Division of Andhra Pradesh: National interest should override sectional interest

Excellent article in The Hindu on why the UPA govt has no rationale to proceed with division of the state and why the current approach is harmful to the state and the country:

"India can ill-afford expenditures on bureaucratic infrastructure and new capitals, as against the 

requirements of increasing food production"

"If new States increase insecurity and threaten national security and integration, what is the rationale for creating them?"

By Ravi Komarraju

Serious national policies need serious, critical and rational thinking. Crowds and political pressure, ad hoc gains and myopia can destroy carefully nurtured systems. The unseemly haste in trying to push through a division process of Andhra Pradesh hides more than it reveals. This was not how States were formed earlier. As for the States Reorganisation Commission, clear guidelines were laid out for the formation of states. Yes, the issue has been hanging fire for a few years. Yet, the way it has been handled smacks of Machiavellian manoeuvrings. When Andhra Pradesh was formed, leaders from different regions sat down to discuss and solve disputes. This has not been properly attempted now.

Supposedly open agreements have not been openly arrived at. A centrally brokered opinion was sought to be created. It was like growing an artificial organ around a pre-designed matrix. Free suppression of opinion was not tolerated in some places. People talked under duress. Intellectuals were silenced by threats. This was the case in the 1969 Telangana and the 1972 Andhra agitations. This is usually the aetiology of any hysterical mass movement. So, fake saints prod on people, calling for unleashing ‘the dogs of war’.

The problem has become a tangled web; will the decision be unnecessarily hastened? It moved on to a fast track without serious thought or expert deliberations. It looked as if the Group of Ministers was given a tailoring job to be finished in a month’s time. Even stitching a coat to a design takes longer. Water disputes, for example, require specified study by experts, engineers, hydrologists, environmentalists, etc. The division of the High Court implies redistribution of lakhs of pending civil and criminal cases, which definitely is bound to delay justice. Pension problems are dime a dozen with several government and autonomous government organisations requiring division too. The general populace is bound to suffer. Service problems would mutate into court cases requiring legal solution. The recent Supreme Court directive to Bihar and Jharkhand on salaries of some employees not being paid for several years is a pointer. While politicians and partisan interests can brush aside these things, they are definitely not minor issues. If these are not addressed properly, what is governance for? If waters get divided, revenue goes down, politically, both probable States get weaker and the riverine deltas get damaged threatening food security and pushing up food prices, why opt for it? If new states increase insecurity and threaten national security and integration, what is the rationale for creating them without a serious parliamentary debate on the requirement or without a new States Reorganisation Commission? You have to work out abscissio infiniti for a solution. The present exercise is hopelessly inadequate.

The peculiarity of the situation emanates from the almost callous, ad hoc and visionless short-sightedness of the Congress think tank. They have landed themselves in the proverbial “monkey’s tail in the wedge” situation of their own making. The party has to rethink its national policies — whether to go in for more states or not. It is time that all national parties rework their policies on the issue of new states and the process to be adopted. A nation cannot be kept in a labour room to deliver states on demand, long past its age of conception. Developmental and human aspects of progress need attention and nurturing. India cannot and should not remain a stone pelting, hate-mongering, petty politicking nation, if it has to move forward. That kinetic energy cannot be wasted; it should address the bigger issue of hunger, poverty and illiteracy and gender discrimination among other such pressing human problems.

It is morally and electorally improper and wrong to divide a state before elections. It goes against all tenets of a free and fair election. The Srikrishna Report should have been elaborately discussed in Parliament. It should be at some point of time. Demonstrations and crowds should not be the deciders of policy in a democratic system. Electoral outcomes or provisions for constitutional procedures like a referendum alone should decide policy on crucial issues like a state’s division.
The way the entire process was handled looks synthetic and artificial, almost a mockery of all democratic procedures. It is evident that a lot of hectoring was involved. The so-called core committee has none who represent the two disputants or protagonists. It does not even have the semblance of an honest broker. The members are drawn from all the other South Indian States, competing for industry, investment and river waters.

Some represent the upper-riparian river areas with vested interests. Since the talk of division, thousands of crores of rupees of investment has moved out from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Andhra Pradesh Ministers queue up before New Delhi to present their cases. The Antony Committee has turned into a farce. None of the members ever visited the different regions of the State. It looks like a Hamletian mock play; like a royal court with the defendant absent. This is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s decision to not visit Sri Lanka, when Mr. Chidambaram protested. It hurts you bad and hurts you deep.

Legal hurdles

The court battle has not yet started. But it will. There are legal hurdles, not just Article 371D and E. There are procedural hurdles. Even if they can be overcome, the division cannot happen before the elections. There is absolutely no need for such a hurried caesarean. People on both sides are fed up. Fed up with politics and politicians. The 2014 election may throw up a strange mix of results. The Congress may or may not remain divided. Some parties may fade away. Some leaders will vanish too.
In an undivided state, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) may turn into a Shiv Sena lookalike. The scenario is unpredictable now. But elections are the only democratic way to solve this issue. You either accept the Constitution and democracy, or you stay out of it.

Only through another States Reorganisation Commission constituted by Parliament should States be divided. National interests should override sectional and subregional interests. India can ill-afford expenditures on bureaucratic infrastructure and new capitals, as against the intense requirements of increasing food production and increasing water storage through environment-friendly methodologies. Creating new states is an ad hoc way of tackling unemployment or hunger or improving education or science and technology.

There have been apprehensions whether all this is to weaken the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution and whether this is to ensure that only some States have an edge over who rules from New Delhi. It is time that these misgivings and doubts were dispelled and democratic procedures and national integrity upheld.
 
(Ravi Komarraju is emeritus professor, Andhra University)

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/national-interest-should-override-sectional-interest/article5401849.ece
 

Sharad Pawar supports Samaikyandhra?

