Comment

It is a fairly sound proposal. But because it came from the RSS, everyone outside the saffron spectrum is bound to view its suggestion for a new states reorganisation commission, with more than a fair dose of suspicion.

The RSS, all its opponents believe, would never do anything without a motive, an agenda, if you will. That may or may not be true. But it looks like the time has come to review formation of states on the basis of language close to 60 years ago. Not that all states were then formed on the basis of language. If that was the case UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, to start with, would have had to be a single Hindi-speaking state.

Back in 1956, it did not make sense to keep Gujarat as part of Bombay state nor Haryana and Himachal as part of Punjab, as the states reorganisation committee headed by Fazal Ali, was mandated to suggest reorganisation on the basis of language alone.
That yardstick appeared to apply largely to regions in south India which were part of the erstwhile Madras and Bombay presidencies. The trigger for reorganisation of states was the demand for unification of Telugu speaking areas into a single state. The SRC, set up in 1953, after Potti Sriramulu fasted to death, was responsible for the present states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. Bombay state, covering present Maharashtra and Gujarat, had to split later in 1960 and Punjab into three states in 1966. By then, it appears as if the state boundaries were reordered on the basis of language. Telangana, of course, has always proved that language as a basis for integration was hollow.

With the decision of the centre to let Andhra break up, the demand from other regions for separation is gathering some speed. Leaders in Vidharba, Bundelkhand or Western UP see a window of opportunity to break away from the larger entities of which they are now a part. Letting Telangana separate from Andhra has opened a pandora’s box. There are many who believe the Congress handled Telangana issue in a very ham-handed manner this time.

That perception is pretty strong even though, as it turns out, the party does not seem to be in a tearing hurry to form a new state and is actually suggesting now that Telangana is a possibility only if there is consensus in the state. That, surely, is a sign of buying time to let passions cool. Even leaders from Telangana now realise that you cannot simply walk away from the existing arrangement and seem reconciled to some delay in the formation of the state.

Although the Congress leadership has more or less ruled out entertaining demand from other regions for formation of new states, it is perhaps a good time to revisit the very basis of formation of states 53 years ago. Language, as an emotional adhesive, has failed to hold people together and, worse still; the perception in many such regions of developmental deficit is actually closer to truth. Many such regions would be pretty low on economic and human development indicators.

Separation from a larger administrative body in itself is not going to solve the problem of backwardness in these regions. If the entities are small and compact, it is possible that they would receive better attention. If a case can be made out that state spending would be better utilised and the region would prosper, the argument in favour of allowing bigger states to be broken up would gain strength as it did in the case of Uttarakhand and UP, Chattisgarh and MP and Jharkhand and Bihar.

A states reorganisation commission, therefore, may give an opportunity for interested parties to make out a case. Such an SRC, not restrained by a singular factor such as language, may be able to redraw boundaries in such a way that imbalances in development between one region and another within states now may be corrected in two or three decades.

If, for instance, large national urban assets like metropolitan cities and other resources like river water are actually treated as national assets not belonging to a state or states or conferring a particular right on those states, it might be possible to redraw boundaries without having to factor in emotional pressure. That is easier said than done because much more than the states, it is the regimes that rule the states or hope to do so that develop a vested interest in establishing political rights over the state.

The deep interest political parties take in movements such as Telangana or Harit Pradesh has to be seen in that context. If you can try and have a kingdom for Kapus or Velamas in Telangana, denied the throne by the Reddys and Khammas in Andhra; if you can have a kingdom for the Jats, again denied the throne for god knows how long in UP, why not? Politics is all about that.