Telangana has been in news
recently after the decision by the Government of India to make it 29th
state of the country. I had a conversation with few friends about the decision
and discussing various factors on the basis of which the decision of forming a
new state is taken. The factors during our discussion ranged from backwardness
to ease of administration to states too big to govern to language and cultural
identity. However, in my opinion formation of the state has once again proved supremacy
of politics over all other factors. Had the decision been taken based on the
above mentioned grounds there are genuine demands of formation of other new
states such as Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Purvanchal, Avadh Pradesh, Bundelkhand,
Vidarbh, Maru Pradesh and many more. The current count of demand of new states
could take the number of states in the country to 50. Ironically, demand of few
such states has involved even violence and insurgence and the magnitude of the
matter has increased after the decision on Telangana. The question is what is
it that makes Telangana a unique case for bagging the status of a new state and
others not to qualify? I join the group of many who believe the recent decision
makes a stronger case of politics rather than the development of the region
which should ideally be the case. Indian National Congress has taken the decision
to harvest political advantage in the upcoming Lok Sabha election. The recent
decision also raises the question of having a uniform method based on
principles for all such demands instead of taking decisions as a favor for
political gain or other vested interests.
The government has declined the
request of creating ‘State Reorganization Commission’ which in my opinion is
anti-democratic and against the constitution of India. I am of the opinion of
creating ‘State Reorganization Commission’ with immediate effect to look into demands
in greater details taking a decision based on the above mentioned factors to control
the raising violence. May be all the demands can’t be accepted but as many of
those can be, should be. There are concerns raised by some thought leaders such
as danger to the unity and integrity which is beyond my understanding. People
are mostly concerned for the basic services reaching to them and not so
specifically whether it comes from central, state or local government
irrespective of its size and functioning etc. Only when development and public
services for long time didn’t reach to people, they realized that in the
current political set up their interest wouldn’t be looked into in lack of
appropriate representation and political advantages and started demanding separate
state which better represents them. There are several advantages of having a small
state which even comes as learning from Chattishgarh, Uttakhand and Jharkhand. And
even if the policy makers don’t see many advantages, they need to respect the
sentiments of people in Indian democracy. While their concerns can be too small
states making it difficult to administer rather than giving it ease, I am sure
people would also learn from their mistake and will also demand for
unification. We do have a wonderful example of European Union to learn from
where countries voluntarily decided to come together to make a larger union.
