• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Reorganisation of states... -- To correct regional imbalances

Harihar Swarup

DOES INDIA need second reorganisation of states? Can the boundaries of the union be redrawn piecemeal to assuage the aspirations of a region, while others with a stronger case be ignored? And, most important, what would be the fallout in other regions if the Centre succeeds in carving out Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh by splitting Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh respectively?

The way the Government tried to push through the Bill seeking to create the three new States is manifestation of its predicament over the issue. The Vajpayee Government's strategy was, apparently, to introduce the Bill on the last day of the Budget sessi on of Parliament and alleviate, at least for the time being, the mounting pressure on the ruling dispensation to redeem its electoral promise and, in the process, gain more time. The tactic obviously failed and the Government lost face.

Though there is no need to redraw the boundaries of the union as a whole as was done in 1956, nor is it politically feasible, given the fragile nature of the Vajpayee-led coalition, the time has come to have a limited look at the map of India. The object ive is, evidently, to have a reappraisal of the functioning of some major states constituted on the linguistic basis 44 years back, rectify the lacuna and, accordingly, re-adjust the boundaries to meet the regional aspirations of the people as well as to ensure better governance.

It will be in fitting with things to consider the constitution of a mini States' reorganisation commission to suggest adjustment of the boundaries of UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh in keeping with the electoral promise of both the BJP and the Congress(I) a nd also examine the question of carving out the Vidarbha state, as recommended by the SRC in 1956. The second SRC can also examine the feasibility of creating new states in other regions too to correct the regional imbalance, and if the situation so warr ants.

Experience has shown that UP and Bihar proved to be ungovernable. They should have been bifurcated in the reorganisation of States in 1956 but, obviously, their boundaries were not touched because of political reasons, and posterity has paid the price. T he SRC, set up in 1953 under the chairmanship of Justice Fazal Ali, known as a sedate jurist, and comprising H. N. Kunzru, a liberal of conviction, and Sardar K. M. Panikkar, a scholarly but volatile historian from Kerala, did consider the division of UP but refrained from recommending the partition of the most populous state.

Two members of the SRC, obviously, succumbed to the pressure of Govind Ballabh Pant, who threatened that division of his State could be only ``over my dead body'' and that ``nobody could divide this land of Ram and Bhim''. But Sardar Pannikar, who was la ter appointed India's Ambassador to China by Nehru, vehemently dissented and put forward his unbiased and forthright evaluation that UP is the most fit case for division.

By way of background, Mr. G. B. Pant, considered the right-hand man of Nehru, was a powerful Home Minister in the Union Cabinet, when the States were reorganised on linguistic basis, and hailed from the Kumaon region where, paradoxically, the demand for creation of the separate hill state had its epicentre. When the SRC was appointed in 1953, Pant was UP's Chief Minister and the first to head the most populous State. Nehru too did not want his home State split, because both he and Pant drew political su pport from UP which had the largest number of seats (86) in the 499-member Lok Sabha and 31 in the Rajya Sabha, having a strength of 216 at that time. Needless to say, the Congress returned with a overwhelming majority of its members in the two Houses fr om the State.

Sardar Pannikar, however, held different views on the question of splitting UP, and to the displeasure of both Pant and Nehru, wrote a long note of dissent making out a strong case for division of the most populous State. His assessment proved prophetic. His appraisal of the wide disparity existing between the hill regions and other areas almost half a century ago are relevant in the present context when the creation of Uttarakhand is on the anvil.

It is worth quoting from Sardar Pannikar's note of dissent: ``There is or can be very little in common between the still nomadic inhabitants of the Garhwal and Kumaon Himalayas or of the hilly area of Bundelkhand on the one hand and the inhabitants of th e fertile Gangetic valley on the other.''

Sardar Pannikar also rejected the contention that UP, because of its size, had been particularly efficient and well-governed. He pointed out that UP had the lowest literacy rate of all Part A States, including Orissa, and even some part B and C States. E ven in the matter of education, he discovered that the most populous State was the most backward. ``Nor could the State claim that in the matter of medical services, road transportation and maintenance of law and order, it is in a better position than Bo mbay or the southern Indian States,'' said the dissenting note. The situation has since sharply deteriorated, and UP has come to be known as the worst-governed and most backward State in almost every sphere. It has only able to retain its gigantic size.

Sardar Pannikar's conclusion was ``the only remedy open to us is to reconstitute the overgrown state in such a manner as to lessen the differences -- in short to partition the State'' and... ``indeed, the partition would be greatly to the advantage of the people of Uttar Pradesh, as the present unmanageable size of this State, as I have pointed out earlier, stands in the way of efficient administration.'' How perceptive!

The SRC also considered the question of creation of a Jharkhand state in South Bihar, stipulating splitting Bihar into two units, but shelved the proposal as the public opinion on the issue was divided. Only the then Jharkhand Party, which fought the 195 2 general election on this issue, claimed to have secured a ``substantial verdict'', but in South Bihar itself other political parties were opposed to separating the mineral-rich region. The demand over the years for a separate Jharkhand State has gather ed momentum and the government may make a renewed bid to introduce the Bill to that effect in the monsoon session of Parliament.

The Vidarbha region of Maharashtra is yet another area where the agitation for formation of a separate State never abates. The SRC too had in clear terms recommended: ``A new state to be known as Vidarbha should be created consisting of Marathi-speaking district of the old Madhya Pradesh with Nagpur as its capital.'' Apparently, for political reasons, the Marathi-speaking districts were made part of Maharashtra but the regional aspirations of the people of Vidarbha have been coming to the fore off and o n. If the new States of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are created, the agitation in Vidharbha is bound to be intensified.

The oversized Madhya Pradesh was carved out by merging areas which lacked cultural affinity and there were large regional imbalances. The former Chief Minister, D. P. Mishra, always used to joke about the disproportionate size of his State and say whatev er remained after reorganisation of the States was put together and called New Madhya Pradesh with Bhopal as its capital. Regional imbalances in the largest State were inevitable and the demand for Chattisgarh reflect the growing regional aspirations of the people, further fanned by political parties.

The need is to evolve a broad consensus on the issue of creation of smaller units by dividing over-grown States to ensure better governance and rapid economic development.

(The author, a former PTI Bureau Chief, is a Delhi-based columnist.)