The British ruled India with two administrative systems: British Provinces and
Indian "princely" states; about 60% of the territory of the Indian sub-continent were
provinces and 40% were princely states. Provinces were British territories directly administered by the colonial government of British India. Princely states were states with native rulers which had entered into treaty relations with the British.
If we let ourselves be convinced that after the adoption of our Constitution, there is a Federal structure which is decently demarcated and run on the basis of the domains mentioned in the SEVENTH SCHEDULE to the Constitution of India, we are truly deluding ourselves.
We as Indians, should be fully aware that the domain demarcation delineated in the VII Schedule to the constitution not merely marks the the Legislative Competence of the Central Legislature Parliament) and the State Legislatures, but the central and state governments’ powers are LIMITED by the same VII Schedule. However to maintain the UNITY and INTEGRITY of OUR NATION certain over-riding powers like Art. 356, and Residuary powers as per entry 97 of List I of the Constitution are vested with the Central Legislature.
The Governors are appointed by the President of India upon the recommendation of the Central government. When i see certain Governors, they behave like the former REGENTS appointed by the Viceroys and Governors General of India, i wonder if we are still ruled by the distant CROWN from London!! They take upon themselves the role of determining as to whether the state is functioning as per their “understanding” of the Constitution. When the centre is ruled by a party which is different from the State, the Governor appointed to that state gets meticulous in his work and collects negative data about the working of the Government. When the appointee governor is in a state ruled by the same party as the government ruling the centre, the Governors conduct themselves in a formal and ceremonial manner.
WHY IS THIS SO?
I fail to understand this! The missionary zeal with which one of the Governors in India had recommended invoking Art. 356 in one state, is matchless. He made it seem as if, all the burden of democracy in India stood on his lone shoulders!
Look at the neighbouring state, for the swearing in ceremony of the Chief Minister, he could not even show himself to be active and mentally agile. He kept quiet all these 5 years, after which the people of that state have given their resounding verdict! THAT IS DEMOCRACY. People should decide, that is DEMOCRACY- yet if there is a fissiparous tendency in the Government, timely action is to be taken, that is why Governors are placed there.
INDIA should not be allowed to have 2 sets of states , the ones which are CENTRAL PROVINCES- which are ruled by the same party as the Centre; and the others which are PRINCELY STATES which are ruled by the parties in opposition to the party ruling the centre. If that were to be the case, as it appears to this blogger, then the States ruled by the Opposition to the Party ruling the Centre, tend to BEGET GOVERNORS who act like the erstwhile REGENTS! (By the way, the REGENTS owed allegiance to the Crown to such an extent, that any report to the liking of the crown could be obtained by the Crown from the REGENT!!)
May the country be FEDERAL, as envisaged in our CONSTITUTION, and ruled as per the subjects allotted to each in the VII Schedule. After all, we did not acquire a landmass and divide that landmass into States, but as proclaimed in the 1st Article to the Constitution,
1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
we came together as the provinces and princely states and adopted our constitution.
STATES are fundamental- Culturally, historically and (since the division of the Southern and Western States) even LINGUISTICALLY. SO let us preserve the DISTINCTNESS of each state while PROMOTING INTEGRATION NATIONALLY.