Category: Political Science Notes

Definition and Nature:

The term legitimacy is derived from the Latin word legitimate meaning to declare lawful. Literally it means conforming to the law or rules, justified by law. From the standpoint of law it means rightfulness. Heywood’s definition runs as follows, “Legitimacy confers on an order or command an authoritative or binding character thus transforming power into authority” (Italics added). It is treated by many as a moral or rational principle. If the order or command of an authority is based on legitimacy then it can demand obedience. In other words, illegitimate demand cannot claim obedience.

Another definition is, “The property that a regime’s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its subjects” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics). The term was first coined or used by Weber. He said that legitimacy constituted the basis of very real differences in the way in which power was exercised. In the context of sociology Weber used this term and finally it got a place in political science.

If we study the above definitions we shall get few basic features of the idea. One is, legitimacy is associated with obedience. If the command is not right or legitimate there is no guarantee of obeying it. In recent years the term is liberally used in sociology and here lies its second feature. It means a “willingness to comply with the system of rule regardless of how it is achieved. It also means belief”.

Legitimacy and Stability:

It is now clear that the legitimacy of the political system is linked with political obligation. Before showing obligation the individuals will first of all ascertain the legitimacy of the political system or authority.

These two concepts (i. e. legitimacy and obligation) are again associated with the stability of the political system. If the citizens feel that the foundation of the political system has no legitimacy they can reasonably refuse to show obedience or may withdraw the obedience which they showed earlier.

The refusal to show obligation or the withdrawal of obligation may be the source of problems and at least one such problem is instability. It is because the political system stands on the obedience of the individuals to the system. Hence the stability cannot be separated from obedience and legitimacy.

This emphasizes that obligation/ obedience is a political term though it has been used by many idealist philosophers as a moral term. Legitimacy as a political term focuses on why do people obey a particular political system and not should they obey the system? Liberal political thinkers of today pay a considerable amount of importance to both legitimacy and stability of political system. If people are dissatisfied with functioning and about other aspects they may be reluctant to show obligation which may lead to the collapse of the system.

Weberian Concept of Legitimacy:

Max Weber is perhaps the first modern thinker who seriously thought about the concept of legitimacy. Though Weber discussed it in the background of sociology the central idea remains more or less intact when it is applied in other disciplines, particularly political science. Weber’s classification of legitimacy into three—tradi­tional, charismatic and legal-rational still holds good in some cases. In tribal societies or in societies where modern system of administration has not yet been established these three types of legitimacy are abundantly found.

Legitimacy is based on long-established customs and traditions. People obey a government or an authority because their fore-fathers obeyed or customs and traditions have taught them to obey a particular authority. Charisma of an authority or a person legitimises an authority.

The image of the political authority or leader overwhelmingly influences the people and they are spell-bound by the oratory, good figure or by any other special characteristic. If a person comes to hold power through legal or constitutional way the common men are compelled to obey him. For example, the president, prime minister etc. Along with the legality there is another element and it is rationality. Weber thinks that bureaucracy is a rational form of authority and people should obey such a rational authority.

Legitimation Crises:

Definition and Nature:

Max Weber simply analysed the concept of legitimacy. But the neo-Marxists departed from Weberian theory of legitimacy and focused their attention to the legitimation crisis. The champion of this new trend Jiirgentlabermas (born 1929). His Legitimation Crisis was published in 1973. Habermas and several other neo-Marxists have thoroughly studied the nature and functioning of capitalism and have concluded that “within liberal democracies there are crisis tendencies which challenge the stability of such regimes by undermining legitimacy. The core of this argument was the tension between a private enterprise or capitalist economy, on the one hand, and a democratic political system, on the other hand, in effect, the system of capitalist democracy may be inherently unstable”. (Italics added)

More than one and half centuries ago Marx thought and propagated crisis in capitalism and that according to Marx was due to the contradiction in capitalism. But the neo-Marxists (such as Habermas) thought of a new crisis and this is legitimation crisis Habermas has said that in capitalist societies there are number of crisis tendencies and these have enough potentialities to destabilise the capitalist societies. Habermas further maintains that the capitalist societies cannot survive simply on the basis of consent and legitimacy.

Causes of Legitimation Crisis:

There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis.

Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis:

1. In order to build up a strong “structure” of legitimacy the authority of the capitalist society sanctioned a number of political, social and other rights. This considerably helped the expansion of democratic process of the political system along with it the legitimacy.

The rights and liberties of the people expanded. But this acted as a boomerang to the capitalist society. People demanded more and more rights and privileges. But it was beyond the capacity of the capitalist society to satisfy these. A discord between the state authority and the people emerged. This threatened the very foundation of legitimacy.

2. Government was incapable of meeting numerous demands of the private economic sector. In the eighties of the last century the conflict between the state authority and the supporters of the market economy became pronounced. The underlying reason was that the members of the free market economy vehemently opposed the state move to curb the profit of the free market, and the government took this step being pressurised by the people.

The latter exerted pressure on the government that the market economy was making huge profits by exploiting the common people and this must be stopped. Any dilly-dallying attitude was enough to hurt the legitimacy and in practice did that. The authority of the capitalist society was faced with a dilemma. The legitimacy was, in fact, in crisis.

3. In order to explain and support the “crisis theory some researchers have said that in the seventies of the last century the governments of many capitalist countries were “overloaded” by the increasing demands of the people. They mounted pressures upon the government for meeting more and more demands.

This
was the consequence of the expansion of rights and liberties. But the tragedy was that it was beyond the capacity of government to shoulder the abnormal burden. This is called overload theory. The state authority was under excessive pressure of the overloaded demands. Any move to bypass the demand was sufficient cause to the people for reconsidering their obedience to the authority.

The state was again in a dilemma. It could not antagonize the people for fear of the withdrawal of obligation. On the other hand, physically or financially, it was not in a position to meet the increasing demands.

4. The legitimation crisis was also very profound and deep-rooted in the Third World states. There were wide gaps between the ability of the government and the expectations of the people and the gaps began to widen day after day which created critical position for the legitimacy.

Classification of Crises:

We have discussed so far the nature and definition of legitimation crisis. Habermas has, however, drawn our attention to some of the crises. He has delineated four types of crises: economic crisis, rationality crisis, legitimation crisis, and motivation crisis. David Held has briefly stated the crises in the following language, “His (Habermas, argument is that capitalist societies today are enlarged from at least one of the four possible crisis tendencies. It is a consequence of the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society (social production versus private appropriation) that, other factors being equal”, there is always a crisis. Behind every crisis there is, according to Habermas, a factor called “requisite quantity”. He says that economic crisis arises out of the fact that “requisite quantity” of consumable values is not produced.

It means that there is a gap between what the consumers want and what the structure of the economy can supply. There may be a rationality crisis. It arises out of the situation that the authority has failed to take requisite quantity of rational decisions.

This creates a disenchantment in the minds of the people about the ability of the government to take proper decisions. For the survival of the regime the government must take action motivating actions and when there is an absence of requisite quantity of the motivation, actions do not come forth and crises emerge. All these create crises for legitimacy.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Both Plato and Aristotle are the two great giants of Greek philosophy in general and Greek political thought in particular. For about twenty years he was the student of Plato’s Academy which was deemed in those days as university.

There is no doubt that he received first lessons about philosophy and other subjects from Plato. But Plato failed to make his disciple as his “shadow creature”. Aristotle accepted many of the views of Plato, particularly Plato’s concept of an ideal state. But he disagreed with Plato’s theory of communism.

Aristotle believed that unity of the state is necessary, but not at the cost of identity of individuals. It means that Aristotle approved private property, wife and children. By expressing this view Aristotle displayed a good deal of reality.

In a brief passage R. N. Berki has beautifully compared the two philosophers. He says “……. the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are the original twin pillars of the whole subsequent edifice of western political thought….. Plato is the literary genius, the impassioned advocate, the brilliant dialectician, his vision is clear……. He is the archetype of the political idealist.

Aristotle is the scientific genius, the patient debater and the undisputed master of logic, his philosophy is like a vast, unruffled pond compared to Plato’s turbulent river. He is the father of political wisdom and political realism”.

Plato has dealt with a number of concepts such as justice, ideal state, laws etc. But his main interest concentrated on the ideal state. We know Plato primarily as a philosopher and secondarily as a political thinker. But Aristotle’s contribution to political philosophy is immense. He ranked politics as a master science; He is also regarded as the father of political science. Unfortunately we cannot attribute these adjectives to Plato.

