An India Divided into 50 states.... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/December 08, 2013

An India Divided Into 50 States on Economic Lines Will Ensure a True Shining Nation

Expediency is the mot juste for the Congress credo. The party founded by Alan Octavian Hume exactly 129 years ago swears by its imperial inheritance from the Union Jack—the British policy of divide and rule. For a party that advertises inclusive economics and politics, its policies and actions have always been aimed at polarising the nation along casteist, regional and religious lines. It chooses to divide when it fails to unite through pressure, persuasion and power. For example, after stonewalling the creation of a Telangana state for over five decades, it has suddenly discovered that dividing Andhra Pradesh is its only option to capture a small sliver of the stormy state. It is rare that a new state is created, not for economic and administrative reasons but purely to improve the political prospects of a party. The economic necessity of bifurcating Andhra is as much relevant today as it was 50 years ago. But a clique of the high and mighty had for long sabotaged the midwifing of a smaller state, because it would have adversely affected their financial and political clout.

Ever since former CM YSR Reddy died, the Congress and the ruling elite have been orphaned in Andhra. To the High Command’s delight, the mercurial CM’s argumentum ad baculum policy was successful in gagging even legitimate dissent while keeping the state politically united. After his death in a helicopter crash, the Andhra Congress became a divided house as its control over castes and regions crumbled with Jagan Mohan Reddy deserting the party and floating his own.

Since the return of the Congress to power for a third consecutive term in 2014 also depends on its performance in Andhra, which gave it 33 seats in 2009, the leadership has decided to surrender a large part of coastal Andhra to Jagan while trying to retain and win Telangana, which sends 17 MPs to the Lok Sabha. UPA was fast and furious in completing almost all the administrative and legislative formalities necessary for the creation of a new state; this, however, exposed the Congress’s political compulsions. Never before has the Central government initiated the process of dividing a state, ignoring strident opposition from a large section of the state. When the NDA divided Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, it carried the state leadership along and the process was seamless and politically perfect. In Andhra, the Congress, buckling under local pressures, vacillated and agonised for two years. It swerved haphazardly at opportunistic U-turns. In the end, it reckoned that it was better to salvage whatever little support was left. The UPA surgeons finished the amputation exercise in eight weeks. The Group of Ministers headed by Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, a former Andhra Pradesh governor, went through the motions of talking to all political parties. They even brought on board civil servants from over a dozen ministries from the state and the Centre. Finally, the Union government has endorsed a draft Bill to be passed during the Winter Session of Parliament. 

The falsetto for the creation of smaller states has reached a high pitch in other states. But a powerful confederacy of political, corporate and social interests has sabotaged the genuine need to divide India into many economically viable smaller states. While the Congress is in a tearing hurry to be Telangana’s political obstetrician, it has not spoken a word about similar pleas emanating from other states. It is almost three years since Mayawati, Uttar Pradesh’s CM at the time, wrote to the Centre to start the process of dividing her humongous state into four smaller ones. Civil Aviation Minister Ajit Singh has been fighting for a separate Harit Pradesh, though his demand is confined to occasional speeches and letters, with no serious agitation attempted so far. In West Bengal, people from hilly regions around Darjeeling have been struggling for Gorkhaland, but ironically both the Trinamool Congress and arch enemy CPI(M) have pooled their political resources together to fight the division of the state. In Maharashtra, none of the national parties are backing the strong demand for Vidharbha, which has stayed a backward region for decades.

The demand for new states is the outcome of poor governance and economic and social benightedness of those parts of big states which are resource-deprived. Both Vidarbha and Telangana are significantly poorer on all economic parameters than other parts of Maharashtra and Andhra. Since the established political leadership fears loss of power if their fiefdoms are divided, they conspire with opinion makers, corpulent corporates and even social organisations to oppose such moves. For example, the opposition to Telangana is coming from the section of India Inc based in Hyderabad, which holds over 70 per cent of the assets of a dozen powerful families. Their nominees control the political and bureaucratic machinery. The Mumbai elite would feel insecure if Vidarbha is created because they will not be able to influence decisions in that region of Maharashtra to protect their business and social stakes. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, the Yadavs are opposed to division because their caste control is much less in various parts of Western and Eastern UP. Even the upper caste-dominated BJP fears the contraction of its political base if UP is quartered into four. It is surprising that the UPA leadership, which follows market economics, is opposed to creating more states like the US has. The raison d’etre for the Congress aversion to appoint a States Reorganisation Commission is expediently political. It makes sense to divide India on developmental lines as it makes both good economics and better politics. Even if the Congress adheres to its well-tested philosophy of divide and rule, it should do so without discrimination. An India divided into 50 smaller states, based on economic reasons and not caste or language, will ensure the birth of a true Shining India of tomorrow.

(prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla)

Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/July 10, 2011

Smaller states great, but Congress will not act

Not taking a decision is also a decision. Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi seem to have taken a leaf out of former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao’s book.

Manmohan is Rao’s precious gift to the Congress party and the nation, and the prime minister has mastered his mentor’s art of governance. Rao was famous for either delaying decisions or referring contentious issues to committees and commissions. Sonia may like to forget or ignore the Rao chapter in Congress history but the prime minister is taking full advantage of his former teacher’s legacy. One rule amended is: When in doubt, pout. Manmohan doesn’t believe in action, only belated reaction. From acting against A Raja to mishandling the Lokpal Bill, the premier has been forced by an invisible hand to take the call. He has successfully crossed many hurdles but not without getting his reputation muddied. While his Government grapples with rising inflation, a ferocious civil society and a furious judiciary, Manmohan and Sonia are again politically paralysed—this time by the Telangana crisis. Even as a large number of Andhra Congress leaders defy the High Command’s might, the duo is unwilling to bite the bullet, though willing to be hit by it.

For the economist in Manmohan, a smaller state makes economic sense. For the politician in Sonia, it is another opportunity to create yet another fiefdom. The Telangana agitation’s intensity makes it clear that it won’t subside in a hurry. It has multi-party support, and is spearheaded by students and opinion-makers. While political compulsions may be driving the sustained T-campaign, the arguments put forward make sense. Ever since Andhra Pradesh was formally created in 1956, the people of Telangana have been protesting against the forced merger. Even the first States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) headed by Justice Fazal Ali was opposed to idea of merging Telangana with Andhra Pradesh on economic grounds. In its report, the SRC very categorically stated: “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, if for the present, the 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 favour of such unification.”

The SRC’s advice was rejected by then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Andhra Pradesh’s powerful Congress leaders. Fifty-five years later, Nehru’s blunder has come home to roost at his granddaughter-in-law’s doorstep. The impression that only affluent coteries in Andhra Pradesh can hold the central leadership to ransom has gained ground in the state. Most of these own huge swathes of real estate and numerous business establishments in Hyderabad; they fear eviction if a new state is born. Andhra Pradesh was carved out on a linguistic basis. The fact that people speaking the same language are fighting for a separate state is a clear indication of the economic and administrative impulses behind the agitation.

The T-struggle underlines the growing clamour for smaller states. As India grows annually by over 8 per cent, the benefits are not being distributed equitably. Smaller states like Goa, Sikkim, Kerala and Himachal Pradesh have scored well in social sectors like health and education. Despite having a smaller share of the GDP, they have created more wealth than many of the bigger states. Both politically and administratively, it is easier to manage smaller states. The time has come to divide all big states into smaller ones. If the US, with less than one-third of India’s population, can have 50 states, why can’t India be divided into at least 40 smaller units? It will ensure better governance and facilitate regional leaders to become stakeholders in the development of their own areas.

Economic and political power is concentrated in the hands of a few who are now feeling insecure. For them, the creation of more states means the emergence of a new corporate and political leadership that could challenge the established order. More states are facing the demand for smaller states: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has sought the division of her state into three smaller units. A powerful mass movement is building up for the creation of Vidharabha in Maharashtra and a new hill state in West Bengal. It is tragic that even genuine demands for new states have been conceded only after violent political agitations. For example, the Punjabi-speaking state of Punjab was created in 1966 after years of protest. The NDA government saw historical reasons and created three new states—Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand—because prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee saw an opportunity for his party to gain power in smaller states. Until now, the Congress hasn’t been able to return to power in the above states.

The fear of the unknown has crippled the Congress High Command and the prime minister. They genuinely feel that new states will weaken the Congress and strengthen regional parties. They also anticipate the rise of new regional satraps who will not be dependent on the Congress High Command for survival. Those who favour smaller states argue that the Congress should grab the opportunity—it gives the party a chance to absorb new leaders in new states, which will eventually help the Congress to grow. However, the leadership prefers to rule only in Delhi, even if it means losing all other state capitals either to Congress rebels or its adversaries. Herein lies the reason for the current state of indecisiveness at the top.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Snippets/ Mail Today, March 01, 2010

Why can’t politicians tell the truth?

