The Autonomy is for India

In response to tahmad321 (Reply # 32)

Dear Ahmad:

Your statement: ``The mullahs and the ethnic-chauvinists present too negative an agenda for them to gain any lasting or widespread following.``

Comment: The Mullahs won`t agree with your statement. As long as we fail to invest in the future of our coming generation, Mullahism will have little difficult in reproducing itself. Who are the ethnic chauvinists? Nonetheless, I agree with the ``chauvinist`` part, not the ``ethnic`` part of your statement.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

An interesting article, but confusing many issues, viz, autonomy in defining laws of public governance including criminal law, autonomy in procedures for voting, autonomy in accountability for financial (ir)responsibility and autonomy of political/ethnic identity. Its sometimes difficult to find a connection between the suthor`s various definations of `desirable` autonomy and many current problems in India.

Other posters have clarified many issues related to regional identity, Centre-state relations, Art 356, more effective representation, etc. I want to add a bit on the question of strengthening of institutions and collective responsibility vs autonomy in this regard.

I`m not sure handing Laloo Yadav a Bihar flag would shame his patrons/supporters into misppropriating fewer crores of rupees of public funds or being more accountable to his constitutents. Two more examples from recent news items, firstly one in which FCI(Food Corporation of India) refused to buy substandard grain from some Punjab farmers. However, so many farmers would suffer irreparable loss and indebtedness thar the farmers groups threatened to agitate in a big way against FCI policy. Finally FCI relaxed its standards and resumed procurement. The issue of substandard grain due to disease? has been around for longer than this year. Remember also the cotton farmers of AP a number of whom committed suicide because of failure to sell their crops without debilitating loss.

None of these serious issues really pertains to inadequate political autonomy of the principals involved, which is where the author has put too much emphasis, IMO. In Punjab and AP during these crises, the political parties in power (Akali Dal and Telugu Desam) were also important constituents of the national coalition government. It wasnot the lack of a flag or constitution or the functioning of a common central election commission which gave rise to these situations. And I don`t think a `wholesale` redefination of the states` powers vis-a-vis the Centre is the solution of many such problems in India. IMO, the issue is the strengthening of institutions, which is best done collectively and with more voices speaking up, the better.

In the Punjab grain procurement case(as in the AP cotton farmers` case), the farmers and the Government procurement agency had few or no choices before them, leading to forced decisions which were definately ruinous in either the short term or the long term to all, the government, the farmers as well as the rest of the country. To generate more problem-solving choices for both the farmers and the government and to better handle the problem of substandard grain or bad cotton prices, farmers` marketing/commerce cooperatives or other collective entities would ideally be learning from and coordinating with active and responsive research/development studies to find solutions. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is currently no restriction, political/institutional/financial on the creation/working of such middle-level collective institutions as far as I know. What may be lacking is a public recognition of what is lacking :-), not the laws or constitutional scope provided for existence or working of such institutions. The `middle-level` collective institutions need to be more creative and responsive problem-solvers and its just not a simple question of lacking a flag or referring to the Chief Minister by another name.

Including going after financial corruption, like in Laloo`s Bihar, it doesnot hurt to handle weakened or ineffective institutions by throwing the weight of the entire country`s existing institutions and collective will/responsibility behind first identifying and then solving such problems.

Sadhana

Dear Bilal Ahmed,

I am using the term ``ethnic`` in ethnic-chauvinist to mean a member of a particular race or linguistic group or nationality or tribe or caste. Do you disagree with me we should oppose such behavior on anyone`s part, and try not to become one ourselves?

As for the mullahs, I am sure they would not consider themselves to be either negative thinkers (who does) or doomed to being relegated to their original toothless, weaponless position although it may take some time. However, from all indications that is a correct assessment: the mullahs were empowered in the 1980`s not by the people of Pakistan but by General Zia, and their madrassahs are fueled by Arab money it appears. Zia used to siphon off public funds to the madrassahs, and I think that has stopped - but I could be wrong. Do you know?

Re: Tahmed321 #31

``In the US, even non-party members can vote in party primaries. ``

That is not always true -- some states do not allow non-party members to vote in the primaries of the other party (e.g. Michigan, I believe)

TAhmed #321

As far as your assertion on ethnic linguistic etc.

Do you agree that Pakistan was rightly created. If so what was the reason. Was it the fear of Hindu domination. If so can they be called communal or were they fighting for their rights and prosperity.

What was Pakistan created for. So that people can progress or we will continue to sacrifice our education, our people everything just to defend its boundaries with no light at the end of tunnel for majority of people.

