|
POLITICAL DIARY
Small Is Beautiful
WHAT PRICE STATE REORGANISATION?
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, January 08, 2008
From maut ke saudagar to small is beautiful. The latest
brainwave to emerge from a desperate Congress, hurting after
its electoral massacre in Gujarat and Himachal, is aimed at
once again reigniting the flames of ‘separatist tendencies’ by
talking of carving big States into small. The bigness and
smallness of a State has little to do with national interest
but everything to do with massaging its vote-banks and
improving its winability quotient. In the hope that the
smaller units will fetch the Party big political dividends.
Camouflaged as imperative for “political stability” in the
country (read Party), it has mooted the idea of setting up
another States Reorganisation Commission ((last suggested in
July 2007) to explore the formation of new States. No matter
that till its electoral rout in UP May last, the Party had
opposed tooth and nail the creation of small States. It even
let the Telengana Rashtriya Samiti quit the UPA alliance.
Today, with Assembly polls in nine States and the General
Election just 15 months away, the Party has now backtracked
or, should one say, had a rethink and is all set to create
Telengana. Primarily, to take the sting out of the TRS
political plank, now also backed by the BJP. Recall, the UPA
had set-up a sub-committee under Pranab Mukherjee (who else?)
but as it had failed to reach a consensus, the decision was
left to the Congress.
Needless to say, this out-of-the-blue plan to appoint another
SRC is bound to open a Pandora’s Box on the demand for
statehood from every nook and cranny of the country. Already,
over 10 new entrants are rearing to go. It remains to be seen
whether the Congress-led UPA Government will come out smelling
of roses or reek of rotten eggs.
The task is, indeed, tough, as the issue is both emotive and
politically sensitive. Against the backdrop of many regions
and sub-regions aspiring to be full-fledged States. Moreover,
the Left is divided. While the CPM, which faced a violent
demand for Gorkhaland in West Bengal, is opposed to carving
out separate states, the CPI has of late has softened its
stand on the demand for a Telengana. The NCP also remains
lukewarm to the demand for Vidarbha, even though it has no
major presence in the region.
Besides Telengana and Vidarbha, BSP’s Mayawati favours
trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh --- Harit Pradesh out of Western
UP, Bundelkhand and Purvanchal out of south-eastern UP. Then
there is a demand for Gondwana from portions of Chhattisgarh,
Andhra and Madhya Pradesh, Kodagu from Karnataka’s coffee
belt, Bodoland from Assam, Ladakh from Kashmir, Garoland from
Meghalaya, Mithilanchal from North Bihar and Gorkhaland.
Nobody can deny that a few States in India are much too large
and unwieldy for efficient governance. It takes nearly two
days to get from one end of UP to the other by road!
Obviously, administrative efficiency is the first casualty. As
the recent experience of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,
and, earlier, of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, shows, smaller
States are able to meet better the rising expectations of
their people for speedy development and a responsive and
effective administration. Today, all are shining examples of
“small is beautiful.”
However, protagonists of bigger States disagree, often
sharply. What guarantee, they ask, is there that this will end
internal fissures. Make the rivers flow smoothly from one
State to another. Merely look at the ugly riparian fight
between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, Andhra and Tamil Nadu and
Punjab and Haryana.
What warranty that it would decrease the ever-rising
disparities between the haves and the have-nots which are all
the more glaring and difficult to camouflage in small states.
Clinching their arguments by asserting that with caste and
creed dictating the polity’s agenda presently, any fresh
redrawing of India’s political map would only give monstrous
fillip to separatism.
Just see how pandering to casteism over the past many years
has unbottled the genie of separatist tendencies. Almost every
caste now wants to be included among the Other Backward Castes
(OBCs). Even Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians are demanding
reservation on the basis of caste which their religions do not
accept. Would this be in India’s best national interest?
Further reinforcing that if smaller incisions have to be made
as in the USA, then the body politic of India would need to be
wholly restructured on that pattern.
Besides, it may make sound political sense but lousy
economics. When the Prime Minister goes blue in the face
talking of cutting back on costs, we continue to multiply our
expenses. Authoritative sources aver that the creation of a
State would cost the national exchequer over Rs 1,200 crore.
Entailing expenditure on setting up a new State capital,
Assembly and Secretariat but excluding the annual recurring
expenses.
In addition, it could well encourage fissiparous tendencies,
ultimately leading to India’s balkanization and stoke the sub-terranean
smouldering fires of disputes over borders--- and cities. Both
Haryana and Punjab still claim Chandigarh. Orissa demands the
return of Saraikala and Kharsuan. Nagaland still wants to cut
into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam
to create Nagalim. Bihar yearns desperately for the
mineral-rich districts of Jharkhand.
Will not a further partition of the existing States result in
an India that would fit Jinnah’s classical description of
Pakistan as being “truncated and moth-eaten”? The only purpose
it will serve will be to whet regional and separatist
appetites, as it happened at the time of the first SRC in the
mid-fifties. The very “black hole” that our past leaders were
ever eager to avoid.
Remember, the first State Reorganisation Commission was set up
by the Nehru Government in 1954 under Justice Fazl Ali,
retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It recommended
that the component units of the Indian Union would consist of
two categories ---“States forming primary federation units of
the Indian Union and territories which are centrally
administered.” One of its members, K M Panikkar submitted a
dissenting note, seeking the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh.
This was rejected by the Government.
Typical of India’s political culture, the first SRC and the
creation of new States left in its wake more controversies
than it sorted out. Regional leaders promptly started
demanding the liberation of smaller colonies from the fat
ruling classes. While those opposed countered the demand for
smaller States by cautioning against India’s break-up into
hundreds of smaller States. Did the country want to reverse
the historic integration brought about by Sardar Patel?
The tragic irony of history is that successive Prime Ministers
bought peace at the cost of strong integrated India by carving
out new jagirs for acquiring “new chelas” and assured vote
banks. Lest history books omitted their “contribution” in the
building of a new India.
The controversies and demands generated then continue till
date
Logically, if one district of Assam could be made into a
full-fledged State of Nagaland, another into Mizoram, a third
into Meghalaya and yet another into Arunachal Pradesh, how can
one hold back on Telengana or Vidarbha? The last time new
States were created was in 2000 when the NDA regime okayed the
creation of Uttaranchal (now Uttarkhand), Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh.
Unfortunately for the Centre, its policy of going populist
time and again and opting for quick-fix remedies has
boomeranged. What, one might ask, is the alternative?
Statesmanship and sagacity lie in adopting the middle path.
The UPA Government should not set up another SRC just to win
votes.
It needs to learn from the mistakes of the recently carved
small States, diagnose the disease afresh and hammer out
solutions for better governance. Much can be achieved through
meaningful decentralization of administration in these days of
computerization, without adding to the cost of governance
through top-heavy ministerial baggage.
Let us not allow politicians of all hues to create new pocket
boroughs motivated by petty personal interests, undermining
national unity. India has entered its 60th year of
Independence with 27 States, a testimony to a free and vibrant
democracy. Are we now going to roll back history to
pre-Independence days and create 562 States? Let not history
record what Conrad Egbert once brilliantly stated: We learn
nothing from history except that we learn nothing from
history! ---- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
