In this essay we will discuss about regionalism in India. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Regionalism in Indian Politics 2. Regionalism and Monolithic Party System 3. Forms of Expression of Regionalism 4. Case for and against Regionalism.
List of Essays on Regionalism in India
Essay Contents:
- Essay on Regionalism in Indian Politics
- Essay on Regionalism and Monolithic Party System
- Essay on the Forms of Expression of Regionalism
- Essay on the Case for and against Regionalism
1. Essay on Regionalism in Indian Politics
:
In India regionalism is one of the heavy weights on country’s political system. It is not today but even before independence regionalism was used as a tool by British imperialists to promote their policy of keeping India divided.
Regionalism was deliberately encouraged by many with the result that the people of each region thought more in terms of their region rather than that of India as a whole Bengalis, Gujaratis, Marathis, Punjabis and what not were made conscious that they were the sons of the soil and that they should care for the development of their own region rather than that of the country as a whole.
After independence our national leaders made every attempt to make the people of India realise that they belonged to India as a whole. It was with this end in view that in India instead of double citizenship, only single citizenship was kept. A provision was made for unified judiciary.
All India Services and a strong central government, was envisaged though India was made a federal polity. In addition, in the constitution every step was taken to ensure that the feelings of regionalism were cut down from the very roots. But with the passage of time, it has become very clear that regional feelings very much thrive in India.
Local leaders, in order to maintain or rather strengthen their leadership, very much exploit regional feelings. They talk of regional imbalances and regional backwardness and try to exploit the feelings of the people of the land by pleading that central authorities are deliberately maintaining regional imbalances and trying to keep an area in state of backwardness.
They are made to feel that new industries are knowingly not being established in the area and thus the state is being economically as well as socially kept backward. Without caring for the realities and difficulties of the people these leaders exploit their sentiments make efforts to convince them that in the state means of transportation are not being developed, no educational centres being established and so on.
Not only this, but within the region itself, the feelings of sub-regionalism have become a force in Indian politics. In the formation of Ministries, in giving representation to people in local bodies, in high appointments and even in many cases in lower local jobs, each sub-region, in a region tries to see that it is properly represented.
Sub-regions clamour that within available resources whereas one area is being developed, the other is being ignored. In this way regionalism is getting more and more roots and it is becoming so deep rooted that its uprooting is becoming an uphill task.
2. Essay on Regionalism and Monolithic Party System:
It was hoped that monolithic political system in India, in which Congress party wa^in power both at the centre, as well as in the states, for a very long time, regionalism and sub-regionalism will be cmshed. But what in actual practice happened was that local leaders in order to establish their hold over the party, wanted to become regionally strong.
The idea being that their hold and prestige in the party at the national level will very much increase, only when they have leadership at the regional level. This was true to a large extent as well, because when a leader was disowned by the region, sooner or later his hold at the centre also began to weaken. In this way central and regional leadership became interlinked and this gave encouragement to regionalism.
Monolithic party system which prevailed in India between 1947 and 1967 became responsible for the growth of regionalism in another way also. Many local leaders and non-Congress political parties got convinced that unless they got grass roots at regional level, these will disappear from country’s political scene.
Thus, it was amply clear by now that at the centre Congress party was so fully deep rooted that it was difficult to up-root that. Thus regionalism began to be exploited. National Conference in J & K, Akali Dal in Panjab, DMK in Tamil Nadu, Asom Gantantra Parishad in Assam, Telugu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, etc., got roots and their local leaders began to get prominehce in their own states.
Since they had roots in the regions central leadership also could not ignore them and had to negotiate and settle issues with them. This made other local leaders to think in terms of local and regional politics in the country.
The situation became so serious that before 1980 election results were out, it was speculated all over India that era of coalition politics at the centre had ushered and at the national level, region will play a very pre-dominant and really effective role.
From all available accounts it is now becoming amply clear that regionalism is not on the decline. On the other hand, it is getting more deep rooted and even in the same political party the role of regional leadership can in no way be under-estimated or ignored.
It is now coming more and more on the surface and veil which local leaders wore, so that they were not branded as regionalist is being thrown away, except by few at the top, who really belong to the nation as a whole and not to any region.
3. Essay on the Forms of Expression of Regionalism:
Regionalism in India has assumed various forms and found in more than one way. Regionalism in this context is understood to mean as the feelings of the people and their love more for their own region than for the country as a whole. This is, of course, narrow and secretarian outlook but definitely more appealing for the people of region. When touched and exploited it becomes a sensitive issue.
In order to achieve targets an objective is fixed by regional leaders and placed before the masses and to achieve that even violent methods are adopted. By and large, in regionalism there is gap between theory and practice, whereas it is condemned in many ways in the open, it is encouraged behind the back.
Regionalism so far is means to an end and not an end in itself, because all at the helm fully well know that it means isolation and sooner or later ultimate destruction. It is used as stepping stone and as a pressure tactics for establishing supremacy, authority and grabbing of power.
Regionalism in India has found expression broadly in four forms namely:
(a) Secession from the Indian Union;
(b) Demands for separate statehood;
(c) Demand for full-fledged statehood; and
(d) Inter-State Disputes.
(a) Secession from Indian Union:
It is extreme form of regionalism in which region demands that it wants to break away from the Indian Union and instead wants to become purely separate and independent state, having nothing to do with Indian Union.
D.M.K. in Tamil Nadu, Akali Dal in Punjab and Mizos and Nagas in the North-East of India had been demanding secession from India for quite some-time, though these demands have now practically died down, for want of public support and hard attitude which the Government of India adopted towards such demands.
Demand for Dravida Nadu:
It was as early as in 1960 that in Madras two regional parties, namely, the DMK and New Tamil organised a campaign for secession of Madras from Indian Union and to establish in independent Tamilnad. The scope of the agitation thus launched was made somewhat broad based in 1961 when the agitators demanded that the states of Madras, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh should form a union.
It should secede from the Indian Union and form an independent Republic of Dravida Nadu. Meanwhile there was a split in the DMK party and some members of the organisation separated themselves from the main body and formed a new Tamil National Party under the leadership of E.V.K. Sampath.
