IS SMALL REALLY BEAUTIFUL ?

(i) According to the advocates of small States, they are easy to govern and develop. Small countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and a host of European countries have made faster material progress than big countries like India, China, Brazil and Indonesia. Apart from the selective exemplification, this contention has basic fallacy abou it. A dignified municipality called the (constituent) State of India can not be likened to an independent republic of sovereign powers, which can decide and dictate its own future. Under the existing dispensation, the so-called States are toothless for all practical purposes with no powers to sanction either a small industrial ot irrigation project. They can not even rename a place without the Centre’s approval. All minerals and underground resources squarely belong to the Centre. States can not grant permission even to start a newspaper or journal. No resolution passed by a State becomes an Act without the President’s seal of approbation. All avenues of revenue were monopolized by the Centre long ago, leaving the States to fall back upon sales tax, octroi and registration fees only. Almost all subjects in the States’ list were gradually transferred to Concurrent list, thus enabling the Centre to poke a finger in all internal affairs of the States. Given this ground situation, what additional progress can one expect from the new (small) States, without fighting for true federalism in our constitutional framework ?

(ii) Secondly, did all small States progress ? If they did, what could be the reason ? Orissa, a small State of approx. 1,55,000 sq.k.m. (half the size of Maharashtra), was formed way back in 1936 and is still rated as a backward State. Still smaller states like Haryana and Punjab (each having an area admeasuring approx. 50,000 sq.k.m.)were formed in the 60’s and they made rapid strides, owing not as much to their small size as to the Green Revolution, centrally sponsored irrigation projects and inflows of foreign exchange as also their proximity to the national capital.

From a global perspective too, not all small countries can be credited with progress. Well in our neighbourhood, we have under-developed small countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan.

(iii) The issues arising out of the rapid technological advancements in the world put governments under stress to cope up with them and made them increasingly variegated and complex. New laws and systems are to be devised on a continuous basis. Thus, small States too are constrained to keep as many as departments as big ones. Can they financially afford it ? What surplus funds are they left with for development, if revenues are exhausted on the administrative machinery itself ? Uttaranchal State is a case in point whose revenue receipts are well below Rs.350 crores, but whose annual expenditure exceeds Rs.1,500 crores. It is for this reason that it was recently accorded status of the Special category State, which means more grants and fewer loans. The plight of Chhattisgarh is no different too. Thus the concept of small States subjects the States to incremental dependence on the Centre and leads to regional jealousies, charges of favouritism and ultimate loss of faith in national integration.

(iv) The inter-State boundary and river water disputes between a number of States are still unresolved with many of them remaining perpetually sub-judice. For Instance, Karnataka alone has been in conflict with a couple of States over disputed territories (Kasargode and Belgaum) and with another couple of States on water-sharing (the Krishna and Cauvery). The disputes are so emotive that they turned not only governments against governments, but also the people of one State against those of another and sporadic trading of violence is not uncommon. Given this record, more States means more disputes which will ultimately threaten to erode the very spirit of Indian nationalism.

(v) This dangerous doctrine of small States gives a fillip to the secessionist outfits like the LTTE, ULFA. JKLF, and Khalistanis who might find in it a cloaked and implicit endorsement of their balkanization programme. "If small States are OK, why not small countries ?"they might ask. We have no answer.

(vi) The parameters to determine the ‘optimum smallness’ are vague. We can reorganize India into 88 Keralas, or 120 Nagalands or 250 Sikkims. This number could be endless. They will serve no loftier purpose than solving the political unemployment of a few.

STATUS QUO IS NO STAGNATION

The argument that big States have grown unwieldy by virtue of their vastness and population is untenable and anachronistic for the simple fact that we live in the age of internet, video-conferences, cell phones, express haighways, jet planes and superfast railways. Will these ‘small advocates’ agree to divide India into 2 more free and independent republics because her population tripled since independence ?

Any ardent reader of history can tell us that the British conquest of India became possible not for want of powerful principalities, but only for want of strong nation-states on its soil. In contrast, the age-old linguistic states like England, France and Japan were never colonized but have colonized other countries.

Reorganization of India on linguistic basis was the best thing that happened to her in her 5,000-year-long history. It demonstrated to the world that we have politically come of age on par with the advanced nations of the world. Any attempt to undo this mature regime will amount to putting the clock back by millenia.

A nation or sub-nation is a homogenous group that organizes itself on a permanent basis. No country in the world ever prospered, constantly fiddling with its boundaries which amounts to anarchy, unrest, indiscipline and instability. It has been the curse on India’s fortunes since time immemorial. Long-term unity and integration should not be sacrificed at the altar of petty development issues which can be resolved with proper planning, political will and time-bound implementation.

There are better ways to escape our boredom than agitating for separate States. (Concluded)