The three new States

THE ADOPTION BY the Lok Sabha of the three Bills to carve out Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh, even while providing some scope for ``development'' in these regions, could lead to similar demands from several other regions across the country. The creation of these three new States based on the rationale that smaller States are the only remedy for the curse of under- development cannot but strengthen demands for carving out new States such as Vidharba (in Maharashtra), Telengana (in Andhra Pradesh), Gorkhaland (in West Bengal) and Bodoland (in Assam) in the immediate context. Such apprehensions are not at all misplaced given the ability of members of the political class in these and other regions to play upon the sentiments of the poor people and lead them to perceive that the problems they face are due to the largeness (in the physical sense) of the States and the consequent neglect of their problems and needs. That the under-development of the regions that will now constitute Jharkhand (or Vananchal), Uttarakhand (or Uttaranchal) and Chattisgarh was primarily due to the pervasive insensitivity among the political class as well as the establishment in the three States over the years rather than the States being large cannot be glossed over. And yet if popular support to the demand for Statehood was evident it only points to the ability of the members of the political class in those parts to whip up emotions.

Indeed, the temptation to celebrate the idea of smaller States and believe that this could help rectify the regional imbalances is hard to resist. But then, the experience hitherto on a related issue - the business of carving out more districts within the States - has only dispelled such impressions. The exercise was carried out in several States in the past decade and particularly so in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; yet there are hardly any indications that such measures have triggered development. Instead, it will not be an exaggeration to say that most parts of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have been sliding backwards in terms of human development indicators such as health-care or literacy. The story is not very different on the law and order front. The rationale behind carving out new districts has always been that it would bring the civil administration closer to the people and thus help development and administrative efficiency; the outcome, however, has not been happy. If at all, such measures have led to an enormous increase in unproductive expenditure. Given this experience, the three new States could only mean some more positions of power - three more State Governments and all the staff and paraphernalia that come with them - for the members of the political class.

Be that as it may, the passage of the Bills in the Lok Sabha, particularly the ones pertaining to Uttaranchal and Jharkhand, have brought to the fore the fissures within the ruling NDA. While the absence of the two-member Shiromani Akali Dal squad (the SAD had threatened to walk out of the combine if Udham Singh Nagar district was included in the new State but that was when the party had at least eight MPs in the Lok Sabha) when the Bill on Uttaranchal was passed saved the ruling combine of embarrassment, the loud protests from the Samata-JD(U) members and the walk-out by the Biju Janata Dal over the Jharkhand Bill cannot but bother the political leadership of the ruling combine in the days to come. Apart from this, the promise by the Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, to create a cell in the Planning Commission to look into demands for compensation to Bihar (the State Assembly had demanded a package running into several crores in ``exchange'' for the 18 tribal-dominated districts rich in mineral wealth) is also bound to lead to further problems and provide a handle to unscrupulous members of the political class to play upon the emotions of the misguided youth in the rest of Bihar.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : A bill of intentions