CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS AND THE INDIAN LEFT

By Er. K Vijayachandran FIE: Chairman CCPI 35/194 Automobile Road Palarivattom Kochi 682025 Phone 2344015

Central Government, today, is politically weak and lacks in federal authority. Nevertheless, it has inherited from the patriotic years of Nehru-Indira regime, immense administrative powers, even outside the written constitution. Unity in diversity is the hallmark of Indian polity: however, following the footsteps of British imperialism, India's ruling elite continues to hold our diverse nationalities as prisoners and block their natural development. Left is running a big political risk in neglecting these ground realities and by legitimizing the present Delhi regime with its parliamentary support.

1. Nationality question and center-state relations.

Human development as a collective enterprise, from family to territorial communities and then to tribes and nationalities is historically well documented. Marxism-Leninism provides the best of tools for understanding the destiny of Man and the evolution of nationalities. Leading social classes had built up nation states, using their economic and military prowess. Industrial revolution and rapid development of Science and Technology (S&T) had led to massive socialization of material and intellectual production, expansion of commerce, as well as expansion and consolidation of nation states ruled by bourgeoisie classes. Capital of Marx was the first comprehensive appraisal of the impact of modern technology on social and cultural development. Communist Manifesto had ventured to speculate on a destiny for mankind that transcended time, space and nationalities, and seeking a sort of immortality on the strength of collective existence and technological capabilities¹. However, Lenin had ruled out the possibility for a global unity of nationalities under the bourgeoisie regime, which was based on private ownership of the means of production.

For more than two centuries, imperialist wars had blocked human progress in all seven continents: First World War had convinced humanity on the need for a League of Nations for the peaceful coexistence of nations, and for the orderly development of humanity. Lenin had attached great importance to this particular feature of postwar developments. He had described Czarist Russia as a prison of nationalities. Lenin had looked at the liberation and full development of the numerous nationalities and sub-nationalities oppressed by Czar, as a necessary precondition for the success and sustainability of Bolshevik revolution under the leadership of Russian proletarians. The USSR itself was a mini League of Nations, and served as a model for the working together of peoples of diverse ethnic origin, culture and nationality and seeking a common destiny. The extensive UN System² of today with a membership of around two hundred nationalities, and the numerous international organizations specializing in almost all areas of S&T and human endeavor, is an altogether new historical experience for mankind. It is proof of an emerging global pattern of human civilization built around nationalities of diverse traditions and cultural background. Marxian understanding of nationalities and Leninist assessment of imperialism had inspired national liberation movements of all continents, and played a major role in drafting the political map of the century.

Like the medieval Europe, India was a melting pot of races when, Western imperialists landed on its shores: Britishers transformed the sub-continent into a prison of nationalities like the Tsarist Russia. Divide and rule was the official policy of the British, targeted to retard the natural development and renaissance of Indian nationalities: Their Bengal policy, leading to the ultimate division of Bengal, was possibly the worst of known examples. They divided India into territories, provinces and principalities in an arbitrary manner, cutting deep into the hearts and souls of the emerging Indian nationalities, in the name of administrative efficiency or political exigencies. Struggle for national independence simply rekindled the suppressed national sentiments and renaissance aspirations of the Indian people . Re-organization of states based on language or nationalities and a Union Republic based on federal constitution were the demands raised, mainly by the working class movement. Marxist-Leninist perceptions on nationalities as well as the Soviet Experience of uniting nationalities under a single state, had a profound influence on the re-organization of British India, after national liberation. Consolidating the ant-imperialist unity of Indian nationalities under a federal state structure or Union Republic, and at the same time ensuring their full and sustainable development, were seen by the Indian Left, as an inevitable necessity.

However, the bourgeoisie landlord classes, who were in a hurry to step into the shoes of British rulers, found no merit in such historic insights: The big bourgeoisie simply wanted to replace the British and rule the country either from Delhi or from Karachi even by using the communal card, and the feudal kings were only keen to get back their petty fiefdoms. Indian as well as Pakistani constitutions, therefor, turned out to be happy compromises by their ruling classes, who wished to continue in the footsteps of the British and hold the developing nationalities as their prisoners. India was declared a Union Republic in 1950, but it took more than six years of struggles and consultations for re-organizing the constituent states of the Union, somewhat in line with the wishes and aspirations of Indian nationalities, and the process seems to be incomplete even today.

Indian Constitution is described variedly, federal as well as unitary, to suit the convenience of the elite classes. However, as it enters the fifth decade, most of its federal principles have simply evaporated into thin air: And, as feared by several among the constitution makers, status of member-states of the union republic is now reduced to that of municipalities; better said less on the municipalities and the so called local self government institutions (LSGIs), whose administrative capabilities and authority were reduced next to nothing, despite several constitution amendments and tall promises on Gandhian gram-swaraj by the ruling clases³.

There are hardly any signs of local or even national pride among the population: The elites of individual nationalities simply make hollow claims on their cultural achievements. Devoid of any real cultural content, our education system produces highly atomized, robot like half-humans and our men of letters look at language as a mere instrument for earning their livelihood, and not as a creative tool in the hands of the working people for expressing and enriching their scientific and technological experience. Our elite classes have replaced Sanskrit with English as the new vedabhasha and they try to mystify scientific experience and declare it to be out of reach by the languages spoken by Indian people. Even Hindi, the so called national language, possibly, is no exemption today⁴. National renaissance and development of S&T were always an integral part of a total cultural experience of all peoples of the World: This was true of European countries, Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Cuba or Vietnam, and has to be for India as well. Nevertheless, following the footsteps of the British, India's ruling classes continue to block the flowering of its nationalities even today, and misuse even the constitution for this purpose.

Center-State relations as well as the division of responsibilities in the management of national economy were subjects of serious debates during the late seventies and early eighties, when CPI(M) led governments were elected to power in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. AKG Center for Studies and Research, Thiruvananthapuram, had organized a two day seminar on the subject in 1984 and this author had the privilege of presenting a paper on Center-State relations and hydro-power development in Kerala, in the context of the Silent Valley controversy⁵. Earlier in 1981, based on his working experience as the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Committee on S&T, he had presented a critique on Center-State Relations and Science and S&T Administration in India in a seminar organized by the Institution of Engineers (India) Cochin Center. Issues raised in that paper are even more relevant in the present context of the Central Government withdrawing itself from its patriotic responsibilities of development planning at the national level. This paper which had incidentally compared the Indian and Soviet systems of S&T Administration is reproduced below.

2. Center-State Relations and the Science and Technology Sector⁶

India is a multinational state. Unity in diversity is often projected as the hall mark of Indian polity. But in the organization of administrative structures in our country, this is hardly recognized, S&T is no exemption. The British had organized S&T in the country, in a manner suited to their colonial objectives and perspectives. Structures like survey of India, geological, botanical or zoological surveys of India, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and the like were created on the exigencies of colonial rule. Their organizational basis had little relevance to the realities of Indian polity and the requirements of a self reliant and self-sustaining type of developmental strategy, oriented to local needs and resources.

The three decades of independence had brought in no basic changes in this organizational set up. Even today S&T organizations in the country are all oriented to “Delhi” and the bulk of S&T programs controlled from there. This dichotomy –i.e. S&T being the near monopoly of the Central Government whereas the bulk of economic activities coming under the purview of State Governments, is a major inhibiting factor preventing our S&T developing a genuinely national character. The situation is hardly conducive to developing an S&T culture oriented to local needs and resources. The S&T administration in our country has to come out of its impersonal character and shed its imperial pretensions so as identify itself with the life and culture of our people.

The decision of the Central Government in early seventies to promote State Level S&T committee was an indirect recognition of this basic dichotomy in the S&T setup at the national . But the experience with the working of state level S& T Committees shows that this is no real solution. Such Committees are hardly any substitute for full fledged state level counterparts for DST, CSIR, ICMR, ICAR and the like which could be affiliated or federated into the central bodies which alone can service S&T on a professional footing and on a continues basis at the state level.

