ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Why every state should seek autonomy

Who is scared of autonomy? That is a long list: Three former prime ministers -- Chandra Shekhar, V P Singh and Inder Kumar Gujral, Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Congress and just about every party across the spectrum. Why?

Farooq Abdullah's demands are undoubtedly extravagant in parts. Can Jammu and Kashmir be removed from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? Can the powers of the Election Commission be transferred to some other organisation? Let us not beat around the bush: These are stupid demands.

So is the stated desire to have total command of the economy; given the chief minister's proven mismanagement of the state's finances. I am not sure if even the people of Jammu and Kashmir would stand by him on this one! In 50 years, every ministry in the state has chosen to depend on nothing more than the notoriously fickle tourism industry to fill the coffers. The National Conference must share the blame for this lack of foresight.

But prejudice against Farooq Abdullah should not prejudice us against autonomy per se. Over half a century, the powers of the states have been steadily whittled away and those of the Union government have been aggrandised. It is time, beyond time I think, that this unhappy drift was halted, even reversed if possible.

Article 356 has been abused beyond belief in almost every state of the Union. Every major party, with the possible exception of the Congress, has its own pet horror story. If Farooq Abdullah wants some shield against future misuse, he would find support both on the Treasury and the Opposition benches.

Or is it the National Conference's contention that there should be another look at the way that the tax pie is redistributed between the Union and the States? That is another thorny issue, a concern which the finance minister of almost every state government would share. I am sure the finance minister in the government of Maharashtra, for instance, would love to have it so. Mumbai contributes about a quarter -- perhaps more -- of the total income tax collected in India, but very little of it goes back to the city. Now, think about what Maharashtra could do with that kind of money if the bureaucrats in Delhi did not insist on taking their share.

May I add at this point that India could learn something from the United States, the only other federal republic of comparable size on this planet? There are both, a state income tax and a federal income tax that citizens may be required to pay, but a complex set of laws ensures that citizens shall not be burdened by both sets. Is there any reason why we should not follow suit?

Note too that the United States confers dual citizenship on its citizens. I do not refer to a person who legally carries two passports (which, by the way, is also true for Americans); I am talking about the fact that every citizen of that country is also a tax-paying citizen of one of the 50 states in the United States. That fact has never abridged the loyalty of citizens to the country at large.

The question now becomes: Does the Government of India trust its citizens any less than the government of the United States trusts Americans? Is there any reason why issues such as state income tax and dual citizenship should not be discussed?

Farooq Abdullah has unwittingly unearthed issues relevant to every State in India. (S C Jamir, chief minister of Nagaland, has already come out on the record for autonomy.) States which are well and truly in the national mainstream -- Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh for instance -- have also asked for a comprehensive debate of Centre-state relations. No, they didn't ask for 'autonomy' per se, but that is a matter of nomenclature.

Farooq Abdullah himself concedes that there are some matters that should be the exclusive preserve of the Union government -- defence, external affairs, currency, and communications. I think you should also include banking, insurance and other major financial services in that list. (The risk of stock-market scams multiplies hundredfold if State administrations can do as they like in these. Can you imagine what might happen in, say, Bihar if there were no SEBI?)

That still leaves a considerable amount to be discussed. Let us not limit 'autonomy' -- more properly 'decentralisation' -- to Jammu and Kashmir, but extend it to every state in the Union.

T V R Shenoy