After being a staunch supporter of the creation of the Telangana state, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar appears to have softened his stance after meeting the YSR Congress chief Jaganmohan Reddy on Monday. 

The NCP is a key ally of the UPA government. 

 

“The NCP has supported Telangana for nine years but Mr. Reddy has raised important issues. He pointed out that the views of the State legislature should be considered on the bifurcation ,” Mr. Pawar said. 

I am not in a position to take a view now but I will place this before the party’s working committee,” he added. 

On whether his change in stance would embarrass the Centre on the issue, Mr. Pawar said, “Dialogue is very important in a democracy. The other side should be given a chance to explain itself.”

In the past, Mr. Pawar attended the Telangana Rashtra Samiti’s rally in Telangana. Among the UPA allies, he was one of those who pushed for an early resolution on the issue. Mr. Pawar clarified that his meeting with Mr. Reddy had no connection with a change in political affiliations. “There has been a lot of speculation on this, but this is not the case,” he said. 

Mr. Reddy is meeting political leaders across the country campaigning against the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. “Demands for the bifurcation of States should be backed by a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly concerned and Parliament,” Mr. Reddy said. Later in the day, he called on Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pawar-softens-stance-after-meeting-jagan/article5390317.ece

#BreakingNews: Leaked: Top secret #Telangana Bill Draft, must read! #samaikyandhra

CONFIDENTIAL 

 

DRAFT

Telangana Bill

AUTHORS: 

1. Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister of Home Affairs

2. Digvijay Singh, General Secretary, AICC

3. A K Antony, Minister for Defence

4. Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Rural Development

5. Sonia Gandhi, President, AICC

....Continued

PAGE 1

(Shindeji says: Check with Antonyji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

 Page 2

 (Antonyji says: Check with Digvijayji)

...

...

...

 ....Continued

Page3

 

(Digvijayji says: Check with Jairam Rameshji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

Page 4

(Jairam Rameshji says: Check with Soniaji)

...

...

...

....Continued 

Page 5

(Soniaji says: Check with Shindeji)

...

...

...

(Additional Notes by Soniaji: 

TELANGANA BILL TO BE COMPLETED IN 2014....OR BETTER TO POSTPONE IT TO 2050?)

CC to Mr.Nonsense....err....Rahul Gandhi

THE END

Petition to President of India Pranab Mukherjee

To

His Excellency

The President of India

Respected Rashtrapati ji,

We are writing to you with a lot of hope that you will restrain the Government of India from its cynical effort to divide our state.

Long Struggle for Unity

Andhra Pradesh came into existence in 1956 as a result of decades of arduous struggle and intense aspiration of Telugu people to reunite into a single political and administrative entity. We have had a long history of over 2,500 years of living together until the 1800s when we came under different – the British and The Nizam – political dispensations for a brief period of about 150 years. 

Unity Prevailed over Divisive Tendencies

Since 1956, we the Telugu people have made steady and impressive progress in every field. We had weathered two agitations in 1969 and 1972 for division of the state mainly because of the vision of the then national leadership. Smt. Indira Gandhi had categorically stated in Parliament that we should not lose sight of the larger issues of unity and integrity and desist from getting carried away by temporary emotions. 

Unsupported Argument for Division

The agitation for dividing the state and creating a separate Telangana state lacks sound argument and popular support.

The advocates of separate Telangana state had based their agitation on four sets of arguments: Economic, Political, Historical, and Language/Culture. Justice Srikrishna Committee and a number of other studies have conclusively proved that these arguments are false and are unsupported by economic data, political developments, and historical evidence.

No Electoral Support for Division

The political platform for dividing Andhra Pradesh and creating a separate Telangana state has never secured a convincing peoples’ mandate. In 2009 general elections, the party which spearheaded the agitation won only 10 Assembly seats out of 119 in the Telangana region and out of a total of 294 seats in the entire state. The platform’s record in 2004 general elections and in 2008 by-elections is equally unconvincing. It is only in a few by-elections that were held in a highly surcharged atmosphere that it secured some convincing wins. The latest Panchayat polls also showed that the separate Telangana demand is more of a shrill noise made by some vested interests and their political cohorts. Their noise is disproportionate to the support they command at the grass roots level. The Party that is spearheading the agitation has not been able to secure first place in any of the ten districts of the region they claim to represent.

No Reason for Undoing the Unity of Telugu People

When the agitation for a separate Telangana state has lost its steam and was almost folding up, the ruling coalition under the leadership of the Congress Party has decided to divide the state. It went back on its earlier decision of 2001 to constitute a second States’ Reorganization Commission to examine the demand for Telangana and other similar demands across the country. We do not know what prompted the ruling coalition to decide to undo the unity of Telugu people which was achieved after a long struggle. The Party and subsequently the Union Cabinet that approved the ‘note’ to divide the state have not offered any rationale to the nation for their intention.

Why Depart from Linguistic State?

The essential principle of the architecture of Indian Republic is linguistic state. From Bengal in the east along the coast of Bay of Bengal and then along the coast of the Arabian Sea in the west up to Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh in the North, our states are organized along linguistic lines. Departing from this defining feature of India’s political organization is uncalled for. Especially without putting in place an alternative and well thought-out principle of organization.

Such thoughtless and cynical departures from time tested principles of political organization of states might spell danger to the unity and integrity of our nation. Creation of new states shall be done on the basis of well laid out principles and norms. Great minds of the country should apply themselves to lay down such norms. Instead, if states are divided and boundaries are altered just because there is an agitation here and a fast unto death there, our polity will be exposed to serious threats both from within and without.

Our Appeal

We submit to you that there is no sound argument or reason for dividing the state of Andhra Pradesh.

The political elements that demand the creation of Telangana have no popular support as clearly evidenced by the series of electoral outcomes since 2004.

The ruling coalition and the Cabinet that approved the demand for division of Andhra Pradesh have not been able to offer a rationale for their intention. We think they have none to offer.

We request you to apply your mind to the imminent danger to our polity if we start succumbing to groups that are capable of violent agitations and concede to their demands to divide states.

We request you to contemplate if it is wise to depart from the linguistic principle of organizing the non-Hindi speaking states.

Our fervent appeal to you is to immediately restrain the Government of India from dividing Andhra Pradesh, the state of the Telugu people.

http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/the-president-of-india-pl-restrain-the-government-of-india-from-dividing-andhra-pradesh-the-state-of-the-telugu-people

Mamata Banerjee of TMC supports Samaikyandhra, will vote against T bill in Parliament

Telangana Lion says Dont come in the way of Kiran, will skin them alive!

Socially boycott all the traitors of samaikyandhra!

Samaikyandhra bike rally in Hyderabad on Sunday 24/11

https://www.facebook.com/events/223445611162109/permalink/223700127803324/

Interview with Parakala Prabhakar garu

Telugu people's unity will prevail

Lie#5: Telangana urban lands, especially in Hyderabad, are doled out to ...

Telangana Lies #4: Prior to 1956, during Nizam's rule,Telangana was more...

Telangana Lies #3: We are only asking to reinstate our Telangana state w...

Telangana Lies #1: Hyderabad state was merged with Andhra against the wishes of Telangana people

Telangana Lies #2: Telangana remained economically backward because of Andhra rulers

Pls sign #Petition to #Prez Pranab Mukherji

Pls sign #Petition to #Prez Pranab Mukherji:
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/the-president-of-india-pl-restrain-the-government-of-india-from-dividing-andhra-pradesh-the-state-of-the-telugu-people #samaikyandhra #RIPCongress

Small states govern better – An established idea or a red herring? #Samaikyandhra #Telangana

By Achyutam Kallani and Rahul Bajoria 

(Originally appeared in Centre Right India)

The demand for smaller states is a complex issue in India. From a historical precedent, India spent considerable amount of resources uniting India into one single polity in its early years, after the British left over 550 Royalties in charge of their own fate. Once their allegiance to the constitution of India was secured, the Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru ordered a state reorganisation committee, which led to the single largest realignment of states along linguistic lines in 1955.

This idea of splitting states based on a common language / community has stood the test of time, broadly speaking. However, with Telangana being announced, clearly an act of political expediency, the ‘linguistic’ re-organization of states perhaps does not hold water any more.

India has gone through several more independent exercises to carve out smaller states from larger states, and it has also involved conversion of union territories into states. In fact, most of the legacy conversions have involved union territories being given quasi/full statehood.

The latest example is of course Delhi or National capital region, which has benefitted from strong growth under a more de-centralised government, even if its performance on other issues like security is suspect. From 14 in 1956, the numbers of states have risen to 28, and could be 29, if Telangana eventually materialises.

Let us critically analyse the arguments put forth by various commentators and political parties on the benefit of smaller states.

To start with, it has often been pointed out that smaller states are better placed to administer and respond to the needs of the state’s citizens more nimbly. While, indeed a government may be more agile if it has a focussed catchment area. A true measure of delivery of public services would manifest in the social indicators, let us look at the economic growth.

Let us first look at the three states which were created in November, 2000 out of their mother states – Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. We look at the economic growth first for these states and contrast them with that of their mother states for two period- 1994 – 2000 (pre) and then from 2001 to 2012 (post). We have carefully chosen to exclude 2000-01 period for this was the transition year.

In the pre-birth years, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh clocked an average growth rate of approximately 3% during the pre-birth periods. In the post- birth period, these states improved their growth rates dramatically too approximately: Uttarakhand 11%, Chhattisgarh: 9% – a good 200% increase in the growth rates. Contrast this with the mother states – UP accelerated 20% from 4.7% to 6%, MP from 6% to 7%.

Clearly these two states – Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand performed much better than their mother states after their birth. Jharkhand, on the other hand, did shown an increase in growth rate, from 5% to 7%, but not as stellar as its other cousins. Bihar outpaced Jharkhand during this period from roughly 4.7% to 7.2%, being an outlier.

The pertinent question then is – while all new small states accelerated its growth rate a, why is it that Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh performed better than their mother states but Jharkhand could not mimic the same feature? Is it merely smallness of states that explains this dichotomy?

If small states, as a rule, perform better then why don’t we see Manipur and Punjab also performing better as well? On the contrary, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, which can be classified as ‘large’ have also, was performing well in terms of economic growth despite being “large” states. Clearly ‘largeness’ based on size or population alone is not a true deterrent for growth.

In the absence of any coherent measure of “efficiency of delivery of public services” the other measure which could be used to compare small Vs Large states is the Human Development Index. The best comparable pan India level insight can be gauged from the National Human Development Report, 2001 by the Planning Commission.

A priori, it does seem that given the relatively good performance of Kerala, Punjab and Haryana on HDI, small states may perform better when it comes to delivery of services which are necessary, but not sufficient for development. But here again we have mixed results with states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Karnataka also performing relatively well despite being “large”.

Another point which is often adduced to support the case of small states is the quick decision making. Quick decision making must manifest itself the most in how easy it is to start / cease a business based on procedural modalities of the administration. For evaluating this claim , we turn to the “Doing business in India , 2009″ report commissioned by the Government of India and prepared by the World Bank which covered select cities to make a comparative evaluation.

Fortunately these 10 cities are from states spanning both – ‘small’ and ‘large’ states. Here also, we find that it is easiest to do business in Ludhiana from Punjab (a ‘small’ state) and Ranchi (from a new born small state) ranks better than Patna (from the ‘mother’ state).

However, presence of cities lie Hyderabad ,Ahmadabad , Jaipur (all from ‘large’ states) among the easiest places to do business shows a mixed result. We also sense that while some large cities which have grown rapidly in recent years might appear high in the list now, but competitiveness is not guaranteed to persist, or they maybe overtaken by other tier 2/3 cities.

Interestingly another argument produced by various commentators on both sides of the divide has been the law and order. While votaries of ‘small ‘ states argue that small state administration are quicker to respond , those against division of current big states argue that small states may pose law and order challenge especially in containing extremism citing the example of North eastern states.

However , truth again lies somewhere in between. That small states may not be very prompt in responding was amply clear in the recent unfortunate floods of Uttaranchal. However, some of the worst terrorist attacks have taken place in ‘large’ states. Naxalism – affected ‘small’, ‘large’, ‘old’, ‘new’ states equally. Hence, this argument is perhaps is not convincing.

What then explains the performance of different states? In our view it is the political stability which lends continuity of policies that matters the most and not ‘largeness’ of states. An efficient and willing administrator can manage even a large state fairly satisfactorily. In our example above, if we compare the growth of Bihar from 2001-2005 and 2005 – 2012 and compare that of Jharkhand, Bihar in 2001-2005 performs worse than Jharkhand.

Post 2005, after Nitish Kumar took over as chief minister of Bihar, it has seen good economic progress. This may well appear as a correlation, but we have sufficient number of studies providing causal evidence between establishing rule of law being a pre-condition to economic growth.

On the contrary, Jharkhand has shown relatively poor progress because of political instability with 12 changes in head of administration (passing into President’s rule often). A similar small state – Sikkim with Pawan Chamling at the helm for almost two decades now has grown spectacularly because of development oriented consistent and stable policies of the administration.

Another example is Uttar Pradesh – with frequent administration changes and with dubious track record in terms of upholding the rule of law, is unstable in terms of policies and hence a laggard. As such, political stability may create conditions which help in encouraging more investment into social sector by the government, which in turn may bring private investment.

This is a very promising trend in India, where pro incumbency is increasingly seen in state election results, and the incentives for politicians or state leaders to adopt a more pro growth stance is politically viable. This trend is present in states of all sizes, and there is no trend that small states see less change of governments, relative to large ones.

Having said that, we do believe that an effective administration can increase its efficiency if it’s focussed on a particular size of population. In our opinion, given the new realities of demographics in India, it is the population size that should matter in carving out new states and not linguistic / cultural homogeneity.

Language or culture based divisions are no less ‘communal’ than religion and a state has no business in dividing on the basis of these attributes of the population. If focus, responsiveness and efficiency is to be optimized it should probably be on the basis of population size.

For a state like UP, with a population of almost 200 million (similar to Brazil in terms of population but similar to Kenya in terms of per capita GDP) and Maharashtra with a population of 100 million (similar to Mexico in terms of population but Sri Lanka in terms of per capita GDP) it almost seems implausible to efficiently govern it.

Even if their per capita income is higher than the national average, a smaller but more focused administration can definitely raise the pace at which nominal incomes can rise in certain parts of these states. As such, the authors strongly believe that states with population of more than 50million people can be divided to efficiently provide for public services.

Another dimension which should be considered is the geography. Locations with strategic importance should probably be administered by the Central Government. Gorkhaland is a classic example to this end. With its tiny size, it would be foolish to grant it state-hood (if not viewed purely on the archaic and myopic ‘linguistic’ lens) but given its strategic importance and geography, it may be better off as a Union territory.

To conclude, we believe there is no perfect correlation of smallness of states and economic/social well being. An efficient and willing administrator can govern a small or a large state well. However, to ensure proper, focussed and efficient delivery of public services, states should be divided based on population size.

This is an idea which was mooted by Dr. Ambedkar even during the first re-organization but priorities of a newly born nation was to strengthen the federal yet unitary form of governance and to keep India united. Linguistic reorganization served the purpose then but it should no longer be the single yard stick of defining state boundaries. This should be based on the basis of the population, geography and economy and the boundaries of the states should be re-drawn.

Given that this is a vexatious and arduous issue, we call for a Second State Re-organization Commission to look into this and carve out provinces in a more objective and scientific manner. Further a large part of the problem or demands for state hood has arisen ostensibly because of development and discrimination. This should be addressed adequately if we truly decentralize our administration in letter and spirit and give a large part of administrative duties to the local self governments.

We are conscious that it is difficult for any political front to devolve power, but it would be far more efficient, healthy and beneficial if the local self governments have a greater hand and say in the local development.

PS: Authors’ views are personal

References

http://www.economist.com/content/indian-summary

http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/Documents/Subnational-Reports/DB09-Sub-India.pdf

http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/index.php?data=datatab

http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/site/India_Statistics.aspx?status=1&menu_id=43

Link to original article: http://centreright.in/2013/08/small-states-govern-better-an-established-idea-or-a-red-herring/#.UoMQOSf4Kzw

BJP Should Tell Us What They Achieved By Creating New States Like Jharkhand

Here are the 'achievements' of Jharkhand in the last 13 years:

Political Stability: 9 Chief Ministers in 13 Years (Picture above is self explanatory!)

 

Corruption: Gone through the roof (Ex-CM Madhu Koda, in above picture, in jail for three and half years)

Source:

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/corruption-instability-mark-10-years-of-jharkhand-1541377.html

 

Security: Became worse after new state was formed, naxalites/maoists have become stronger. Frequent attacks on people. 10 major incidents since 2005.

Source:

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/06/13/10-major-maoist-attacks-since-2005-82083.html

 

GDP: Bihar has better figures than Jharkhand in the last 10 years. Bihar has witnessed 13.13 percent GSDP growth over the previous year during 2011-12 while Jharkhand has grown by only 6.57 per cent. 

