EPW Commentary: Demand for New States (2000)

8/9/2019 EPW Commentary: Demand for New States (2000)

1/5

Economic and Political Weekly August 26-September 2, 20003078

Commentary

PRADEEP KUMAR

The process of the creation of threenew states of Chhattisgarh,Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) and

Jharkhand has evoked mixed responsesfrom the people living outside these pro-

posed states. While some have hailed it asa right step taken after considerable pro-crastination, others have apprehended theeventual break-up of the country intoseveral small political units reminiscent ofthe over 560 princely states at the time ofindependence. While these fears are cer-tainly exaggerated and even misplaced, thepassage of the bills in parliament creatingthe three states has given a fillip to de-mands for creation of many more suchstates. In fact there are several small andnot so small regions which have over the

the bigger states into smaller ones, evenin the 1950s-1960s, was not always onlinguistic basis. Thus when Assam wasbroken up to create new states (likeNagaland) or the Union Territories (likeMizoram), this was actually done on anti-linguistic lines in the sense that the non-Assamese speaking populations living inthe undivided state of Assam were exces-sively concerned about their possible

Assamisation as a result of the declara-tion of Assamese as the sole official lan-guage of the state.

Urge for Development

With the passage of time sentiment forlanguage and culture has given way to theurge for speedier economic development.If in the fifties Samyukta Maharashtra,Visal Andhra or the Maha Gujarat de-mands aimed at uniting co-linguistic popu-lations from neighbouring states, after about

three or four decades of lop-sided eco-nomic development, it is the issue ofunevenness of development that is loom-ing large on the political horizon. Thedominant linguistic elite which in the 1950scould subsume the smaller less developedsub-regions into larger linguistic regions,is no more capable of doing so. There hasbeen an acute sense of relative deprivationin some of these relatively under-devel-oped regions. This perception of non-development, development of under-development, or retarded development,

years demanded separation from theirparent states in the name of development,cultural distinctness, administrative con-venience, history of separate existence aspolitical entities and economic discrimi-nation.

It may be recalled that in the first round

of states reorganisation, the states hadbeen created largely on the linguisticprinciple, and the last state created on thisbasis was the resultant state of Punjab asa bifurcation of the bilingual Punjab inNovember 1966. Most other states createdthereafter were either created on ethnicbasis (such as Meghalaya) or were simplyelevated from centrally administered unitsto full-fledged states (such as Goa,Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh andHimachal Pradesh). One thing that may beimportant to note is that the break-up of

Demand for New StatesCultural Identity Loses Ground to Urgefor Development

There is an acute sense of relative deprivation in the

underdeveloped regions of many states. This perception of lack ofdevelopment has transcended the linguistic cohesion which hadseemed to be such a strong cementing force in the initial years of

post-colonial political development.


2/5

Economic and Political Weekly August 26-September 2, 2000 3079

has transcended the linguistic cohesionwhich seemed to be such a great cementingforce in the initial years of post-colonialpolitical development.

The sentiment for separate statehood inthese regions today emanates from a per-ception of a centre-periphery relationshipwith the politically more powerful domi-nant regions, which have allegedly ex-

ploited the rich mineral and other naturalresources of their periphery in a colonialmode of development. Ironically mostbackward regions of some of these statesare actually the richest in terms of naturalresources. It was the articulation of thisstrong sentiment of being treated as aninternal colony that had earlier led to thesetting up of Development Boards in Kutch,Saurashtra, Marathwada and Vidarbha.

Unlike the linguistic states, most statesin the Hindi belt were actually neverorganised on a linguistic basis, and were

in fact the remainders of the linguisticstates (Madhya Pradesh) or the gifts ofBritish colonial policies ( Uttar Pradeshand Bihar) [Khan 1997:253]. It was thelack of politicisation on the part of variouscultural regions in these states that madeit possible for these non-linguistic megastates to continue to exist. Initially leaderslike G B Pant thought it fit to keep thebigger states intact to counterbalance thefissiparous tendencies of linguisticregionalism, which these leaders fearedcould degenerate into regional chauvin-

ism, inimical to national integration.K M Panikkar, a member of the StatesReorganisation Commission (SRC), wasseverely criticised by G B Pant andJawaharlal Nehru for suggesting a divisionof UP [Kumar 1998:87-88].

