CENTRIFUGAL FORCES

From the ramparts of the Red Fort in old Delhi, Prime Minister D.W. Deve Gowda announced the Centre's support for the creation of an Uttarakhand state, to be carved out of Uttar Pradesh and composing the hill distracts of Kumaon and Garhwal. It was a rushed decision taken to improve the United Front's standing among the hill voters in the crucial elections for the Uttar Pradesh state legislature..The CPI (M), a coalition partner in the United Front, was irate for not having been consulted by the Prime Minister, but there is near-unanimous support for the Uttarakhand state among most political forces. The Vidhan Sabha in Lucknow itself has twice resolved to let Kumaon and Garhwal to spin off. So, Uttarakhand is not causing much heartburn among Indian politicos. It is academics and bureaucrats, who see themselves as the custodians of the Indian state, who urge caution. They warn darkly of centrifugal forces, fearful that the political classes will not be able to respond when called upon to maintain the integrity of the national state. Thus, Mr Deve Gowda's flamboyant gesture from the national pulpit, they say, was like pulling a string which could unravel the entire Indian state superstructure. They warn of multiplying demands for statehood which could soon become unmanageable..Of course, demands for autonomy and statehood is not a problem that is India's alone. But India's problems dominate because its huge girth subsumes more identities than all of its neighbours. The statehood demand represents a desire to remain within the nation-state, but separate from the dominating powers within such a state. Thus, the pahadis (hill people) would like to separate themselves from the rulers in Lucknow. The tribal population of Jharkhand would like to be distinct from the North Biharis who rule over them from Patna. The Nepali-speakers ('Gorkhas') of the Darjeeling hills want no truck with the Bengalis who control a great part of their budget from Writers Building in Calcutta. The Bodos want to be distinct from the Ahom Assamese, and Chattisgarh wants to separate from Madhya Pradesh. There is no saying that Uttarakhand will end Uttar Pradesh's breakup (and it is too large a unit for proper governance anyway). There are those who want a Poorvanchal (Eastern UP) and Bundlekhand (south-western UP, and including parts of Madhya Pradesh). And if Jharkhand wants to break away in the south, before long Mithilanchal might want the same in north Bihar..Where will it all end, and is there any guarantee that the bestowing of statehood will not one day encourage secession among those populations which feel sufficiently removed from the Indian mainstream? India is entering a trying phase, where carpets which had covered the dust since Independence are being pulled back and the air is thick. Leaders like former Prime Minister V. P. Singh, who do not have enough of a stake in positions of power, have suggested the setting up of a commission to address the demands for statehood..The only thing that can be said to those who deride Mr Singh's proposal is, what would you rather do? Statehood demands will only simmer, they will never go away. Take a look at the demand for Gorkhaland state, which was supposed to have been defused with the announcement of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC). The alacrity with which both the DGHC "supremo" Subhas Ghising and his opponents are beating at Delhi's door once again asking for a state only underscores the need for the Centre to tackle the bull by the horns..Doubtless, there will be unsettled times once it is clear in the moufussil that the Centre is open to granting statehood demands. To some, it might even look as if the nation state is disintegrating, but when the dust settles there will be a more natural distribution of power in India, a more natural federalism in which states follow the dictates of language, geography, and, more importantly in these modern times, economics..So far, India has been held together by the Indian Administrative Service, the presence of a military, and the ideology of Bharat which was developed by the first crop of visionary leaders who achieved Independence. The military remains, increasingly used to put out internal bushfires, and the IAS is severely weakened. Bharat also remains, but the regional identities are stronger than ever taking precedence in loyalty to the loyalty to the nation state..The fears of national disintegration are probably oversold, but it is clear that India will be strongest when the economics of unity become compelling. And economics is essentially a matter of having the power to keep the income that would accrue and not being siphoned off for the "greater good". Economic linkages and "trade" between India's regions, and use of the theory of comparative advantage, is what is required. It is the glue of economics rather than the grand nationalistic rhetoric which will keep the great geographical and cultural agglomeration that is India, together..The challenges faced by India can only be tackled head-on. And, as the most mature, massive and stable democracy in South Asia, if India finds a way to deal with demands for statehood and autonomy, it will be showing a way for all South Asia. For, autonomy demands are not a monopoly of the Indian provinces.