EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES

AND
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

Tadepalli Lalitha Bala Subrahmanyam, May, 2001.

The turn of the century has opened a Pandora’s box in India’s geopo-
litical sphere with the emergence of three new States on its map and
raked up a host of controversial issues. On a different plane, the event
is historic and has more potential ramifications than India’s partition
in 1947, in the view of the spurt it has given to separatist elements in
various pockets of the country. Following the creation of Jharkhand,
Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh, voices in favour of separate Kodagu State,
Vidarbha, Konkan, Telangana, Ladakh and Jammu have grown more assertive
and strident. At a stroke, all the old ghosts were resurrected from their
graves. “Just a resolution in the parliament, and we’ll form our own
State”- seems to be the dominant trend across the country. Whoever
disagrees with the separatist demand is deemed enemy of the region and
its development.

WHY THIS SUDDEN SEPARATISM ?

The creation of three new States has left many wondering, with what
ease and expediency the Indian Parliament could make and unmake States
at will. They have understood that the so-called linguistc States of
India have no sanctity and indestructibility, but can be freely tampered
with. A constitutional provision exists enabling the Parliament to this
effect, but this statute was sparingly used in the past with only a few
States coming into existance after the first reorganization of States on
linguistic basis. It is worth recalling that-for all their despotic
tendencies, late Indira Gandhi and her son and successor late Rajiv
Gandhi had never compromised on the principle of national unity and
EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN 2

mercilessly crushed all separatism in its umpteen avatars. While Indira

dealt with the separate Telangana and Jai Andhra movements with an iron
hand, Rajiv was rather curtly outspoken in his aversion to creating new
States. But a constitutional provision is apparently on the verge of
being misused well on the lines of Article 356 behind the veneer of
public demand and correcting regional imbalances.

(i) Regional backwardness is cited as the principal reason for which the
new States were created. Ironically enough, the party in power in all the
3 bifurcated States had traditionally been the Indian National Congress
that now merrily voted for their bifurcation. Then, is it the fault of
the integrated State or the party in power there ?

(ii) Now, confronted with the intellectual bankruptcy in the wake of a

globally sweeping market economy,political entities have lost their
ideological ground and are in search of fresh issues to make headlines in
media. Demand for separate States comes handy at this juncture.

(iii) Besides the political arithmatic of small States makes it possible

for a half or one-third of the MLAs to occupy miniterial berths which is
not the case with a big State having 200 assembly seats.

(iv) Unlike reservation quotas, a demand for a separate State strikes an

emotional chord with every inhabitant of the region, thus lending its
divisive content a touch of democracy. Thus the demand holds a sure-shot
political promise worth investing in by politicians of all hues.

(v) Moreover, the Indian polity is often termed as quasi-federal, while

in fact, it has few or no federal features worth the name except the
existence of 28 States. The Centre loves to view these states more as
mere administrative units than manifestations of the cultural aspira-
tions of various sub-nations in the country. Thus, strong sub-nations
are perceived as a threat to the constitutionally centralized powers
arrogated to themselves by successive Union Governments during the last
53 years. Therefore, the centre is ready to bifurcate or even trifurcate
big States just on demand, pending a number of other bills of more
urgency and importance.

(vi) When the Indian leaders at the dawn of independence decided to form
States on linguistic basis, they were not motivated by any vested
interest, but only an urge to emancipate the native cultures, languages
and people subjugated under the colonial yoke. With the memory of those
leaders and their movements in the Gandhian era slowly fading out of
EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN 3

public memory, divisive politics now usurp the vaccuous ideological

space.

IS SMALL REALLY BEAUTIFUL ?

(i) According to the advocates of small States, they are easy to govern
and develop. Small countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan
and a host of European countries have made faster material progress than
big countries like India, China, Brazil and Indonesia. Apart from the
selective exemplification, this contention has basic fallacy abou it. A
dignified municipality called the (constituent) State of India can not
be likened to an independent republic of sovereign powers, which can
decide and dictate its own future. Under the existing dispensation, the
so-called States are toothless for all practical purposes with no powers
to sanction either a small industrial ot irrigation project. They can
not even rename a place without the Centre’s approval. All minerals and
underground resources squarely belong to the Centre. States can not
grant permission even to start a newspaper or journal. No resolution
passed by a State becomes an Act without the President’s seal of appro-
bation. All avenues of revenue were monopolized by the Centre long ago,
leaving the States to fall back upon sales tax, octroi and registration
fees only. Almost all subjects in the States’ list were gradually
transferred to Concurrent list, thus enabling the Centre to poke a
finger in all internal affairs of the States. Given this ground situa-
tion, what additional progress can one expect from the new (small)
States, without fighting for true federalism in our constitutional
framework ?

(ii) Secondly, did all small States progress ? If they did, what could be
the reason ? Orissa, a small State of approx. 1,55,000 sq.k.m. (half the
size of Maharashtra), was formed way back in 1936 and is still rated as
a backward State. Still smaller states like Haryana and Punjab (each
having an area admeasuring approx. 50,000 sq.k.m.)were formed in the
60’s and they made rapid strides, owing not as much to their small size
as to the Green Revolution, centrally sponsored irrigation projects and
inflows of foreign exchange as also their proximity to the national
capital.

From a global perspective too, not all small countries can be

credited with progress. Well in our neighbourhood, we have under-devel-
oped small countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan.

(iii) The issues arising out of the rapid technological advancements in

the world put governments under stress to cope up with them and made them
EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN 4

increasingly variegated and complex. New laws and systems are to be

devised on a continuous basis. Thus, small States too are constrained to
keep as many as departments as big ones. Can they financially afford it
? What surplus funds are they left with for development, if revenues are
exhausted on the administrative machinery itself ? Uttaranchal State is
a case in point whose revenue receipts are well below Rs.350 crores, but
whose annual expenditure exceeds Rs.1,500 crores. It is for this reason
that it was recently accorded status of the Special category State,
which means more grants and fewer loans. The plight of Chhattisgarh is no
different too. Thus the concept of small States subjects the States to
incremental dependence on the Centre and leads to regional jealousies,
charges of favouritism and ultimate loss of faith in national integra-
tion.

(iv) The inter-State boundary and river water disputes between a number
of States are still unresolved with many of them remaining perpetually
sub-judice. For Instance, Karnataka alone has been in conflict with a
couple of States over disputed territories (Kasargode and Belgaum) and
with another couple of States on water-sharing (the Krishna and Cauvery).
The disputes are so emotive that they turned not only governments
against governments, but also the people of one State against those of
another and sporadic trading of violence is not uncommon. Given this
record, more States means more disputes which will ultimately threaten
to erode the very spirit of Indian nationalism.

(v) This dangerous doctrine of small States gives a fillip to the

secessionist outfits like the LTTE, ULFA. JKLF, and Khalistanis who
might find in it a cloaked and implicit endorsement of their balkanization
programme. “If small States are OK, why not small countries ?”they might
ask. We have no answer.

(vi) The parameters to determine the ‘optimum smallness’ are vague. We

can reorganize India into 88 Keralas, or 120 Nagalands or 250 Sikkims.
This number could be endless. They will serve no loftier purpose than
solving the political unemployment of a few.

STATUS QUO IS NO STAGNATION

The argument that big States have grown unwieldy by virtue of their
vastness and population is untenable and anachronistic for the simple
fact that we live in the age of internet, video-conferences, cell
phones, express haighways, jet planes and superfast railways. Will these
‘small advocates’ agree to divide India into 2 more free and independent
republics because her population tripled since independence ?
EUPHORIA OVER SMALL STATES AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN 4

Any ardent reader of history can tell us that the British conquest
of India became possible not for want of powerful principalities, but
only for want of strong nation-states on its soil. In contrast, the age-
old linguistic states like England, France and Japan were never colo-
nized but have colonized other countries.

Reorganization of India on linguistic basis was the best thing that

happened to her in her 5,000-year-long history. It demonstrated to the
world that we have politically come of age on par with the advanced
nations of the world. Any attempt to undo this mature regime will amount
to putting the clock back by millenia.

A nation or sub-nation is a homogenous group that organizes itself

on a permanent basis. No country in the world ever prospered, constantly
fiddling with its boundaries which amounts to anarchy, unrest, indisci-
pline and instability. It has been the curse on India’s fortunes since
time immemorial. Long-term unity and integration should not be sacri-
ficed at the altar of petty development issues which can be resolved with
proper planning, political will and time-bound implementation.

There are better ways to escape our boredom than agitating for
separate States.