PRINCIPLES BEHIND FORMING OF STATES | STATES REORGANIZING COMMISSION | INDIA

 

PRINCIPLES BEHIND FORMING THE STATES ON LINGUISTIC GROUNDS: STATES REORGANISATION COMMISSION

A special commission was appointed by the Government of India in 1953 to explore the feasibility of making the linguistic factor the main criterion in re-demarcating state boundaries. (Provincial boundaries of British India had been drawn either by historical accident or for reasons of administrative convenience). The Congress recognized the federal realities of Indian civilization in which, as the SRC Report of 1956 puts as, ‘linguistic homogeneity – reflects the social and cultural pattern of living, obtaining in well-defined regions of the country’.

The imperative of national unity however came to the forefront in the post – Partition trauma of independent India, and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru feared a chain reaction of secession. Reluctantly, he asked the SRC to tackle question of linguistic communities, which coincided with regional diversities.

The SRC’s recommendations were made according to certain governing principles: to preserve and strengthen the unity of India; to keep in mind administrative, economic and financial considerations as in the implementation of five year plans; and to pay attention to cultural linguistic homogeneity as reflected in democratic and popular movements.

The SRC published its report and recommendations in 1955 and a States Reorganization Act followed in 1956. The boundaries of states in Southern India were redrawn in closer conformity with traditional linguistic regions, and eight major language groups got separate states immediately: Assamese – Assam, Bengali – West Bengal, Kannada – Karnataka, Kashmiri – Jammu and Kashmir, Malayalam – Kerala, Oriya – Orissa, Tamil – Madras (Tamil Nadu), Telugu – Andhra.

The SRC rejected demands for a separate Jharkhand state for lack of popular support in all the affected districts. It also rejected demands for a Punjabi Subah on grounds of disguised communalism. The SRC could not insist that fifty percent of all centrally recruited civil servants posted in a given state be non-residents, but it refused to recommend that recruitment to state civil services be restricted to sons of the soil.

After agitations in both Gujarati speaking and Marathi speaking areas, the State of Bombay was divided between Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960. And after a change in leadership in the Akali Dal, its demand for a separate Punjabi speaking state was also conceded in 1966.

Despite the apparent political turbulence associated with the reorganization of states, the SRC recommendations and their implementation prove the genius of the Nehru era in managing centrifugal forces through democratic solutions and pluralistic compromises.

DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

Is India fit for democracy?

British did not consider India capable of democracy – too traditional, dynastic, illiterate, fatalistic, etc. It was a philosophy and practice alien to India where a monarch of dominant group exercised power while the rest accepted and followed it. Thus when democracy was introduced in India it did not grow / develop as a response to people’s needs.

Yet the overall assessment over 60 years is that India has adopted democracy. The parliamentary system, independent judiciary and electoral process etc. was seen as the only workable type of government for such a diverse country. Therefore it was adopted even before independence.

FACTORS THAT PROMOTE DEMOCRACY / SIGNS THAT DEMOCRACY IS HEALTHY IN INDIA

-         Regular elections at the municipal, state and national level since 1950

-         Growth of several political parties representing and expressing the views of different sections of society

-         Largely uninterrupted parliamentary government (especially when compared to Pakistan, Burma etc., which have frequently lapsed into dictatorship) (Except 70s emergency)

-         Non political Armed Force – not interested in political power (therefore no coups)

-         Increasingly assertive press – much freer than most afro Asian countries

-         Decentralization and strengthening of local government bodies – Panchayati Raj – taking democracy to the grass root level.

IMPEDIMENTS

-         Illiteracy – information cannot be verified, manipulate voters, people not aware of their rights, cannot use the law to protect themselves, unaware of political practices, duties, etc.

-         Poverty – subsistence level cannot be bothered by politics / easily exploited / voters are ‘bought’.

-         Over population and migration – very expensive elections, huge numbers of voters, personnel, booths, counting, etc., movement of population, voting lists have to be reviewed, huge no. of people cannot vote because they are not in their constituencies.

-         Group interest over national interest – voting for parties for the benefit of a group, narrow interests rather than national good, regional parties, reservation, bartering of votes for benefits etc, parties only concerned about single issues etc.

-         Criminalization of politics – candidates with criminal records, use of unfair methods for votes, booth-capturing, intimidation, corruption (continues within the government)

-         Apathy of voters – falling percentage of voter turnout especially in urban, educated, middle class areas.

-         Extraneous influences – religion, caste, language get mixed up with politics

-         Democracy does not guarantee the best government – voters could be duped, post election alliances, splitting of votes can result in a third party becoming the majority.

ROLE OF EDUCATION

‘Democracy can never be successful without education’. The process requires one to understand one’s rights, duties, information on how the system works, to live as civilised citizens – exercise franchise with maturity, understanding and analysis of the agenda of each party.

‘Democratic government demands an educated people’ – Hetherington

‘Democracy in its modern form would be quite impossible in a nation where men cannot read – Bertrand Russell

Also required for social equality (doing away with prejudice) and economic opportunity.

ROLE OF PRESS

-         Extremely important

-         Education about democracy and political system, mass education

-         Enables communication – people to their government and parties / government to carry their message to the people

-         Highlights, debates important national issues

-         Watch dog on the government and parties

Free Press – not a government mouth piece

Free press should exercise responsibility, sensitivity, should not instigate trouble especially against communities or castes etc.

 

ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is an obligation to answer for the execution of one’s assigned responsibilities. In simpler terms, accountability is reporting. People account, or report to other people.

The basic ingredients of successful accountability relationships are as follows:

Set measurable goals and responsibilities.

Plan what needs to be done to achieve goals

Do the work and monitor progress.

Report on results

Evaluate results and provide feedback.

Accountability relationships exist among the Government, the Legislative Assembly and the various operating entities owned or controlled by the Government, including departments, boards, and agencies. The Government has to incorporate a healthy accountability framework.

Effective accountability means that those managing public resources depend on sound information, not speculation, when determining the effectiveness of Government’s programs. Decision makers must evaluate performance and rationalize resource allocations to programs.

Measuring and reporting on the effectiveness of public sector programs is just the beginning. A sound basis has to be established for linking costs to outcomes, permitting a more comprehensive assessment of performance and value for money. Accountability is necessary when responsibility is assigned, and authority is delegated.

The information is presented in a way that can eb understood by users and is sufficient to provide an appropriate understanding of an organization’s performance. All forms of accountability reporting should present information on outputs. Expected results need to be clearly expressed and must be measurable.

A ministry accountability report should include all provincial organizations accountable to the Minister. Each organization and fund accountable to a Minister should prepare plans (including budgets) and performance reports.

Performance reports (such as financial statements and annual reports) should compare actual to planned results.

Key accountability reports, including plans, budgets, financial statements and annual reports should be made public. The government is responsible and accountable to the electorate. To make this accountability relationship work, the electorate must rely on its elected representatives to ensure that necessary accountability information is made public.

Information tabled in the Legislative Assembly is public and therefore promotes accountability to the Legislative Assembly and to the people. An effective accountability framework for India should require the tabling of all key accountability reports.

Accountability reports which should be tabled in the Legislative Assembly include each Ministry and each operating entity. The main elements of an effective accountability framework should be legislated.

People may be reluctant to produce accountability information when expected results are not achieved. Ministries and the organizations within them, therefore, must be required to produce accountability information. To ensure lasting and timely compliance, the major elements of the framework should eb legislated. Also, the policies of a Ministry or an organization should set out the accountability framework within that organization.

 

SAMYUKTA MAHARASHTRA MOVEMENT

Formation of state: SAMYUKTA MAHARASHTRA ANDOLAN

The Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti (United Maharashtra Committee) was an organisation that spearheaded the demand, in the 1950s, for the creation of a separate Marathi-speaking state out of the (then bilingual) State of Bombay in western India, with the city of Bombay (now known as Mumbai) as its capital.

The organisation was founded on February 6, 1956, under the leadership of Keshavrao Jedhe in Pune. Prominent activists of Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti were Acharya Atre, Prabodhankar Thackeray, Senapati Bapat and Shahir Amar Shaikh.

The Indian National Congress had pledged to linguistic states prior to Independence. In 1956, the SRC (States Re-organisation Committee) under pressure from Nehru/Patel recommended creation of linguistic states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, but recommended a bi-lingual state for Maharashtra-Gujarat, with Bombay (Mumbai) as its capital. To add insult to injury (for Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti), they recommended creation of Vidharba state to unite the Marathi speaking people of former Hyderabad state with Holkar's Nagpur state. This led to the creation of Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti which was previously called Samyuka Maharashtra Parishad. Its inauguration on November 1, 1956, caused a great political stir and, under the leadership of Keshavrao Jedhe, an all-party meeting was held in Pune and Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti was founded on February 6, 1956.

The Marathi press, along with a long standing tradition for standing up against social and political oppression, was an active supporter of the movement. The prominent litterateur Acharya Atre, founder of Maratha and Navayug was a major proponent, as were others in the press corps, notably Prabodhankar Thackeray, S.A. Dange, founder of the Socialist, and Shahir Shaikh. The Samyukta Maharashtra Andolan was thus sustained by activists of varied ideological persuasion.

S.M. Joshi, S.A. Dange, N.G. Gore and P.K. Atre fought relentlessly for Samyukta Maharashtra, even at the cost of sacrificing the lives of several people and finally succeeded in convincing Congress leaders that Maharashtra should form a separate state.

In January 1956, demonstrators were fired upon by the police at Flora Fountain in the capital city of Mumbai. Flora Fountain was subsequently renamed Hutatma Chowk or "Martyr's Crossroads" in their memory. Morarji Desai, who was the then chief minister of Bombay state was later removed and replaced by Y.B. Chawan as a result of criticism related to this incident.

The Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti achieved its goal on May 1, 1960 when the State of Bombay was partitioned into the Marathi-speaking State of Maharashtra and the Gujarati-speaking State of Gujarat.