K Chandrasekhara Rao?s successful showdown on the issue of a separate state of Telangana has raised concerns over similar demands cropping up to create separate states of Harit Pradesh, Gorkhaland, Saurashtra, Vidarbha and many more. I think this concern is misplaced. What we need to worry about is the manner in which we settle differences. And, we must continue to debate the merits and demerits of alternate state boundaries and settle these democratically.
Many political problems are solved through a compromise of sorts. A compromise is a poor solution compared to a consensus derived from intense debate between different points of view. We do have a lot of debate in this country. But on many important issues, the solutions are not the outcome of debates, but a compromise after a showdown.
Success arising out of a showdown is necessarily dramatic and this has its own appeal. Politicians in a hurry, therefore, resort to showdowns without even engaging in much of a debate. The Shiv Sena and its offspring, MNS, don?t waste too much time in debates. They merely issue a warning before disrupting Mumbai to drive home their point of view, often effectively. We need to be more concerned about this method of settling debates rather than the possibility of breaking up states into smaller units.
Rao?s showdown was the result of a failure to adequately address the issue of state boundaries. But let?s not waste a crisis just because a compromise has diffused it. We must address the issue of state boundaries. If a Harit Pradesh has to happen, let it not be the outcome of an Ajit Singh (or anybody else) doing a KCR-style drama.
In the past, language played the most important role in determining state boundaries. Languages were aggregated into broad categories that did not distinguish populations speaking distinctly different languages (dialects). For example, even today it is difficult for a person from Uttar Pradesh who essentially speaks Braj-bhasha, to converse with another person from Uttar Pradesh who speaks Bhojpuri. Language was an inadequate criterion for creating state boundaries. Nothing justifies a Maharashtra that includes regions as diverse as Konkan and Vidarbha. These two regions have nothing in common?not even language. Ditto for Saurashtra and (South) Gujarat. The problems of Konkan are different from those of Vidarbha.
The problem thus with most large states in India is that they are a mix of heterogeneous regions. Each of these regions have different problems that warrant different solutions. An aggressively industrialising Maharashtra does not pay sufficient attention to the basic developmental problems of Vidarbha. The vast size and heterogeneous mix that comprises Uttar Pradesh leaves the state incapable of exploiting its proximity to Delhi or its green belts sufficiently to at least throw up some regions of visible prosperity.
It may be a good idea to make homogeneity one criterion in the making of a state. A state should be homogeneous in terms of agro-climatic conditions and levels of economic and social development. If a state government has to deal with one big problem of development rather than several different problems, it will find a better and a more lasting solution. A government of Vidarbha is better equipped to handle the problems of Gadchiroli and Buldhana than a government of Maharashtra that also deals with the problems of a Marathwada and a Konkan.
It is very likely that if we create states based on agro-climatic, economic and social homogeneity, developmental and governance issues will be addressed more inclusively. The feeling of alienation from the overall growth process would be smaller. It may be a good idea to create a Rayalaseema before the demand arises. An Andhra Pradesh without Telangana would consist of two fairly disparate regions?a prosperous coastal AP and a relatively backward Rayalaseema.
A state should be only as large as can be governed effectively. The smaller the state, the better, for then it can be governed better. There is no justification for large states. The gentry of Seoni need not travel to Bhopal to address their developmental problems if they can find the state capital closer, in say, Jabalpur. The pressures on a local government will always be much larger than they will be for the federal government. A local government of a relatively small region will be able to respond to the problems of its regions better and faster than the government of a large and heterogeneous state. This is one of the reasons why we empowered the panchayats.
A large mix of heterogeneous states, each of which is internally homogeneous, will enhance the diversities of India and will let each of these several homogeneous regions prosper according to its own advantages in natural endowments and human resources.
It is quite pointless to try to talk people out of their desire to have a state that focuses on their local issues. Local issues are not necessarily anti-nation. It is better to create objective criteria to mark state boundaries. Such criteria cannot be relevant forever. We, therefore, need to continuously debate the subject and ensure that we always have a set of relevant rules that will determine the creation of administrative boundaries.
The author heads Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy