T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: Imperial, not merely colonial

LINE AND LENGTH/ Governance is bad because our Constitution is imperial

The Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh government has had no compunctions about appointing as ministers men against whom criminal charges are pending.

Nevertheless, it is unctuously being put out that it is very concerned about good governance. Such delectable hypocrisy is always admirable, if only for its sheer gall.

Governance has indeed become a major issue in India. Everyone agrees that it is abysmally poor. Belonging as I do to a family in which there were, at a point in time, no fewer than 17 members in the IAS, IFS and the other services, public policy has been the staple of even casual conversation. But there was nothing noble about it, just people talking shop.

As a journalist, I have often had an adversarial relationship with these relatives. There has been much mutual cattiness but also a fair amount of cogitation. As a result, I have, perhaps, a plausible explanation as to why things have deteriorated so badly in our country.

This is that the deterioration has less to do with the usual suspects, such as competitive populism, the condoning of corruption, political interference and so on and almost entirely to do with the charter under which we are governed. Governance, whether in the home, or corporate, or national, is largely the result of outlook of this charter.

My point is that our Central government is essentially imperial in its outlook, rather than merely colonial (of being which it is frequently accused) because its charter is imperial. It is, in fact, the state governments that are colonial.

This is because they exercise a lot of administrative power but are essentially powerless in every other respect. The presidencies and the princes have been replaced by the state governments. We thus have a federation only in name. The concurrent list is proof enough of that as too is Entry 97 of the Union list.

The distinction is a fine one perhaps, but crucial, because when made it provides a useful insight into a whole range of actions, reactions and outcomes.

The reason why the Central government is imperial is, of course, very straightforward. It is the creature of an imperial constitution.

Thus, except for the chapters on fundamental rights and the directive principles, our Constitution is "" article for article but with the numbers changed "" a replica of the Government of India Act of 1935. This is open to easy verification.

Political scientists generally agree that there are two necessary and sufficient requirements of imperial rule. One is that such rule be over a diverse mix of peoples, languages, religions and ethnicity, spread over a very large geographical area.

The other is that it be conducted largely through a policy of divide and rule to prevent the emergence of grand coalitions against the imperial authority. The reason why the Congress fell from grace is that, as the pre-eminent imperial ruler of independent India, it failed to prevent the rise of such coalitions. As, indeed, did the BJP. Always, whether it is the Roman, or the Habsburg or the British or whichever, it was hubris that was to blame.

Imperial rule is also about the creation of hierarchies and subordination, usually through financial means. What the Left worries about at the international level has been happening throughout at the national level. Over Rs 3,000 crore to Bihar and zero to Orissa is par for the course and only the latest instance.

Imperial policy is operationalised through pro consuls because the imperial government has too many other preoccupations. If there is only one pro consul, things go smoothly. But the problem in India is that, although the governors are the constitutionally designated pro consuls, in many cases the chief ministers have become their rivals.

Delhi's main interest is in having a friendly pro consul, whether governor or chief minister, whence the periodic upheavals, whether by sacking governors or chief ministers.

Colonial rule is different because it is only an instrument of imperial rule. It is conducted through pro consuls, never mind whether it was Herod in Jerusalem, Nizam-ul-Mulk in the Deccan, Bentinck in India or Blair in Britain and Allawi in Iraq. Its objective is to further the imperial cause, whatever it might be at a given time.

The time honoured method is to use agents who divide in order to preserve the rule of the imperial power. Sometimes, the proxies rebel and become a mini-imperial power.

But that is another story, which can be told in the context of Amarinder Singh's act of rebellion against the imperial authority of the Sonia Gandhi government. If ever there was a challenge since 1947, this is it.

If the Sonia-Manmohan government doesn't handle it firmly, we are in for a lot of trouble as others states too start to defy the imperial government in Raisina Hill.

Imperial rule also ensures immunity to its human instruments. Down from Hamurabi's code, through the Manu Smriti, to Article 311 of our Constitution to the American refusal to submit to the International Criminal Court, the story is the same.

Unless your operatives are free from the threat of prosecution for misrule, they cannot help you preserve your pre-eminence.

Space constrains me from giving more examples. But the point ought to be sufficiently clear: the manner in which Delhi rules, and its purpose, are essentially that of an imperial power. And it uses colonial devices to achieve these objectives.

The fact that different parties or combinations of parties rule at different times doesn't change the basic nature of the rule itself. That stays unapologetically imperial in style and substance.

What effect does this have on governance? A devastating one, because the core concern of the imperial power is not good governance but to prevent challengers from coming up. If, as we can see in a variety of Indian situations, the imperial power has to choose between the two, it is always governance that is the casualty.

There are no exceptions to this general rule, never have been, and never will be. It is a sine qua non of imperial government and governance. Indira Gandhi's 17 long years in power stand witness to this. But she is wrongly blamed. She was only doing what the imperial charter that governs India demanded of her. It is written in our stars or, more correctly, in our Constitution.

In that sense, a defining characteristic of imperial rule is the poor governance in the colonies. Thus, the reason why the states are so poorly governed is that Delhi is imperial in character. It simply doesn't care. The consequence follows from the prior.

So what should be done? Clearly, the Constitution needs a review and it is a pity that the committee appointed by the NDA government turned out to be so pusillanimous. But if governance is to improve, we need another committee to make recommendations for changing the Constitution in a suitable way.