By P Niroop
It is ironical that the demand for a separate Garoland State, should arise on the occasion of the dawn of it’s 50th Anniversary, of the Meghalaya State Formation (1972), or is it cropping, only on the eve of the Assembly Hustings due in early 2024? Or are there really existing faultlines in the very organisation of the internal boundaries of India, especially the North-East that gives rise to these intermittent demands for statehood, even where internal mechanisms, in the form Autonomous District Council (ADC’s) exist, to act as ‘institutions of local governance’ to address regionals aspirations and their respective developmental needs, under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India? More so in the case Meghalaya, which is almost completely, with the exception of Shillong Municipality, covered by the said 6th Schedule of the Constitution.
Even, if it is being raked up as an election issue, what is wrong in that, as long as it points to serious anomalies, which the nation-state did not address squarely, at the time of independence from the British Rule in 1947, or at the time of re-organisation of the North-East States in 1972?
The last time the Indian Parliament addressed this issue was in 2014, when the territories of the State of the Telugu speaking Andhra Pradesh, were re-organised into a separate Telangana and the residual State of Andhra Pradesh. Even before that, the Union Government has handled the border issues arising out of the earlier linguistic reorganisation of States in 1956, between Andhra – Karnataka, Andhra – Orissa, and now it is saddled with fresh border issues between Andhra and the Telangana regions.
All this only points out to the dire need for a ‘permanent States Re-organisation Commission’ to have a relook at the internal boundaries of India, based on specific criteria, like that of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) led by Justice Fazal Ali 1955. At a time when the Union Government is contemplating having a Permanent Water Tribunal, in place of River or Basin related water Tribunals, it could even think of a Permanent SRC, to deal with the making or re-making of its flexible internal boundaries, leaving out the external boundaries, out of its scope of work, as they are inflexible. This step would go a long way in consolidating the integration of Indian States, so assiduously forged together by Sardar Vallabbhai Patel ably assisted by V.P.Menon after Indian Independence.
The demand for separate states across the country, be they, the larger statehood demands of Bundelkhand, Vidarbha in Central India, or the smaller ones like Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Garoland, Tipraland, Karbi Anglong – Dimasa etc. in the North-Eastern part of India, have to be tested on the anvil of relevant criteria, which has to be fixed by Union Government after taking Parliament into confidence upon the recommendations or the proposed Permanent SRC. In the absence of a set-criteria or a federal index for adjusting the internal boundaries the states autonomy movements fall under three categories of (i) regional aspirations, (ii) assertions & (iii) adjustments.
Unfortunately, when the Telugu speaking States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were being created in 2014, it was not based on any criteria and even earlier on when the States of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were created in the year 2000, they were not based on any set-criteria, but were formed only to meet the political exigencies of the moment. Whereas the linguistic organisation in 1956, based on the SRC Report and earlier on, even in British India, States-reorganisation in 1935, 1930 or 1919 was done based on set criteria. Hence if the Union Home Ministry chooses to deal with this issue, it has to not only put in place a Permanent SRC, but set the criteria for making or re-making of internal boundaries. As such there is need for a ‘Federal Index’, for such an exercise to be undertaken. To the earlier criteria of 1955, for Re-organisation of States, based essentially on the linguistic criteria, as set out in para 93 of the SRC Report 1955, other relevant criteria such as regional cultural identities, shared-history and self-rule, may have to be added, to make it more comprehensive, and cure the existing fault lines in the organisation of it’s internal boundaries.
“para 93- the principles that emerge may be enumerated as follows:
(i) preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India;
(ii) linguistic and cultural homogeneity;
(iii) financial, economic and administrative consideration; and
(iv) successful working of the national plan”.
But what is the need for such an exercise of re-arrangement of internal boundaries against the larger canvas of globalization? It is precisely against this backdrop that re-organisation becomes imperative, so as to derive maximum leverage, for India to emerge as a superpower, as against the other Asian giant, China. Without going into the initiatives of India’s powerful neighbour, to consolidate its regional boundaries, such as Belt and Road initiative, their dominant presence in the South China Sea, apart from being active on the Indo-China border in Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh & Doklam (Bhutan border), internal changes might be disruptive. Ever since the launch of the Look East Policy of 1991 by India and re-christening of the same, as ‘Act East’ in 2014, not much has happened in the region for India to emerge stronger. It is necessary to look at the North-East in the context of the Himalayan as well as South-East Asian Geopolitics.
The author of this article is only pressing for the need for a Permanent SRC, to look into the issue, as against the broader philosophy of small states making for efficiency, well captured in the classic statement of E.F.Schumachar “small is beautiful – a study of economics as if people mattered”.
Another pragmatic initiative which has drawn the attention of the world is the formation of Forum for Small States (FOSS) by the Singapore Government, after the process of liberalization, was set in motion in 1991. This initiative which was taken informally, at the UN had just 13 Members to begin with, drawing mainly from the Scandinavian Countries, whose population is small, when compared to the larger states. In the recently concluded UN General Assembly, the Member-States of this Forum, increased to 136 countries, across the world. What is more interesting to note is that 36 of these countries have excelled in certain areas and have gone far beyond the rest of the world. To cite a couple of examples : Bhutan has excelled in formulating Gross Domestic Happiness (GPH) in measurable terms, while Norway has excelled in topping the ‘zero tolerance to corruption’ list.
As against the antiquity of the idea of India in geographical terms and also the mass of historical material available, the permanent States Re-organisation, Commission, if constituted, would have to formulate a federal index, which could then be applied to any exercise of re-organisation of India’s internal boundaries. Since, Sovereignty under the Indian Constitution rests on two pillars equally that, is the Union and the States, one only hopes to see India emerge stronger as a real Union of States, as envisaged in the national parchment, not just a conglomeration of territories. It is only New States with strong federal linkages that can make for a New India.
(The writer is Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India & Former Addl. Advocate-General, State of Meghalaya (2016-2018)) Email: [email protected]