Governing Delhi

Delhi, the eternal capital city of India, has had a mixed fortune in governance since the decline of the Mughals.

AFTER Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani announced the Central government's decision to clip the wings of the Congress-led National Capital Territory (NCT) government in Delhi by reimposing Section 48 of the Transaction of Business Rules, which had been removed for the convenience of the earlier Bharatiya Janata Party-led Sahib Singh Verma government, the storm has continued unabated and the bitter brew has thickened. A dispassionate analysis from the perspective of the Indian polity and constitutional government reveals that three interrelated questions are at stake in this context partisanship, autonomy and governance of the capital city of India.

Delhi, the eternal capital city of India, has had a mixed fortune in governance since the decline of the Mughals. The aftermath of the events of 1857 reduced it to a provincial town of the Punjab, and amenities came to it because of the concerns for the British troops and officials stationed in and around Shahjahanabad, the Walled City. The first municipality of Delhi was created in 1863, ironically in order to "raise funds for the police and for conservancy and such other funds as the members may think fit to expend on works of improvements, education and other local objects..."

Yet, the city charmed Queen Victoria; she held a durbar here upon assuming the title of the Empress of India in 1877, though Calcutta was the capital of British India. Before the durbar was held in 1911 to commemorate the shifting of the capital of India to Delhi, Curzon too held a viceregal durbar in 1903. Obviously, the construction of the new Imperial capital in Delhi created a mixed structure for city governance in which the Central government had strong control.

The status of Chief Commissioner's Province given to Delhi in 1912 continued until January 26, 1950 when the new Constitution made it a `Part C State', a unit enjoying the least autonomy. Decision-making powers were vested in the Chief Commissioner appointed by the Central government. Much later, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) found this arrangement to be quite an anomalous one as "law and order, local self-government institutions, the Improvement Trust and other statutory boards regulating certain public utility services in Delhi and New Delhi" were not within the purview of the State Legislature and this led to the deterioration of administrative standards. On the recommendation of the SRC, Delhi was made a Union Territory in 1956, but since the SRC felt that the national capital should not become a political arena, Delhi was denied any representative institution. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the only representative institution, did not fulfil the popular urge for a representative government, and thus in 1966 a Metropolitan Council was created. A powerless institution with only recommendatory responsibilities, it was at the mercy of partisan politics.

The municipal government in Delhi too presents a confusing picture. Perhaps a partisan self-perception kept the national government cagey about even an effectively self-governing municipal corporation. Thus, while the elite New Delhi is governed by the national government through the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the executive wing of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is under a bureaucrat and the elected representatives constitute the deliberative wing. The Cantonment Board, of course, is always a separate entity.

While in its tunnel vision the Congress was happy to have manipulated in its favour the control of the national capital, the Sangh Parivar's cocooned perspective gave it an inflated self-perception of its own political strength, in demanding statehood for Delhi. The semi-statehood for Delhi that came out of this tussle in 1993 brought the BJP to power with a Congress government at the Centre, and the Congress won in 1998 with the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance in power in Central government. The irony does not end here. The epicentre of the political storm, Section 48 of the Transaction of Business Rules, was in operation while the Congress and the United Front respectively were in power at the Centre, while the BJP controlled the NCT, until the BJP coalition in 1998 deleted it. The Congress, which kept this Section for the BJP-led NCT government, is now creating a furore against its reimposition, while the BJP, which eased it out for its own, has reimposed it.

Insertions made by the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 creating special provisions with respect to the NCT do not look so unusual as to create such a controversy. Except for denial of powers to the government of the NCT under the provisions relating to law and order and criminal justice as enjoyed by other States and empowering Parliament (by means of the Seventieth Amendment) to revise any provision under Article 239 AA without resort to a constitutional amendment, most of the powers given appear to be similar to those enjoyed by any State government. Obviously, the Transaction of Business Rules, 1993, a classified document, has been framed differently in this case. The deletion of Section 48 of the Rules, which made it mandatory for the NCT government to secure the approval of the Central government before introducing any bill in the Legislative Assembly, done at the behest of the then BJP Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma, and restoring it for a Congress government, that too a year before Assembly elections, has caused the furore. Obviously, blatant partisanship is the name of the game.

THE moot point in the context of Delhi is: how should the national capital of India be governed? What should be the extent of control of the Central government on the government of Delhi? What is the likelihood of a consensus across the political spectrum that ideological and political differences apart, the city government would not embarrass the Central government and vice versa on key administrative and security issues? Should the urge for self-rule and autonomy of the citizens of the capital city be sacrificed at the altar of political partisanship and expediency?

It is important to point out here that the shape of the governing structure of India's national capital has been an extension of the colonial mindset. The British shifted the capital of the Raj from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911 in order to separate the seat of the Central government from the provincial government. The intention was to isolate their imperial capital from its political surroundings. And, the United States, Canada and Australia provided the model.

How are other national capitals governed? Have they also faced similar problems of partisanship and turf? Government in most capital cities in the Western world Washington D.C., London, Berlin, Ottawa, Amsterdam, Canberra, Paris and so on have traditionally been looked at as city governments with urban service functions. And, as the British thought for Delhi in 1911, they have also been politico-administrative units delinked from the provincial or regional government. In most of them the Mayor, elected either directly or indirectly, remains the most visible face of the city government. In many of them the police have been placed under the city government and this has obviously not led to any controversy.

However, lately there have been significant developments in many of these cities towards meaningful representative government. The demand for Washington D.C. to be given the status of the 51st State of the U.S. is a longstanding one, despite the fact that the city government enjoys significant powers and level of autonomy. In 1989, Canberra got its first directly elected, 17-member Legislative Assembly and a Chief Minister after a prolonged demand for self-government. In London, the boroughs have traditionally enjoyed a significant degree of autonomy from the city government. Since 2001, London has gone in for a Greater London Authority represented by a directly elected, strong Mayor whose level of popular mandate in Europe is second only to that of the President of France. Though the Mayor has only strategic functions, he or she has considerable importance in governance with a directly elected Assembly in place. Similarly, for the first time since the seat of the federal government was shifted to Berlin after German unification, innovations in city government with greater autonomy is high on the agenda in that city.

National governments and national capitals are bound in a special complementary relationship. The special position of the national or federal government, howsoever federalised a state may be, cannot be denied from any political or constitutional perspective. Capital cities too have national and international functions and responsibilities, which at times supersede the scope, capacities and resources that they command.

Since the capital city is the international window for a country and nation, only a complementary relationship, going beyond narrow partisanship, can ensure good governance. Obviously, Canberra, London and Berlin are resorting to revitalising local democracy as a major touchstone to political and administrative reform.

Why cannot the Indian state and political parties sort out false conflicts over their domain in Delhi beyond partisanship to give India's national capital, one of the few eternal cities of the world, a good representative government? A healthy political consensus over India's capital city would indeed be a win-win situation for political parties as well as the citizens.

Ajay K. Mehra is Director, Centre for Public Affairs, Noida.