Abstract:
This article examines the question of federalism and nationalism and its implications for development in the context of the regional economy of Punjab, which has its own unique characteristics, culturally and economically. The continuing debate about centre-state relations in India is due to the fact that Indian federalism, unlike the American federal structure, is a Union of States and not a federation of states which have their unique socio-cultural, economic and political history and aspirations. In fact, the Indian constitution is popularly described as ‘federal in structure, but unitary in character’.
The subject of federalism has been deeply tied up with the project of nation building in India right from the time of drafting of India’s constitution. Indian nationalism, in turn, has been the driving force behind different development policies pursued by the Indian state. Prof Pritam Singh’s book Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy published originally by Routledge (London/New York) in 2008 and brought out in its second Indian reprint in 2019, explores the triangular relationship between federalism, nationalism and development in the making of Punjab economy and aims also at developing a template for understanding the formation of all state economies in India in the over-all context of the political economy of India.
The issue of federalism in India has again come to prominence in the last few years with policy initiatives of the current Indian government such as demonetization and GST, and more recently regarding agricultural marketing and strategies to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic. This renewed interest in federalism has led to critical engagement with scholarly works on the subject such as Prof. Singh’s book. This book by Prof. Singh, currently a Visiting Scholar at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, which is a development of his DPhil thesis at the University of Oxford, has been the subject recently of two extensive reviews by two different sets of reviewers and has attracted the attention not only of Punjab watchers in India and Pakistan but also of those interested in the wider issues of federalism, development, centralisation, decentralisation and democracy in South Asia and beyond.
The most recent engagement with the thesis of the book was a review of this by a panel of three academics- Prof Sucha Singh Gill (a retired professor of economics at Punjabi University, Patiala), Prof Saeed Shafqat (professor of public policy at Forman Christian College, Lahore) and Prof Atul Sood (professor of economics at JNU, Delhi) as a part of the book review sessions organised by Lyallpur Young Historians Club (LYHC) on 29 August 2020.
The session can be watched below
The book was also reviewed by Prof Sukhpal Singh (IIM, Ahmedabad), Dr. Shinder S.Thandi (University of California) and Dr. Harpreet Kaur Narang (Delhi University), in the panel discussion of the book published in the latest issue (Volume 27, No.1) of the Journal of Sikh and Punjab Studies (JSPS).
The link to the JSPS panel discussion is: http://www.giss.org/jsps_vol_27/09-review_article_on_punjab_and_indian_federalism.pdf
In both the panel discussions, Prof Singh has responded to the points raised in the reviews and has indicated the direction not only of his own research emerging from this work but also the possible direction of the future research initiatives in the areas of federalism, nationalism and development in India and South Asia.
This article is an attempt to highlight the key issues emerging from these discussions by summarising both the panel discussions and the responses to those from Prof Singh.
Looking at the current degenerating Centre-State relations and further strengthening of the Centre, more so in its structuring of “Hindu Nationalism” and transformation of the country into a single common market, this book represents a critical intervention not only in the field of development but also in the arena of contestation between centralised authoritarianism and democracy in India. The late Professor Ajit Singh (2011) of Cambridge University had remarked: “The book is one of those rare academic publications which have the potential to make history’’
The reviewers shared their understanding of the structure of the book, its context and also the need to plug-in information and/or extension of the study to include developments after 1991 and 2008. Though the book covers many issues especially relating to politics in Punjab and Punjab’s industrial development/underdevelopment up to 2008, its focus was on the planned period of India’s development up to 1991. The preface to the 2019 reprint hints at developments up to 2019.
This book examines the question of federalism and nationalism and its implications for development in the context of a regional economy which has its own unique characteristics, culturally and economically.