NOW here is something to ponder about. Telangana has been on the boil for over three months now. People are immolating themselves, MPs and MLAs are resigning en masse and the local administration is paralysed. As Telangana flared, noises began to emanate from places as far as Vidharba, Purvanchal, Mithilanchal and Saurashtra for separate states. To douse passions or to buy time, the Centre offered to set up a second States Reorganisation Commission.

Though the issue dominated the front pages, there was strangely no mention of it in President Pratibha Patil’s address to Parliament’s joint session. Why, she skipped any mention of the appointment of the B. N. Sri Krishna Commission.

This is strange because as far back as 2004, the then president APJ Abdul Kalam had made two references to Telangana in his address to Parliament. It appears that the government doesn’t quite believe in what it preaches.

But the Centre is not the only guilty party. Many regional leaders had demanded smaller states, including Mayawati. She claims to have written a letter to the PM “ urging him to give us clearance for creating independent states of Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh out of a giant sized and unmanageable Uttar Pradesh”. But if what the junior minister for home affairs Ajay Maken told Parliament last week is anything to go by, it is difficult to believe who is telling the truth. He said “ as per records available, no political party or leaders have requested for setting up of the second States Reorganisation Commission. However, some representations have been received from individuals/ organisations. As of now, no decision has been taken in this respect.”. All of which just goes to show that our political class doesn’t bat an eyelid about fudging the truth.

RS re-election jitters for five top ministers in UPA govt

THERE’S more turbulence awaiting the Congress and things could slip from bad to worse in the coming months. Five senior and “ indispensable” ministers of the UPA government, all members of the Rajya Sabha, are due to retire within the next couple of months. The Congress will have to ensure their re- election, which looks easier said than done considering its frosty relations with some of the alliance partners. A. K. Antony, Ambika Soni, Anand Sharma, M. S. Gill and Jairam Ramesh are all high profile ministers as is B. K. Harikumar, a general secretary.

They are due to retire between April and June. Among them, Soni and Gill can hope to get elected from Punjab. Sharma will have to look outside his state because his party is at least 13 seats short to win the lone seat in Himachal. Antony can take the one seat available for the Congress- led UDF in Kerala, but there is a hitch. The Muslim League, the Congress’s local ally in the state, has held a Rajya Sabha seat uninterrupted since 1957. Its MP Abdul Wahab will retire in April along with Antony. As things stand now, Antony is the obvious choice.

But Muslim League leaders from Kerala are coming to meet Madam on Tuesday to remind her that the ML has stood by the Congress since 1957, even after the Babri Masjid demolition when everyone else deserted it. The ML argument is that since the Congress can dispatch candidates to other states, Antony should be asked to contest from elsewhere. But sources close to Antony say he will not relish the idea and will opt for ministerial renunciation rather than switch states. Will Madam heed the sentiments of the Muslim League? Ramesh is from Karnataka but he is a Rajya Sabha member from Andhra Pradesh and considering the sentiments of the Telangana brigade, the party is looking at all options. Last heard, it may even rope Chiranjeevi’s Praja Desam Party into the UPA to ensure that the environment minister gets to stay on in the job.

AS things stand now, the Commonwealth Games ( CWG) due to be held in New Delhi this October could shame India. Its successful conduct could also be held up as an exemplar of a shining India. For months now, as deadline after deadline passed by and work continued at snail’s pace, the odds were on India showing itself up as a sporting pariah to the world. There is some hope now. And it may have come about by default. Girish Chandra Chaturvedi, currently additional secretary financial services, is being appointed as chief executive officer of CWG. GC as he is affectionately known has completed a seven- year tenure at the Centre and was to have gone back to his parent cadre in Uttar Pradesh. But GC is some sort of a financial wizard, just the kind of chap that Mayawati may not want around. The feelings must have been mutual, because GC is known to have used the immense clout that a close relative enjoys with the powers- that- be to stall his possible transfer back to his home state. By the time the Games are over in October, GC would have been empanelled as secretary to the Government of India. He won’t then ever have to serve in Lucknow, Mayawati or no Mayawati.