http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1897.htmlMainstream, Vol XLVIII, No 8, February 13, 2010
Statehood for Telangana: The Current Stalemate
Thursday 18 February 2010, by C.H. Hanumantha Rao
The following article has been sent by the author for publication in
this journal for the benefit of its readers. He is a follow-up to his
earlier article, "Regional Disparities, Smaller States and Statehood
for Telangana", published in Mainstream (March 7, 2009).
The newly created smaller States, namely, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh, have achieved much higher growth rates in their GSDP
than the targets set for the Tenth Five Year Plan, whereas the growth
rates achieved by their parent states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar
and Madhya Pradesh fell significantly short of the targets. (Planning
Commission, 2008; Rao, 2009) Further, the growth rates achieved in the
first two years of the Eleventh Plan, that is, 2007-08 and 2008-09, by
Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand were significantly higher than those
achieved by their parent States. Apart from releasing the creative
energies of the people, viability of smaller States may have
contributed to better governance, attracting greater private
investment from outside as well as planning and utilising resources
more efficiently. (World Bank, 2007)
An extremely encouraging development is in respect of Bihar, where the
average growth rate achieved at 9.7 per cent per annum during these
two years was significantly higher than for Jharkhand at 5.8 per cent
per annum. (Aiyar, 2010; Rao, 2010) This may be explained by improved
governance, of late, in this State, facilitated not the least by the
fact that with the creation of Jharkhand, Bihar has become less
heterogeneous and much smaller in area, with the size of its
population getting reduced by about 25 per cent.
Experience has demonstrated the failure of regional planning to ensure
adequate development of backward regions within the larger States.
This is explained by the politics of planning in democracy inherent in
such States characterised by regional unevenness in development. The
experience of Maharashtra and Gujarat amply illustrates the failure to
develop backward regions, despite the existence of constitutional
provisions for setting up Regional Planning Boards and the powers
entrusted to the Governor to review the progress of development under
such regional plans. This experience underlines the need for conceding
separate Statehood for certain backward regions like Telangana and
Vidarbha.
The observations of B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of our
Constitution, on the desirability of smaller States are prophetic. He
welcomed the recommendation of the States Reorganisation Commission in
1955 for the creation of Hyderabad State consisting of Telangana
region and creation of Vidarbha as a separate State. Further, he
envisaged the division of Uttar Pradesh into three States (Western,
Central and Eastern); Bihar into two (North and South or present
Jharkhand); Madhya Pradesh into two (Northern and Southern); and
Maharashtra into three (Western,Central and Eastern). He was for
linguistic homogeneity of a State in the sense of 'one State-one
language' and not 'one language-one State'. He thus envisaged two
Telugu speaking States, three Marathi speaking States and a large
number of Hindi speaking States. (Ambedkar, 1979)
While arguing for smaller States, Ambedkar was guided basically by two
considerations. One, no single State should be large enough to
exercise undue influence in the federation. Drawing from the American
experience, he thought that smaller States were in the best interests
of healthy federalism. On this issue, his views were similar to those
of K.M. Panikkar, set out in his note of dissent to the Report of the
States Reorganisation Commission. Second, he thought that socially
disadvantaged sections are likely to be subjected to greater
discrimination in bigger States because of the consolidation of
socially privileged or dominant groups. (Ambedkar, 1979)
Over the last half-a-century, two new dimensions have been added.
Population growth and the multiplicity of developmental functions have
rendered governance in large-size States inefficient. Secondly, in the
context of development planning under democracy, significant regional
diversities with respect to the historically inherited levels of
infrastructure and institutions within certain large States have given
rise to severe tensions concerning the distribution of benefits from
development. These tensions have reached a point where harmonious
development seems no longer possible without their break-up into
smaller States which are relatively homogeneous. (Rao, 2010)
¨
The agitations for separate Statehood for Telangana in the Telangana
region as well as for Samaikhya (United) Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra
region are in full swing now. The agitation in Telangana is
unprecedented in its sweep, being universal or, at any rate, far more
widespread than in 1969, involving, among others, students, farmers,
women and even children. The movement is virtually taken over and led
by the students, all of whom were obviously born at least a decade
after the agitation of 1969. It appears as if history is repeating
itself or time is standing still for over four decades so far as this
issue is concerned!
Curiously, in the case of the Andhra region, history appears to have
been overturned. The 'Jai Andhra' or separate Andhra agitation of
1972-73 was triggered-off by the land reform legislation and the
validation of Mulki Rules (preference for natives of Telangana in
employment) by the Supreme Court, because of which the big landed
sections as well as educated youth could lose in the integrated State.
Over the last four decades, however, certain leading business
sections, including those involved in real estate business from the
Andhra region, developed a big stake in Telangana, particularly in and
around Hyderabad city. Thanks to the lop-sided urbanisation and
concentration of financial sector services and IT industry in
Hyderabad in the post-reform period, the educated youth—most of whom
were born after the 'Jai Andhra' agitation like their Telangana
counterparts—could understandably have developed an emotional
identification with the capital city and so a stake in Samaikhya
(United) Andhra Pradesh.
Guided by the consensus among the major political parties in favour of
the formation of separate Telangana State, as espoused in their
election manifestos and reiterated by them as recently as on December
7, 2009, the Central Government on December 9 announced its decision
to initiate the process for the formation of the Telangana State.
Within hours, this decision triggered off a counter-agitation in the
Andhra region for a united Andhra Pradesh, leaders of the major
political parties taking sides by getting divided horizontally on
regional lines. It is not clear whether these leaders did not mean
what they promised earlier on Telangana in the expectation that no
worthwhile initiative would come from the Centre or could not
anticipate the adverse public reaction in the Andhra region in the
event of any favourable move on the issue. In any case, this has
placed the Centre in a difficult situation leading to the stalemate in
the resolution of the crisis.
As it is, the Constitution fully empowers the Centre to carve out new
States, the role of the State legislatures being limited to merely
expressing their views on the proposed Bill by the Centre. While
politics cannot be wished away in a democracy and the Centre cannot
normally be expected to proceed against the wishes of the majority of
legislators of a State, ultimately, politics in a democracy have to
come to terms with the provisions of the Constitution and respect the
universal demand of the people of a region for separate Statehood.
Also, in the long-run, the youth of any region in the modern age,
imbued as it would be with the democratic spirit, would come to
respect the people's wishes from the other region for separate
Statehood. Besides, a pride in the capacity to develop oppor-tunities
in one's own State is bound to come into play. Addressing the
legitimate concerns of the stakeholders is essential to facilitate
this process.
There is no alternative to the Centre as well as the leaders of both
the regions taking initiatives for a constructive dialogue for
resolving the outstanding issues by addressing the legitimate concerns
of the stakeholders, to pave the way for separate Statehood for
Telangana and thus end the perpetual uncer-tainty undermining the
harmonious develop-ment of both the regions. While agitations are
necessary for the assertion of legitimate rights, in a democracy,
constructive dialogue is indis-pensable for bringing such aspirations
to fruition.
References
Aiyar, Swaminathan S. Anklesaria (2010), "Fast Growth Trickles Up from
the States", Economic Times, January 6.
Ambedkar, Dr Babasaheb (1979), Writings and Speeches, Vol. I (Part
II—On Linguistic States), Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra.
Planning Commission (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012), Vol.
I, Government of India, New Delhi.
Rao, C.H.H. (2009), "Regional Disparities, Smaller States and
Statehood for Telangana", Mainstream, Vol. XLVII, No. 12, March 7.
Rao, C.H.H. (2010), "Statehood for Telangana", Economic Times, January 9.
Rao, C.H.H. (2010), Regional Disparities, Smaller States and Statehood
for Telangana, Academic Foundation, New Delhi.
World Bank (2007), Jharkhand: Addressing the Challenges of Inclusive
Development, Rural Poverty and Economic Management, India Country
Management Unit, South Asia.
The author, a distinguished economist, is currently an Honorary
Professor, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad. He can
be contacted at chhrao9@yahoo.com
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