The question of federalism has been a constant topic of debate since India’s independence. This continuing debate about centre-state relations in India is due to the fact that Indian federalism, unlike the American federal structure, is a Union of States and not a federation of states which have their unique socio-cultural, economic and political history and aspirations. In fact, the Indian constitution is popularly described as ‘federal in structure, but unitary in character’. Therefore, the division of powers/subjects between the Centre/Union and the States/Provinces under the Constitution provided for under the three lists- the Union list, the State list and the Concurrent list- is always an issue of debate. The conflict between centralisation and decentralisation emerging from the working of these lists and the consequences of this conflict for development have continued to be debated for a long time now. The governments at the union and state levels are constitutionally authorised to make laws on subjects in the Union and the State list respectively. It is only in the Concurrent list that both can make laws but the Union law will prevail over state law in case a conflict arises. However, in practice, there are plenty of subjects in the State list on which Union Government has been running ministries and departments to carry out development activities, besides regulation, over the decades (Prof Sukhpal Singh).
The 1966-91 period, which is the focus of the study but extended to more recent period in some chapters, has been very thoughtfully and carefully chosen by the author. The year 1966 marks the historically significant territorial reorganisation of Punjab on linguistic grounds as well as the adoption of the Green Revolution strategy; while 1991 marks beginning of the era of New Economic Policy regime in India dictated by the Bretton-Woods twins (Dr. Harpreet Kaur Narang). This refers to the two multilateral organizations created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. These were the World Bank (IBRD & IDA) and the International Monetary Fund.
The seven chapters of the book cover politics and economy of Punjab and trace the trajectory of its history from being a sovereign nation (from 1799-1849) to a sub-nation under British imperial rule and in the Indian federation after 1947. The book examines in detail the question of federalism in different sectors like finance, agriculture, and industry besides setting the historical context of these questions in terms of geography and political economy and providing an analytical framework. According to Dr Shinder Thandi, the major narratives of Punjab’s ‘decline’ can be broadly categorized as: (a) Declining Role of Agriculture with limited expansion in non-agricultural employment; (b) Punjab as a Border State and Militancy of the 1980s; (c) Indian Federalism and Centre-State Relations; (d) Quality of Economic and Political Governance.
Prof Sucha Singh Gill provided an overview of the seven chapters and more details of the various subjects in the Union List, State List and Concurrent List. Prof Pritam Singh pointed out that the Centre’s capacity to move items from the State List to the Concurrent List is another mechanism of the intrusion of the Centre into State List. He gave the example of education and forests which were originally in the State List but were moved to the Concurrent List through amendments made during the Emergency (1975-77) imposed by Indira Gandhi. This, he argued, further strengthened the centralisation bias in the Indian constitution.
Prof Gill also mentioned that if there is any other subject that does not come under these three lists, the Constitution provides powers to the Central government called ‘residuary powers’ to enact on that subject, thus further reinforcing the centralised bias of the Constitution. Additionally, Prof Gill referred to the 8th Schedule of the Constitution regarding various languages in India and the 9th Schedule which stipulates that any laws on land reforms introduced by a state government must be approved by the Central government.
Two reports of the Commissions appointed by the Central government to examine the centre-state relationships about which Prof Gill made a reference were: Justice Sarkaria Commission Report of 1987 (appointed by Indira Gandhi government) and the Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah Commission Report of 2002 (appointed by Vajpayee government). Both reports highlighted problems associated with the ‘Centralised’ Constitution of India (Prof Gill).
Prof Saeed Shafqat pointed out that India and Pakistan were not able to free themselves of ‘The Government of India Act’ 1935, which defined the parameters for the establishment of a “Federation of India”, to be made up of both British India and some or all of the “princely states” and the establishment of a Federal Court. He stated that both countries inherited a strong Centre as a result of Government of India Act 1935, which gave limited powers to the federating units (States/Provinces). So the states/provinces did not share power with the federation voluntarily. He, therefore, argued that Professor Pritam Singh’s book offers a refreshing and theoretically rigorous analysis of Indian federalism and his template can be applied to understand the challenges of federalism in Pakistan. Prof Shafqat remarked that the other innovative features of Prof Singh’s research were the linkages it establishes between ethnic demands, nationalism, economic development and federalism.
The points listed above provide an important historical context in understanding what Prof Pritam Singh conceptualises as the Punjab paradox of being ‘rich but not developed’ or of ‘unbalanced development’. Punjab is, thus, an example of a state that did not or rather could not follow the usual development trajectory and transformation from agriculture to industry to services. Punjab’s industrial sector took a hit due to the Centre’s nationalist policies beginning with the perspective of the Planning Commission formulated in 1950. Though it existed in its rudimentary form since 1938, initiated by Subhas Chandra Bose under the guidance of Meghnad Saha, Nehru became the head of the planning committee appointed by the Indian National Congress.
After India achieved independence, a formal model of planning was adopted, and accordingly the Planning Commission, reporting directly to the Prime Minister of India, was established on 15 March 1950, with Nehru as the Chairman. Authority for creation of the Planning Commission was not derived from the Constitution of India or statute; it was an arm of the Central Government of India.
The first Five-Year Plan was launched in 1951, focusing mainly on development of the agricultural sector. This combined with the Green Revolution set the ‘Punjab model’ of growth. In order to prevent arm-twisting by the US of the Indian State after independence due to dependence on food aid under PL 480 US programme, Nehru and others were well aware that this could be done only if India became self-sufficient in food production. This was also stated by Indira Gandhi: “Green Revolution was for the sheer survival of the nation” and C. Subramaniam, the Food and Agriculture minister who ushered in the Green Revolution along with M.S. Swaminathan, and B. Sivaraman : “political survival was dependent on food production” (cited by Prof Pritam Singh 2008/2019: 191)
In 1961, India was on the brink of a mass famine. Norman Borlaug was invited to India by Dr. M. S. Swaminathan who was the adviser to India’s ministry of agriculture. Despite bureaucratic hurdles imposed by India’s grain monopolies, the Ford Foundation and Indian government collaborated to import wheat seed from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT due to the Centre being based in Mexico City). Punjab was selected by the Indian government to be the first site to try the new crops because of its reliable water supply and a history of agricultural success. India began its own Green Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of agrochemicals.
Although there were several other districts across India that were identified for the Green Revolution strategy (Bardhaman in W. Bengal, Palghat in Kerala, Northern Haryana, Western UP, East & West Godavari belts in Andhra Pradesh), but in the case of Punjab the entire state was selected. The fact that the Punjab’s peasantry was skilled in irrigation techniques due to the earlier scheme of Canal Colonies under the British, also factored in this decision.
The Green Revolution, through spectacular increase in food crop production, markedly increased the per capita income of Punjab with Punjab becoming the highest per capita income state among Indian states in 1971. In 1949/50, Bengal had the highest per capita income and 1960/61, it was Maharashtra. This growth in per capita income of Punjab was what led to it becoming, as phrased by Prof. Pritam Singh, the ‘Rich but not developed state’.
Under the nation building perspective of the Planning Commission’s Five-Year Plans (replaced by Niti Ayog since 2014 by NDA.), the political project was of equitable regional development. This involved assessing the material and human resources of India, including technical personnel, and investigating the possibilities of augmenting those related resources which were found to be deficient in relation to the nation’s requirement. From this national perspective, Indian State intervened through the public sector for aiming at equitable growth among different states.
The inter-state equitable growth model was a conscious program of the Centre as a part of its nation building strategy: 1. to avoid disaffection and dissatisfaction of those states that may be lagging in growth and 2. To avoid the ‘over growth’ of any state to an extent that it would cease to be dependent on the Centre as in the case of Slovenia (Yugoslavia), Baltic States (Russia) and more recently the movements in Basque and Catalonia (Spain).
Since Punjab’s per capita income had increased manifold due to the Green Revolution, no licenses were given for setting up of medium/ large industries in Punjab. Every file submitted for Centre’s approval for industrial projects would be returned with just a “No” and no explanations were given. This ‘license raj’ became a method to control the pattern of industrial development of the regions.
Nearing the twenty-first century, the situation began to change and the successful Punjab model, based largely around agriculture, came under considerable strain. Punjab’s relative position among Indian states, using a range of different socio-economic indicators, began to decline (Thandi).
Punjab from an agricultural state almost jumped to the services sector, having been made to skip the industrial sector growth. In addition globalisation of the Indian economy, ushered in by the UPA government, beginning with the externally-imposed economic reform process in the early 1990s, tended to accelerate Punjab’s decline rather than reversing it, in sharp contrast to the case in many other states.
The centralisation process has been further strengthened with liberalisation since 1991 and especially since the rise of Hindutva BJP. In the post-1991 phase, the central government’s control of monetary and banking institutions has massively increased the economic power of the central government in shaping the destiny of the states’ development process. The development of GST is a glaring example of this increasing centralisation (Singh 2016, 2017). This has become evident in the post-demonetisation, post-GST & post-Covid situation in India (Singh 2020, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c).
Some recent articles, links given below, highlight the current conundrum of the Centre-State relations regarding GST, which further underline the importance of this book.
- https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/states-shocked-at-centres-gst-compensationturnaround/cid/1790282?fbclid=IwAR2qLyNX0OJYYnUYytLlawSZEPpYtd-H_JoXHYCo7FUloBp_QXZvht0ekXI
- https://thewire.in/economy/india-gst-tax-states-centre-federalism
Responding to the panel discussion in the JSPS, Prof Pritam Singh argued: “The post-1991 economic liberalisation regime decreased somewhat the regulatory role of central government in industrial development, and this opened the logic of the external economies of scale to operate in attracting multinational and domestic corporate capital to already industrially developed states (Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) in comparison with less industrially advanced states such as Punjab. This somewhat diminished regulatory role of the Centre in industrial investment was over-compensated by the massive increase in the centralisation of economic power in India brought about by Centre’s strategic control and dominance in financial structures in Indian capitalism’s growing financialisation. The argument for greater economic, political and cultural autonomy to the states remains as salient now as before liberalisation. Coupled with increased economic liberalization, the project of strong unified Indian nationhood – whether in the semi-secular garb of the Congress or the Hindutva garb of the BJP – throws a challenge to alternative visions of plural and sustainable India. Punjab’s future lies in aligning with forces of regional decentralization, political pluralism and sustainable development to weaken the existing structures of centralisation which externally constrain and stunt its development – economic, political, social, cultural and, above all, ecological. This realignment requires multiple forms of mobilisation within Punjab to create a political platform that strongly supports and sustains such realignment. That is the way to resolve the paradox of ‘rich but not developed Punjab’ that this book has brought to light.”
In addition, Prof Pritam Singh pointed out: “… about the political disturbances in the 1980s and the1990s leading to adverse impact on industrial development in Punjab, it is crucial, methodologically, to view these disturbances as the product of conflict – both constitutional as well as extra constitutional – between Punjab and the Centre and not as an autonomous and separate factor in understanding stunted industrialisation in Punjab… about the state government in Punjab not stepping up industrialisation (including agro-industrialisation), it is important to highlight that it is partly due to the policy dominance of agrarian classes in Punjab, and this dominance is itself the product of the over-development of agriculture created through central/federal policies in Punjab. This is in sharp contrast with the dominance of industrial/urban classes in other states where such industrial development was facilitated by central/federal policies towards those states. It is an excellent example of how what seems to be an internal factor (the role of a state government) gets shaped by an external factor (federal/central policies).”
He also remarked on a key issue that often figures in Punjab-Centre relations: “I have not come across any written evidence that suggests that Indian policy planners took into consideration the sociological and religious characteristics of the Jat Sikh peasantry in arriving at the decision to introduce the Green Revolution strategy in Punjab” (Singh 2008: 117). What I suggested was much more nuanced that took into account the perceptions of Punjab-based policy planners and the importance of structural/material conditions over cultural dimensions: “There is some evidence to suggest that some of the policy planners [I had mentioned M. S. Randhawa as one of the key Punjab-based policy planner] were aware of the historical background of the Punjab peasantry, (encouraged by Sikh philosophy as opposed to states with Brahmanical order not giving importance to agriculture), and would have viewed it as another factor in favour of introducing the Green Revolutionary strategy in Punjab, in addition to the objective material conditions prevailing in Punjab agriculture, such as irrigation resources and potentialities” (Singh 2008: 117). By referring to the absence of written evidence on central policy makers’ decision on economic strategies pursued in Punjab due to the state being a Sikh majority state, I am sticking to the standard social science practice of making judgements on the basis of available evidence. This does not mean that the written evidence is the only admissible evidence and, therefore, it does not remove the possibility that other forms of evidence might emerge which would demand reconsideration of this issue.”