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 36)

Dear Ahmed:

I once asked a faculty member at the University of Karachi, a close friend of mine who migrated from Aligarh in the mid- to late-1950s, about his identity. He said: “He is a Pakistani.” He, in the 1970s, was nothing but a Pakistani. I have not met him for almost two decades but I would still like to find out if he is to date a Pakistani (I mean only a Pakistani, no Mohajir or nothing of that sort). In Pakistan, there is a growing frustration among various ethno-linguistic groups. Why? This is an important research question.

Do I believe in the division of Pakistan on the basis of ethno-linguistic attributes? My answer is simply no. But, I do believe in the devolution of power from the center to the existing provinces. Are existing provinces ideal appropriate administrative units? I don’t think so. Do I want devolution of power to enhance the power of various ethnic groups at the cost of our union/federation? I don’t think so. I, however, do sympathize with the ethnic-linguistic identities of all Pakistanis. I also disagree with your blank statement, if this is what you meant, about the ethno-linguistic reality in Pakistan.

Pakistan is like a garden. We should not try to make our garden only green otherwise it may loose its beauty. We need all kinds of colors to enhance the beauty of the garden in all kinds of seasons.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I have submitted an article to the Chowk on the “Lahore Resolution” and I am currently writing another on the Multicultural character of Pakistan. In my view, Chowk takes too long to post varios submissions. I leave the issue of Mullahism and Madaris for other people to comment.

The changing map of India

By M.A.H.

IF the National Democratic Alliance government thought that just as the Bill to carve out three new states of Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal, and Jharkhand (making a total of twenty eight states) out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, respectively, had a safe passage through the two houses of parliament,despite some demurral from three of its constituents - Biju Janata Dal, the Shrimoni Akali Dal and the Telugu Desam Party - their establishment, on the ground, would be trouble free, it had interpreted the political weather map somewhat incorrectly.

No sooner was the Bill passed than the BJD raised a voice that the sixteen districts of Bihar, which would constitute the new Jharkhand state, should have been transferred to Orissa; the maverick president of Rashtriya Janata Dal, Laloo Prasad Yadav, deprived of the Golden Triangle of Chhotta-Nagpur, demanded a compensation of a staggering Rs 1,800 billion from New Delhi; and, the Bhopalis, sulking at the loss of a magnificently-rich-in-mineral-resources Chhattisgarh, which has been providing more than half the revenues of MP, proposed that Bhopal should be the joint capital of MP and Chhattisgarh.

From the integration of 565 princely states of varying sizes, to Fazl Ali States Reorganization Commission`s linguistic states in 1956 and the bifurcation of Bombay into two separate states of Maharashtra and Gujrat in 1960, to the trisection of the Punjab in 1966, and the birth of the `seven sisters` in the north-east in 1971, (one of them, Mizoram has a population of 700,000 and another, Nagaland declared English to be the official language), to the graduation of Goa (population of 1.2 million) to statehood in 1987, the creation of three new states is a phenomenon the Indians are not unfamiliar with.

That, since 1956, several large states had been divided into smaller states is an indication that the linguistic divisions of states, by Fazl Ali Commission, were wrong. The commission had not recognized the diversity of cultural strains and had ignored the techno-economic, administrative, environmental, ethnic, and even geographic considerations. Flaunting the banner of Hindi, and subsuming local linguistic zones, local cultural areas, and different racial and cultural groups, such mammoth states, in terms of both geographical spread and demographic size, like UP, MP and Bihar were created. Two of them, UP and Bihar, are the poorest and the most backward states in India. And Bihar and MP enjoyed harvests of economic intermezzo at the cost, mismanagement and neglect of resource-rich Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh regions. Other states were neither homogeneous nor contained satisfactory constituent units.

Bihar is under threat of another partition. The area north of the Ganges, called Mithili, is one of the most densely populated parts of the world. It has no mineral resources. Soil being fertile, its economy is strictly agricultural, main crops being cotton, indigo, sugarcane, rice, etc. About 5% of its people live below the poverty line. It has its own mature language, Maithili, and its distinctive culture. [I had referred to this in my article `Madhubani in Islamabad`: Dawn, 11 April, 1999.]

The Buddha, Mahavira (the founder of Jainism), Sita, and the great poets, Valmiki, Kalidas and Vidyapathi, were all Maithilis. The Maithili-speaking population in this area was recorded at 14 million in the 1931 census, but in the census after independence, the number was drastically reduced. Their language was displaced with a view to assimilating them into a Hindi-speaking belt! The pro-Maithili organizations are now demanding the partition of an already truncated Bihar.

