The Indian model of federalism is markedly different from western classical idea of federation. While Article 1 of Indian constitution, gives primacy to indestructible unity of nation over constituting states, Art 2 and Art 3 empower the parliament to form / alter the boundaries of the states or their names.
Demand for smaller states
The advent of new millennium saw the creation of three new states -- Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand (originally named Uttarakhand) and Jharkhand, carved out from the parent states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and the recent statehood of Telangana.
More recently, India has witnessed a renewed assertion from historically constituted regions for the creation of smaller states.
The regions include Gorkhaland and Kamtapur in West Bengal; Coorg in Karnataka; Mithilanchal in Bihar; Saurashtra in Gujarat; Vidarbha in Maharashtra; Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal, Braj Pradesh and Awadh Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh and Bundelkhand comprising areas of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
The basis of assertion of new states
This renewed demand for smaller states can be attribute to four factors:
• First, electoral politics in the 'post-Congress polity' has been marked by the politicization and mobilization of social cleavages along territorially confined lines of caste, religion and region by state-level 'ethnic' parties. Symptomatic of the federalization of the party system, even the 'national' parties with distinct regional characters increasingly adhere to region specific electoral campaigns and policies.
• Second, centralized federalism under development-planning model failed to achieve its aim of bringing about equitable development across and within the regional states Regional inequalities in terms of income and consumption and the constant feeling
of neglect and discrimination in the peripheral regions.(e.g Telangana, Vidarbha and Marathawada) has forced people to demand new states.
• Thirdly 'secession of the rich'regions attracting huge private investments and registering impressive growth,
have started resenting the dependence of relatively underdeveloped regions on the revenues transferred to
them (for example, Harit Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh). Local elites complain of 'reverse' discrimination as
other politically dominant regions manage to corner financial deals/grants/lucrative portfolios. In response,
they want statehood with the full powers that entails
• Fourthly Shift in India's federal ideology:
• Regional identity, culture, and geographical differences now appear to be better recognized as valid bases for administrative division and political representation as democracy deepens and widens.
• Smaller states are being proposed on the grounds of good governance and development rather than merely on the linguistic or cultural principle.
• Recently even dialect communities have been asking for their own 'territorial homeland' while underlining the cultural and literary distinctiveness and richness of the dialect.
Arguments in favour of smaller states
• Small is beautiful: Factual analysis shows the development and efficiency argument does work in favour of the new states when compared with the parent states.
.
• Better democratic Governance: Comparatively smaller but compact geographical entities tend to ensure that there is better democratic governance, as there is greater awareness among the policy makers about the local needs. Smaller spatial units having linguistic compatibility and cultural homogeneity also allow for better management, implementation and allocation of public resources in provisioning basic social and economic infrastructure services.
• Decentralization, devolution and Democracy: The democratic polity of India is better served by smaller states where decision making power is devolved to smaller regions, funds are devolved to people .Thus fulfilling democratic aspiration of people.
• Good Governance: Good governance means lesser government, responsive government, closer government,and quicker government.
• Balanced regional development: It can be boon for the smaller region as it do not need to take load of the complete region. Now a small state can develop based on its own resources.
Arguments against smaller states:-
• The small States could also lead to the hegemony of the dominant community/caste/tribe over their
power structures. There can develop, in such States, an aggressive regionalism too leading to the growth of the sons-of-the-soil phenomenon and consequent intimidation of the migrants.
• The attainment of Statehood could also lead to emergence of intra-regional rivalries among the subregions as has happened in Himachal Pradesh, religious communities as in Punjab and castes/tribes as in Haryana and Manipur, if the regional identity of the new States remains weak due to demographic factors or historical reasons or their cultural backwardness.
• The creation of small States may also lead to certain negative political consequences. Since the strength of the State legislature would be rather small in such States, the majority of the ruling party or ruling coalition would remain fragile as the present situation in Uttarakhand. In such a situation, a small group of legislators could make or break a government at will.
• There can be the risk of centralisation of powers in the hands of the Chief Minister, the members of his family and the chief Minister's Secretariat would be rather greater. And, so would be the possibility of a Chief Minister turning the State into a political machine and himself becoming its boss merely by purchasing the support of MLAs in one way or the other. The administration of such States would tend to be highly personalised and politicised.
• The creation of small States would lead to an appreciable increase in the inter-State water, power and boundary disputes.
• The division of states would require huge funds for building new capitals and maintaining a large number of Governors, Chief Ministers, Ministers and administrators as the case in division of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (establishment of new capital at Amravati).
• It has often been pointed out that smaller states are better placed to administer and respond to the needs of the state's citizens more nimbly.
Contrary to the argument , while small states of Northeast have remained under developed, bigger states like Maharashtra and Karnataka have shown faster development. Clearly 'largeness' based on size or population alone is not a true deterrent for growth.
• In human development indicators also there is a mixed result where smaller states like Haryana, Punjab, Kerala and bigger states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc. top the list, indicating that Good Governance and not size , what determines development.
• The votaries of 'small 'states argue that small state administrations are quicker to respond. However, truth again lies somewhere in between. That small states may not be very prompt in responding was amply clear in the recent unfortunate floods of Uttaranchal. However, some of the worst terrorist attacks have taken place in 'large' states. Naxalism - affected 'small', 'large', 'old', 'new' states equally. Hence, this argument is perhaps is not convincing.
• Creation of smaller states only transfers power from the old state capital to new state capital without
empowering already existing institutions like Gram Panchayat, District Collector, etc. development cannot be diffused to the backward areas of the states.
Conclusion
Though Indian constitution (and democratic polity) welcomes genuine regional aspirations, the plethora of demands for smaller states as a panacea for all developmental issues has created many administrative and political problems in recent times.
Hence a rational assessment of the factors behind the demand, based on Population size, geographical homogeneity, strategic nature of the location etc should be done to consider the future demands for smaller states.
People must have a direct say in their development. This will address the problems of displacement
and discontent among people and lead to balanced regional development.
Comments
Post a Comment