Absence of such state level structures has led to the deterioration in the quality of state level engineering departments, technical and scientific education and S&T capabilities in general. This apart, no worthwhile studies have taken place toward the identification and exploitation of the natural resources at the state level. Even today, there exists no comprehensive compilation of our flora and fauna, no systematic studies and documentation on our climate, soil, water or mineral resources have been undertaken. In the recent past a few centers of excellence were created at the state level. But these institutions as well as other technical institutions, research centers, universities and engineering departments in the state have to evolve a well co-ordinated pattern of functioning, so that they serve the developmental needs of our people. Organizational structures and administrative mechanisms towards this have to be evolved and established. This can be achieved only through protracted debates among our professionals, their organizations, associations and S&T institutions in the state. It is obvious that the problems of S&T in Kerala are not peculiar to the state alone and requires possibly an all India level approach: It is necessary to evolve alternative perspectives at the national level.

It will be interesting to study the organization of science and technology in the Soviet Union, which is a federation of autonomous republics of several nationalities. The Academy of Science of the U.S.S.R. had brought out in the late sixties, a publication to mark the golden jubilee of the formation of the Soviet Union. The organization of science in U.S.S.R. may very well be illustrated through a few quotations from this book. The Vice President of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science had written: “Within the life time of a single generation, the people of some republics underwent a transition from a feudal society based on archaic agricultural systems to a socialist economy with a highly developed industry and mechanized agriculture. Peoples that did not even have a written language before the October revolution, now can boast of their own trained specialists. The children and grand children of peasants and nomads are designing and operating computers and other sophisticated equipments.”

Boriservich, president of the Academy of Sciences of Byelorussian republic in his report on science in Byelorussia had stated: “The republic’s council of ministers have set clearly defined tasks before the researchers working in the field of technical sciences to be completed during the current five-year period: To search for ways of improving automobiles, machine tools, agricultural machines, manufactured by the republic’s industry, such as would provide at least 50 per cent increase in their overhaul period; to construct and introduce into Byelorussian production practice, a new apparatus for the drying and heat treatment of materials.”

Academician Vekua, president of the Academy of Sciences of Georgian republic begin his report with the introductory commentary: “Georgian science has a glorious tradition reaching back to distant past.” His report is flooded with the statements on the great achievements of Georgian chemistry, Georgian physics, Georgian mathematics, astronomy, agronomy and what not. Academician Abullayer, in his report on the science of the tiny republic of Azerbaijan talks of the recent developments in Azerbaijan cybernetics, developing of mathematical directional drilling of oil wells for exploiting the rich oil resources of Azerbaijan. Similarly, there are lengthy narrations on the achievements of the Ukrainian science, Lithuanian science, Moldavian science, Latvian science and the science in the Kirghiz: the republic of the Kirghizians who are one of the most ancient aboriginal people in central Asia.

It is not the intention here to prescribe any particular model for our science and technology administration. But the above account as brought out by the spokesmen of the academies of sciences of soviet republics brings out the basic characteristics of soviet science and its historical development. These are :(a) scientific research in Soviet Union is by and large organized as an integral part of social production, (b) science organization is highly decentralized but at the same time part of a well co- ordinated centralized system, and (c) Soviet Science is not impersonal in character but is well integrated into the overall socio-cultural life of various nationalities.

It is interesting to compare these with our own approach to Science and Technology and its development. For us science is universal and highly impersonal: to talk about ‘Indian Science’ is almost a taboo---smacks of national parochialism, to talk about the development of Manipuri Physics, Naga Chemistry, Carnatic Cybernetics or Assamese petrology or to suggest the formation of an autonomous Tamil or Kerala academy of sciences will almost amount to treason. We have come to believe that Science and Technology should be administered, funded and monitored by a strong Center.

It has to be emphasized here that, be it agriculture, housing, roads, health, civic amenities, power, education or irrigation, each of these sectors have their specific regional and cultural characteristics. Each state is endowed with different types of natural resources and R&D efforts towards the identification and exploitation of these resources can be best undertaken only through state level efforts. Under Indian conditions, Science and Technology has to be highly decentralized not only because of its size and geographical diversity but also because of its cultural diversity.

The C.S.I.R., I.C.M.R., ICAR and other institutions were formed on the basis of the British model, which had nothing to do with the Indian reality. It is possible that these organizations could have worked well on a federal principle with their autonomous State-level counterparts functioning under the State Governments. Instead, we see that individual institutions belonging to these central agencies are farmed out to different states on some consideration or other but mainly for appeasing public opinion in different states. The national laboratories and research institutions under these agencies have not succeeded in identifying themselves with the material and cultural life of the local people – of those regions where they are located.

This defective approach can be seen even in the organization of voluntary professional associations and institutions. It is true that some of these organizations like the Institution of Engineers etc have their regional or state–level chapters. But, by and large, they do not follow the natural division of the Indian Union into cultural and linguistic groups. The National Science Academy or the Indian Science Congress and other associations of scientists of individual disciplines can perceive of science only as an All India phenomenon. As a result, their overall impact on the life of our people and developmental policies has been minimal, if not negligible. That sort of organizational dichotomy has poisoned even the value system among scientific communities. It is not the professional brilliance or professional contributions that make a good scientist, but one’s position in the scientific bureaucracy. An Engineer or Scientist working at the state level institution or university is considered a smaller being compared to his Central counterpart. Often, wee see Central level experts descending on the state level departments and institutions to render expert advice, not based on the strength of their professional standing or competence but just because they happen to be in Delhi, in the services of the Central Government. Is it in anyway different from the colonial value system, in which members of the Royal societies pay their visits to inspect native institutions?

Science and technology institutions or voluntary professional associations in our country look up to Delhi for patronage, finance and facilities. Almost every one of them is directly or indirectly controlled and dictated on in an ad-hoc manner by the technocrats or bureau crafts sitting in Delhi. One fails to understand what sort of control, financial, administrative or professional, can be exercised from Delhi over a coconut research station situated in a remote village in Kerala. If Indian science and Indian research has to be meaningful and relevant, it should come out of its impersonal character and shed its imperial pretensions. It should belong to where it is really needed, and where it is sought after. The future of Indian science and Indian research lies in the breaking up of the present highly centralized authoritarian structures, and erecting in its place a truly federal set-up, in tune with the spiritual, cultural, democratic and material aspirations of the people.

3. Lessons from past from experience

The fact of disintegration of Soviet Union and the disappearance of the socialist camp should not stand in the way of learning from the historical experience of organizing Soviet Science, and its greatly valued S&T cooperation with other countries, including the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)⁷. Soviet Union and the socialist camp could challenge and defend itself against the combined offensive and cold-war tactics of imperialist countries, for several decades, on the strength of its S&T. Though internal subversion had demolished the Soviet State, the S&T institutions and industrial capacities created under socialist construction, have by and large survived, not only in the Russian Federation but also in the other constituent republics of the USSR. Mutual cooperation among these institutions were rapidly re-established to a large extent under the a framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Economies of the erstwhile Soviet Republics are once again getting integrated under this new dispensation. Working class politics in Russia as well as other CIS countries seems to be discovering and developing a new type of unity of diverse nationalities, on the strength of their common Soviet legacy, cherished by the vast majority of the working people.

Under Soviet Constitution, the Union Republics had exercised independent authority on all issues, outside the twelve items, mostly of international and inter-republican relevance and specified under article 73 of the constitution⁸. The member republics directly participated in the governance of USSR as a whole, by its presence in the Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the Government of the USSR : Chairmen of the Republican Soviets (ie. speakers of our legislative assemblies) were ex-officio Vice Chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and Chairmen of Council of ministers of Republics (Chief Ministers) were ex-officio members of the Council of Ministers (Union Cabinet) of USSR. Institutions or State Committees for policy making as well as managing of deferent sectors of the national economy were constituted at the Union level based on federal principles as in the case of Academies of Sciences and S&T administration.

Soviet constitution had prescribed federal institutions, for ensuring the working together of governments in all sectors and at all possible levels. In sharp contrast, Indian constitution had packed the powers and responsibilities of state and center into three water tight compartments, the central, state and concurrent lists, and then assigned all residuary powers to the Center. This was more like a partition deed, where as the Soviet Constitution laid down the ground rules for the mutual cooperation and working together of the Union and the Union Republics, with full autonomy and the right to secede granted to the republics. These were the objective reasons, why the dissolution of a mighty and immensely rich country like the USSR was a simple and exceptionally peaceful affair, and the reasons behind the slow and steady process towards re-union, despite the Russian Nazis and CIA interventionists. India could greatly benefit from this historical experience in rationalizing its Center-State relations, in the context of the dangerous distortions already brought in by the recent economic reforms and structural structural adjustments, enforced under the dictates of the global capital.

Power sector is one of the worst examples for these dangerous distortions which is blocking the smooth development of the national economy. Grid Power development was rightly included in the concurrent list by the constitution makers. But the new Electricity Act of 2003 is forcing the State Governments to dismantle the State Electricity Boards (SEB) set up under 1948 Act. Central Electricity Authority (CEA) and Regional Electricity Boards (REBs) had derived their federal authority and professional competence by coordinating the work of the autonomous SEBs, reporting to the state legislatures. This federal setup, developed after national independence for the planned development based on self reliance, is being demolished or devalued for facilitating the entry of FDI and the authoritarian rule of a comprador bureaucracy sitting in Delhi, that has assumed the responsibility for grid power development in the country, despite resistance put up by several member states. States will be mere agencies for realizing revenues by selling the electricity generated by large plants set up by monopoly capital at strategic locations divined by the Delhi bureaucracy⁹.

Central public sector enterprises in the core sectors were products of the national five year plans and served as technology generators for the nation, through a process of national consensus in the inter-state council. Their shares were held by the President of India, on behalf all the Indian nationalities and the people of India. An impersonal Central Government had no political or moral right to sell the shares of these undertakings in the market and appropriate the sale proceeds for itself. But the senior bureaucrats in Delhi were doing this with impunity, without consulting even the Rjayasabha or Lokasabha. The Left parties have blocked the sale of shares of of BHEL and other Navaratna and Mini-navaratna companies. Government of Jharkhand State had unsuccessfully resisted the sale of the mammoth BALCO Aluminum Plant but Tamilnadu had succeeded in blocking the privatization of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).

It is becoming increasingly clear, that questions of management of Central Public Sector Enterprises, including their transfer of ownership or dissolution, cannot be and should not be left to the Central Government and its bureaucracy, simply because these enterprises were registered as per the company law for the sake of administrative convenience. Left parties, as well as, several among the regional parties were in the forefront of demands for a more equitable distribution of powers, between Center and States, including financial as well as policy making powers. But they seem to be silent on the patently unjust and one-sided moves of Central Government on the large core sector PSUs, which play a key role in the national economy, in the name of economic reforms and structural adjustments. True, the left had been critical about the reforms in general and had even successfully resisted the move for further dilution of government equity in BHEL and a few other public sector companies. But, it has not questioned the political and moral rights of Central Government to do this from a federal view point, nor was the arbitrary manner in which these extremely valuable federal assets were auctioned off. Opposition to this sell off was limited to a couple of corruption charges and empty parliamentary rhetoric by the left and and the right. Faulty understanding, as well as the lack of appreciation of the rapidly changing class character of the Indian state were the root cause of this totally inadequate responses.

