Decoding : India ,Union of states
-Sidharth Shankar
Nowadays ,there are lots of confusions about the term enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 1 Part I. There are lots of confusion regarding what it actually means? Does it talk about the powerful state over the center? Does it mean that there is nothing called a nation, just states get united? Does it mean that total power rests in the hands of the state government? And above all what
it actually means and why it is enshrined there in our Constitution?
Of these questions we will try to find out the
answers of all these questions in both the senses.
According to the founding fathers of the constitution and along with that we will try to understand in a layman’s language through the various provisions.
Background
Before just coming to the answers of these questions we need to have at least basic background about this. So in undivided India there are a number of princely states but 21 had actual state governments. (Total 565,After partition 552 in divided India).They consist of 40% of area and 23%of total population of India.
PRINCELY STATES : Indian states which were not fully under the control of Britishers although they are under the indirect rule of Britishers.
Now comes the story of partition, by the Indian Independence Act,1947, princely states have autonomy to choose either of India , Pakistan or to remain free.
More articles by Sidharth Shankar
Political Integration of Princely states :
The integration of these Princely States was declared an objective of Indian national congress which the government has done between 1947-1949.
The main credit to this goes to the tactics of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon. They adopted a carrot and stick approach for this.
To give that integration a legal shape there was the introduction of Instrument of Accession, basically a legal document to join the domain of India or Pakistan. It is the accession of the states which makes India a complete domain and due to this only the birthdate of Sardar Patel is celebrated as Unity day in India.
As committed in the beginning, answers to all the above questions will be given in this only via the viewpoint of the founding father of our constitution and through the various enshrined articles.
Many of the members of the constituent assembly were with the view to give state a substantial autonomy to the states with a very limited role to central government which was also there in the British Cabinet Mission Plan-1946.
But keeping in mind the incidents like violence took place after partition compelled them to do just the opposite to it. They have a feeling that if power remains in hands of states more than that of the center there is a possibility of secession of states.
Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar “‘Union’ was advisedly used in order to negate the right of secession of States by emphasizing, after all, that “India shall be a Union of States”.
So according to this the sole purpose of using the Union is to give a clear message to the states that having a negative right to secession means that they have no right to leave the Union. It is used to give the sense of unification and belongingness among the states and used as a unifying force
“The federation is a Union because it is indestructible,”Dr. Ambedkar said . Here DR. Ambedkar defended the use of the term "Union of States" by arguing that the Drafting Committee sought to make it clear that while India was to be a federation, it was not the product of an agreement and that no State had the right to withdraw from it.
Some of the experts call it a word play done by the member of constituent assembly, they deliberately used the word Union instead of central government to keep away the tendency of centralizing of power. The ‘Union’ has a unifying effect .
So with the above discourse it is quite clear that the word has nothing to do with the resting of power in the hands of any one of them either the center or the states.
We have done this with the help of the constituent assembly debate and the quotation of Dr. Ambedkar. Now it's turn to see what there is in the articles and what it tells us about the center state relations and the other above questions.
Analyzing articles and trying to figure further :
Schedule VII Articles 254-255 deals with legislative relations between centre and state i.e. Parliament and state legislature. It deals with Union List, State List and Concurrent list (List I II III).
The administrative relationship between the Central Government and various state governments is covered in Articles 256 to 263. Even though India is a federal country, it also exhibits unitary characteristics, as stated in Article 256, which directs the state governments to make sure they uphold the laws passed by Parliament and refrain from carrying out any executive or administrative functions that would be in violation of those laws.
Part XII of the Constitution deals with financial ties between the Center and the state in Articles 264 to 293. Since India is a federal state, it adheres to the division of powers when it comes to taxation, and the Center is responsible for distributing money to the states. This article has addressed all connected provisions of such nature. In Schedule VII, the ability of the federal government and the states to levy taxes is discussed.
In the above 3 points the Constitution has divided the Administrative, Financial and Legislative powers of centre and state to avoid any of the issues. And analyzing all these provisions I can say that it's nowhere mentioned in the provisions by which we can conclude that there is nothing called a nation, just states get united or total power rests in the hands of the state government.
Conclusion :
So, the sole purpose of using the Union is to give a clear message to the states that having a negative right to secession, to give the sense of unification and belongingness among states and union. Union used instead of the central government to keep away the tendency of centralizing power. The ‘Union’ has a unifying effect .
