"The problem of reorganisation of states is urgent... the country has to think in terms of enduring political units. The integration of states has removed the main hurdle in the way of rationalisation of existing units. Further deferment of a general reorganisation will cause dissatisfaction and disappointment."—States Reorganisation Commission, 1956
GOING on five decades, that observation is as potent as ever. Only the political landscape has changed, so have the impulses of history. Instead of one big party, there are now several entities reaching for the reins, each staking claim to the Centre with its own formula for governance. New Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, in a clear bid to seize the initiative, has picked up on a prickly issue—the restructuring of the Indian map itself. It is an acute dilemma: should he go in for short-term political gains, at the risk of opening up a Pandora's box of similar demands.
The movements for smaller states have always been a touchy issue—an often mismatched orchestra of demands that everyone loved agreeing with in spirit, but not conceding. Some because it would trim their areas of influence, others on the plea that it would open a can of worms. Vajpayee, in his second week as prime minister, has taken the issue head-on. Topping his agenda is three new and smaller states, to be carved from existing ones—Uttarakhand, Vananchal and Chattisgarh. The party is dead-serious: it has championed—some say hijacked—these demands for some years now, they figured on the national agenda, and also in the customary President's address.
In principle, no one doubts the logic. Smaller states are easier to manage; they've had higher growth rates in independent India. The opposing, centralising impulse too is strong: after all, given the country's divergent ethnic and cultural units, where do you stop? What is the cut-off point?
Sample some demands, none inherently weaker than the other, but together imposing in their sheer number—Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra; Telangana in Andhra Pradesh; Bodoland in Assam; Mahakosala in Orissa; Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir; Gorkhaland in West Bengal; Greater Nagaland; Mithilanchal in Bihar; Vindhya Pradesh and many more. They all refer back to a pre-British, provincial and cultural truth. The point now is, what is entailed—in administrative terms—in granting them statehood?
ties have been elaborated, the logistics have been ignored. Says senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan: "In theory, it's a good move. But I would question the motives here. The move to carve out Uttarakhand is bound to affect poll arithmetic. After all, if you've helped carve out a state, you'd expect votes from there." It will also help the BJP avoid some thorny problems it faces in UP today, like its avowedly anti-Dalit agenda, he adds.
That other parties, though hazy in strategy, wouldn't mind sharing the spoils is clear. Says Congress general secretary Jitendra Prasada: "The demand for Uttarakhand was adopted at the AICC's Calcutta session. But the BJP is unclear about policy...would they like to form a States Reorganisation Commission?" Adds Congress' Jairam Ramesh: "Earlier, L.K. Advani was in favour of forming such a Commission. But he has changed his position since then."
But the BJP says it is firm on its commitment. According to general secretary Govindacharya, the party will go ahead with its plan to carve out smaller states. "These are long-standing demands of the people." But the modalities? "That you will have to ask the government," quips Govindacharya. What if other cultural/linguistic units make similar demands? Party ideologue K.R. Malkani confirms that each demand can be considered on merit. "As long as there is consensus, where is the problem?" Former home secretary K. Padmanabhaiah agrees: "The government must say no to unjustified demands."
The RSS, the BJP's guiding light, does not like to envision India as an entity that stresses too much on its multiple elements, it is uneasy with the old cacophony of ethnic identities. Traditionally, it espouses the cause of transforming India into a strong monolith. But the issue is so complex that even the RSS position showed rare contradictions. Golwalkar opposed the linguistic reorganisation in 1956, Jan Sangh chief Deen Dayal Upadhyay advocated 60 states.
Says VHP's Acharya Giriraj Kishore: "Changes have to be incorporated in everything. There is a federal system and it cannot be changed unless you have a two-thirds majority." At the other end, the CPI(M) has always opposed linguistic divisions. Says politburo member Prakash Karat: "Small is not essentially beautiful. In our view, the State Reorganisation Committee submitted its recommendation in 1960. After that we don't see the need for more states."
Then, there are state-level heavyweights. In Bihar, Laloo Yadav is certain to oppose Vananchal. The proposed state comprises areas that the BJP has now almost totally wrested from the scattered pro-Jharkhand forces—thanks to the groundwork done by RSS cadres among tribals.But Laloo is sure to resist: "The BJP can announce anything. That doesn't mean I'll let it happen." Sources close to him say the RJD leader may even launch an agitation should the need arise.
When Laloo took over as CM in '90, he had opposed the Jharkhand demand—after all, south Bihar (along with the adjoining tribal areas of Orissa, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh which the Jharkhand lobby was claiming) was one of the richest mineral areas in India and he didn't want it to go out of Bihar's control.He had to scale down his stand in the face of a prolonged economic blockade and had a resolution endorsing Jharkhand passed in the assembly. That, now, has become the basis of the BJP blueprint.
A separate Uttarakhand—or Uttaranchal, as the BJP prefers to call it—comprising 11 hill districts of UP was long overdue. Deve Gowda as PM had taken everyone by surprise when he announced from the ramparts of Red Fort that Uttarakhand would become a reality. The seeds had been sown during a popular mass movement that swept across the region in '94 against Mulayam Singh Yadav's 27 per cent OBC quota in educational institutions.
But ultimately it's the BJP that reaped the political harvest. Playing its cards astutely, it cashed in on the wave and spread its base. Having won all four Lok Sabha and 17 of the 19 assembly seats from the region, a grateful BJP has now responded to secure its future.
