In lieu of various demands coming from different states for their bifurcation I would like to touch upon the possibilities, criterion, and solutions of small states demand.
Constituion has provided a very simple preocedure for the formation of new states under article 3. It vested complete power in the union parliament to alter any state boundary irrespective of the affected state's consent. It was correct at the time when constitution was framed and it was successful in containing further secession of the country.
When we analyse various small state's demands we can find various moot questions coming into fore.
1) Where from the demand for small state is coming ? Is it flowing from the people's aspirations to the leaders or from leader's political gains to the people.
2) Is there any rational criterion for the division of a state ? If yes, what is it ? Who forms it ?
3) After evolving a rational criterion one has to test this criterion in the state. Who does this job and is it possible to attain an unanimous opinion ?
Let me examine these issues in detail.
As we see in most of the states the demand for small state is coming from the politicians to attain their political ends rather than from the people of the state. This is clearly evident from the ongoing demand for Telangana in AP, Bundelkhand in UP, Saurashtra from Gujarat, Vidarbha from Maharashtra etc. Even the newly formed states Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand were formed because of political considerations. Can such states sustain ?
Experience in the newly formed states tells us that while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh became FAILED states despite of large mineral and natural resources Chattisgarh has started to zoom up. This clearly shows us that just a separate state is NOT a solution for all the developmental lacunae.
Coming to Rational Criterion, Usually commissions and committees were appointed to evolve a rational criterion for division of any state. Infact First States Reorganisation Commission drafted a criterion which involves economic viability, administrative convenience, willing of all parts of people living in that state etc.. But the moot question is how can one test this criterion ? For eg, If one has to test public opinion about the new state how one can elicit this. How one can assure the divided state will be economically sustainable after the division ?
In my opinion, EMOTIONAL INTEGRATION of the people should be the most important indicator in evauluating a criterion. Experience tells us that since independecs even after forming 28 states, people are not emotionally integrated despite of same language, culture etc in almost none of the states, forget about national integration. As long as people are not emotionally integrated the demand for division will become persistent.
So how to make people emotionally integrated is the key to the problem.
Some Solutions:
===========
1) Giving Panchayat Raj bodies autonomy.
2) Setting scientifically evolved developmental indicators (As the current human development indicators fail to identify actual development) and apportioning state resources as per these indicators as applied to different parts of the countries.
3) Trying to achieve political consensus in forums like "National Integration Council".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Elimination of states will be too difficult from administrative point of view. e.g. Bird flu hit Bengal. Centre had a machinery in the form of bengal govt to tackle the problem, while almost all states were hardly caring about it. Just a large many districts, with no states, would have made very difficult to round off the location of crisis itself with large no of district officials to contact and direct.
Now development funds straight to PRIs with out states' elimination is relatively feasible, but states strongly oppose as they lose the power. Its impossible now with entrenched federalism and huge no. of power centres of diverse groups in the polity to take this step also.
Development indicators. Now planning commission uses this concept for states budget allocations. States in turn attempt to do for districts based on similar principle, but problem is here. they r not doing it properly.
Political aspiration is the reason primarily for the smaller states. Just economic, social development act as triggers. Aspiration starts with leaders as usual. Partly they create the momentum for the separation. But theoretically, it is no wrong, as that is what a political process.
Smaller states have demerits and some merits ( well known, I am not going into them ). But, in one perspective and, within limited extent smaller states is not a very big problem for the country. Basically, it increases the cost on public expenditure but brings in the better contacts of the government with ground-zero citizens.
So, make policy and legal framework (constitution amendments) for statehood, that makes it very very difficult for the separation of smaller states, but per se do not reject the separation. Some thing like a stage by stage process of giving autonomy within state and then finally giving statehood. If political aspirations are strong enough to with stand a few decades, then perhaps they deserve the statehood. if they cant then they dont deserve statehood. Let the political forces in democracy determine the separation under a strict rigid frameowrk. The policy and legal framework should clearly make sure that the statehood can be earned by the democratic processes only. that shud eliminate armed violent movements.
After all US has 50 states. and with this big population, we can have more than this no. of states, according to me !!!
Post a Comment