Indian State led by the bourgeoisie-landlord classes, could for long years respond to the anti-imperialist sentiments of our people as well as the aspirations of our diverse nationalities for enriching their material and cultural life. National Five Year Plans, huge public sector initiatives with the help of the socialist camp and policies of national self-reliance, were seen by the people as the bulwark against imperialist exploitation and as bold initiatives by a strong and patriotic central government. On the international scene India emerged as the natural leader of NAM, thanks to its success in building up a fairly strong indigenous technology base, and a vastly self-reliant national economy compared to most other newly liberated countries. Patriotic professionals had dominated the elite classes during those years of anti-imperialist sentiments and even the militant Dravidian movements of early sixties were forced to mellow down their secessionist politics for fear of losing popular votes. Even the Left, with its largely objective prescriptions for Indian revolution, were forced to concede the patriotic and progressive content of Nehru-Indira regime. However, by mid eighties the discipline of national planning was substantially watered down, and with the collapse of the socialist camp a new regime has taken over the Central Government which is rapidly losing its patriotic credentials¹⁰. In collaboration with their foreign partners, the Indian big bourgeoisie has started building its shining empires, using the organizational expertise and manpower skills generated by the giant public sector enterprises, which are being wantonly dismembered, destabilized or even demolished. The US initiative for nuclear cooperation, with the backing of Birlas, Ambanis and Tatas as well as their NRI supporters in USA, is a more recent, but typical example. As feared by the patriotic professionals within and outside our nuclear establishment, this initiative was targeted at the destabilization of the Indian program for nuclear power development based on indigenous resources. The big bourgeoisie and their NRI supporters in USA were scheming to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, floated by USA at the expense of our own national program. National debate on this unpatriotic deal has exposed the real class character of the Indian State.

The recent, but not yet concluded nuclear debate at the national level, had another side effect: It has opened up new avenues to fight against the authoritarian caucus and comprador bureaucracy that has taken over the central government establishment. Jayalalitha, Chairperson of AIDMK and the leader of opposition in Tamilnadu, has not only objected to the proposed Indo-US deal on patriotic grounds with sound technological arguments, but also raised the democratic demand that, all such international deals should get approved with two third majority in both houses of the Indian Parliament. However, it is to be noted that, center of gravity of India's nuclear power program presently lies within Tamilnadu territory, and the latest Russian offer for adding four more reactors at Koodankulam will substantially increase Tamilnadu's stake in in the ongoing national program. DMK being a member of the ruling UPA, Karunanidhi has not so far responded to this demand raised by his political adversary. However, Governor of Tamilnadu has made a strong plea for a thorough review of the center-state relations and rewriting of the Indian constitution in the interest of maintaining Indian unity. Such highly constructive initiatives by Dravidian politics need urgent follow up by the left forces and working class movement. This confirms also the need for enlarging the the scope of the debate on Center-State relations, beyond its traditional boundaries of public finance and the right to secede, and should cover the entire spectrum of statecraft and the working of the constitution¹¹

4. Conclusion

There are lessons to be learned from the past experience of managing the different sectors of our national economy and a brief review of S&T administration had brought out several possibilities for innovations. Our Post and Telecoms departments have made rapid strides after their re-organization, taking the linguistic state as the administrative unit, even though a lot more could have been achieved by granting the P&T circles more autonomy and giving Indian Post and Telecom the genuine federal character it really deserved. Indian Railways could have responded to regional aspirations in a more rational manner far beyond the annual political circus staged by railway ministers, had it been re-organized into a federal entity after the national independence, instead of sticking to the arbitrary divisions of British days, in the name of administrative conveniences. All India Radio, Doordarshan and Prasarbharathi could serve the cultural needs of various nationalities, if they are restructured on a federal basis: There is no logic, whatsoever, for not having TV channels and news broadcasting owned by State Governments, when BBC, CNN and others keep on brainwashing our people, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And, why not re-constitute the Kendra Sahithya Academy as an autonomous federal body, with the Chairmen of State level Academies as ex-officio members? These are just a few examples on how genuine federal practices could be grafted on to our administration. Delhi regime had retained its imperial features and impersonal character, instead of drawing its strength and authority from its federal existence. How the Indian President was dishonored on this republic day, by the Padmasree award for Sukumar Azhikod has to be an eyeopener for all: It is symbolic of the deep changes in the Indian polity¹².

