The demand for greater powers to States has been a constant feature of the country’s political discourse. The subject has been studied by many panels at different points of time over the years. The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), which submitted its report in 1969, the Commission on Centre-State Relations (1988), the National Commission to review the Working of the Constitution (2002) and the Commission on Centre-State Relations (2010) were among the bodies constituted by the Union government over the years to look into the matter.
Among the States, Tamil Nadu was perhaps the first to set up a panel – the famous Rajamannar Committee in 1969 – to examine the matter. In fact, only in December 1977, the West Bengal government, under the leadership of Jyoti Basu of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), published a memorandum on Centre-State relations. Seven months after M. Karunanidhi of the DMK succeeded C.N. Annadurai as Chief Minister, a committee headed by P.V. Rajamannar, former Chief Justice (CJ) of the Madras High Court was constituted on September 22, 1969. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, former Vice-Chancellor of the Madras University, and P. Chandra Reddy, another former CJ of the High Court, were other members. The panel’s work finds a mention even in the current political discourse, as expressed by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in the third episode of his podcast, ‘Speaking for India’, and VCK founder Thol. Thirumavalavan a fortnight ago.
Demand viewed with suspicion
The formation of the Rajamannar Committee was no surprise as the DMK, from the days of leadership of its founder Annadurai, had been clamouring for more powers for States. But, in view of the party’s earlier stand in support of a separate state, the demand for greater powers was viewed suspiciously in certain quarters. Clarifying his position in the Assembly, Karunanidhi, as the Chief Minister, said the demand should not be mistaken as “a plea for secession,” said a report published by The Hindu on April 3, 1971. Almost one-and-a-half months later (on May 27), Rajamannar submitted the report to the Chief Minister.
The former Chief Justice submitted the report, at right, to the Chief Minister in 1971. | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
Two news items carried by this newspaper on May 28, 1971 talked of several recommendations of the committee. The most important recommendation pertained to the establishment of an Inter-State Council, which became a reality through an order of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on May 28, 1990 when V.P. Singh of the Janata Dal headed the coalition regime at the Centre, which included the DMK. The panel had called for widening the base of devolution of revenues for States; making compulsorily divisible, between the Union and the States, all excise duties and cesses shareable at the option of the Union; and the transfer of subjects, including mineral oil resources, from the Union List to the State List.
Analysing the Committee’s findings and recommendations, the Commission on Centre-State Relations, constituted by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre that consisted of the DMK with former Chief Justice of India Madan Mohan Punchhi as the head, pointed out that the panel had made a critical analysis of the concept of “strong Centre.” It had strongly favoured the autonomy of States. “It went to the extent of recommending unburdening the Centre in many areas of responsibility and its occupancy in many fields”.
According to the Commission [also known as the Punchhi panel], the Rajamannar Committee’s other recommendations included emphasis on legislative competence for States to amend the Central laws enacted by Parliament and mandatory consultations with States on decisions affecting their interests. Though the Committee endorsed the ARC’s views on planning and finance, there was a fundamental difference between the approaches of the two. While the former was emphatic on the idea of a “strong Union,” the latter “tried its best to mould the Indian Constitution on the American model.” The Tamil Nadu government’s committee “did not take note of the peculiar problems” which the country faced preceding and after Independence. “The central theme in the recommendations of the Rajamannar Committee was to eliminate the concept of the legislative supremacy of the Centre and confer maximum autonomy on the States,” the Punchhi Commission added.
After receiving a copy of the report, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in her reply in June 1971, said that the ARC too went into the question and its report was under consideration of her government. She, however, assured Karunanidhi that her regime intended to consult all Chief Ministers on the matter.
Draws criticism
The Committee, however, had its share of critics. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who headed the Jan Sangh [precursor to the Bharatiya Janata Party], addressing the party’s general council at Udaipur in July 1971, warned that the panel’s recommendations would promote “regionalism to a dangerous extent.” He had even accused the DMK of having “succeeded in presenting” a respected person such as Rajamannar as a “symbol of its separatist politics.”
The Central government had studied the Committee’s recommendations and it had arrived at the conclusion that some of them were “not practicable.” In April 1974, a resolution was adopted by the State Assembly, calling upon the Centre to accept the report. As many experts point out, the panel did help in articulating the viewpoint of States and highlighted areas of tension between the Centre and States, but its recommendations had no practical force, except being of academic interest.
The Central government had studied the Committee’s recommendations and it had arrived at the conclusion that some of them were “not practicable.” In April 1974, a resolution was adopted by the State Assembly, calling upon the Centre to accept the report. As many experts point out, the panel did help in articulating viewpoint of the States and highlighted areas of tension between the Centre and the States, but its recommendations had no practical force, except being of academic interest.
