BackThe states of our Union
The Telangana chapter should be used to bookend the past and set up a new SRC that looks forward
Premium(AP)
Shenkottai is a postcard perfect little town buried in the bowels of Tamil Nadu. A few minutes away from the Kerala border and a touch northwest of the gorgeous aindu aruvi (five falls) of Kutralam, Shenkottai taluk was one of the controversial areas that deserved special mention in the deliberations of the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), constituted in 1953.
The SRC was formed after an earlier effort—the Dhar Commission of 1948—failed to produce a consensus on the basis for the creation of states in India. An evaluation committee comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramaiah—named the JVP committee after the protagonists—had this to say, “If public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole."
In 1952, lead by Swami Sitaram, the demand for creation of a Telugu-majority state in the northern part of Madras state had become very loud. One of the activists, Potti Sreeramulu, died after undertaking a fast unto death. Andhra Pradesh was born soon thereafter and the SRC constituted to limit the political fallout.
Many years earlier in 1920, the Indian National Congress (INC) had agreed on the principle of linguistic reorganization of Indian states as a party objective. The INC’s own branch architecture was organized on a linguistic basis since then. However, soon after Independence several voices spoke against linguistic reorganization. The SRC’s report negotiated this tricky situation by observing, “It is neither possible nor desirable to reorganize states on the basis of the single test of either language or culture, but that a balanced approach to the whole problem is necessary in the interest of our national unity."
This primarily linguistic approach codified in the States Reorganization Act of 1956 has been a qualified success. Since that time several states have been formed for a variety of reasons. While one hears the odd murmur about Belgaum (now in Karnataka) or Shenkottai, language-based demands are no longer major political issues. In a brilliant recent lecture entitled India: An Improbable Democracy, Ashutosh Varshney, professor of political science at Brown University, elucidated Mahatma Gandhi’s views on nationhood for India. Varshney says that Gandhi imagined a nation made up of hyphenated identities, delinked from language or religion as the unifying theme. Varshney believes that despite the odds, India has survived as a nation, precisely because we have managed to achieve Gandhi’s vision.
The decision to carve out Telangana from Andhra Pradesh has opened up a Pandora’s box. The demand for states is largely based on a perceived distinct culture or ethnicity (Harit Pradesh, Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Kukiland and Kosal) or on language (Tulu Nadu, Mithila) or in the odd instance on perceived economic neglect (Vidarbha, Saurashtra).
The Telangana split (both speak Telugu) cannot be neatly categorized. The Telangana claim has been one of cultural neglect, historically from the Nizam and then from the present-day rulers of Andhra Pradesh who have mostly come from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
We should use the Telangana chapter to bookend the past and set up a new SRC that looks forward. The terms of reference for this new commission should be to reorganize states primarily from the point of governability, size and effectiveness. In other words, the commission should focus on the future of the state and its people, not its past.
The five largest states by land area in India are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The five most populous states of India are UP, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. UP has the population of Brazil squeezed into an area the size of the UK, while Maharashtra has the population of Mexico in the land area of Italy. The focus of a new SRC should undoubtedly begin with UP and Maharashtra.
The political process in UP should be a trifle easier since one of the major political parties (Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party with 26% vote share in the 2012 assembly elections) has publicly endorsed breakup of the state into four states—Purvanchal, Harit Pradesh, Bundelkhand and Awadh Pradesh. The Vidarbha region in Maharashtra from the Buldhana district in the west to Gondia and Gadchiroli in the east is a “natural" split for Maharashtra, but must be evaluated for economic viability.
Rather than fight the federal character of the Indian polity, it is better to embrace it as Gandhi did.
By getting ahead of the demands for fracture based on the past, we would do well to create an India that will continue to beat the odds on staying together as one nation.
Jai Hind.
PS: “If America is a melting pot, then India is a thali. Each dish tastes different but complements the other in making the meal a satisfying repast," said then UN undersecretary general Shashi Tharoor.
Narayan Ramachandran is chairman, InKlude Labs. Comments are welcome at narayan@livemint.com. To read Narayan Ramachandran’s previous columns, go to www.livemint.com/avisiblehand-
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
