Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, M.P., writing in the Republic Number of the ‘New Age’ has this to say:
“Then there are the State legislature whose powers, especially in financial matters, are undoubtedly circumscribed by the constitution. This would seem not only out of accord with the federal concepts but also inevitably saps the vitality of the parliamentary system. Already it is being seen that the growing responsibilities of the States, in regard to national reconstruction, are more and more coming up against the constitutional limitations on the State. Here is a problem of undoubted significance which Indian democracy will have to solve if only for its own growth.”

We are particularly glad, of this fact—the Red stamp of approval has been issued to the problem of States Vs Centre—which was for a long time branded by the Reds as a Rightist move. Experience gained at Kerala, has been the cause for this ‘dawn’—and we are glad of it.

When the D.M.K. placed before the public this issue in a full-fledged form, that is to say, in a concrete shape as ‘Dravida Nad’, the Communists were wild, and became the champions of ‘Unity’ — ‘Bharath one and indivisible’ and such other slogans. In fact even at Amritsar, they passed a ponderous resolution— ‘to fight tooth and nail, the separatists.’ We are sure that they are still wedded to that attitude. They can’t but.

Slowly but surely, they are perceiving the truth and after getting power at Kerala they are beginning to realize that the Centre is very powerful; the States are reduced to what C.R. has aptly put it, “Grant-receiving Corporations.”

The travels of and travails of E.M.S. ought to have yielded rich lessons. At every turn he is faced with the massive strength of the Centre. And for every issue, he has to go to Delhi, for ‘consultation’ and guidance!’

This should have persuaded the Communists to re-read the Indian constitution. And the result is Mr.Gupta’s findings.

Of course, still in the grip of the idea of ‘Bharath one and indivisible,’ Mr. Gupta cannot, plead for ‘Separation.’ No! They think that they could and should have the ‘big cake’, just as the Congress is having. Slice, won’t satisfy them.

But that apart, are we not entitled to ask, if Mr.Gupta and his group have got an abiding faith and sincere belief in the idea of ‘Bharath one and indivisible,’ then why should they grudge giving any amount of power to the Centre? Why should they become advocates for States’ right, at all? What are States, after all, if one has got faith in the Unity of India?—Mere administrative units! Why should the Communists come forward to say, that the powers of the States are circumscribed?

And where will that lead to?

Intelligently enough, Mr.Gupta has placed the facts and an analysis, but not the ‘way out’.

The Communists need not have waited for such a long time to ‘discover’ this fact—no writer on constitutional matter has failed to present this fact.

If they now argue, that States need more powers, because they have to carry on much nation-building work, well then, they have to face this question, ‘why should the States be considered the legitimate agencies for this sort of work, the Centre is there and claims an equal amount of loyalty?’ Why should one consider at all about the ‘Agency’ —what is important is, the work. So long as nation-building activity is carried out successfully, one need not worry about the ‘agency’ through which it is being carried.

If faced with such questions, the Communists will have to open still further their eyes and their hearts. They will have to place before their audience, the whole history of the connection between the different units and the Centre. They will have to point out the peculiar traits to be found, in the Units—the States. They will have to place the ‘historical background.’ And then they would find that they are after all placed in the company of the D.M.K.!

Mr. Gupta prudently avoids all these, by simply placing the facts, asking his audience to bestow their thought over this important problem.

It will not be difficult for most of the democrats here to accept Mr. Gupta’s findings and some, at any rate, amongst them would be anxious to find out, what plan he unfolds to mend matters.

“The issue is one which crosses party barriers and embraces all democratic and patriotic forces and the battle has to be fought within: the Legislatures and more particularly outside.”

Mr. Gupta is after all presenting a powerful peroration—not a plan of action, unless it be this: vote for the Red for they have found out and placed before you the fact, that the powers of the States are circumscribed. He wants the party barriers too to be discarded and fails to state, what for?
He has other defects also to point out, in the Indian Constitution. Says Mr.Gupta,

“The Indian Constitution puts a whole number of curbs on democratic institutions. Although there is universal adult franchise there is however no proportional representation. This undermines the representative character of even our directly elected legislative bodies.”

The D.M.K., knows this bitter truth—having polled nearly one-third of what the Congress did, the D.M.K., gained but 15 seats, while the Congress bagged 150! Had there been proportional representation the composition of the State legislature would have been different. True! But what does Mr. Gupta want us all to do? Agitate for this proportional representation? He is yet, undecided—and that is understandable, for, decisions are to be supplied by a supreme power!

Mr. Gupta has pointed out, two major defects in the constitution, which means obviously that these defects should be eradicated which again means that the Indian Constitution should be amended.

And amendment of the Constitution is no easy affair—unless the ruling party is for it.

What then should be done?

There should be an intense agitation by all political parties—Mr. Gupta has been generous enough to overlook party barriers—for, redrafting the entire constitution, in the light of the experience so for gained. And in such a redraft of the constitution, apart from including such devices as proportional representation, and arming the State with more powers, there should be a definite provision for the right of any State, to secede from the Federal structure, if an overwhelming majority of the people of that State, so desire.

Nothing but the presence of the possibility of ’seceding’ would act as an effective check on the Federal Centre.

Having come so far, we request Mr. Gupta, to continue his journey still further, taking bold steps, of course, and arrive at the ‘appointed’ place.

For this much is certain; so long as there is a feeling that our State need ‘more powers’, then however much one might exhibit aversion, he will have to advocate and fight for the ‘Right to secede.’
But, Mr.Gupta might find it very difficult and even dangerous, to get the necessary ‘passport’ for the journey along the fobidden path—we can the however assure him that there would be absolutely no difficulty in getting the ‘Visa’.

(Editorial - 08-02-1959)