With the Presidential assent for creation of three states Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh, and
Jharkhand, the number of states in Indian Union will increase to 28. This is in
addition to the existing six centrally administered states and one National Capital
Territory of Delhi. Keeping in view the prevailing social fragmentation followed by
political turmoil in several parts of the country, the creation of new states may now
embolden the parochial and sectarian forces to aggressively build up pressure on the
Government for further internal division of the country.
The Union Powers Committee of the Constituent Assembly in its
recommendations said, "the soundest framework of our Constitution is a Federation
with strong centre." ( President K.R.Narayanan in his forward to a book –
‘Dimension of Federal Nation Building - Maniac Publications ).
There is a view that India as a union under a federal structure
is still in the making. A federal structure can remain only so long as there is a
strong central leadership acceptable to all the states. In absence of such a
leadership the very spirit of the Indian Constitution favouring federal structure of the
country is getting diluted.
The Indian Constitution starting with Article 1.1 says that
"India that is Bharat, shall be Union of States" and its Article 3 has empowered
the parliament that it "may by law form a new state by separation of territory from
any state or by uniting two or more states or part of the states or by uniting any
territory to a part of any state …." The spirit behind this concept of federal
structure of the country with a strong centre as envisaged in the Constitution was to
ensure the geographical, political and economic unification of the diverse Indian society
for the overall welfare and equal opportunities for the growth of its people.
Contrary to the internal division of India into Provinces by the
Britishers for their administrative convenience and imperial needs, the basic objective
behind federal India with reorganisation of states was to ensure the unity of the nation
and prosperity of the people. Unity is an inherent force in diverse Indian society, even
though it is fragmented and segmented at every level of its existence. Therefore this
uniqueness of India is its real strength and there is need to preserve it as such at any
cost.
Prof. Rasiduddin Khan in his book – "Federal India: A
Design for Change" said, "it is the unity born out of the interdependence of the
diverse socio-cultural entities that pass through the stages of competition, conflict and
reconciliation, and realise that in mutual confrontation, they might themselves destroy
each other, while in reciprocal cooperation they can thrive jointly and severally".
The question is whether the unending internal territorial division of the country
mostly on political considerations, make the centre progressively weak, adversely
affecting the unity and prosperity of the people?
During the freedom movement, the Indian National Congress had
favoured the provincial division of the country on linguistic basis. The Nehru Committee
of All Parties Conference in 1928 said "language as a rule corresponds with a special
variety of culture, tradition and literature. In the linguistic area all these
factors will help in the general progress of the province." However, after
attaining Independence the top leaders of the Congress were not unanimous on provincial
division of the country on linguistic basis.
The Linguistic Provinces Commission also known as Dhar
Commission, which was appointed by the Government on June 17, 1948 at the recommendation
of Constituent Assembly considered it "inadvisable" to reorganise the Provinces
mainly on linguistic basis. It suggested that geographical continuity, and financial
self sufficiency, administrative convenience, capacity for future development should be
generally the recognised test for reorganisation of provinces. Similarly, the
Jawaharlal-Vallabhbhai- Pattabi Committee, that was appointed in the same year by the
Indian National Congress in its findings sounded a caution against linguistic principles
and shifted its emphasis on security, unity and economic prosperity of the country for
reorganisation of states.
In the absence of unanimity among the then central leadership on
provincial division on linguistic consideration, reorganisation of states was kept in
abeyance for some time. However, Sriramalu, a prominent Congress leader from Telugu
speaking region of the then Madras Province went on fast unto death from October 19, 1952
demanding a separate state for Telugu speaking people. Large scale violence that
followed his death after 56 days of fasting on December 15, 1952, compelled the Government
to announce the creation of the first state on linguistic consideration and Andhra Pradesh
was formally created on October 1, 1953. This opened a flood gate of demands for
creation of new states and the Government finally appointed a State Reorganisation
Commission (SRC) in 1954 with Justice Fazl Ali as Chairman and Hriday Nath Kunzru and
K.M.Pannikar as members. By and large the SRC recommended creation of states taking
into consideration the preservation of the unity and security of the nation, linguistic
and cultural affinity of the people and financial, economic and administrative viability.
Against the recommendation of 16 states and three centrally
administered territories by the SRC, the Government implemented the recommendation in 1956
after approving 14 states including Andhra Pradesh, which was created earlier in 1953 and
six centrally administered territories. The reorganization of states however, could hardly
satisfy the people of various segments of Indian society and demands for further new
states based on linguistic, ethnic and some other considerations became a part of the
polity. The leaders of both the Central as well as State Governments were found more
and more interested to remain in power than to look into the basic needs of the people.
They did not like to decentralise power to ensure the transfer of resources and removal of
economic imbalances down to the grass-root level.
Accumulation of frustration among the people encouraged
unscrupulous elements to raise the demand for new states for acquiring arbitrary power.
Their aggressive demands and weakening central leadership compelled the government to
divide some of the existing states namely Bombay (1960), Punjab (1966) and Assam (1963,
1970 and 1972) by creating Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and
NEFA. Sikkim became a new state after its merger with India in 1975. While Nagaland
and Mizoram were created with only one Hill District each, Meghalaya had only two Hill
Districts in its share. Though the concept behind the formation of smaller states
was to ensure the closeness between administration and the people it was not applied with
uniformity. Gradually political turmoil and social tension on this issue became so
acute that it has now become difficult for any Government at centre to withstand the
unending parochial and sectarian demands for new states.
Closeness between the administration and the people could not
have been the only reason for the formation of the three new states. The states have been
truncated on other grounds for political reasons rather than on the language, ethnic or
administrative basis. In the absence of uniform and justifiable criteria, people from
other states may also clamour for further division. Where will this end?
With the decks cleared for three more states, demands for
separate Bodoland and Gorkhaland are bound to become intense and aggressive. Similarly,
the demands for separate new states like Vidarbha, Bundelkand, Telangana, Vindhya Pradesh,
Mahakaushal, Purvanchal, Harit Pradesh and Mithilanchal have already been raised by the
leaders of respective regions of Maharashrtra,Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar. Some of the theoretical demands for new states that have been haunting
the minds of some ambitious intellectuals and rejected politicians may now take a
practical shape for agitation. These states are Magadh, Bhojpuri Pradesh, Angika Pradesh,
Bajjika Pradesh and Seemanchal from Bihar, Udayachal, and Kamatapur from Assam, Braj
Pradesh and Rohilkhand from UP, Malwa from MP, Mewar from Rajasthan and Kuchh and
Saurastra from Gujarat.
The on going dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over
sharing of Cauveri water, between Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka over the height of Almati
dam and territorial disputes among other states are proofs that internal division of the
country on diverse consideration could hardly be an effective force to unify the people of
the country. There could be more disputes and not less with further division of the
country.
Our past experience shows that even after creation of new states,
people of the regions are not found emotionally united. Meghalaya was created on ethnic
consideration, but the Khasi and Garo two prominent tribes of the state do not have
cordial relations. No political leader of the state can identify himself as a leader
acceptable to the people of whole state of Meghalaya. They are simply the leaders of their
respective tribes. Similarly, in the case of new Jharkhand state, various tribes like
Munda, Oraon, Santhal, Ho, Kharia and others, belonging to different ethnic and linguistic
groups have hardly produced any leader who could command all these segmented tribes under
one umbrella for long. If one sees unity in the three newly formed states, it could
only be a temporary phase as disputes are sure to arise when the question of sharing of
power, privileges and status come up. Even in a small state like Uttaranchal, people
belong to two distinctive divisions Garhwal and Kumaon and are linguistically separate
groups and not a cohesive unit. With such inherent contradictions the territorial division
of the existing three states on ethnic, linguistic and political considerations will
hardly serve the national interest of the country.
A diverse Indian society like that of India requires
honest and charismatic leaders, who have a vision and who could infuse the inherent
force of unity among the people. Currently there are hardly any. The
unlimited creation of new states will therefore neither unify the people nor make them
prosperous.
There has to be a national debate whether India can afford more
and more states and yet keep the centre strong, united and prosperous. Why can’t an
effort be made for a consensus at the level of National Integration Council and some
uniform policy is adopted before the formation of new states?
Perhaps our political guardians are always content with the
policy of adhocism, which suits their political interests and not the national interests.
