'Centre Tightening Communal Grip Of Sangh Parivar On Higher Education Institutions', Says Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said on Thursday that the BJP-led central government was tightening its communal grip of Sangh Parivar on the higher education institutions in the country. Kerala CM made the statement while addressing a seminar organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as part of the 24th party congress in Madurai.

Below is the full, unedited text of CM Pinarayi Vijayan's speech.

"I am very happy to speak in this Seminar on Union-State relations being held here today, as part of the 24th party congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The issues in Union-State relations have become a major discussion point in the present day public discourse for more than one reason. In view of this, the Seminar here has a very significant contemporary relevance.

Over the last seven decades, there have been consistent demands for restructuring the powers of different tiers of government, both from the political and fiscal sides. In the 1980s and later in the first decade of the 2000s, the Union Government appointed the Sarkaria and the Punchi Commissions to suggest measures in this regard. These Commissions submitted many useful recommendations. Unfortunately, not many of them have come into effect. Nevertheless, there have been changes.

If we look back a little into history, it can be seen that our Constitution was framed under the abnormal circumstances, that is, in the aftermath of large scale communal violence and bloodshed following

the partition, at the dawn of independence. Given this atmosphere that prevailed during the time when the Constitution was being shaped, it came to contain very strong centralising features and emergency provisions.

Be that as it may, the question that bothers us most in the present scenario is whether in recent times, our polity is becoming more and more unitary in nature even during normal times. This, I would say, is the peril faced by federalism in India, today. The prospects ahead depends on how best we are able to counter this tendency in a democratic manner.

Federalism is now judicially recognised as a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. There have been interventions from the Supreme Court and the High Courts since the 1990s, when powers under Article 356, which enables the Union to take over the administration of a State on perceived breakdown of the constitutional machinery, have been invoked. In the period since independence, this has been the most overused article of our Constitution, belying the fond hope of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, that Article 356 would remain a dead letter.

Having said this, I would now turn to the fiscal side before discussing the political aspect in Union-State relations.

Mutual respect and recognition of powers of the States in their constitutionally provided legislative domain is the basic principle of a federal setup. States are facing an in-built imbalance of fiscal powers, as stated clearly by the 15th Finance Commission. While States have nearly 62 per cent of the total expenditure obligations, they have power to raise only 38 per cent of the total revenues.

This fiscal imbalance is being worsened by the expanding number of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, in which the States are being made to bear an increasing cost burden. Since 2015-16, the share of the States, has increased from 25 to 40 per cent in most of these schemes.

At present, the Union, decides the minute details of the Centrally Sponsored Schemes, making them one-size-fits all across the States, which are having vastly different local conditions. Of late, the Union is also insisting that these Schemes, funded jointly by the Union and the States should be branded as Union Schemes.

This has become a major point of difference and some of the States have expressed very strong reservations in reducing schemes with national priorities, as publicity for the ruling dispensation at the Centre, with States being made to act as vehicles of propaganda. This trend goes counter not only to federalism, but also to democracy.

States need to have full freedom to spend in the items constitutionally allotted to them. If the Union considers certain priorities important, it should discuss these with the States and together, broad parameters can be laid down. Instead, conceiving schemes with rigid criteria and insisting that States act as brand ambassadors of the ruling party at the Centre, cuts at the root of federalism and democracy. We need to raise our voice in the strongest possible manner against this tendency.

Apart from the above, examples of incursions into the legislative domain of States include Union legislations on minor ports, dam safety and the formation of Ministry of Cooperation. All these are subjects in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

On the revenue side, tax rates across the country have been made uniform, first under the Value Added Tax (VAT) and then under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST) regimes. As a result, States lost much of their already limited fiscal space to mobilise own tax revenue. Though some argue that GST is based on sharing of tax sovereignty, it cannot be omitted to note that the rate sharing in GST regime is unfavourable to the States.

Forced to adhere to mechanical deficit targets, spending by the States in social and economic spheres, faced a back slide. This left the poor and the marginalised sections of the society facing the risk of losing social security. In this context, provision of relief by the States to the poorer sections of the society is derisively called as ‘freebies’, while taxing the unearned and inherited income of the super rich lightly is considered as a necessity.

In short, an argument is advanced by some people, including those who have a say in policy making at the Union level, that the States should bear the cost of fiscal consolidation through achieving deficit targets, while the Union continues to offer concessions to the super-rich and the corporates.

The fact that this is happening at a time when the top 1 % had the income and wealth shares at 22.6% and 40.1% respectively in 2022-23, in India, as revealed in the study by a group of economists at the World Inequality Lab in 2024, makes the matter assume serious proportions. The study has also found that the share of the top 1% income share in India is highest in the world. Only when this is seen in the context of unprecedented rise in inequality of incomes and wealth in the recent period, the undemocratic content of the argument of freebie provision by the States gets exposed.