The formation of three new states has given further impetus to the old demand of the Gorkha National Liberal Front for the creation of a state out of the hill districts of West Bengal. The Bodos have again raised their demand for Bodoland. The Garos, in Meghalaya, have stepped up their activities for their own state to be called Garoland.

But New Delhi will face increasing pressure from the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, where, in the two regions of Telengana and Vidarbha, respectively, there is a renewed regional assertiveness and a vigorous agitation for affirming the local cultural identity. Despite the start of a movement for a separate Telengana state in 1952, the Telugu-speaking districts of Madras were merged with Andhra Pradesh. But the movement did not die down.

There was a violent upsurge in 1969-70, when about 300 Telengana protagonists were killed. Before the last general elections, the BJP had made a pledge to grant statehood to the region, but, in order to placate its ally, the ruling Telugu Desam Party, in Andhra Pradesh, it has been shuffling its feet.

One of the main grievances, of the supporters of Telengana is that the region had been left out of economic progress for the last four or so decades. According to them, during these years, the state government had spent only Rs 0.88 billion per year in the Telengana area, while Rs 4.2 billion per year had been spent in the Andhra region. Even, Andhra Pradesh`s Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen has indicated its inclination to support the demand for giving full statehood to Telengana.

To the north of Andhra Pradesh is another politically disturbed region of Vidarbha in Maharashtra state. Mostly consisting of the districts of the former Central Provinces and Berar, Vidarbha was merged with Bombay / Maharashtra, at the time of the reorganization of states in 1956. Simultaneously, it also marked the beginning of an agitation to form a separate state of Vidarbha. Though neglected, it is rich in minerals, especially iron, and produces electricity surplus to its requirements at very low cost as compared to the main Maharashtra region. The BJP election promise to grant statehood to Vidarbha has not been fulfilled; and, the Congress is spearheading the current agitation for a separate state.

Coming back to the three new states, which will start functioning from the first week of November, I had written about Jharkhand (``Statehood for Jharkhand on Cards`` - Dawn, 18 March, 1998), ``That a Jharkhand with full statehood... will come into existence is not in doubt.``

But a statehood for Chhattisgarh, comprising only seven eastern districts of Madhya Pradesh and, mostly inhabitated by `scheduled tribes`, was a surprise, because the docile Chhattisgarhis had not even seriously agitated for it.

Not only is Chhattisgarh rich in minerals and forest products, it is also the `rice bowl` of Madhya Pradesh. Watered by the Mahanadi and its tributaries, the great plain of Chhattisgarh produces 10,000 (yes, ten thousand) varieties of rice! It has proven reserves of 1,700 million tons of haematite iron ore, and one of its coal mines has a reserve of 200 million tons. Taking the whole of MP into consideration, Chhattisgarh has 95% of iron ore, 58% of limestone, 57% of bauxite, 42% of coal and 60 per cent of dolomite reserves. It has huge reserves of ruby and diamond.

But, so far, only 10 per cent of the income from minerals had been spent in Chhattisgarh. Though it had been contributing more than 50 per cent of the total revenues of MP, the expenditure on the infrastructure had been insignificant. There was government neglect. There was overall underdevelopment resulting in regional frustration, and a feeling set in that Chhattisgarh was being treated as a colony of Madhya Pradesh.

The socio-cultural milieu of Chhattisgarh is totally different from the rest of Madhya Pradesh. Its recorded history dates back to the middle of the fourth century, and it had been an administrative unit under different local rulers. The British retained it, as such, when they took it over from the Marathas in the beginning of the nineteenth century. But Chhattisgarh was not all that visible on the Indian map, either during the British Raj or during the fifty years of independence. It almost lost its identity in disenfranchizement and total alienation.

Nonetheless, at least, three persons (not politicians, who would, now claim credit for the creation of a new state), in their own ways and at different times, acted as catalysts, to crystallize the Chhatisgarhi identity and give fillip to ethnic urges, thereby providing an opportunity to the local people to develop their distinctive literature, thought and culture.

One was that bare-foot Oxford don-turned Indian, Verrier Elwin, who lived among the Chhattisgarhi tribes for years from 1920s to 1940s. His several books eloquently reminded the Indians to recognize the different social and cultural heritage of the people. He tried to save these people, their culture and language from total degeneration and disintegration. He wrote in his autobiography, ``The Tribal World of Verrier Elwin`` (1964), ``...Chhattisgarhi, which proved very easy to learn and which we still talk at home.``

The other was Shyama Charan Dube, political scientist-cum-sociologist, and an academic, who, in his ``Field Songs of Chhattisgarh``, published in mid-1940s, had argued for a separate province for the region.