The tendency to fabricate national consensus on issues and parade them as national policies without formally consulting the members of the Union Republic is on the increase, among the senior bureaucrats and central ministers. Power sector reforms and the Electricity Act 2003 were forced on the country in this manner. Several such examples could be cited and the one related to minor ports is a recent example. Minor ports are in the concurrent list, and State Governments are their constitutional custodians. There was a recent national level consultation meeting on the subject at Kochi, organized by the Ministry of Surface Transport, but the concerned Kerala Minister came to know about this, only through newspaper reports. That is typical of the seriousness with which Central Government tries to evolve national consensus nowadays. Meaningful consultations have become impossible even in the parliament, and its numerous consultative bodies are often maneuvered by the caucus of senior bureaucrats. Central Government is politically weak today and lacks in real federal authority. However, it has inherited, from the patriotic years of Nehru-Indira regime, immense administrative powers even outside the written constitution. Left is running a big political risk by neglecting these ground realities and in legitimizing the present Delhi regime with its parliamentary support.

Policies and programs that emanate today from Delhi, related to vital sectors such as energy, power development, transport, telecommunications, IT, water management, irrigation, agriculture, education or health are not the product of our federal or democratic wisdom: they are mostly dictated on from outside, by the experts of imperialist countries, directly or indirectly through multilateral institutions, the English speaking elites among our bureaucrats and media men serving as agents and facilitators. This practice, has to go lock stock and barrel, and we should develop and nurture the institutions required for evolving the federal or collective wisdom of our nationalities and the people at large.

Our constitution provides for an Interstate Council for facilitating federal consensus among the nationalities on issues of national import. Its constitutional role has been reduced to that of a ceremonial rubber stamp for approving the National Five Year Plan, drafted by the Planning Commission. Both the Sarkaria Commission and the National Committee to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) appointed by Vajpeye Governmnet had insisted on a more meaningful role for of this august body¹³. In the NCRWC report of 2002, its Chairman Justice MN Venkitachelliah had observed: Article 263 had been most underutilized provisions of the Constitution. It can be imaginatively put into service by constituting subject or area specific Inter State Councils to deal with emerging new issues involving Union-State relations, more so in relation to areas touching upon international trade and participatory role therein of the States. The report had recommend even a constitutional amendment for specifying the subjects for the functional Interstate Councils.

Servicing too many Interstate Councils may turnout to be cumbersome, considering the number as well as the variety of references that might be needed, when we move toward a genuinely federal administration as in the case the former Soviet Union. A more sensible approach will be to constitute as many interstate councils or standing committees as necessary for evolving federal consensus and to formalize their work. Even today, there are numerous informal consultations on several subjects but, they as a rule, are used for fabricating consensus and that is very typical of the fascist style governance. This has to give way to formal, open and mandatory consultations and that is the right way to checkmate the takeover of Delhi, by a coterie of comprador bureaucrats and politicians.

End of main paper:

Notes:

1. A brave new world, based on technology was a vision shared by Marx and his contemporaries of humanist tradition: Shaw in Back to Methuselah, a brilliant science fiction piece and his last play, divines Man moving close to immortality through longevity achieved on the strength of technology and what he called as the theory of creative evolution. Azimov on the other hand permitted human society to expand into twenty five million worlds of diverse cultures, each world with four billion inhabitants. Technological pessimism and environmental fundamentalism wwre mainly a post-Marxian phenomenon, products of the inevitable anarchy under Capitalism.

2. UNO has a total membership of 184 nations, population of 57 nations was less than a million. The UN with its more than two dozen specialist organizations dealing with every aspect of human endeavor is a new historical experience for mankind, but mostly looked down by imperialists. This vastly democratic movement of nationalities is in fact seeking a new destiny for human race under the simple slogan of peaceful coexistence or unity in diversity.

