post from 2013:
right from women's reservation in educational institutions and panchayats to reservations for the backward classes to legislation for the sc special component plan to the tribal sub-plan to food/wages for work programmes,

to mass housing programmes for the marginalized sections to the right to information legislations - you name it - they were all initiated first in individual states. from a.p. to karnataka to maharashtra to tamil nadu to kerala..

the states have always been more progressive, relatively, than the so-called centre.the myth of the centre/union being more progressive than the states is reinforced so much by the media/universities etc that the regional forces don't get even a fraction of any of that attention.

what is the centre? it is a coalition of dominant castes from across 28 states. that's why it has always been harder to bring in progressive legislation in the centre than in the states. maharashtra had introduced drought relief programmes over 40 years ago..

the nrega was brought in in the centre in 2000s. right to property for women was a legislated reality in ap/karnataka in the 80s. the centre woke up much later.
yes, regional parties are led by dominant castes, but the national parties are led by 28 times more dominant castes.

and it was dominant caste led parties like the tdp which broke the back of feudal land/village control in telangana by abolishing the centuries old patel/patwari hereditary village revenue regime which ensured continued power for the 2-3 dominant castes..

why? because it had to actively pursue the votes of the obcs and dalits, in order to snatch some votes from the other dominant caste led party, the congress.. that's what i mean by the battle becoming more real in the states.

lastly, the bsp's stance - i'm not aware of the philosophy behind it, but i think it is trying to pursue babasaheb's vision of a unitary polity.. it should realize that dr. ambedkar was speaking in a particular historic context -

when india was a brutalized nation just stepping out of colonial rule and had to gather its resources and pursue some common goals, unitedly. the situation has definitely changed over the decades.. unlike the union, the states have pursued dr. ambedkar's vision more vigorously,

all that remains stagnant in the states is because of the refusal of the dominant castes to relinquish their hold on power and resources in their states. they can hold onto it as long as they have the support of dominant castes from across the states, in the centre.

and finally, it is the regional politics in tamil nadu which have led to dalit leaders like sivakami to demand that there should be separate panchayats for dalits. the demand for separate panchayats for some villages of plains tribals like the lambadas have long been there.

i think the progress towards decentralization would lead towards these goals - separate panchayats for dalits, and adivasi autonomy. this can't happen through union led measures. that is the basic problem with the thinking that the union would somehow ensure more democratization.

it is inherently incapable of it. it can't go against the interests of the dominant castes across the country.