|
|
|
General Forum: Current 'Affairs' | | Small state syndrome | |
| Emiti ee chandalam,paina pataram lona lotaram
Posted by: Mr. vishnu chandrasekhar At: 27, Sep 2003 5:09:58 PM IST
/@sldb, btw, did u see what Linda said about Aries?/
no...where to find out??Can you tell me??
Posted by: Ravindra K At: 16, Sep 2003 1:18:07 PM IST
ha ha good question SLDB..
Posted by: Ravindra K At: 16, Sep 2003 12:14:30 PM IST
Small state syndrome
Review by Ashutosh Kumar
Why Do We Need More States? — A Case For Uttarakhand by Pradeep Kumar. Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi. Pages xi + 228. Rs 495.
THE book under review has come out at a time when Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) is set to become a state of the Indian Union along with Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand. Besides the time factor, the book also deserves attention because of its academic rigorousness in analysing a regional movement which has finally led to the creation of Uttaranchal in a historical manner.
The work not only analyses the nature of the socio-economic genesis of the movement which was launched in mid-1994 but also compares it with the nature of political and para-political movements in the Uttarakhand region prior to the 1950s.
More significantly, the author raises theoretical issues pertinent to the growing regionalisation of Indian politics, culminating in the movements demanding the reorganisation of states on the basis of development, cultural distinctiveness, administrative convenience, history of separate existence as political entities and economic discrimination, among others.
Based on a concrete analysis of the politics of Uttarakhand, the work seeks to establish that contrary to popular perception based on the historical experiences of the state’s reorganisation in the fifties and sixties or ethnicity (as in the case of Meghalaya) which became the accepted basis of the construction of new states, nowadays it is the perception of relative socio-economic deprivation combined with an urge for speedier economic development which are far more potent factors explaining the demands for new states.
In this context one can refer to the movements for smaller states of Gorkhaland, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Telangana, Vidarbha and most recently for Harit Pradesh. However, the author cautions that the economic factor may constitute a necessary condition but additional social factors are also needed to enable regional forces to articulate and assert in an effective manner.
This explains the "non-emergence" of regionalism in the Hindi belt for a long time despite decades of lopsided, uneven and unequal economic development, creating sub-regional "peripheries". It follows that while the construction of a regional identity is "more typical of a society fast moving up on the development trajectory to catch up with the better-off regions", the process also "liberates people from the clutches of psychological bondage and inferiority complexes, which have been products of centuries of economic backwardness".
Tracing the demands for smaller states and the construction of regional identities in Indian politics in the first two chapters, the author argues that originally the states were created on the basis of demands put up by the regional linguistic elite. The author argues that the unilingual distribution of resources and neglect of economic development were always stressed as reasons for carving out linguistic states.
However, with a higher level of electoral participation and grass-root democracy, the realisation has set in the masses of the lesser developed sub-regions about their distinct identity based on their own dialect. These "dialect communities" speaking Bhojpuri, Maithili, Bundelkhandi, Chhatisgarhi, Kumaoni, Garhwali and tribal languages, etc. in the Hindi belt have come to entertain precisely the same grievances which the linguistic elite had entertained against the major dominant linguistic groups in the multi-language states at the time of decolonisation.
This explains the demands for Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh and Uttarakhand. Besides these, in the years to come Bhojpur, Bundelkhand, Poorvanchal, Mithilanchal, etc. are bound to demand political arrangements independent of the present states, the author predicts.
In some of the linguistic non-Hindi states the movements for separate states have ironically been "anti-language" as the creation of Vidarbha, Marathwada and Telangana would mean the breaking up of unilinguisitc provinces. In these cases the grievances are more economic than cultural, releasing centrifugal forces.
Where does this lead us? Are we moving towards the break-up of the country into several small political units reminiscent of the princely states? Would this trend lead to the balkanisation of the country? The author holds that such fears are exaggerated and even misplaced in this era of globalisation as "the development of an identity by a region helps the region in its development on all fronts — economic, political and even psychic".
The author then traces the politico-cultural and historical background of the two main subregions — namely, Garhwal and Kumaon of Uttarakhand. The chapter aptly captioned "Uttarakhand: A Profile" provides a lot of the socio-economic data and information about the people living in the 12 districts of Uttarakhand. Most significant is the reference to the Garhwal-Kumaon variation beginning with the pre-colonial period and accentuated by the Britishers. Whether the creation of Uttaranchal leads to an assimilation of the two sub-regional identities is the question the author repeatedly raises.
The fourth chapter is "Geneses, anatomy and nature of the movement". The author argues that the model of internal colonisation applies to Uttarakhand in toto leading to continuous exploitation of its natural resources. The weak electoral strength of the sparsely populated hill region resulted in disillusionment among the people from both the state and the national political elites. Moreover, the distorted model of development led to a disruption of traditional sources of livelihood and loss of control of the locals over their resources.
The refusal of successive UP administrations and the Government of India to recognise the distinct geographical and demographic patterns was most visible in the decision to extend 27 per cent OBC reservation in 1994 to the region despite the fact that only 3 per cent of the locals belong to this category. It was this decision that led to a regionwide agitation in a virulent form. Pertinently Uttarakhand already had a tradition of mass stirs like the chipko movement and anti-liquor women’s movement.
Since the demand for Uttarakhand became mass-based the logic of vote bank politics compelled the national parties like the BJP and the Congress to declare support to the creation of a separate state after initial opposition. Very soon other parties followed suit.
In the fifth chapter the author has analysed the electoral pattern in the Uttarakhand, revealing the marginalisation of a regional party and the emergence of the BJP as the dominant party despite the fact that the UKD founded in 1979 had spearheaded the agitation in the eighties and the early nineties.
This had to do with two factors, according to the author. One, the general hostility against the SJP, the main rival of the BJP given the unleashing of terror tactics by the Mulayam Singh Government in 1994. The second has been the belief in the BJPs capacity to fulfil its promise for the creation of Uttarakhand.
Since the massification of the movement after 1994, the frequent holding of elections provided the region with opportunities to translate the simmering anger in political terms. The political fortunes of the national parties in these elections remained linked to their roles in the ongoing movement for the creation of Uttarakhand.
In another chapter, the author has raised serious questions on the well being of the periphery of the proposed Uttarakhand — namely, the Jaunsar Bawar sub-region of Garhwal, a tribal dominated area, in terms of the very poor state of education, health and communication facilities. The author also highlights the concerns of the lower castes (known as Shilpkars) as well as ethnic-linguistic minority groups like the Sikhs, Bengalis and plains people living in the terai region.
The last chapter deals with the challenges before the proposed state of Uttarakhand. Would the creation of the state lead to the construction of a unified regional Uttarakhandi identity notwithstanding the sub-regional variations involving Garhwal, Kumaon, Jaunsar-Bawar and terai as well as the perceived apathy of the Dalits, the tribals, and outside settlers towards the proposed state? The greatest challenge, however, would be "channelising the tremendous political awareness and sentiment generated in a new Uttarakhand... into maintaining the political vigil and adequate pressure on the various democratic institutions in the state, and consequently preventing them from getting degenerated into the likes of them elsewhere".
The same also holds true for the other two proposed states of Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand.
Amen!
Posted by: Mr. Konu Venkat At: 16, Sep 2003 5:56:29 AM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
