ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/Amberish K Diwanji

'Every region has some difficult problems that can snowball into a major crisis'

We are sympathetic to genuine demands,” says BJP leader K R Malkani, “The demand for Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhatisgarh have been pending for years and there are sufficient grounds for them. If need be, we will see for some of the other states.” But he did not agree that there was any reason to set up another states panel.

“A second States Reorganisation Commission will open up a Pandora’s box,” he stated, adding that the present agreement on the four states is only “small Pandora’s box.”

The BJP in Maharashtra has supported the case for Vidarbha, and was of course, active in the demand for Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhatisgarh. The BJP has also declared that it prefers smaller states.

The Communists, while agreeable to the four states, point blank reject any demand for more states. The Left has not been in favour of smaller states. The Communist Party of India-Marxist and the CPI are both against a second States Reorganisation Committee. “Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhatisgarh have a historic basis for their demands. None of the others really do,” said Atul Kumar Anjan, national secretary, CPI.

Did this mean that only long-pending demands merited consideration? Anjan sidestepped the question. “These demands, excepting Chhatisgarh, have been pending for 30 years and no one has opposed them in principle, which was not the case in Darjeeling or Bodoland,” he replied. He said the Left would back the move for the four states.

The Congress too in principle has agreed to the demand, but has a caveat. “We are willing to have a discussion on the case for smaller states,” states senior Congress leader Rajesh Pilot. “What we are against is the present piecemeal decision taken by the BJP government. There are so many demands besides the four such as Bodoland, Vidarbha, Coorg (Kodogu), etc. Many more will come once these four are created. So the BJP should plan and decide properly, keeping in mind the future scenario.”

The reason why Anand Kumar insists on another states reorganisation panel. He is against the status quo on the premise that previous states reflect more of the British administration rather than Indian needs. The British created states in view of their administrative preferences rather than people's desire. Moreover, the British too had to heed the people’s voices and thus had separated Bihar from the Bengal province and Sind from the Bombay province.

“We have got rid of British colonisation, but now we need complete liberation from the present internal colonisation,” said Professor Kumar, a trifle dramatically. “This is something not recognised by the present leadership, and all the demands and rebellions that we read about today is simply this pent-up anger against discrimination.”

Giving examples, Professor Kumar said, “The Assam government made Assamese compulsory and this led to many of the tribal people revolting and demanding separate states. Then minorities within states often feel discriminated in the case of jobs and opportunities. This fuels their alienation.”

Nevertheless, the difficulties are many, especially in cases where there is strong opposition. So while Chhatisgarh faces relative ease in getting through, the Uttaranchal dispute is racked over the Udham Singh Nagar district. The original draft plans calls for including it in Uttaranchal, but the Sikh farmers in the district are opposed to the move and would rather stay with Uttar Pradesh. To make things more complicated, BJP ally Shiromani Akali Dal has supported the demand of the Sikh farmers.

The genesis of the problem lies in the fact that many Sikh farmers own land far in excess of the land ceiling acts, laws which are likely to be activated in a new Uttaranchal state. “These farmers took away the land from the poor people and made them tenants,” claims Anjaan, “and now to protect these kulaks, the Akalis are seeking to separate Udham Singh Nagar from Uttaranchal.”

“It is problems like these that will keep cropping up,” said Aiyar. “Every region has some difficult problems that can snowball into a major crisis. Where will it all lead to?”

That smaller states perform better is also by no means conclusively. The states with the highest per capita income are Punjab and Haryana, where the Green Revolution took place. Then comes Maharashtra, a large state which is also the most industrialised, followed by Gujarat, the second most industrialised state. Yet, in Maharashtra, a perceived feeling of neglect by the Vidarbha region has fueled a demand for a separate state.

“That is hardly the point,” said Aiyar. “Even in small states one can feel neglected. Does that mean every district should become a state? Some of the demands are by regions that are just a district or two. Where will it all end?”

Then there is the case of Delhi and Pondicherry. “Throughout the world, the capital territory is under the federal government. Look at the United States’ District of Columbia and Australia’s National Capital Territory. So why not Delhi?” ask Aiyar. “And how can you make Pondicherry, which is tiny pockets of land within three states – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal – into a single state?”

But on the other hand one can point out that Delhi is a huge city of 10 million with myriad problems that need to be looked into. “Why should Parliament discuss the water and electricity situation of Delhi,” asks Professor Kumar.

Merging the territories of Pondicherry with the state surrounding it is not possible as per the Indo-French treaty. The agreement allows the citizens of Pondicherry the right to visit and stay in France. A merger would effectively end that treaty with cross migrations.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. The BJP can, quite rightly, say that in creating more states they are only meeting the people’s aspirations, as any democratic nation should. Yet the four states planned can only be the tip of an iceberg.

The Smaller States controversy

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature