Earlier this month, while inaugurating the Fourth International Conference on Federalism, Dr Manmohan Singh chose to go beyond the usual clichés about unity in diversity, and that sort of thing. He gave a short, thoughtful speech in which he raised “some serious questions... to reflect on”.

The next day’s headlines trivialised what the PM had said. Reading them, one got the impression that he was merely complaining about the behaviour of coalition partners. But the PM did more than that. His first question: In a modern state, does a single-party state have any advantages in managing Centre-state relations smoothly as opposed to a multi-party system? Or is a multi-party model, with national parties dominating the political scene, superior where one can hope that all of them will take a national view on policy issues and help reinforce the unity of the federation?”

One can see where the learned doctor is coming from. But the answers to his queries need a perspective wider than India. One-party federations without democracy have collapsed in recent years as the USSR shows. Pakistan before 1971 is another example where a lack of democracy broke the federation. But even with democracy, if the same party is in power at the Centre and states, as was the case in India until 1967, it was not quite federal. Uniformity was imposed by the Centre in government and party matters.

Much bad behaviour — such as arbitrary imposition of President’s rule, the dismissal of one CM and the parachuting of another — prevailed. Kerala was forced to change government when it dared to elect a non-Congress one in 1957. When the Congress lost control of many states in 1967, the Centre’s behaviour went from bad to worse. It may have been peaceful times for the Congress but it suppressed tensions which were to explode later.

... contd.