Reorganisation of States in IndiaAuthor(s): Mahendra Prasad SinghSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 11 (M...
Reorganisation ofStates inIndiaMAHENDRAPRASADSINGHThroughananalyticalstudyoftheprocessoffédéralisationofIndia,theauthorpro...
ESPECIALARTICLEindividuality.Butitisnottheonlytest- race,religion,economicinterest,geographicalcontiguity,a duebalancebetw...
SPECIAL ARTICLE(Tamil-speaking),Karnataka (Kannada-speaking),Gujarat(Gujarati-speaking),Maharashtra(Marathi-speaking),Punj...
SPECIALARTICLEa newfederalcoalitionalgoverningframeworkin New Delhisince 1989. Federalpoliticswas earliermarkedby politica...
SPECIAL ARTICLE - :previousone seemsto be called for.The Congress-ledUnitedProgressiveAlliancegovernmentwheninitiallyforme...
SPECIAL ARTICLEautonomyand rights"withinand across each networkofpower" spanningstates, civil societies, and regional andg...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Reorganistion of states in india

151

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
151
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Reorganistion of states in india"

  1. 1. Reorganisation of States in IndiaAuthor(s): Mahendra Prasad SinghSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 11 (Mar. 15 - 21, 2008), pp. 70-75Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40277259 .Accessed: 28/05/2013 01:51Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEconomic and Political Weekly.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  2. 2. Reorganisation ofStates inIndiaMAHENDRAPRASADSINGHThroughananalyticalstudyoftheprocessoffédéralisationofIndia,theauthorprovidesa pictureofstoryofstateformationinthecountry.Itisarguedthatanyfurtherreorganisationofstatesshouldbebasedona "cosmopolitanmodelofdemocracy"andshouldbe anchoredintheoriesofconstitutionalism,consociationalismand multiculturalism.MahendraPrasadSingh(profmpsingh@yahoo.com)teachespoliticalscienceattheUniversityofDelhi.partitionofBengalin1905wasaimedatforestallingofnewlyemergentspiritofIndiannationalismintheEnglish-educatednewmiddleclass(nutanbhadralok)inBengaltoprolongtheBritishhegemony.ThispartitionforcedtheBritish,infaceofa strongpopularprotestintheformoftheswadeshimovement,toordertheannulmentofthepartitionofBengalin1911.AfurtherpartitionoftheBengalpresidencyfollowed,thistime in responseto popular Biharidemands,creatingtheprovinceof Biharand Orissain 1911.In answerto a similardemandOrissawasbifurcatedin1936.Province/NationalityFormationinBritishIndiaTheundercurrentsofcivicpatriotism/nationalisminBengalandelsewhereinthelastquarterofthe19thcenturymingledwithHindurevivalismandwithotherreligiousrevivalisttendencieswaitinginthewingsbythebeginningofthe20thcentury.ThemovementengenderedsimilarlinguisticprovincialfervourinHindi-speakingand laterOriya-speakingpartsofBengalpresi-dency.Themovementfora separateprovince-formationinBiharwaslinkedpartlywithHindilinguisticidentityandmainlywithprospectsof greateremployment,middleclass professionalearnings,and freedomfromBengalidomination[Prasad1992;Mishraand Pandey1996].IronicallyBengaliintelligentsiahadpatronisedthecampaigntoreplacethePersiancourtlanguagewithHindiaroundthelastquarterofthe19thcenturyin theHindi-speakingpartof theBengalpresidency.This campaignsucceededinitsobjectivein1881.Itwasnotaccompaniedbythedemandformakinga separateprovinceofBiharat thattime[Das Gupta1970].Thus began the modernhistoricalprocessof nationality-formationin India.The majorlandmarksof thisdevelopmentconstitutedtheacceptanceoffederalismbytheLucknowconfer-enceoftheIndianNationalCongressin1916,acceptanceoflinguis-ticprovincesbythe1920CongressheldinNagpur,submissionofmemorandainlargenumberstotheBritishGovernmentofIndiaandtheIndiaOfficeinLondonforrecognitionofnationalitiesofOriyas,Kannadas,Andhras,Tamils,Bengalis,and Jharkhandis,andthesubsequentcreationoflinguisticstatesbasedonsuchcrite-ria[Ghosh1996:16-17].TheIndianStatutoryCommissionchairedbyJohnSimoninitsreportsubmittedtotheBritishgovernmentfoundthatitwas"manifestlyimpossibleforustorecommendtheredrawingofthemapofIndiaaccordingtosomenewpattern".Thereportfurtherstatedthat:Ifthosewhospeakthesamelanguageforma compactandself-containedarea,so situatedandendowedas tobeabletosupportitsexistenceas a separateprovince,thereisnodoubtthattheuseofa commonspeechis a strongandnaturalbasisforprovincial march 15, 2008 Q259 Economic& PoliticalweeklyThis content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  3. 3. ESPECIALARTICLEindividuality.Butitisnottheonlytest- race,religion,economicinterest,geographicalcontiguity,a duebalancebetweencountryandtownandbetweencoastlineand interiormayall be relevantfactors.Mostim-portantofall, perhapsforpracticalpurposesis thelargestpossiblemeasureofgeneralagreementonchangesproposed,bothonthesideoftheareagaining,andonthesideoftheareathatislosingterritory...1The 1942 "Quit India" Resolution of the Congress pledged "thelargestmeasure of autonomyforthe federatingunits". Politicsmoved intodifferentgears in 1946 with the Britishgovernmentsending the Cabinet Mission to explore the political futureofIndia. Memorandawere submittedto themissionbytheDravidaKazagham for a sovereign state of Dravidastan and by theCommunistPartyofIndia for"17sovereignNational ConstituentAssemblies based on national homelands of various Indianpeoples" and advocated "a voluntaryunion of national states"[Ghosh1996: 18].ReorganisationofStates since 1947TheBritishtransferredpowerundertheGovernmentofIndiaAct1947totheconstituentassemblyofIndiadominatedbytheIndianNationalCongress.TheparamountcyoftheBritishCrownovernativeIndianstateslapsedin thesameyear.The govern-mentofIndiacombinedconsensualdiplomacyand"policeaction"(Hyderabad)anddefensivemilitaryassistance/intervention-on-invitation(JammuandKashmir)toeffectuatetheintegrationofthesestateswiththeIndianunionintheprocessofbeingcraftedbytheconstituentassemblydoublingastheprovisionalParliament.InduecoursethreecategoriesofstatesoutoftheBritishIndianprovincesandthenativestateswerecreatedbytheconstituentassemblyofindependentIndia.These categorieswerecalledPart1 states(formerlyBritishIndianprovinces),Part11states(formerlysmallernativeIndianstatesthatdid notpose muchprobleminjoiningtheIndianunion),andPartinstates(formerlynativeIndianstateswhoseintegrationwithIndiaprovedtobeproblematiceitherduetothedesireoftherulerstoexercisetheoptionofindependence(JammuandKashmirandHyderabad))or due to smallersize and numericallyand geographicallyscatteredandfragmentedhistory[Menon1969].ThecreationofsomenewvprovincesbydividingtheBengalpresidencybytheBritishrulersaroundthefirstdecadeofthe20thcenturyinresponsetopopulardemandswasjustthebegin-ningofthelongdrawn-outprocessofterritorialreorganisationinmodernIndia.SuchpopulardemandsandmovementsmultipliedfollowingthecommencementoftheConstitutionin 1950.Theholdingofthefirstgeneralelectionsin 1952on universaladultsuffrageacceleratedwhatthenewnationalistelites,includingNehru,decriedas the"fissiparoustendencies".The nationalistleadersduringthefreedomstruggle,on theotherhand,hadadopteda varietyofstrategiestodeepenthesociologicalfounda-tionsofIndiannationalismbyappealingtolinguisticidentities.Inadditiontousingterritorialpatriotismas thebedrockofcivicnationalismbyCongressmoderates,CongressextremistshadalsoleanedonHinduism,andGandhionIndianlanguagesandacompositereligiouspluralisminsearchof"cultural"nationalismwithethnicundercurrents.Bythelate19thandearly20thcenturiestheriseofproto-nationalismhadbeguntogatherreligiousandregional linguistic underpinnings. Gandhi had tried to co-optthemintoa pan-Indian forcebyadvocating thereorganisationofthe Indian National Congress along linguisticlines ratherthanon the Britishadministrativeprovincial boundaries, which wasthe case earlier.AlthoughGandhis proposal was adopted bytheCongressat itsNagpur session in 1920,his penchantforpopularsovereigntyreflectedin his demand of1922fora directlyelectedconstituentassemblyforfutureand independentIndia was neveraccepted bytheBritishrulers.The constituentassemblyofIndia, under constantpressuretoredraw Indias internal borders, formeda linguistic provincescommission(chairedbyS KDar) tostudytheproblemand writeareport.In itsreportsubmittedinDecember 1948 theDar Commis-sion recommended:Tillnationalismhasacquiredsufficientstrengthtopermittheforma-tionofautonomousprovinces,thetruenatureandfunctionofa prov-inceunderourConstitutionshouldbe thatofan administrativeunitfunctioningunderdelegatedauthorityfromthecentreandsubjecttocentresoverridingpowersinregardtoitsterritory,itsexistence,anditsfunctions.Thesepowersarerequiredtoformnewprovincesandtomitigatetherigourofgovernmentbylinguisticmajorities,topreventabreakdownoftheadministrationonaccountofdisputesamongstlin-guisticgroups,tocheckfissiparoustendenciesandstrengthennation-al feelings,andabovealltobuildupanIndiannation.2AfterIndependenceShortlyafterindependence,movementsforlinguisticreorganisa-tionofstatesgainedmomentumin severalstates.The centralCongressleadershipaswellastheStatesReorganisationCommis-sion(src) report(1956)largelyacceptedthelinguisticprinciplein a fewcases butwishedto maintajnmultilingualstatesforculturalhomogenisation.Thesrc reportstressed"obviouslimita-tionstotherealisationofunilingualismatihe statelevel"duetothefollowing"limitingfactors":"(i) notall thelanguagegroupsare so placedthattheycan be groupedintoseparatestates;(ii) therearea largenumberofbilingualbeltsbetweendifferentlinguisticzones;and (iii)thereexistareaswitha mixedpopula-tionevenwithinunilingualareas."3TheseventhamendmenttotheConstitu-tionsupplementedbytheStatesReorgani-sationAct(bothenactedin 1956)createdthefollowingstateseffectiveNovember1,1956(Table1).However,theuniongovernmentin1956concededto the demand forunilingualstates only in case of AndhraPradesh,wheretheagitationhadculminatedintotheself-immolationofa popularTeluguleader.MilderagitationsforlinguisticallymixedrumpstatesofMadrasafterbifurcationofAndhra,Bombay,Mysore,Punjab, andelsewherewere ignored.However,thepopularlinguisticmovementsandtheinter-nalbalkanisationofIndiapersisted.Asithappened,underthepressureandpersistenceoflinguis-tic,religious,and tribalmovements,the centralgovernmentyielded,creatingAndhraPradesh(Telugu-speaking),TamilNadutable 1:ReorganisedStates in19561 AndhraPradesh2 Assam3 Bihar4 Bombay5 JammuandKashmir6 Kerala7 Madras8 Mysore9 Orissa10 Punjab11 Rajasthan12 UttarPradesh13 WestBengalSources:TheSeventhConstitutionalAmendmentandSRCAct,both1956.Economic& Politicalweekly Q2S march 15, 2008 71This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  4. 4. SPECIAL ARTICLE(Tamil-speaking),Karnataka (Kannada-speaking),Gujarat(Gujarati-speaking),Maharashtra(Marathi-speaking),PunjabwhichwastrifurcatedintoPunjab(Punjabi-speakingwitha Sikhmajority),Haryana(Hindi-speakingwithHindumajority),andHimachalPradesh(Hindi-speakingwithHindumajority)inthe1950s and 1960s. This process of territorialreorganisationextendedto thenorth-eastin the1960sand 1970s.BeginningwiththebifurcationofNagalandoutofAssam(1962),theprocessculminatedinthecreationoftheso-called"sevensisters"- statesor the unionterritories- in the region:ArunachalPradesh,Assam,Manipur,Meghalaya,Mizoram,Nagalandand Tripura.FirstNagalandandMizoram,andlaterManipurandAssamcametobeaffectedbyseparatistmovements.Theextentofsupportforseparatismis arguablyratherlimitedpoliticalfractionandsubjecttochange.Yetthemovementshavepersistedinvaryingdegreesand caused breakdownto democracyand federalismnecessitatinginvocationofemergencyprovisionsoftheConstitu-tion.A recentstudyoftherevivaloftheTai-AhomhistoryinAssambytheinsurgentUnitedLiberationFrontofAsom (ulfa)in"searchforanalternativetothelabelAssameseand/orIndian"surmisesthat"religioncannotbe thecentralthemeofthiskindofhistory(as itisnow)",andthat"onecouldthenmovebeyonddiversity,and,buildon Indiannationalitythatpeopleacceptaslegitimateanddesirable"[Saikia2005].4NewSub-State MovementsSub-statemovementsbasedontribalorethnicidentitiesacquiredsalienceinseveralstatesin the1980ssuchas GurkhaNationalLiberationFrontin theDarjeelinghilldistrictofWestBengal,BodolandagitationinAssam,and JharkhandMuktiMorchaintheChhotaNagpurregionmainlyinBiharbutmarginallyalsointheadjoiningstatesofWestBengal,OrissaandMadhyaPradesh.Tomeetthesesub-statedemands,a newproto-federalinnovationofautonomousRegionalDevelopmentCouncilswas set up inJharkhand,Darjeeling,Bodoland,and Ladakhareas ofBihar,WestBengal,Assam and Jammuand Kashmir,respectively.Systematicstudiesofthissubstratedevolutionaryquasi-federalexperimentare notavailablebecause practitionersas well asacademicstendtogiveshortshrifttothem.Thepoliticalactivistsgenerallycontinuetoagitateforstatehoodandscholarstendtobe scepticalofthewilland abilityofthoseinpowertoactandbehavefederally.5AnoverviewofthepresentstatesandunionterritoriesofIndiawithareaanddemographiccharacteristicsisenoughtodemon-stratethatterritorialreorganisationof the federationis stilllackingin linguistichomogeneityand uniformstandardsofliteracy(Table2). • .ThethreemostrecentnewstatescreatedintheIndianunionare Jharkhand(supersedingtheJharkhandRegionalDevelop-mentCouncil),Uttarakhandand Chhattisgarh,bifurcatingthestatesofBihar,up and mprespectivelyintheyear2000. Thesenewstateswerecreatedin responseto populardemandsandmass movementsin the morebackwardregionsof thethreeHindi-speakingparentstates.Curiously,theyarethefirstclear-cutcategoryofstatescreatedmoreonconsiderationsofeconomicbackwardnessand discriminatorytreatmentby the politicalelitesoftherespectiveparentstatesthanonlinguistic,religious,or tribalconsiderations.The newstatesare moreendowedinnaturalresourcesthantheirparentstates,butless in humandevelopment.Uttarakhandislessdistinguishableinethnictermsfromupbutisbackwardintermsofregionaleconomicdisparities.Jharkhandand Chhattisgarhsharein commondisproportion-atelylargetribalpopulationsthantheirparentstates.However,overtheyears,thetribalmajorityintheformerhasbeenreducedtoa minoritybymigrationintothearea fromBiharplainsandotherparts of India. The Chhattisgarhregionneverreallymounteda regionalmovementofanysignificance.In fact,thecreationofthesenewstatesisunderstandablemorebylookingatTable 2; States and UnionTerritoriesInIndia TodayStates Area(sqkm) Population LiteracyPrincipalLanguagesRate(%)AndhraPradesh(1953,1956,1959) 2,76,754 7.62,10,007 60.5 Telugu/Urdu/HindiArunachalPradesh(1971) 83,473 1,097 54.3 Nissi/Daffla/Nepali/BengaliAssam(1951,1962,1971) 78,438 2,66,55,528 63.3 Assamese/Bengali/Bodo/BoraBihar(1950,1956,1968,2000) 94,163 8,29,98,509 47.0 Hindi/Urdu/SanthaliChhattisgarh(2000) 1,55,191 2,08,33,803 64.7 HindiGoa(1987) 3,702 13,47,688 82.3 Konkani/Marathi/KannadaGujarat(1960) 1,96,024 5,06,71,017 69.1 Gujarati/Hindi/SindhiHaryana(1966,1979) 44,212 2,11,44,564 67.9 Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu1 HimachalPradesh(1966) 55,673 60,77,900 76.5 Hindi/Punjabi/Kinnaun2 JammuandKashmir(1950) 2,22,236 1,00,69,343 54.5 Kashmiri/Urdu/Dogri3 Jharkhand(2000) 79,714 2,69,45,829 53.6 Hindi/Santhali/Urdu4 Karnataka(1950,1956,1968) 1,91,791 5,28,50,562 66.6 Kannada/Urdu/Telugu5 Kerala(1956) 38,863 3,18,41,374 90.9 Malayalam/Tamil/Kannada6 MadhyaPradesh(1950,1956,2000) 3,08,000 6,03,48,023 63.7 Hindi/Bhili/Bhilodi/Gondi7 Maharashtra(1950,1960) 3,07,713 9,68,78,627 76.9 Marathi/Hindi/Urdu8 Manipur(1971) 22,327 "21,66,788 70.5 Manipuri/Thado/Tangkhul9 Meghalaya(1971) 22,429 23,18,822 62.6 Khosi/Garo/Bengali/Assamese10 Mizoram(1971) 21,087 8,88,573 88.5 Lushai/Mizo/Bengali/Lakher11 Nagaland(1962) 16,579 19,90,036 66.6 Ao/Sema/Konyak12 Qrissa(1950,1960) 1,55,707 3,68,04,660 63.1 Oriya/Hindi/Telugu13 Punjab(1950,1956,1960,1966) 50,362 2,43,58,999 69.7 Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu14 Rajasthan(1950,1956,1959) 3,42,239 56,507 60.4 Hindi/Bhili/Bhilodi/Urdu15 Sikkim(1975) 7,096 5,40,851 68.8 Nepali/Bhutia/Lepiha16 TamilNadu(1950,1953,1959) 1,30,058 6,24,05,679 73.5 Tamil/Telugu/Kannada17 Tripura(1950) 1,04,91.69 31,99,203 73.2 Bengali/Tripuri/Hindi18 UttarPradesh(1950,1968,1979,2000) 2,36,286 16,61,79,921 56.3 Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi19 Uttaranchal(2000) 53,483 84,89,349 71.6 Hindi/Garhwali/Kumaoni20 WestBengal~~~~(1950,1954,1956) 88,752 8,11,76,197 68.6 Bengali/Hindi/UrduNationalCapitalTerritory/DelhiState(1950,1956) 1,483 1,38,50,707 81.7 Hindi/Punjabi/UrduUnionTerritories(UTs)1 AndamanandNicobar(1950,1956) 8,249 3,56,152 81.3 Bengali/Tamil/Hindi2 Chandigarh(1966) 114 9,00,635 81.9 Hindi/Punjabi/Tamil3 DadraandNagarHaveli(1961) 491 2,20,490 57.6 Gujarati/Hindi/Konkani4 DamanandDiu(1987) 112 1,58,204 78.2 Gujarati/Hindi/Marathi5 Lakshadweep(1956) 32 60,650 86.7 Malayalam/Tamil/Hindi6 Pondicherry(1962) 492 9,74,345 81.2 Tamil/Malayalam/TeluguSource:AdaptedfromDerekOBrian(compileranded),ThePenguinReferenceYearbook2007,PenguinIndiaNewDelhi,2006.y2 march 15, 2008 FJEE3 Economic& PoliticalweeklyThis content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  5. 5. SPECIALARTICLEa newfederalcoalitionalgoverningframeworkin New Delhisince 1989. Federalpoliticswas earliermarkedby politicaldominanceofupinparticularandtheHindi-speakingregioningeneral.Sincetheearly1990sthishasyieldedtoa newfederalbalance of politicalforcesin whichthe non-Hindi-speakingregionalrimlandstatesbecamepoliticallymoreconsequentialdue to growingasymmetriesand disparitiesin economicandeducationaldevelopmentsand non-delimitatiônof electoralconstituenciesafterthe1971Census.CurrentPoliticalMap and StatesThoughthepoliticalmapofIndiabynowhasbeenconsiderablyreorganisedinternallytocontain28statesandsevenunionterri-tories,thefederalunioncontinuestobemarkedbya greatdealofinterstateasymmetriesofdemographicsandterritoriesaswellasinternalculturalheterogeneityand economicdisparitywithineach state.Moreover,each unitincludesprincipallinguistic,religious,internalsects/casteand subcaste/tribalminorities.Multiculturaldiversityand federalsegmentationcreatemajori-tarianstatesforminoritieswithina nationofa differentmajorityoverall.Whilesuch a politicalarrangementallows self-rulewithintheoverallframeworkofsharedrule,theclaimsofprovin-cialmajorityisprivilegedandmayundercertainconditionsturnintolerantto minoritieswithintheprovinceconcerned.Thesefeaturesoftenlead to politicaland social conflicts,sometimesinvolvingviolence.Consequently,protectingrightsof these"internal"minorities,internalto a federatingunitas well asminoritieswithinthemajorminoritiesandthemajoritycommu-nitybecomesa difficultproposition.6The experienceof theIndianpoliticalsystemsuggeststhatfederalismas a politicalmechanismhasbeenmoresuccessfulinprotectingtheidentityandinterestofmajornationalminoritiesthathappentobe stateorprovincialmajorities(e g, MuslimsinJammuand Kashmir,SikhsinPunjab,NagasinNagaland,etc)thanofinternalminori-tiesand"discrepant"majorities,bywhichismeantthenationalmajoritycommunitythathappenstobe a provincialminorityinsomestates.In practice,nationalmajoritiesor pluralities(e g,Hindusand Hindi-speakingpeople) or caste/tribeminoritieshavealloftenbeenvictimsofdiscriminationandviolentattacks-in differentpartsof India withpoliticaland administrativeprocessesoftenfailingthem.The politicalclassand themediamostlymakemoreofHindu-Muslimcommunalviolence,drown-ingthesufferingand criesofinternalminoritiesor minoritieswithinminoritiesanddiscrepantmajority.OnlythejudiciaryandtheNationalHumanRightsCommission(nhrc)canbesaidtobemoreconsciouslyandconsistentlystirringtheirlimbsforthesegod-forsakencommunitiesatthereceivingendofthesupposedlysuccessfuldemocracyofIndia.Butthereare limitstojudicialactionandnhrcsreachandeffectiveness.India- MultinationalStateInanattempttoresolvetheseproblems,theIndiansubcontinenthasexploredandexperimentedwithtwomajormodels.One iswhatPaulBrasshascalled"modernnationstate",inwhich"loyal-tiestonationalcommunityandtopoliticalstructureultimatelymergesothatnationalismandpatriotismbecomeone"(e g,someWesternEuropeanunilingualcountriesand Japan).Jinnahs"two-nationtheory"thatHindusand Muslimsconstitutedtwoseparatenationsand the latterforthatreasonmusthave aseparatestatewasalsoinspiredbythismodel.ThesecondmodeliswhatBrasscalls"multi-ethnic"or"multinationalstate",whichcomprises"manynationsboundtogetherin a singlepoliticalandterritorialunitbyfeelingsofpatriotismderivedfromideol-ogy,memoriesofa commonstruggleagainstexternaloralienpowers,and rationalcalculationsofcommonadvantageinthesharingof a singlepoliticalstructure,butnotby a commonnationality".India has obviouslyoptedforthesecondmodel,whichBrassalsoconsidersrelevantnotonlyforIndiabutalsofortheIndiansubcontinentas a whole[Brass1974].Brass model of "nationality-formation"in modernnorthIndia brieflyalluded to above is applicableto theprocessofstatesreorganisationdonein IndiasubsequenttohisstudyintheareasofthecountrywheretheclassicalHindumainstreamcultureprevailedandtoan extentstillsurvives.Thisarea"maybe said to stretchfromPunjab to Assam and the centralHimalayanfoothillsoftheIndiannorthandthesouthernpenin-sula. Thoughboththenorthand thesouthare linguisticallypluralwithinthedualityof the Sanskriticor Indo-EuropeanandDravidianlinguisticfamilies.Butboththesemacro-regionshave stronglyresistedovercentralisationof the federationsoonerorlaterinindependentIndia.SanjibBaruahpoignantlyanalysesthetensionandcontinuitybetweennationalismand nationalityand thelimitsof"nation-building"inthecontextofAssam.Heusestheterm"subnational-ism"whichrefersnotto"somestableessencethatmakesitinher-entlydifferentfromnationalism,buttodescribea situationataparticularhistoricalmoment".Baruah argues that in theAssamesecase theideologyoftheulfa illustratesthatIndias"stubbornsubnationalconflictscan be locatedinthisenduringtensionanda failuretodevelopa pan-Indiannarrativethatcanaccommodatethe entire range of historicallyconstitutedsubnationalaspirationsandconcerns".He suggestsa departurefrom"thederivative,suffocatingandquiteout-of-dateparadigmofnation-building"and a "returntoa moreconfidentvisionofcivilisationalunityofthesubcontinent"and a launchingof"aboldprojectofgenuinefederation-building[Baruah1999].Inasubsequentbook,Baruahgoes beyondthe idea of national/civilisationalfederalismof his earlierworkand prescribesasolutionofthe"insurgenciesin thenorth-eastthatalternatesbetweendisorderanduneasycoexistencewithinIndia.HelooksbeyondsubnationalandnationalfederalstructuresandexploresthepossibilityofEuropeanUnionlikemulti-leveltransnationalregion-buildingin pursuanceof IndiasLook East Policythai:beganintheearly1990s[Baruah2005].Obviously,thesemodelshave widerapplicabilityforthe enduringproblemsof Indiasnorth-westcontiguoustoPakistanandAfghanistanandthePalkStraitontheIndo-SriLankanborder.Second Reorganisation CommissionThe political reorganisationof India since independencehas notresolvedall demandsforstateformation.A secondreorganisationcommissionwitha moreopen mindthantheEconomic& Politicalweekly GEE3 march 15, 2008 $This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  6. 6. SPECIAL ARTICLE - :previousone seemsto be called for.The Congress-ledUnitedProgressiveAlliancegovernmentwheninitiallyformedin2004wasapparentlyinclinedtoconsiderappointingsucha commis-sion,butfinallyresistedthisdemandat thecostoflosingoneofitsallies,theTelanganaRashtraSamiti,whoseministerintheunioncabinet,ChandrashekharRao, resignedmidwayinprotest.This did not, however,affectthe stabilityof thegovernment.The upa chairpersonSonia Gandhiand primeministerManmohanSinghsubsequentlyappointeda secondunion-stateRelationsCommissionchairedbytheformerchiefjusticeofIndia,M M Punchchi,toreviewthefederalaffairsinthepost-SarkariaCommissionReport(1987-88)phaseinstead.Butas A K Singhrightlyremarks,"The sub-regionalidentityassumés importancewhen inter-regional disparitiesanddiscriminationsurface.Thisphenomenonhastwodimensions:one,manyofthesub-regions,despitebeingrichinresources,haveremainedeconomicallyunderdevelopedeitherbecauseofstateneglectorbecauseoftheill-conceivedtop-downapproachofdevelopment;second,some regionssurviveat thecostofothersthroughresourceand earningstransfers."It is withinthisexplanationsketchthatA K SinghputsthedemandsofseparatestatehoodforVidarbha,Marathwada,amongotherssome of whichhave alreadybeen conceded by the centre[Singh2003].UnresolvedIssues ofInternaland ExternalFédéralisationTherearea numberofmajorproblemsofreorganisationofstatesinIndiainthedecadesahead.First,thenorth-southdividethatpreoccupiedAmbedkarintenselyin the1950sis at leastpartlymoderatedbydivisionofbiggernorthIndianstates.However,anotherdimensionofthisproblemhassurfacedduetopostpone-mentofthedelimitationofelectoralconstituenciesfollowingadecennialheadcountsincethe1971Census.Afterbeingheldinabeyanceearlieruntil2000,theprocesseshavenowbeenfrozenuntil2026bythe84thamendment(2001).Ithasalreadyresultedin a potentiallyexplosivequestionon thenorth-southaxis asdisproportionateincreaseofpopulationinthetwomacro-regionshas produceddistressingrepresentationaldisparitiesin theParliament.ThemajorstatesoftheGangeticvalleyhavegrownfasterin populationsand proportionatelyfewerseats in theParliament.Thisdisparityislikelytobefurthermagnifiedbythetimethequestionofdelimitationofconstituenciesis reopenedafter2026[Bose2000].Second,theriseoffragmentedethnicidentitiesand strongmicro-regionalismhas forcedtheshort-sighteduniongovern-mentstocreatenewstates,oftendisregardingadministrativerationalityandfinancialviability.Inthenewpoliticaleconomyofneoliberalism,privatisation,and globalisation,wheneventhemoreresourcefulcentraland richerprovincialstatesarefacinggrowing-and chronicdeficits,how longtheolderandnewpoorerstatescansustaintheirstatehoodisa bigquestion.Mostofthesenewstateshavebeencreatedinan ad hocpoliti-cal mannerwithoutrecommendationsfroma src liketheoneappointedby the Nehrugovernmentin the mid-1950s.Theproblemhas onlymagnifiedsince.A secondstatesreorganisa-tioncommissionisneeded.Third,the asymmetricalfederalrelationsof JammuandKashmirand Nagaland with the Indian union are stillnotsufficientlyresolved.The problemsare particularlycom-plicated due to insurgenciesin these states. The existingspecialstatusenjoyedbythesestatesundertheConstitutionneed to be implementedin letterand spirit.What theseformalconstitutionalprovisionsneed is greaterdemocraticsubstanceand federalautonomyin practice.The moderatesandhardlinersinthesestatesneedtobe seriouslyengagedinademocraticdialogue formeaningfulalternativesin power-sharing,securityof life and propertyforthe citizens,andeconomicdevelopment.Fourth,evenafterthecreationofnewstatesbeforeandafterindependence,theunionofIndiais stilla complexmosaicofreligious,linguistic,caste, and tribalminoritieswithinandacross the existinginternalboundaries.Giventhe compactgeographicaltemplateofthesubcontinentandtheendowmentof complexdemographicbut an overarchingcivilisationalunity-in-diversity,noreorganisationofstatescanproduceinter-nallyhomogeneousandadministrativelyandfinanciallyviablesetofstatesin all cases. Hence,endlessfragmentationoftheIndiannationstateis nota solutionbuta partoftheproblemof ungovernabilityand internationalinstability.There is astrongtendencyofclingingtomajority-minoritystra-itjacketofHindu-MuslimcommunalismoftheperiodaroundtheviolentimperialPartitionof1947.Communalviolencein Indiatodayhasbecomeradicallytransformed.Itwouldbe obtusetoignorethemassacreofdalitsand uppercastesinBihar.To thinkthatminoritycommunalismis less dangerous than majoritycommunalismisnotonlyunethicalbutithasalso provedtobedestructiveofciviccommunityandIndiancitizenship.BynowbothHindusand Muslimshaveendured"minority"syndromeor psychosis.India is now face to face withhydra-headedcommunalisminvolvingnot onlyHindusand Muslims,butalso otherethniccommunities.We are challengedby theproblemofguaranteeingtherightsand securitiesof"internalminorities"(minoritieswithinminorities,"discrepantmajorities"),majoritiesthatmaybe nationallyso-calledbutare provincialminoritiesor vice versa. Federal solutionhas historicallybeen predicatedon the grantof statehoodto provincialmajoritieswithina compositefederalunion.Federaltheoryandpracticeisyettoadequatelyaddresstotheseproblems.Toaddress the problemsof minoritieswithinminoritiesanddiscrepantmajoritiesthefederaltheorymustself-consciouslyengage morethoroughlythanin the past withthe theoriesof constitutionalismand the rule of law, consociationalism,andmulticulturalism.Finally,ifsouthAsia has to exitfromthehistoryofinter-necine feudal and colonial feudingand warfare,it mustbecomeinternallydemocraticandmoveahead toembracetheprocessesofregionaland globalintegrationlikeothersupra-nationalregionsintheworld.Itmustmakea concertedeffortto emulatewhatDavid Held called "thecosmopolitanmodelof democracy".This modelenvisagesa global and regionalorder comprisingmultipleand overlappingnetworksofpolitical,economic,andsocialpowerandclustersofindividual* march 15,2008 QSa Economic&PoliticalweeklyThis content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  7. 7. SPECIAL ARTICLEautonomyand rights"withinand across each networkofpower" spanningstates, civil societies, and regional andglobalorganisations.These developmentswouldgivebirthto"anempoweringlegalorder-a democraticinternationallaw".The emergentlegal principleswould "delimitthe formandscope of individualand collectiveactionwithinthe organi-sationsand associationsof state and civil society.Certainstandardsare specifiedforthe treatmentof all, whichnopoliticalregimeor civilassociationcan legitimatelyviolate"[Held 1994]. This cosmopolitanmodel of democracyin thecore and peripheralnationsof southAsia alone can ensuresimultaneouspursuitofdemocracyand developmentand anescape fromtheviciouscycleofwarand poverty.Thereis nootherway.NOTESl QuotedinS RMaheshwari,StateGovernmentsinIndia,MacMillanIndia,NewDelhi,2000, p 20.2 SeeB ShivaRaoetal (eds),TheFramingofIndiasConstitution:A Study[with]SelectDocuments,VolVI,IndianInstituteofPublicAdministration,NewDelhi,1968,p476.3 Governmentof India (Republic),Reportof theStatesReorganisationCommission(chair Fazal Ali),MinistryofHomeAffairs,NewDelhi,1955,pp203-05.Soon afterthe submissionof the SRC reportBRAmbedkarcritiqueditmainlyonthebasisthattheproposedreorganisationwouldresultingreatimbalanceamongthestatesdue topopulation,especiallybetweenthenorthand thesouth.Asa solutionheproposeddividingthefournorthernstatesofUP,Bihar,MadhyaPradeshand Mahar-ashtraintosmallerstates.He advocatedsmallerstatestopreventwhathe calledthe"tyrannyofthecommunalmajority".See his ThoughtsonLinguisticStates,AnandSahityaSadan,Aligarh,1989,reprint.4 FrankMoraes,Witnesstoan Era,London,1973,p 295,alsoremarks:"IftheunityofIndiawas ar-tificial,so was itsdivision.IfIndiahad tobreakup,itshouldhavebrokenup on logicallinesoflanguagewithethnicand culturalaffiliations."QuotedinGhosh,opcit,p 10.5 Forsucha priori/hastyconclusion,seeAKSingh,JharkhandMovement: Assertion of Socio-CulturalIdentityandtheDemandfora SeparateStatein RasheeduddinKhan (ed), RethinkingIndianFederalism,IUHSS, Indian InstituteofAdvancedStudy,Shimla,1997.6 Fortheoreticalandempiricalelaborationofthisproblématique,see AvigailEisenburgand JeffSpinner-Halev(eds),MinoritieswithinMinorities:Equality,RightsandDiversity,CambridgeUniver-sityPress,Cambridge,2005.REFERENCESBaruah,Sanjib(1999): India,Assamand PoliticsofNationalityagainstItself,OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.- (2005):DurableDisorder:UnderstandingthePoli-ticsNorth-EastIndia, OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.Bose,Ashish(2000): North-SouthDividein IndiasDemographicScene,Economic& PoliticalWeekly,Vol XXXV,No 20, May 13-19-Brass,R Paul (1974): Language, Religion and Politics inNorthIndia,CambridgeUniversityPress,London,PP9-15-Das Gupta,Jyotirindra(1970):LanguageConflictandNational Development:Groups Politics andNationalLanguagePolicyinIndia,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.Ghosh,SunitiKumar(1996):IndiasNationalityProb-lemandRulingClasses,Calcutta.Held,David (1994): Democracy:FromCity-Statestoa CosmopolitanOrder?inThePolityReaderinSocialTheory,PolityPress,Cambridge,UK.Menon,V P (1969): TheStoryofIntegrationoftheIndianStates,OrientLongman.Mishra,GirishandBKPandey(1996): SociologyandEconomicsofCasteismin India,PragatiPublica-tions,Delhi,pp28-38.Prasad,Rajendra(1992):Atmakatha(Autobiography),AlliedPublishers,NewDelhi,p55.Saikia,Yasmin(2005):AssamandIndia:FragmentedMemories,CulturalIdentity,and theTai-AhomStruggle,PermanentBlack,Delhi,pp265-66.Singh,AK(2003): FederalismandStateFormation:An Appraisalof Indian Practicein B D Duaand M P Singh (eds), Indian Federalisminthe New Millennium,Manohar, New Delhi,P104.CentrefortheStudyof Cultureand Society(affiliatedto ManipalUniversityand KuvempuUniversity)invitesapplications forits Ph.D. in Cultural StudiesEligibility:A Mastersdegreefroma recognizeduniversitywith55%marksoritsgradeequivalent.5% relaxationwillbe allowedinthecaseof SC/ST students.Applicationsshould include a coveringletterand the followingdocuments:a) the applicantscurriculumvitae,b) copies of mark-sheetsofundergraduateand graduatedegrees,c) a writingsample (nomorethan15 pagesor approx.4000 words),and d) a two-pageresearchproposal.Broadresearchareasat CSCS include:genderstudies,lawandculture,education,filmand new media,historyand philosophyof culture.Applicantswithotherinterestsarealso encouragedto apply.Theapplicationandsupportingdocumentsshouldbe sentinanenvelopemarked"Ph.D. Programme"to reachThe AdministrativeOfficer,Centreforthe Studyof Cultureand Society,466,9thCross,FirstBlock,Jayanagar,Bangalore- 560011,no laterthanApril30, 2008.Shortlistedcandidateswillbe calledforan oralinterviewin thefirstweekof June2008.Registration:ThePh.D candidateswillberegisteredeitherwithManipalUniversityor withKuvempuUniversity,Karnataka.Financial Support: Selectedcandidateswill be givenfellowships/financialassistancein thefirstand fourthyearof theirthesiswork.CSCS also offersa one-yearDiploma in CulturalStudies.For furtherdetails,writeto us or visittheCSCS websiteatwww.cscsarchive.orgEconomic&Politicalweekly Q3S9 march 15, 2008 5This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

×