Prof Sood highlighted various socio-economic dimensions relating to inequalities in Punjab and argued that bringing in those inequalities into analysis in addition to the federal conflicts between Punjab and the Centre would enrich an understanding of what he called ‘the crisis of Punjab economy’.
Prof Sukhpal Singh referred to some of the key empirical findings in Prof Pritam Singh’s book relating to the pattern of industrial development which demonstrated the relative industrial backwardness of Punjab. In particular, he highlighted that the outcome of the lack of central public investment in industrial development in the state is reflected in the share of the secondary sector in GDP of the state which hovered around 15% for two decades of the 1960s and 1970s and at 20% during the 1980s compared with the consistent share of more than 20% for the country right through the two decades of the 1970s and the 1980s. Among the various states, the ranking of Punjab based on the share of the secondary sector in state GDP both in 1980-81 and 1990-91 showed that it was 14th and 17th respectively and much lower than the states of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Bengal, and Orissa. The other noteworthy aspect of the state industrial sector is that small scale units predominate in the sector. The size analysis showed that most of the factories since the 1960s have been those employing less than 100 workers and accounted for almost 80% of the units and 20% of the employment in the sector. In fact, the first and the only unit employing more than 5000 workers was set up in the early 1980s and remains so even now (JSPS, p.163)
Regarding the theoretical work on federalism and capitalism in India, Prof Pritam Singh pointed out in the session organised by the Lyallpur Young Historians Club that the Indian Marxist (and non-Marxist) scholarship had failed to understand the role of Indian federalism in the making of Indian capitalism. The only exception to this scholarly failure on the Left are the works of late Ashok Mitra, once the finance minister in the Left front government in West Bengal (see Singh 2018), and late Dr.TV Satyamurthy (University of York, UK) who made some attempt to bring in centre-state relations in understanding Indian capitalism. Prof Singh argued that what needs to be understood is that the Indian federal structure provides the regulatory framework in the working of Indian capitalism. Indian Marxists have largely misunderstood federal conflicts as conflicts between national elites and regional elites. The non-Marxist tend to view Centre-State relations merely as an issue of administrative relationship between the Centre and the States on allocation of resources. What needs to be understood is the theoretical framework that puts “nationalism” at the centre of analysis where centralised Indian nationalism represented by the Centre is in conflict with multiple regional nationalisms articulated by regions/states opposed to the unitarist Hindu-Hindi domination.
The states in India are not just administrative and geographical boundaries but are sites of national and sub-national aspirations which form the essence of diversity in India. The states have linguistic and cultural identities and need to be understood in the politico-economic theoretical framework examining the complex and multi-layered relationship between federalism, development and national identities.
Within the overall nationalistic agenda under secularism and more so under ‘Hindu Rashtra”, some states, that are in the ‘cow-belt’ comprising U.P., Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Haryana, etc. identify with the nationalism articulated by the Centre while other states like Kashmir, Punjab, North Eastern States such as Mizoram and Nagaland, and some Southern States have been in tension/ conflict with the Centre. The suppression of the latter set by the Centre is to weaken regional nationalist identities.
With respect to Punjab, the focus of this study, its distinctiveness needs to be understood. Within the sub-national Punjabi nationalism and Punjabi identity, what also needs to be understood is Sikh nationalism and Sikh identity. Dismissing these sub nationalisms as ‘communalism’ performs the function, consciously or unconsciously, of reinforcing the ideological hegemony of unitarist Indian nationalism whether it is articulated through secular or Hindu nationalist framework.
