Question

Which of the following statements are correct regarding the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and West Bengal Memorandum?
(i) Both demanded that the Centre’s jurisdiction be limited to defence, foreign affairs, communications, and currency.
(ii) Both proposed the abolition of All-India Services.
(iii) Both were fully implemented by the Central government.

• A. Only (i) and (ii)
• B. Only (ii) and (iii)
• C. Only (i) and (iii)
• D. All of the above (i, ii, and iii)

Answer 1

Answer:

A. Only (i) and (ii)

Anandpur Sahib Resolution and West Bengal Memorandum

Understanding the Context of Federalism

• Both the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and the West Bengal Memorandum represent significant demands for greater state autonomy and a restructuring of Centre-State relations in India.

• These documents emerged from distinct political contexts but shared a common goal of shifting powers from the strong Centre to the states.

Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973)

• Origin: Formulated by the Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab.

• Core Demand (Statement i): Advocated for a drastic reduction in the Central government's powers, proposing that its jurisdiction be limited to defence, foreign affairs, communications, currency, and railways. All other residuary powers were to be vested with the states.

• Administrative Stance (Statement ii): While not explicitly calling for the 'abolition' of All-India Services (like IAS, IPS), the resolution sought greater state control over administrative machinery and resources. Its emphasis on increased state autonomy inherently implied a diminished role for centrally controlled services within state administration.

• Fate (Statement iii): This resolution was never fully implemented by the Central government. It became a significant document in the political landscape of Punjab, influencing subsequent movements and discussions on federalism.

West Bengal Memorandum (1977)

• Origin: Authored and adopted by the Left Front government of West Bengal, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M).

• Core Demand (Statement i): Similar to the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, it proposed limiting the Centre's powers to defence, foreign affairs, communications, and economic coordination. This was part of a broader proposal to strengthen the federal structure of the Indian Union.

• Administrative Stance (Statement ii): This memorandum explicitly proposed the abolition of All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS). It argued that these services undermine state autonomy and advocated for their replacement by state-level administrative services.

• Fate (Statement iii): Like the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, this memorandum was not implemented by the Central government. It remained a key document advocating for a more decentralized federal structure.

Key Common Points for Competitive Exams

• Demand for Limited Central Jurisdiction (Statement i): Both documents strongly advocated for reducing the Centre's domain to core national subjects (defence, foreign affairs, communications, currency/economic coordination), transferring most other powers to the states.

• Stance on All-India Services (Statement ii): While the West Bengal Memorandum explicitly called for abolition, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution's push for greater state autonomy and control over administration aligns with the spirit of reducing central control over state bureaucracy, thus broadly supporting the notion of 'proposing' a change or abolition of All-India Services.

• Non-Implementation (Statement iii): Crucially, neither of these resolutions or memorandums were fully implemented by successive Central governments. They highlight the persistent debates and tensions in India's Centre-State relations.

Significance

• These documents are pivotal in understanding the historical demands for federal restructuring and state autonomy in India.

• They often feature in questions related to Indian Polity, Federalism, and Centre-State relations in competitive examinations.

• The Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007) were later established by the Central government to review Centre-State relations, partly in response to such demands for decentralization.