And, the third is the Urdu-speaking Chhattisgarhi, Habib Tanvir, theatre pioneer, poet, playwright / dramatist, stage / film actor, stage director, former editor of Naya Adab, the organ of the Progressive Writers` Association, folk-song singer, and a former nominated member of the Raja Sabha, all rolled in one, whose innumerable Chhattisgarhi plays (staged in India and abroad), with subtle irony, elegant wit and ruthless satire, revived the forgotten Chhattisgarhi traditions, and asserted the distinctive identity of the region. More than anyone else, it was Habib Tanvir who put Chhattisgarh in a prominent place on the Indian map.

Now, the question is which party / parties will rule these three new states. The BJP is comfortably placed in Uttarranchal with 53 per cent seats of the new state assembly. But, in Jharkhand, it is a dicey situation for the BJP with a slender majority of one.

http://www.dawn.com/2000/10/17/op.htm

Hi - your article was a good read but would like to add my ... - though not well versed with the politics of either India or the US.

The objective - India`s growth.

The soln - autonomy - diluted whatever.

My two cents - things seemingly detrimental to a countrys growth and unfortunately most synonymous with India (from the common mans persp) are -

poverty

corruption, corruption and more corruption

red-tapeism (plain non-cooperation)

this article fails to touch these various ism`s or am i not reading betw the lines sufficiently.

re: mohajir # 40

Thanks for posting this interesting article.

As a Chattisgarhi I need to make a few corrections. Chattisgarh constitutes not 7 but 16 districts of Madhya Pradesh. It is 1.5 times the size of Portugal, 4 times the size of Belgium and close to the size of Bangladesh. MP before this division was larger than Unified Germany. The agitation for Chattisgarh wasn`t active since there was consensus among all political parties on this issue. The Prathak Chattisgarh Sangharsh Samiti (literal translation: Separate 36-Forts Struggle Committee) was an all party body which formed a consensus early on.

The treatment that Chattisgarh got from western MP has been pathetic. They hadn`t even bothered to connect Bhopal to Chattisgarh properly. The fastest way to go from Bilaspur (central Chattisgarh) to Bhopal is through Nagpur in Maharashtra (now the focus of the Vidharba movement and formerly the capital of Central Provinces & Berar of which Chattisgarh was a part). It takes 18 hrs to reach Bhopal from Bilaspur by train (which is the fastest way). This is the main reason why there is a demand for a separate state. Bhopal as joint capital defeats the whole purpose of a separate state. The article has properly described the injustice in resource allocation that Chattisgarh has endured inspite of being a major revenue contributor.

As an ethnic Andhra and with relatives in Andhra Pradesh I must state that there is a significant difference between Chattisgarh and Telangana. Hyderabad, the capital of AP, is in Telangana. This is quite unlike the case with Chattisgarh. Most of the population of AP is in coastal Andhra which produces most of the revenue too. I wouldn`t be surprised if it turns out that Telangana is actually getting a bigger share than what it contributes. The CM Chandrababu Naidu belongs to Telangana. Telugu is spoken by the vast majority in Telangana too which isn`t clear from the way the author of this article put it. Again this is different from Chattisgarh where Chattisgarhi is a distinct dialect. Coastal Andhra, apart from offering an educated population that is currently driving the software boom of Hyderabad and the rest of India, actually provides a long coastline for Telangana and Rayalaseema (the south-western part of AP, bordering Karnataka, TN). The coast offers ports for exports if Telangana develops industries. MP, in contrast is land-locked like Chattisgarh. They could have developed better links with Maharashtra and Gujarat with whom they have common borders and cultural links. Unfortunately, despite eating up Chattisgarh`s revenue, MP hasn`t even emulated the business culture of these states. Chattisgarh with its revenue can connect itself better to Orissa, AP and Maharashtra for ports. I do not see why Telangana should give up this opportunity when it doesn`t have a similar history of exploitation. The case is similar for Vidarbha though they may have genuine grievances in that Bombay dominates Maharashtra and probably takes away resources from the Nagpur region.

On a different note, Habib Tanvir is highly respected and loved in Chattisgarh. Though I haven`t seen any of his plays my parents still talk about ``Charan Das Chor`` and his other plays. I can see a Habib Tanvir School of Arts in the not too distant future in one of the Chattisgarhi Universities.

Ashish

Dear Bilal #39 you write: ``In Pakistan, there is a growing frustration among various ethno-linguistic groups. Why?``

Frustration is first and foremost with individuals. In Pakistan, I think the major frustrations are (a) economic insecurity; (b) physical insecurity; (c) poor public sevices; (d) deteriorating urban environment. These frustrations are shared by most Pakistanis (and indeed by people living in other third world countrys). If you agree that these are some of the fundamental frustrations, then I ask you: where does the need arise to start talking about frustrations by ``ethno-linguistic groups``? Does such talk not simply detract attention from the real problems?

The more I think, it seems to me that further division of states in India is a good idea. In case i am forgetting something, so far there are no two states where the same language other than Hindi is spoken. If that happens, which will happen if a Vidarbah or a Telengana is created, that will be another good step towards devolution of power. That may diminish some lingusitic chauvinism that once in a while (not that often) surfaces.

The linguistic basis for states perhaps was a good idea just after independence. I think other factors should come into play now. Similar to the example of Bhopal having been far from Bilaspur, until recently to go from Bhubaneswar (capital of Orissa) to Rourkela by train one had to go through West Bengal, then Bihar and then back to Orissa.

Besides the movements that are mentioned in the other articles, two others that i have read about are Gorkhland in the north part of the state of West Bengal and Kosala in the western part of the state of Orissa.

cheers

crb

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 41)

Dear Ahmed:

In my previous post, I wrote: “In Pakistan, there is a growing frustration among various ethno-linguistic groups. Why? This is an important research question.” The last sentence was added to indicate the difficulty of providing an answer that is both easy and sufficiently good.

Your preamble concerning the roots of frustration is reasonably good for a culturally homogenous population. In multicultural societies, like Pakistan, one has to deal with an additional number of cultural variables and questions. A lack of sensitivity for the cultural questions often leads to various forms of cultural politics (and even cultural nationalism). In the case of Pakistan, a tension clearly exists between the core (Punjab and Islamabad) and periphery and semi-periphery (smaller provinces, including the so-called Mohajirs). This is problem that even General Musharraf has acknowledged in his speech of October 17, 2000. The trick to resolve “ethno-linguistic” issues lies in internalizing such issues in the national discourse (and not avoiding them under the guise of our dominant/official national discourse).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal,

I agree that there should be a dialogue on ethnicity in Pakistan, and hopefully that is what you and I are having. You also write that a `` tension clearly exists between the core (Punjab and Islamabad) and periphery and semi-periphery (smaller provinces, including the so-called Mohajirs). ``

While you agree that the issues are pointed out are legitimate ones, but then dismiss them as being relevant to more homogenous societies than Pakistan. I beg to disagree, and think those - and not issues of ethnicity - are the ones we should focus on. I say say for the following reasons: (a) if we are able to address the issues I mention, we will achieve economic security, physical security, healthy physical surroundings. This will allow our people to direct their attention to fulfilling activities - like scientific and technological achievements and the development of the arts - rather than struggling to achieve economic security by fair means or foul. For these reasons I beg to maintain my position that by diverting from these issues and bringing up issues of ethnicity (or religion or whatever) we are not doing any service to anyone -least of all to the people we think we are representing. Furthermore, there are many, many countries in the world that have less homogenous populations than Pakistan in terms of ethnicity, religion and so forth.

With respect to your above-mentioned statement, if you have any specific issues with the Panjabis or with Islamabad (by which I assume you mean the central government), could you state them more specifically?

the whole of india would breakup into different countries leading to a subcontinental balkanisation. the case of the US cannot be applied here in india as every province has it`s own language and culture unlike the americans.

I agree with the poster here. India needs a federal system, a union of fairly independent states. In fact this type of system is even more appropriate for India due to the linguistic difference between the states. Each state of India has vastly different economic and social considerations....some are rich, industrialized and orderly and others are poor, agricultural and lawless. The current state of affairs inherently causes seperatist tendencies, as the cultures of each state are unique. For example I can understand that Tamilians are wary of the imposition of Hindi as the one and only official language. The current system tries to FORGE a unified national spirit. Instead the government should look to DEFINE a national spirit based on the entire heritage of territories under government control.

The governments role in the states should be limited to protecting certain individual rights that all Indians deserve...i.e. freedom of Religion, Movement, Speech, etc....as defined in the constitution. Some responsibilities may be sub-contracted to individual state governments, such as a state court system etc. Outside of the states the government must provide for the common defense and conduct all foreign relations.

Permitting a special status for Kashmir will necessarily create tension amongst other `fringe` states for similar status. Therefore the only way to solve the Kashmir issue, along with other cultural seperatist movements, is by granting aditional freedoms and responsiblities to all the states equally.

One advantage of this is that it will allow the government to concentrate its effort on backward states like Bihar, while allowing richer states to continue economic liberalisation unhindered. This will increase government revenue through taxes, which it can put to use in uplifting the poor states.