Territorial reorganisation of the Union is still on the national agenda because the reorganisation under the recommendation of the Fazle Ali Commission, 1956, based largely on the linguistic criterion, had ignored the 'factors of geography, history, economy, race and culture, left mega states of UP and Bihar untouched and even created new mega states like MP, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. The second phase of reorganisation in the late 60's was largely confined to the N.E. and had created several mini and micro States.
Since 1956, the Union has generally responded to the regional pressures with adhoc measures. Had the political system adopted a well-crafted and structured policy, the mini and micro states could have been fitted within existing states depending on their population and area, as largely homogenous and autonomous districts or even Tehsils/Talukas within a multi layered Federation. Despite Constitutional commitment to decentralisation, there was a reluctance to redefine the Union as the Union of Autonomous States, which are Unions of Autonomous Districts, which are Union of Autonomous Tehsils/Talukas, which are Unions of Autonomous Panchayats.
Over the years the wave of democracy has penetrated down to the villages. People have become increasingly conscious of their collective identity and assertive for administrative empowerment of their collectivity at various levels. And if the people of a geographically compact region, with common historic memories and cultural affinities felt that a distant capital, politically dominated by 'others', was not familiar with or sensitive to their problems, this feeling generated a separatist mood.
The mood became sharper if they felt that their region was being economically exploited or that their villages, towns and districts were not getting due share of the development outlay. Then, the cry was for a separate state. Today, 45 years after the first territorial reorganisation, the entire political landscape is ringing with demands for creation of new states, all over the country, from Assam to Gujarat and from Kashmir to Kerala. The recent legislation to carve Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh out of UP, Bihar and MP respectively has given an added impetus to this. Historic process of ethnic fusion within existing boundaries and sometimes across them. Bodo Land, Gorkhaland, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Harit Pradesh (West UP), Vindhyanchal, Telengana, Vidarbha and Kodga are now in the pipeline.
To begin with, we must concede that the state or administrative boundaries as they exist are not sacrosanct but artificial historical constructs, We must recognise the legitimacy of the idea of small states, We must also be clear in our mind that recognition i s not secession. We must appreciate that the pace of economic and even social development will be accelerated by tapping the cooperative energy generated by geographical cohesion, shared historical consciousness, cultural affinity and developmental aspirations notwithstanding the cost of the infrastructure.
We, must also understand that emergence of constituent states with comparable population, area and resources will strength the federal principle which is jeopardised by the imbalance between mega and micro states. A look at the current political map will show that today the population and area ratios between the biggest and the smallest units are simply absurd. Contemporary world developments tell us that disequilibrium and imbalance among the constituent units is a negative factor for the longevity of a federation.
Small states are bound to be more administratively manageable and thus more efficient in management of development resources and in supervising and monitoring executive performance and in optimising the use of their natural resources. Above all, small States will be more democratic because the executive, the legislature and the judiciary shall be all closer and more accessible to the people. Thus the State is bound to become more democratic and more responsive to their grievances and demands.
What is needed, therefore, is to constitute another States Reorganisation Commission to redraw the political map, with a mandate to break up mega states into small socio-cultural units with a common history, a compact geography and a viable economy and, at the same time, accommodating the habitats of small collectivities in Panchayats, Tehsils or Districts. The Commission should also have the power to recommend creation of new States out of contiguous areas from two or more neighbouring states.
In 1977, the Janata Party Manifesto had promised such a Commission but its government was too short-lived and too preoccupied with the immediate problem of survival to take any such long-term measures. But today with the whole country ringing with such demands, instead of taking ad hoc decisions under compulsion of circumstances, we should evolve a national policy and formulate national norms and ask the National Commission to examine each regional demand in the light of both its internal logic and the national norms.
In a multi-ethnic and culturally plural milieu we should recognise the existence of heterogeneous elements within a homogenous matrix - the MINORITIES – and work out a National Minorities Code applicable to all minorities at all functional levels and apply it uniformly throughout the Union. This will create webs of inter-dependant reciprocity among neighbouring villages, Tehsils/Talukas, districts and states and maximise inter-community understanding and harmony as well as lead to greater participation by the minorities in governance and to their empowerment.
And 'minorities' does not mean religious minorities only; there are linguistic, caste and racial minorities dispersed throughout our body politic. And even the biggest communities form a minority-group somewhere, at some level.
Territorial reorganisation is likely to have a demographic impact on the minorities since most of them are unevenly dispersed through the national territory. For example, the creation of Uttaranchal is likely to decrease the population of high castes (Brahmins and Rajputs)and increase the population of Muslims in what is left of UP. A division may even convert a minority to a majority in one of the parts! For example, if Ladakh is separated from J&K, Buddhist there shall form a majority, while they formed a minority in the original state. Such demographic changes will have their political impact but, all diversities and pluralities at all functional levels can be equitably protected from majoritarian pressures under the Minorities Code.
To sum up, territorial reorganisation has become a political imperative but it cannot be undertake in isolation or merely as an exercise in geographical or administrative surgery. Every territorial reorganisation should serve a clear social, economic and political purpose and results in the common. good to the satisfaction of all the people. Optimum and greater demographic homogeneity and area are not enough. Democracy and Development also demand autonomy at every level, accessibility in governance, systemic protection of minorities, decentralisation of power and devolution of resources, right down to the village.
New Delhi.
1"September, 2000
