By meghna at 11 December, 2009, 10:09 pm
Bharat or India was not a united country before independence. The whole territory was divided into British India and independently controlled Princely states. As India constituted 550 princely states and since the adminstration of the same was a difficult task, many of them were merged into larger pronvinces and states.
It was after independence and parition of India, that the India became a country and not mere union of states. Andra Pradesh, Gujrat, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Haryana and others were carved out of the existing state structures of the basis of ethenity, culture and local needs of the people. The states got divided on linguistic basis as recommented by the States Reorganization Commission to Mr.Jawahar Lal Nehru in 1956.
Article 3 and 4 empower the Parliament to alter the state boundaries with simple majority. Therefore the Parliament can change,create, name and merge any state. The very existence of the state depends upon the sweet will of the central government.
It is generally argued that in smaller states, the local needs of the people can be addressed in a better way. Moreover it is contended that such states are easier to administer.
Presently there are extensive demands of formation of new states like Vidarbha (out of Maharashta), Harit Pradesh (out of UP), Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand (out of UP and MP), Kosala (out of Orissa) and Gorkhaland (out of West Bengal). Now as the Central Government has agreed to separate Telangana from Andra Pradesh, such state demands have also gained momentum.
The question appears whether the country requires formation of new states or not? Should reasons like better administration and social tensions be the sole criteria of adjudging whether a state has to be formed or not. Why is the nation being spilt in the name of development.
From my perspective, the political needs of one should not determine the social needs of others. One fast by Potti Sreeramulu carved the state of Andra Pradesh other by K. Chandershekhar Rao has led to the formation of Telangana.
Many people who have been fighting for Telangana might not agree with my statements as their fight for education and better livelihood have always been ignored by the government. But it is not Telangana that I’m talking in particular, it is the whole country for which I am concerned about. Wherever there is socio-economic injustice, people feel that there should be a new state.
It is very certain that Mr. Rao would become the first Chief Minister of the state but it is no guarantee that such a state would progress. Again it is seen that most of these demands are political in nature and public sentiments are often ignored.
Is spliting India into tits and bits the only restort to attain progress. Our freedom fighters faught to unite the country and we are fighting to divide it. The politicians have manupilated innocent youth and have convinced them that division is the ailment to their problems. If new states are formed then their political and financial interests are served.
It is strange that a fast by one politician can change the entire map of the country on the other hand there are hundreds of people who die daily out of hunger and the government is least bothered.
In the present Lok Sabha elections TRS secured only two seats. Isn’t the will of the people clear to Mr. Rao?
One of my friends rightly pointed out that if the situation continues then we would be the United States of India and not India.
The Constitution of India declares India a sovereign, democratic republic, and a union of states (replacing provinces) and territories. The states would have extensive autonomy and complete democracy in the Union, while the Union territories would be administered by the Government of India.