Dharma & Religion Supremacy of Culture Our Nationhood Akhand Bharat Aspects of Economics Machinism Socialism Fundamentals of Democracy The State Party Politics The Language Problem General

UNITARY STATE

THUS a unitary State does not mean a highly autocratic centre nor does it entail the elimination of provinces. The provinces will have various executive powers. Even the various entities below the provincial level, such as the Janapadas, will have suitable powers. The Panchayats too should have powers. Traditionally the Panchayats had a very important position. Nobody could dissolve Panchayats. Today, however, our Constltution does not have any place for these Panchayats. There are no powers to these Panchayats in their own right. They exist at the mercy of the States only as delegated authorities. It is necessary that their powers be considered fundamental. In this way the decentralization of power will be accomplished. The authority will be distributed to the lowest level, and will be fully decentralized. At the same time all those entities of power will be centred around the unitary State.
 
DANGERS OF FEDERATION

INDIA has been declared a sovereign State but adequate arrangements to protect its sovereignty have not been made. An effort has been made to strengthen the unity of the country by establishing a single citizenship all over the country and by giving enough power to the Centre, but a blow has been struck at the basis of its unity by considering the country a federation of different States. The body is not a collection of different limbs, on the other hand the limbs are integral parts of the body. The idea of a federation would certainly prove detrimental to the unity of India and anti-national sentiments would be fostered. In the absence of feeling of nationalism the struggle of different States for power could become virulent. The current demand for linguistic States is a clear example of such an evil attitude. The concept of India as a federation is a basic mistake which cannot be advocated under any circumstances.
 
SECULAR STATE

NOW-A-DAYS the phrase "secular state'' is being used as opposed to a theocratic state. The adoption of this word is mere imitation of the Western thought pattern. We had no need to import it. We called it a secular state to contrast it with Pakistan. There is some misunderstanding arising out of this. Religion was equated with Dharms, and then a secular state was meant to be a state without Dharma. Some said ours is a state without Dharma, whereas others trying to find a better sounding word, called it a state indifferent to Dharma. But all these words are fundamentally erroneous. For a state can neither be without Dharma nor can it be indifferent to Dharma just as fire cannot be without heat. If fire loses heat: it does not remain fire any longer. The State, which exists fundamentally to maintain Dharma, and law and order, can neither be without Dharma nor indifferent to Dharma. If it is without Dharma, it will be a lawless state, and where there is lawlessness, where is the question of the existence of any state ? In other words the concepts of indifference towards Dharma, and state are self-contradictory. The State can only be a rule of Dharma, nothing else. Any other definition will conflict with the reason for its very existence.