How many more states can India afford? The manner in which cynical politicians in their greed for power and pelf demand the division of existing states and the knee-jerk response of the Congress at the centre make a macabre spectre challenging the unity of the country and its economic profile.
The idea of linguistic states, though unimaginative to begin with has somehow come to a workable model over the years. A certain level of emotive integration and development structure emerged over a period which brought both political stability and national integration. This is not the time to rake up fresh controversies. This is not the way other developed or developing countries in the world manage their affairs.
We are not opposed to smaller states if that helps administrative cohesion, development work, political accountability and social equity. Religion or language should not become the basis for the creation of new provinces. Muslims see a great chance of domination in a new Harit Pradesh, they view it as a throwback to the Nizam days when they speak of Telangana. These have dangerous dimensions. That language is not a uniting factor is underlined by the numerous demands for the multiple divisions of states speaking the same language.
Six decades after independence such demands need not have gained currency but for the failure of the political leadership to ensure uniform growth of all regions and the fair distribution of the share of prosperity to all sections of the society. That there is wide disparity on the ground and that the emergence of India as an economic powerhouse has only sharpened the divide and widened the gap speak volumes on the lopsided priorities of our development planning. To address this problem creation of more states is no solution. The record of smaller states is not very encouraging to justify the promotion of the smaller state idea.
More states will mean more non-plan expenditure which is non-productive and burdening the common man. Already the lion’s share of the state revenue is spent on the luxurious life of the political class and bureaucracy and the rest going to payment of salary, allowances and the security of our rulers. The spending on welfare of the people and development is already negligible. More the administrative paraphernalia, more the burden and deficit of the states on the centre. Most of the states thus created will depend heavily on the centre for meeting even their day-to-day expenditure. Where will all the money come from? Still more taxes which will only lead to further public unrest.
Local politicians are prone to foment and support the demand for smaller states as it helps their career advancement. We have a situation where small-time, even panchayat-level politicians have come to aspire for chief ministership. In place of the present 28 we will have double that number, if the kind of absurd demands being raised are not nipped in the bud.
It is only the Congress that is to be blamed for the present turmoil. It has a state unit in Andhra Pradesh that is split down the middle as a result of the Telangana agitation. It was Sonia Gandhi’s mid-night political harakiri in offering Telangana state to the agitating Telangana Rashtra Samiti that has helped sprout such demands instantaneously from almost all parts of the country by little-known organisations. That Sonia’s mid-night gambit proved costly for her party is clear from the revolt within her party with her party MLAs and MPs joining the opposition in opposing the unilateral announcement. Her son Rahul Gandhi tried to build his political career in Uttar Pradesh, exploiting the backwardness of Bundelkhand and Eastern UP. This prompted the UP Chief Minister Mayawati demand trifurcation of the state. Such negative emotions become the basis of the rationale for smaller states. If any part of the country is backward the blame should be squarely placed on the doors of the Congress which ruled the country for more than five decades. Its half-baked, pro-rich approach has created two distinct entities in the country—the 30 per cent haves and the rest 70 per cent have-nots. What the country today needs is a strategy for seamless economic and emotional unity, not more states and more political loot at the expense of the tax-payer.