Aristotle’s contribution to western political thought is pervasive. While it is not the case of Plato. We remember Plato for his ideas ‘on ideal state, justice and education. But we study Aristotle for his ideas on the origin and nature of state, revolution, classification of constitution, comparative politics, polity etc.

Aristotle’s Politics was textbook for undergraduate and post-graduate students of numerous English speaking universities. But Plato’s Republic cannot claim this status.

R. N. Berki writes: “He and not Plato is regarded as the real founder of political philosophy by those—possibly the majority of thinkers and academics in our tradition—who accept the state, with the existing warts and blemishes”.

Aristotle has dealt with the most important aspects of political science. He is regarded as the founder of comparative politics. His theory of revolution is still regarded as unique. We study, with a good deal of interest, his classification of constitution.

Plato was a great philosopher no doubt, but his interest was very limited. On the other hand, there is hardly anything that failed to interest Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle’s interest was pervasive. He dealt with all subjects beginning from poetry to midwifery. His interest about Zoology and Botany still surprises us.

Let us conclude that in political thought Aristotle is still very much alive in the 21st century, but Plato is not. Aristotle’s influence is all the more remarkable as opposed to Plato.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Introduction to the Independent Functionaries of India 2. Attorney General of India 3. Duties of Attorney General 4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India 5. Separation of Audit from Accounts 6. Public Accounts Committee and Comptroller and Auditor General 7. Ombudsman: Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta 8. Administrative Reforms Commissions and After.

Contents:

1. Introduction to the Independent Functionaries of India
2. Attorney General of India
3. Duties of Attorney General
4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
5. Separation of Audit from Accounts
6. Public Accounts Committee and Comptroller and Auditor General
7. Ombudsman: Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta
8. Administrative Reforms Commissions and After

---

1. Introduction to the Independent Functionaries of India:

In a parliamentary form of government there are broadly speaking two types of functionaries, namely, the politicians and permanent civil servants. The former enjoy the confidence of the people and are returned to Parliament on the basis of certain policies and programmes.

They occupy chairs for a limited period and may again be returned to power, in case majority of electorates is satisfied with their policies and programmes otherwise another set of bosses occupy the chair. Then, are permanent civil servants, who once appointed remain in office till their retirement age is reached.

They are suppose to be politically neutral and work under overall guidance and control of political bosses. They are dependent on them for getting favours but even otherwise have promotional avenues and some service conditions. But the Constitution has also provided for certain independent functionaries.

They are assigned some responsibilities and are also supposed to discharge these without any fear and favour of political bosses. Certain constitutional provisions have been made by which they become independent. One such important and independent functionary in India is Attorney General, who was previously known as the Advocate General of India.

---

2. Attorney General of India:

Under the Constitution of India (Article 76) it is provided that the President of India shall appoint a person to be the Attorney General of India. Such a person should possess such qualifications as are required for the appointment of a Judge of Supreme Court.

In other words he should be citizen of India and should have worked either as a Judge of some High Court for a period of 5 years or an Advocate for a period not less than 10 years. Under Constitution .Forty-Second Amendment Act, it was provided that a person who in the view of the President is an eminent jurist could also be picked up for this post but this provision was repealed by constitution Forty-Four Amendment Act.

The Attorney General holds office during the pleasure of the President, who also determines his emoluments. When he appears in any court to represent the government he receives some additional daily fees. He is entitled to free official residence, free travel and some entertainment allowance. He also gets telephone facilities and secretarial service.

In England office of the Attorney General is a political office. He is a member of Council of Ministers and comes and goes with it. On the other hand in India it is not a political office. He is not a member of Council of Ministers. Some time back there was a proposal that offices of Law Minister and Attorney General in India should be combined in one, but this proposal has not materialised.

Attorney General, however, has a right to attend sittings of the Parliament, when called upon to give his opinion on matter pending before either House of Parliament and in such a case he sits with the treasury benches.

Article 88 of the Constitution provides that every Minister and Attorney General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of either House of Parliament, any Joint sitting of both the Houses, or any Committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member.

He shall, however, have no right to vote. As long as he will hold the position of Attorney General of India, he shall enjoy same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by the Members of Parliament. He can be removed from his position by the President, as and when he feels that he is not performing his duties properly.

---

3. Duties of Attorney General:

Article 76 of the Constitution has specified the duties of Attorney General. It is, however, provided that in the performance of his duties he shall have right of audience in all courts in the Union Territory of India. It is, however, his legal obligation not to appear in any court against the Government of India.

He is entitled to carry out his private practice. Some of his important duties are to advice the Government of India in such matters in which legal and constitutional points are involved and are referred to him by the President or the Government of India.

He is required to appear on behalf of the Government of India, in all cases in which the Government of India, is a party, both in the Supreme Court, as well as in any High Court. When Parliament or Presiding officer of either House is involved in any dispute, he is required to defend him.

Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to refer any matter to the Supreme Court for advice. In such a case he is required to appear before the Court on behalf of the Government of India and represent its view point. According to the Constitution,

“It shall be the duty of Attorney General to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this constitution or any other law for the time being in force.”

When Attorney General of India appears in any court he gets precedence over all other advocates.

The Speaker of Lok Sabha can invite him to appear before the House and give his opinion on a matter of constitutional importance, on which House wants to listen his view point. He may inform the Attorney General in advance about the questions which the members may like to put to him on the issue involved.

The members can seek clarification on some points, but cannot cross question him. His advice is, however, not binding on the House.

---

4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India:

Comptroller and Auditor General of India is also an independent functionary. Art 148 of the Constitution provides that this dignitary shall be appointed by the President of India. The Constitution, however, does not prescribe any qualifications for the incumbent of the post.

Of course, it is hoped that a person who possesses high financial qualifications shall be elevated to this post. Since Comptroller and Auditor General is to be appointed by the President obviously he will do so on the recommendations of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.

According to critics whereas on the one hand Constitution makers desired that he should be independent of the executive, on the other, they left his appointment virtually to the executive, which was to see that the person was not opposed to party in power. As such in his appointment politics is bound to creep in.

Before entering upo
n his office he is required to subscribe before the President of India or some person appointed by him in this behalf, an oath or affirmation that he will be faithful to the constitution of India and faithfully discharge his duties. The constitution has not fixed any term of office of the Comptroller and Author General of India (C & A.G) but the Act of 1953 has fixed his term of office at 6 years.

He can, however, relinquish his office earlier by addressing his resignation by the President of India. He can also be removed from his office by the President provided his removal is recommended by two-third majority of both the Houses of Parliament; in each House separately on grounds of proved misbehaviour or of incapacity. Thus, the procedure of his removal is the same as that of A Supreme Court judge.

His salary and allowances are to be determined by an Act of Parliament. The Act of 1953 fixed his salary at Rs.4000/- per month which has now been raised to Rs. 9000/- per month. I order to ensure his independence his salary and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and as such are not subject to the vote of Parliament. His service conditions, during his term of office, cannot be varied to his disadvantage.

After his retirement he has been debarred from holding any office of profit under the Union State Government. It, however, appears that he can join politics. T.N. Chaturvedi joined B.J.P. and was nominated by that party as a member of the Rajya Sabha.

He has direct access to the President and exercises full administrative control over all officers and staff serving in the audit departments. He is responsible for formulating service conditions of the employees of these departments.

His Powers and Functions:

It is most essential that the money collected by way of taxes must be properly spent and subjected to audit so that the irregularities committed by the spending departments are brought to light. In order to bring such irregularities to notice and also to have uniform auditing system it is essential that there should be a simple and uniform accounting procedure.

This work has been assigned in India to ‘Comptroller and Auditor General of India’. Under him is a net work of Audit Offices. In each state there is an office of the Accountant General. At the Centre is Accountant General Central Revenues.

The State Audit Offices audit the accounts of respective state governments whereas Accountant General Central Revenues (A.G.C.R.) audits the accounts of Central Government offices.

For departments which are run on commercial lines, there is a separate Accountant General of Commercial Audit. Since AGCR was over burdened with work, a separate audit office was created which now deals with auditing of the accounts of some Ministries.

In India it is believed that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have maximum autonomy. It is with this end in view that constitutional provision has been made for freeing him from the executive as well as legislative control. The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India came into existence with the passing of Government of India Act, 1919.

He was to be appointed by Secretary of State for India. Subsequently with the passing of Government of India Act, 1935, his status was raised and now he was to be appointed by His Majesty instead of being appointed by the Secretary of State.

According to Audit and Accounts Order, 1936, he was required to compile the finances and revenue accounts of India, as also prescribe forms in which accounts were to be maintained.