It was only when some big states of theHindi belt, that were to be the anchor ofmainstream nationalism, ironically cameto be identified with non-development (oreven a downward journey on the socio-economic scale) that the various sub-re-gions in these states also began thinking

in terms of smaller political units capableof speedier economic growth. The muchpublicised Kerala model in the south andthe Punjab-Haryana-Himachal model inthe north gave the necessary impetus tothis sentiment of small is good. It issometimes erroneously believed that thedemands for smaller states, particularly inthe Hindi belt, have something to do withdialect-communities, euphemisticallycalled cultural identities.

While there is no denying that there arevarious linguo-cultural sub-regional for-

mations in these states which have overthe years been subsumed into a larger Hindiidentity in view of the official status of thislanguage, these smaller formations arereally not identities in the sense in whichwe use this term today. It is one thing tohave a cultural identity in the private orcultural domain and quite another to havethe same in the public or political domain.

In the latter case an identity is a politicalformation that asserts through mobilisationfor greater public space vis-a-vis otherlarger identities. This has not been the casewith most sub-regional identities in theHindi belt where there has been very littlepoliticisation of these identities.

It is only the general perception of smallerstates progressing faster (which again maynot necessarily be so on account of theirsmallness) that the politicisation of theidea of smaller states has gained currencyin some of these states. It may be important

to mention that even in the much discussedUttarakhand movement and the long drawnJharkhand movement, the driving forcewas the strong sentiment against decadesof non-development [Kumar 2000:79-116], and the cultural or ethnic factor wasadded only as an instrumental factor toreinforce their cases.

Demands for New States

While several small and even minisculeregions, both in and outside the Hindi belt,

have been demanding separate states forthemselves, some of these demands havebeen more persistent than others whichhave largely been dormant. H D DeveGowdas Independence Day declarationof his governments resolve to create aseparate Uttarakhand in 1996, and now theparliaments decision to actually create thethree new states will awaken many of thesedemands from hibernation. It may berecalled here that there was a spurt indemands for smaller states immediatelyafter Deve Gowdas declaration in 1996.

Kodagu Rajya Mukti Morcha (Coorg)under its leader Nachhappa (Pioneer,November 23, 1997), Purvanchal MuktiMorcha (comprising 20 districts of easternUP) headed by Raj Kumar Singh (Pioneer,January 18, 1997), and a steering commit-tee comprising leaders of movements forsmaller states of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand,Chhattisgarh, western UP, Gorkhaland andPurvanchal, under the leadership of formercivil aviation minister PurushottamKaushik (Pioneer, January 24, 1997),all came to the fore in the months im-

mediately following the August 15, 1996declaration.

All these and some more such demandsare now likely to get further activated.Recently the western UP leader Ajit Singh(son of the legendary Jat leader CharanSingh) has once again convened in Augusta meeting in New Delhi of leaders sup-porting the demands for Gorkhaland,

Telangana, Vidarbha, Purvanchal andBundelkhand, perhaps only to strengthenhis own demand of a separate Harit Pradeshcomprising 23 districts from western UP.

The demands for new states in the Hindibelt may be listed as the following:(a) Bundelkhand comprising districts ofthe Vindhya plateau in southern UP andthe neighbouring districts of the northernMP. The film actor Raja Bundela has beenvoicing this demand for quite some timenow with some other politicians of thearea. This was also later supported by the

ex-UP chief minister N D Tiwari whocontested a Lok Sabha election from theJhansi constituency of the region.(b) Purvanchal in UP comprising the morebackward districts of eastern UP whichhave been on the margin of the greenrevolution that earlier brought agriculturalprosperity to the western districts of thestate. The Pragatisheel Bhojpur Samaj hasoften demanded even a larger Bhojpur,comprising 25 districts of eastern UP andneighbouring Bihar, with Varanasi as itscapital, and inclusion of Bhojpuri lan-

