The way forward in Assam......................Aug 24, 2013
The Manmohan Singh government’s decision to carve Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh has given fresh impetus to statehood demands particularly in eastern India. At least four ethnic groups have begun to press their claims for separate States to be carved out of Assam. The Bodos, the Karbi, Dimasas and Koch-Rajbongshis are up in arms in support of their respective demands.
Background
Assam issue
The demand for Bodoland, a separate state in Western Assam, is primarily based on the conflict over land resources between the ethnic Bodos and other communities in the region; the Bodos are also demanding statehood based on ethnic identity. The Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts (BTAD), an autonomous area for the Bodo tribes created in western Assam under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, has seen at least four violent confrontations between the Bodo tribes and Bengali Muslims, considered illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, in the past two decades. In the 19th and early 20th century, policies of the British administration on land utilisation and settlement of people brought from outside Assam to work in tea plantations and farmlands led to massive demographic changes in the region. The Bodos and adivasis practised shifting cultivation or jhum, but the migrants from East Bengal knew modern methods of farming using a plough. They were settled in what the British had termed as wasteland. But the land was actually grazing reserves and jhum land. Since the 1960s, there has been a demand for a separate state of Bodoland after regulations failed to protect the Bodos from land alienation.
Why are calls for a separate state recognised as impractical?
One, the territories being demanded by the different groups in pursuit of their own ethnically, homogeneous provinces actually overlap with one another. Moreover, Assam’s own territorial issues with more than one of its neighbouring States remain unresolved. Third, these conflicting and often competing political aspirations make for a toxic cauldron, predicated as they are on the dangerous assumption that it is not possible or desirable to create multi-ethnic or multicultural provinces in which the rights of ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities are constitutionally guaranteed and administratively ensured.
Road ahead
Strengthening the autonomous, administrative divisions in Assam established on the basis of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Currently, these are the Bodoland Territorial Council, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and the Dima Hasao Autonomous District Council.
In addition, there are six notified tribal autonomous councils where the territory has not been specified. One of the sticking points with regard to the latter group relates to dual authority owing to the simultaneous existence of panchayati raj structures. This needs to be addressed suitably.
As in Tripura, the functioning of democratic processes at grass-roots level ought to be ensured in Assam. The sensitive handling of grievances over funding, and the protection that needs to be extended over issues of language, culture and land is essential. Powers and functions consistent with local customs, traditions and needs have to be conferred on tribal autonomous systems.
Demands for Separate States
In Uttar Pradesh, there have been demands for Awadh Pradesh, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand and Pachimanchal or Harit Pradesh. There is also demand for creation of a Braj Pradesh, consisting of Agra division and Aligarh division of Uttar Pradesh and districts of Bharatpur and Gwalior from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. A demand for creation of Bhojpur comprising areas of eastern UP, Bihar and Chhattisgarh has also been received by the home ministry. There has been an old demand for creation of a separate Vidarbha by curving out the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. The most vocal demands for separate states came from Gorkhaland, by curving out Darjeeling and its adjoining areas in West Bengal. Demands for Bodoland, comprising Bodo dominated areas in Western Assam, and a separate state of Karbi Anglong, comprising the Karbi tribals living areas under Karbi Anglong autonomous district in Assam are also pending with the Centre.
There is a demand for Mithilanchal comprising Maithili speaking regions of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Centre has received demand for creation of Saurashtra by curving that region out of Gujarat. The Dimasa people of Northeast have been demanding a separate state called Dimaraji or Dimaland comprising the Dimasa inhabited areas of Assam and Nagaland. There is a demand for creation of Kongu Nadu comprising parts of southwest of Tamil Nadu, southeast of Karnataka and east of
Kerala. Demand for creating a Coorg state, comprising the Coorg region of Karnataka has also come to the Centre. Representation has also been s received for creation of separate Kosal state comprising some districts of Odisha, parts of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
There is a demand for Tulu Nadu comprising a region on the border between Karnataka and Kerala. The demand for separate Kukiland, comprising Kuki tribal inhabited areas in Manipur has also been raised. A demand for creation of Konkan, comprising Konkani speaking part of Western India along the Arabian sea coastline has also been raised. There has been a demand for creation of Kamtapur comprising some districts of West Bengal, including Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri. Some people from Garo regions of Meghalaya are demanding for a new state of Garoland. Furthermore, there is a demand for a separate Eastern Nagaland by curving out some parts of the north eastern state. The demand for creation of a Union Territory for Ladakh is also pending with the home ministry.
Reasons for Clamour
All these demands are from regions which are poor in despite being rich in natural resources. In addition, disputes exist over sharing and utilisation of natural resources with the mother states. Linguistic and cultural reasons, which were the primary basis for creating new states in the country, have now become secondary in most of these cases. Post Independence, it was people speaking the same language who got together to raise demands for new states. States such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana were born as a consequence of the demand for separate statehood based on language. Even Andhra Pradesh, which is reluctant to part with Telangana, was created by re-adjusting the boundaries of the Telugu-speaking parts of the erstwhile Madras presidency with the Nizam's dominions or Telangana.
But language was not the basis for the formation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2000 and now Telangana. All the three states formed in 2000 were richer in natural resources than their mother states but were more backward. Uttarakhand had a forest cover of 43 percent, Chattisgarh 42 and Jharkhand has 25 percent of the states' land area. Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand were extremely rich in mineral resources and Uttarakhand had huge growth potential to tap from its river systems. It was the political apathy of the mother states that forced people in these regions to demand for separate states. Similarly, Telangana has 45 percent of Andhra’s forest cover, 68 per cent of the catchment area of the Krishna River and 79 percent catchment area of the Godavari river, but people complain they have hardly got a share of benefit arising out of the development of Andhra Pradesh.
Arguments in favour of smaller states
Better growth is observed in the newly created states, such as Jharkhand and Chattisgarh compared to the parent states during the 10th FYP period.
Better democratic governance
Greater awareness on local needs
linguistic compatibility and cultural homogeneity
Better management, implementation and allocation of public resources in provisioning basic social and economic infrastructure services.
Easy communicability
Gains for the electorates in terms of better representation of their preferences in the composition of the government.
Arguments against smaller states
partition anxiety
Fear the rise of regional and linguistic fanaticism as threats to national unity and integrity.
Many believe that bigger states ensure cohesion and stability
Susceptible to commercial pressure for limited resources
Migration
Violence
Questions
Smaller states can augment the growth of the country. Comment critically on the statement.
Why can bigger states better the integrity prospects of a nation if regional imbalances are addressed? Suggest your ways to deal with such inequalities.
References
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-way-forward-in-assam/article5052988.ece
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-04/india/41057301_1_creation-new-states-least-50-states
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/fight-over-regional-resources-drive-demand-new-states
http://www.lokniti.org/pdfs_dataunit/A.Kumar.pdf
The Manmohan Singh government’s decision to carve Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh has given fresh impetus to statehood demands particularly in eastern India. At least four ethnic groups have begun to press their claims for separate States to be carved out of Assam. The Bodos, the Karbi, Dimasas and Koch-Rajbongshis are up in arms in support of their respective demands.
Background
Assam issue
The demand for Bodoland, a separate state in Western Assam, is primarily based on the conflict over land resources between the ethnic Bodos and other communities in the region; the Bodos are also demanding statehood based on ethnic identity. The Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts (BTAD), an autonomous area for the Bodo tribes created in western Assam under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, has seen at least four violent confrontations between the Bodo tribes and Bengali Muslims, considered illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, in the past two decades. In the 19th and early 20th century, policies of the British administration on land utilisation and settlement of people brought from outside Assam to work in tea plantations and farmlands led to massive demographic changes in the region. The Bodos and adivasis practised shifting cultivation or jhum, but the migrants from East Bengal knew modern methods of farming using a plough. They were settled in what the British had termed as wasteland. But the land was actually grazing reserves and jhum land. Since the 1960s, there has been a demand for a separate state of Bodoland after regulations failed to protect the Bodos from land alienation.
Why are calls for a separate state recognised as impractical?
One, the territories being demanded by the different groups in pursuit of their own ethnically, homogeneous provinces actually overlap with one another. Moreover, Assam’s own territorial issues with more than one of its neighbouring States remain unresolved. Third, these conflicting and often competing political aspirations make for a toxic cauldron, predicated as they are on the dangerous assumption that it is not possible or desirable to create multi-ethnic or multicultural provinces in which the rights of ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities are constitutionally guaranteed and administratively ensured.
Road ahead
Strengthening the autonomous, administrative divisions in Assam established on the basis of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Currently, these are the Bodoland Territorial Council, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and the Dima Hasao Autonomous District Council.
In addition, there are six notified tribal autonomous councils where the territory has not been specified. One of the sticking points with regard to the latter group relates to dual authority owing to the simultaneous existence of panchayati raj structures. This needs to be addressed suitably.
As in Tripura, the functioning of democratic processes at grass-roots level ought to be ensured in Assam. The sensitive handling of grievances over funding, and the protection that needs to be extended over issues of language, culture and land is essential. Powers and functions consistent with local customs, traditions and needs have to be conferred on tribal autonomous systems.
Demands for Separate States
In Uttar Pradesh, there have been demands for Awadh Pradesh, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand and Pachimanchal or Harit Pradesh. There is also demand for creation of a Braj Pradesh, consisting of Agra division and Aligarh division of Uttar Pradesh and districts of Bharatpur and Gwalior from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. A demand for creation of Bhojpur comprising areas of eastern UP, Bihar and Chhattisgarh has also been received by the home ministry. There has been an old demand for creation of a separate Vidarbha by curving out the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. The most vocal demands for separate states came from Gorkhaland, by curving out Darjeeling and its adjoining areas in West Bengal. Demands for Bodoland, comprising Bodo dominated areas in Western Assam, and a separate state of Karbi Anglong, comprising the Karbi tribals living areas under Karbi Anglong autonomous district in Assam are also pending with the Centre.
There is a demand for Mithilanchal comprising Maithili speaking regions of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Centre has received demand for creation of Saurashtra by curving that region out of Gujarat. The Dimasa people of Northeast have been demanding a separate state called Dimaraji or Dimaland comprising the Dimasa inhabited areas of Assam and Nagaland. There is a demand for creation of Kongu Nadu comprising parts of southwest of Tamil Nadu, southeast of Karnataka and east of
Kerala. Demand for creating a Coorg state, comprising the Coorg region of Karnataka has also come to the Centre. Representation has also been s received for creation of separate Kosal state comprising some districts of Odisha, parts of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
There is a demand for Tulu Nadu comprising a region on the border between Karnataka and Kerala. The demand for separate Kukiland, comprising Kuki tribal inhabited areas in Manipur has also been raised. A demand for creation of Konkan, comprising Konkani speaking part of Western India along the Arabian sea coastline has also been raised. There has been a demand for creation of Kamtapur comprising some districts of West Bengal, including Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri. Some people from Garo regions of Meghalaya are demanding for a new state of Garoland. Furthermore, there is a demand for a separate Eastern Nagaland by curving out some parts of the north eastern state. The demand for creation of a Union Territory for Ladakh is also pending with the home ministry.
Reasons for Clamour
All these demands are from regions which are poor in despite being rich in natural resources. In addition, disputes exist over sharing and utilisation of natural resources with the mother states. Linguistic and cultural reasons, which were the primary basis for creating new states in the country, have now become secondary in most of these cases. Post Independence, it was people speaking the same language who got together to raise demands for new states. States such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana were born as a consequence of the demand for separate statehood based on language. Even Andhra Pradesh, which is reluctant to part with Telangana, was created by re-adjusting the boundaries of the Telugu-speaking parts of the erstwhile Madras presidency with the Nizam's dominions or Telangana.
But language was not the basis for the formation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2000 and now Telangana. All the three states formed in 2000 were richer in natural resources than their mother states but were more backward. Uttarakhand had a forest cover of 43 percent, Chattisgarh 42 and Jharkhand has 25 percent of the states' land area. Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand were extremely rich in mineral resources and Uttarakhand had huge growth potential to tap from its river systems. It was the political apathy of the mother states that forced people in these regions to demand for separate states. Similarly, Telangana has 45 percent of Andhra’s forest cover, 68 per cent of the catchment area of the Krishna River and 79 percent catchment area of the Godavari river, but people complain they have hardly got a share of benefit arising out of the development of Andhra Pradesh.
Arguments in favour of smaller states
Better growth is observed in the newly created states, such as Jharkhand and Chattisgarh compared to the parent states during the 10th FYP period.
Better democratic governance
Greater awareness on local needs
linguistic compatibility and cultural homogeneity
Better management, implementation and allocation of public resources in provisioning basic social and economic infrastructure services.
Easy communicability
Gains for the electorates in terms of better representation of their preferences in the composition of the government.
Arguments against smaller states
partition anxiety
Fear the rise of regional and linguistic fanaticism as threats to national unity and integrity.
Many believe that bigger states ensure cohesion and stability
Susceptible to commercial pressure for limited resources
Migration
Violence
Questions
Smaller states can augment the growth of the country. Comment critically on the statement.
Why can bigger states better the integrity prospects of a nation if regional imbalances are addressed? Suggest your ways to deal with such inequalities.
References
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-way-forward-in-assam/article5052988.ece
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-04/india/41057301_1_creation-new-states-least-50-states
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/fight-over-regional-resources-drive-demand-new-states
http://www.lokniti.org/pdfs_dataunit/A.Kumar.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment