May 2001
The turn of the century has opened a Pandora's box in India's geopolitical sphere with the emergence of three new States on its map and raked up a host of controversial issues. On a different plane, the event is historic and has more potential ramifications than India?s partition in 1947, in the view of the spurt it has given to separatist elements in various pockets of the country. Following the creation of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh, voices in favour of separate Kodagu State, Vidarbha, Konkan, Telangana, Ladakh and Jammu have grown more assertive and strident. At a stroke, all the old ghosts were resurrected from their graves. "Just a resolution in the parliament, and we?ll form our own State"- seems to be the dominant trend across the country. Whoever disagrees with the separatist demand is deemed enemy of the region and its development.
WHY THIS SUDDEN SEPARATISM ?
The creation of three new States has left many wondering, with what ease and expediency the Indian Parliament could make and unmake States at will. They have understood that the so-called linguistc States of India have no sanctity and indestructibility, but can be freely tampered with. A constitutional provision exists enabling the Parliament to this effect, but this statute was sparingly used in the past with only a few States coming into existance after the first reorganization of States on linguistic basis. It is worth recalling that-for all their despotic tendencies, late Indira Gandhi and her son and successor late Rajiv Gandhi had never compromised on the principle of national unity and mercilessly crushed all separatism in its umpteen avatars. While Indira dealt with the separate Telangana and Jai Andhra movements with an iron hand, Rajiv was rather curtly outspoken in his aversion to creating new States. But a constitutional provision is apparently on the verge of being misused well on the lines of Article 356 behind the veneer of public demand and correcting regional imbalances.
(i) Regional backwardness is cited as the principal reason for which the new States were created. Ironically enough, the party in power in all the 3 bifurcated States had traditionally been the Indian National Congress that now merrily voted for their bifurcation. Then, is it the fault of the integrated State or the party in power there ?
(ii) Now, confronted with the intellectual bankruptcy in the wake of a globally sweeping market economy,political entities have lost their ideological ground and are in search of fresh issues to make headlines in media. Demand for separate States comes handy at this juncture.
(iii) Besides the political arithmatic of small States makes it possible for a half or one-third of the MLAs to occupy miniterial berths which is not the case with a big State having 200 assembly seats.
(iv) Unlike reservation quotas, a demand for a separate State strikes an emotional chord with every inhabitant of the region, thus lending its divisive content a touch of democracy. Thus the demand holds a sure-shot political promise worth investing in by politicians of all hues.
(v) Moreover, the Indian polity is often termed as quasi-federal, while in fact, it has few or no federal features worth the name except the existence of 28 States. The Centre loves to view these states more as mere administrative units than manifestations of the cultural aspirations of various sub-nations in the country. Thus, strong sub-nations are perceived as a threat to the constitutionally centralized powers arrogated to themselves by successive Union Governments during the last 53 years. Therefore, the centre is ready to bifurcate or even trifurcate big States just on demand, pending a number of other bills of more urgency and importance.
(vi) When the Indian leaders at the dawn of independence decided to form States on linguistic basis, they were not motivated by any vested interest, but only an urge to emancipate the native cultures, languages and people subjugated under the colonial yoke. With the memory of those leaders and their movements in the Gandhian era slowly fading out of public memory, divisive politics now usurp the vaccuous ideological space.