Politics of reorganization of states Needs complete

revaluation

The Centre’s decision to create a separate state of Telangana has caused outright uproar in the

The opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu

changed his stand over Telangana after 40 of his MLAs bowed out disapproving his views.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar said that there should be a reorganisation of States again and
favoured the constitution of a second States Reorganisation Committee (SRC). While favouring
both bifurcation as well as unification according to developmental demands, Nitish Kumar
suggested that “larger States like Maharashtra, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh should be
reorganised”, but added that “there should not be any State smaller than Bihar.” It has to be
noted that the demand for Telangana has renewed the demand for regional trifurcation of Bihar
into Mithilanchal, Seemanchal and Bhojpur. In fact, the demand for a separate State of
Seemanchal, which proposes to in- clude 7 districts of Eastern Bihar, arose immediately after the
division of Bihar. Former Union Minist e r Mohd. Taslimuddin,who first raised the demand for
Seemanchal in 1992, said that the “time was ripe for raising the issue of smaller States.”

The proponents of a separate State of Bhojpur desire a State to be carved out from 23 districts of
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, ostensibly for the development of the
12 crore Bhojpuri– speaking population, with Varanasi as its Capital.

The BJP is apparently in a state of confusion over her demands for the separate states in UP
because of the party’s stand against further division of Madhya Pradesh to pave the way for
Bundelkhand.

In UP Mayawati had never prominently figured with the demands for the creation of smaller
states before her victory in the 2007 Assembly elections. After the formation of her current
government, Mayawati spoke in favour of the division of UP into smaller states. In October
2007, she had publicly supported the demand for the creation of Purvanchal and even tried to
make it an election plank during her campaign in the last Lok Sabha elections. Mayawati stands
a good chance to woo the traditional SP voters of eastern UP in the name of a separate
Purvanchal. “If the Samajwadi Party’s base shrinks in eastern UP, it would be a benefit of the
BSP.

PURVANCHAL
UP’s former planning minister Shatrudra Prasad, former Union minister Kalpnath Roy,
Shyamdhra Mishra, Satya Prakash Malviya and Shyam Lal Yadav demanded the separate state
under the banner of Purvanchal Banao Manch (PBM), which was formed on November 3, 1996
and is active in Varanasi region. Another organisation, Purvanchal Rajya Sthapana Samitee
(PRSS), has been active in Gorakhpur region. P K Lahiri, PRSS convener, said the organisation
had approached Gandhian leader Subba Rao to support the demand. A political party, Purvanchal
Banao Dal, was launched in 1994.

BUNDELKHAND 
The struggle for a separate Bundelkhand is more than two decade old. Although there are smaller
organisations in favour of the demand, it is the Bundelkhand Mukti Morcha (BMM).KODAGU
Kodagu is one of the most famous hill station in India proudly nicknamed as "Kashmir of
South"/ "Switzerland of India" etc.

Argument in favour of the a separate state:

(1) Kodagu was a separate Part C state at one time. This was because we had a separate identity
with regard to geography, culture and ethnicity. Even though Kodagu was merged with
Karnataka in 1956, we have a right to demand, and the Government has a duty to ensure that our
culture and ethnicity is protected. This is only possible by ensuring that the indigenous
communities are not separated from their lands.

(2) In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, most of the land is not available for purchase for people
from outside the Union Territory. This has been done to protect the indigenous communities
such as the Onges, Jarawas and Sentinels that are heading towards extinction. Even the relatively
larger communities of Gowdas and Kodavas are just a couple of lakhs.

(3) Kodagu is the birthplace and the cachment of River Cauvery. And Cauvery is the life line that
sustains millions of people in South India. Protection of the environment and ecosystems of
Kodagu is therefore in the National Interest, and generally, it is only the indigenous communities
who have the genuine love for the land and who will protect the ecology and environment of
Kodagu, while outsiders who have come in with solely commercial interests will soon devastate
Kodagu by mindless exploitation of its natural resources.

HARIT PRADESH OR PASCHIMANCHAL

The demand for Harit Pradesh is more than a decade old. Sources in the BSP said Mayawati had
supported the demand 12 years back at a public meeting in Mathura. In 1955, the State
Reorganisation Committee had nodded for the division of UP into two parts. So, we won’t take
rest before getting our demand fulfilled.”

SONANCHAL 
There is also a demand for the creation of Sonanchal comprising Mirzapur, Sonbhadra and
Chandauli. In 2005, Sonanchal Sangharsh Samiti had organized meetings in support of the
demand. This organisation is headed by Hariram Chero.

GORKHALAND

The demand for a separate administrative set-up for Gorkhas of India was first voiced in 1907.
But it was revived on full scale in 1986 by the Gorkha National Liberation Force (GNLF). The
main demand was to have a separate state because under the West Bengal Government, this area
has been neglected and regional disparities have been increased. The formation of DGHC led to
peace for some time in area. Under the DGHC fair amount of autonomy was given to deal with
welfare and general administration. The GJM was formed by Bimal Gurung, a close associate of
Subhas Ghising, president of the Gorkha National Liberation Force (GNLF). He was a councillor
of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC). The relations between them became worse in
2007 over the attempt to extend 6th Schedule status to Darjeeling. Under the 6th Schedule of the
Indian Constitution, certain tribal-majority areas are given autonomy in administration. While
the GNLF wanted the 6th Schedule status with enhanced powers for the DGHC, the GJM desired
full statehood. The GJM has not only intensified the movement but also has expanded area of the
proposed Gorkhaland by not only incorporating the three hills subdivisions of Darjeeling,
Kalimpong and Kurseong, but also Siliguri and parts of the Dooars that fall in Cooch Behar and
Jalpaiguri districts in North Bengal, extending up to the River Sunkosh on the border with
Bhutan. By expanding the areas, the GJM has not only managed to get the support of the
Gorkhas but also of the Adivasis, who form a substantial percentage of the population of the
Dooars. They are not Gorkhas, yet many Marwaris, Bengalis, Biharis and others who have lived
in the Darjeeling hills of West Bengal for decades have been braving the rains and the
government's ire to publicly express support for the movement for Gorkhaland. The Gorkhaland
movement has also found support among many Muslims, who are a religious minority in the
hills.

TELANGANA
Why statehood for Telangana?
(a) Due to unemployment and failure to implement promises of development, dissatisfaction
grew among people, agitations spread and regional imbalances, due to uneven development,
continued.

(b) The agreement at the time between Congress leaders of both the regions on safeguards and
for development of Telengana and later six point formulae were not implemented.

(c) The Andhra state was formed in 1953 with its capital in Kurnool. In 1956, ten districts of
Telangana of the former Hyderabad state, were merged with Andhra and an integrated state of
Telugu people, Andhra Pradesh, was created. The capital was shifted to Hyderabad by way of
compensation since the people of Telangana favoured a separate existence – this was supported
by the State Reorganisation Committee that had recommended linguistic states. Telangana was
the only exception it made to the linguistic principle.
(d) Telangana was a bastion of feudal landlordism and was, compared to coastal Andhra,
backward in educational and infrastructural facilities.

(e) The most vocal are the middle classes and educated sections who are now rallying behind the
demand for a separate state.

(f) The acute problems of unemployment, lack of irrigation and education facilities and socio-
economic backwardness are all caused by bourgeois landlord policies which have distorted
priorities.

(g) The growing disparity between Telengana region and Andhra region has become more
palpable. The extreme rural-urban disparity has been manifested in the form suicides of farmers
in Telangana region and cyber-growth in Hyderabad.

CENTRAL TRAVANCORE

The proposed Central Travancore Union Territory should carve from today's Kerala state. The
Union territory contains today's Alappuzha, Pathanamthitta, Kottayam districts, and parts of
Kollam, and Idukky district. Alappuzha, Kottayam, or Tiruvalla can designate as Capital of this
Union Territory. Central Travancore region is one of the most advanced regions in India. This
region is a Congress- Kerala Congress citadel. Peoples are mostly Right-wing Conservatives
(Syrian Christians, Nairs, Ezhavas, etc). Central Travancore does not want to suffer because of
the misdeeds of the peoples in other parts of Kerala.

Hence, we want a separate State or Specially Administered Territory. Central Travancore is a

better destination for Smart City. Central Travancore government will encourage IT, ITES, BPO,
Biotech, Food Processing, Tourism, Financial Services, Insurance, and Medical sector to invest
in this region.

HISTORY OF REORGANISATION OF STATES

(1) In 1948, S.K.Dhar Commission was constituted to re-examine the reorganization of states on
linguistic basis. The Commission preferred reorganization for administrative convenience rather
than on linguistic basis.

Various Committees:

(1) S.K. Dhar Commission: 1948: to examine the case for the reorganization of states on
linguistic lines

(2) Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabha Bhai Patel, and Sitaramayya (JVP) Committee: 1948: to reassess
the situation: too did not favour a linguistic basis.

(3) Fazl Ali Committee with Pd. H.N.Kunzru and K.M.Pannikar: 1953: to examine the case for
the reorganization of states on historical basis. In 1953, the first linguistic state came into being
Andhra Pradesh, creating by separating the Telugu speaking areas from the state of Madras.

(4) State Reorganization Commission (SRC): 1956: on linguistic basis: Andhra Pradesh became
the first State on this basis.

By 7th Amendment Act. By this time 14 states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu
and Kashmir, Kerala, MP, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, UP, West Bengal) and 6
UTs (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Delhi, HP, Laccadive, Mincoy

and Amandivi, Manipur and Tripura).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

India started its post independence days with 14 states and today it has 28 states. The makers of
the Indian Constitution empowered the Union Parliament to recognize a new state by a simple
procedure, as provided in Article 3 of the Constitution. The Part I and Article 1-4 exclusively
deals with these provisions. The provisions may be enumerated as:

(1) No Bill for the purpose can be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President; (Article 3)

(2) As per the 5th Amendment Act, 1955, the period of the Bill referred by the President to the
Legislature of that State for expressing its view will be specified by him (President) - Article 3

(3) As per 8th Amendment, 1966, the Bill may be introduced even though the President has not
received the views of that State

(4) As per Supreme Court verdict in Ramkishore v Union of India, 1966, the term ‘State’ include
Union Territory also.

(5) As per Babulal v State of Bombay, 1960 once the original Bill is referred to the State or
States, no fresh reference shall be required every time an amendment to the Bill is moved.
(6) In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, no Bill can be introduced in Parliament without the
consent of the Legislature of the State.

ADVANTAGES OF A SMALL STATE

Performance of newly created states It is important to note that all three new states have grown
fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31 per cent growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45 per
cent, and Chattisgarh 7.35 per cent. At the same time, it has to be referred that all three states
belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone. This has encouraged the demand to
create new states in India.

(1) After independence, the role of Government has changed: from a pure law and order-
maintaining agency to a development sponsoring organization. This requires more elaborate
Government machinery. The smaller states would be more viable in this regard.

(2) The smaller states would be more effective for the fiscal management.

(3) The popular needs, demands and the problems of the people in this region could be
articulated and paid attention by the Government, much more than the past.

(4) If the North-East have not shown better results than the Himachal Pradesh and Haryana have
definitely shown better results.

(5) Even with the creation of 3 new states, India still has just over half as many states as the
USA, with 4 times population.

(6) This allows for the greater competition among States as well as for more experimentation and
innovation.

(7) The smaller states will have relatively more homogeneous preferences.

(8) In fact, India’s problem of centralization lies not between Centre and the State government
but between State Government and the Local Bodies. This problem would be less in the smaller
states.

(9) The quality of governance would be better: vertically, there are likely to be fewer hierarchies
in the administrative structures, which improve the quality of information that decision makers
receive; and horizontally, the span of control is smaller, allowing for greater focus.

DISADVANTAGES OF A SMALL STATE

(a) It will further lead to regional imbalances in terms of infrastructure facilities:

(i) Vananchal would means a state with no agricultural land, but full of forest and minerals and it
would make Bihar only with agricultural land with no minerals and forests;
(ii)Chhattisgarh is backward, there is lack of basic facilities like communication, education, etc,
with virtually no industry;

(iii) Uttarakhand would have tourism as the only source of income.

(b) In a heterogeneous society, creating new states would lead to the unlimited demand of states:
demands for Eight states are already in the offing: Purbanchal, Harit Pradesh and Bundelkhand
in Uttar Pradesh; Bodoland in Assam; Gorkhaland in West Bengal; Telangana in Andhra
Pradesh; Vidarbha in Maharashtra; Saurashtra in Gujarat.

(c) It will add additional wasteful ad- ministrative expenses in making of capitals and buildings.

(d) Only by creating new states is no panacea for India’s problems and evidence from the
Northeast could be cited to demonstrate that smaller states do not necessarily result in better
economic performance.

(e) It may give rise to new friction between state and central power too.

BALANCED APPROACH

There are no perceptible relations between functioning and the size of the state. It depends on a
combination of factors. The most important factor is the techno-economic feasibility of the area.
There should be a balance between the existing resources and optimum utilization of those
resources. Any disbalance may lead to regional disparity and a state of relative deprivation. Since
India is a classic plural society, therefore, there should not be any fixed basis for reorganisation
of states. Article 3 of the Indian Constitution must be amended in order to make it compatible to
meet new conditions. The hasty process of reorganisation should be done away. Before going for
a change, there should be complete survey of the affected area. All the repercussions must be
calculated. Its impact on the economy, culture, and ethnicity should be analysed. Therefore, a
proper techno-economic survey of the area, social-cultural homogeneity and political
manageability of the area should be simultaneously be considered. There should be holistic
survey at the grass-root level. If the basis of reorganisation is properly determined then the size
does not matter at all. At the same time, Indian legislators must realize that there is an imperative
need to evaluate the sensitive issues of internal security and the time is running out. In
democracy, certain decisions are delayed because consensus is every time not possible. But in
certain important issues, decisions are to be taken immediately to ward off intractable situations.
This may be the reason of the incorporation of Article 123. Each any every demand of the
separate state must be calculated on the basis its merit and requirement. After all, good
governance is the top priority of every political system. If it fails, then no body at the helm of
accountability can be excused.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010