The Political Scene

Two items of outstanding impor­tance during the period under review in the political. context are the visit of the Prime Minister. Mr. P.V. Nara­simha Rao to the United States and the aborted attempts of the Govern­ment to bring in electoral reforms. If the first one brought laurels to Mr. Rao, the second one did not redound to the credit of the party in power at the Centre. Mr. Rao can look to his visit to the USA, the first since his assumption of office as Prime Minis­ter, with considerable satisfaction. It was of course not expected that his visit would lead to dramatic results or solve problems that have been hanging fire for quite some time between the two countries. It certainly has helped to bring India closer to the United States and the kind of personal rap­port established between Mr. Rao and President Clinton should be of real importance. The burning question was whether India would be forced to change its stand on signing the NPT but Mr. Rao stood firm and tried to explain India’s position. He seems to have made his point well. The two leaders discussed the human rights issue and it is now clear that Mr. Rao’s gentle ‘chiding’ on the attempt to pursue commercial interests under cover of human rights concerns went home and President Clinton unwit­tingly gave the game away in his an­swer to a question from an American reporter on China’s most favoured nation status.

Mr. Rao did not allow himself to be rattled by the thin attendance at his address to the joint session of the Congress and accepted with good grace that the press corps at the White House simply saw the conference as an opportunity to quiz their own president on matters which are not of any concern to India such as Haiti, Bosnia, North Korea and so on. In his speeches at various for a, the Prime Minister made his points without ambiguity and he avoided clichés, was firm yet polite and neatly turned tables on his hosts without causing offence. He seems to have had no difficulty in dealing on equal terms with the Presi­dent, commanding his respect and attention. Returning home the Prime Minister was first busy with a meeting of the All India Congress Committee. Unlike in the past he could speak from a position of strength by Virtue of his commanding position in Parliament now.

However the same cannot be said of the bungling that his party ex­perienced while introducing a Consti­tutional amendment bill to regulate the powers of the Chief Election Com­missioner. The CEC has been acting in an arbitrary manner and has become a law unto himself although he had done much to cleanse the electoral system. But some of his actions such as postponement of elections for rea­sons that did not warrant such a course of action were questioned in courts of law and they were even set aside. The object of the constitutional amendment was perfectly justified but the sheer arithmetic was such that the ruling party had no chance of pushing through the Bill without the active support of the Opposition parties. Obviously the home work was not properly done and the Government suffered loss of face when it was forced to withdraw the Bill. Worse was that a special session of the two Houses of Parliament was convened for the pur­pose of passing the Bills on electoral reforms and this was rendered a waste. If only the party managers acted with caution and some under­standing of the complexities involving the discomfiture suffered by the party and its President could have easily been avoided.

The following is a detailed expo­sition of the pros and cons of the de­mand for carving put new States which have grave implications. The demand for the creation of new States in the country which has become loud in certain quarters and looks like irresis­tible should be viewed in the histori­cal perspective if only to arrive at the right decision. The first comprehensive States Reorganisation Commission was appointed in December 1953 in the ground of what was described as the greater development of political consciousness among the people and the growing importance of “the great regional languages which gradually led to demands for the formation of cer­tain States on a linguistic basis”. The Union Government was of the view that the formation of a new State or States necessarily affected a number of other States and it was thus difficult to consider any such problem in isola­tion. The Government, therefore, came to the conclusion that the entire ques­tion of the reorganisation of the States on the Indian Union should be care­fully examined objectively and dispassionately so that the welfare of the people of each constituent unit as well as of the nation as a whole was pro­moted. This was the rationale for the appointment of the States Reorganisa­tion Commission under the chairman­ship of Saiyid Fazl Ali, then Governor of Orissa. Hriday Nath Kunzru and K.M. Pannikkar were the other two members.

Actually the Commission came into being following the tragic event of “Potti Sriramulu’s fast unto death demanding the creation of a separate Andhra State. The Andhra State was formed practically under duress and the Government of India thought it prudent to make an authoritative study of the entire problem of reorganisation of States which, of course, was the task assigned to the Fazl Ali Commission. The Indian National Congress had for many years been putting forward a strong plea for the formation of linguistic “provinces” (as the States were then called) and even the Simon Commission had ob­served in the Thirties that the prov­inces as they then existed were not ideal areas of self government and that they should be reorganised so that they might become suitable units within a federated whole with an indi­viduality and self-consciousness of their own. The Objectives Resolution moved by Nehru in the Constituent Assembly also referred to the possibil­ity of the proposed Union of India consisting of the territories of British India ‘whether with their present boundaries or with such others as may be determined” which gives the unmistakable impression that there was a distinct case for a reorganisation of States.

The general expectation was that the Assembly would promptly address this task and create new States on a linguistic basis and include them in the new Constitution. Nehru, however, changed his mind and perhaps the partition of the country upset him and the other national leaders, and they began to believe that the demand for a reorganisation could well be a disrup­tive force. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly Nehru said that it had long seemed to him inevitable that in India some kind of reorganisation should take place of Provinces to fit in more with the cultural, geographical and economic conditions of the people and with their desires. “We have been long committed to this”. Yet he did not think it was just good enough to say “linguistic provinces” although it was a major factor to be considered. But in his view there were more important factors to be considered and “you have therefore to consider the whole picture before you proceed to break up what we have got and refashion it into something new”. He further said what he would like to place before the House was that, important as the is­sue was “I would not have thought that this is a question of primary importance which must be settled here and now today. It is eminently a ques­tion which should be settled in an atmosphere of good will and calm and on a rather scholarly discussion of the various factors of the case”.

This made it clear he was for putting off the matter for a later day and this became the line of argument pursued by all those who opposed a reorganisation. The matter did not end with that and those who wanted a change persuaded the Union and the Provincial Constitution Committees of the Constituent Assembly to appoint a joint sub committee under the chair­manship of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya to consider the matter. Afterdiscus­sion the sub-committee passed a very important resolution which said that as soon as the Dominion States Con­stitution came into force (August 15, 1947) a Commission should be appointed to examine the question of creating “the proposed new provinces of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra and any other proposed provinces that may be specified “in the order of appointment. The Com­mission was to submit its report as early as possible so that “the new provinces, if any, which it may recom­mend may be enumerated in the new Constitution and suitable provision made therein”. The Dar Commission which was a sequel to this resolution came to the conclusion that the forma­tion of provinces on exclusively or even mainly on linguistic considerations was not in the larger interests of the Indian nation and should not be taken in hand. It is somewhat surprising that what looked like being a very obvious case for a reorganisation of the States was outright rejected. The Dar Commission also said that “the existing provinces of Madras, Bom­bay, C.P and Berar present serious ad­ministrative problems for which an administrative solution is urgently necessary and it is for the Centre to find a satisfactory solution of these problems”. More important than this observation is the one which said that “the aforesaid problems do not call for an immediate reformation of Prov­inces”.

The Commission, however, added that after the country has stabi­lised itself and other conditions were favourable they might be reformed and convenient “administrative” provinces set up. The Commission was not par­ticularly enamoured of a linguistic division and it said language should not be the decisive factor or even the main one. The Drafting Committee considered the question whether Andhra at least should be specifically mentioned as a separate State in the Schedule. But on fuller consideration the Committee felt that the bare men­tion of the State in the Schedule will not suffice to bring it into being from the commencement of the new Consti­tution. In retrospect it could even be said that if the Andhra Province was formed then itself a wholesale linguis­tic division could have been postponed for a much longer time than had been the actual case even if it could not have been totally avoided. There were however, forces within the Congress which insisted on a fresh examination at the party level and the JVP (com­prising Nehru, Patel and Pattabhi) Committee was asked to go into the question. Strangely the Committee also expressed itself against formation of purely linguistic provinces and also stated that “the present is not an opportune time for the formation of new provinces”. The committee said that all the proposals which had merit behind them could not be imple­mented simultaneously although a beginning could be made with the creation of Andhra. The Congress manifesto issued in 1951 expressed the opinion that while linguistic rea­sons were important there were other factors also such as economic, admin­istrative and financial which had to be taken into account in creating new provinces. As a practical example the Congress agreed to the formation of an Andhra State.

Even if nothing happened after all this, the Government was well aware that sooner or later the demand for a reorganisation of States would have to be met. Precisely for this reason and to facilitated the reorganisation of States without much difficulty Article 3 was incorporated in the new Constitution. Under this parliament is empowered by a simple majority vote to form a new State by combining two States or by the separation of territory from a State, to increase or diminish the area of any State and to alter its boundaries or name. In exercising this power Parliament is merely to obtain the views of the State or States affected but not their consent. It is free to take a decision unilaterally. The SRC in its report also observed that while regionalism has a place in a country as large as India it is neces­sary to recognise its limitations even as the supremacy of the Union in the political and economic thinking is fully accepted. Else it will be a source of weakness to the nation.

It is in this context, and the observations of the SRC are as valid today as they were first made, that the current demand for the creation of new States like Uttaranchal in U.P., Jharkhand in Bihar, Vidharba in Maharashtra and Chattisgarh in Madhya Pradesh (to mention only a few) has to be evaluated. In Assam the demand for a separate State by the Bodos was rejected but to meet their just aspirations an autonomous coun­cil has been created. Much earlier, the Gorkha demand for a state of their own was turned down by the Centre and the West Bengal Government and instead an autonomous council has been formed. There is a similar pro­posal for the tribals of the Jharkhand region. The Centre is obviously not in favour of a fresh reorganisation of States for in the last 40 years, since the creation of linguistic States, a feel­ing has grown that creation of more states on ethnic or other grounds will only add to the fissiparous tendencies. In fact even the linguistic division has come under fire and there are people who believe that the reorganisation on linguistic lines was a mistake. For even if language binds together those who speak a particular language it makes it not unoften indifferent to and even intolerant of those who speak another language.

The need of the day is national cohesion and the protagonists of new States must consider whether a fur­ther vivisection of the present States will not jeopardise the forces of unity. Federalism in India will also be under considerable strain if more states based on factors of unity. Federation in India will also be under consider­able strain if more states based on factors other than administrative con­venience come into being. The creation of States which are not economically viable will add to the centralising phenomenon already visible. The strong Centre that now exists will indeed become a paramount Centre with federal equilibrium getting dis­torted. The pattern of Union - State relationship must be collaborative and the emergence of new States which can survive only with the help of the Centre may tend to curb their person­ality separatist and their operative freedom. This subject has been dealt, with at some length because of the movements that are being promoted all over the country. There have been suggestions for a new States Reorgani­sation Commission. But this only will open the Pandora’s Box and create more problems for the Government. The need of the hour is unity and nothing should be done to turn the focus on to something that is not going to be of help in promoting this ideal.

“True religious life must express itself in love and aim at the unity of manking. Bead necklaces, rasaries, triple point on forehead or putting on ashes, pilgrimages, baths in holy rivers, meditation or image worship do no purify man as service of fellow creatures does”.

Dr. Radha Krishnan, “Religion and Culture”.