some mistakes happened while sending , hence again i am sending it.
History is repeating itself. We are stumbling towards creating another
States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) after the one in 1955.
That one was formed after the death of aTelugu speaker, Potti Sriramalu, who
fasted for the creation of Andhra Pradesh like Chandrasekhar Rao who went on
afast unto death demanding the formation of Telangana state out of Andhra
Pradesh. Inevitably, the present denials notwithstanding, we will get a new
SRC and, hopefully, it will have a better set of criteria than mere common
local language to break existing large states into smaller ones.
That first Commission wanted Bombay to be a separate state. It thought that
Bombay was a very cosmopolitan city and a major commercial centre. It
deserved separate treatment. The Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti agitated and
won Bombay for Maharashtra.
In retrospect, Bombay in Maharashtra has made little difference to the
welfare of the rest of the state. The Economic survey shows poverty at 30.7
per cent of the population in Maharashtra versus 27.5 per cent all-India.
According to the Tendulkar committee’s calculations, Maharashtra is home to
the largest number of urban poor in the country. While it is ranked second
or third in the human development index, it has the maximum number of urban
poor. Without Bombay, Maharashtra is an underdeveloped state. Most of its
poor are outside Bombay.
Has Bombay benefited by being part of Maharashtra? No objective assessment
can find benefit to Bombay; indeed, being in Maharashtra has been a
disadvantage. It attracts much less investment than it did. Other cities
have outstripped it. Language politics is deeply embedded in the city as
Marathi speakers envy that it is the prosperous home to many non-Marathi
speakers. Demands for job reservation for the Marathi
manoos ,the dominance of politicians from outside Bombay who see Bombay as a
cash cow for funding the rest of the state, and more often to make their
personal fortunes, the lack of investment to improve the city’s
infrastructure, its corrupt administration, have all combined to erode its
advantage as the preeminent commercial centre of India. Its infrastructure
has deteriorated as has law and order. The police are horribly politicised
and parochial. Other cities have attracted more bright people from around
the country.
In 1955, the SRC was also worried about Bangalore. Bangalore was not
amajority Kannada-speaking city but it was surrounded by Kannada-speaking
districts. Bangalore was not given to Andhra by the SRC but became the
capital of Karnataka. It is today what Bombay was in 1955, a cosmopolitan
city with the best brains from all over India flocking to Bangalore to study
and work in its knowledge-based companies, research and educational
institutions. Unlike Bombay, which became a Maharashtrian city, Bangalore
did not change its status as a city which even today does not have a
Kannadaspeaking majority. There is no agitation for only Kannadigas getting
jobs in Bangalore. People from other states are not made to feel unwelcome
and fear for their lives.
Bombay in 1955 was very marginally a majority Marathi-speaking city. Being
an island, it was not surrounded by Marathi-speaking districts. Bombay is
now Mumbai on pain of violent repercussions, the legislature erupts into
violence if a language other than Marathi is used, and nasty comments are
made about speakers of other languages — first it was about Malayalam and
Kannada speakers and now about Hindi speakers from North Indian states.
Bombay has lost its Indian nature.
Punjab and Haryana were also given a solution that prevented the
parochialism that has developed in Bombay. Chandigarh as a common capital
for both states has worked well and the city has prospered.
A bigger question than the fate of Hyderabad (which hopefully will become a
Union Territory and capital of Telangana) is about the future of the present
disparate sized Indian states. Reorganisation is overdue. It must be based
on some rational principles. It must have a minimum and maximum population
and administrative units (districts).
There must be common bonds over the state. These could be many. The state
could be a common hinterland to its major cities. It could have common water
linkages that do not cross into other states. It must have adequate present
or potential tax revenues so that it is not for long dependent on central
handouts. Ideally, its state domestic product must be similar in composition
to all-India. Principles for reorganisation need careful thought before
being applied.
As states become more equal in size, we can expect major changes in the way
our political system works. The dominance of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar will
weaken. Smaller states have performed better for their people than have
large ones. They have also fomented largescale corruption, but perhaps not
more than their larger counterparts. Jharkhand is probably no worse than
Andhra. Political parties may find it more difficult to gang up on the basis
of community and religion. Today, regional parties are in states — TDP in
Andhra, DMK in Tamil Nadu, etc. They may represent groups of smaller states.
Central control would be stronger. The time has come for a rational and well
thought out reorganisation of states.
ILLUSTRATION BY BINAY SINHA
--
___________________________________________________________________
Welcome to Maa Vee Maa Kaa Nanbargal valai Kuzhu (Friendship Group)!
This group is purely of the Youth,
by the Youth and
for the Youth.
Utilize this group to post your views & messages.
___________________________________________________________________
To post to this Maa Vee Maa Kaa group, send your emails to [email protected]
Regards,
Owner,
Maa Vee Maa Kaa.