He and his followers did not wish to immediately break away from Indian Union. On the other hand, they wanted that the Constitution of India should be amended.
In the amended constitution centre should be made weak and states powerful and strong. He also suggested that the states should be organised on linguistic basis and considerable autonomy should be given to them. He, however, wanted that the states should be given the right to break away from the Union, if these so liked.
Several prominent leaders who did not support the idea of breaking away from Indian Union gave this party a strong support. Undeterred by this split, DMK continued to propagate its ideology and began to get wide following.
In the state Assembly where it had only 15 seats at the time of second general elections, as a result of third general election its strength rose to 50 and so was the case with the Lok Sabha where its strength rose from 2 in 1957 to 7 in 1967.
As a regional leader C.N. Annadurai declared in 1962 that the central government was deliberately ignoring south India in matters of development. But more dangerous theory expounded by him being that the people of South India are of different stock from that of the North India.
But Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru declared, that “Territorial integrity of India would not allowed to be violated. Any attempt at Balkanisation of India would be resisted with all the force at our command.”
In order to save the situation from further worsening, of Parliament India passed Sixteenth Constitution Amendment Act by which it was provided that every candidate who wanted to contest elections to either Parliament or state legislature, will have to take an oath that he shall owe allegiance to the constitution of India and uphold its sovereignty and integrity.
In this way DMK party members were made to think to either take an oath and abandon the policy of secession from India or not to contest elections.
The party decided to follow the former course and instead of demanding Dravid Nad it now decided to create a demand for a Dravida Union. The proposed union was to include the states of Madras, Mysore, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.
It was to work within the steel frame of Indian Constitution, but to have maximum of powers. The Union was to pose no threat to the sovereignty and integrity of Indian Union. The party even now wants not only more powers but also many more financial resources.
In 1971, the State Chief Minister Karunanidhi declared that in case demand of the state for autonomy was not conceded, there would be no other alternative for the party but to again demand separation from the Indian Union. He repeated his threat both in 1973 and 1975 but all along now the state demanded more autonomy but no separation.
The central government, however, continued to hold the view that there was no need to amend the Constitution of India, to provide for more powers to the states in view of present national and international situation, though along with Tamil Nadu, J & K on the one hand and West Bengal on the other also started demanding more powers for the states.
DMK would have persisted in its demand and followed that more vigorously but there was split in the party when M. G. Ramachandran, a strong supporter of Chief Minister Karunanidhi, decided to break away from the party.
He founded a new party called All India Anna D.M.K. This new party threw Karunanidhi in political bewilderness.
In 1980, when Congress (I) party came to power at the centre, it dismissed Ramachandran Ministry in Tamil Nadu. In that year when elections to state Assembly were ordered DMK allied itself with Congress (I) but A.I. Anna DMK still managed to come back to power. M.G. Ramachandran continued to dominate political show of Tamil Nadu for about a decade. After his death his own party got divided into two parts.
When elections were held in Tamil Nadu in 1989 his party was routed and DMK under Karunanidhi came to power and formed a strong government. When elections to the State Assembly were again held AIADMK headed by Jayalalitha was returned to power and firmly held the sway over government.
Today neither DMK nor AI Anna DMK is demanding a break away from the Indian Union, though demand for more powers for the states is made quite now and then.
Sikhistan:
In Punjab for sometime there was a demand for Sikhistan. The British Government during its stay in India followed policy of creating splits among different communities and the Sikhs were not spared. They were given separate seats in Punjab Assembly under the Government of India Acts, 1919 and 1935.
When several Missions were sent to India by the British Government to negotiate with Indian political leadership and to find a solution to country’s political problems, the representatives of the Sikhs were also invited.
It was during this period that at times demand for Sikhistan was made some time in some quarters. It was as early as in 1949 that the Sikhs under Master Tara Singh declared that the Hindus of Punjab had become highly communalists and narrow minded and that the Sikhs could not hope to get any justice from them.
They, therefore, wanted that a separate Sikh Province should be created which should also include the areas comprising of PEPSU and Gurgaon. In 1956, States Re-organisation Commission’s report came out which did not recommend the creation of separate State of Punjab but declared that Punjab was a bilingual state in which Hindi and Punjabi should have equal right to develop.
The Sikhs now again demanded a separate Punjabi speaking state where they could develop their language and culture. When the Sikhs were demanding bifurcation of Punjab, some political and religious bodies like Jana Sangh and Arya Samaj were demanding creation of composite Punjab which should include not only present Punjab, but also Himachal Pradesh and PEPSU.
There were agitations from both the sides, each countering the other. These agitations continued till September, 1966, when Sant Fateh Singh, a religious Akali leader, announced his intention to bum himself alive in case his demand for the creation of separate Punjabi Suba was not conceded by 25th September 1966.
Ultimately Government of Smt Indira Gandhi bowed to the pressure which was ever mounting and agreed to the creation of a separate State of Punjab on November 1, 1966.
Prof. Giselhar Wirsingh, while analysing the background behind the acceptance of demand says, “Not only because of the chaotic condition in the Punjab but also because Indira Gandhi wanted to thus honour the Sikh soldiers and officers, who formed about 20 per cent of Indian army, for their valour in Indo-Pakistan war.”
In the new born state Punjab got a population 11.5 million. But situation did not much improve. Both Punjab and Haryana demanded Chandigarh for themselves. Whereas Darshan Singh Pheruman sacrificed his life for the sake of Chandigarh for Punjab, Sant Fateh Singh declared that he will go on fast unto ‘death in case Chandigarh was not transferred to Punjab.
When no solution of the problem appeared in sight, both Punjab and Haryana left to the Prime Minister to give her decision on the future of this territory. According to the award Punjab could get Chandigarh and in return transfer the districts of Aboher and Fazilka to Haryana.
It was also said that till Haryana constructs its new capital, Chandigarh will remain the capital of both the states and that till such transfers were made Chandigarh was to remain a union territory. Punjab was willing to get Chandigarh but not prepared to transfer Aboher and Fazilka even today to Haryana with the result that it remains a Union Territory districts, though much time has since then passed.
But creation of separate Punjabi Suba did not satisfy all Punjabi leaders. Dr. Jagjit Singh, General Secretary of Sant Fateh Singh group played with the idea of establishment of an independent Socialist Democratic Sikh Home Land in North India. Dr. Jagjit Singh went even abroad to mobilise public opinion for the creation of Sikh homeland.
He mooted the idea of setting up Rebel Sikh Government at Nankana Sahib, the birth place of Guru Nanak Dev, now in Pakistan. It is believed that Pakistan Government agreed to give Vetican status to Nankana Sahib and provided facilities to Dr. Jagjit Singh to broadcast from radio Pakistan.
These activities of Dr. Jagjit Singh were not approved by Akali Dal leadership, who decided to expel him from the party and thus his evil designs were brought to an end.
Akali Dal leadership has fully well realised that it is not possible to have Sikhistan, as a separate independent state outside the Indian Union. They, therefore, started demanding like DMK in Tamil Nadu, that the states should be given more powers and autonomy.
According to them the centre should have only few subjects with it, whereas all other subjects should be transferred to the states. Some of them have started alleging that state’s interests are being ignored by the central government and that Congress leaders of the state are not representing the demands of the people forcefully and in proper perspective.
In 1977, when Janata Government came to power at the centre Akali Dal was returned to power in the state. Both worked very harmoniously and no demand for separate Sikh homeland was put forward. In 1980, Congress (I) came to power both at the centre and in Punjab.
It was hoped that some harmony will prevail but the State continued to remain in the grip of violence, throughout Congress (I) rule till 1989. It had to be placed under President’s rule for long spells.
In 1989, National Front government came to power at the Centre. The new government decided to solve Punjab problem with the cooperation of other political parties and immediately convened all party meeting to solve the issue. But it went out of power after about a year and the situation remained unchanged.
Terrorism in Punjab:
In Punjab some Sikh organisations assembled at Anand Pur Sahib and passed what is known as Anand Pur Sahib resolution. This has been differently interpreted by different people. Whereas according to some it only aims at more autonomy, the others opine that its objective is to have a separate state of Khalistan.
But some misguided youth under the influence and with the active support of some foreign powers, started terrorism in Punjab, under Sant Bhindrawala.
The aim of these foreign powers was to destabilise India. The terrorists, belonging to a particular community began to murder the innocent people and created a cult of violence.
Religious places were used as hideouts and ammunitions supplied by foreign powers were used for looting of banks, government and, public property, killing of bus passengers and creating a sense of fear and terror in the minds of the people. They acted in such a planned way that the people belonging to that particular community began to migrate to other states to save their lives.
The people and government, however, very boldly faced the situation and made it clear to the terrorists in the state and foreign powers abroad that in no case their designs will be allowed to succeed. All steps were taken to isolate the terrorists and thus situation was very considerably brought under control.
Both the Congress (I) and National Front government have made it amply clear that there will be no yielding before terrorism and every solution will be only within the frame work of Indian Constitution.
Elections to the state Assembly were held in spite of strong opposition of many political parties as a result of which Congress (I) came to power. Chief Minister Beant Singh and State Director General of Police K.P. S. Gill skillfully handled the situation and have brought militancy under control. In mid 1995, Chief Minister became victim of bullets of militants when he was coming out of his office but on the whole militancy in Punjab is under control.
Demand for a separate state outside the Indian Union has practically come to an end. What is now demanded is more powers for states in general and settlement of water and territorial disputes with neighbouring states in particular.
Mizo Demand:
Some Mizos of Assam also put forth a demand that they should be separated from India. They are about 2,00,000 in India and some of them are settled in Burma and Bangladesh. They demanded a separate state of Mizoram outside the Union of India and in order to press their demand they organised themselves in a political Front (Mizo National Front).
Obviously such a demand could not be accepted by the government and Mizos in turn started violent course of action to get their demand accepted.
They started guerilla warfare and began to kill those who did not see eye to eye with them. It is believed that they got active support from China and Pakistan, both in men, money and material. The Mizos were trained, it is said, on Chinese soil and returned to India fully equipped to create a situation of anarchy in the country.
In 1962, when China invaded India, the Government of India felt that it was dangerous and not in the interest of national security to allow MNF to continue its activities with the result that under Defence of India Rules the Front was declared illegal. But the Mizos continued their activities and spread these to Cachar District of Assam.
The Government of India also took all precautionary measures to see that Mizos did not create serious problems in the country. Civil administration came under heavy strains, both due to violent activities of the Mizos and counter activities of the government.
In the wake several civilians were killed by violent Mizos and in turn government killed and arrested quite a large number of them. With the help of several laws and ordinances every effort was made to contain disruptive activities of the Mizos.
It was early in 1971 that a three member delegation of National Mizo Front headed by its President met Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi and explained to her the background of their agitation. According to them the Mizos were frustrated because under the British rule they were bitterly divided and kept in a state of continued economic backwardness.
They now demanded not a separate Mizo union outside India but referendum over the question of statehood for Mizoram. The government, keeping their aspirations in view decided to make Mizo Hill area as Union Territory, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister herself on 21st January, 1972. It was named Mizoram.
But there were still many extremists and hard core Mizos headed by Laldenga who were not satisfied with the arrangement. They wanted that a separate Mizo state outside the Union of India which they argued could satisfy them. They continued their guerilla activities. It is alleged that some of them went to China to learn the latest techniques of this type of warfare.
Meanwhile government also continued to tighten its control.
But Government of India continued to keep the doors of negotiations open and also offered that it will be prepared to negotiate in case the Mizos agreed to withdraw their hostilities, give up demand for a separate state outside India and owed allegiance to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The talks between the rebel Mizos and the Government of India held both in 1973 and 1974 failed, as the Government felt that the demands put forth by the Mizos were absolutely unacceptable. In December, 1974 hard core faction of Mizo section issued a notice to all Indian nationals to leave the territory and in case they failed to do so, they will be taking a grave risk at their own cost.
In January, 1975 these people killed Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police of Mizoram and thus created an unbearable situation. In order to bring the situation under control government deployed armed forces and combed the area to catch the rebels.
The operations had the desired effect and created confidence among the people. The government also decided that it would hold no talks now with the rebels unless they declared their intention to give up violence. On the other hand, Mizos claimed that the security forces were committing many atrocities and the people were being forced to join the rank of the rebels.
In 1976 Laldenga, the leader of rebel Mizo declared that he had decided to give up violent course and was prepared to settle Mizo problem within steel frame work of Indian Constitution. In July 1976, an agreement was signed between the Government of India and Laldenga by which it was decided that all disputes and problems between Mizos and the central government will be solved without the use of violent means.
But in March 1977, this agreement was violated when Laldenga launched a massive drive to enrol his followers and again began to follow violent means. Thus, there once again started an era of political instability in the area. Mizoram has since become a state in the Indian Union and Mizos have given up their demand for a separate state outside the Indian Union. They are now very much trying to flow in the national mainstream.
In March, 1981 Laldenga submitted a proposal to the Prime Minister for solving Mizo problem. He suggested greater Mizoram containing some parts of Tripura, Manipur and Assam. In 1982, the Centre banned M.N.F. In 1984, Laldenga was called to India and prolonged discussions followed which ended only by the end of December, 1985.
In August, 1986 a Congress (I) and M.N.F. government was formed under Laldenga, which thus ended an era of insurgency. Since then elections are held in Mizoram, like every other Indian state. Mizoram is now a comparatively peaceful state.
Demand for Nagaland:
Nagas are about 4,00,000 in number and settled mostly in Assam and Tuengsang division near Indo-Burmese frontier and some of them are settled in Manipur. The Nagas, after the independence of India demanded that they should be separated from India. Under the leadership of Zago Phizo they set up a separate Naga National Council and started their agitation.
In 1950, in a plebicite arranged by Phizo, the Nagas almost unanimously favoured the formation of an independent Naga state.
First General Elections in India were held in 1952 but Phizo organised boycott of these elections and he was a success too. He was not satisfied with that and declared that the question of a separate sovereign and independent state of Nagaland will be taken to U.N.O.
As the time however passed, with that the whole movement became violent and the Nagas began to kill those whom they considered as their enemy. In order to counter their activities, the Government of India took necessary counter measures and deployed army to control the situation. It is estimated that about 300 Nagas were killed in the operations.
Meanwhile there were some leaders among the Nagas, who did not follow this policy or approve Phizo line of action. They met the Prime Minister in September, 1956 and demanded that the Nagas should be united and brought under one single administration. Prime Minister Nehru was willing to meet such a demand provided the Nagas restored peace and agreed to settle every problem within the frame work of the constitution, without prejudicing country’s sovereignty and integrity.
In 1957, a convention of loyal Nagas was convened in Kohima which adopted a resolution demanding integration of Naga areas under a single administrative unit, which should work under the supervision and control of Ministry of External Affairs.
The demand for independent Naga state was thus dropped. The convention also appealed to the rebel Nagas to give up violence and co-operate with the Government of India so that the Nagas could develop and prosper. In 1960, the Government of India signed an agreement with the Naga People’s Convention about the settlement of the problem of the Nagas.
The government agreed that it will try to give the Nagas a separate statehood, but till that stage reached, Nagaland (Transitional Provisional) Regulations were announced by the government According to these Regulations:
(a) In Nagaland a body of elected representatives of Naga tribes will be set up with a maximum strength of 45. Out of this five members will be picked up as members of advisory body, which will advise the Governor in the discharge of his obligations. This advisory body will be named as Executive Council.
(b) It will be the responsibility of this body to frame schemes of the development of Nagaland.
(c) The body shall have advisory role.
It was on 18th February, 1961 that the Executive Council took oath with Dr. Shilu AO as its Chairman. On 21st August, 1962, Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Act was introduced, which was passed on 4th September, 1962. With this Nagaland was given full-fledged statehood, as 16th State of Indian Union.
It was formally inaugurated on 1st December of the same year. Later early in January 1964 elections to the state Assembly were hold and Naga nationalist party headed by Dr. Shilu AO was returned to power.
But this arrangement did not satisfy extremist Nagas under the leadership of Phizo and they became more desperate. They wanted to ensure that the new experiment was a failure. Not only this, but they became violent and killed Chief Minister Shilu AO. Phizo escaped to London to get the support of western world for the Naga cause; his chief supporter abroad being Rev Michael Scott.
They travelled to New York in a bid to get Nagaland issue on UN agenda, but their efforts failed.
Then Phizo and his hard core supporters turned to China and Pakistan for their support for the Naga cause. It is believed, they received support in abundance from these countries. They got facilities for training in guerilla warfare and both in amis and ammunition. Financial support too was not lacking.
Thus Nagas were equipped and trained in both these countries. They became now more violent and killing the people did not matter much with them. Their activities became all time brisk in 1973. But the government was not at all deterred by these. It look all such measures which it could take so that the Naga problem was solved.
Finding the attitude of the Government of India too hard and counter measures too effective many hard core rebel Nagas even realised that no useful purpose would be served by continuing violent and underground activities. The result was that they came out and decided to co-operate with the Government of India.
The government in its turn made it quite clear that it will not negotiate with Phizo and his followers, unless they agreed to find a solution to the problem within steel frame work of Indian constitution. It was also made clear that Phizo will not be allowed to enter India till then. All violent and revolutionary Naga bodies were declared unconstitutional and their activities banned.
But in spite of all these repressive measures some of the Nagas were not prepared to give up their violent approach. For them still their aim was a free independent and sovereign Naga state outside India. As late as in 1975, the news which reached the government were that many of them were still making their way to China to procure arms and get training from that country so as to enable them to create disturbances in India.
But the government continued to take all precautionary and other measures so that hostile Nagas were contained within their limits. About 200 such Nagas were arrested. In November, 1975 however, an agreement was reached between the Government of India and hostile Nagas in which the former agreed to release all detained Nagas and withdraw charges of violence and other offences, now levied against them.
In turn the Nagas agreed to give up their violent activities and also surrender all arms and ammunition. They also agreed to find a solution to every problem within Indian Constitution by peaceful means. It was also provided in the agreement that undergrounds Nagas would formulate proposals for resolving other problems of Nagaland.
