01-22-2008, 07:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->More the merrier?
From Telengana to Bundelkhand, new states are suddenly in season. But there is a problem. The Congress, as Nidhi Sharma reports, can't make up its mind whether another States Reorganisation Commission is a vote winner or an ally loser --
India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
So declared the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, when it gave India its Constitution. Sixty years on, India has come a long way from being a collective of 562 princely states scarred by Partition to a self-assured nation of 28 states.Â
However, once again, the Indian polity is faced with a question that was posed to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru: Should India be divided into smaller States if the people of a region so demand? Nehru was a well-known opponent of creating States on linguistic lines. But a fast-unto-death forced him to change his mind.
It all started with Potti Sriramulu, a freedom fighter and a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. In 1952, Sriramulu fasted for 50 days demanding a separate state for Telugus (today's Andhra Pradesh) and died. Moved by the death of the 51-year-old Sriramulu, Nehru formed a three-member States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953 to look into regional demands.
Chaired by Justice Fazl Ali -- KM Panikkar and HN Kunzru were the other members - the SRC redrew India's internal boundaries. Three years later new States, including Andhra Pradesh, were formed.
Over the past fortnight, the scene has once again shifted to Andhra Pradesh. The demand for a separate State of Telangana is as old as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though the first SRC had also explored the pros and cons of Telangana, it had ruled in favour of a "Vishal Andhra" (United or Greater Andhra), observing public opinion in Telangana had not "crystallised".
The demand has resurfaced now under Telangana leader K Chandashekhar Rao. Cine-star Chiranjeevi, who hails from Telangana, is also keen to peg his political ambitions on the issue. With the BJP supporting the cause of a separate Telangana, the Congress has been cornered. This is a promise the Congress had made in its manifesto for the Andhra Pradesh elections in 2004. It had also been mentioned in the UPA Government's National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP).
Dismantling the giant
Close on the heels of Telangana is the demand for splitting Uttar Pradesh. Though Panikkar had written a note of dissent in the final SRC report and recommended breaking up Uttar Pradesh, he had invited the wrath of Nehru and GB Pant. The senior politicians thought this was an attempt to reduce the clout of Uttar Pradesh and was absolutely unnecessary.
A half-century later, the Congress, which is battling to inch back into Uttar Pradesh's political arena, has pulled this rabbit out of the hat. In the process it has surprised its own functionaries. After BSP czarina Mayawati swept the State and gave the Congress a scare as a spoiler in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, the Congress has found this new formula to re-invent itself in Uttar Pradesh.
However, as soon as the Congress proposed Bundelkhand and while heir-apparent Rahul Gandhi was still mouthing the "we want smaller States" line, Mayawati called for trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh, with a Harit Pradesh being carved out of 23 districts in the western part of the State.
Now, the biggest question before the Congress is whether to constitute a second SRC and allow it to examine the issue.
Flip flop flip
The SRC question could stump the UPA coalition at the Centre. The Left's reservations are well known. The Left parties feel an SRC would revive the Gorkhaland demand in Darjeeling/North Bengal. It was on the Left's insistence that the promise of a second SRC was dropped from the NCMP. The Congress could only manage to include Telangana in a single-line mention: "The UPA Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due consultations and consensus."
So if the Left's objections could stall the crucial India-United States nuclear deal, the Congress-led Government would not take chances with SRC formation. That is why the Congress is now trying to delink the issue of Telangana from an SRC. Congress media department chairman M Veerappa Moily says: "The Telangana issue should not be linked to SRC formation. Our stance is what is mentioned in the NCMP and the Congress stands by it."
The Left's reluctance has seen the Congress eat its words. On January 9, party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said at the official Press briefing that there would be no new State without an SRC. Five days later, his colleague Abhishek Singhvi was equally categorical: "The issue of setting up an SRC or creation of a State is a matter for the Government to decide. In the event that the Government believes that the demand for creation of States is valid, then the Congress would have absolutely no objection. And if it indeed thinks it is a better route to set up an SRC, because issues of economic viability, historical claim, sustainability ... (these would) would be looked at by an expert body."
Within two days, the Congress enthusiasm was waning. Again at the official Press briefing Singhvi said, "The Congress is in agreement in general on smaller States but each individual case has to be decided on its merits." When asked if that meant an SRC would not be formed, Singhvi was evasive: "The Prime Minister has himself clarified that there is no proposal under active consideration of the Government. This does not mean an SRC won't be set up. It only means that it is not being set up for the time being."
The change came after feedback from the Andhra Pradesh Congress unit that the move to form an SRC could be interpreted as a delaying tactic, by the votaries of Telengana.
To be or not to be
Nevertheless, the SRC issue has given way to a bigger debate: should India have smaller States? Gradually demands for States on linguistic lines or even ethnic ones (Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) have moved to the economic development argument. However, there remains a fear that more States could lead to divisive politics.
There are examples of unending disputes. Orissa has been demanding the return of Saraikela and Kharsuan from Jharkhand. Nagaland wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam to create Nagalim. Disputes over State boundaries and water sharing may only multiply. There are also concerns about economically viability or constant, Goa-type political turmoil.
The BJP has always been in favour of smaller States. While in power at the Centre, the NDA had carved out Uttaranchal (present day Uttarakhand), Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha says: "There is no need to constitute a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC). We formed three new States without an SRC. If the demands of the people are well-defined then what is needed is will power and sensitivity."
The party does not make much of the economic viability factor. Sinha says, "This question has been raised time and again. Even when Uttarakhand was being formed, economic viability was the main concern for many. But everything is fine now. It depends on the Government. Look at Jharkhand, which is a State rich in minerals and natural resources. But the Government hasn't done anything."
Opening Pandora's Box
Formation of an SRC could trigger demands other than Bundelkhand and Telangana. There could be a demand for Gondwana, comprising portions of Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh; Kodagu from Karnataka's coffee belt, Bodoland from Assam; Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir; Garoland from Meghalaya; Mithilanchal from Bihar; and, of course, Gorkhaland from Bengal.
This could well open a Pandora's Box that would be difficult for any Government or political party to close. It could even make a simple school examination question - "How many states are there in India?" -- a challenging one. Certainly, the correct answer in 2008 may not hold true in even another year or two.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/AGENDA1.asp?ma...t&counter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From Telengana to Bundelkhand, new states are suddenly in season. But there is a problem. The Congress, as Nidhi Sharma reports, can't make up its mind whether another States Reorganisation Commission is a vote winner or an ally loser --
India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
So declared the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, when it gave India its Constitution. Sixty years on, India has come a long way from being a collective of 562 princely states scarred by Partition to a self-assured nation of 28 states.Â
However, once again, the Indian polity is faced with a question that was posed to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru: Should India be divided into smaller States if the people of a region so demand? Nehru was a well-known opponent of creating States on linguistic lines. But a fast-unto-death forced him to change his mind.
It all started with Potti Sriramulu, a freedom fighter and a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. In 1952, Sriramulu fasted for 50 days demanding a separate state for Telugus (today's Andhra Pradesh) and died. Moved by the death of the 51-year-old Sriramulu, Nehru formed a three-member States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953 to look into regional demands.
Chaired by Justice Fazl Ali -- KM Panikkar and HN Kunzru were the other members - the SRC redrew India's internal boundaries. Three years later new States, including Andhra Pradesh, were formed.
Over the past fortnight, the scene has once again shifted to Andhra Pradesh. The demand for a separate State of Telangana is as old as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though the first SRC had also explored the pros and cons of Telangana, it had ruled in favour of a "Vishal Andhra" (United or Greater Andhra), observing public opinion in Telangana had not "crystallised".
The demand has resurfaced now under Telangana leader K Chandashekhar Rao. Cine-star Chiranjeevi, who hails from Telangana, is also keen to peg his political ambitions on the issue. With the BJP supporting the cause of a separate Telangana, the Congress has been cornered. This is a promise the Congress had made in its manifesto for the Andhra Pradesh elections in 2004. It had also been mentioned in the UPA Government's National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP).
Dismantling the giant
Close on the heels of Telangana is the demand for splitting Uttar Pradesh. Though Panikkar had written a note of dissent in the final SRC report and recommended breaking up Uttar Pradesh, he had invited the wrath of Nehru and GB Pant. The senior politicians thought this was an attempt to reduce the clout of Uttar Pradesh and was absolutely unnecessary.
A half-century later, the Congress, which is battling to inch back into Uttar Pradesh's political arena, has pulled this rabbit out of the hat. In the process it has surprised its own functionaries. After BSP czarina Mayawati swept the State and gave the Congress a scare as a spoiler in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, the Congress has found this new formula to re-invent itself in Uttar Pradesh.
However, as soon as the Congress proposed Bundelkhand and while heir-apparent Rahul Gandhi was still mouthing the "we want smaller States" line, Mayawati called for trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh, with a Harit Pradesh being carved out of 23 districts in the western part of the State.
Now, the biggest question before the Congress is whether to constitute a second SRC and allow it to examine the issue.
Flip flop flip
The SRC question could stump the UPA coalition at the Centre. The Left's reservations are well known. The Left parties feel an SRC would revive the Gorkhaland demand in Darjeeling/North Bengal. It was on the Left's insistence that the promise of a second SRC was dropped from the NCMP. The Congress could only manage to include Telangana in a single-line mention: "The UPA Government will consider the demand for the formation of a Telangana State at an appropriate time after due consultations and consensus."
So if the Left's objections could stall the crucial India-United States nuclear deal, the Congress-led Government would not take chances with SRC formation. That is why the Congress is now trying to delink the issue of Telangana from an SRC. Congress media department chairman M Veerappa Moily says: "The Telangana issue should not be linked to SRC formation. Our stance is what is mentioned in the NCMP and the Congress stands by it."
The Left's reluctance has seen the Congress eat its words. On January 9, party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said at the official Press briefing that there would be no new State without an SRC. Five days later, his colleague Abhishek Singhvi was equally categorical: "The issue of setting up an SRC or creation of a State is a matter for the Government to decide. In the event that the Government believes that the demand for creation of States is valid, then the Congress would have absolutely no objection. And if it indeed thinks it is a better route to set up an SRC, because issues of economic viability, historical claim, sustainability ... (these would) would be looked at by an expert body."
Within two days, the Congress enthusiasm was waning. Again at the official Press briefing Singhvi said, "The Congress is in agreement in general on smaller States but each individual case has to be decided on its merits." When asked if that meant an SRC would not be formed, Singhvi was evasive: "The Prime Minister has himself clarified that there is no proposal under active consideration of the Government. This does not mean an SRC won't be set up. It only means that it is not being set up for the time being."
The change came after feedback from the Andhra Pradesh Congress unit that the move to form an SRC could be interpreted as a delaying tactic, by the votaries of Telengana.
To be or not to be
Nevertheless, the SRC issue has given way to a bigger debate: should India have smaller States? Gradually demands for States on linguistic lines or even ethnic ones (Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) have moved to the economic development argument. However, there remains a fear that more States could lead to divisive politics.
There are examples of unending disputes. Orissa has been demanding the return of Saraikela and Kharsuan from Jharkhand. Nagaland wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam to create Nagalim. Disputes over State boundaries and water sharing may only multiply. There are also concerns about economically viability or constant, Goa-type political turmoil.
The BJP has always been in favour of smaller States. While in power at the Centre, the NDA had carved out Uttaranchal (present day Uttarakhand), Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha says: "There is no need to constitute a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC). We formed three new States without an SRC. If the demands of the people are well-defined then what is needed is will power and sensitivity."
The party does not make much of the economic viability factor. Sinha says, "This question has been raised time and again. Even when Uttarakhand was being formed, economic viability was the main concern for many. But everything is fine now. It depends on the Government. Look at Jharkhand, which is a State rich in minerals and natural resources. But the Government hasn't done anything."
Opening Pandora's Box
Formation of an SRC could trigger demands other than Bundelkhand and Telangana. There could be a demand for Gondwana, comprising portions of Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh; Kodagu from Karnataka's coffee belt, Bodoland from Assam; Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir; Garoland from Meghalaya; Mithilanchal from Bihar; and, of course, Gorkhaland from Bengal.
This could well open a Pandora's Box that would be difficult for any Government or political party to close. It could even make a simple school examination question - "How many states are there in India?" -- a challenging one. Certainly, the correct answer in 2008 may not hold true in even another year or two.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/AGENDA1.asp?ma...t&counter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->