Tamilnadu-60

Tamilnadu-60

My column today Times of india 1/11/2016

....................

TAMIL NADU-60(1/11/1956)

Formation day(1/11/2016)

..............................................................

RESIZING OF STATES

--------------------------

K.S. Radhakrishnan

This is the 60th Anniversary of reorganization of the State of Tamil Nadu. After the split of the Madras Presidency, Kerala is celebrating “Nava Keralam”. Andhra is celebrating “Visala Andhra”. Present Andhra Pradesh is exactly as it was with the Madras Presidency. Karnataka is celebrating “Broad Karnataka”, likewise “Samyuktha Maharastra”, “Maha Gujarat”, etc.

At the time of the original reorganization of linguistic Sates in 1954, there was no representation from Madras State. Kerala lobby was very much dominant and had membership in the Fazl Ali Commission. It is very unfortunate situation to Madras State not to have a voice then. At that time Madras State was unable to represent their grievances and their own rights.

Under these reasons, now some feelings and sentiments in Tamil Nadu, the reorganization during the 1950’s was unjust and biased. 

Dhar Commision, JVP Committee and Fazl Ali Commission:

Dhar Commission:  There was a demand from different regions, mainly South India, for reorganization of  States on linguistic basis. Consequently, in June 1948, the Government of India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the chairmanship of S.K.Dhar to study the feasibility of organizing states on Linguistic basis.

 

The Commission, later on, rejected the linguistic basis of reorganization of States and recommended the reorganization of States on the basis of following criterias :

1. Geographical contiguity

2. Financial self-reliance

3. Administrative viability

4. Potential for development

JVP Committee (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya): The report submitted by Dhar commission led to much resentment among the people. As a result, in the Jaipur session of 1948, Congress appointed a three member committee to consider the recommendations of Dhar Commission. This committee also rejected the linguistic factor of reorganization of the states. This committee recommended the reorganization of States on the basis of security, unity and economic prosperity of the nation.

However, the Indian Government was forced by the death of Potti Sriramulu to create the first linguistic state, known as Andhra State, by separating the Telugu speaking areas from the Madras State. Potti Sriramulu became famous for undertaking the hunger strike in support of the formation of an Indian state for the Telugu-speaking population of Madras Presidency; he lost his life in the process. His death sparked public rioting, and Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared the intent to form Andhra State three days following.

 

Fazl Ali Commission:  (Chairman: Fazl Ali, Members : Hridaynath Kunzru and K.M.Panikkar)

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of linguistic factor, all hell break loose. The other regions also started demanding for creation of separate states on the basis of linguistic factor. The intense pressure forced the Indian Government to form a new commission to visit the whole question of whether the linguistic basis of separation of states can be considered or not. It led to the formation of Fazl Ali Commission in December 1953.

The commission submitted its report on September 1955 and acknowledged 4 major factors to be taken into account in any scheme of reorganization of states :

1. Linguistic and Cultural homogeneity

2. Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of the nation.

3. Financial, Economic and Administrative considerations.

4. Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people in each state as well as of the Nation as a whole.

 

It suggested the reorganization of 27 states of various categories into 16 states and 3 Union Territories. The recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission was accepted by the Indian Government with minor modifications. As a result, the State Reorganization Act of 1956 was passed by the Parliament to give effect to the recommendation of the commission. It led to the formation of 14 states and 6 Union Territories on 1st November, 1956.

Under the above said circumstances in toto Tamil Nadu lost its soil in different directions. Some territories unreasonably given to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala from Madras Presidency.

Now there is a demand in Southern Districts, for separate State of Southern Tamil Nadu, with its headquarters in Madurai, ancient cultural headquarters of the Tamil Community.

For this cause propaganda is going in low profile some parts of South of Tamil Nadu. It is debatable question.

During reorganisation of boundaries of Tamil Nadu so many leaders dedicated themselves for this noble cause.  Late leaders Ma.Po. Sivagnanam, Mangala Kilar, K. Vinayagam, C.V. Srinivasan, Chengalvarayan, Saraswathi Pandurangan were played major role on Tirutani agitation. Likewise, Shencottai was also joined in Tamil Nadu from Trivancore province with the dedicated service and agitation of late Karaiyalar. Similarly in Kanyakumari P.S. Mani, Marshal Nesamani, Kunjan Nadar, Razack, M. Subramaniya Nadar, Packianathan and others participated Southern border-Kanyakumar agitation. Kanyakumari was under the control of Princely state of Trivancore. At that time, Thovalai was the border of Trivancore Province.

It is high time we think of restructuring of Tamil Nadu after 60 years of the creation of the State. People from Deep South are compelled to come to Chennai, the capital which is almost near Andhra Pradesh. We lost several traditional Tamil Soils like, Nellore, Chittor and Tirupathi. This leads to the loss of our rights to Palar, Pennar, Ponniyaru and Pazhaverkadu. We lost some parts to Karnataka like, Udupi, Kollegal, Mandiya and KGF. This led to the Cauvery and Hogenakkal issues.

Some parts in the Palakkad region went to Kerala. This has led to loss of some West bound river basins like Siruvani, PAP, Pambaru, etc.  Likewise, Mullai Periyar Dam issue arises because of the loss of Devikulam, Peermedu to Kerala. Similarly, Alagar Dam issue, Ullaru, Shenbagavalli Dam, Neyyaru in Kanyakumari district etc should geographically be with Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu lost Nedumangadu, Neyyatrusarai during reorganization of States in 1956.

The deciding factors for restructuring of states should be based on, The size of a state should be the primary deciding factor, Industrial development should take place along the corridors where raw materials are available, this will provide employment to the local people and avoid migration, one language – two states concept is already in existence in several parts of northern India.

Many of the people from South Tamil Nadu have mooted a bifurcation of Tamil Nadu, with the northern districts being carved out to form a separate state. Historically also there is some basis to this as the Tamil speaking region in the past comprised of kingdoms centered around Kanchipuram, Tanjore and Madurai. Several personalities have quite expectedly, shrilly denounced this demand as “secession”, in a smaller state within the Indian Union. The Madras centred Tamil Nadu State we now know was the creation of the British. Similarly Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat and other linguistic states have no historical basis. The yearning for linguistic sub-nationalism is a post-independence phenomenon. Often this linguistic sub-nationalism has been a fig leaf for secessionism as we have seen in Tamil Nadu in the past.

The biggest states of India, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are also worst off states and hence the acronym BIMARU for them is most appropriate. They are also predominantly Hindi speaking states and hence quite clearly there is no linguistic or historical basis for their creation and existence as they are. It would be however unfair to club MP and Rajasthan with Bihar and UP, both of whom are in an advanced state of political degeneracy with none of their institutions left with an acceptable degree of integrity. Since there is lot to a name, acronym creators apparently needed Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for imparting vividness. Yet within their blanket linguistic conformity these states cover a vast diversity of distinct regions, with characteristic commonly spoken languages, culture and historical traditions. Each of these states either in terms of landmass or population still would be larger than most countries in the world. Even without Uttaranchal, UP would be larger in terms of population than Brazil, Japan or Bangladesh. It was not surprising that despite the supposed linguistic affinity, there were and still are demands for smaller states from within them. All the major political parties supported such aspirations and three new states are the result.

The creation of the new states, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh from the BIMARU big three has provoked a rash of demands for similar restructuring in other areas. Telangana happened. The demand is now particularly strong Vidharba where there has been a mother land of discontent just below the surface for out of work politicians to seek their political fortunes. In the recent days there is a demand for a Harit Pradesh consisting of the fertile regions of Western UP being fanned by Ajit Singh who is at best a political buccaneer of the worst kind. At the farthest corner of India there is a gathering demand for the creation of a predominantly Naga state Nagalim, consisting of all the hilly regions inhabited by the Naga tribes.  The Ethnic conflict in Nagaland in North eastern India is part of insurgency. They want to establish a ‘greater Nagaland’ – Nagalim or The People’s Government. Then of course there is a demand for Bodoland out of the already much truncated Assam, a Gorkhaland out of West Bengal which has shown the Bengali Marxists to be as good or bad petty chauvinists when it relates to their sub-nationalism. This list can be quite long.

What contributes most to these demands for smaller or in some cases larger states are a sense of strong regional affinity that is stronger than the sub-national identity, uneven economic conditions leading to wide and easily discernable disparities in development, and the perceived concentration of political power with an identifiable political elite like the Kammas in Andhra Pradesh and Marathas in Maharashtra. Contributing in equal measure to these is the non-ideological political climate that has descended upon us after one foreign economic paradigm so obviously failed and its economic opposite was deemed as the only way to go.

At a time when caste has so fragmented the polity, particularly in the BIMARU big two, making the return to power of a single political party a near impossibility, the demand for small states with a long and traditional affinity often cemented by a common agro-climatic reality becomes a strong motivating force to rally the disenchanted and dispossessed to a common cause. But this must not be allowed to discredit the case for smaller and more manageable states.

The late Dr. Rasheeduddin Khan most eloquently made out this case; of Hyderabad I would like to add, way back in April 1973 in the Seminar, at that time edited by the late Romesh Thapar. He had India divided according to its 56 socio-cultural sub-regions and a map showing these was the centrepiece of the article. That picture still remains embedded in my mind, and whenever I think of better public administration that map would always appear. Since the subject of small states has begun to emerge as a major issue again, with the recent by-poll results in Telangana writing its message very clearly on the wall, and a vociferous cry for a Bundelkhand out of UP, it is a matter of time, before small states will become a major political issue nationwide.  Other States too will soon see the writing on the wall.

