Part-1: Pros of Bifurcation of states.
I come across this topic “do small states help in better governance”, so gave it a thought after doing some background study. After independence, a committee was formed to look into the matter of forming the states. Although committee was to suggest states on the lines of culture, language and social diversity, but little has been the logic so far in forming of states. As of now Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Naidu, West Bengal, Punjab and few more were formed on logical background. States like UP, Madhya Pradesh were formed under the pressure of influential leaders.
Bifurcation of states have been done every once in a while but recently, the violent protests forced government to form a committee, which will look into the matter of formation of new states. At present demands are being raised for bifurcations of telangana from Andhra Pradesh, poorvanchal from UP, Bundelghand from Maharasthra, saurasthra from Gujarat and few in eastern states. Most of these demands are from regional parties whose main agenda or politics is based on this very issue of bifurcation.
Reasoning of these demands has been under development of these regions. For example the issue of Telangana-AP was due to the pathetic economic condition in telengana region. In 1990s state government of AP started a movement to attract IT and pharmaceutical companies to Hyderabad. Government worked vigorously and in fact was successful in making Hyderabad, an IT and R&D hub of the country. But little was done to improve the condition of villages leading to under development of some regions. So, state progressed as a whole but there was a lot of anger in rural areas which was used by regional parties like TDP. So if these under developed regions are made a separate state, new state government, which will be more focused and motivated, will better govern the state and can effectively use the funds for development.
Appears to be fair and good enough logic, isn’t it?
Bifurcation of states have been done every once in a while but recently, the violent protests forced government to form a committee, which will look into the matter of formation of new states. At present demands are being raised for bifurcations of telangana from Andhra Pradesh, poorvanchal from UP, Bundelghand from Maharasthra, saurasthra from Gujarat and few in eastern states. Most of these demands are from regional parties whose main agenda or politics is based on this very issue of bifurcation.
Reasoning of these demands has been under development of these regions. For example the issue of Telangana-AP was due to the pathetic economic condition in telengana region. In 1990s state government of AP started a movement to attract IT and pharmaceutical companies to Hyderabad. Government worked vigorously and in fact was successful in making Hyderabad, an IT and R&D hub of the country. But little was done to improve the condition of villages leading to under development of some regions. So, state progressed as a whole but there was a lot of anger in rural areas which was used by regional parties like TDP. So if these under developed regions are made a separate state, new state government, which will be more focused and motivated, will better govern the state and can effectively use the funds for development.
Appears to be fair and good enough logic, isn’t it?
Your argument is fair enough. But it costs government million dollars to conduct election in those areas, build new assemblies.
ReplyDeleteThe sole reason for demand of new states is region based. It would not lead to any benefit for the country, other than rendering the nations into fragments. This situation is quite analogous to pre-British era, when the country was fragmented and destructed into parts. The major regions demanded till now are affected by Naxalites. I think that it might lead to situation of the similar kind or as people say "History repeats itself". Ponder about the devlopment taken place in Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand in the past decade, since they were formed. They are still the underdog states of the country. Despite of various initatives, Naxals still reamin the biggest problem till now. The mob trusts Maoists more than government, beacuse of no development in these ares.
Apart from this issue, major concern would be how much you can trust the politicians fighting for differnt states. Will they not take money from central government and fill their pockets? Corruption will increase as many times as many new officials are appointed.
The "spectator general public" is the one which suffers the most in this scenario. It is who burns during fire and still pays for the new state development.
There is need to educate the people residing, to provide them with industries to work on. Carving out new states is not a solution for the development of these regions, which will arise many new problems.
I will come up with cons too in part-2 but just for the sake of discussion:
ReplyDeleteIf we look at GDPs of different states, one will find that small states, carved out from bigger states,example: Punjab, Haryana, HP, Uttrakhand, Gujarat, have grown faster than their parent state. As per reports of different committees formed India should be reorganized into 50 states. This has been supported by economists too which took into all consideration, money required to form new government, cost of elections etc. So, what I am saying is not to divide into 500+ states, which was the case in pre-British era, all I am saying is to divide states on rational basis that will be around 50 states.
As far as politicians are considered, can we trust politician in bigger states? (see what Mayawati is doing in UP)
Dude!! your argument is good in the idealistic sense. Yes, smaller states can give better adminstration if it is supported by a sound political will. For eg. the forerunner of TELANGANA, KCR can be regarded as one of the shrewdest politician changing parties for adminstrative positions. He has been representative TELANGANA for years now, do some survey of what he has done for the region, you will get the answer yourself. Investing millions for catering to a demand from a person like that would seriously effect the moral fabric of the nation.
ReplyDeleteSecond thing I would like to point out is, lack development can never a rationale for a demand. YOu can not be proud of the fact that we are underdeveloped and demand a state. If the movement was a prudent one, it should have highlightened the shortcomings of current adminstration and clearly mentioned their plans of adminstation in case of creation of new state. If under development was the rationale, any jack and jill will stand for a seperate state saying that we are not getting deserved attention.
Thirdly, before alloting a seperate state, we must consider some economics, does the place enough resouces to generate money for itself? TELANGANA(leaving hyd) or VIDHARBA for that matter have literally nothing. What purpose would it solve if a state had to run to centre for every penny it needs. If there is a possibility of development that should come primarily from the money generated in other thriving parts of the state and their redistribution for upliftment of backward regions. Instead of putting this much pressure on seperate state, i believe, it would have been much more prudent to put the same pressure on the regional development. By now, a huge some of money would have been alloted.
Guess that was too long!! Neway, keep writing