3. Our Local Self Government Institutions in our country are possibly the least developed in the whole world: In USA, there were a total of fifty two LSGI employees per 1000 population in the year 2002. Corresponding figure for India was only two-see Globalization and Downsizing of Governments, paper by the author published in the Passline of September 2005

4. Medium of instruction and language policy: Use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction at all levels and use of Indian languages in administration and by all branches of knowledge including S&T were accepted as part of the cultural reform promised after independence. However this has never materialized and India's elite classes, unlike those of other countries including Japan or South Korea, have moved away from the concept neighborhood schooling and continue to hold that language of S&T and even of the courts of justice has to be English.

5. Silent Valley Controversy: The proposal, for constructing a small hydro electric power plant (60 MW) on the Kunthipuzha, a tributary of Bharathapuzha in 1978, was abandoned due to central intervention based on spurious environmental arguments. This was a major blow on the power development program of Kerala: As a result, close to two thirds of the hydro electric potential of the State remain untapped even today.

6. Author wrote this highly critical article in 1981 when he was the member secretary of the Kerala State Committee on Science and Technology. Those were years of intense debate on Center-State Relations among left intellectuals, because of the sharp ideological differences that existed between the Central Government and the Left ruled states.

7. Council for Mutual Economic Affairs (CEMA) served as the clearing house for the commercial relations and development plans of the countries belonging to the socialist camp. Higher level economic relations based on long term planning and dovetailing of S&T programs were the features promoted through the CMEA.

8. USSR Constitution: References made here are to the 1977 Constitution which claimed continuity of the earlier constitutions of 1918, 1924 (Lenin's time) and 1936 (Stalin's time)

9. A detailed analysis of the current situation in India's power sector was presented in a status paper presented by Engr. KR Unnithan in the 22^nd National Convention of Electrical Engineers, organized by the Institution of Engineers (India) held in Kochi on 24^th/25^th November 2006.

10. Several leading Marxist theoreticians, including Dr. Prabhat Patnaik and Dr. Ashok Mitra, have questioned the legitimacy of continuing the good old characterization of the Indian State by the mainstream left in the country, in the light of the ongoing reforms and their impact. A recent note by this author titled 'Ruling Elites plan for federal policing to defend Indian reforms' was published in the December issue of Red Star.

11. Indian state has developed and expanded considerably, in size as well as complexity, compared to the days of intense ideological polemics of sixties as well as the center-state debates of early eighties. Right for self determination or right to secede was the main question discussed in the 1967 CPI(M) document, Ideological Debate Summed Up, prepared in response to the ideological challenges of Naxalite movement. Debates of early eighties were mostly centered on the practical difficulties of managing Left governments within the constitutional frame work, and the limited finances of the State Governments. The framework for the debates on center-state relations has to be different today in the context of the changes in the class character of the Indian State and that of the Delhi regime.

12. Sukumar Azhikod a well known literary critic and social activist was conferred a Padmasri on the Republic day of 2007 which he openly declined to accept and people in Kerala had endorsed his refusal as one Man.

13. Left is silent today even on the Sarkaria commission, possibly because the Center is substantially weakened politically. But it refuses to see the vast administrative and financial prowess the Center has acquired for itself, thorough the reform and restructuring process, eroding into the very spirit of our federal constitution. A politically weak Center wielding too much of administrative power, inherited from the past is an altogether unwelcome situation. The 2002 report and recommendations of NCRWC have taken serious note of these more recent developments. Surprisingly, these did not find even a mention in the 2004 Common Minimum Program of the Left and the UPA. However the Dravidian Parties have taken up the issues considered as a crucial for India's Peoples Democratic Revolution far more seriously than the Left, as may be judged from Jayalalitha's reaction to the Indo-US nuclear deal (see the Hindu of 23.12.2006) and the Tamilnadu Governor's address in the Legislative Assembly.

END