Federalism in India
Ramachandra ByrappaFederalism in India " Insight into India's political structure and its colonialist traits " ederalism in India is more a well publicized project than a working reality. Like democracy and much published principles of Gandhian equality and self-determination, federalism in India is no more than a statement of good intention. Pandit Nehru and the small clique of political opportunists freely spoke of India's diversity of cultures and ethnicities but when it came to creating a federal framework to accommodate this multiplicity of aspirations for nationhood they were less than willing to look around for best practice. Instead they repeatedly made the excuse of India's specificity and the need to find a ‚home-grown' solution. The best examples of federalism are often stated to be those where there is a strong in-built tendency towards administrative and institutional decentralization; where local political self-definition is strongly reinforced by a corroborative local administration and fiscal system. In India, however, the idea of local government did not come to prominence until the 1990s. One therefore has to ask oneself the question that: if all the fundamental elements of federalism are absent, what is the appropriate word or adjective to describe the form of the Indian political structure? At closer attention one might discover that although the Indian situation might not be that ugly as historic logic leaves us to think, it is non-the-less deeply disturbing. Since a careful examination of the nature of federalism in India will forcefully lead us to ponder upon the colonial state of the sub-continent. One is left to consider the real possibility that colonialism did not end with the withdrawal of Britain from the Indian sub-continent. On the contrary, it might have been deepened and intensified, leaving no possibility for federalism in India to gain credibility. Before going into the heart of the matter I have to alert the reader that the study of Indian history is filled gaps, false assumptions, misplaced sympathy and wishful thinking. This means that objective inquiry will assume diverting from long established " tendencies " in the study of Indian history. To begin with there was an explosion of good intension from scholars, like the rest of India observers, since it was thought that India gained independence through non-violence. Given the background of the World War Two bloodbath, non-violence was a very commendable thing. Added to this there was a ‚poor country' assiduously trying to build a democratic system when everywhere it was considered to be a rare commodity. So whatever out-of-the-norm action was forgiven as a ‚false-step' of an infant democracy, it would have been deeply irresponsible to aim criticism against it. This was topped-up by the charisma of Gandhi and Nehru who commended esteem and respect at home and abroad, and directing criticism against them was almost treated as F
