Question

Consider the following statements about the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and West Bengal Memorandum:

1. Both sought restriction of the Centre’s jurisdiction to limited subjects.

2. Both proposed repealing Article 356.

3. Both demanded residuary powers for the states.

• A. 1 and 2 only
• B. 1 and 3 only
• C. 2 and 3 only
• D. All are correct

Answer 1

Answer:

B. 1 and 3 only

Demands for State Autonomy: Anandpur Sahib Resolution and West Bengal Memorandum

• The demands for greater state autonomy gained significant traction in Indian politics, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s, reflecting the desire for a more balanced federal structure.
• These demands arose from concerns over the over-centralisation of power and perceived encroachment by the Union government on state legislative and financial domains.

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973)

• Drafted by the Shiromani Akali Dal, a prominent Sikh-centric political party in Punjab, this resolution is a landmark document advocating for greater autonomy for states and a redefined Centre-State relationship.
• Its core objective was to strengthen the federal structure of India by limiting the central government's jurisdiction.
• Key Demands included:
  • Restriction of Centre's Jurisdiction: It unequivocally demanded that the Centre's powers should be restricted to a very limited number of subjects, specifically defence, foreign affairs, communications, and currency. All other subjects and residuary powers were to be vested with the states. This directly supports the first statement.
  • Residuary Powers for States: A central tenet was the demand for all residuary powers to be assigned to the states. This directly supports the third statement.
  • Prevention of Misuse of Article 356: While it called for restricting the Centre's arbitrary powers, including those related to dismissing state governments, it focused more on preventing the misuse of Article 356 rather than its outright repeal. The resolution aimed to curtail circumstances under which Article 356 could be imposed, emphasizing that it should be used only in extreme cases of internal anarchy or external aggression.
  • Fiscal Autonomy: Demand for greater financial resources and taxation powers for states.
  • Representation: Greater representation for states in central institutions.

The West Bengal Memorandum (1977)

• Presented by the Left Front government of West Bengal, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), this memorandum articulated similar concerns regarding centre-state relations.
• It was a significant document that reflected a broader consensus among non-Congress state governments on the need for federal restructuring.
• Key Demands included:
  • Restriction of Centre's Jurisdiction: Similar to the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, it proposed that the Union government's powers should be confined to subjects like defence, foreign affairs, communications, currency, and economic coordination. This aligns with the first statement.
  • Residuary Powers for States: It explicitly demanded that all residuary powers must vest with the states. This supports the third statement.
  • Repealing Article 356: A prominent demand was the complete repeal of Article 356 (President's Rule), along with Articles 357 and 360 (Financial Emergency), arguing that these provisions were draconian and violated the spirit of federalism. This is where it differs significantly from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution on this specific point, making the second statement incorrect as a common demand.
  • Revision of Financial Relations: Advocated for a more equitable distribution of financial resources between the Centre and states, increasing states' share in central taxes.
  • All India Services: Demanded the abolition of All India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) as they were seen as instruments of central control.

Comparison and Key Takeaways for Competitive Exams

• Both the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and the West Bengal Memorandum were seminal documents that profoundly influenced the debate on Centre-State relations in India.
• They both championed the cause of stronger states and a more genuinely federal structure for India.
• Commonalities:
  • Both sought to restrict the Centre's jurisdiction to a limited set of subjects.
  • Both unequivocally demanded that residuary powers should vest with the states.
• Key Difference (Regarding Article 356):
  • The West Bengal Memorandum explicitly proposed the repeal of Article 356.
  • The Anandpur Sahib Resolution focused on restricting its misuse and limiting the circumstances of its application, rather than outright repeal.
• These demands contributed significantly to the appointment of various commissions, such as the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and the Punchhi Commission (2007), which were tasked with examining Centre-State relations and suggesting reforms.
• Understanding these resolutions is crucial for questions on Indian Federalism, Centre-State Relations, and Constitutional Amendments.