The demand for smaller states is gaining momentum. The other day little Bittu, aged six, who is unfortunately addicted to watching news channels, horrified his parents by declaring he was going on a hunger strike. After refusing offers of chocolates, a cricket bat and a toy gun, he finally said
he wanted a state for Christmas. It was only by hard
bargaining that his parents were able to settle for an I-pod in lieu of a state.
As regional animosities threaten to engulf the country, a group of politicians have come up with a solution. “Why stop at the regional level?” asked one of them, “Why not go the whole hog and have a separate state for each of the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies?” He said the suggestion would be lapped up by the vast majority in Parliament, who would be fulfilling their long-cherished ambition of becoming chief ministers, with their own cabinets and chief secretary and chief of police and a huge entourage with flashing red lights.
“Just look at the number of jobs we can create,” urged an MP. He waxed eloquent on how he could have his own Ranji Trophy cricket team, his own school syllabus, perhaps even his own Indian Institute of Management. “A separate school syllabus is a must-have status symbol for any state,” said a legislator from Thoothukudi district in Tamil Nadu. “We too can now fill our children’s history books with the exploits of glorious heroes of our district like Veerapandiya Kattabomman,” he added. “I could become minister of mines,” said a panchayat head, looking wistfully at a framed photograph of Madhu Koda in his office. On it being pointed out that his backward coastal district had no mines, he sighed and said he was willing to settle for minister of coconuts instead. Others pooh-poohed questions on how all this would be paid for. “Look at Monaco”, they said, adding that we too can build casinos.
Some believe that the creation of many small states would lead to less regional chauvinism. Others are not so certain. “Ok, we may not have the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena,” said a political scientist, “but we could have a Mumbai North Central Sena and a Mumbai South Central Sena.”
Corporate India, however, is unimpressed. “Our revenues will be several times the budget of many of these new states combined,” said the head honcho of a large corporate house. He questioned why states should be reorganised on the basis of geography alone and suggested a state of Tata , a state of Birla and two Ambani states. But he acknowledged the two Ambani states would be constantly fighting, with dangerous consequences for the country. Somebody asked why Corporate India wanted their own fiefdoms when they already ruled the entire country.
But the biggest objection to the new plan comes from students of geography. “It’s bad enough having to remember the capitals of new states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh and having to draw maps of them,” said a scholar. He threatened that if they are forced to learn the names of any more states, geography students will have no alternative but to secede from the Indian Union.
As for me, I am already unhappy with my proposed home state of Mumbai North-West. We have the beaches, the fish and the film stars and why should we share them with those outsiders from the eastern part of Mumbai North-West? I accordingly demand a separate state of Western Mumbai North-West.
n manas.c@livemint.com
Manas Chakravarty is Consulting Editor, Mint.
The views expressed by the author are personal.