The past week or so has seen unseemly exchange of letters between the Chief Minister and Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, along with a number of public statements, using colourful language by the CM and deputy CM. The issue started with the relatively minor matter of a temporary substitute for 10 days (five working days) to the regular chief secretary, who went abroad on a personal visit. Without going into details, it moved to some unsavoury incidents, with the CM also charging the L-G of unconstitutional intervention in the work of ‘elected officials’.
There are two foci for this loud and vulgar elliptical grandstanding—one offensive and one defensive. Clearly, the issue of management of Delhi and taking steps to meet the electoral promises is a daunting task—it is
easier to kick up a ruckus. More
significantly, it is easier to divert attention of all by asking for full statehood, a demand which has been raised from time to time in the past.
Without going into the details, Delhi is a Union Territory (Article 239). Delhi also shares the AIS officers allotted to it with six other Union Territories; the ‘cadre controlling authority’ for these is the Ministry of Home Affairs. The position of the L-G is distinctly different in a Union Territory with regard to the CM, compared to a regular state. The various previous circulars and government orders, as also the practice of the past 20-odd years, indicate that the L-G, as the President-appointed ‘administrator’, is the final authority in Delhi state. Indeed, if there was difference of opinion, the first step that the CM should have taken was to meet the L-G and discuss the differences, as has been the practice for two decades. Was it inexplicable ego, or some would say arrogance of an ‘elected’ leader, that the CM could not find the opportunity to discuss these issues with the L-G—be that as it may, the CM had created an ersatz ‘constitutional crisis’. As this is being written, hopefully this storm in a teacup has finally been settled through the Ministry of Home Affairs notification of May 22. At least one hopes that governments will behave maturely and responsibly, and do not take their differences to the streets. While any constitutional issue could get clarity through the legal process, surely it will be a bad precedent of governance if a Union Territory takes the parent government—the Centre—to court. In all probability, the legal expenses for this would also be billed to the Centre. It is not as if the Delhi government has to come to rescue the citizens of the city from the predatory activities of a foreign marauder.
Is full statehood desirable? In Indian conditions, with evolving public behaviour norms in the apparently democratic milieu, with multiparty federation of Centre-states, Delhi happens to be the seat of national governance—the Parliament, the PM and the Cabinet, the highest judiciary, constitutional and statutory agencies, all of which serve not just Delhi state, but the whole country. The city of Delhi belongs to the citizens of Delhi. In a larger symbolic as well as real sense, however, Delhi belongs to 120 crore Indians. Their stake in smooth transaction of normal activity without distraction to the national institutions is vital. The national agencies cannot be held hostage to the local problems and political vicissitudes of a local elected body. Note that as per the work allotted in its purview, the Delhi government, in fact, has lesser powers than the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation—the Delhi MLAs are really glorified corporators. Delhi, as Union Territory, belongs to the Centre—the Central government is also a popularly elected body, representing the stake of all citizens. Besides, falling under Union governance, as other UTs do, does not deprive the Delhi denizen of any major privileges—this happens to the citizens of other UTs also. He is also arguably better off than being administered by a state government.
Be that as it may, it will be imprudent from the national perspective to show lack of foresight to allow control of Delhi to any other body apart from the Central government. In the future, an irresponsible local government can conceivably block roads, ensure that national institutions do not function, interfere with the airport and arteries of the city—in short hold the Centre to hostage. This is not an outlandish bootless fear. While this may not be probable, it certainly is possible—room should not be given for this eventuality. Locking out a state senior functionary from his room may only be two steps away from shackling a major national institution based on some real or imagined reason. The local politics of rabble-rousers with their short-term outlook, agenda and interests should not take our eye away from a future possibility, however remote. The short point, to be made emphatically, is that Delhi should always remain a Union Territory, in substance, spirit and reality. If we have to reverse the statehood conferred on Delhi, this may have to be done. Delhi belongs to all of India. National interest demands that this has to be categorically reiterated.
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com