federalism?', Abhik Bhattacharya explains how 바카라One Nation, One Election바카라, the recent-most debated policy of the government is an attempt to undermine the federal principles that form the bedrock of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Supported by opinions of constitutional experts, federalism scholars and political leaders, the article argues that federalism may become the biggest casualty of the 바카라oneness바카라 which is already straining the relationship between the states and the Centre.
Next, comes the debate of UCC. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has largely pushed for the immediate common civil code, views it as an instrument of mitigating the 바카라differences바카라 between communities (Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Scheduled Castes and Tribes) by yielding to one common code or law for governance. In 'Uniform Civil Code In India: Uniformity Or Conformity?', professor Tanvir Aeijaz says that for the BJP, uniformity is not the priority but it seeks conformity under the umbrage of 바카라one nation, one law바카라 and demands for the UCC to be predicated on Hindu laws. In this high-pitch cacophony of UCC, he asks whether the common civil code does justice to a plurinational and multi-religious nation like India, it may not be the best option.
In the most recent context, the celebration of 바카라nationalism바카라 through religious events also stirs up questions on the secular nature of the country, as enshrined in the Constitution. The 바카라Ram Temple바카라 consecration on January 22 has been promoted as a day of 바카라national celebration바카라 and has been given the same podium as that of Independence Day. A country, which houses a diverse faith across states and regions, the question of the State바카라s participation in religion has once again fuelled the age-old discourse of secularism.
Secularism has rather become an abusive word in the last few decades. There are now petitions in the Supreme Court to remove the word 바카라secular바카라 from the Preamble. 바카라The net effect is an unprecedented assault on the rights of the Muslims and their shrinking representation in governments,바카라 writes Ashutosh Bhardwaj in 'Does Secularism Have A Place In Ritualistic India?'. In his report, Bharadwaj quotes political analyst Abhay Kumar Dubey who remarks that secularism in India is facing a crisis, because fewer leaders can inculcate the spirit in the people. He warns, 바카라Secularism as such has no future in India. It is condemned to exist either as a minoritarian or a majoritarian creed.바카라 Harsh words, but if the Republic is to survive, a government is required that allows various faiths to coexist, a polity that does not seek votes for religion and a state that does not discriminate against its minorities.
Further, with financial policies, arguments have risen over the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) that has arguably compelled states to depend on the Centre for nearly half of all of their resources with little to no control over more than two-thirds of their revenues. Experts have argued that the new Tax policy has curbed a state's ability to raise its own revenues other than certain through sales taxes, which are exempted from GST.
On this Republic Day, as we come together to commemorate the Constitution of India, we ask, whether it바카라s time for India to enter into a new federal negotiation, or will the consistent political lure of centralisation drown the federal principles of our Constitution.