EDITS | Tuesday, December 29, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Breaking up Uttar Pradesh
A Surya Prakash
Preying on the grievances of people in backward regions of different States, many provincial leaders have jumped onto the States Reorganisation bandwagon in a bid to carve out their own little political kingdoms. Uneven development is a fact of life and many leaders who see little prospect of political growth in composite States are now fishing in troubled waters. They hope to encash on lop-sided development and create smaller entities in which their writ will run. Though they claim to speak for the underprivileged, there is nothing altruistic in these demands including the audacious proposal mooted by Chief Minister Mayawati to carve out three new States from her State of Uttar Pradesh.
The reorganisation of States is indeed a tricky affair and even the best of minds with the best of intentions may not always reach a consensus. The complexity of reorganisation is best explained by what transpired in the first States Reorganisation Commission that functioned in 1953-55. This commission, which comprised three members — Justice Fazl Ali (Chairman), Mr HN Kunzru and Mr KM Panikkar — laid down sound principles for formation of new States but could not arrive at unanimity on all issues.
There was complete agreement in regard to the broad principles that the commission would adopt while reorganising States but when it came to the nitty gritty, there were two important States on which there was disagreement. The first of these was Uttar Pradesh. Since Ms Mayawati now wants the Centre to initiate the process to create the States of Bundelkhand, Western Uttar Pradesh and Purvanchal, the disagreements that surfaced during the proceedings of the SRC seem relevant.
The commission decided not to break-up Uttar Pradesh because it said a large State in the Gangetic Valley would hold India together. It disagreed with the view that it is difficult to administer large States. It contended that size does not matter and that there was no connection between the size of the State, quality of administration and its influence in national affairs. It claimed that “the influence of any particular State in national affairs under a federal system of Government is not determined by its size”. It also concluded that under a system of Cabinet Government no particular State would have undue influence because party loyalties override State loyalties. Mr Panikkar disagreed. He said, with much prescience, that because of its sheer size, Uttar Pradesh would enjoy massive political clout and this in turn would lead to discord in other regions of the country. “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 unity of the country. This is clearly recognised everywhere and care is taken to limit the influence and authority of the larger units.” For example, in the United States, though the size of States may vary, the American Constitution provides for equal representation for all States in the Senate. There is no such provision in the Indian Constitution. As a result, in 1955, Uttar Pradesh had 86 seats out of 499 in the Lok Sabha and 31 out of 216 in the Rajya Sabha. Mr Panikkar feared 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”. Since the normal constitutional device of equalising grave disparities between units in a federation by ensuring equal or heavily weighted representation in the Upper House is not possible, “the only remedy is to reconstitute the overgrown State in such a manner as to lessen the differences — in short to partition the State. This seems to be an obvious proposition”. The second problem, as he saw it, was the impact that such a large State would have on intra-party politics and power equations. He said it would be a natural tendency for members of one State to form a powerful political block. “The real issue, therefore, is whether it is desirable to place any unit in a position to exercise an unduly large measure of political influence”.
Sure enough, the unfair advantage that Uttar Pradesh had over other States was a key factor (seven of India’s first eight Prime Ministers hailed from this State) in rousing strong regional sentiments and the emergence of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and its offshoots, the Telugu Desam and several other regional political entities.
The second issue on which there was no agreement was on the future of Himachal Pradesh. The commission recommended that this State be part of the State of Punjab, but its Chairman Mr Fazl Ali disagreed. The commission felt that from an administrative point of view, it made sense to merge Himachal Pradesh in Punjab because Himachal had a resources crunch and also did not have trained personnel to run Government. “It is not, therefore, a unit which can stand by itself”. The commission also saw no merit in the contention that Himachalis had a cultural individuality. Justice Fazl Ali, however, disagreed with his colleagues and in his note of dissent he said there was “a great deal of uneasiness” among the people of Himachal Pradesh over the question of merger with Punjab. He felt that this feeling was “both genuine and widespread”. Therefore the merger of this region with Punjab would be “extremely unpopular”. Justice Fazl Ali proved right when Himachal Pradesh emerged as a separate State a decade later.
Another significant aspect of the report of this commission is that while the Union Government implemented most of its recommendations, it disagreed with the commission in regard to formation of the States of Telangana and Vidarbha. The commission favoured a separate Telangana (called Hyderabad State) and Vidarbha but the Centre rejected these proposals. However, these demands have lingered on for well over half a century.
In other words, even if a commission does a commendable job, there is no guarantee that the Government will accept all its recommendations. All this only goes to show that reorganisation of States in India is a very complex issue and no political party should allow itself to succumb to demands made at gun point.
Email | Print | Rate:
|