• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

The move towards smaller States -- A Consensus in favour sharing the spoils?

D. Sampathkumar

THE President has given his assent to the formation of the States of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal. But of course it is going to be a while before any Government comes into being in these infant States. The delay is because of a number of formal ities, that is the essence of political midwifery on such occasions, that may have to be gone through before they can be added to the population of States in the Indian Union.

Chief Minister elects in these regions have still some time to go before they start worrying about cutting down subsidies, hiking electricity tariffs, negotiating with some local forest brigand, etc -- the stuff that governance seems to be made of, these days.

But by far the most surprising aspect in the events leading up to the formation of these States is the relative unanimity among the political parties to the passage of these Bills. One recalls in this context the bitter opposition to the demand for forma tion of a new State of Telengana in the seventies and more recently, to the demand for the formation of a Gorkhaland out of the hill districts of West Bengal.

Though Jharkhand and Uttaranchal did suffer severe birth pangs it must be accepted that the process of creation of these new States had been largely peaceful. This was possible because all the mainstream parties had acquiesced in their formation.

Whether this signals the dawn of a new culture of non-partisan politics in the country or not, is immaterial. What is, is that the development is perfectly in tune with the reality of electoral politics in the country in which coalition governments have become the order of the day. Not just at the Centre but at the State level as well.

This is where small States are likely to prove a godsend. In a coalition Government the mechanics of sharing power is of crucial importance in the success of the arrangement. For governance on a coalition basis and for harmonious relations among partners , it is necessary that they view the distribution of ministerial berths in administration as equitable.

Of course, by equity one means, a fair share of the governmental finances pie when it comes to spending it. But the very nature of cabinet form of administration with portfolios along functional lines does not provide for an equitable distribution of min isterial responsibilities. There is invariably a skewed distribution of governmental outlays.

Take the consolidated expenditure of all States for the year 1999-2000. Of the Rs. 40,000 or so of capital outlays over which States have some discretion or more particularly, the ministers in charge of administrative departments, bulk of it gets spent o n irrigation, agriculture, power, water supply. Again a major component is by way of public works.

But there can be only one minister for public works. One can't possibly have a minister for public works for the northern districts and one for the southern districts. Or at least no Government has resorted to such novel arrangements as yet. In the circu mstances, the break up of a State into one or more component units is a neat solution to the problem of an even distribution of allocation of financial authority.

Where there are two States instead of one, it is that much easier for a more rational allocation of financial authority among competing partners in a coalition. With a regional bias in voting pattern within a State, the decision to split States into smal ler units, has been rendered that much easier. The decision to split Bihar into two, is a good case in point.

It is a moot point if the enthusiasm of Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, the Rashtriya Janata Dal leader, for the hiving off of Jharkhand from the composite State of Bihar would have been as strong had the Jharkhand region returned his party candidates in big num ber. By voting in favour of a split the party could at least look forward to controlling the resources that would get allocated to what now remains of Bihar. The RJD stipulation that the truncated Bihar should be compensated with thousands of crores of r upees might well turn out to be the icing on the fiscal cake! The financial pangs of separation (Jharkhand) would then be made a lot less traumatic for the ruling coalition in that State.

What the country is witnessing is not the dawn of a new era of non-partisan approach to issues of grave national importance. It is far more likely that there is a new found sense of realism among political parties that the ``winner take all'' syndrome no longer operates in the world of politics.