He was also required to decide whether a particular head was major or minor head and prepare each year a review of the balance of books as maintained by the Audit Department. Comptroller and Auditor General of India was to get work from offices subordinate to him and also to assist the local bodies in proper maintaining of accounts.

After the passing of the Constitution, the position of this office has considerably increased. He is now required to see that the accounts of the Government of India are properly maintained and he prescribes forms for maintaining accounts. He is to audit expenditure from the revenue of the Union and the States. He is to prepare annual accounts showing receipt and disbursement for the federation of India and the States.

He is supposed to assist the Union/State Governments for the preparation of annual financial statements and audit all transactions of the central and state governments. He is also required to prescribe forms in which government accounts are to be kept.

In addition to accounting functions, he has also certain audit functions to perform. He is supposed to audit incomes and expenditures insofar as national finances are concerned. He is also supposed to render suitable assistance to the departments for properly maintaining of their accounts.

In India Comptroller and Auditor General had been given the double role of maintaining accounts and getting these audited. Such a combination of powers was being decried since some time past.

Nar Hari Rao the first Comptroller and Auditor General of free India was of the view that combination of audit and account functions was likely to facilitate frauds and embezzlements and prevent their coming to light. These comments had effects and it was accepted in principle that audit and accounts should be separated from each other.

Independence of Office:

The duties and responsibilities of Comptroller and Auditor General include unpleasant job of criticizing the working of all government departments. In the proper performance of his duties obviously he will be displeasing many. He can properly perform his duties provided he enjoy considerable autonomy, which under the constitution he has been given.

As mentioned above his salary is non-votable and his conduct cannot be discussed on the floor of the House. He cannot be removed from his office by the executive government is terms and conditions of service cannot be changed to his disadvantage.

It has also been decided that on his retirement he cannot serve anywhere else and thus, he is not to be tempted to oblige any highly placed person during his tenure to get benefit from him after retirement.

He can be removed from his office in a manner as prescribed for the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He has been given direct assess to Parliament without the intervention or help of any Minister. He has full and final control over the staff working in the accounts and audit offices.

In India audit department occupies a very pivotal point and quite a good number of persons are employed in that department. At the helm of the affairs is the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who is aided and assisted by Deputy Assistant Comptrollers General.

They decide policy matters for all Accounts Offices. In each state there is one Accountant General who has Deputy Accountants General and Assistant Accountants General and also good number of superintendents and auditors.

The Defence, Railways and Posts and Telegraphs Departments have their own audit offices and their accounts are audited through them. In order to audit the accounts of the commercial undertakings there is a separate audit office, under the control of Comptroller and Auditor General.

Appleby’s Criticism of India’s Audit System:

Dr. Appleby sometime back criticisess India’s audit system on many grounds. Firstly, according to him our system is heritage of British imperialism. The system was most suited to a colonial set up but is not suited to a democratic system of today’s India.

Then he says that by and large our system has negative and aggressive character. Under the system there is less stress on improvement and constructive suggestions whereas an effort is made to point out as man
y drawbacks as possible.

The system has also been criticised for its making public servants as weak and timid and they hesitate to take very bold steps. According to Dr. Appleby another defect of the system is that it is wrong to believe that the auditors know auditing and are perfect in their job.

On the other hand, he feels that they know nothing and an outside agency cannot efficiently audit the accounts of an organisation according to its own principles. According to him audit should be done on the lines approved by the departmental head or the Board of Directors.

But the criticism has been effectively replied by Mr. A.K. Chanda, the former Comptroller and Auditor General of India when he said, “Any student of constitutional history would be aware that this post was an essential one in a democratic form of government and its functions were so defined as to secure public accountability of the administration.”

Though Dr. Appleby’s points of criticism have sufficient strength but the need and necessity of the

work of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India cannot be under-estimated. He has already done full justice with his office and job and has completely adjusted himself to the new democratic traditions.

---

5. Separation of Audit from Accounts:

Since there has all along been strong criticism that audit should be separated from the accounts and that the combination of the two was not good, therefore, during 1975 emergency period, audit and accounts were separated from each other.

A separate Comptroller of Civil Accounts was created and made responsible to the Ministry of Finance. Necessary staff was taken away from the control of Comptroller and Auditor General and placed under the Comptroller of Civil Accounts, who in turn distributed that among various Ministries and departments of the government.

It is this staff which now maintains accounts Thus, instead of centralised accounting system, now there is decentralised accounting system and accounts are maintained at Ministry/Department level. Staff has been distributed among the Ministries depending on the volume of work. It is this staff which maintains accounts and functions under the over all control of Secretary of the Ministry.

Article 150 of the constitution originally provided that:

“The accounts of the Union and of the States shall be kept in such form as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India may with the approval of the President prescribe.”

This Article of the constitution was substituted, by another Article by Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act.

The substituted Article read as follows:

“The Accounts of the Union and of the states shall be kept in such form as the President may after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India prescribe.”

In other words, it was left to the President i.e., the executive government to decide the form in which accounts should be kept. Thus, the powers of this high dignitary were much reduced,

Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act, however, still further amended this clause. The words in Italics were omitted and substituted with the words ‘on the advice of’. In this way Comptroller and Auditor General got back his lost powers.

Article 148 (2) of the Constitution provides that salary and other conditions of service of Comptroller and Auditor General shall be such as may be determined by Parliament by law and until these are so determined shall be as in the Second Schedule.

---

6. Public Accounts Committee and Comptroller and Auditor General:

Public Accounts Committee is a Parliamentary Committee which provides effective Parliamentary control over public money. Since 1954 it has become a Joint Parliamentary Committee consisting of 22 members, 15 from the Lok Sabha and 7 from the Rajya Sabha. The members represent different political parties in the Parliament and in fact, representation is according to their strength in their respective Houses.

The Committee is constituted for a period of one year. If Deputy Speaker is a member of the Committee, he becomes its chairman, otherwise Speaker nominates a member of the committee as its chairman. The Committee has usually one of its prominent private members as its Chairman.

The Committee is required to suggest economy measures and administrative reforms and sees that the moneys spent were, legally available and actually spent for the purpose for which these were earmarked. The Committee is to see that every re-appropriation has been made in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose and that this has been done by the competent authority.

It is supposed to see that the expenditure conforms to the authority which governs it. The Committee has been empowered to examine the balance sheets of all such commercial organisations which the President of India may direct the Committee to examine.

For the purpose the Committee considers the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on the working of the Ministries/Departments. In fact, these reports form the basis of the working of the Committee.

In order to effectively carry out its obligations the Committee has been authority to call for papers and persons. Usually Secretary of the Ministry is required to personally satisfy the Committee by appearing before it.

The chairman is assisted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who gives him all technical advice for examining public servants. After the persons have been examined the report is submitted to the Parliament which is usually accepted.

But if there are differences of views on any issue between the Committee and the Government these are tried to be sorted out, but if the differences still persist the Parliament is the final authority to decide, whose decision is to be final and binding.

It is, however, constitutional obligation of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to present his report annually about the working of audit and accounts departments to the President, which he will cause that laid before the Parliament.

It is on the basis of one such report that in 1989 as many as 102 Members of Parliament belonging to opposition political parties of the Lok Sabha decided to resign from the membership of the House.

The comments made by him are examined by the Public Accounts Committee. It is said that politics can creep in here as well. Since Members of Public Accounts Committee belong to different political parties, therefore, even in controversial cases they can dilute some of the adverse comments of Comptroller and Auditor General and thus, labour done by him with all good intentions may be lost.

---

7. Ombudsman: Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta:

In India administration is day-by-day coming nearer to the Public. Since sometimes past wild charges are being levied that highly placed public servants and politicians are becoming corrupt and selling favours.

In order to restore confidence of the people for these highly placed persons the idea of starting the institution of Ombudsman was played with as early as in 1959 when the then Finance Minister C.D. Deshmukh proposed that a high powered officer should he appointed to investigate charges of corruption against highly placed persons.

The idea was supported by the then President of India Dr. Rajendra Prasad. In 1963, P.B. Gajendragadkar supported this move and in the same year L.M. Singhvi, suggested in the Lok Sabha, that such an institution should immediately be established as that would enable the citizens to effectively ventilate their grievances.

It was with this
object in view that Moraiji Commission was set up in 1966 to find out adequacy of existing arrangements for the redressal of grievances by the public against public servants and also to suggest new machinery, if necessary, for redressing such grievances. Within few months the Commission submitted its report.