guage in the Eighth Schedule of theConstitution (Pioneer, April 16, 1997).(c) A consequent demand for the separa-tion of the more prosperous western dis-tricts of UP which have been the bastionof the green revolution, and have variouslybeen named as Pashchim Pradesh or morerecently as Harit Pradesh by Ajit Singh.He has in fact convened a meeting ofwestern UP leaders on August 19 this yearto forcefully put his demand for a HaritPradesh. It is interesting to recall that 97out of the 100 MLAs from this region had

submitted a memorandum to the SRC inthe early 1950s demanding the separationof these western districts, but the demandwas turned down (perhaps rightly so)allegedly on account of lack of publicsentiment on this matter.(d) A Mahakoshal in central MP as a con-sequence of the separation of Chhattisgarh.Jabalpur and its neighbouring districtswhich have a large agricultural tract consti-tute the potential region for a viable state.(e) The districts of the western MP maybe left only with the option of demanding


3/5


National Thermal Power Corporation Ad


4/5


5/5


Mahakoshal, Mewar and Marwar seemdistant prospects in view of non-existent ormeagre mobilisation of support for them.

Situation in Non-Hindi States

In the non-Hindi states, the situation isquite different. In some of the regions ofthese states, the mobilisation has been quite

extensive, but the demands have not foundfavour with the centre largely on accountof intense opposition from the remainingregions of the parent states. As mentionedearlier, Telangana and Vidarbha haveexperienced much politicisation over theyears but have yet to find a place on thecentres agenda. Similarly Gorkhaland inWest Bengal, Bodoland in Assam, andLadakh in Jammu and Kashmir, haveinvited positive hostility from the stategovernments and have therefore to remaincontent with District Council or the Au-

tonomous Region status. It is quite pos-sible that these may once again be in turmoilin the wake of the rising possibilities ofcreation of some more states.

The additional problem with demandslike those for Bodoland, Gorkhaland,Kamatpur and Coorg is that they relate torelatively small areas and the essentialcriterion of separation (except in Coorg)is ethnic which creates all kinds of prob-lems, besides of course being problematicin terms of the secular idiom. It becomesnearly impossible, for example, in most

districts of the proposed Bodoland toidentify the Bodo majority areas and thisobviously pits the non-Bodos (say, KonchRajbansis) against the Bodos in whosename the state is being demanded. Anycreation in future of a state primarily onethnic lines is bound to result in height-ened ethnic strife.

The developing political scenario there-fore points to the creation of only a fewmore states. In the wake of the recentcategorical statement of the union homeminister against the appointment of an

SRC to look into a comprehensivereorganisation of states most other de-mands are most unlikely to be met. How-ever, some of these demands which areless conflict-ridden, or/and are not ethnicin character, but are largely a response toeconomic or administrative neglect in thelarger parent states, are more likely todevelop a momentum in the coming years,provided of course (a) there is sufficientpoliticisation, through mobilisation, of aperception of deprivation, and (b) the parentstates relent in their opposition to the

demands. Vidarbha and Telangana inMaharashtra and Andhra Pradesh respec-tively seem to be the two most likely winnersin this race, for elevation to full statehood.

Besides the long standing and not-so-long-standing demands discussed abovethat are at the various stages of mobilisationin the different states, one must be readyfor newer demands to come up as a result

of raised expectations in this regard. Apartfrom reconciling with these demands fornew states, the Indian political scene islikely to witness many more inter-stateboundary disputes as a consequence of thecarving out of the new states. Orissasresentment against the inclusion ofSaraikela and Kharasuan in the newly-

created Jharkhand state is a pointer inthis direction.

References

Brass, Paul R (1992): The Politics of India sinceIndependence, Cambridge University Press.

Khan, Rasheeduddin (1997a): Uttar Pradesh andFederal Balance in India, in RasheeduddinKhan, (ed) Rethinking Indian Federalism,

Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla. (1997b): Federalism in India: A Quest for NewIdentity in Khan, Rasheeduddin, ibid.

Kumar, B B (1998): Small States Syndrome inIndia, Concept Publishing Company, NewDelhi.

Kumar, Pradeep (2000): The Uttarakhand Movement: Construction of a Regional

Identity, Kanishka Publishers Distributors,New Delhi.

EPW

Documents

EPW Commentary: Demand for New States (2000)