A new ministry, but Central govt lacking in spirit of cooperation

Ameasure undertaken by the government of India illustrates how unimaginative governments can be; especially in not reckoning with public reaction. On July 8, the government of India formed the ministry of cooperation. It was announced that the new ministry would be headed by home minister Amit Shah. Evidently, it was thought that he had lots of time to spare.

According to the Indian government, the ministry of cooperation “will provide a separate administrative, legal and policy framework for strengthening the cooperative movement in the country”. It is also meant to boost the “ease of doing business” by improving processes, and to enable the development of multi-state cooperative banks. As reported, “the MSCBs have now been solely taken under the Reserve Bank of India for regulatory purposes”.

But Opposition leaders labelled the move a bid to “hijack the cooperative movement” that falls under the state governments. Constitutionally, this is very true. Under the constitution, ‘cooperative societies’ is an exclusively state subject. There was a howl of protest especially in Maharashtra. The Congress party is supported by cooperative societies that own and run sugar cane fields and sugar mills. A senior Congress leader said, “The move is planned to hijack the cooperative movement.”

He said that the ruling BJP wanted “total control of the cooperative movement across the country and that’s why they have made Amit Shah in charge of the ministry. Cooperatives is a state subject under entry 32 of the state list under Schedule 7 of the constitution. How can they create a ministry without an act of parliament?” Creating a ministry is a purely executive matter that requires no legislative sanction. The fear was baseless in law but perfectly understandable in political terms.

The appointment of Shah raises several questions, as it encroaches on a state’s power. Both the opposition’s fears and the BJP’s hopes are bound to be proved false. But the BJP is known to be ruthless and indifferent to legal limitations.

It was left to the leader of the Nationalist Congress Party to pour cold water on fevered protests and dreams of greater power. His base is Maharashtra’s rural areas. He knows the working of the sugar industry and the cooperative movement in Maharashtra like the back of his hand.

Recently, Sharad Pawar pointed out that a “state cannot control a cooperative institution registered in more than one state, which is called multi-state, and the central government has control over it”.

Pawar was chief minister of Maharashtra, whose 200,000 cooperatives have over 50 million members, more than once. He was also minister for agriculture at the centre for 10 years. He stated, “All the cooperative societies in the state are governed by the Maharashtra

Cooperative Societies Act of 1960… The union government’s role is restricted to only multi-state cooperative societies. In 2002, the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act to regulate the functioning of multistate cooperative societies was passed by both the Houses of parliament. Ideally, there are clear demarcations under the constitutional norm.”

The point in all this is that wild fears as well as false hopes could and should have been anticipated and the harsh realities made known at the time the new ministry was formed; indeed, before the event. Minister Amit Shah should have issued a full clarificatory statement; if not held a press conference.

This lies at the heart of the entire federal process. It is not an alliance of states agai-nst a hostile power, the union. It is a union of all in a national federation of diverse states. Hosti-li--ty is anathema to this venture. A state minister can become a central minister. The parties are united nationally but divided on political lines. Legislative division of power does not dispense with the need for consultation. The rigid division of power under the constitution does not prevent the overlapping of jurisdictions. The problems of such overlapping cases can be overcome only by a sustained consultation, formal and informal, between the union and the states.

The Inter State Council set up by the constitution has been, and remains still, a moribund, lifeless institution. It is rarely called and, when convened, becomes a ritual affair with written speeches delivered by all. It is a crying shame. But the state of the council reflects the state of the Indian federation as a very formal affair. The written text of the constitution is mentioned and enforced by India’s supreme court but the informal play of politics which oils the entire machine is regrettably in short supply.