There is this trend in India of new 'states' being formed within the Union every few years. The first breakup of states were in the South, later we have seen Assam break up into smaller states, then we have had Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal etc (these, I am not even familiar with), then Punjab/Harayana.
I think in the 60's Telengana wanted to separate from Andhra. The solution after all that agitation was to to make Chenna Reddy (I think) the Chief Minister. There are now new demands, once again for a separate Telengana state. In the NE, there are also some demands for either more states or autonomy. Darjeeling wants to separate from W. Bengal and so forth.
This brings us to some questions:
What exactly does 'statehood' do for a people (say Chattisgarh)? From all we know, there is very little difference between Chattisgarh and Bihar - so why was there a demand for statehood?
Does the equation boil down to a few people wanting the power of a state Govt. and to become 'caretakers'?
Do these separate 'states' protect the local interests?
If so, how deep and how many divisions do we need? Imagine Nalbari or Jorhat seeking separate states?
There are of course genuine differences - like maybe, Meghalaya and Assam. Even though, many of us did not like for Meghalaya to be separate, today it seems that maybe both Assam and Meghalaya are better off (am not sure - but it looks that way, though).
I am wondering, if in all this, India is losing the very essence it was built on - ie. a country made up of people with different hues and varying differences - living peacefully together and thinking of the country as a whole.
The way this trend is moving along, even a decentralized, autonomous states solution may not work for India - as there may still be demands for creating new autonomous powers and bodies.
-- Ram (in utopia)
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