It came to the conclusion that Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas should be appointed to enquire into the grievances of the people. The former will look into complaints made against Ministers and Secretaries to the Central as well as State Governments whereas the latter will deal with complaints against other officials. Each State as well as Central Government was required to appoint one Lok Ayukta.

It was on the recommendations of Morarji Commission that the suggestions for the institution of Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta came into consideration. It was a substitute for ombudsman in countries like France and U.S.S.R.

Some of the critics are of the opinion that since India has an independent judiciary, therefore, there was no need to have institutions of ombudsman or the Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta. But they forget that our legal process is very slow, costly and difficult.

Salient Features of Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta:

Morarji Commission was of the view that our Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta should act in a free and impartial manner. They should conduct enquiries impartially and in an informal manner. They should be comparable to a senior judicial officer.

While investigating cases involving injustice, corruption and favouritism, they should be invested with discretionary powers. They should also be allowed to call for papers and documents and barred from receiving any pecuniary advantages from the executive government.

The Commission was of the view that Lok Pal should have status equivalent to that of the Chief Justice of India, both in terms of emoluments and also security of service. All those conditions applicable to the Chief Justice of India for ensuring impartiality should be made applicable in his case also.

He should send his annual report to the Parliament and also indicate the difficulties experienced by him in actual application of laws and desirability of their amendment. Lok Pal was to be empowered to investigate all cases brought to his notice on his own initiative.

But he was not to investigate cases in which a foreign government was involved and India’s relations with that country were likely to be adversely affected by that investigation.

One Lok Ayukta each was proposed to be appointed in each State. Lok Ayukta was to be empowered to investigate cases of persons at lower level of hierarchy and his position was kept analogous to that of the Chief Justice of a High Court and he was to enjoy the same powers and privileges as were enjoyed by him.

It was hoped that with the creation of this Institution the people will have easy assess to these dignitaries for getting their grievances redressed. It was also hoped that the people will get speedy justice and that too free from the influence of executive government.

In the system there was no need for intermediaries and every representation made was to be considered by fair means. In addition to this, it was to be an additional means of getting the grievances redressed and that-of providing additional guarantee for protecting legitimate interests of the people.

But the system had certain defects as well. It is said that one Lok Pal at the centre would not have been capable enough to deal with the complaints which would have poured from all over the country. His work was thus likely to be un-manageable and always in arrears. Thus, the very purpose of his appointment would be defeated.

It was also said that this institution was likely to be detrimental to the principles enunciated in the constitution. It was as well likely to be derogatory to the judiciary and an adverse reflection on it. These institutions are bound to result in red-tapism and can defame both the state legislatures as well as the Parliament and thus against democracy and democratic institutions.

Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta in India are intended to be equivalent to ombudsman and as such it is essential to have a reference about him as well. Ombudsman originated in Sweden and today the this institution found in many European countries including Denmark, Finland, Norway, West Germany and New Zealand.

Similar institutions have been set up in France. In Sweden, where the institution was originally established has three guardians of law; namely, Ombudsman for Ministry of Home Affairs who is elected, by the Parliament and is responsible for looking after the welfare of the armed forces.

Then comes the Collector of Justice who is adviser to the King in Council. Then is ombudsman for Civil Affairs who is responsible to Parliament, which of course, does not interfere in his day-to-day working. They act on the basis of complaints received from the public and also on their own initiative.

It is obligatory for all, Government officers to supply information to ombudsman. He suggests defects and ensures that these are removed even if for their removal some legislation is needed that should be enacted. He also suggests guidelines for further tuning up of administration.

Evaluation of Work of Ombudsman:

Ombudsman has worked very successfully. The main reasons for his success include among others, that he is independent of government and Parliament and has worked on behalf of the people, insofar as day-to-day activities of the government are concerned.

He conducts investigations informally and has free access to all documents. He touches basic and not superfluous cases of maladministration. The system is very cheap and functions in a non-partisan manner.

There is considerable flexibility in his working and investigations are open to the public and the press. He gives his findings to the government only in the form of suggestions and as such these are not embarrassing for it.

The procedure followed by him is clear and simple and he enjoys considerable discretion in taking up cases against any official. In fact, today ombudsman has become principal protector of the people against possible abuse of powers by the government.

---

8. Administrative Reforms Commissions and After:

In 1966, Administrative Reforms Commission also suggested that Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta should be appointed in India. Accordingly, in 1969, Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. The salient features of the bill were that at the centre there will be a Lok Pal, who will be appointed by the President of India, but before doing so he will consult the Chief Justice of India and the leader of the opposition.

Lok Ayukta will also be appointed by the President but in consultation with the Lok Pal. Both of them will be appointed for a period of 5 years and can be re-appointed for one more term but after their retirement they will not be eligible for any other appointment, without the prior approval of the central government.

The bill also provided, that the Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas will be removed by the President on ground of misbehaviour and incapacity. For this a resolution of the Parliament was absolutely necessary. His salary and allowances were equated with those of the Chief Justice of India.

The bill, however, lapsed because of dissolution of the Lok Sabha and after this the matter was not taken up seriously till 1979, when Janata party came to power. In between, however, the States of Bihar and Maharashtra passed Lok Ayukta Bills.

In July 1977, Government introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha for providing for Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas. In this Bill Prime Minister was also brought within the orbit of the Bill. The Lok Pal was to have his own administrativ
e machinery to carry out investigations, without depending on governmental machinery.

He could look into any complaint of misconduct, pertaining to a period of five years prior to the date of complaint against a person who was or has been a public man. These persons included Prime Minister, Ministers, Legislators, etc.

The bill provided that the Lok Pal will be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. He was to be appointed for a period of 5 years on a monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. After completing his term he was not eligible to hold any other office.

He was not to be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-third of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to him in the same session for such removal on the ground of misbehaviour and incapacity.

The Lok Pal was to have his own administrative machinery to investigate complaints and was to have all powers which civil courts enjoy in respect of summoning witnesses and calling for papers and documents.

In case the Lok Pal, after investigation found charges to be partially or fully true, he was to communicate his findings to the authority concerned which in turn was to inform the Lok Pal of the action taken on that and that too within a period of 3 months.

Reports of the Lok Pal was to be presented to the President, who was to cause these laid before the Parliament. In order to avoid rush of work and complaints on frivolous grounds each complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- with the complaint. The bill could not be passed as Janata government collapsed in 1979.

Need and necessity of Lok Pals and Lok Ayuktas is being increasingly felt and it appears that now there is political will behind it as well. Every political party knows the extent of political corruption prevailing at political level and the likely implications of investigations of charges by an independent authority beyond the orbit of executive government.

National Front government was committed to the appointment of a Lok Pal and Prime Minister was to be brought within his purview.

In his first Presidential address to the joint session of Parliament, to the newly constituted ninth Lok Sabha, the President said that his government is interested to bring forward Lok Pal Bill. The then Prime Minister V.P Singh also made it clear more than once that his government was committed to bringing such a bill before the Parliament at the earliest.

But nothing came out because of fall of the government. Several states have, however, passed Lok Ayukta Bills but there is long way to travel before the objective of checking corruption for which they are to be appointed in achieved. As the day is passing with that the need of these institution is being increasingly felt because corruption at every level is increasing in the country.

At the fag end of tenth Lok Sabha in 1996 Hawals dealings by Jain brothers came to light in which several political leaders, including Ministers of Central government were alleged to be involved. In the case were also involved several senior bureaucrats.

Several Ministers resigned from the Central Council of Ministers. In Bihar state Fodder scandal came to light, almost at the same time, in which crores of rupees were alleged to have been illegally taken away by bureaucrats.

Once again a very forceful demand was made in the Parliament that the institution of Lok Pal should be started immediately to check corruption in high places and in that the Prime Minister should also be covered. The government was perhaps inclined to go ahead with Lok Pal Bill, but again Bill was introduced in last session of tenth Lok Sabha.

---

Upload and Share Your Article:

Conflict between the Centre and State!

Back Ground:

In some of the states in 1967 Samyukta Vidhyak Dal and United Front Governments came to power, while in others Communist parties came to power. At the centre, Congress party, however, remained in power. Thus Centre state relations got somewhat strained.

In 1971, situation, however, again changed when Congress party again swept the polls and was saddled in authority both at the centre as well as in the states, resulting in harmonising of relationship between the centre and the states.

In 1977, when general elections for the Lok Sabha were held in the country, Janata party came to power at the centre, but at that time many states were being ruled by the Congress party. Relationship between the centre and the states again posed a problem.