But unfortunately this accord too did not last long, as many underground Nagas started violating that.
They still continued to depend on foreign powers, for arms, ammunition, etc. and used to take such violent steps by which horror could be created in the minds of the people of the state. For them exiled Phizo was still their leader. In June, 1977, the then Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai had a meeting with Phizo, in London in a bid to Find a solution to Nagaland problem, but nothing solid came out of that.
Vast majority of the Nagas has, however, now come within the peace movement. They are agreeable and have reconciled themselves to the idea that all efforts to create a separate independent state of Nagaland outside the Indian Union will be futile attempt and of no avail.
It is also accepted by them that the people of Nagaland can prosper and develop only when they contribute their mite to the task of reconstruction and development of the state.
But still some hard core persist and it can be reasonably hoped that with the passage of time, even these people will also appreciate reality and join the main stream of state life. Demand for a separate state of Nagaland has practically died down and there is a realisation that India will never allow a separate Naga state outside Indian Union.
(b) Demand for Separate Statehood:
Another form in which regionalism has found an expression in India is that some of the areas have been demanding separate state, where the people of the area could develop their culture and language. The problem here is much less serious, as compared with regionalism which finds expression in the form of a demand for separation and complete going out from Indian Union.
Because in this case all that is wanted is that a new state, out of the existing state or states, should be created.
The States Reorganisation Commission had made certain recommendations about the reorganisation of states or linguistic basis, but as already pointed out, these recommendations created several serious problems and those regions which were not satisfied with its report turned out violent and in many parts of the country there were violent demonstrations showing their resentment.
Some sections of society demanded creation of separate states for their linguistic areas, etc.
Creation of Gujarat and Maharashtra:
States Reorganisation Commission had recommended that Bombay should remain a bilingual state, but also suggested the creation of a separate state of Vidarbha, by adding some areas of Madhya Pradesh.
There was violence in the state and two separate organisations, namely, Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti and Maha Gujarat Janata Parishad were founded, which struggled for the creation of two separate states of Gujarat and Maharashtra.
Both these Samitis got sufficient support from the masses. During Second General Elections both these parties won good number of seats in the state legislatures. In August 1959, Congress Working Committee decided to bifurcate the state and in May 1960, two separate states of Gujarat and Maharashtra came into being.
Demand for Separate Vidarbha State:
The States Reorganisation Commission had recommended the creation of a separate State of Vidarbha. This was, however, not accepted by the government, which very much frustrated the people of the area. In 1960, the government, however, decided to bifurcate Bombay that resulted in the demand for the creation of separate State of Vidarbha once again.
But again it was turned down. In order to forcefully and effectively press their demand the people of the region organised Nag Viderbha Andolan Samiti, which also organised violent demonstrations near Nagpur city.
The assurance of Government of Bombay that Vidarbha area will be given special representation and finances for its development, which will be in proportion to the population of the region, did not satisfy them.
The government, however, did not agree to the creation of separate state of Vidarbha. These days the movement has practically come to an end.
Bifurcation of Punjab:
Some of the Sikhs had been demanding for quite some time back the creation of a separate state of Sikhistan outside the Union of India. But such a demand had no mass support. Those who made such attempts thus found themselves isolated.
But they forcefully demanded that they should have a state where Punjabi culture could he fully developed. The result was that composite Punjab was divided into two separate states of Punjab and Haryana in November, 1966.
Demand for Jharkhand:
The demand for Jharkhand was put forth as early as in 1988 and since then it is being peristingly made. The tribals living in some parts of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal are demanding a separate state for having their cultural and economic development.
When their repeated requests were not heeded by the Government of India in 1988, they organised massive rallies and also economic blockade in Jharkhand areas.
They even prevented the outward movement of commodities. In 1989, they made it clear to the government that they will not be satisfied with anything less than an independent state comprising of contiguous tribal areas of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal.
The leadership even threatened of setting up of parallel government and shall have its own revenue and political officials. But situation was not allowed to be worsened because the government took timely action before the situation went out of control.
Mean time Rajiv Gandhi government also set up a committee to examine the demand. Violent demonstrations meantime, however, continued. The committee in its report submitted in 1990 was of the view that the Union Territory of Jharkhand or a Jharkhnad General Council should be created but did not accept the idea of separate state of Jharkhand for several reasons.
But this recommendation of the committee was not accepted by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha which insisted on the formation of independent Jharkhand state. In September, 1992, Jharkhand leaders organised 15 days economic blockade to pressurise the government to accept their demand for a full fledged state.
But that did not prove much success. The state of Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, etc., are opposed to the creation of this new state. They feel that even if this new state is created that will not be economically viable. The demand is, however, being persistently and consistently made.
Demand for Konkan State:
Konkan region consists of coastal regions of Maharashtra and the people have started demanding a separate state for themselves, primarily because they allege that the Government of Maharashtra did not pay much attention to redress their grievances.
The leadership feels that under the existing arrangement the region cannot economically develop. The demand has, however, now not very vigorous. Meantime Konkani has been included as a language in the Eighth schedule of the constitution.
Demand for the Creation of Hill States:
All Party Hill Leaders Conference demanded a separate hill state to be carved out of existing Assam State. On the other hand, the government suggested that in Assam there should be two units one each comprising of plane and hill areas. Each unit will have maximum powers, whereas regional federation will have some selected subjects.
But after some time Assam Pradesh Congress Committee came out with the idea that composite culture of Assam could not be developed, if hill and plain areas were thus divided.
This was responded by All Party Hill Leaders Conference in sufficient measure and in December 1967, they demanded that in case their demand for the creation of hill state was not immediately met they will resign their seats from the legislature.
Actually the members representing Khasi Jaintia and Garo Hills resigned their seats from the Assembly in May 1968. There were hartals and peaceful demonstrations in the state. Ultimately government agreed to the demand and Maghalaya State was created in April 1970.
Bengali speaking people of Cachar District demanded a separate state of their own in Assam. But this demand was turned down. Whereas Bengalis in Assam were demanding creation of a state, the Assamese organised themselves into Lachit Sena which demanded that all non-Assamese should leave the state. The Government of Assam took an indifferent view of the agitation and the agitators became active.
They boycotted republic day celebrations held in January, 1968. There were some violent demonstrations as well. The result was that central government instructed the state government to deal strictly with the agitators.
The agitation slowly died down. But in 1979, All Assam Student Union and some other organisations started an agitation that all foreign nationals, who do not belong to Assam should be identified and thrown out of the state.
The agitation included boycotting and picketing of state and central government offices in the state, hartals blockading of traffic, both land and air and disrupting of supplies of goods to be sent to other states, out of Assam. The agitation had wide support from the people of Assam. Several attempts made by central and state leaders to satisfy them produced no effect.
The agitators continued to press their demand that all foreign nationals, who came to the state after 1951 should be sent out of it. The offer of the Prime Minister, that no year should be fixed, but the task of identification should be started with 1971, was not accepted by these leaders.
The agitation under Asom Gantantra Parishad proved a success and when elections were held in the state the Parishad won absolute majority in the state legislature and also won many Lok Sabha seats. On 15th August 1985 Assam Accord was signed between All Assam Student Union which was organising the agitation and the Government of India.
By this it was agreed that the base date for detection and deletion shall be 1.1.1966 and with this problem found a peaceful solution. But the problem in one way or the other still crops up from time to time.
Problem in Andhra Pradesh:
Regionalism raised its head in Andhra Pradesh in a very forceful manner. The States Reorganisation Commission had recommended that Telugu speaking areas of Hyderabad should be united with Andhra Pradesh but this step could not be immediately taken because there was every fear that these people might be exploited by more educated and advanced people of Andhra.
It, therefore, recommended that there should be a separate Telengana State.
But after Third General Elections a demand was made that if 2/3 majority of legislators of Telengana decided for merger with Andhra then step towards merger might be taken. But the government decided that both Andhra and Telengana should remain together.
Accordingly an agreement was reached between the two regions in which it was provided that a regional committee would be set up to solve the problems of Telengana.
The members belonging to this region would automatically be members of the committee .It was also agreed that revenue which would come from this region would be spent on its development. Another salient point of the agreement was that the people of Telengana would get all senior posts falling vacant in that region.
At the political level it was provided that the state shall have a Deputy Chief Minister, in addition to Chief Minister and that both of them will not belong to the same region.
Though the agreement was signed in 1956, yet it did not work well and in 1960 there was a wide spread demand by the people of Telengana that they should get a separate state. Peaceful agitations were started, though subsequently these became violent. It took a turn for such worse and army had to be called to control the situation. There was burning of private property and firing by police on the demonstrators.
But many prominent leaders extended their support to the movement started by the Telengana Praja Samiti. Several assurances by the Prime Minister that the people of Telengana region would be given fair deal did not serve the purpose. The agitation had the support of several political parties.
The Congress party workers and leaders formed a separate body, called ‘The Telengana Congress Committee. Cabinet Ministers in the Andhra cabinet belonging to Telengana region resigned. But in spite of all this in August 1969, the Government of India decided not to create a separate Telengana state. In turn Telengana members of Andhra Legislature decided not to extend their support to the government.
In 1970, when the elections were round the corner, Prime Minister wanted to have some compromise with the agitators, so that Congress came out victorious in the state. She promised that a separate state of Telengana would be carved out in 1977, in case 2/3 legislators of that region at that time so wanted. But the proposal was turned down and the Smiti decided to contest the Lok Sabha elections as a separate party.
It won 10 out 14 seats in the state.
After the elections negotiations, however, again started and following agreement was reached between the Samiti and the Congress party:
(a) The Smiti will merge itself with the Congress party.
(b) After a lapse of three years the Prime Minister will decide whether there should be a separate Telengana state or not.
(c) Telengana Regional Committee will be given a statutory status.
(d) There will be a separate five year plan for the region.
(e) That a person from Telengana region will be State Chief Minister.
(f) Constitutional validity of Mulki rules regarding employment will not be challenged.
But this agreement divided the Samiti. Some of the leaders of the movement were not at all satisfied with this and wanted a separate Telengana state. The agitation was continued by them. In 1972, some of the state leaders demanded that Andhra should be made a separate state and they started agitation for this, which soon took a violent turn.
Army had to be called to control the situation. In order to control the situation the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi gave her formula about enforcement of Mulki rules ‘which had become a bone of contention’. Whereas Andhra region demanded its abolition, Telengana region wanted its strict enforcement.
But formula did not solve the problem and agitation practically brought civil administration to a stand still and ultimately President rule was imposed in the state in January, 1978. Meanwhile efforts were made to reach a settlement. A new formula was put forth to solve the tangle.
According to this formula Telengana Regional Committee will cease to exist and Mulki rules will be abolished. In all matters of recruitments to the lower posts, local candidates will be given preference. In order to look into the grievances of civil servants a high power tribunal will be set up and there will be a state level Planning Board with sub-committees for different backward areas.
It was also provided that a central university will set up at Hyderabad. In order to give effect to these decisions Constitution Thirty Third Amendment Act was passed in December, 1973.
But formula did not work and a new committee, called Telengana Rights Protection Committee was formed in 1974. The aim of the committee was to launch an agitation for the creation of a separate state of Telengana. It appeared that the situation which had been brought under control with great difficulty, was likely to again go out of control. But it did not so happen.
There was no agitation in the state on this issue during emergency period. When Janata party came to power in the centre in 1977, Congress party continued to remain in office in the state. During this period of Janata rule and thereafter, the state has remained comparatively free from this agitation. Demand for separate state of Telengana has practically ended.
Demand of Gorkha Land:
The Gorkhas living in hill areas of West Bengal, particularly in Darjeeling are demanding a separate Gorkha Land. Under the leadership of Subash Ghising they started agitation which at times look a violent turn which resulted in great loss of lives and property.
The Government of India and Government of West Bengal, however, took a strong attitude and made it amply clear that there was no scope for the creation of a separate state for the Gorkhas to be carved out from existing West Bengal.
Ultimately Gorkha National Liberation Front which was launching the agitation agreed to sit on the negotiation table and agreed to the formation of an autonomous Gorkha Council within the state of West Bengal.
