AP Montage
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
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
Link to original article: http://centreright.in/2013/08/small-states-govern-better-an-established-idea-or-a-red-herring/#.UoMQOSf4Kzw
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
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!)
.jpg)
Corruption: Gone through the roof (Ex-CM Madhu Koda, in above picture, in jail for three and half years)
Source:
Security: Became worse after new state was formed, naxalites/maoists have become stronger. Frequent attacks on people. 10 major incidents since 2005.
Source:
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:
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)
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)
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
Political, not peoples', interests the only decisive factor in Andhra Pradesh division; #Telangana #Samaikyandhra
(Originally appeared in The New Indian Express)
After dithering for many years, the Union Cabinet has made an announcement recently that Andhra Pradesh will be split into two—Telangana and Seemandhra. Andhra was created in the early 1950s and soon thereafter the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) had proposed a formula, formally accepted by the then government, specifying language as the criterion for future division of states.
Telugu is the language of about 14 crore Indian citizens; Andhra Pradesh could be termed the 14th largest ‘country’ in the world. When such a large part of India is to be split, and when the separation is to be between people who speak the same language and share the same culture, one would expect a much greater degree of preparation, prior consultation among all interests, and a broad agreement on the major contours of the implementation. It is astonishing that the final decision clearly was the result of a sudden spurt of ‘inspiration’—there was as much preparation as in cutting a large birthday cake. Indeed, the conclusion is inescapable that the main consideration related to a crude and cynical assessment of the number of MPs that the ruling party in Delhi could garner from the bifurcation.
Ultimately, such a major decision, affecting crores of Indians, is triggered by prospects of minor parliamentary benefit to the ruling party—the concerns, impact, and consequences for such a large state, sharing the same language, clearly were callously not taken into account.
A child would have predicted that the question of the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra would loom large as one requiring a broad prior consensus. We note that Hyderabad is more than 150 km north of the proposed Seemandhra border; most of Seemandhra/Rayalaseema citizens would have to go through a long road ‘corridor’ to go to the state capital—the implications of this had not been thought through. As an alternative, a new capital at Vijayawada or elsewhere in Seemandhra was not mooted in advance to build a consensus. Indeed, even the contours of the proposed Seemandhra, in effect bifurcating Rayalaseema (part to join Telangana and the rest to be with Andhra), was finalised after some changes —not based on any local population parameters or other requirements, but simply on a crude electoral estimation of potential benefit in the form of MP seats to the ruling party in Delhi—how much more callous and cruel can the administration be?
Even now it is not clear whether the Andhra Assembly will approve of the proposal to divide the Pradesh; it is not clear whether the Centre will overrule any adverse decision. Is it fair and proper to leave such major issues hanging in the air, while announcing the dismemberment of a large state, breaking up the Telugu peoples, based on short-term considerations of the Centre? Note that the creation of Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh), Jharkhand (from Bihar) and Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh) was done after considering all aspects, getting the opinion of the people concerned in the proposed new states (as well as the ‘rump’), with a clear picture of where the new capital will be. Would Uttarakhand have accepted Lucknow as its capital? Or Jharkhand agreed to split Patna as joint capital with Bihar—likewise in Madhya Pradesh? It is astonishing how the issue of respective capitals of proposed Telangana and Seemandhra could be dealt with in such a cavalier manner.
Empirically, there is no evidence that smaller or bigger states are more conducive for better administration; much like the productivity of large or small farms is size-neutral—the decisive factor is the quality of management. Besides it is not the wisest thing to embark on divisions of states without pre-specifying the principles; in this case, the cart has been placed before the horse, in the sense that a second SRC could have been established to delineate the parameters. The present decision will sooner or later trigger new demands in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra among others, with equal or greater logic—one presumes that with the crass momentary-benefit approach by the Centre, these also will get decided based on the perceived benefits (i.e. one or two MPs this way or the other) to the ruling party. How unprincipled can governance be?
The Indo-Pak (now Bangladesh) border was settled in the course of two days by a surveyor, who essentially took a map and drew a line across it. That was the time when this issue had to be settled in a terrible hurry, as the Indian independence had been agreed upon. In the Andhra case, the Centre fiddled its thumb for 15 years before delineating the border in the course of two days, much like the British surveyor did during Partition in 1947— clearly, the emergency this time related to the impending 2014 elections. Imagine if there were a scramble at that time as to whether the East Pakistan capital should also have been located at Kolkata, then known as Calcutta—the dispute for Hyderabad as capital is of a similar nature. This piece is not expressing an opinion on whether Andhra should be divided or not; it is only a lament that expediency, short-term political interest of Delhi are the decisive factors—the Telugu-speaking peoples’ interests are not relevant.
http://newindianexpress.com/magazine/voices/Political-not-peoples-interests-the-only-decisive-factor-in-Andhra-division/2013/11/10/article1877969.ece
About the author: TSR Subramanian is a former cabinet secretary & IAS Officer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)