More, not merrier

It is not that there is no case for redrawing the country8217;s internal map. There is clearly one for downsizing states that have been too big for any semblance of balanced development. Popular pressures for recognition of this reality have indeed grown so strong that it is politically impossible to ignore them any more. What the problem calls for, however, is not a piecemeal solution. Of the kind provided by the Union government8217;s proudly proclaimed decision to create three new states apart from according full statehood to Delhi. It has not been explained why Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhattisgarh have been chosen in particular for this honour 8212; or why the first two are being so named in preference to the more familiar Uttarakhand and Jharkhand. But, the explanation is evident: these are the places where the Bharatiya Janata Party first raised the separate-state banner which it had refused to uphold in its Akhand Bharat days and those the party8217;s own distinctive names for the states of its dreams. Theparty-political spirit, however, is not what makes this a more questionable part of the package than the move to extend democracy in the Capital without detracting from its special national status.

What is more questionable is the implicit claim that the decision is a concrete advance on the proposal in the National Agenda for Governance adopted by the BJP and its allies. The government has exhibited no sign of recognising the problems posed by the proposed map-making, not the least for the people of the regions projected as recipients of a brave new deal. It could not have shown less concern in this regard by leaving the economic implications of the move and the emotive issue of boundaries to be sorted out by a Group of Ministers in a report to be submitted early enough for relevant legislation in the coming session of Parliament. From the country8217;s experience in such matters, the optimism can appear only remotely related to realism. Equally unfounded would seem to be any hope that the proposal won8217;t opena Pandora8217;s box. While it will create resentment in states being cut to size, especially in Bihar that stands to lose its most resource-rich region, campaigns for creation of more states elsewhere on similar grounds cannot be far behind. What the country must brace for is a long period of inter-state and intra-state itself conflicts that the Centre of the coalition era may not be the best fitted to cope with. The Samata Party8217;s stand on Vananchal 8212; a name that it does not approve of 8212; spelt out in its demand for a huge compensation for north Bihar is a clear warning.

The real solution to the problem that has given rise to movements as in Uttarakhand and Jharkhand is not too remote for the government to identify and attempt. It needs to be seen as a single national problem and sought to be resolved as such. The legacy of the States Reorganisation Commission of 1956 has lasted long enough, surely, to warrant a review. Will it not be better sense to leave the question of another reorganisation of states andthe entire gamut of issues involved for another commission of similar composition to study in a non-partisan manner from a national perspective?