National

A Haphazard Barter

The proposed Vananchal departs from the Jharkand movement's historical nature. With a Sanskritised name, it has been divorced from the JMM. And by limiting it to Bihar, its reach has been truncated.

Advertisement

A Haphazard Barter
info_icon

IN the National Agenda for Governance, the BJP has announced that it will proceed with the formation of three new states—Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chattisgarh. The decision has already aroused a storm of protest. Non-BJP parties, particularly the JMM, in the Bihar assembly rejected the idea of an independent Vananchal, which is slated to be carved out of the state. On the other hand, the Congress and JD members in the Orissa assembly protested vociferously against what they perceived as the division of their state. This makes sense when we remember that the original demand for a state of Jharkand by the JMM includes three districts of Orissa—Mayurbhanj, Sundergarh and Keonjhar. Leader of the Opposition Ramkrushna Patnaik assured members that Vananchal would be confined only to Bihar.

Advertisement

Therein lies the problem. The Jharkand movement has a long, protracted history. Essentially it has sought to bring together the tribal areas in Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal to forge a state that can develop the culture, language and economy of the region autonomously. The Bihar assembly has in the past adopted resolutions sanctioning its formation. The present proposal, however, departs from the historical nature of the movement in two crucial ways. It has opted for the Sanskritic name Vananchal rather than Jharkand that has been given by the tribal people. In the process it has divorced the region from the JMM, which has consistently fought for statehood. Secondly, it has truncated the reach and range of the proposed state by restraining it to Bihar.

Advertisement

Actually the BJP and its alliance partners have not specified what the creation of Vananchal will entail. If they are committed to a state where the tribal population will be able to develop its culture,logically the original demand for Jharkand should have been considered in full. The general suspicion is that the decision to confine Vananchal to Bihar has much to do with rewarding the area. The Samata-BJP combine has won 12 out of the 19 seats in the state from this region. But only one representative from this area has got a ministerial berth. This has caused resentment among the people. The decision to award statehood to Vananchal may have something to do with assuaging their feelings.

More importantly, other movements can ask why their demands have not been met. Why not Vidarbha, Telangana, Bodoland, Gorkhaland, Mithilanchal, Vindhya Pradesh and Mahakosal? The movement for Telangana in particular has gained tremendous momentum in Andhra Pradesh. But it has not received any attention by the BJP, no doubt on account of political compulsions, not the merits of the case. For it is obvious that the BJP cannot risk offending Chandrababu Naidu by acknowledging the demands of the Telangana movement. Similarly, the move to recognise the claims of Vidarbha to statehood, have already been shot down by the BJP ally, the Shiv Sena.

Advertisement

But the claims to these regions may be more persuasive than that of Uttaranchal, for instance. The movement is a recent one and exhibits all the signs of political immaturity. Representing a largely upper-caste constituency, the leadership has no ideology to speak of, except that of anti-reservations. If the state is being granted on the basis that UP is too large for administrative convenience, then why not three states that correspond to regional distinctiveness?

The case of Chattisgarh is different. The region has witnessed one of the most powerful movements under the Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha. The people of the area have shown tremendous political awareness and maturity, as exhibited in their definition of who is a citizen of Chattisgarh. A Chattisgarhi must work in the region and should not exploit the resources of the region for personal profit. Membership is thus conceived of as being based on labour and non-exploitation. It doesn't matter if the person speaks a different language or belongs to a different region of India. Correspondingly, the Morcha defines the enemies of the region as those who exploit both the masses and the natural resources of the area. Even if these people have been born in the region, and even if they speak the language, they are the enemies of a "New Chattisgarh for a New India". This, in stark contrast to the politics of exclusivity that marks other regional movements, is part of a wider programme of forging solidarity among the oppressed.

Advertisement

Now, there is no reason why new states should not be formed on the basis of language and socio-cultural affinities. Though considerable doubt was expressed during the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly about the wisdom of dividing existing states and creating new ones, a State Reorganisation Commission was set up in 1953. In 1956 the State Reorganisation Act was adopted. Four principles governed the panel's recommendations. Firstly, the creation of new states should strengthen and preserve the country's unity. Secondly, states were to be formed on the basis of linguistic and cultural homogeneity. Thirdly, financial, economic and administrative considerations should govern the setting up of a new state. Fourthly, the formation of the state should aid the successful working of the five-year plans.

Advertisement

Whatever be the problems that attended the formation of states on the basis of language, at least considerable thought went into the process. In contrast, the BJP'S decision seems haphazard. The prime minister has stated that there is no need to set up a State Reorganisation Commission since the respective states have already adopted resolutions on the issue. But the resolutions that have been adopted in the respective assemblies referred to a definite geographical area. And neither the proposal of an independent Vananchal nor that of Uttaranchal corresponds to the geographical area mentioned in the respective resolutions. The resolution to set up an independent Chattisgarh has been taken too far back in time to merit any serious attention.

The creation of new states is a serious matter that needs to be considered and reflected upon with some care. It certainly cannot be left to the exigencies of political decision-making alone. Some principle of political consistency has to be conceptualised. Therefore, the setting up of an appropriate and competent body to examine each case on its merits will ensure some amount of impartiality. The other issue is simply this. Federalism in India is already in a mess. For, there is little consensus on what form the federal principle should take. The BJP is itself committed to a centralised polity. Prior to the decision to carve out new states, therefore, it is desirable that a wide-ranging discussion on federalism itself takes place. And this will involve serious consideration as to the basis on which new states should be set up. Otherwise, any decision will continue to be attended by suspicion and misgiving.

Advertisement

(The writer is a professor of political science in Delhi University.)

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement