13086820 What Purpose Do Small States Serve

8/8/2019 13086820 What Purpose Do Small States Serve

1/5

EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES

AND

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

Tadepalli Lalitha Bala Subrahmanyam, May, 2001.

The turn of the century has opened a Pandoras box in Indias geopo-litical 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 Indias 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 well 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


2/5

EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN 2

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 aglobally 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 aspira-

tions 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


3/5


public memory, divisive politics now usurp the vaccuous ideological

space.

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 cannot even rename a place without the Centres 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 Presidents seal of appro-

bation. 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 situa-

tion, 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

60s 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 nationalcapital.

From a global perspective too, not all small countries can be

credited with progress. Well in our neighbourhood, we have under-devel-

oped 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


4/5


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 areexhausted 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 integra-

tion.

(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 ?


5/5


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 colo-nized 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, indisci-

pline and instability. It has been the curse on Indias fortunes since

time immemorial. Long-term unity and integration should not be sacri-

ficed 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.

Documents

13086820 What Purpose Do Small States Serve