Further, unreasonable restrictions are imposed on the borrowing limits of the States by unnaturally expanding constitutional provisions to include the borrowings by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) as that of the State governments. While the Union does not include such borrowings in its fiscal deficit, this rule is being unilaterally imposed on States like Kerala, thus preventing its ability

to incur capital expenditure for

their much needed infrastructural development. We have been forced to enter into litigations against this unjust and anti-federal action on the part of the Union Government.

Now I come to the political aspect.

If this is the scenario in fiscal relations between the Union and the States, we find palpable anti-federal acts, which are being resorted to frequently in the recent past – bills passed by the State legislatures are kept pending in Raj Bhavans for inordinately long time. State legislatures reflect the will of the people and the popularly elected governments are duty bound to implement the promises made to the electorate. Keeping bills passed by these democratic bodies by delaying and at times withholding assent for no valid reason, are big challenges to federalism, democracy and other important constitutional values.

When one turns to the debates of the Constituent Assembly, it becomes evident that there is no discretionary veto power that can be exercised by the Governors on the bills passed by the legislative assembly. Despite this clear intent in the Constitution, many of the States ruled by parties other than the one running the Union, have faced this arbitrary action in the recent past and have been forced to move the apex court.

Another issue is the ever expanding Concurrent List leads to incursion into the States' legislative domain. It is also pertinent here to mention that there is no consultation with the States when Union enters into international treaties which affect the States in a substantial manner like depressing the price of farm products.

Let me now turn to an important issue facing the States in the realm of higher education. The present BJP-led Union Government is moving ahead with measures to tighten the communal grip of the Sangh Parivar on the higher education institutions in the country, many of which have been formed by State legislations and are being substantially funded by the State Governments.

The views expressed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly were that the item in the Union List regarding co-ordination and determination of standards of higher education has a very limited scope. But the present draft University Grants Commission Regulations attempt to totally exclude the State Government from having any role in university matters like appointment of Vice-Chancellors.

State Governments provide substantial funds to the centres of higher learning and have a duty to ensure that they function in a manner where quality education is provided, secular values are protected and scientific temper is fostered. If States are kept out and prevented from performing these duties, it would be an anti-federal and undemocratic act aimed at furthering the partisan political and communal interests of the ruling party at the Centre and its associates.

These acts are not restricted to any single sector like education. The BJP-led Union Government has

now initiated the constitutional amendment for 'One Nation, One Election', though it does not have a two-thirds majority in the Parliament, which is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment bill. The attempt is to align the term of the State assemblies with that of the Lok Sabha. If interim elections to the former are held, their term is to be truncated to the remainder period of the Lok Sabha.

In our country, the voter is extremely discerning in voting for Lok Sabha and State assemblies. They have voted in a substantially different manner in a short span of time. The attempt to align the terms of the Lok Sabha and the State assemblies on the ostensible reason of controlling poll expenditure is an insult to the wisdom of the voter and an attempt to superimpose unitarism over federalism.

Yet another worrisome fact is the move to alter the representation of States in the Lok Sabha. This would create serious imbalances in the number of seats which different States will have in the House of the People. The delimitation, if done mindlessly, without giving consideration to the efforts of the States that have effectively implemented the National Population Policy of 1976, will amount to penalising the States which controlled their population increase, by depriving them of their share of representation in the House of the People. Kerala, Tamil Nadu and other States in various regions of our country have already met and voiced serious concern in the matter.

Already, States which have effectively controlled population by taking substantial measures in the fields of education and health care are in a situation where their share in the divisible pool of Union taxes has been shrinking. Now, these States face the possibility of a lower representation in the Parliament. Balancing the fiscal and political interests across States is a necessary condition for healthy inter-State and harmonious Union-State relations.

Attempt to give citizenship based on the religion of those who migrate is yet another act of the BJP-led Union Government to compel State Governments to implement actions torpedoing the secular fabric of the country. This is a major challenge to federalism. Kerala has taken up this matter also before the apex court in its efforts to protect constitutional values.

In conclusion, let me state that the Union-State relations in India, have been made substantially more asymmetrical by some recent political actions. These weaken the already fragile base of federalism. Protecting the rights of the States and Local Governments and guarding against the gathering of the momentum of centralising tendencies is absolutely essential to protect democracy and civil liberties.

We need to effectively work against authoritarian tendencies backed by corporate agenda and the forces of majority communalism and conduct democratic struggles to protect democracy, secularism, socialism and the rights of States and Local Governments. In our campaign against the onslaughts of the communal and authoritarian forces, we need to include more symmetric relations between the Union and the States as an important plank.

I hope that discussions and seminars like this one, will go a long way in bringing these pertinent issues to the attention of the public and create a powerful opinion, which would help in taking forward our efforts to protect constitutional values and principles held aloft by the nationalist movement."