The Seminar map is a veritable blueprint for the structuring of India. Out of UP and Bihar eight distinct sub-regions are identified. These are Uttaranchal, Rohelkhand, Braj, Oudh, Bhojpur, Mithila, Magadh and Jharkhand. The first and last of these have now become constitutional and administrative realities. But each one of the other unhappily wedded regions is very clearly a distinct region with its own predominant dialect and history. For instance Maithili spoken in the area around Darbhanga in northern Bihar is very different from Bhojpuri spoken in the adjacent Bhojpur area. Similarly Brajbhasha in western UP is quite different from Avadhi spoken in central UP. India’s largest state in terms of area, MP, is broken into five distinct regions, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra into four each, AP, West Bengal and Karnataka into three each, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Orissa into two each, and so on.

Since 1971, India’s population has doubled to cross a billion. Even at constant prices (1980-81) the GNP has grown by ten times. In 1971 the total money supply (M3) was Rs.11,019 crores, whereas it has now grown to over Rs. 1000,000 crores (ten lakh crores). Naturally the size and scope of government has also changed. The 1980-81 budget of the Government of India was a mere Rs. 19,579 crores. It is now about Rs. 350,000 crores. The annual budgets of state governments too have grown likewise. States like UP, Maharashtra and AP now have annual budgets of about Rs.20,000 crores each. All the states together have a total annual expenditure in excess of about Rs.300,000 crores. Last year the total gross fiscal deficit of the states alone was over Rs. 90,000 crores or about the same as the Government of India’s.

The total population of India in 1947 was about 320 million. Today, we have about that number of people who are below the poverty line. In the meantime India has become a very youthful country with 70% of its people below the age of 30 of whom about 350 million are below the age of 14. Clearly the task of government is not only much more enormous, but also much more complex when the rising expectations, impact of new technologies and demographic changes are factored in. Our record so far is cause for great concern and is a severe indictment of the failure of the system of governance in India.

That “the nature of the regime determines the nature of the outcome” is a well-known adage in public administration and public policy studies. The nature of a regime is not only influenced by its constitution, guiding philosophy, and the consequent system of government, but also by the structure of the system. We know from experience, both in the corporate world and in public administration, that monolithic and centralized structures fail when the size and scope of the organization grows. Thus to compete with Honda and Toyota, General Motors and Ford have had to restructure into smaller and independent operating units. Still they are not healthy enough. In public administration this is called de-centralization. De-centralization not only implies the downward flow of decision-making but also greater closeness of the reviewing authority to the decision-making level.

Thus, if more decision-making flows to the districts and sub-districts, the state government, which is the reviewing authority, must also have fewer units to supervise. I have always held that the real concentration of power is not with the Central Government but with the State Governments. Thus when a person like Chandrababu Naidu clamours for greater functional autonomy, he is actually calling for a greater concentration of power to himself. From the perspective of good governance, this is clearly unacceptable. Good government also means lesser government, responsive government, closer government, quicker government and a very transparent government. Large centralized governments are inimical to good government. State Governments are the worst kind of centralized governments masking their regional jingoism as a demand for autonomy.

In 1973 Rasheeduddin Khan wrote: “the process of the infra-structuring of the Indian federation is not yet over. Therefore, political demands of viable sub-regions for new administrative arrangements are not necessarily antithetical to the territorial integrity of the country. For, every urge for autonomy is not a divisive, but most probably a complementary force; it would not lead to balkanization but to the restructuring of national identity; it is not a fissiparous but a normal centrifugal tendency in a federation; it should not be taken as a call for disintegration of the national sovereignty, but its re-integration.” The “Report of the States Reorganization Commission, 1955” states: “Unlike the United States of America, the Indian Union is not an indestructible union composed of indestructible states. But on the contrary the Union alone is indestructible but the individual states are not.” It would be unfortunate if demands for the restructuring of India by creating more states are seen only as mere political contests, where the just causes of individual socio-cultural and agro-climatic regions is just a weapon in the hands of out of work politicians deprived of a share of the benefits of office.

During NDA regime, the Prime Minister Vajpayee very much favoured to smaller states. Then Home Minister L.K. Advani, advocated smaller states is good for easy governance and better administration. So, he is the person mooted various steps to form a smaller states. Now there are demands for similar states with their race, language, culture etc. How it will work in future? That is the question mark……

- K.S. Radhakrishnan

rkkurunji@gmail.com

#tamilnadu60#

#tamilnaduformationday

#smallarstates##resizeingofstates

#ksrposting#ksradhakrishnanposting