Events & Issues
New Delhi, 29 December 2009
Formation
Of Telangana
SMALL
STATES IN THE OFFING?
By
Dhurjati Mukherjee
The big question about the need and
justification of forming small States has oft been debated but the announcement
of a new Sate of Telangana has set off an avalanche of competing demands from
across the country. While some of the demands cannot be ignored, many are just
intended to seek political mileage. Already UP Chief Minister Mayawati has
suggested the bifurcation of the State into three parts, while the agitation
for a separate Gorkhaland has been stepped up. This apart, RJD leader Lalu
Prased, has lately revived the demand for a new Poorvanchal, comprising
Bhojpuri-speaking districts of UP and Bihar.
However, the demand for Telangana and Vidarbha
was recognized by the Congress Working Committee way back in 2001 when it
accepted a report of one of its study teams. Over the past 60 years successive
governments have tinkered with State boundaries and carved out new States from the
old. The last three – Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand – were created in
November 2000. Thus, today India
has 28 States compared to 14 shortly after it became a Republic. Some experts
believe that nine years after the creation of these States, there is reason to
believe in the justification of creating small States to ensure better
governance.
Indeed, all these three States have grown quite
fast. Uttarakhand averaged 9.31 per cent growth annually Jharkhand 8.45 per
cent and Chhattisgarh 7.35 per cent. Today, the three have become dynamic States
and poised to grow fast. Special mention may be made of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh
where, according to a report, “the share of manufacturing in their GDP has risen
dramatically as they have attracted industrial projects …. Raipur in Chhattisgarh has now entered the
top 10 districts of the country in manufacturing with two industrial estates at
Urla and Siltara”.
The National Family Health Survey-3(NFHS-3)
found that both these States improved access to electricity with Jharkhand
recording a spectacular increase of 70 per cent from 23.6 per cent to 40.2 per
cent between NFHS-2 and NFHS-3. In fact, the per capita income of Chhattisgarh
in 2008-09 was Rs 29,621 much higher than that of Madhya Pradesh, which stood
at Rs 18,051.
However, an argument against splitting the existing
States in that the new ones are slow to mobilize their own funds from taxes or
cess and depend heavily on Central grants. It is a fact that Uttarakhand, after
its formation, joined the list of special category States which get 70 per cent
of Central funds. But it is well-known that even the established States such as
West Bengal and Bihar are still slow to
collect local revenues that match funds from the Centre which sadly often go unused.
The case with Telangana is that most of the
districts which are to be part of the new State are underdeveloped. Only Hyderabad is the prize.
However, it is surrounded by districts such as Nalgonda, Madak and Warangal, which are
backward and need to be developed. It may be pointed out that the most
productive areas like investment-rich Visakhapatnam
and K.G. Basin will stay in Andhra. It is also a
fact that the per capita income of the proposed State of Telangana
(even including Hyderabad)
in less than that of Andhra Pradesh.
It is necessary to understand the geography and
geology of the propped new State. Telangana is an arid, resource-poor and
landlocked area perched in the highlands. It has no minerals and its coal is of
inferior quality. The Godavari cuts through the area but it may be difficult to
funnel water from the river into the fields. Many suicides by farmers have been
reported from this region. Though there are two power projects in the region,
most of the power and water goes to the non-Telangana part of Andhra. Thus, the
case of neglect and deprivation is very well manifest.
If development is the basic criteria and the experience
of the three new States is considered, there is reason enough for the formation
of Telangana. Andhra has a population of 90 million people which is larger than
countries like France or Britain and its bifurcation is expected to ensure
better and faster development. Moreover, the districts that are proposed in
this new State are infested by Maoist activities because of poverty and squalor
over the years and it is time to understand the grassroot problems, lay stress
on social and physical infrastructure development and mitigate the sufferings
of the common man.
However, there can be no doubt that the new State
would require huge funds for development. The region has virtually no native
entrepreneurs but carpet-baggers from the coastal parts have moved in. The
possibility of raising enough resources for its massive developmental needs
appears quite remote which the Centre would have to provide, at least in the
coming few years. If governance is sincere and honest, the new state of Telangana,
when if actually comes into being, would also go a long way in curbing Maoism
and other extremist activities.
Recall, Mahatma Gandhi had emphasized the need
for political and economic decentralization. The Panchayati Raj institutions
were visualized by him that have in recent times become quite active. But even
these institutions do not have much financial powers as also decision-making
powers regarding projects in their region. It is thus necessary that where
development has been at a low ebb and where problems are galore, a new State
could fulfill the objective of better results. Even corruption is expected to
be lower and one need not harp on the recent example of Jharkhand former Chief
Minister Madhu Koda.
Clearly, there is strong case for a separate
state of Telangana and the ruling Congress has taken a right decision. However,
more deliberations are needed at this juncture and it is time it stops
vacillating. Most experts, both political analysts and economists, agree on
this point. The backlash effect obviously has to be tackled with skill and the
demands such as the one for Gorkhaland or the splitting of UP. Political
sentiments should not be allowed to take centre stage for demands for creation
of new States where there is no economic or other worthwhile justification.
Undoubtedly, population of States is growing
very rapidly and in the future some of these may have to be bifurcated for
devolution of power and better governance. It is generally agreed that the
ideal population for a State should be around 30-50 million. However, demands
for new States need to be examined by an expert committee like the Second
States Reorganization Commission and only then can a reasoned and judicious
decision be taken. India’s federal structure may also become stronger with more
States as no one State can wield excessive clout over the political system by
virtue of its size. One cannot also dismiss the fact that the United States,
with one-third of our population, has as many as 50 States and a strong federal
structure. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|