Over the last month – The agitation favouring division of Andhra Pradesh to create Telengana has gained momentum. The Shiv sena is all poised to put up a brave fight to achieve a comeback after its poll debacle – and has revived its once worryingly successful divisive politics of aggravating anti Maharashtrian feelings in Mumbai.
In days when we are steadily moving towards a world without walls, it is important to be aware of divisive forces. In a country as diverse as India there is no dearth of such forces.
Let us spend some time on the evidence base supporting the presumption that big and united is better. Historically large empires have lasted longer, at least in the context of the Indian subcontinent. The chunk of history occupied by Guptas, Mauryas or Mughals prove the point. Typically they had under their rule large geographical areas of the subcontinent. The quality of life under such inclusive regimes have been better compared to more turbulent, and relatively lawless parts of history.
However dynamics of society are quite different in the present time. A careful and unbiased exploration of issues surrounding fragmentation of a big country will reveal that there can be equally plausible arguments for and against creation of smaller states with decentralisation of power and responsibility. This does mean that the drive behind division should be carefully considered. If this is administrative convenience – in terms of more fair resource distribution, or greater ease in policing: it would make sense. Obviously in such exercises there must be a careful risk benefit assessment.
In India usually passions speak before reason. The drive for division often originates from narrow interpretations of cultural identity and historical existence that should ideally have made way for borders dictated by administrative needs. Telengana has been a historical state with Hyderabad as its capital – and hence should be reborn. If you go further back into the history of India the entire country has been cris-crossed by borders. How far do you go back in history and who decides which part of historical existence you accept and which parts you don’t?
Worse still when covert intentions like political ambitions of individuals or parties lead them to generate mass dissent – which is never hard work in a country like India. Typically they feed on the inherent weakness of a resource limited mass - There are only a handful of jobs to be had in Mumbai, so it is convenient to cut back the competition by excluding non Maharashtrians from participating in selection. And we can conveniently dress it up as Marathi manoos – Mumbai for Maharashtrians first. You are guaranteed to find buyers. Division sells.
And then there are secret beneficiaries. The congress NCP led government in Maharashtra has hardly ever demonstrated a honest intention of barely fulfilling their constitutional duties of punishing Shiv sena for promoting ill will amongst communities or destroying peace and tranquillity. The film industry has hardly succeeded in masking their true colours. When it comes to the business of protecting financial interests they have stood out as divided, and spineless. The democracy in India, especially in states like Maharashtra, is largely theoretical.
We would like to project an united India. However despite all our intentions, historically the age of such unity is only a century old. Before that there have been thousands of years of living in pockets of vested interests, under regimes of all sizes and colours. It is hardly surprising then that divisive forces exist in India. If we have to take steps forward it is important that before we create frther divisions in the shape of Telengana or Gorkhaland – we carefully analyse the motive behind the division and its fall out.
