Political Diary

New Delhi, 26 November 2011

BSP’s New Maya Jaal

STOKING SEPARATIST TENDENCIES

By Poonam I Kaushish

How big is big? When does big become small? Does beautiful small make big ugly? Will small fetch better dividends than big? Or vice-versa? Confused? Don’t be. At least not when we are talking about our polity and their vote-bank shenanigans. The latest brainwave to emerge from UP’s Prima Donna Mayawati is to carve the Hindu heartland into four small States. Obviously, the bigness and smallness of UP has everything to do with massaging her vote-banks and improving her winability quotient!

In one fell stroke she tossed out the old political home truth that one who controls UP controls India (the State sends 80 MPs to Parliament) by literally bulldozing the Assembly in 17 minutes flat and passed a resolution to split the State into four. Namely, Harit Pradesh comprising 22 districts in the west, Poorvanchal in the east with 32 districts, Bundelkhand with 7 districts in the south and Awadh with 14 districts in Central UP.

With Assembly elections due early next year, clearly, Mayawati hopes to change the political discourse and her dwindling electoral fortunes, currently focussed on her Government's ‘mis-rule’, marked by a series of scams with 12 Ministers indicted for corruption. Her game-plan is simple: Pander to sub-regional sentiments during the poll campaign by pointing out that she has shown her commitment to the cause of smaller States.

Also, while she loses nothing by proposing UP’s division any delay could be blamed on the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre, thus blunting Rahul Gandhi’s  aggressive campaign and forays into dalit homes. Whereby the Congress would find it hard to explain its stand on the creation of new States as it is on the verge of finalising a pre-poll pact with the RLD's Ajit Singh, a strong votary of Harit Pradesh thereby nullifying any advantage Congress would have from the alliance.

Undoubtedly, Mayawati has put the Congress in a bind. Although the Party in-principle is not opposed to UP’s division as it had earlier advocated Statehood for Bundelkhand, its prevarication on Telangana has complicated matters. Aware that the Centre is caught in a cleft stick, Mayawati knows that if the UPA accepts most of the credit would go to her as she has been demanding division for over five years and if it rejects the Congress would be portrayed as the spoiler and she would end up garnering goodwill and votes.

The BSP aims to corner Mulayam’s Samajwadi too, which has constantly opposed division, notwithstanding, its strength in Central UP. The BJP already in a precarious position would find the going tough either which way. Any wonder both the Congress and BJP are demanding formation of the Second State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) as demands for Vidarbha in Maharashtra and Gorkhaland from West Bengal become vociferous.

Nobody can deny that a few States are much too large and unwieldy for efficient governance. It takes nearly two days to get from Lucknow to Jhansi by road! Obviously, administrative efficiency is the first casualty. As recent experiences of Uttarakhand from UP, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand from Bihar, and, earlier, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh from Punjab, 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. Think: UP comprising 200 million could well become became an independent nation and would be the fifth-largest country in the world, ahead of Brazil and behind only China, India, US and Indonesia. What guarantee, they ask, is there that this will end internal fissures. Make the rivers flow smoothly from one State to another. 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.

See how pandering to casteism has un-bottled the separatist genie. 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. Is this 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.

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 want Chandigarh. Orissa demands return of Saraikala and Kharsuan. Nagaland wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam. Bihar yearns for Jharkhand’s mineral-rich districts.

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 1,500 crore. Entailing expenditure on setting up a new State Capital, Assembly and Secretariat but excluding the annual recurring expenses.

While those opposed counter the demand for smaller States by cautioning against India’s break-up into hundreds of smaller States. Reminding all of Jinnah’s classical description of Pakistan as being “truncated and moth-eaten”? The only purpose it would serve would be to whet regional and separatist appetites and create more controversies as happened at the time of the first SRC in December 1953. The very “blackhole” that our past leaders were ever eager to avoid.

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

What next? Statesmanship and sagacity lie in adopting the middle path. The UPA Government should not play into Mayawati’s hands just to win votes or buy time with another SRC. It needs to diagnose the disease afresh and hammer out solutions for better governance.

Clearly, it is not the size of the State that matters but the political will of the ruling dispensation that drives it. 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 64^th 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 and Feature Alliance)