Commentary/Amberish K Diwanji

Small states an answer to people's alienation

Laloo Prasad Yadav, in his desperation to stay on as chief minister, struck a deal. He joined hands with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, and after winning the no-confidence motion, tabled a resolution calling for the formation of a Jharkhand state.

Yet Yadav, who had once declared that Jharkhand would be formed only over his dead body, said that Jharkhandi territories in the neighbouring states of West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa should also be incorporated into the Jharkhand state. Obviously, he is hoping that these states refusal to concede will help him not keep his promise.

Also, the creation of a state is a decision made by the central government. Hence, only Parliament can create a state, alter its boundaries, merge them. How Parliament reacts to the Bihar assembly resolution remains to be seen.

The demand for new states is not new, nor the reasons behind such demands. There have been persistent demand for the creation of an Uttarakhand state out of the hilly western Uttar Pradesh region, a Gorkhaland state in the northern hilly West Bengal region, demand for Telangana in coastal Andhra Pradesh, Vidarbha out of eastern Maharashtra, a Bodoland from Assam, and of course, Jharkhand.

The time has come to take a review of the state of the Indian Union and perhaps decide on a new rationale for the setting up of states. The first, and till date last, States Commission gave its recommendations to the Nehru government in a bygone age. Then, the logic was the creation of states on a linguistic basis, on the basis of which were created Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, and other states. Being united by language and a common linguistic culture was considered to be a good basis for creating provincial units to help development.

Yet in giving only language consideration, other factors were ignored. Ethnicity and commonality of terrain is very important also. For instance, when Punjab was partitioned, besides a Punjabi-speaking region, even the Hindi-speaking regions were split into Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, because it was recognised that the hill people have little in common with the plains folk. Also, a linguistic scheme failed in the northeastern regions, where states have been created on the basis of ethnicity also between the various groups of people.

Deep pockets of resentment still remain. If language is the criterion, why hasn't the Nepali-speaking districts of north Bengal been created into a a separate state? After all, what do the Nepali from the hills and the Bengali from the plains have in common, who control so much of their destiny? Similarly, tribals in most of the states of India speak languages different from that of those who inhabit the capital city, have a culture that is different, and are in by the above criterion eligible for a separate state, yet remain ignored by an insensitive Delhi and their own state capitals.

North-central India is dominated by huge states, all of which are among the worst in India in term of development and quality of life. These states need to be broken up into smaller, more compact, easier to administrate, units. Certainly, states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, need to be split into three or more. Maharashtra is prosperous, but development has been limited to the areas surrounding Bombay and Pune, and lately, a bit around Aurangabad. Is it any wonder that the inhabitants of the Vidarbha region (around Nagpur in the east) want a separate state? Rajasthan is a huge state also, but given its sparse population, may be spared the division, or at best split into two.

Smaller states are easier to administrate -- India's richest states are Punjab and Haryana. One may argue this is due to their fertile plains. But it is also because their governments have been more stable, and therefore the leadership more efficient. More important, smaller states make it easier for people to reach their governments, to be directly affected by their ministers. Grants from the Centre are easier to distribute, development is more even in the various regions, and most important, due to the smaller size and population, governments are more responsive to the people's mood. Successive Uttar Pradesh governments have ignored the Uttarakhand region because it send too few legislators to notch up importance in Lucknow.

Large states breed deep alienation among vast sections of the people of the state. A classic example is Madhya Pradesh. The north, comprising of Bhopal and Gwalior remains politically active, yet backward. Bhopal remains famous for its gas disaster, little else, Gwalior for its palace and the ostentatious lifestyle of its former royal family. The west around Indore is prospering as businessmen from Gujarat relocate units to benefit from the cheap labour.

East Madhya Pradesh, across miles and miles of jungles, is industrialised, but not prosperous. And the Bastar region, jutting out southwards, remains backward and extremely neglected -- little electricity, healthcare, education. Various politicians in Bhopal over the years have cared little for the tribals in this impoverished region, and this is unlikely to change until there is a more responsive government. But a more responsive government is likely only if it has a large proportion of tribals in its legislature, is more accessible to the people, and has many more ministers from among the tribals. Bhopal has few of these attributes.

Another reason India needs more evenly sized small states is to ensure that one state cannot dominate the rest of India, as do Uttar Pradesh politically and Maharashtra economically today. All the states need to be given equal representation in the Rajya Sabha (like the US Senate), which will ensure that one state will not dominate the rest. It will help various ethnic groups gain representation in the state capital, which in turn will help bring them into the national mainstream, something one has been hearing for the past 50 years.

Moreover, today, states are becoming more responsible for their own finances, and each state capital will control more of the purse strings. Hence, it is imperative that smaller states, more representative of the people they rule and govern, be formed to ensure better development and more evenhanded prosperity among its various citizens. Otherwise, growing economic disparity will only fuel the alienation, leading to a dangerous situation.

There is no doubt that small states too have problems: they can be economically unviable, and are often riven by deep fractures between the various ethnic groups, as seen in Manipur where Kukis and Manipuris wreak genocide on each other. Yet, given their small size, the problems can be resolved with less effort. Fears have also been expressed that certain segments of the people might want to break away from India. Yet, this is one reason for smaller states: it will be very difficult for a small state to declare itself independent simply because it will lack the resources -- human and otherwise -- to carry out its threat.

Certainly, all the answers for a smaller state are not present, and bigger states do have certain advantages. Yet, one must remember that Indians are a very disparate lot, and their differences must be respected, not ridden roughshod over. Small states cannot solve all the problems, but it can alleviate many. Besides small states, an urgent need is the proper implementation of the panchayat system which will take power down to the local level. And the advantages gained from being large can be resolved by forming regional councils -- a grouping of states in the various parts of the country for common interests. However, panchayat and regional councils are beyond the scope of this article.

Tell us what you think of this column