Nature of Indian State

The Role of the State in India

• The role of the State is a dominant theme of political disagreement, reflecting different views on the relationship between the State, society, and the individual.

• While all political thinkers (except anarchists) consider the State a necessary association, they disagree about the exact role it should play in society.

• Classical Liberals argue that individuals should have the widest possible liberty, with the State confined to a minimal role to provide a framework of peace and social order.

• Minimal States, with institutions limited to a police force, court system, and army, were common in the 19th century but became rare in the 20th century.

• The State’s role expanded in the 20th century in response to electoral pressures for economic and social security, supported by democratic socialists, modern liberals, and paternalistic conservatives.

• In Indian society, a space for the idea of the modern Nation State was created alongside the traditional concept of the State, though the imported concept gradually marginalized the indigenous one.

• The colonial inheritance of the imperial State structure played a significant role in shaping the relationship between the State and Indian society.

• The concept of the State as the ultimate pacesetter, protector, and arbiter among conflicting social groups was inherited from colonial rule.

• The nationalist movement under the Congress aimed to transform the colonial legacy into a powerful State for capitalist economic development and a just, socialistically inclined society.

• The Indian Constitutional State emerged in 1947 after a long and unique struggle for political emancipation.

• The Indian National Congress developed a State-centered and secular ideology, and its conversion to Socialism helped adapt to the requirements of State construction.

• The creation of a strong State aimed at overcoming the traditional order, which was segmented regionally and socially.

• The Indian Constitution of 1950 marked a departure from traditional Indian values and institutions, creating a secular, parliamentary democracy with a bicameral parliament, multi-party system, indirectly elected president, independent judiciary, and a federal structure with partial separation of powers between the Centre and states.

• The State aimed at achieving justice, equality, and dignity for the individual, with legitimacy rooted in the people.

• The Constitution provided Fundamental Rights that could not be alienated or abrogated, except in cases of national security and general welfare.

• The Directive Principles of State Policy directed the State to secure a social order oriented to people’s welfare, ensure livelihoods, prevent harmful concentration of wealth, ensure equal pay for equal work for both men and women, and protect children and youth from exploitation.

• The Constitution adopted a federal form, demarcating subjects for legislation by the Centre (Union government), the States, and both.

• The Union government was responsible for subjects like defence, foreign affairs, inter-state communication, trade and commerce, currency, banking, and control of industry.

• The States were responsible for subjects like public order, police, public health, education, agriculture, and professions.

• The Concurrent List included items such as marriage and divorce, transfer of non-agricultural property, contracts, civil and criminal procedure, monopolies, welfare, social security, price-control, factories, electricity, and food adulteration.

• States had autonomy in enacting legislation on subjects in the Concurrent List, but could not contravene any law passed by the Parliament.

• The Constitution demarcated the means of raising revenues between the Centre and the States.

• The Union government could raise revenues from corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, customs and excise, coinage, currency, foreign exchange, taxes on stock exchange transactions, etc.

• The States could raise revenues through land revenue, agriculture income tax, electricity and water rates, taxes on vehicles, taxes on trades and professions, land and property taxes, sales and purchase taxes, entertainment tax, etc.

• The Constitution provided for grants-in-aid to poorer or less developed States from the Centre.

• The post-independence elite in India cherished values like national integration, economic development, social equality, and political democracy.

• These goals were to be achieved through a centralised bureaucratic State, which was championed by Nehru.

• The State undertook projects like atomic power plants, massive dams, and huge steel plants.

• Emphasis was placed on coordinating class relations in Indian society and power relations in the state structure to build a strong State.

• The State initially addressed linguistic and regional tensions through a policy of consensus.

• The post-independence elite was successful in forging a strong State by promoting India’s regional, linguistic, ethnic, and religious diversities.

• This approach promoted a unifying and legitimising conception of a strong State, helping the elite establish their monopoly on legitimate physical violence.

• The socialist reference promoted egalitarian principles, which helped in diminishing inequalities in Indian society.

• The removal of inequalities in the caste system and regional disparities reduced the resources of competing traditional elites.

• This helped establish the political arena as the privileged space for the exercise of power.

• Socialist ideology helped the new elites establish influence in society and the economy.

• Notable steps taken included the creation of the Planning Commission (1950), the launch of Five Year Plans (1951), the National Development Council (1952), and the Industries Development Regulation Act (1951).

Emergence of the Modern State

• Modern States tend to displace all other ordering mechanisms of society and become the sole source of mandatory rules.

• When the modern State arose in Europe, it had a limited conception of itself and did not systematically participate in social engineering.

• In India, the colonial State was the first form of the modern State, asserting its sovereignty emphatically.

• The colonial State oscillated between non-interference in society and energetic reformism but did not directly intervene in the structures of caste society.

• Post-independence, the Indian State could not maintain a similar stance of distance, as it was committed to social reform through the Constitution.

• The Indian State introduced legislation for positive discrimination in favor of deprived communities, offering them advantages in State employment and education.

• This led to the growth of a highly interventionist State.

• Despite continuity with the past, post-British governmental structures introduced complexity in the relationship between the State and society.

• All-India Services became a major institutional legacy of the British colonial State and laid the foundation for the bureaucratic and managerial State.

• By the 1980s, bureaucrats in the public sector became more powerful than those in private business due to their control over the economy, industrial sector, and regulatory apparatus.

• The Indian State became a major employer and played a key role in managing the flow of international finance, foreign aid, loans, and foreign investment.

• The State controlled the use of capital and developed an extensive apparatus to support its responsibilities.

• The State was responsible for managing public sector operations, marketing, rationing of foreign exchange, consumer goods, infrastructure, and maintaining political stability.

• The Indian State followed the Weberian principle of monopoly on coercive authority, directing social groups to route their demands through its agencies.

• This led to a steep rise in the demands made by social groups on the State.

• The Rudolphs distinguished between ‘Demand’ polity and ‘Command’ polity.

• The ‘Demand’ polity focuses on short-term goals, competitive processes for policies, and the provision of private goods, constrained by electoral verdicts and organized interests.

• The ‘Command’ polity focuses on State-determined long-term goals, public and collective goods, with political leaders and bureaucrats determining investment and policy choices.

• The State in the ‘Command’ polity functions like monopolistic producers, controlling investment, shaping consumer preferences, and structuring choices based on investment decisions.

• The Rudolphs identified four periods in Indian politics, with two periods of ‘Command politics’ (1956-66 and 1975-1977) and two of ‘Demand politics’ (1966-1975 and 1977-1980).

• Like other post-colonial societies, India inherited a distorted State structure with an overdeveloped bureaucratic State apparatus, reflected in institutions like the bureaucracy, military, and police.

• The colonial government developed bureaucracies while neglecting legislatures, parties, and local councils, which are essential for control and accountability.

• Despite a long history of democratic development, India’s bureaucracy was found to be overdeveloped.

• The bureaucracy was associated with power, prestige, and status, monopolizing the expertise necessary for governance and societal development.

• The basic apparatus of governmental administration in independent India was inherited from the colonial era but expanded significantly in size.

• The governmental structure included a small elite cadre from the All-India Services and a larger corps of functionaries in the Indian Civil Service.

• The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) replaced the Indian Civil Service after independence, retaining the ‘steel frame’.

• The district administration, led by the district officer, became the crucial unit of government, responsible for law and order and development work.