The singularity of Indianness is that it works in the plural: You can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite and a good Indian all at once.

Last month I discussed, in ThePrint, the issue of the controversy that had arisen among southern Indian states about the new terms of reference of the Finance Commission, which they felt unfairly rewarded those states that had failed to improve their governance, empower women and curb population. An even bigger danger, I pointed out, looms if the same logic prevails when the current arrangements freezing political representation at 1971 population levels expires in 2026. If at that time, new population figures are used, the south would face political disenfranchisement to go along with its sense of financial victimisation. This would have serious implications for national unity.

Already some hotheads are calling for serious consideration of secession, and some in the environs of Chennai have begun reviving the case for a ‘Dravida Nadu’. Such an idea may have little appeal beyond a few limited circles in Tamil Nadu, but that does not mean the underlying concerns behind such an idea should be ignored.

In my piece, I had suggested that the only remedy for the pervasive southern disquiet would be to acknowledge that we need a more decentralised democracy, one in which the central share of tax resources is not so crucial, and the political authority of New Delhi not so overwhelming. That could make the concerns raised by the more recent population figures less relevant.

How can we flesh out what a decentralised democracy would mean? Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah has argued that India is evolving from a “union of states” into a “federation of states”. This may, to some degree, be wishful thinking for now, in an era in which a glib phrase like “co-operative federalism” masks a reality of over-centralisation; but there is no reason for us not to consider how to take India in that direction, even though we are not there yet.

In our “quasi-federal” system, there is no doubt that the Union currently enjoys the upper hand. After all, in India, the Union created the states, rather than the states coming together to create the Union, and new states have been created in recent years by Acts of Parliament. But that does not mean that the dominance of the Union need extend to the point where the states have little or no autonomy and feel themselves the playthings of New Delhi. It is that perception that has stirred the current unrest and made the seemingly technical correction of the Finance Commission’s terms of references such a major political issue.

But what would a more federal India look like? The first fear to set at rest is that a more substantive federalism would loosen the bonds that tie all Indians together in a shared nationality. When Karnataka approved its own official state flag, alarms went off, and the cry arose that such a flag would constitute a de facto challenge to the Indian flag. But many other federal nations have state flags and state symbols without their national governments feeling in the least threatened. Indeed, recognising strong regional identities is a mark of a strong and confident state. It’s only the weak who are reluctant to empower their subordinates.

India has also been distinguished by its capacity to promote and celebrate multiple identities. The singularity of Indian-ness is that it works in the plural. You can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite and a good Indian all at once, and take pride in each of these labels without feeling that one undermines another. The great Malayali poet Vallathol wrote: “Bharataam ennu kettaal, abhimaana pooritham aavanum antharangam; Keralam ennu kettalo, thilakan choara namukke njerambaglil.” (“If one hears the name of India, one’s heart must swell with pride; if one hears the name of Kerala, the blood must throb in our veins.”) Similarly, the Kannada poet Kuvempu composed “Jaya Bharatha Jananiya Tanujathe”, hailing Karnataka as the daughter of Bharata, the Indian nation.

So, the southern states are not really interested in secession; they want a more genuine federalism. Chief minister Siddaramaiah has argued the case for a system where states receive a larger portion of the taxes collected from them; this would permit the relatively well-developed southern states to retain a larger portion of what they currently contribute to the Centre. The difficulty with that suggestion, of course, is that it reduces the quantum of funds available to the central government to subsidise India’s poorer states.

Chief minister Siddaramaiah argues that “the share o

Source: https://theprint.in/opinion/it-is-time-for-indias-second-liberalisation-allow-the-states-to-grow-as-