The decision by the United Progressive Alliance government to bifurcate the state of Andhra Pradesh and finally grant the central demand of the long-running Telangana agitation – a separate state that will eventually have Hyderabad as its capital – has set off a chain of predictable consequences. On the one hand, many from the rest of Andhra Pradesh have erupted in protest, including in Parliament. On the other, members of the Telangana movement, including the Telangana Rashtra Samithi head K Chandrasekhar Rao, have clearly hinted that their preferred future Hyderabad contains no non-Telangana state employees. And, meanwhile, the forces behind other instances of what used to be called “fissiparous tendencies” have woken up to the possibility that their demands for statehood might well be recognised by a Centre willing to grant Telangana statehood when there was no obvious economic or linguistic need for it. The large states most likely to be affected are Assam, West Bengal and Maharashtra, the locations of the Bodoland, the Gorkhaland and the Vidarbha movements, respectively.
This is the consequence of arbitrarily creating a new state without a clear and transparent process for evaluating its need, and demonstrating fairness vis-a-vis other claims to bifurcation. Leaders from Bodoland or Vidarbha can both justifiably claim that it aids the Congress’ electoral chances to give in to the Telangana movement, but not theirs. And, thus, a sense of injustice is created, which should not surround an administrative decision like the creation of a new state. The lack of a States Reorganisation Commission is being sorely felt. In fact, the first thing that a States Reorganisation Commission could and should have looked at is the simple question of whether or not a new state is viable. Will it have a sufficient taxation base? Can it hold its own in terms of production and trade, and support an administrative structure by itself? While Telangana, with Hyderabad, is clearly a viable state on its own, there is no reason to suppose Bodoland, in the forested tracts of Assam, would be. Gorkhaland, in the hills of north Bengal, might be — certainly if the fast-growing city of Siliguri, which lies within Gorkha-dominated Darjeeling district, is included. But Siliguri itself is dominated by ethnic Bengalis, making its inclusion in a new state problematic.
It is notable that Hyderabad continues to be a bone of contention, as does Siliguri — and, as is visible from the storm of controversy that followed writer Shobhaa De’s statement about Mumbai’s status, that oldest of city-versus-state divisions has not gone away either. This is another reminder that state politics should be taken away from its unhealthy dependence – predation, even – on cities. It is past time that the eight or ten largest Indian cities were granted more autonomy, reducing their salience in such debates. At the very least, such autonomy should extend to having a directly elected mayor. In addition, their financing should be attended to: they should be permitted municipal bonds, and be able to finance themselves without having their revenue filtered through state Assemblies. Only then will the reorganisation of states become a more rational exercise, instead of a search by local strongmen for the “prize” of a city’s revenue. And, of course, India’s cities need such autonomy in order to update their own infrastructure to meet the growing demands of an increasingly urbanised country.
