Welcome Addition to Studies on Punjab Politics

REVIEW ARTICLE

Punjab Politics: Retrospect and Prospect by Bhupinder Singh; Readworthy Publications, New Delhi; 2010; pp. xx + 268; Price: Rs 950.

The study of State politics merits the attention of the Indian scholars in the discipline of political science for many reasons. In the first instance, some of the States of the Indian Union are bigger in the size of their area and population than many nation-states of the Europe. Secondly, the general belief about the weakness of the States notwithstanding, the States have been given an important role in the Indian political system because the Union Government is all staff but no line. So much so that, as Paul Appleby aptly remarked, the federal government is nowhere as dependent on the States for implementing its policies and programmes as it is in India. Thirdly, almost all the central leaders, with exceptions like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, had started their political careers in State politics. Fourthly, the study of State politics, as has rightly been observed by Myron Weiner, provides an excellent field for the comparative studies of the processes of modernisation, political development and economic development. It can be helpful in identifying the functional and dysfunctional factors in this context. Lastly, it also enables us to make a comparative study of the process of democratic decentralisation and for finding out why the system of Panchayati Raj has become strong in some of the States but has remained weak in others.

But despite this, the political scientists of India kept on ignoring the study of State politics till 1967 on account of the following reasons.

Firstly, they feared that they may be dubbed as parochial and regionalists instead of being viewed as liberals and nationalists if they embarked on the study of State politics.

Secondly, they had a mistaken belief that the States have been made so weak in the Constitution that these do not merit the attention of the scholars of the discipline.

Thirdly, the study of State politics also got eclipsed due to the rise of the dominant one-party system or the Congress system in which State politics lacked autonomy and was not more than a dependent variable on the national politics and hence not worthy of exploration.

Fourthly, another dampening factor in this context was the fact that the Congress ruled at the Centre as well as in the States except in PEPSU, Travancore Cochin, Kerala and Orrisa for a short span. And, hence there was no need to study State politics which they perceived as a sub-system of the Indian political system.

Lastly, they were also prevented from entering the arena of the study of State politics. because of the hold of the Anglo-Saxon juridical approach on them. It made them to concentrate on the study of the constitutional and institutional dimensions of the government that had been set up by the Indian Constitution.

However, the study of State politics became popular after 1967 owing to the following developments:

1. They were motivated by the studies of State politics by the American scholars such as Paul Wallace (Punjab), Paul Brass (UP), Mary Crass (Maharastra) and Robert Hardgrave (Madras). These scholars had got interested in this area of study because of the realisation that the Congress system had declined and hence Indian politics could be understood in a better way through the studies on States than on the basis of the national level studies. They were also encouraged to do so because of the intensification of factionalism in the State units of the Congress party and the enhanced importance of State leaders like Kamraj and others popularly known as the Syndicate in Indian politics.

2. The fact that State leaders played an important role in the election/selection of the Prime Minister of India after the death of Nehru in 1964 and the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966, helped even the Indian political scientists to realise the importance of the study of State politics.

3. The financial support for the studies on State politics from the Ford Foundation and other American funding agencies like Smithsonian Foundation, opportunity for collaboration with the American Universities and the much-cherished visits to the USA also made the study of State politics attractive for them.

4. With the formation of non-Congress governments in Punjab, Haryana, UP, MP, Orissa, Madras, West Bengal, Bihar and Kerala after the 1967 Assembly elections their interest in the study of State politics also grew.

5. The rise of the phenomenon of the politics of defection, political instability in States and the politics of President’s Rule too made the study of State politics quite attractive.

6. The emergence of Centre-State tensions, demands for the autonomy of States, controversies over the appointment, extension of tenure and transfer of the Governors and their allegedly partisan role made it all the more fascinating and rewarding for them.

7. The credit must also be given to Iqbal Narain who organised two seminars on State politics at Jaipur and who had developed a model for the study of State politics in 1967 and refined it in 1972. Likewise, Myron Weiner too deserves credit for commissioning the studies of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and some other States. K.V. Rao, who constituted the Society for the Study of State Governments and began the publication of a research journal, also contributed to the growth of the study of State politics in India.

8. The regionalisation of Indian politics on account of the cumulative impact of the processes of modernisation, politicisation and economic development, on the one hand, and the weakening of the Congress party and the national leadership, on the other hand, has also been a contributory factor in this context.

•

BE that as it may, the study of State politics has been able to acquire the centre-stage in the research and teaching of political science in India on account of the enhanced role of the regional parties in the formation and the survival of coalition governments at the national level since 1989 except for a brief interlude (1991-96). The fact is that instead of national politics determining State politics, State politics has begun to determine national politics. Even in the electoral verdicts, the State level factors have now eclipsed the national level factors. The above facts are fully supported by the publication of a large number of books, research papers and articles and a large number of the UGC and ICSSR funded projects and seminars.

But despite the flood of literature in the post-1967 period, the scholars engaged in the field of State politics have to face numerous problems. Some of these are being listed below:

I. Absence of an adequate theoretical framework.

II. The conceptual problems in the study of State politics.

III. The methodological problems.

IV. The problem of non-comparability.

V. Non-availability of adequate and reliable secondary data.

VI. Frequent changes in the boundaries of States, districts, parliamentary/Assembly constituencies.

VII. The danger of bias.

VIII. The culture of intolerance

In the above context, it would also be necessary to bring into sharp focus the fact that the study of Punjab politics had attracted wide attention from Indian and foreign scholars during the period of militancy. But the post-militancy politics of the State has remained relatively neglected despite the fact that it merited their serious attention on account of the damage caused to the economy of the State by the politics of competitive populism. Bhupinder Singh’s study fills a part of that gap. It not only provides the historical, physical, demographic, social and economic background of Punjab politics but has also analysed the factors and forces that contributed to the rise and demise of militancy in the State.

The post-militancy politics too has been examined by the author in a meticulous manner. He has also competently explained the emergence of the phenomenon of the accommodation model of politics in Punjab in 1967 and its subsequent revival in 1997 through the formation of coalition governments. The author has further analysed how it has graduated from the era of unstable coalitions to that of stable coalitions. The scholarly Foreword by Prof R.S. Yadav of Kurukshetra University has provided the needed theoretical perspective to this study. Last but not the least, it contains as many as seven appendices which provide useful insight into the nightmare of militancy in the State.

But the quality of the work would have been further enhanced if the author had given lesser space to the dynamics of electoral politics and dwelt more on the economic crisis that has engulfed Punjab. Nevertheless, the book is a welcome addition to the studies on Punjab politics and hence merits attention of the political leaders, administrators and scholars from Punjab and other States of the Indian Union. The author and the publisher need to be congratulated for the publication of this scholarly work.

Prof Ranbir Singh is a Consultant, Haryana Institute of Rural Development, Nilokheri.