Bandh,an institution created by the Egyptians and immortalised by all sundry political parties in India,is an indispensable tool in the hands of a few goons who hold a complete state to ransom.The left calls it the fundamental right of every working class individual,but what about the rights of the aam aadmi.Why is it that this most important part of our democratic fabric feels neglected?What about the rights of the daily wage laborer,who knows that there will be no food for his family on the day he returns empty handed or the shopkeeper whose shop got wrecked down by a bunch of hooligans.Or the patient,who has to reach the hospital in time or even the student who has to miss his day at the college or the employee who slogs day-in and day-out and contributes a considerable amount to the revenue of the state and not to forget pays up his taxes in time.Do they not have any rights?Why should the individual suffer?
What is ironical is the fact that most of these bat-wielding slogan-shouting ninnies have no clue what the bandh or hartal is about.The recent bandh called in by the Telangana Rastriya Samiti(TRS) to demand a separate state for Telangana,was no exception.Most of the people supporting this have no clue about the implications it might have,let alone the party chief KCR,who formed this party after some dispute with another party,of which he was a member,and had no serious Telangana sentiments as such.
The supporters believe that Telangana(a region in Andhra Pradesh,India) has always been neglected and a separate state would ensure an amelioration of the conditions,which is foolishly myopic.
Some of the major disadvantages for a small state(some of these are part of a discussion on the same topic at office bulletin board,don't remember the names) include,
Limited power for small states: Under the existing dispensation, the so-called States are toothless for all practical purposes with no powers to sanction either a small industrial or irrigation project. They cannot even rename a place without the central government’s approval. All minerals and underground resources squarely belong to the Centre. States cannot grant permission even to start a newspaper or journal. No resolution passed by a State becomes an Act without the President’s seal of approbation. All avenues of revenue were monopolized by the Centre long ago, leaving the States to fall back upon sales tax, octroi and registration fees only. Almost all subjects in the States’ list were gradually transferred to Concurrent list, thus enabling the Centre to poke a finger in all internal affairs of the States. Given this ground situation, what additional progress can one expect from the new (small) States, without fighting for true federalism in our constitutional framework ?
No real development for small states: Secondly, did all small States progress ? If they did, what could be the reason ? Orissa, a small State of approx. 1,55,000 sq.k.m. (half the size of Maharashtra), was formed way back in 1936 and is still rated as a backward State. Centrally sponsored irrigation projects and inflows of foreign exchange as also their proximity to the national capital. From a global perspective too, not all small countries can be credited with progress. Well in our neighborhood, we have under-developed small countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan.
Resources utilized for administrative machinery and not for development: New laws and systems are to be devised on a continuous basis. Thus, small States too are constrained to keep as many as departments as big ones. Can they financially afford it ? What surplus funds are they left with for development, if revenues are exhausted on the administrative machinery itself ? Uttaranchal State is a case in point whose revenue receipts are well below Rs.350 crores, but whose annual expenditure exceeds Rs.1,500 crores. It is for this reason that it was recently accorded status of the Special category State, which means more grants and fewer loans. The plight of Chhattisgarh is no different too. Thus the concept of small States subjects the States to incremental dependence on the Centre and leads to regional jealousies, charges of favoritism and ultimate loss of faith in national integration.
Possibility of more disputes with no real resolution: The inter-State boundary and river water disputes between a number of States are still unresolved with many of them remaining perpetually sub-judice. For Instance, Karnataka alone has been in conflict with a couple of States over disputed territories (Kasargode and Belgaum) and with another couple of States on water-sharing (the Krishna and Cauvery). The disputes are so emotive that they turned not only governments against governments, but also the people of one State against those of another and sporadic trading of violence is not uncommon. Given this record, more States means more disputes which will ultimately threaten to erode the very spirit of Indian nationalism.
Impetus to secessionist movements: This dangerous doctrine of small States gives a fillip to the secessionist outfits like the LTTE, ULFA. JKLF, and Khalistanis who might find in it a cloaked and implicit endorsement of their balkanization programme. “If small States are OK, why not small countries ?”they might ask. We have no answer.
Problems of determining optimum smallness: The parameters to determine the ‘optimum smallness’ are vague. We can reorganize India into 88 Keralas, or 120 Nagalands or 250 Sikkims. This number could be endless. They will serve no loftier purpose than solving the political unemployment of a few. The argument that big States have grown unwieldy by virtue of their vastness and population is untenable and anachronistic for the simple fact that we live in the age of internet, video-conferences, cell phones, express haighways, jet planes and superfast railways. Will these ‘small advocates’ agree to divide Andhra Pradesh into 2 more free and independent states because her population tripled since independence ?
So,do we still need a separate state?Do we go about splitting India based on the interests of particular groups.Does it end anywhere?