Source:

http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/do-new-states-perform-better/22/47995/

Conclusion: 

• It's not the size of the state that matters, it's the quality of governance that matters! 
• How is it that small states like Manipur and Mizoram are not at the top of social or economic indicators? 
• Bigger states like Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (even Andhra Pradesh) have developed well due to better governance. 
• What is needed is effective administration and focus on overall development of state.

Small is not necessarily beautiful! #Telangana #Samaikyandhra

Author argues that dividing bigger states like UP, Bihar, & Madhya Pradesh and creating Uttarakhand, Jharkhand & Chattisgarh has created more problems. Peoples lives have become more miserable while politicians and businessmen associated with them have benefited. Read article below.

Naxalism getting stronger in the new states

Small is not necessarily beautiful

By Upendra Prasad

The tragedy of Uttarakhand is attracting the attention of environmentalists, who are blaming the government for this natural calamity which resulted into the death of thousands of people and destruction of property worth of thousands of crores. This natural disaster may be the making of men, but the response of the government after the calamity was far less than adequate. The whole administration of Uttarakhand government seemed to be paralyzed. When Chief Minister was needed in Uttarakhand to oversee the rescue relief and rehabilitation works, he was seen running towards Delhi to get central help. One District Magistrate suffered heart attack. The administration even could not coordinate properly the rescue operations being carried out by pare military forces and army. The rescued persons could not be provided even food and shelter and in most cases even medical facilities. The whole administration seemed to have collapsed.

The utter failure of the state government of Uttarakhand has once again proved that the division of Uttar Pradesh was not a wise decision. NDA government divided three Hindi speaking states 12 years ago. Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. It was interesting to see that movement for separate states was going on in non Hindi states, too, but the government divided only Hindi speaking states. These divisions were made in the name of promoting development. What kind of development is taking place there can be seen by the figures of their development. Before division, it was argued that Jharkhand would develop in fast pace, because it was endowed with rich minerals and the looser would be Bihar. But we can see that Bihar is developing fast, when we compare it with Jharkhand. Similarly Madhya Pradesh is developing fast, when we compare it with Chhattisgarh. It is absurd to talk of the development of Uttarakhand after division of Uttar Pradesh, because this development is being cursed for the natural calamity we are witnessing there.

One basic fault of our development model is that we attach this development with the development of the region. In this development model, we leave the local people residing in the region out. Not only local people, we ignore the ecology and environment of the region as well. Developments can be made and are being made at huge social cost. We just ignore it. No cost- benefit analysis based on social cost is made. People of a region want separate state to develop them, but new states were made to develop the region at the cost of the people. If some studies are made to see the response of local people of Uttarakhand to the so called development projects, it may open up our eyes to see how people were resisting them their resistance went unheeded, if not unnoticed. There was a Chipko movement launched by the local population of Uttarakhand. People were resisting the cutting of trees for development purposes. Their Chipko movement went unheeded and trees continued to be cut for their use in development and for clearing the areas where trees were standing for some development projects. There was a stiff resistance against the building of Tehri dam. The works on the dam went on for decades. The resistance of the people was ignored and what they could get by their movement was only compensation. Thousands of tones of explosives were used to complete the dam injuring the Himalayas. So far dam has not caused any damage, but what would happen, if an earthquake damages it and water stored in it comes down abruptly? According to an environmentalist, the whole low lying areas would get destroyed; the destruction would not be limited only to the hills, but even to the plain of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The water of Tehri dam can even reach Delhi and cause devastation there by washing out the national capital.

In fact what we needed in Uttarakhand is not the exploitation of its waters for electricity and development of religious place for tourism, but to preserve it in its natural form. Himalayas cannot withstand the population pressure witnessed in the Gangetic plain. They cannot withstand a consumerist society, which has come into existence lately, where the destruction of ecology has become a rule to own more consumer goods and go for more consumption. Himalayas save us, when they are in natural form, if we play with them, they will finish us. Development of India is not sustainable, if we give injuries to the Himalayas.

The government of newly formed Uttarakhand only suppressed the voice of resisting masses, which were agitating against the ill conceived development and when the disaster arrived, the State administration found itself paralyzed. A small state like Uttarakhand had not sufficient administrative capability to tackle the consequences of such disasters. It could not have even sufficient resources to rescue the people and do other needful activities. Had Uttarakhand been a part of Uttar Pradesh, such kind of helplessness on the part of the state administration could not have been seen.

We can see how things are moving on in Uttarakhand. Its separation from Uttar Pradesh has hardly served any purpose, for which people were dreaming of. Scenes in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are not different. Both these two states are suffering from naxal problems. These problems existed even before, but after the creation of these two states, these problems have further aggravated. Creation of these two states by bifurcation of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has only alienated the weaker sections of these states and they are raising their heads against the State. Here again the small size of the state and state government result into the smallness of their administrative manpower rendering them more dependent upon the Central Para military force to tackle the extremist activities.

Case of Jharkhand is even more tragic. After its formation, it is witnessing political uncertainty and it is forced to have President Rule frequently. The state was demanded so that people can decide their own way of development. Pathetically, they did not have their own government at the moment and Delhi is ruling them. The examples of these small states only suggest that small is not necessarily beautiful. (IPA Service)

http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/06/27/small-is-not-necessarily-beautiful/

The tragedy of Uttarakhand is attracting the attention of environmentalists, who are blaming the government for this natural calamity which resulted into the death of thousands of people and destruction of property worth of thousands of crores. This natural disaster may be the making of men, but the response of the government after the calamity was far less than adequate. The whole administration of Uttarakhand government seemed to be paralyzed. When Chief Minister was needed in Uttarakhand to oversee the rescue relief and rehabilitation works, he was seen running towards Delhi to get central help. One District Magistrate suffered heart attack. The administration even could not coordinate properly the rescue operations being carried out by pare military forces and army. The rescued persons could not be provided even food and shelter and in most cases even medical facilities. The whole administration seemed to have collapsed.

The utter failure of the state government of Uttarakhand has once again proved that the division of Uttar Pradesh was not a wise decision. NDA government divided three Hindi speaking states 12 years ago. Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. It was interesting to see that movement for separate states was going on in non Hindi states, too, but the government divided only Hindi speaking states. These divisions were made in the name of promoting development. What kind of development is taking place there can be seen by the figures of their development. Before division, it was argued that Jharkhand would develop in fast pace, because it was endowed with rich minerals and the looser would be Bihar. But we can see that Bihar is developing fast, when we compare it with Jharkhand. Similarly Madhya Pradesh is developing fast, when we compare it with Chhattisgarh. It is absurd to talk of the development of Uttarakhand after division of Uttar Pradesh, because this development is being cursed for the natural calamity we are witnessing there.

One basic fault of our development model is that we attach this development with the development of the region. In this development model, we leave the local people residing in the region out. Not only local people, we ignore the ecology and environment of the region as well. Developments can be made and are being made at huge social cost. We just ignore it. No cost- benefit analysis based on social cost is made. People of a region want separate state to develop them, but new states were made to develop the region at the cost of the people. If some studies are made to see the response of local people of Uttarakhand to the so called development projects, it may open up our eyes to see how people were resisting them their resistance went unheeded, if not unnoticed. There was a Chipko movement launched by the local population of Uttarakhand. People were resisting the cutting of trees for development purposes. Their Chipko movement went unheeded and trees continued to be cut for their use in development and for clearing the areas where trees were standing for some development projects. There was a stiff resistance against the building of Tehri dam. The works on the dam went on for decades. The resistance of the people was ignored and what they could get by their movement was only compensation. Thousands of tones of explosives were used to complete the dam injuring the Himalayas. So far dam has not caused any damage, but what would happen, if an earthquake damages it and water stored in it comes down abruptly? According to an environmentalist, the whole low lying areas would get destroyed; the destruction would not be limited only to the hills, but even to the plain of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The water of Tehri dam can even reach Delhi and cause devastation there by washing out the national capital.

In fact what we needed in Uttarakhand is not the exploitation of its waters for electricity and development of religious place for tourism, but to preserve it in its natural form. Himalayas cannot withstand the population pressure witnessed in the Gangetic plain. They cannot withstand a consumerist society, which has come into existence lately, where the destruction of ecology has become a rule to own more consumer goods and go for more consumption. Himalayas save us, when they are in natural form, if we play with them, they will finish us. Development of India is not sustainable, if we give injuries to the Himalayas.

The government of newly formed Uttarakhand only suppressed the voice of resisting masses, which were agitating against the ill conceived development and when the disaster arrived, the State administration found itself paralyzed. A small state like Uttarakhand had not sufficient administrative capability to tackle the consequences of such disasters. It could not have even sufficient resources to rescue the people and do other needful activities. Had Uttarakhand been a part of Uttar Pradesh, such kind of helplessness on the part of the state administration could not have been seen.

We can see how things are moving on in Uttarakhand. Its separation from Uttar Pradesh has hardly served any purpose, for which people were dreaming of. Scenes in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are not different. Both these two states are suffering from naxal problems. These problems existed even before, but after the creation of these two states, these problems have further aggravated. Creation of these two states by bifurcation of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has only alienated the weaker sections of these states and they are raising their heads against the State. Here again the small size of the state and state government result into the smallness of their administrative manpower rendering them more dependent upon the Central Para military force to tackle the extremist activities.

Case of Jharkhand is even more tragic. After its formation, it is witnessing political uncertainty and it is forced to have President Rule frequently. The state was demanded so that people can decide their own way of development. Pathetically, they did not have their own government at the moment and Delhi is ruling them. The examples of these small states only suggest that small is not necessarily beautiful. (IPA Service)

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/06/27/small-is-not-necessarily-beautiful/#e1Hl5eRgsUwIDlAy.99

The tragedy of Uttarakhand is attracting the attention of environmentalists, who are blaming the government for this natural calamity which resulted into the death of thousands of people and destruction of property worth of thousands of crores. This natural disaster may be the making of men, but the response of the government after the calamity was far less than adequate. The whole administration of Uttarakhand government seemed to be paralyzed. When Chief Minister was needed in Uttarakhand to oversee the rescue relief and rehabilitation works, he was seen running towards Delhi to get central help. One District Magistrate suffered heart attack. The administration even could not coordinate properly the rescue operations being carried out by pare military forces and army. The rescued persons could not be provided even food and shelter and in most cases even medical facilities. The whole administration seemed to have collapsed.

The utter failure of the state government of Uttarakhand has once again proved that the division of Uttar Pradesh was not a wise decision. NDA government divided three Hindi speaking states 12 years ago. Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. It was interesting to see that movement for separate states was going on in non Hindi states, too, but the government divided only Hindi speaking states. These divisions were made in the name of promoting development. What kind of development is taking place there can be seen by the figures of their development. Before division, it was argued that Jharkhand would develop in fast pace, because it was endowed with rich minerals and the looser would be Bihar. But we can see that Bihar is developing fast, when we compare it with Jharkhand. Similarly Madhya Pradesh is developing fast, when we compare it with Chhattisgarh. It is absurd to talk of the development of Uttarakhand after division of Uttar Pradesh, because this development is being cursed for the natural calamity we are witnessing there.

