Is Small Always Beautiful?

Is Small Always Beautiful?

 The country is gearing up for yet another genesis of a new state.  A nod from the CWC for the creation of the new state of Telangana has opened up a Pandora box. Suddenly there is a spurt in the mass movements demanding separate states. There have been silent protests and disenchantments in the existing states due to wide disparities between different regions of the same state. People of one particular region allege of various kinds of discriminations faced by them at the hands of the other. They believe that creation of separate state would empower them.

On the other hand, does the mass uproar and demand for a new state symbolise the burgeoning intolerance and subjugation suffered by the people of that region for all these years?  At this juncture it is important to understand unique distinction of India, its diversity. Entire nation was never under the reign of a single ruler or emperor, except under the British Crown. India officially had 595 princely states at the time when British have taken the control of the land. It was an ensemble of all these tiny provinces ruled by different rulers. Each of those states existed as distinct, individual and independent entities. They were self-sustaining units as such. History reinforces and signifies the fact that Indian society has never been homogenous. It is the intricate differences which make our country so unique and a marvellous place to live. Hence the numbers could hardly matter. After independence, all these states by and large into the Indian Union. For administrative convenience and for wider democratic appeal, India is divided into states and Union territories.

As per the recommendation of the States Reorganisation Committee (SRC) Andhra Pradesh was the first state to be carved from the Madras state on the basis of language in the year 1956. But owing to difference cultural, social differences between the Andhra and Telangana   regions, discontent started brewing from 1969. But the movement was quickly suppressed with an iron-hand by the central government. Following the creation of the Uttarakhand, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand in 2000 Telangana agitation got a new lease for life. Subsequently, the political aspirations of the TRS party, has spearheaded aggression and heavily lobbied for a separate state. In 2010 Sri Krishna Committee was constituted to assess the feasibility of a separate statehood for the region. Unfortunately, none of the recommendations were implemented. Finally it was just the game of politics which did the magic for the desperate people who have been waging a relentless war for 56 years. Now following the hoards of agitations for separate statehoods across the country it would be imperative to constitute the second SRC capable of diligently setting the criteria for creating a new state. The committee should develop guidelines for creation of separate state, outline the pre-requisites so that the new state can sustain on its own without putting a greater pressure on the centre for its rehabilitation and growth as a new entity.

In this context, it is would be relevant to categorically understand the implications of further divisions in the country. Nation is aware of the existing inter-state disputes regarding sharing of river waters, raising the height of dams, power distribution etc. More the number of states, more disputes are bound to arise. With the creation of every new state, huge amount of money in the form of relief and reconstruction packages has to be granted by the central government towards building a new capital, infrastructure etc. Thus making a big hole in the already deficit budget.

Telangana has made it imperative that the people’s aspirations are seriously considered if is going to hamper the political gains of the national parties. Taking this as a cue all the contenders for separate state will enthusiastically play the political card. As a first step they would form the regional parties and keep the national parties at tenterhooks as allies in coalition governments. Thus there is greater risk of national interests being comprised in lieu of personal gains benefitting the region of their interest. This augurs into a new proposition where states can be created if the political parties find it indispensable for their growth. Thus, new states are born as a result of the “opportunistic” politics played by both the leaders at both national and regional level. This might result in mushrooming of regional parties indicating the greater participation of the masses in the democratic process. But it comes with an intrinsic disadvantage, in a diverse country like India. In recent past electoral verdict is fractured and in absence of clear majority to a single party, execution, decision making and planning on crucial issues are largely hampered. A weak government is prone to various pressures from the splinter parties or its allies and it becomes difficult to achieve its developmental goals and targets.

Though there is no denial of the fact that smaller states facilitate easy governance and quick deliverance parameters like sustainability of the state as an independent entity should be given precedence over other factors. If it fails to make good progress and achieve perceptible growth, the burden has to be borne by the central government.  

Just before granting Independence the British prophesied that lets grant freedom to India and within a day Indian Union will break up into smaller pieces are we in the process of making it real?  The approval for the new state of Telangana was logistically and politically driven. It has suddenly sparked a chain of similar demands for several states like Bodoland, Bundelkhand, Gorkhaland, Harit Pradesh, Vidarbha, Purvanchal, Awadhpradesh etc. The list seems to be endless. At this rate India will march forward to grab the distinction of United States of India.

Finally it is time to make a decision whether we can afford the luxury of stalling the progress of nation and placate the people’s demand for separate states?

 

 

@ Copyrights reserved.