By ALLABAKSH New Delhi (Syndicate Features): After agreeing to consider the demand for division of some states during the last (2004) Lok Sabha poll campaign the Congress cannot wriggle out easily from the predicament that it faces now over the issue. It seems to have led to sharp divisions within the ruling party. But while some of its allies have opposed the setting up of another states reorganisation commission, there is an equally strong support for the idea of division of some large states in many political parties across the country.
It is generally said that large states are unwieldy and not easy to govern just as it is easier to run smaller entities more efficiently. The experience in India has been mixed over the years when there were large states considered to be well-governed and also large ones that were headed in the other direction. Likewise, there have been smaller states with reputation for good administration and others that presented a different picture.
What made the difference between a good and a bad administration in the states was probably the leadership. This is a factor that will always determine the quality of a state’s administration. While much can be said about the attributes of good leadership, one quality that is supremely needed is honesty of purpose to stay focused on progress and well being of the people, which is not possible among the majority of political leadership by now used to placing self or partisan interest above everything else.
The demand for division of large states may stem from some genuine reasons such as the feeling of ‘discrimination’ in one or more regions within the states as a result of which these regions lag behind in economic development. But the advocates for new states are usually, though not always politicians who place self and party interests above those of the people and heir commitment to development may look suspicious.
The demand for carving out new states out of existing ones has gathered speed because of the relative ease with which three new states were created by dividing UP, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. The division of Bihar that led to the birth of Jharkhand was not without surprise because the strongman from the state, Lalu Prasad Yadav, used to famously say that Jharkhand would be carved out over his dead body. But in the end the division of these large states was possible because there was more support than opposition at the popular level.
If at one time the majority view in the country’s most populous state was against its division, in today’s truncated UP (minus Uttaranchal) many shades of political opinion agree on a further two- or three-way division of the state. The popular reaction to this demand has not been gauged or expressed. The argument is that the smaller segments would be better governed and this would help in ‘balanced’ development of the chronically poorer regions of the original state of UP.
Protagonists of new states support one of the two courses to meet their demand: either divide some of the larger states straightaway through an executive action or appoint a states’ reorganisation commission on the pattern of the one that was set up half a century ago. The latter course is far less popular with the politicians because it will be a time-consuming exercise, which may end without necessarily recommending division of states.
Cartographic changes in the existing states with the help of executive fiats will smack of political expediency. In the 1950s it was probably necessary to redraw the colonial era maps of the states. The language riots in many parts of the country such as the old Bombay that was uneasy with a mix of Marathi and Gujarati speaking populations and the ‘Punjabi Suba’ agitation by the Akalis demanding separation of Punjabi and Hindi-speaking Haryana had also forced the government of the day to set up the SRC, though Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was opposed to linguistic states.
Today language does not guide most demands for new states though politicians who lack a larger nation-wide vision are able to play upon people’s emotions that stress regional differences. Linguistically Telangana and Vidarbha that are to be carved out of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra will remain Telugu and Marathi speaking areas as will any new state that is created after dividing Karnataka and Orissa. A further division of UP into Bundelkhand, Poorvanchal and Harita Pradesh would not separate the three regions linguistically.
A ‘Gurkhaland’ will, of course, be different linguistically and ethnically from West Bengal. But the northeast situation is very different; it is the various tribes that demand new states with some sections using violence as means to convey their message. In Nagaland the trend can be said to be different from the usual demand for reducing the size of the states: there is a demand for greater Nagaland with the incorporation of some areas from the adjoining states where there is an equally strong opposition to any move to shrink the size of their states.
The government must not be guided by political considerations in considering the demand for new states. Chopping the size of some states can prove to be infectious while the benefits to the people will continue to look uncertain in an environment where democratic institutions that articulate people’s aspirations and seek their redress are becoming weaker. What role the legislative bodies in the states, big or small, meeting for a few days in a year perform other than provide an occasion for members to trade charges or jockey for power? Instability threatens to become endemic in most small states of India.
Haryana, once part of Punjab, cannot be quoted as proof that small states are synonymous with fast progress. The pint-sized Haryana has also seen the rise of certain ‘dynasties’ that want to rule by any means. The woes of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh do not look very different from what they were when the two new states were part of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Their ability to fight the Maoists threat, for instance, is believed to have suffered because they cannot bank on a larger security force available when they were not detached. On the other hand the state of Gujarat, which encompasses ‘distinct’ regional identities of Saurashtra and Kutch, has remained among the better-governed states and would continue to be so even in the (unlikely) event of its division.
With the Lok Sabha poll now drawing nearer there will be pressure on the government to concede the demand for at least one or two new states. But any hasty decision taken now should not lead to regrets later when it may be too late. (Syndicate Features)