One basic fault of our development model is that we attach this development with the development of the region. In this development model, we leave the local people residing in the region out. Not only local people, we ignore the ecology and environment of the region as well. Developments can be made and are being made at huge social cost. We just ignore it. No cost- benefit analysis based on social cost is made. People of a region want separate state to develop them, but new states were made to develop the region at the cost of the people. If some studies are made to see the response of local people of Uttarakhand to the so called development projects, it may open up our eyes to see how people were resisting them their resistance went unheeded, if not unnoticed. There was a Chipko movement launched by the local population of Uttarakhand. People were resisting the cutting of trees for development purposes. Their Chipko movement went unheeded and trees continued to be cut for their use in development and for clearing the areas where trees were standing for some development projects. There was a stiff resistance against the building of Tehri dam. The works on the dam went on for decades. The resistance of the people was ignored and what they could get by their movement was only compensation. Thousands of tones of explosives were used to complete the dam injuring the Himalayas. So far dam has not caused any damage, but what would happen, if an earthquake damages it and water stored in it comes down abruptly? According to an environmentalist, the whole low lying areas would get destroyed; the destruction would not be limited only to the hills, but even to the plain of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The water of Tehri dam can even reach Delhi and cause devastation there by washing out the national capital.

In fact what we needed in Uttarakhand is not the exploitation of its waters for electricity and development of religious place for tourism, but to preserve it in its natural form. Himalayas cannot withstand the population pressure witnessed in the Gangetic plain. They cannot withstand a consumerist society, which has come into existence lately, where the destruction of ecology has become a rule to own more consumer goods and go for more consumption. Himalayas save us, when they are in natural form, if we play with them, they will finish us. Development of India is not sustainable, if we give injuries to the Himalayas.

The government of newly formed Uttarakhand only suppressed the voice of resisting masses, which were agitating against the ill conceived development and when the disaster arrived, the State administration found itself paralyzed. A small state like Uttarakhand had not sufficient administrative capability to tackle the consequences of such disasters. It could not have even sufficient resources to rescue the people and do other needful activities. Had Uttarakhand been a part of Uttar Pradesh, such kind of helplessness on the part of the state administration could not have been seen.

We can see how things are moving on in Uttarakhand. Its separation from Uttar Pradesh has hardly served any purpose, for which people were dreaming of. Scenes in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are not different. Both these two states are suffering from naxal problems. These problems existed even before, but after the creation of these two states, these problems have further aggravated. Creation of these two states by bifurcation of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has only alienated the weaker sections of these states and they are raising their heads against the State. Here again the small size of the state and state government result into the smallness of their administrative manpower rendering them more dependent upon the Central Para military force to tackle the extremist activities.

Case of Jharkhand is even more tragic. After its formation, it is witnessing political uncertainty and it is forced to have President Rule frequently. The state was demanded so that people can decide their own way of development. Pathetically, they did not have their own government at the moment and Delhi is ruling them. The examples of these small states only suggest that small is not necessarily beautiful. (IPA Service)

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/06/27/small-is-not-necessarily-beautiful/#e1Hl5eRgsUwIDlAy.99

The tragedy of Uttarakhand is attracting the attention of environmentalists, who are blaming the government for this natural calamity which resulted into the death of thousands of people and destruction of property worth of thousands of crores. This natural disaster may be the making of men, but the response of the government after the calamity was far less than adequate. The whole administration of Uttarakhand government seemed to be paralyzed. When Chief Minister was needed in Uttarakhand to oversee the rescue relief and rehabilitation works, he was seen running towards Delhi to get central help. One District Magistrate suffered heart attack. The administration even could not coordinate properly the rescue operations being carried out by pare military forces and army. The rescued persons could not be provided even food and shelter and in most cases even medical facilities. The whole administration seemed to have collapsed.

The utter failure of the state government of Uttarakhand has once again proved that the division of Uttar Pradesh was not a wise decision. NDA government divided three Hindi speaking states 12 years ago. Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. It was interesting to see that movement for separate states was going on in non Hindi states, too, but the government divided only Hindi speaking states. These divisions were made in the name of promoting development. What kind of development is taking place there can be seen by the figures of their development. Before division, it was argued that Jharkhand would develop in fast pace, because it was endowed with rich minerals and the looser would be Bihar. But we can see that Bihar is developing fast, when we compare it with Jharkhand. Similarly Madhya Pradesh is developing fast, when we compare it with Chhattisgarh. It is absurd to talk of the development of Uttarakhand after division of Uttar Pradesh, because this development is being cursed for the natural calamity we are witnessing there.

One basic fault of our development model is that we attach this development with the development of the region. In this development model, we leave the local people residing in the region out. Not only local people, we ignore the ecology and environment of the region as well. Developments can be made and are being made at huge social cost. We just ignore it. No cost- benefit analysis based on social cost is made. People of a region want separate state to develop them, but new states were made to develop the region at the cost of the people. If some studies are made to see the response of local people of Uttarakhand to the so called development projects, it may open up our eyes to see how people were resisting them their resistance went unheeded, if not unnoticed. There was a Chipko movement launched by the local population of Uttarakhand. People were resisting the cutting of trees for development purposes. Their Chipko movement went unheeded and trees continued to be cut for their use in development and for clearing the areas where trees were standing for some development projects. There was a stiff resistance against the building of Tehri dam. The works on the dam went on for decades. The resistance of the people was ignored and what they could get by their movement was only compensation. Thousands of tones of explosives were used to complete the dam injuring the Himalayas. So far dam has not caused any damage, but what would happen, if an earthquake damages it and water stored in it comes down abruptly? According to an environmentalist, the whole low lying areas would get destroyed; the destruction would not be limited only to the hills, but even to the plain of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The water of Tehri dam can even reach Delhi and cause devastation there by washing out the national capital.

In fact what we needed in Uttarakhand is not the exploitation of its waters for electricity and development of religious place for tourism, but to preserve it in its natural form. Himalayas cannot withstand the population pressure witnessed in the Gangetic plain. They cannot withstand a consumerist society, which has come into existence lately, where the destruction of ecology has become a rule to own more consumer goods and go for more consumption. Himalayas save us, when they are in natural form, if we play with them, they will finish us. Development of India is not sustainable, if we give injuries to the Himalayas.

