Goa is the only State to get complete statehood from Union territory status. Getting statehood was a very emotional issue for Goans. It was thought that Goa would be better developed (whatever that means). It was thought that it would be easier to preserve the rich cultural heritage, our land and the local language as a State.
A State unlike a Union Territory has its own elected government vested with powers to frame laws and enjoy federal relationship with the central government over legislative, executive and financial powers. A governor is the constitutional head and the Chief Minister elected by the people administers the State. While is Union territory is administered and controlled by the central government with a non-federal (Unitary) relationship with the centre. A Union territory is normally administered by the President through an administrator like Lakshadweep, Chandigarh, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli. If we look at these UTs, Goa already had partial statehood in the sense that there was a legislative assembly with a Lt. Governor.
Normally a state enjoys autonomy in all decision making within its sphere while the UTs do not have such autonomy. It is the autonomy that distinguishes a state from the UT. Due to Goa having a legislative assembly even as a UT it enjoyed enough autonomy though the Lt. Governor as representative of the centre had a greater control. All over the country the Governors have always as ‘agents’ of the central government and hardly as heads of the States. So having a Lt. Governor hardly mattered.
The 35 years of statehood stock taking reveals that the functioning of our governments during the UT status days and current times remains the same. There was a time when the Congress was a central pole of Indian politics and currently it is the BJP around which the country’s politics revolve around. Then Congress High Command and now the BJP High command decide matters pertaining to all the States. What autonomy are we talking about? The party tickets for elections are finalised in Delhi. The Chief Minister is chosen by the High Command and even the Leader of Opposition gets his status from Delhi. The Chief Minister chosen in Delhi has no choice over who should be in the Cabinet or whom to allot which portfolio. The autonomy envisaged for a State is lost when the policies of the ruling party come from the centre. Even the parties which campaign of alternative politics are only showcasing their party models like the Delhi model of freebies.
Though a State has substantial legislative powers and control over many activities, our statehood status did not come in the way of exploiting our rivers in the National Sagarmala Project. It did not come in the way of approving the three linear projects. It did not prevent this tiny state from becoming a corridor for coal transportation. All that is happened is exploitation of our natural resources for the elite and rich of north India in having holiday homes as the government of the day only facilitates conversion of land for residential and commercial use. The State is about to lose its ‘statehood’ to a ‘city-state’ status. All that can be said is the autonomy granted to Goa which everybody believed would preserve Goa’s culture, land and heritage has been frittered away by the elected.
States can flower its autonomy in a real federal country. Our federation as the great constitutional jurist Sir Ivor Jennings says is ‘federation with strong centralising tendency’. Chief Justice Beg characterised our country to be ‘more unitary than federal’ though federalism is claimed to be an essential feature of our constitution. All States depend on the centre for financial support. There was a time when finances would devolve unto the States on advice of the planning commission. With GST regime, the Centre’s financial muscle has only increased. The continuous expansion of the functional role of the central government has already altered the federal balance of powers in favour of the centre and the States are getting weaker.
The flavour of the States’ autonomy is no longer the flavour of our democracy as the all-powerful centre gets into an expansionist mode. Currently the talk is all about ‘oneness’- one culture, one tax, one language and the belief in a strong centre. We are at a time in history when we longer celebrate diversity. There is a complete reorientation of our federal structure. This new India has thrown an apple of discord in our plural society.
On the other hand keeping emotional issue and autonomy aside union territories normally get huge grants from the central government. Dayanand Bandodkar may not have been in a position to embark upon an ambitious project of network of government primary schools in the villages including the remote corners of Goa’s hinterland. The Kadamba Transport Corporation may not have come up in the year 1980 if Goa was a State then. The current Delhi government under AAP would not be in a position to flaunt its freebie administration had it not been for the central grants. There is no doubt that the UTs normally get huge central grants. Our legislators normally shift sides in search of what they call development of their constituencies. Had we been a UT, we may have developed the state further in terms of infrastructure. In a union territory the taxes are normally low. Until recently i.e. till the rationalisation of sales tax, in Goa we would get to see number of cars with the number plates DD----. They were registered in Daman where the sale tax on vehicles was very low. It can be clearly said that we have lost out on Central grants and while we are taxed more, as we throwaway autonomy granted in 1987. Has Goa lost out?
(The writer is a practising advocate, senior faculty in law and a political thinker)