By Geeta Spolia
Language is no longer enough to unite people. Should then aspirations decide geographical boundaries? What factors need to be considered: political, social or economic? Further, in the demand and agitation for newer and smaller states whose aspirations are being considered, those of the people or those of the political class? Is there a definite size of a prosperous state? Whatever the parameter you consider, evidence is conflicting, and points in different directions. In the backdrop of the emerging state of Telangana, and the accompanying and increasingly vociferous demands for other smaller states, it becomes important to address these questions through the prism of certain parameters as detailed under.
A Cohesive Population
It has been claimed that a cohesive population ensures a states prosperity and well being. Switzerlands excellent track record bears testimony to this fact. There is also the case of the USA, a melting pot of cultures, which despite conflicts based on race and color has done well in integrating its many social groups. But if this is true, then the many failures of Pakistan as a state, not the least crucial of which is the separation of Bangladesh, are inexplicable. Pakistan broke away on the grounds of religious incompatibility with the Indian state, but subsequently found itself fraught with fractious internal tensions and disturbances, and could not prevent the loss of Bangladesh. Does ethnic and cultural cohesiveness then guarantee the success of a state?
Size of the Unit
It is argued that the smaller the size of the state, the more efficient its governance. In the Indian context, while it is true many smaller states have done well, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, which were considered more viable than the states they were carved out of, provide evidence to the contrary. What then, is the size of a state that is bound to succeed, and how is this to be determined, given the other factors that need to be considered simultaneously?
Natural Resources
In many cases, the creation of a new state is viable because the region within its geographical boundaries is sufficiently endowed with natural resources. But the separation of states necessitates division of resources between the two states, often creating conflicts. For instance, river waters become conflicted, as has been the case with Punjab and Haryana, and Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Creation of more units also gives rise to new administrative costs, in setting up a brand new government and social and political infrastructure, thereby putting new pressures and demands on the nation that may or may not be prepared to handle efficiently.
Whose Aspirations?
The people of the region that is to be the new state are assured that its creation will result in redress of their grievances and that the coming of new boundaries will result in the end of backwardness, neglect and ignorance. But when it is the aspirations of the political class that get imposed onto the people, and the lines are blurred, the consequences for the people are often not favorable. While it is a step in the direction of progress that language is no longer the only basis for state reorganization, statehood determination is complex and should not be affected by misplaced considerations. A new state, carved correctly, holds many exploitable opportunities that would result in the mutual development and prosperity of the people both the neighbors. But given the various aspects this writer has discussed, it can really go either way.