The government of newly formed Uttarakhand only suppressed the voice of resisting masses, which were agitating against the ill conceived development and when the disaster arrived, the State administration found itself paralyzed. A small state like Uttarakhand had not sufficient administrative capability to tackle the consequences of such disasters. It could not have even sufficient resources to rescue the people and do other needful activities. Had Uttarakhand been a part of Uttar Pradesh, such kind of helplessness on the part of the state administration could not have been seen.

We can see how things are moving on in Uttarakhand. Its separation from Uttar Pradesh has hardly served any purpose, for which people were dreaming of. Scenes in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are not different. Both these two states are suffering from naxal problems. These problems existed even before, but after the creation of these two states, these problems have further aggravated. Creation of these two states by bifurcation of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has only alienated the weaker sections of these states and they are raising their heads against the State. Here again the small size of the state and state government result into the smallness of their administrative manpower rendering them more dependent upon the Central Para military force to tackle the extremist activities.

Case of Jharkhand is even more tragic. After its formation, it is witnessing political uncertainty and it is forced to have President Rule frequently. The state was demanded so that people can decide their own way of development. Pathetically, they did not have their own government at the moment and Delhi is ruling them. The examples of these small states only suggest that small is not necessarily beautiful. (IPA Service)

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/06/27/small-is-not-necessarily-beautiful/#e1Hl5eRgsUwIDlAy.99

The tragedy of Uttarakhand is attracting the attention of environmentalists, who are blaming the government for this natural calamity which resulted into the death of thousands of people and destruction of property worth of thousands of crores. This natural disaster may be the making of men, but the response of the government after the calamity was far less than adequate. The whole administration of Uttarakhand government seemed to be paralyzed. When Chief Minister was needed in Uttarakhand to oversee the rescue relief and rehabilitation works, he was seen running towards Delhi to get central help. One District Magistrate suffered heart attack. The administration even could not coordinate properly the rescue operations being carried out by pare military forces and army. The rescued persons could not be provided even food and shelter and in most cases even medical facilities. The whole administration seemed to have collapsed.

The utter failure of the state government of Uttarakhand has once again proved that the division of Uttar Pradesh was not a wise decision. NDA government divided three Hindi speaking states 12 years ago. Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. It was interesting to see that movement for separate states was going on in non Hindi states, too, but the government divided only Hindi speaking states. These divisions were made in the name of promoting development. What kind of development is taking place there can be seen by the figures of their development. Before division, it was argued that Jharkhand would develop in fast pace, because it was endowed with rich minerals and the looser would be Bihar. But we can see that Bihar is developing fast, when we compare it with Jharkhand. Similarly Madhya Pradesh is developing fast, when we compare it with Chhattisgarh. It is absurd to talk of the development of Uttarakhand after division of Uttar Pradesh, because this development is being cursed for the natural calamity we are witnessing there.

One basic fault of our development model is that we attach this development with the development of the region. In this development model, we leave the local people residing in the region out. Not only local people, we ignore the ecology and environment of the region as well. Developments can be made and are being made at huge social cost. We just ignore it. No cost- benefit analysis based on social cost is made. People of a region want separate state to develop them, but new states were made to develop the region at the cost of the people. If some studies are made to see the response of local people of Uttarakhand to the so called development projects, it may open up our eyes to see how people were resisting them their resistance went unheeded, if not unnoticed. There was a Chipko movement launched by the local population of Uttarakhand. People were resisting the cutting of trees for development purposes. Their Chipko movement went unheeded and trees continued to be cut for their use in development and for clearing the areas where trees were standing for some development projects. There was a stiff resistance against the building of Tehri dam. The works on the dam went on for decades. The resistance of the people was ignored and what they could get by their movement was only compensation. Thousands of tones of explosives were used to complete the dam injuring the Himalayas. So far dam has not caused any damage, but what would happen, if an earthquake damages it and water stored in it comes down abruptly? According to an environmentalist, the whole low lying areas would get destroyed; the destruction would not be limited only to the hills, but even to the plain of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The water of Tehri dam can even reach Delhi and cause devastation there by washing out the national capital.

In fact what we needed in Uttarakhand is not the exploitation of its waters for electricity and development of religious place for tourism, but to preserve it in its natural form. Himalayas cannot withstand the population pressure witnessed in the Gangetic plain. They cannot withstand a consumerist society, which has come into existence lately, where the destruction of ecology has become a rule to own more consumer goods and go for more consumption. Himalayas save us, when they are in natural form, if we play with them, they will finish us. Development of India is not sustainable, if we give injuries to the Himalayas.

The government of newly formed Uttarakhand only suppressed the voice of resisting masses, which were agitating against the ill conceived development and when the disaster arrived, the State administration found itself paralyzed. A small state like Uttarakhand had not sufficient administrative capability to tackle the consequences of such disasters. It could not have even sufficient resources to rescue the people and do other needful activities. Had Uttarakhand been a part of Uttar Pradesh, such kind of helplessness on the part of the state administration could not have been seen.

We can see how things are moving on in Uttarakhand. Its separation from Uttar Pradesh has hardly served any purpose, for which people were dreaming of. Scenes in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are not different. Both these two states are suffering from naxal problems. These problems existed even before, but after the creation of these two states, these problems have further aggravated. Creation of these two states by bifurcation of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has only alienated the weaker sections of these states and they are raising their heads against the State. Here again the small size of the state and state government result into the smallness of their administrative manpower rendering them more dependent upon the Central Para military force to tackle the extremist activities.

Case of Jharkhand is even more tragic. After its formation, it is witnessing political uncertainty and it is forced to have President Rule frequently. The state was demanded so that people can decide their own way of development. Pathetically, they did not have their own government at the moment and Delhi is ruling them. The examples of these small states only suggest that small is not necessarily beautiful. (IPA Service)

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/06/27/small-is-not-necessarily-beautiful/#e1Hl5eRgsUwIDlAy.99