More isn8217;t merrier

Given the hostility of some political parties to the creation of new states, it is an achievement in itself that the government could intr...

Given the hostility of some political parties to the creation of new states, it is an achievement in itself that the government could introduce three state reorganisation Bills in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. That the Bills are unlikely to have a smooth passage was made clear when some opposition parties staged a walkout in protest against the move. What is more worrisome is the voice of protest heard from the treasury benches.

Home Minister L.K. Advani8217;s assertion that the Bills reflected consensus on the issue within the National Democratic Alliance was wide of the mark. This was borne out by some members of the NDA displaying their active opposition to the Bills. At the root of the problem is the dichotomy between the public and private postures of some political parties and their leaders a phenomenon that is particularly marked in the case of Jharkhand. The Bihar Assembly had passed a resolution on the creation of such a state.

Ironically, even those parties which had voted for the resolution do not fight shy of sabotaging it now. Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Laloo Prasad Yadav, who had at one time said that Jharkhand would be created only over his dead body and had yet voted for the resolution, epitomises the political doublespeak that has come to mark this debate.

Of course, it is unfair to single out the RJD for this. Even the BJP, which is in favour of smaller states for ideological reasons, does not speak in one voice. BJP leaders from North Bihar have a viewpoint diametrically opposed to that of their counterparts from South Bihar. The Samata Party and the JDU, which are constituents of the NDA and draw their political sustenance from North Bihar, are not favourably disposed towards the possible vivisection of Bihar because they know once the mineral-rich areas of South Bihar go, the rest of the state will be left with only floods and poverty. It is basically to avert a division of the state that these parties have been making the astounding demand that Bihar be given a grant of Rs 1,000 crore to compensate for the loss of South Bihar.

And to fish in troubled waters, the Biju Janata Dal has staked its claim to two districts in South Bihar, which it claims were originally part of Orissa. Similarly, nothing has so far been done to sort out the differences between the Akali Dal and the BJP on the question of including Udhamsingh Nagar in the proposed Uttaranchal state. To claim consensus within the NDA on the Bills, therefore, is to be dishonest.

The idea apparently is to take credit for introducing the Bills and leave the matter at that, for there has been no attempt to rally the Opposition behind the move. After all, the composition of the Upper House does not favour the passing of the Bills in their present form. If the Bills generate such passions at the introductory stage itself, the problems the government will face as the House discusses them can well be imagined.

The move will give a fillip to separatist movements like Telengana, Bodoland and Vidarbha, which are now dormant. Ideally, the whole issue should have been left to a states reorganisation commission. It is the fear of opening a Pandora8217;s box, as admitted by Advani, that forced the government not to consider such an option. But the alternative does not appear to be any smoother. Nonetheless, it would have been much better if the government had evolved a consensus, at least within the NDA, before introducing the Bills.