Politics over Smaller States ( JUST IN PRINT ) SEPT 1 - 15 , 2013

There is a demand of smaller states in India. The question arises why ?

Many of the demands for new states in India are based on ethnicity. The most recent of them was the demand for Telangana in Andhra Pradesh. For months the state saw bloodless agitations. The capital Hyderabad was brought to a standstill.

The government set up a committee that came up with seven options. The new point of contention was, who will get Hyderabad? The capital of the Nizam's princely state, the city has seen a lot of development in the last few years and generates a large revenue for the state government. It falls in Telengana region but also has an identity of its own. Home to Urdu-speaking Muslims, the elite and representatives of Hyderabad simply refuse to become part of the economically backward Telangana. They demanded a separate union territory status.

Free India had its first tryst with re-organisation of states in 1956 after the implementation of The States’ Reorganisation Act, which resulted in the formation of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh out of a single unified Punjab. In the subsequent ten years all these three states became the pioneers in making the green revolution successful and managed to show growth rates way better than that of the country as a whole.

There are many advantages and disadvantages in this regard. November 2000, three new states Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal were carved out of three of the biggest states in India, namely Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Focussing on the average growth rate from 2004 to 2008, amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged a growth of 9.31% annually, while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh have managed 8.45% and 7.35% respectively. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economy stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states.

Surprisingly, as regions they appear to have contributed much more to the parent states' growth than was apparent.

Post separation, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal's parent, grew by 4.6 per cent against a targeted 7.6 per cent. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh grew by 4.3 per cent against 7 per cent and Bihar grew by 4.7 per cent versus the 6.2 per cent target.

Despite these positive figures favouring smaller states, detractors say only local politicians and their followers benefit from the new-found power, leaving the poor in the lurch.

Jharkhand, while registering the highest growth rate among the new states, is also a good case study of the darker side. Nine years after its formation, widening social disparities have driven many of its people to join the Maoists and its first chief minister along with other politicians have been charged with some of the worst cases of corruption.

The central government exempted industries in Uttarakhand from excise duty, a concession already applicable to other hill states. Many big industries rushed to Uttarakhand for the tax break, giving the state’s growth an artificial boost. Still, Uttarakhand easily outperformed Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir which already enjoyed the tax-exemption. Remember, Uttarakhand was once considered the poorest, most backward part of UP. After statehood, it has become a growth champion.

Uttar Pradesh is a classic example of how small states make better sense in a democracy. In a democracy, communication between the government and the public is very necessary. That is completely out of the question in a state the size of UP. While People of Haryana or Punjab, can go to the capital to air their grievances and return home by evening, whichever part of the state they are in. But if a citizen in western UP were to do the same, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow.

In addition to that it’s easier to distribute basic amenities in smaller states. Many surveys show that even though Kerala is smaller but still it is backward than other south Indian states. Progress is best defined by the Human Development Index. Amazingly Kerala has the best HDI among all the south Indian states. Even though the government may not be able to provide many factories or IT jobs but being smaller it was able to provide education, food to its people. Whereas the bigger states like AP, still have many regions where people die of Hunger or lack of shelter.

However, the UPA is caught in its own cobweb over the Telangana now. Endless demands for new smaller states have been raised from various states. Ajit Singh of Rashtriya Lok Dal has demanded creation of Harit Pradesh and Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh; the Bodos in Assam are demanding Bodoland; supported by Jaswant Singh the Gorkhas in West Bengal have already raised their voice for creation of separate Gorkhaland in West Bengal. Besides, popular support is being sought to further the demands for separate Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Coorg in Karnataka, and Gondwana in Madhya Pradesh. In Uttar Pradesh former Chief Minister Mayawati had given her consent for trifurcation of her state into three smaller political units.  There is Kosal uprising in Odisha too, the people of Western Odisha demand a separate state “ Kosal”. It is a 50 years long battle too.

There are bigger problems too by forming smaller states.

A separate Telangana does not serve any good to the
common man.We have clear examples in the name of Chattisgarh and
Jharkhand. The administration in these two states is facing
considerable stain due to "Red Terror".The state of Jharkhand is
reeling under lack of stable government since its very formation.

A reality check will make things clear to the people.Although a new
state may emerge out of the existing state but the same corrupt
politicians and bureaucrats will govern the state.The very spirit
behind the creation of a new state is lost.

The Telangana agitators should realize the fact that districts like
Srikakulam, Ananthpur,Kurnool,Kadapa are far backward than  the rest of the state.

Development is a collective effort and not a political game.   The basic thing that matters for good governance and administration is "How many heads to shelter and how may mouths to feed" that should be the criterion. No matter how good a system is, with a increase in number of users there is delays and gaps and the system becomes inefficient, incompetent and "Corrupt". 

We are strong when we unite.  When there is unity at micro level the same will reflect at Macro level too.  Go on dividing where will be the unity in diversity. Dividing the resources of the country will have bad results.  Economically also large scale of economies can be achieved when people are unite. The cooperative movement we saw in indian agriculture sector is the best example that we win when we are together.   Hence the country should not divided into smaller states the country should be one as it is in the past and should fight against the evil in the system for its own development for which government should devise a policy and should have a vision. 

Well, in India’s case, statehood has generally been determined by political expediency, not logic. The whole Telegana issue is a very good example of that. If we take the successful example of USA, we see that dividing states on the basis of latitudes and longitudes is more logical.

Although I am unable to find any reasonable conclusion out of this discussion, but a significant part of me believes that division is the road to development, and the way Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand have performed, I find this voice to be gaining ground. For now I can leave with the thought that a United “smaller” States of India is a necessity having its delusions, that some of the “regional separatists” are right in their arguments although they too are driven by greed of power than being moved by the tears of the people concerned. I rest my hope on the Government of India that they will see to every aspect of this case before carving out any state.Even though small states are necessary for a mission like India 2020 to become a success, the reason for demand of new states should only be governance and not a cultural or linguistic one.

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,

Sambalpur, Odisha.