But the Janata government at the centre decided to dissolve nine Congress ruled state assemblies, on the plea that electoral verdict had shown that the governments in these states had lost contacts with the people.

When elections in these states were held, the Janata party came to power and thus there was no straining of relationship between the centre and the states. In 1980, general elections for the Lok Sabha were again held in the country. Janata party was defeated at the polls and Congress (I) party came to power at the centre.

This again was likely to strain relationship between the centre and the states because in many states Janata party was then in power. In order to avoid problems and taking several other factors into consideration Congress government at the centre, dissolved nine Janata and other opposition ruled state Assemblies.

Since Congress (I) which was in power at the centre, swept polls in 8 out of the 9 states in which elections were held, therefore, straining of relations again could be avoided.

After 1980 general elections in the country few the Lok Sabha were held at the end of 1984. in …which Congress (I) was returned to power at the centre with a thumping: majority. In, however, many states, as and when, elections for the state Assemblies were held, it lost heavily.

Half of India began to be ruled by non-Congress (I) political parties, thus, causing great strains in centre-state relationship. Congress (I) lost its majority at the centre as a result of elections held in November, 1989. But National Front government headed by Shri V.P. Singh remained in power for less than a year, therefore, the question of centre’s relations with the Congress ruled states is a matter of guess.

When election for the Lok Sabha were held in 1991 Congress (I) party returned as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha and formed the government. B.J.P. was returned as the major opposition party.

This party, however, was in a position to form government in the states of U.P., Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Central Government, however, dissolved these Assemblies though these enjoyed majority in the State Assemblies, in the wake of demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhaya.

Today more than half of India is being ruled by non-congress (I) political parties and it is straining relations between centre and the states.

Suggestions for Improving Centre-State Relations:

Since some of the states felt aggrieved these asserted themselves. As said earlier in 1968, West Bengal government of Shri Ajoy Mukherjee created such a situation that the Central Government was obliged to recall Governor Dharam Vira. In 1979, Charan Singh governments promulgated Preventive Detention Ordinance.

But several state governments refused to implement its provisions. South Indian states could create a situation compelling central government to assure them that Hindi would not be introduced in these states till these were ready to accept it.

Centre has failed to resolve Chandigarh issue and its future set up because of its failure to produce a formula acceptable both to Haryana and Punjab. It has also failed to solve water and boundary disputes between Maharashtra and Karnataka and Haryana and Punjab.

Such disputes as well exist among Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka. Such insistences on the part of states create a difficult situation in amicably solving centre-state problems.

Several suggestions have been made in improving Centre-State relations. Some of the suggestions made are as follows:

One suggestion made relates to the role of the state Governors at a time when there is break down of constitutional machinery in the state. It is argued out that the Governors quite often oblige the Central Government in the dissolution of non-Congress Ministries.

This in itself needs looking into. After the dissolution what should be the role of the Governor of the state concerned and of the President, should be decided by a code of conduct.

Then it is also suggested that Planning Commission, which is to prepare plans for non-Congress ruled states also, should not be under the exclusive control of the Congress ruled central government. It should be made an independent body and have autonomous character.

Then it was also suggested that Finance Commission should not concern itself only with statutory funds which were very limited. In order to enable it to play its role very effectively discretionary funds should also be placed at its disposal for distribution.

A suggestion was made that the Central Government should follow the policy of least interference in the affairs of the states and thus give comparatively free hand to the states in financial, legislative and administrative matters. It was suggested that the centre should give up policy of dictating the states but should work on the principle of co-operation.

Then another suggestion which was made in this regard being that in order to avoid centre-state disputes an inter-state Council may be set up which should include among others the former Chief Justices, Prime Ministers and Attorney General. The Council may deal with such matters as the justification of promulgation of President’s rule in the state and the appointment of Governors.

Even inter-state disputes could also be referred to the Council for settlement. In this regard suggestion was also made that the decisions of the Council should be binding no matter whether these suited to both the parties or not. Then another suggestion made was that financial resources of the country should be so re-allocated that the states became financially less dependent on the centre.

Rajamannar Committee:

In 1970, Tamil Nadu Government set up a three member committee headed by P.V. Rajamannar to make recommendations on the improvement of centre-state relations.

The Committee was of the view that:

(a) Inter-State Council should be immediately be set up. In case there was need for a parliamentary legislation which effected more than one state the measure should be introduced only with the prior approval of this Council.

(b) Planning Commission should be made an autonomous body.

(c) Finance Commission should be made a permanent body.

(d) States should be made financially less dependent on the centre.

(e) Some of the subjects should be transferred from the central to the state list so that the states become administratively more independent.

(f) All the states should be given equal representation in the Rajya Sabha.

(g) The centre may appoint Governors but the appointment should be made with the approval of the state cabinet. If that was difficult a high powered body may be set up which should help in deciding the names of such persons who could be appointed as Governors.

(h) A person who was once appointed as Governor of any state should not be appointed to any other post in the Central Government

(i) Provision that
the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor should be deleted.

(j) Except in the cases involving constitutional interpretations, the State High Courts should have final jurisdictions in their respective states.

(k) Special status of Kashmir should be maintained.

(l) English should be link language between the Centre and the States.

(m) Inter-state water disputes should be settled only through Supreme Court.

Reaction of Central Government:

But the Central Government did not agree to any suggestion either by way of the amendment of the Constitution or by introducing any legislative measure on the lines suggested by the Committee.

In the opinion of the government each state was getting its proper share in Finances and law and order situation must be over viewed by the centre because such a problem was not only that of maintaining peace and tranquillity but created many social and economic problems. In the opinion of the Central Government the country was passing through very difficult period of history both in administrative and financial matters and any laxity at this stage was likely to result in serious consequences which could result in chaos and disintegration.

Centre-State relations would have assumed much greater importance and significance and would have drawn still more attention but situation somewhat changed in 1971. In that year mid-term polls were held in the country and Congress party under the leadership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi came to power with two-thirds majority at the centre.

Meanwhile two major developments took place in the country, which had far-reaching effects on centre-state relations. In 1969, there was split in the Congress party. Mrs. Gandhi headed one section whereas the other was headed by then Congress President.

But Mrs. Gandhi could maintain her hold on the party and keep her own persons in power in the States, where possible. In seven states UF and SVD governments which came to power in 1967, did not fair well.

The constituents of these governments could not pull on well with each other and began to disintegrate under their own weight. Instead of working for the people of the state, each one began to care/or his own interest. There was a chain of ‘Aya Ram’ and ‘Gaya Ram’.

This frustrated the people of these states and thus as the time passed even these states could not pose a serious challenge to the authority of the Centre. When in 1972 elections to several state Assemblies were held, Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s party came to power in almost every big state and in this way monolithic political party system again came back in the country to same extent. There was thus less strain on Centre-State relations.

In 1975, internal emergency was declared in the country and that continued for about 19 months. During this period there was not much challenge to the central authority and relations between the centre and the states were not under pressure.

But situation changed in 1977 when General Elections were held in the country. As a result, for the first time Janata party, a non-Congress party came to power at the centre with a massive mandate from the people. But in the states still Congress party was in power.

Though many states had completed their normal term of five years, yet these were continuing because of Forty-Second Constitution Amendment under which life of state Assemblies had been extended from 5 to 6 years. Since at the centre, there was a non-Congress government and in most of the states Congress party was in power, therefore, the relations were likely to come under heavy strains.

Dissolution and Dissolution:

In order to save the situation, the then Home Minister, Chaudhry Charan Singh wrote to Congress led states to recommend to their Governors the dissolution of their respective state Assemblies. The argument advanced was that these were living on borrowed time and had lost contacts with the people of the state.

But the state governments instead of co-operating with the Central Government decided to go to the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of its decision to dissolve the State Assemblies.

The Court, however, decided that the Central Government was fully in empowered to dissolve a state Assemblies under the circumstances under which these were being dissolved. As a consequence Janata government at the centre decided to dissolve nine state Assemblies in which Congress party was in power.

In June 1977, elections to these Assemblies were held and the Janata party came to power. It was even now not a monolithic political party system because in some of the states still non-Janata party governments were in power.

But, by and large, there was not much strain on central-state relations, because in very many states the Janata party on its own or with the help of some other political parties managed to come to power and form government.

But this situation did not last for long. Constituent of the Janata party began to quarrel with each-other. In fightings became so clear that the people lost faith in their capacity to work together in the national interest.

