Indian Context

 

Andhra State was the first state in India that has been formed on a purely linguistic basis by carving it out from Madras State in 1953. Andhra State was later merged with Telugu speaking area of Hyderabad State (Telangana), against the wishes of Telanganites, to create Andhra Pradesh state in 1956.Though the demand for a separate Telangana is pretty old, it picked up momentum after the creation of three new states in the north. All TRS MPs have resigned in protest of the continuous ambiguity of the Congress party on the issue.

 

Key aspects of the response

 

   1. Give a few salient features of a movement for a separate Telangana state

   2. What are the various arguments for and against a separate state?

   3. Are there alternatives to achieve the same objective of better political representation?

 

Requested By

 

A first time MP from Andhra Pradesh 

 

DUE DATE: March 15, 2008

 

 

RESPONSE

---

1. History: The States Reorganization Commission and the Establishment of Andhra Pradesh

 

In December 1953, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganization Commission to prepare for the creation of states on linguistic lines. This was headed by Justice Fazal Ali and the commission itself was also known as the Fazal Ali Commission. The efforts of this commission was overseen by Govind Ballabh Pant, who served as Home Minister from December 1954. The commission created a report in 1955 recommending the reorganisation of India's states.

 

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was not in favour of merging the Telangana region with the then Andhra state. Para 382 of States Reorganization Commission Report (SRC) said "..opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself". The concerns of Telanganas were manifold. The region had a less developed economy than Andhra, but a larger revenue base (mostly because it taxed rather than prohibited alcoholic beverages), which Telanganas feared might be diverted for use in Andhra. They also feared that planned dam projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers would not benefit Telangana proportionately even though Telanganas controlled the headwaters of the rivers. Telanganas feared too that the people of Andhra would have the advantage in jobs, particularly in government and education. Para 386 of States Reorganization Commission Report (SRC) said "After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification."

 

The central government decided to ignore the SRC recommendations and established a unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956. However, a "Gentlemen's agreement" provided reassurances to the Telangana people.

 

2. The Struggle for the Separate State of Telengana

 

The Gentleman's Agreement was intended to provide various safeguards to the people of Teleganga. This included the condition that there will be a regional standing committee of the state assembly belonging to that region – and that legislation relating to specified matters will be referred to the regional committee. The regional committee was conceived as a constitutional body to deal with matters relating to planning and development, public health, sanitation, primary and secondary education, regulation of admission to educational institutions, prohibition, sale of agricultural lands, cottage and small-scale industries, agriculture, cooperation and markets.

 

However, the regional committee failed because the region lost control over the administration and political authority passed into the hands of the coastal elite.

 

In 2004, for Assembly and Parliament elections, Congress party and TRS had an electoral alliance in Telangana region with the promise of separate Telangana State. Congress came to power in the state and formed coalition government at the centre. TRS joined the coalition government in 2004 and was successful in making Separate Telangana state as part of the common minimum program(CMP) of the coalition government.In September 2006 TRS withdrew support for the Congress led coalition government at center on the grounds of indecision by the government over the delivery of its electoral promise to create Telangana.

 

In December 2006, TRS won the by-election to Karimnagar parliamentary constituency, which is considered by many as referendum on Telangana state, with a record margin. All TRS legislatures in Parliament and in State (4MPs, 16MLAs, 3MLCs) resigned in the 1st week of March 2008 and forcing by-elections which can be viewed as referendum on Telangana state; to increase the pressure on Congress party and to intensify the movement.

 

Leaner, Meaner?: The Case for Small States

 

1) Better governance: It is an often stated presumption that smaller states are better governed. Some of the experiences of smaller states in India clearly indicate this. Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and Sikkim have made all-round progress thanks to their smaller size, while the larger states have not performed to their potential. Some of the larger states have even acted as drags on progress.

 

2) Political Parties that facilitate the creation of smaller states benefit:

 

3) Political authority cannot be sustained without the backing of social forces:

 

4) Greater realization of the true aspiration of the Telengana people:

 

 

For the smaller the State, the more accessible the politicians and officials, and the greater the attention paid to education, health, and employment generation — that is, to the things that should mean far more to people's lives than the building of Ram temples or Ambedkar statues

 

Disturbing the Federal Scheme: The Example of Uttar Pradesh

 

Historian Ramachandra Guha points out that even in the States Reorganisation Commission, Sardar K.M. Panikkar wrote a  note of dissent on the defects of large states. He pointed out that larger states, would have significantly greater power in national affairs, and thus would disturb the federal scheme.

 

"...suggested that the state of Uttar Pradesh be broken up into two more-or-less equal parts. This, he argued, was necessary for efficient administration and, more crucially, in the interests of a stable national polity. Pannikar pointed out that it was "essential for the successful working of a federation that the units should be fairly evenly balanced. Too great a disparity is likely to create not only suspicion and resentment but generate forces likely to undermine the federal structure itself and thereby be a danger to the country". For "it would be easy to see that this preponderant influence which would accrue to a very large unit could be abused, and would in any case be resented by all the other constituent units. Modern governments are controlled, to a lesser or greater extent, by party machines, within which the voting power of a numerically strong group goes a very long way". Thus, as things stood, the state of Uttar Pradesh was in a position to exercise an unduly large measure of political influence"."

 

Guha goes on to point out the powerful influence of the UP bloc on national politics. Six of free India's first seven Prime Ministers have come from Uttar Pradesh. It was the "U.P. bloc" within the Congress that effectively ran the party for the first 20 years after Independence. It is, by common consent, one of the most backward States in the country: backward economically, but also socially and culturally. Yet by sending as many as 80 MPs to the Lok Sabha it can virtually shape the future of India. This is tragic, not least because the agenda of U.P. is not necessarily the agenda of the rest of India. It is interesting to note that of late, Mayawati, Chief Minister of UP is asking for the trifurcation of the state into three states of Bundelkhand, Western UP, and Purvanchal.

 

 

Disadvantages of smaller states

 

(i) Limited powers for small states: 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 about 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 or 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 approbation. 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 situation, what additional progress can one expect from the new (small) States, without fighting for true federalism in our constitutional framework ?

 

(ii) No real development for small states: 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-developed small countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan.

 

iii) Resources utilized for administrative machinery and not for development: The issues arising out of the rapid technological advancements in the world put governments under stress to cope up with them and made them 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 integration.

 

(iv) Possibility of more disputes with no real resolution: 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) Impetus to secessionist movements: 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) Problems of determining optimum smallness: 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. 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 ?

 

Other recent smaller states  

 

 

References

 

http://www.telangana.org/TelanganaFAQ.asp

http://www.greatandhra.com/interviews/kcr_interview.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/TRS_issues_ultimatum_over_separate_Telangana_state/articleshow/2706387.cms

http://www.greatandhra.com/interviews/kcr_interview.html

http://www.country-studies.com/india/regionalism.html

http://countrystudies.us/india/77.htm

http://countrystudies.us/india/76.htm

http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10331.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Women+in+armed+conflict:+lessons+to+be+learnt+from+Telangana+people's...-a0168162616

http://documents.scribd.com/docs/yywtvj0hvto0vfinmob.pdf

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2004/05/09/stories/2004050900160300.htm

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070813/edit.htm#4

M. Kodanda Ram, 'Movement for Telengana State: A Struggle for Autonomy,' Economic and Political Weekly, January 13, 2007