Dr Subramanian Swamy
Ideally the country should be divided into 60 States to foster better administration and the economic growth of the people who have inhabited these regions for generations. If not, it would encourage fissiparous tendencies and encourage Naxalites or other malcontents to take over.
All smaller states hived off from mother states over the years testify to the soundness of the decision since both entities have prospered and progressed better than in the previous decade. Haryana and Himachal Pradesh have prospered and so has Punjab. Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh and Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have scripted the same stories of growth and development.
Chanakya had envisaged that each district should be a State and termed it janapada. Decentralization and local culture are integral to the new states that function well within the functional unity and integrity of the country. The crux of the argument is that new States are more responsive to people’s aspirations.
None of those demanding smaller states has sought secession. Hence, it is urgent that the Centre devised a well-thought mechanism to examine just demands for smaller States and disposed of them without delay. But politicians should not exploit people’s sentiments.
Frankly, if a decision on Telangana were to be further delayed, it would have led to a Naxal takeover of the land. There have been 17 agitations in the last 65 years and each time leaders of the agitation were won over with allurements of office; the idea of Telangana just remained.
Telangana was part of Nizam’s territory. After Independence, Sardar Vallabhai Patel merged Telangana in Andhra. But the State Reorganisation Commission, headed by Justice Fazal Ali, had said Telanagana was a distinctive region and recommended separate Statehood. But farmers and landlords of Seemandhra wanted to tap the rivers of Telanagana, for which reason it was yoked under Andhra Pradesh.
Telangana is a story of betrayal, starting with what Nehru did after the Independence. Later, when M. Chenna Reddy spearheaded the agitation, he was won over by Indira Gandhi and made the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
K. Chandrasekhar Rao’s agitation for a separate state peaked in 2004, enjoying the support of the Janata Party. But Congress president Sonia Gandhi offered him stakes in government besides a separate state and gave funds to fight the elections.
But once Rao was in Government, Sonia Gandhi went back on her word, which forced him to quit the Government.All further wrangling on Telangana should stop. Hyderabad should remain its exclusive capital city. The rest of Andhra could develop Vijayawada or Guntur into the capital city and let the people of Telangana to carve out their destiny
Not viable, nip it in the bud
Gopala Krishna Pillai
The demand for smaller states in the light of Telangana is going to increase. Currently, we have demands for Vidharbha, Gorkhaland and Bodoland and three segments are vying for Statehood in Uttar Pradesh.
In the Indian constitution, we have only the Centre, States and Union Territories. Most of these demands, which are coming from smaller areas like Gorkhaland or Bodoland, have erupted due to two main reasons: one, the perceived neglect by the state government which is seen as controlled by a dominant majority, and two, the indirect transfer of funds to small entities.
In Gorkhaland, for instance, those of Nepalese origin feel that West Bengal is denying them the rightful share of their political, administrative and financial autonomy in the erstwhile Darjeeliing district.
Similar is the case with Bodoland; Bodos feel let down by Assam and we have given them Sixth Schedule status which grants them all the powers of the state government, even to the extent of making laws except law and order and disaster management. In spite of this they still feel that Assam government continues to mete out step-motherly treatment.
It is in this context that indirect transfer of funds complicates things. Under the Constitution, funds come from the Centre to states and not directly to scheduled areas like Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and Bodoland Territorial Council. So the time has come for a complete relook at the financial autonomy of smaller units.
It has to be seen whether the Centre can release funds directly to smaller regions bypassing the state governments. If that can be done, regional complaints will reduce by a considerable amount and demands for new states wane.
It is important to keep local administrative units in good humour as small states are not financially viable ideas. Such minor regions, with a population of just a few lakh, will have to be provided the whole paraphernalia of council of ministers, departments and administrative machinery that an average state government possesses. In such cases, most of the funds will be used up by salaries.
Along with exploring direct transfer of funds, local administrative units should also be granted enough autonomy to spend the funds as they want if statehood demands are to be effectively snuffed out.
The other alternative is to set up a second State Reorganisation Commission with a clear direction to lay down criteria for the formation of new states. The criteria can be anything from area, population, language and cultural differences to development parameters. Only those regions satisfying these criteria will be granted statehood. Such a Commission can discourage demands for smaller states.
We have a precedent in the manner in which the clamour for languages to be included in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution was virtually silenced. The Government set up the Mahapatra Commission, which laid down a set of conditions.
It stated that only those languages that can measure up to these criteria will be declared as scheduled language. Soon, the demands for inclusion as scheduled language almost vanished. The report was placed in Parliament and it was more or less accepted in its entirety.
The second State Reorganisation Commission, besides laying down a set of conditions, could also recommend a system for the financial, administrative and legal delegation of powers directly to the Fifth and Sixth schedule areas. Such a Reorganization Commission can defuse agitations for smaller states.
There is yet another way out to put an end to agitations for smaller states. There should be far greater devolution of powers under the 73rd and 74th amendments to district panchayats and municipalities.
State governments have to realize that local bodies and panchayat raj institutions should be granted more power. And this involves the state having to give up some power.
Chandigarh lends a clue to Hyderabad’s future
Dr Pramod Kumar, Director, Institute for Development and Communication (IDC), Chandigarh
The settlement of regional aspirations has been marked by drift, delay and ad hocism on the part of the political leadership, be it Punjabi Suba movement, Gorkhaland or Bodoland.
In the trifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the political leadership is guilty of the same perverse wisdom witnessed in the mid-1960s when Punjab was trifurcated and the state capital of Chandigarh was given the status of a union territory.
The Punjab problem has persisted and Chandigarh has been the bone of contention. The people of Andhra Pradesh can do very well by learning from the Punjab experience.
Chandigarh was awarded to Punjab in February 1970 with a promise to transfer it back after five years. It did not happen. Punjab was pushed into its darkest phase, culminating in the assassination of Indira Gandhi followed by November 1984 carnage against Sikhs.
The Punjab accord was signed in 1985 between the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal with a promise to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab by January 1986. Owing to political dithering, this award is yet to be implemented.
What are the lessons from Punjab experience? The first and foremost lesson is that ad hoc solutions may push the dispute on the backburner, but it has potential to produce tragedies for the people. The freezing of conflicts leaves its sickening mark along the way.
The proposition that Hyderabad will be capital of both for ten years is a fodder for re-emergence of identity conflict as has been witnessed in case of Punjab.
Secondly, the Punjab experience has shown that such a situation throws up another party to the conflict. Instead of two parties i.e. Punjab and Haryana, a third party has been added to the conflict are citizens of Chandigarh.
The emergence of third party that develops a vested interest in the status quo becomes a major hurdle in the resolution of conflict. As in the case of Chandigarh, a new identity of being a Chandigarhian has developed rather than being a Punjabi or Haryanavi.
This is a consequence of its being a union territory where resources are allocated by the Centre leading to unevenness in the development, disparities and social divisiveness in relation to other areas.
For instance, Chandigarh was allocated huge resources when other urban centres stagnated. This island model of development created differentiated opportunities for a privileged few. It has the highest number of per capita automobiles in the country. The opulence created anonymous neighbourhoods that are becoming increasingly vulnerable to crime.
As a union territory, Chandigarh is a unique experiment in urban governance where the bureaucracy without any stakes, roots or much political interference enjoys unquestioned powers and sufficient resources. It has produced all kinds of distortions.
People’s participation is discouraged by the bureaucratic setup that describes it as interference. The new identity formation and its disconnect with larger identity has led to the destabilisation of regional forces and all kinds of social unrest ranging from communalisation to criminalisation.
Hyderabad may also experience a similar kind of identity formation process leading to activisation of communalisation and criminalisation process. Its own growth may also get stunned.
Another lesson is that states without a capital city lose a space that can act as a driver of growth. For instance, Punjab’s growth has suffered a major setback for having no control over its own capital.
It could not build another one because of ongoing dispute. It missed the IT revolution because it did not have advantages of its own growth pole. In other words, in the absence of its own central business capital it has suffered a major setback in the neoliberal globalised economy.
Similarly, without their own capital city and little control over Hyderabad both the states-Telangana and Andhra Pradesh- may suffer a development lag.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/lvca3z9
Post a Comment