Small gives big headache! By Poonam I Kaushish
“It will be a folly to ignore realities; facts take their revenge if they are not faced squarely and well.” Independent India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s wise words have come to haunt the Congress-led UPA Government II as never before. All over the appalling mess it finds itself in over the Srikrishna Committee report on carving out Telangana from Andhra Pradesh. Forgetting that once it revisited the Pandora’s Box of creating a new State it would be caught in a quagmire, difficult to extricate itself. Akin to a madhumakhi ka chatha, chedhoge toh pashtaohge”!
Undoubtedly, if the Centre hoped that it could defuse the Telengana crisis created by anointing the Srikrishna panel, its hopes have been dashed. Instead, the report is not only predictable, wishy-washy but an utter waste of time. Worse, it has added to UPA II headache whereby it is once again back to square one: trying to buy time. Leading to an identity crisis!
Scandalously, after pondering over the issue for over a year, the five-member Committee in its voluminous 800-page report lists six options, but plums for an united Andhra with special Constitutional measures for development of the Telangana region. Two, bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana, three, Telangana and Andhra as separate States with Hyderabad as Telangana’s Capital.
Four, Hyderabad be made a Union Territory along-with the two regions developing their own Capitals, five, divide Andhra into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions, with Hyderabad as an integral part of Rayala-Telangana. Last but not the least, the creation of a statutory empowered Telangana Regional Council.
Predictably, the panel’s suggestion could not have come at a more inopportune time. Already battling corruption scandals, burgeoning prices and rising inflation the report has ignited tempers and created further division. While the pro-Telangana people have raised the pitch for Statehood and have hardened their position, leaders for a united Andhra cry foul. Leaving the Congress and Government badly bruised and dented.
Importantly, Andhra has been the biggest contributor to the Congress kitty in the Lok Sabha since the last two elections thanks to late chief minister Y S R Reddy and his pro-farmer policies. Out of 42 Lok Sabha seats, 17 fall in Telangana. If the Party delays its decision on Telangana, it could lose substantial ground to the TRS and BJP in the region.
Further, if the Congress tilts towards creating Telengana then 25 seats in the Andhra and Rayalseema region would split between the Party and erstwhile ‘problem child’ Jaganmohan Reddy’s new party. Either which way, the Party’s strongest Southern bastion weakens.
Not only that. The Centre also has to grapple with the communal fall-out of the new State. Given that the raison d atre is Hyderabad between the two warring sides. Currently the Muslim population of Telangana is 4.5% but, if Hyderabad goes with it then the total Muslim population would touch 12.5%. Whereby, small regional outfits like the Hyderabad-based All India Majlis-e-Ittihad al-Muslim would become increasing crucial for the ruling dispensation.
Pertinently, all eyes are on the Centre’s next move. Specially, against the backdrop that already, over 10 new entrants are rearing to go. That the task is tough can be gauged from the fact the issue is both emotive and politically sensitive, against the backdrop of many regions and sub-regions aspiring to be full-fledged States.
Besides Telengana, there is demand for Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Harit Pradesh out of Western UP, Bundelkhand and Purvanchal out of south-eastern UP, Gondwana from portions of Chhattisgarh, Andhra and Madhya Pradesh, Kodagu in Karnataka’s coffee belt, Bodoland from Assam, Ladakh from Kashmir, Garoland from Meghalaya, Mithilanchal from North Bihar and Gorkhaland in West Bengal.
Nobody can deny that a few States in India are much too large and unwieldy for efficient governance. It takes nearly two days to get to Jhansi from Lucknow by road! Obviously, administrative efficiency is the first casualty. Recent experience shows that smaller States are able to meet the rising expectations and aspirations of their people for speedy development and a responsive and effective administration. Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and, earlier, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are cases in point.
Haryana, a barren backyard of united Punjab largely comprising illiterate jats, was carved out of a prosperous Punjab after a long and patient struggle. So also Himachal. Ditto Uttarakhand from UP, Jharkhand from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh. Today, all are shining examples of “small is beautiful”.
However, protagonists of bigger States disagree. 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, Punjab and Haryana.) Bring about a synthesis between the haves and the have-nots. A linguistic and cultural affinity. 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.
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 the return of Saraikala and Kharsuan. Nagaland still wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam. Bihar yearns desperately for the mineral-rich districts of Jharkhand.
Also, as Jharkhand has shown, small States do not translate into a panacea to development, resource allocation and governance. Remember Koda, who milked the State of over Rs 4000 crores. Clearly, demonstrating that small isn’t always beautiful!
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. Unfortunately for the Centre, its policy of going populist time and again and opting for quick-fix remedies has once again boomeranged. Our netas must realize that statesmanship and wisdom lie in adopting the middle path. It needs to learn from the mistakes of the recently carved small States, diagnose the disease afresh and hammer out solutions for better governance. Instead of buying time.
Much can be achieved through meaningful decentralization. Let us not allow politicians of all hues to create new pocket boroughs motivated by petty personal interests, undermining national unity. Questionably, are we now going to roll back history to pre-Independence days and create 562 States? Will not a further partition of the existing States result in an India that would fit Jinnah’s classical description of Pakistan as being “truncated and moth-eaten”?
The time has come to bolt the door, politics willing. It remains to be seen whether the Congress-led UPA Government will come out smelling of roses or reek of rotten eggs. Let not history record what Conrad Egbert once brilliantly stated: We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history! INFA