But the worst was that the party could not pull on as a united body. In 1979, when the party had hardly remained in power for about two-and-a-half years, that Y.B. Chavan as leader of the opposition moved a vote of no-confidence against the government.

There were defections in the party, resulting in the resignation of Prime Minister Morarji Desai. Since Y.B. Chavan could not form Government, Desai was succeeded by Chaudhry Charan Singh as Prime Minister with the support of Congress (I) headed by Smt. Indira Gandhi.

But after few days when the Lok Sabha session was convened. Congress (I) decided to withdraw its support reducing Charan Singh government to minority in the House who tendered resignation without facing the Lok Sabha. The President then decided to dissolve the Lok sabha, elections for which w ere held in late in 1979.

As a result of these elections Mrs. Gandhi’s Party Congress (I) came to power once again.

The history repeated itself. This time Congress (I) was in power in the centre whereas in most of the States Janata party or non-Congress (I) led governments were in power. Again there was likelihood of the relations between the Centre and the States getting strained.

This time Congress (I) took the same stand, which Janata party had taken in 1977 and dissolved nine state Assemblies and Delhi Metropolitan Council, in which the party had not faired well. Elections to several State Assemblies were held as a result of which Congress (I) was returned to power in 8 out of 9 states. Only in Tamil Nadu, All India ADMK managed to come back to power, defeating Congress (I) DMK alliance.

West Bengal Memorandum, 1977:

When all these changes were taking place, West Bengal government prepared a memorandum on Centre-State relations in which it was pointed out that during the last ten years non-Congress (I) ruled state governments had come under heavy pressure and these were snatched of their powers. With the passing of Forty-second Constitution Amendment Act education has been transferred from the state list and the centre has got a right to send its forces to the states.

In the opinion of the government the states were being reduced to the position of department of Central Government. It suggested that present tilt towards centre should be checked and the states should be left free in the sphere of their activities.

It demanded that the powers of the centre and the states should be clearly defined and those of the Central Government should be limited to such matters as defence, foreign affairs, foreign trade, etc. Such channels as Central Reserve Police, Border Security Police, through which centre can frequently interfere in state affairs should be done awa
y with. Planning,

Commission should be given constitutional status and 75% of the total revenue should be automatically transferred to divisible pool to be divided among the states. Finance Commission should not indicate amount payable to each state but should only indicate the principles on which the amount should be divided.

The Memorandum also demanded that the states should be given equal representation in the Rajya Sabha and that the states may be given right to use mother tongue at all levels. In addition, English should be continued as a link language between the centre and the states. It also demanded that all water disputes should be decided by the Supreme Court.

The Central Government did not accept the demands made in the Memorandum. In Punjab Akali Dal passed Anand Pur Sahib Resolution in which it demanded state autonomy and vast powers for the states and limited powers for the centre.

In the Resolution it was demanded that authority of the centre should be limited to defence, foreign affairs, railway, communication and currency. It also demanded that residuary powers should be vested in the states and that authority and representation of all the states at the centre should be equal.

Central Government’s View:

Whereas the states were clamouring for more powers the central government held the view that the present arrangement was quite satisfactory. In its view strong centre was the need of the hour and that the state governments in most of the cases have failed to discharge their functions adequately. There has always been law and order problem in the states. These have proved incapable of maintaining political stability.

The states have not given a good account of themselves even in such spheres which are exclusively in their jurisdictions. There are always allegations about misuse of power and authority. As regards more financial powers, central government held the view that the states even do not fully and properly utilise financial resources which are at present made available to them. Availability of more resources and grant of more powers will result in corruption and inefficiency. Moreover, every time an opportunity for division of financial resources comes, the states are always given more funds than what these used to get. In the opinion of the centre greater autonomy to the many states is not Likely to accelerate the process of development in the states.

Mean time President Sanjiva Reddy, in 1981, expressed the views that the states should be given more autonomy and resources. In his opinion (a) administrative machinery at the centre was in no way more efficient than what it is in the states and (b) as the opportunity arises the state responses quicker than the centre to meet an emergency situation.

Obviously his views were not cherished by the Congress party but were very much lauded by the opposition political parties and opposition parties ruled states.

On the other hand, Congress party felt that “Being constitutional head the president should not have made such a statement. He has bigger duties to perform. Containing the party spokesman said “I am opposed to the concept of greater autonomy to the states and instead want a strong centre.”

Harcharan Singh Longowal while reacting to these views of the President said that “The President views are people inner voice and that more autonomy would make India more united and strong.” Left Front in Bengal also said, “We have been pressing for greater autonomy for the states. It is good that the President agrees with our view.”

Prelude of Sarkaria Commission:

It was in this atmosphere that the Central Government decided to set up a Commission to look into centre-state relations. But before that it is essential to note that because of various reasons powers of the Central Government were much increasing to the annoyance of the state governments.

The Centre, as compared with the states, already had very vast powers. But several Constitution Amendment Acts had made it stronger. In 1953, Third Constitution Amendment Act was passed which empowered the central government to fix the prices of even foodgrains.

In 1956, Sixth Constitution Amendment Act was passed which reduced the powers of the state governments to levy sales tax. In the same year by passing Seventh Constitution Amendment Act the central government got powers to appoint special officers to look offer educational interests of linguistic groups.

But powers of the states were considerably curtailed with the passing of 42nd Constitution Amendment Act. Judicial judgments also considerably increased the powers of the Central Government.

The Supreme Court held that autonomous organisations created by the states were subject to the payment of income tax. Similarly it held the view that the Central Government could tax all goods manufactured in the state and so on. Central control over Planning Commission also made it very powerful.

Whereas Central Government was getting more and more powers the demand for autonomy by the states was not on political grounds alone. Though theoretically demand was made in the name of democracy and nationalism but practically it was because of geographical, cultural, political and economic considerations.

Cultural minorities in several regions feared their absorption in majority culture and felt the need for effective protection in their regions. Demand for autonomy came more frequently from the states where one or other ethnic, religious or cultural groups were concentrated.

During recent years agricultural classes have started taking more interest in politics and have developed a desire to have effective control over state level politics and to become economically powerful and political elites. Thus desire to preserve culture, to have better economic conditions, love for region, acquisition of political power all combined together have strengthened demand for more autonomy for the states.

Sarkaria Commission:

Demand for setting up a separate Commission was gaining currency day-by-day. In 1981, a meeting of the opposition parties held in Sri Nagar demanded that radical changes should be brought about in centre-state relations. In 1983, Janata party government in Karnataka brought out a white paper on centre-state relations.

Accordingly on March 24, 1983, Central Government announced the appointment of a Commission under Justice R.S. Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, to review existing arrangements between the centre and the states in the context of socio-economic developments on the one hand and keeping in view unity and integrity of the country on the other.

The other members of the Commission were B. Sivaraman, S. R. Sen and Ramasubramaniam, who acted as Member of Secretary of the Commission.

Some of the opposition ruled states in their memorandum to the Commission demanded that the institution of the Governor should be reformed. In their opinion Governors had become party agents.

Inter-state Councils, as provided under Article 263 of the Constitution, should be created to enquire into disputes between states and discuss matters of common interest and make recommendations for better co-ordination and policy action.

The President may decide about procedure of working, etc., of these bodies. Residuary powers should be left with the states and not with the centre, as is the case at present. A Bill passed by the legislature should not be withheld and must be consented. IAS and IPS cadres should either be reformed or abolished.

Suggestions were also made for bringing some subjects from the Union to the state list. All revenues must be compulsorily shared between the Centre and the States. Emergency provisions, particularly those dealing with centre’s right’s to interfere in state affairs, should be aboli
shed.

The Centre should perform only those functions which are specifically allotted to it under the Constitution.

The Terms of Reference of the Commission:

Following were terms of reference of the Sarkaria Commission:

(1) To examine and review the working of existing arrangement between Union and states with regard to (a) powers, (b) functions and (c) responsibilities in all spheres;

(2) To recommend appropriate changes and other measures in the existing arrangements:

It was said that while making recommendations the Commission should keep in view social and economic developments which have taken place over the years.

Due regard should also be paid to “…the frame work of the Constitution which the founding fathers had so sedulously designed to protect independence and to ensure the unity and integrity of the country which is of paramount importance for promoting the welfare of the people.”

Recommendations of the Commission:

The Commission submitted its report in 1988.

It recommended that:

(1) It was not proper to curtail the powers of the centre as a strong centre was necessary for presenting the integrity of the country.

(2) In the view of the Commission there was no need for making drastic changes in the existing provisions of the Constitution as these have all along with stood stresses and strains of changes in society.

(3) In the financial sphere these was no need for major changes in the basic scheme as provided in the Constitution.

(4) It favoured some amendments to provide for sharing of Corporation tax and levy of consignment tax on advertisement and broadcasting.

(5) It did not favour transfer of any subject from the central to the state or concurrent list.

(6) It favoured deployment of central forces in consultation with the state government concerned.

(7) No change was needed in Arts 246 and 254 of the Constitution.

(8) It did not favour the idea of abolition of the office of the Governor and also the idea that the Governor should be selected from a panel of names given by the concerned state-government. It, however, favoured the idea that Governor should be appointed in consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned state.

(9) The Governor should appoint only such person as Chief Minister who was either the leader of majority party in the Assembly or could command a majority in the Assembly which he should be asked to prove within 30 days.

(10) It did not favour deletion of Art 356 of the Constitution but suggested number of steps to ensure that the power was only rarely used.

(11) No state Assembly should be dissolved unless Parliament has approved proclamation of emergency and that before imposition of President’s rule the possibilities of forming an alternative government should be explored.

(12) It recommended that no Commission of Enquiry should be set up against any minister of a state government unless a demand to this effect is made by both the Houses of Parliament.

(13) In the view of the Commission the Centre should hold consultations. with the states before legislating on a subject mentioned in the concurrent list.

(14) It favoured setting up of Inter-State Councils.

(15) It also favoured activating Commissioner for linguistic minorities.

(16) It recommended implementation of three language formula and also suggested creation of several new All India Services.

When report of the Commission was submitted at that time Congress (I) was in power at the centre. Instead of accepting the report in decided that the report of the Commission may be circulated throughout the country for eliciting public opinion and that a final decision will be taken in the light of reactions received from the people.

But before this could be done in the general elections for the Lok Sabha held in 1990 Congress (I) party was voted out of power and National Front government which succeeded it accepted some of its recommendations.

In 1991, Congress (I) again came in power and it also accepted some other recommendations of the Commission. Thus, so far only few and not all recommendations of the Commission have been accepted.

Whereas states have been demanding more powers and financial resources, M.C. Setalwad has opined that, “Fissiparous and divisive tendencies have intensified and taken roots in the factors other than lingualism, communalism, provincialism, stateism and other narrow loyalties.

Far from the unions powers needing curtailment one feels that in many directions they need be widened. A large section of community is of the view that these powers require expansion in fields like education, agriculture, production of goods which are basically needed by the common man.”

Whether the states should or should not be given more powers the main issue which emerges from the discussion is that unity and integrity of the country should remain intact and in no way be jeopardised. The commission and committees which have been set up from time to time to examine the issue of Centre.

State relation have stress the need of setting up active Inter-State-council, as provided under Art 263 of the Constitution. Sarkaria Commission has suggested that Inter-Governmental Body should have a General Body and also Standing Committee.

The former should comprise of Prime Minister as Chairman and Six Chief Ministers one each from each zone selected annually and six Union Ministers to be nominated by the Prime Minister as members. It should meet at least twice a year. In so far as Standing Committee is concerned it should meet four-time in a year. The Council may also appoint ad hoc committees if need be.

In the national interest it is very essential that country’s unity must be maintained at all costs and there should be very harmonious relations between the centre and the states.

For this it is essential that:

(i) Central leadership of the ruling party should always give the impression to the state governments that is considering and deciding every issue, taking national interest and not party interests into consideration. They should create image of a national and not a party leader.

(ii) The Centre should confine its activities as assigned to it through the Constitution and avoid using powers got by it by extra constitutional means, as that will leave an impression with the states that it is not interested in interfering in their autonomy.

(iii) The Centre should use its powers under Article 356 very rarely and exceptionally.

(iv) The Centre should try to allocate more financial resources to the states so that these can undertake more developmental activities.

(v) To the extent possible Centre should not impose any Governor of its choice an the state but consult Chief Minister of the state concerned before deciding the name of the Governor for that state.

(vi) The Centre should not feel that every demand for autonomy is call for the disintegration of national sovereignty but should treat it as a normal centrifugal tendency in a federation.

(vii) The Central government should consult the state government before enacting any legislation on a subject mentioned in the concurrent list.

(viii) The states should be given by the Centre essential and very reasonable functional autonomy.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the formation of Swaraj Party in India.

Some national leaders including Subhash Chandra Bose, C R. Das, Moti Lal Nehru and others did not feel happy about the way in which movement was withdrawn by Gandhiji. It was characterised as national calamity by some national leaders.

They founded a separate party called Swaraj Party, which preached either mending of the Councils set up by the Act or to end these. In their conference held in March 1923, they also enacted their own constitution and contested elections held in that year with the clear objective of wrecking the Councils from within.

They got absolute majority in some provinces, whereas in others their role was quite crucial. In February 1928 the Swarajists got a resolution passed in the Central Assembly by which they demanded that in India full responsible government should be immediately set up.

One can very well imagine the strains and stresses under which a system will be, when a very powerful and effective section of legislative body, having public support is determined to wreck that very system from within. Really it was a difficult and gigantic task for those who wanted to maintain that. As a result of their efforts Muddiman (Reform’s Enquiry Committee) was set up in 1924.

The Committee had official majority, but its report was not unanimous. When the report was placed before Central Assembly for its consideration the Swarajists embarrassed the government by getting a resolution passed with thumping majority that constitutional scheme as provided in the committee report was unworkable.

As the time, however, passed it was found that the policy of obstruction and wrecking the Assembly from within was not paying dividends in the words of S.C. Bose, “From the middle of 1925 onwards, there was gradual watering down of the original Swarajists policy of unlimited opposition.”

By the end of 1926 the wreckers had lost much of their fire. The number of those even among the party bosses who advocated policy of uniform and continuous and consistent obstruction against the government was very less.

The change in attitude of Swarajist party gave lease of life to the system though not much and it appeared that for some time the system might be given some trial. At the same time some Indians also got an opportunity to expose the infirmities of British government and their autocratic attitude while governing and dealing with the people of India.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this essay you will learn about the bio, life and political ideas of Leon Trotsky.

Life of Leon Trotsky:

Lev Davidovich Bronstein is better known by his pseudonym Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was born in 1879 and died on 1940. He was a brilliant orator and had a colourful life. He could spellbind the mass through his speech.

His father was a Jewish farmer in Ukraine. From his childhood he was revolutionary in action and behaviour and believed that without revolution no change is possible.

He was really a charismatic leader and it is evident in his English biography authored by Isaac Deutscher.

Deutscher wrote three books the Prophet Armed (1954), The Prophet Unarmed (1959), and the Prophet Outcast (1963).

Leon Trotsky is called the real hero of the Russian Revolution and the famous critic of Stalin’s ideas some people call it Stalinism.

In 1898, only at the age of nineteen he was arrested by the Russian police and exiled to Siberia. But Russian police failed to keep him in exile. He escaped to London and joined Lenin. He was also actively associated with the Iskra (Spark)—the mouthpiece of the Russian revolutionaries.

His friendship with Lenin helped the revolutionary movement of Russia. He participated in the revolution of 1905. But his friendship with Lenin did not last.

Difference of opinion between the two leaders cropped up. For his revolutionary activities he was arrested by the Russian police. He again escaped from prison and went to Vienna. He spread his revolutionary activities in various parts of Europe.

He went to France and there he published several journals and magazines which dealt with revolution. In 1917 the Bolshevik Party came to power under the leadership of Lenin and on several crucial issues he was the right-hand man of Lenin. But this good relation was temporary; on a number of issues he found himself the opposition to Lenin.

Leon Trotsky also differed from other top-ranking leaders of Russian Bolshevik party. Particularly Stalin and Trotsky could not see eye to eye.

The death of Lenin in 1924 cost him very much, Stalin was an all-powerful person in both party and government and there was none in Russia who could raise his voice against Stalin.

His growing animosity with Stalin forced him to leave Russia. He toured various parts of Europe with untiring energy. He devoted his energy to the formation of the international communist movement.

He established contact with the revolutionary leaders of several European countries and he was the key man of International Left opposition. In 1932 Trotsky formulated the strategy and ideology of International Left Opposition.

He stated that the independence of the proletarian party must be recognized. The workers’ party must be all-powerful and the bureaucracy must be subservient to the workers’ party.

Leon Trotsky believed that Stalin was determined to establish social-fascism and it must be opposed by all means.