Punjab partitioned after independence was further divided on the basis of languages in 1966. In India, Punjab being a marginal state has had very little bargaining power in the domains of politics, linguistic-cultural identity and economic strategies. Whereas in Pakistan, despite being the dominant state, Punjab chose to adopt Urdu as the official language. This was also to keep a check on sub-identities such as Sindh, Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit-Baltistan. Imposition of Urdu language on Bengali speaking East Bengal became the cause for the division and ultimately separation.
Due to the agricultural development efforts at the national level, despite the subject being in State domain, Punjab could not diversify away from agriculture which created conditions for conflict between regional aspirations and the politico-economic needs of Indian nationalism as articulated by the Union government.
Prof Sukhpal Singh noted that the book has stated that the Punjabi nationalists wanted fundamental restructuring of economic relations between the centre/union and the state or snapping of ties with the federal government altogether so that Punjab could move ahead on the path of self-sustaining diversified economic development.
The real expression of state aspirations with specific articulation of the Sikh demand for a federal structure was given in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1973 by the Shiromani Akali Dal which clearly stated that other than the subjects of defence, foreign affairs, currency, and communications, all other subjects should be the domain of the state, not of the centre.
As concluded by all the reviewers, the two main takeaways from the book are:
- Centre-State relations under Indian federalism need to be understood beyond just an administrative set up. Also, it is crucial to recognise that the federation may face stress due to centre-state conflict (vertical) or inter-state conflict (horizontal) or a combination of the two depending on the issue under consideration ( Prof Pritam Singh and Prof. Sukhpal Singh). Another factor that further impacts the regional economy is the fact that in the current scenario global capitalism is mediated through the Indian State.
- The structure followed for this study can be used as a framework/ template for understanding Centre-State relations in other states.
Concluding the book review, Prof Singh said: “… my research on Punjab-Centre relations is crucially influenced by my Marxist theoretical orientation and I would like to add that my Marxist theoretical orientation is further influenced by an ecological world view, so the most appropriate characterisation of my theoretical approach would be ecological Marxism/ ecological socialism. The insights from the eco-socialist approach are reflected in my comments on the environmental degradation in Punjab caused by agricultural extractive strategy pursued by the Indian central state in Punjab (p.171 and p.193). Undoubtedly, the exploration of this subject in my book was merely indicative of the greater potential of research in this area”.
Finally, the three important points emerging from the reviews are: 1. the need for extension of this analysis to more recent periods, 2. comparing the study on Punjab with other states, and 3. bringing ecology into analysis to be able to deal with the existential crisis of the planet earth due to the global ecological crisis.
References
Singh, Ajit (2011) ‘Roots of Disaffection in Punjab’, Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), Vol 46, No 5, 29 January.
Singh, Pritam (2008) Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy (London/New York, Routledge), Second Indian Reprint 2019.
Singh, Pritam (2016) ‘W(h)ither federalism’, The Tribune, August 11.
Singh, Pritam (2017) ‘A surgical plunder: Demonetisation one year after’, The Tribune, November
Singh, Pritam (2018) ‘Ashok Mitra (1928-2018)’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol LIII, No. 19, May 12.
Singh, Pritam (2020), ‘Zeroing in on responses to economic crisis’, The Tribune, May 2.
Singh, Pritam (2020a) ‘Centre’s Agricultural Marketing Reforms Are an Assault on Federalism’, The Wire, June 20.
Singh, Pritam (2020b) ‘BJP’s Farming Policies Deepening Agro-business Capitalism and Centralisation’, Economic and Political Weekly, October 10, Volume LV, Number 41, pp. 14-17.
Singh, Pritam (2020c) Punjab’s Post-Covid 19 Economic Policy under Indian Federalism, Policy Brief No 20, Centre for Development Economics and Innovation Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala.
Jaspreet Kaur is a Delhi-based urban designer and architect with special interest in history and politico-economic issues concerning India and Punjab