The Council has since been formed and enjoys considerable autonomy. GNLF swept the polls during the first elections to the Council. But its leader Subhash Ghising has alleged that West Bengal government is creating problems in the smooth working of the Council.
In 1992, he again revived his demand for a separate Gorkhaland within the Indian Union. He is not happy with the inclusion of Nepali in the Eighth schedule of the constitution.
Bordo Land:
The Bordos in Assam have launched an agitation for the formation of separate state out of existing stale of Assam. They have also been organising bandhs disturbing normal life in the state under All Bodo Student Union.
They have, however, agreed to come to negotiation table. Negotiations have already started between their representatives with representatives of Assam government and those of central government. But no solution to the problem has been found as yet.
Demand for Uttrakhand:
Hill regions of U.P. have put forth a strong demand for the creation of a separate state of Uttrakhand. U.P. State Assembly has also recommended its formation. The hill leaders are very much agitating for that. The agitation at times becomes every violent but the people of the area are determined to continue with their agitation till their demand is fully met.
In fact, demands for the creation of new states are pouring in from many quarters, e.g., there is demand for Mithilanchal in Bihar, Chhatisgarh and Mahakoshal in Madhya Pradesh. Bhoj Pur and Bundel Khand in U.P. to quote few of the many examples.
There is also a demand for the creation of a separate Jharkand state. In Haryana there was and continues a demand for the creation of ‘Vishal Haryana’ which it is claimed should include some districts of Western UP and Rajasthan, in addition to present state of Haryana.
(c) Demand for Full-Fledged Statehood:
Before the passing States Reorganisation Act, India was divided into Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D states. But after the passing of the Act whole of India was divided into two parts, namely, the States and Union Territories. Regionalism found its expression here also when Union Territories demanded that these should be given full-fledged status, as without that it will not be possible for them to develop the area.
The agitation in these Union Territories became so intense that the then Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs declated that government’s policy towards Union Territories was either to merge them with bigger state or to give them statehood.
This very much intensified agitation in these territories and with the passage of time the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa got full statehood. But real problem in this regard still exists in so far as Delhi is concerned.
The people of Delhi have been clamouring for a very long time for full-fledged statehood. But central government is of the view that since Delhi is capital of whole of India, therefore, it is essential that central government should have effective control over the territory.
The result is that the people have not have given statehood. A semi-democratic set up in the form of Metropolitan Council was given to Delhi but that too did not much satisfy the people. Janata Party in its election manifesto in 1977 promised that in case it was returned to power, it would give full statehood to Delhi. But during its stay of 2 ½ years the party could not give statehood to Delhi.
The Congress (I) party in its election manifesto issued for 1980 elections also promised statehood for Delhi but that too did not keep the promise. The demanding is presisting. The Government set up Sarkaria Commission to examine set up for Delhi.
Meantime the life of Delhi Metropolitan Council was extended on the plea that elections to the Council will be held only after the report of Sarkaria Commission was available and government had taken a decision on that.
In 1989, general election for the Lok Sabha were held and National Front government came to power with the support B.J.P. which committed itself to giving statehood to Delhi. But that could not do much because after about a year government fell down because of withdrawal of support from the government by B.J.P.
After the elections held in 1991 Congress (I) came to power at the centre with BJ.P.as the main opposition party in both the Houses of Parliament. It persisted in its demand for statehood for Delhi and holding of elections.
The Government decided to have Legislative Assembly for the state with limited powers. Elections to the Legislative Assembly of capital National Region of Delhi were held in 1993 and B.J.P. emerged as a majority party.
It formed government under Madan Lai Khurana. In February 1996, Madan Lai Khurana had to resing due to his alleged links with what is called Hawala case and Sahib Singh Verma became new Chief Minister of Delhi.
(d) Inter-State Disputes:
Another form in which regionalism in India has found expression is inter-state disputes. Each state has a tendency to have maximum resources at its disposal, so that the state can be fully well developed. But India being a vast country and states having artificial boundaries, sometimes two or more states stake their claims and rights either on resources or territories which do not at that time belong to them.
Since no political leader is prepared to renounce his claim once made, because of his losing popularity, the claims are got reinforced by public opinion every time and sometimes these become serious and continue to linger on for years together.
Punjab-Haryana Dispute over Chandigarh:
Chandigarh was the capital of composite Punjab, before the bifurcation of state into Punjab and Haryana. When the central government ultimately agreed to bifurcate the state, Chandigarh became a bone of contention. Both Punjab and Haryana staked their claim over the territory and some leader from both sides threatened fasts unto death, in case their claim was not accepted.
There were also violent demonstrations in both the states. Ultimately the then Prime Minister, to whom the matter was referred for decision, decided that Chandigarh would go to Punjab, if in turn Punjab agreed to give parts of Aboher and Fazilka districts to Haryana, for which, former was not prepared. When Rajiv-Longowal accord was signed again several attempts were made to resolve the issue.
The dispute still continues, and Chandigarh at present continues to be the capital of both the states. Both Punjab and Haryana are at present reconciled to the solution of Chandigarh remaining a Union Territory under direct control of central government. Both the states are even now not prepared to unconditionally give Chandigarh to the other party.
Mysore-Maharashtra Boundary Dispute:
Regionalism found a good expression in Maharashtra-Mysore boundary dispute, which started with the reorganisation of Bombay in 1960. Marathi speaking people wanted to have with them Belgaum and Karwar, which had been added to Mysore.
For the purpose they organised Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. In March, Bombay Legislative Assembly passed a resolution by which central government was urged to decide boundary dispute immediately.
But the situation became complex because Mysore state was not in favour of disturbing the status quo. In April, 1966 Maharashtra Government passed a resolution by which central government was asked to merge Marathi speaking areas with Maharashtra by February 1967. In October 1966, the Union Government appointed Maher Chand Mahajan Commission to make recommendations about solving the dispute.
But at the very outset Mysore Government made it clear that it was not prepared to reopen the question of transfer of Marathi speaking areas to Maharashtra. It was in for only marginal adjustments. This had chain reaction in which Shiv Sena started violent agitation against South Indians living in Maharashtra.
