(un)United States of India
In India ‘State’ means a federated state which is a territorial and constitutional body which is part of the larger union which is a sovereign state or country or nation. The Constitution of India has defined the power sharing between states and the Union.
Before formation of Union of India, Indian subcontinent was being ruled by several ethnic groups over centuries. During British rule, India was either under direct British rule or was under Princely state allied to Britain. British had divided India in certain Provinces like Central, Bombay and Calcutta for simplifying the administration. These boundaries were not reflecting cultural and ethnic diversity in subcontinent. Post independence, when State reorganization was necessity, these were created based on linguistic criteria.
That’s how today’s modern states were formed. This grouping of states and thereby people of same language or culture was created on ideology that people of same culture will mix together as one identity and they share similar aspirations and beliefs.
There were various differences in these states. Some had abundant natural resources, some had good infrastructure, while some had nothing. They were facing different problems. Post formations, as pros and cons of democracy, these states were also ruled by different political ideologies. Some got good leaders, some did not. All these factors resulted in huge differences in terms of development across these states after 50 years of their existence. Some states attracted heavy FDIs, some achieved excellent literacy rates while some still have problems of Population explosion and extreme poverty.
These extreme bipolar conditions resulted in start of migration of large population towards India’s metropolitans i.e. Mumbai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore etc. Population shift itself has resulted into several problems which strained infrastructure of these cities beyond limits. Today, we are seeing result as large number of slums in Mumbai and then, reaction to the same – the bhoomiputra problems.
This is challenging the basic foundation of state formation – the linguistic base. So, with estimated migrations to India’s biggest cities in next 20-25 years, we will have certain states having more than 30% of their population speaking different language than the state’s own. With these conditions, the linguistic formation formula will not hold good.
On other hand, if we see situation today, there are already more than one state for people sharing language and culture. Does that mean people of same ethnicity or culture does not want to live together? Does that mean foundation of linguistic state formation had flaws or political decisions post formations in last 50 years are responsible for these?
Now if we look developed states, development was not uniform across regions. To take example, in most developed state of Maharashtra, development was always concentrated around MMR (Mumbai Metropolitan Region) and Western Maharashtra. While areas like Konkan, Vidarbha remained undeveloped for years. Same goes to Andhra Pradesh for Telangana, where development was always concentrated around Hyderabad corridor and certain other areas while some areas were traditionally overlooked.
Today we see strong demand for statehood of Telangana and Vidarbha. Let’s say that we create Vidarbha. Now question comes will the new state have enough resources required for its development? Today there is heavy amount of money flow to Vidarbha which is generated from developed regions of Maharashtra. Will that be available afterwards? Will new state have substantial power and political will to combat increasing Naxal infestation in its territories? There will be endless arguments in favor and against these.
Same goes for Andhra vs Telangana fight over Hyderabad. Hyderabad is oasis in desert of Telangana. Whichever state gets Hyderabad wins the fight, other loses. Either state does not have even remotely matching city in terms of infrastructure, revenue and resources.
Leaving aside political mess, both have their roots in lack of development in these areas. These states can not be formed on basis of linguistic formula as they share same language with current states. So, what is causing this instability in Union model of India? Does this call for conferring statehood to random states or need to take look at the very foundation and see if actual goals were achieved ever?
All newly formed or aspiring states, they share similar problem. No development, no resources, increasing Naxalism threatening the very might of the Indian Republic, list is endless. Is separate state a real solution to this or will that not create new set of problems?
In my opinion, this is the fundamental question we need to answer. Uniform development, be it in urban or rural area, Mumbai or remote district of Gadachiroli, be it Gujarat or Bihar. Power sharing principles between state and Union need to be relooked at. There should be uniform policies across states when it comes to attracting investment and entrepreneurship. Today, central government of India is very strong in terms of Financial and political impact. Same should be extended to states. States should be encouraged to find their own economic sources rather than merely depending on relief packages from Union. Communist and other ideologies conflicting with Union policies should be strictly dealt with. Regional political parties should not be allowed to participate in Central elections. These will ensure Centre takes unbiased decisions when it comes to resolving inter-state issues.
