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
64th 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)
|