Political Diary
New Delhi, 9 July 2011
Telangana Embroglio
CAUGHT NAPPING ON
MAPPING
By Poonam I Kaushish
The scam-fested Congress’s latest headache is turning into a
migraine. That too in its own backyard, Andhra. All over a silly mapping issue
of Telangana wherein over 100 MLAs and 13 MPs cutting across Party lines have
quit. And the tragedy is that the Party’s doctors for all seasons are clueless
of any panacea.
According to sources, the original game-plan of the Congress
MLAs was to enact a resignation drama: Put pressure on the Centre then back
track after some assurances. However, the Opposition legislators, TDP and TRS
spoilt the gambit by resigning too. So far over 40 per cent of the MLAs have
quit.
Worse, not to be left behind, MLAs from Rayalseema and the
Andhra region have also threatened to resign en-masse if the Centre decides to
give in to the demands of Telangana. Putting the Congress in a cleft-stick
given that Andhra is the biggest contributor to the Party’s Lok Sabha kitty
since the last two elections.
Out of 42 Lok Sabha seats, 17 fall in Telangana. If the
Congress tilts towards creating Telengana then 25 seats in the Andhra and
Rayalseema region would split between the Party and erstwhile ‘problem child’
Jaganmohan Reddy's new Party. Either which way, the Party’s strongest Southern
bastion weakens.
Pushed into the corner the Centre has decided to bide its
time. Till date, it wants Kiran Reddy to govern with a simple majority,
courtesy Majlis e Ittehadul Muslimeen and
Praja Rajyam Party MLAs support. But this would become embarrassing for
the Congress with 9 Telangana districts being unrepresented. The Lok Sabha
Speaker Meira Kumar stated she would only decide on the MPs resignations by 1
August.
That the task is tough can be gauged from the fact the issue is both emotive and politically sensitive. And
would have larger ramifications for various other regional movements in the
country. A toss between large and unwieldy States where administrative
efficiency is the first casualty. Or small States that encourage fissiparous
tendencies which could lead to balkanization. Along-with whetting regional,
separatist appetite.
Pertinently, all eyes are on UPA II next move. Specially, against the backdrop that
already, over 10 new entrants are rearing to go. Besides Telengana, there is
demand for Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Harit Pradesh out of Western UP,
Bundelkhand and Purvanchal out of south-eastern UP, Gondwana from portions of
Chhattisgarh, Andhra and Madhya Pradesh, Kodagu in Karnataka’s coffee belt,
Bodoland from Assam,
Ladakh from Kashmir, Garoland from Meghalaya, Mithilanchal from North Bihar and
Gorkhaland in West Bengal.
History tells us that post Independence confronted with 560
princely States, Sardar Patel, embarked upon his mighty effort to integrate
India. This was followed by the appointment of the Dar Commission for the
purpose of enquiring into and reporting on the desirability or otherwise of the
creation of any more provinces.
The Dar Commission recommended that no new provinces should
be formed as India
was burdened with problems more urgent than the problem of redistribution of
provinces. Such as defence, food, refugees, inflation and production. Grounds
which more than hold true today. Secondly, it could not afford to add to its
anxieties --- the heat, controversy and bitterness which the demarcation of
boundaries would involve. Lastly, the economic consequences of splitting up of
existing provinces into several new provinces. (North East)
This led to another Commission. The JVP --- Jawaharlal
(Nehru), Vallabhbhai (Patel) and Pattabhi (Sitaramayya). The JVP concurred with
Dar’s views. Reorganization would divert attention, from more vital matters and
retard the process of consolidation of the nation’s gains. However, to appease
their political supporters, a rider was added. “If public sentiment was
insistent and overwhelming, the practicability of satisfying public demands
with its implications and consequences must be examined. An innocuously worded
political resolution for which we are continuing to pay a heavy price.
In turn, this led to the setting up of the States
Reorganisation Commission in December 1953. It made its recommendations in
September 1955 whereby 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. The political map of the
Indian Union was thereafter redrawn.
Typical of India’s
political culture, the SRC too generated more controversies than it solved. The
euphoria of reorganization had barely settled down that fresh demands were made
for more states. Successive Prime Ministers have carved out jagirs for their bhaktas and chelas. Lest
history books fail to omit their contribution in building an united India.
Sic.
Telangana epitomizes the symptom of the malady. Experience
over the past six decades shows that smaller states are able to meet more
effectively the rising expectations and aspirations of their people for speedy
development and a responsive administration. Uttarakhand from UP, Jharkhand
from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya
Pradesh and, earlier, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are all shining examples of
“small is beautiful”.
However, protagonists of bigger States disagree. What
guarantees is there that this will not fuel internal fissures. Bring about a
synthesis between the haves and the have-notes. A linguistic and cultural
affinity. 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.
Importantly, it may make sound political sense but lousy
economics. The world over while Governments’ are cutting back on cost we continue
to multiply our expenses. Authoritative sources aver that creation of a State
would cost well over Rs.1000 crore. Entailing expenditure on setting up a new Capital,
Assembly secretariat, excluding the annual recurring expenses.
In addition, it would stoke the smouldering fires of
disputes over borders --- and cities. Both Haryana and Punjab still eagerly
want Chandigarh.
Orissa demands the return of Saraikala and Kharsuan. Nagaland still wants to
cut into certain forest areas of Assam. Bihar
yearns desperately for the mineral-rich districts of Jharkhand.
Also, as Jharkhand has shown, small States do not translate
into a panacea to development, resource allocation and governance. Remember
Koda, who milked the State of over Rs 4000 crores. Clearly, demonstrating that
small isn’t always beautiful! The very ‘blackhole’ our past leaders wanted to
avoid.
So what is the alternative? Statesmanship and sagacity lie
in adopting the middle course. 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.
Let the Centre seriously apply its mind to setting up
genuine autonomous councils --- short of full-fledged states. But not on the Darjeeling model, now
denounced even by the Gorkhas. Maybe we should have a look at the Bangladesh
model for the Chittgaong hill Tracts and their Chakmas. These Chakmas have been
given, among other State-subjects, police powers up to the sub-inspector level.
Thereby in one stroke inspiring confidence among the local population,
India will complete 64 years of Independence next month with
27 States, a testimony to a free and vibrant democracy. Are we now going to
roll back history to pre-Independence days --- create 562 States? Will not a
further partition of the existing States result in an India fitting Jinnah’s classical description of Pakistan as
being “truncated and moth-eaten”? It remains to be seen whether the
Congress-led UPA II comes out smelling of roses or reeking of rotten eggs? ----
INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|