The Silent Erosion of Debate: How the GST Council Muzzles Dissent

The 53rd GST Council meeting has once again drawn a spotlight, not just on the crucial decisions made, but on the deafening silence of dissent. What began as a grand experiment in cooperative federalism, envisioned to bring states and the Union together on a common economic platform, now appears to function with an unsettling lack of robust debate and recorded opposition.

The very essence of a democratic institution, where diverse voices contribute to policy, seems to be quietly fading from the GST Council's hallowed halls.

Recall the initial aspirations: the GST Council was designed as a unique constitutional body, a "Team India" approach to tax reform, ensuring that no major decision could be taken without the consensus of both the Centre and the states.

Yet, over time, the vibrant discussions and sharp disagreements that are the lifeblood of healthy policy-making have largely vanished. Today, council meetings often appear to be carefully orchestrated affairs, presenting a facade of unity where dissent, if it exists, is meticulously unrecorded and therefore, unremembered.

This is a stark departure from the parliamentary traditions that underpin our democracy.

In Parliament, every objection, every "no," every dissenting note is painstakingly documented, forming part of the legislative history and accountability framework. It allows for future scrutiny, ensuring that decisions are not just made, but are seen to be made through a process of deliberation. The GST Council, despite wielding immense financial power over the nation, seems to operate under a different, less transparent rulebook.

A crucial example of this erosion lies in the very genesis of GST legislation.

The 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, which paved the way for GST, saw no recorded note of dissent. This is not to say that dissent didn't exist, but rather that the mechanism for its formal articulation and preservation was either circumvented or simply absent. It begs the question: how can a truly federal body thrive if the voices of its constituent members are not formally acknowledged when they diverge?

The current government's approach, often characterized by a strong majoritarian bent, appears to extend to the GST Council.

There's an underlying discomfort with anything that challenges the prevailing narrative or delays the swift implementation of policy. This aversion to dissent, while perhaps efficient in the short term, carries significant long-term costs. It undermines the very spirit of federalism, transforming a council of equals into a body where the Union's will often prevails, and states are left with little recourse but to fall in line.

The implications are far-reaching.

When genuine debate is stifled, and dissenting views are not just ignored but are rendered invisible, the quality of policy-making inevitably suffers. Decisions become less resilient, less responsive to local needs, and ultimately, less democratic. The vision of "Team India" working collaboratively to build a stronger economy risks being replaced by a centralized directive, eroding trust and potentially fostering resentment among states.

Consider the recent controversies surrounding GST Appellate Tribunals.

Even in this crucial area, consensus has been elusive, highlighting the difficulty in achieving genuine agreement when the foundational processes for debate and compromise are weak. The persistent push for uniformity, without adequately addressing diverse state concerns, only serves to amplify these tensions.

The silent erosion of dissent within the GST Council is not merely an procedural oversight; it represents a significant challenge to India's federal democratic structure.

It signals a move away from inclusive governance towards a more centralized model where the robust exchange of ideas is sacrificed for perceived efficiency. For the health of our democracy and the effectiveness of our economic policies, it is imperative that the GST Council re-embraces its founding principles of cooperative federalism, ensuring that every voice, including those of dissent, is heard, recorded, and genuinely considered.