He further said that the adventurist phase of communist movement must be rejected and the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants will be converted into dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky spent the major part of his life in exile and he formulated his political opinion and revolutionary ideas while in exile. He was finally banished to Alma Ata. He wandered in Turkey, France, and Norway and finally he settled in Mexico in 1937. He was murdered in 1940. The 1940 was the witness the end of a colourful life and great revolutionary.

Political Ideas of Leon Trotsky:

1. Permanent Revolution:

Leon Trotsky is famous for his theory of permanent revolution. While in prison in 1906 Trotsky wrote The Balance and Prospects – the Moving Forces of Revolution, better known as The Permanent Revolution.

The concept of permanent revolution was first formu­lated by Marx-Engels in 1850 in Address of the General Council to the Communist League.

The idea of permanent revolution has been used in sense more than one. It is said that the establishment of socialism in one country can never ensure the establishment of socialism in all other counties.

Naturally the revolutionaries of one country who have succeeded in establishing socialism in their state will continue to support both morally and physically the revolutionaries of other countries; and this are a continuous process.

In this sense the revolution is permanent in nature. But many others in Russia, particularly the Economists, Mensheviks, had different idea about revolution. They thought that the workers’ party, after capturing power, will settle down and start to rebuild society. They did not think about continuing revolution or revolutionary process. Trotsky disagreed with this general idea of revolution.

Trotsky’s thesis of permanent revolution differed from the general idea about it.

Explaining his view J. S. McClelland says:

“Trosky’s theory of permanent revolution challenged the whole perspective. His main thesis was that “the coming revolution in Russia could not be contained within the bourgeois phase, because the Russian bourgeoisie could not fulfill its own revolutionary role”.

Kolakowski explains the idea of permanent revolution in the following way:

“Its view was that the democratic revolution in Russia would bring to power a social democratic government which would of necessity Endeavour to continue the revolutionary process towards socialism”.

His conception about permanent revolution rested on the idea that the Russian bourgeoisie was very weak and, naturally, the burden of revolution must be shouldered by the proletariat.

It means that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will combinedly manage the revolution. But it would be foolishness to exclusively depend upon the bourgeoisie for the final success of the revolution.

Russia is characterized by her economic backwardness and a revolution in collaboration with the bourgeoisie would be a hindrance to the attainment of socialist revolution.

Therefore a revolution in collaboration with the bourgeoisie must be abandoned. The ultimate aim of the proletariat should be a socialist revolution and that means the revolutionary process must continue. Both Marx and Engels forecast this in 1848 for Germany.

There are two important propositions of Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution. One is, the “bourgeois revolution in Russia would evolve continuously into a socialist one”. In other words, the proletarians would start a revolution with the active help of the bourgeoisie.

In the opinion of Trotsky the economic and political conditions of Russia demanded the participation of the bourgeoisie. There is another proposition which is the socialist revolution will spread in other parts of the West because its confinement within Russia will ultimately endanger its survival.

The behaviour and attitude of the capitalists fully convinced Trotsky that they are never dependable comrades in the crucial parts in the revolutionary process. Once the proletarians have been able to achieve certain amount of success they should try to ignore them.

2. Trotskyism:

Trotsky’s name is closely associated with permanent revolution and these lands the readers on a new concept known as Trotskyism. Throughout his revolutionary and colourful life he continuously propagated the view of permanent revolution.

He claimed that it was not his discovery. Marx in his Critique of Gotha Programme said that at first the working class, with the help of the bourgeoisie, will establish socialism but that should not be the objective of the proletariat.

The proletarians’ ultimate goal shall be to set up a communist
society and that requires continuation of revolution. In other words, only one revolution is not enough for establishing a communist society.

Leon Trotsky demands that he has borrowed the concept of perma­nent revolution from Marx. Needless to say that the idea of permanent revolution constitutes the nucleus of Trotsky’s theory of revolution and the interpreters of his theory calls it Trotskyism. The writer of the essay Trotskyism published in Bottomoreedited.

A Dictionary of Marxist Thought defines the idea in the following language:

“The cornerstone of Trotskyism has been and remains the theory of permanent revolution, originally formulated by Marx which Trotsky reformulated in 1906, applied to Russia and then elaborated further in 1928. Trotsky viewed the transition to socialism as a series of interconnected and interdependent social, political and economic upheavals proceeding on various levels and in diverse social structures feudal, underdeveloped, pre-industrial and capitalist and occurring at different historical junctures”.

Leon Trotsky admitted that a revolution must start at a national level or in a smaller form, but its aim will be the socialization of number of countries at international level.

Hence the central idea of Trotskyism is spread the message of revolution in various parts of the globe. In other words, the internationalization of revolution is the hallmark of Trotsky’s theory of revolution and it is also called Trotskyism.

A piquant issue has cropped up in serious analysis of permanent revolution. He always stressed that in the revolution the industrial proletariat will always play the most key role. He, of course, subsequently amended their notion partially.

Leon Trotsky said that in the entire revolutionary process in the primary stage, the industrial proletariat will play the crucial role, but at subsequent stages, the peasantry will appear and play the necessary role.

This, however, generated lot of heat in the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century. Even in the Fourth International set up by Trotsky there was a lot of discussion about the key role. That is, who will play the key role. Unfortunately the participants could not arrive at any decisive conclusion.

The Chinese Revolution clearly established that the peasantry could decisively lead a revolution. The industrial proletariat and peasantry have compli­cated the whole issue but Trotsky had a firm faith that without a permanent revolution the setting up of a classless society will remain a far cry.

He had no faith on the revolutionary way of setting up of a classless society because by this bourgeois method the counter-revolutionary forces or the remnants of capitalists cannot be destroyed or uprooted.

Naturally, revolution or permanent revolution is the only way. This is the most vital aspect of Trotskyism.

Trotskyism takes for granted that the seizure of political power along with the struggle against the property owing classes must form the most vital aspects of revolution which will continue unless classless society is set up.

3. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

Following Marx-Engels, Trotsky strongly defended the dictatorship of the prole­tariat though this concept has been vehemently criticized by the bourgeois theore­ticians. The bourgeois theoreticians contend that the Marxists very often say that the term dictatorship of the proletariat is self-contradictory because democracy and dictatorship cannot exist together.

On the other hand, Trotsky and other Marxists denounce bourgeois democracy or its various forms such as parliamentary democ­racy or evolutionary democracy or democracy by ballot box. All of them call it illusionary.

In the opinion of Trotsky, in bourgeois democracy the fruits of democratic system are fully gobbled up by the economically powerful class, because only this class controls both politics and economy.

According to Trotsky; “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian democracy will be secured through the effective control of the government by the Soviets constituted by the representatives of legal Soviet parties, freely elected by all toilers”.

The proletarians will seize political power through struggle and after that they will establish their overall supremacy. Hence the dictatorship of the proletariat implies the absolute control of the proletarians in all fields of state.

Leon Trotsky rejected Lenin’s ultra-centralism or centralized system of party. He emphasized that more stress on the democratic structure of the party would finally lead the Soviet system to chaos. This will ultimately invite the agents of bourgeois party and counter-revolutionary forces. Trotsky called Stalinist system of party as a form of “bureaucratic dictatorship”.

After a thoroughgoing analysis of the Soviet system Trotsky arrived at the conclusion that there is very little of democracy and socialism in the Soviet Union. According to Trotsky the Soviet Union is apparently a socialist state, but it has undergone a process of degeneration. Outwardly the Soviet Union is a socialist state but very little of true socialism is to be found in Soviet socialism.

All the powers are concentrated at a single centre and the whole party and the state administration is managed and dictated by a single person and he is Stalin. This cannot be called democracy. It is also said that “nothing of a workers’ state is left in Soviet Union”.

Leon Trotsky envisaged of a system that would encourage and in practice establish democracy both in party and state administra­tion. Everything of a socialist state will be fully controlled by the proletarians and it will aim at the general welfare of the people.

Trotsky’s life was full of struggle whose chief aim was to establish the supreme authority or control of the proletariat in every sphere of society. But he found that the entire Soviet system has degenerated and the dictatorship of the proletariat has turned into dictatorship of few persons or bureaucrats.

It was the belief of Trotsky that the proletarians have achieved certain gains (both economic and political) through struggle and these must be protected.

For this is required to establish the overall supremacy of the working class. He says – “The party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship regardless of temporary wavering’s in the spontaneous moods of the masses.” According to Trotsky the dictatorship of the proletariat is not any temporary device to achieve temporary gain. It is a permanent solution to all sorts of evils which have engulfed a bourgeois society.

Upload and Share Your Article: