Special Federal Ties

The 4th International Conference on Federalism being held in New Delhi under the theme ‘Unity in Diversity’ is as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh say, “apt in many ways” as it reflects the essence of India’s approach to federalism. Given that the Constitution itself has introduced a federal system as the basic structure of government, having a conference on Federalism, to deliberate and share ideas and experiences of its working, should therefore be enriching for all concerned. The other obvious reasons that necessitates due attention on the conference as also the address of the Indian Prime Minister is in the context of the ongoing peace talks between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) with the latter projecting a Special Federal Relationship between two ‘entities’ India and the Nagas. What the Prime Minister says on the topic of federalism therefore assumes significance at least in the context of the political talks between New Delhi and the NSCN (IM). 

While speaking at the inaugural function, the Prime Minister dwelt on several points, some of them old cliché, reaffirming the need to have a strong unitary bias in the working of Indian federalism. This is nothing new and only justifies the status quo—that sub-national identities can work in harmony with a larger national identity and that diversity can “coexist in a unified framework”. Nevertheless the Prime Minister’s also made some significant remarks, which will no doubt be a subject of discussion in the context of the Naga peace talks. He has highlighted the importance of “mediation of disputes between different levels and identities” in a federation. In some cases, the PM states, “this becomes a case of using agreed principles for determining solutions. The judicial processes can be used for this purpose”. 

The PM goes on to state that “in other cases, when there are no agreed principles, or when these are insufficient for the task at hand, we need other processes of dispute resolution”. Significantly, the PM refers to “a political process as the issue of identities is not just a matter of law”. And he qualifies this by saying that at times one needs “creative thinking and redesign of institutions to allow the federal concept to adjust to emerging realities”. How far this can be applied in the context of the Naga peace talks, it will be interesting to find out. But as was rightly pointed out by him, federalism, as a concept cannot remain static. 

It should be mentioned here that the demand of the NSCN (IM) for a separate constitution for the Nagas within this Special Federation should not be seen as out of sync with the concept and practice of Indian Federalism. For instance the pre-1953 status of Kashmir as per the provision of Article 370 has some prominent features such as a separate constitution for the Kashmiris framed by the people. Likewise Parliament could make laws with regard to J & K only on three subjects—Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications—in the Union List. The State List was not applicable to the Kashmiris. In other words, the relationship between the India and the State of J & K was of a special type thereby paving the way for reconciliation of two separate identifies but bound together by an umbilical cord. Hopefully, Indian Federalism will be able to demonstrate both ingenuity and innovation in addressing the special unique case of the Nagas.