Discuss movements for statehood and response of the state to regional movements in India.

 From above discussion, following salient patterns of regional movements seeking separate state may be discerned:

i) In India, territory and community are symbiotically linked. A region is known by the community, which lives in it, and community is designated and characterised by the geospecifics of the given region. The demand for separate statehood arises from the synthesis between the two – community and geography. 

A territorial community seeks separate state in order to be the sole arbiter of its cultural setting, political making and economic wellbeing of the people and territory, which it claims as ‘homeland’. For them the state formation means creating an institutionalpolitical space through which ‘autonomous self’ of the society is not only expressed, but preserved, protected and promoted.

ii) People having distinct socio-cultural identity, concentrated in few contiguous districts within the existing state-systems seek a separate state in order to preserve, protect and promote their identity. It is argued that a separate state would provide them a political identity and a constitutionally documented institutional space for interest articulation and protection within the Indian nation.

It is being contested that this would enhance their capacity to bargain with the central authority (union government) as well as with other states in the overall distribution of political power and economic resources. This, in other words, means capacity endowment, which otherwise is not possible within the existing state in which they currently are. The cases of Uttarakhand and Jharkhand movements are important pointers in this regard.

iii) Some of the above mentioned regional movements seek constitutional recognition, protection and legitimisation of their respective socio-cultural varieties by the state. It is at this level that the demand for functional elevation of mother tongue to the level of education and administration is made. 

This also includes inclusion of some languages in the eighth schedule of the Constitution of India. Linguistic purism is another facet of socio-cultural regionalism. This in other words means preservation of cultural identity. Identity factor is extended to delimit state’s encroachment upon the cultural space of a particular regional community. Cultural homogenisation by the state on the pretext of having a uniform national cultural identity is opposed. Therefore, most of the regional movements emphasise autonomy especially in the socio-cultural realm. And for exercising autonomy of identity, a separate state is legitimately demanded.

State’s response to regional movements has been varying. We do not find any consistent policy in this regard. However, certain patterns and principles can be discerned in this regard. They are:

(i) secessionist demand could not be conceded, rather, secessionism would be suppressed by all necessary means;

(ii) central government would not concede those regional demands based exclusively upon religious differences; and

(iii) the demands for the creation of separate linguistic would not be conceded unless such a demand is socially wide and economically viable.

To illustrate, there could not be any singular construct or formation of the units of Indian federation. Units should be composite ones.

Such a composite unit could be formed only by mutual balancing of four principles which the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) underlined as:

(i) preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India;

(ii) linguistic and cultural homogeneity;

(iii) financial, economic and administrative considerations; and

(iv) successful working of the national plan.” Other factors like `peoples’ wishes’, ‘historicity of the region’, and ‘geographical contiguity’ could have only limited, but qualificatory application while (re) drawing the boundary of the units of the Indian Union.

Thus, wishes of the people can be acceptable as one of the yardsticks of territorial readjustment only when it is objectively ascertainable, and is subjected to the overall considerations of other important factors like “human and material resources of the areas claiming statehood, the wishes of substantial minorities, the essential requirements of the Indian Constitution and the larger national interests.”

Similarly, historicity of a region can be invoked only to the extent of determining the connectedness of the people with claimed territory, but it could not be stretched to an extent as to convert them into a separate nation.  Though geographical contiguity is of high value in determining and devising the boundary of a state, “it [however] does not necessarily imply or involve the need for a geographical frontier….”. Thus, while drawing the lines between two units, the primary concern as the SRC underlined should be of ensuring compactness of the units. Within the above totalistic approach to reorganisation, the Commission strongly recommended for the creation of large states.

“This, however”, as Commission writes, “does not mean that units should be so unwieldy as to be without any intrinsic life of their own or to defeat the very purpose for which larger units are suggested, i.e., administrative efficiency and coordination of economic development and welfare activity.” Thus, in the opinion of the Commission, the size principle must be balanced with viability principle.

This, in other words, means that the region seeking separate statehood must have “adequate financial resources to maintain itself and to develop its economy”. Though, Commission upheld the principle of internal homogeneity purely from the viewpoints of smooth functioning of administration, it, nonetheless, rejected the monolingual and uni-cultural construction of state.

It is precisely the reason that it rejected the ‘homeland concept’ and ‘one language one state’ formula for the reorganisation of the units of Indian federation. However, within the general principle of sizeable — composite state, a cultural group can have its own state when they do qualify the following two fold criteria:

“(a) the people claiming a distinctive culture must constitute a recognisable group; that is to say, it should include a number of persons sufficient by themselves to claim, conserve and develop stable traditions or the characteristics of their culture; and

(b) such cultural individuality should be capable of being expressed in terms of a defined and sizeable geographical entity.” 

However, such a cultural basis of states’ reorganisation should not impede the inter-mingling of two cultures and overall growth of composite national culture. What appears from above is, that every recognisable and dominant basis of states’ reorganisation must be subjected to the test of maintenance of national unity and integrity, and national security.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)