India News and Features Alliance (INFA) - Telangana Embroglio:CAUGHT NAPPING ON MAPPING, by Poonam I Kaushish, 9 July 2011

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