Although the demand was first made at the Karachi session of the Congress in 1928, it was later picked up by P.C. Joshi, general secretary of the undivided Communist Party in 1952. Known for the historic Chipko and anti-liquor movements, the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal, founded in 1979, championed the cause. But the movement didn't take off till Mulayam's move—a 2% local OBC population would have meant outsiders filling up the quota. The normally quiet Himalayan districts were thrown into turmoil. Says Shekhar Pathak, an activist and reader in Kumaon University: "There are streaks of regionalism and anti-reservationism in the movement. And, of course, a strong shade of upper caste influence manifested in its anti-Dalit and anti-minorities slogans."
In Madhya Pradesh, the BJP has been pushing for a separate Chattisgarh. Says Union minister of Steel and Mines Ramesh Vais, who won from Raipur, its proposed headquarters: "We are committed to its creation. This is a matter of priority for our government."
Predictably, all this has raised hopes in other areas. Take Vidarbha—the demand for a separate state goes back to the time it joined Maharashtra 38 years ago. "We have a stronger case than others. Our demand won't be pushed through bloodshed. We would like to get our state through consensus," says Congress MP Vilas Muttemwar. He is among the region's 11 MPs —Congress and RPI—who met Prime Minister Vajpayee last week.
Brushing aside the argument that the state legislature needs to push forth the demand before the Centre can take cognizance and grant it, former Nagpur MP Banwarilal Purohit says this cannot be the case in Maharahstra. "The Shiv Sena will not certainly be a party to such a step. It is a just demand from the people of this region." According to Purohit, one of the main reasons for the BJP being wiped out in this area (from six out of 11 to none) is their backtracking on the statehood issue. In deference to Sena supremo Bal Thackeray, the BJP dropped a long-standing demand of theirs. The Congress hijacked its plan and the rest is history.
Clearly, the biggest impact is likely to be felt in the Northeast. The most prominent being the demand for Bodoland—the plains tribals of Assam have been demanding a separate state for 30 years. Between '87-'93, the All-India Bodo Students Union and associate organisations were engaged in a prolonged agitation demanding a state on the banks of the Brahmaputra. Says ABSU president Urkhao Gwra Brahma: "We've tried the autonomous council concept, it hasn't worked, only a separate state would fulfil our aspirations."
Says ABSU president S.K. Bwiswmutiary, the main signatory of the hastily put together accord between the government and Bodos in February 1993 and who voted for the BJP during the no-confidence vote: "We are very disappointed that the BJP has not included the demand for the creation of a separate state of Bodoland in its agenda." The disbelief comes with a veiled threat: "We will review our decision if the Vajpayee government fails to consider our demand."
But even if the government were to grant Bodoland, there are several other tribes/peoples who want the same. For instance, the Karbi and Dimasa tribals of two hill districts of Assam, North Cachar and Karbi Anglong, were given the option to join Megh-alaya when the Northeast was reorganised in 1971, but they decided to stay with Assam. By the mid-80s, however, a movement for an autonomous state under article 244 (A) of the Constitution had begun in these two districts spearheaded by the Autonomous State Demand Committee, an organisation affiliated to the CPI(ML).
Then there is the demand for a separate Garo state in Meghalaya. When Indira Gandhi granted a separate state of Meghalaya, three distinct tribes, Khasis, Garos and Jaintias, got together to come out of the composite state of Assam. Today, over a quarter of century later, both Garos and Khasis want separate states for themselves. In fact, so deep is the divide between the two that the new government's formation was based on ethnic considerations. Nagaland is home to the oldest insurgency in Asia. Fiercely independent groups want all Naga-inhabited areas in a Greater Nagaland.
Surprisingly in Darjeeling, home to the Gorkhas, the reaction to the BJP proposals have been muted. Gorkha National Liberation front (GNLF) chief Subhas Ghising has reacted only by pressing for a one-time sanction of Central funds for the autonomous Gorkha Hill Council. Indian prime ministers have stayed clear off troubled waters, with good reason. Says GNLF vice-president Paras Dutt: "We do not support the demand for smaller states on electoral or other considerations. We have to see whether the area has the economic wherewithal to form a self-sufficient entity." Even BJP ally, Mamata Banerjee, has made it clear that the state can't be partitioned.
In the South, the agitation to get a state for backward Telangana in Andhra Pradesh is likely to gain momentum. While the demand for a separate state is as old as the independence movement itself, Nehru after the first States Reorganisation Commission formed a regional committee giving Telangana statutory powers. A move which was opposed by then chief minister Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy on the grounds that you could not have a state inside another state. The three Congress MPs from the region, K.M. Khan and V. Hanumantha (Rajya Sabha) and B.N. Reddy (Lok Sabha), have already met Sonia Gandhi to launch an agitation; the BJP also mentioned a state for Telangana in its manifesto.
The spillover is everywhere. Pondicherry, where statehood has been an issue since the early '70s, now demand real powers to its assembly—at the moment the Lt Governor wields the executive powers. Their other key demand is more fiscal powers: of the territory's Rs 750 crore annual outlay, more than 70 per cent comes in the form of Central assistance. An identical situation exists in Delhi.
The issue will obviously hot up in the days to come. Says Union Home Secretary B.P. Singh: "The government is required to send a reference to the state legislatures. Then, it will have to go to Parliament. A fresh reference is being sent to the UP assembly." Retorts Jairam Ramesh: "The BJP proposals are dangerous. If everyone starts making these demands, it could lead to the creation of 500 princely states." Counters BJP leader S.S. Bhandari: "If the people want it that way, what could we do about it?" That indeed is a question that everyone may be talking about in the near future.
Tags