In Madras Anti Shiv Sena movement started in which North Indians living in the South were asked to quit. There was violence everywhere in which neither life nor properly was secure.
It was in this tense atmosphere that Mahajan Commission report was made public. It was rejected by Sampoorna Maharashtra Samiti, which wanted that Marathi speaking areas should immediately be transferred to Maharashtra. Naturally Mysore demanded that recommendations of the Commission should be both accepted as well as implemented.
Since the central government did not wish to displease any of the states, on 18th December, 1970 the government decided to place the report of the Commission before the Parliament.
But this was very much resented by Mysore Government and in the state there were violent demonstrations as a protest against the delay in the implementation of the Report of Mahajan Commission. But this was a welcome step for Maharashtra and at this point of time both Shiv Sena and Government of Maharashtra acted with some restraint.
But violence again broke out when there was prolonged delay in the transfer of Belgaum to Maharashtra in which several persons were killed.
In December 1973, Chief Ministers of both the states met at New Delhi but nothing concrete came out of that with the result that early in January 1974 violence again started in which private firms and hotels, etc., were assaulted by Shiv Sena workers. It was only in 1975 that the dispute was settled between the two states.
Boundary Dispute between Assam and Nagaland:
Since long both Nagaland and Assam have been disputing over the possession of a cluster of settlement in Doyeng forest results. Even there were violent clashes in 1985 resulting in loss of lives.
In April 1989, an Accord was signed between the then two Chief Ministers of the concerned states and it was hoped that the problem has now amicably been solved, but soon after violent clashes again broke out resulting in the loss of more than 20 lives. In a bid to resolve the issue the two Chief Ministers decided to erect boundary pillars to defuse the tension and to once for all find a solution of the problem.
But the problem between the two states still continues and a solution is not in sight.
Boundary Dispute between Assam and Mizoram:
Assam has boundary dispute with the comparatively newly formed state of Mizoram. Dispute is over border area of Warrengty-Lailapur. The differences between the two states assumed such serious magnitude that Central government had to intervene. At present both the states have agreed that they will honour the demarcation of boundary as demarcated by Survey of India in consultation with both the states.
Boundary Dispute between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh:
The new born state of Arunachal Pradesh put forward its claim on some territories which are now in Assam. The areas include Likabli, Kiming, Dirpai and some other territories. Assam is, however, not prepared to accept this claim and has approached the Supreme Court for resolving the dispute, which still continues.
Disputes over Use of Water Resources:
There is no river in India which flows through one state only. Every river passes through two or more states. In the past water used to create havoc and floods and as such the importance of water resources was not fully appreciated. But today in many cases water has been harnessed and thus it has become a source of great strength. Every state wants to use water to its advantage.
Thus, regionalism has found its place in the use of water resources as well. In each case several states get involved and, in the process solution becomes difficult because each Chief Minister thinks of his own state alone and does not care much for the interests of other states.
First important dispute was over the use of water resources of three rivers namely, Narbada, Krishna and Cauvery, in which states of MP, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra were involved. Whereas Maharashtra and Rajasthan could arrive at a conclusion the claims of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh had to be referred to a tribunal set up by the central government.
But that also could not find out a solution acceptable to the disputing parties. It was, however, in March 1975 that the then Union Agriculture Minister, could successfully convince all the disputing states to accept a solution put forth by him and thus matter came to an end.
Then another dispute was among the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh over the use and distribution of waters of Krishna river. It was referred in April, 1969 to a tribunal headed by Justice R.S. Bachhawat. Though the Commission submitted an unanimous report, yet it was not acceptable to both Karnataka and Andhra, but had to be accepted because it was unanimous report of a tribunal.
Dispute also arose over the use of Cauvery waters among the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka. It was, however, settled by then Union Minister of Agriculture Jagjiwan Ram. Under the agreement it was provided that Cauvery Valley Authority will be set up, which will contain representatives of the states concerned and will also be presided over by an officer of the central government.
The decisions of the authority were made final and binding.
Not much progress, however, could be made to resolve the dispute Tamil Nadu government alleged that Karnataka government was cutting its water supply to Thanjavur delta, thus, adversely affecting its economy.
Since the settlement was getting delayed and tension between the two states was increasing, therefore, matter was referred to Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal which on June 25, 1991 passed an interim order, which was not acceptable to Karnataka.
It not only refused to accept it but also issued an ordinance countering the effect of the interim order. On the other hand, Tamil Nadu government insisted on its implementation and even threatened that its M.Ps. in the Parliament would resign, if the order was not immediately notified in the Gazette of India.
There were also violent clashes in both the states forcing the central government to send para military forces to Karnataka.
It was in these circumstances that President referred the matter to Supreme Court for advice. But violence continued in Karnataka which resulted in the migration of thousands of Tamils from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.
In order to pressurise the central government to notify the order and to implement interim order of the Commission Tamil Nadu Chief Minister in July 1993 went on a day’s fast which was broken only on receiving an assurance from the central government that a committee would be appointed to monitor the implementation of interim order.
But this step of the central government was not approved by Karnataka government.
In 1996 dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over Cauvery water again started. The latter approached the Supreme Court that former was not releasing water from the river, due to it and that paddy crop in the state was starving of water. Chief Minister Jay Lalitlia even went on a fast.
The open court instead of giving judgment desired the Central Government to try to evolve a compromise formula within time frame work fixed by the court. Central Government appointed three member expert team headed by Jawahar Lal Nehru University Vice Chancellor Prof. Y.K. Alagh, to visit both the states and give his report.
Prime Minister P.V. Narsimlia Rao, after holding talks with both the Chief Ministers gave his verdict but that was not fully implemented. The dispute still continues and both the states are adopting rigid attitude so far.
In Punjab there was dispute over the use of waters of Ravi river where even the construction of a dam was delayed. The disputing states in this case being Punjab, J & K, Rajasthan and H.P. Main dispute being that Punjab claim exclusive right over the dam was not acceptable to other states.
But dispute was settled by setting up an Inter State Board of the disputing states. Water dispute in the northern states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan is still going 011.
These states have dispute over the sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas. The dispute was resolved at the intervention of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in December 1981, when three concerned states signed an agreement. But the bickering continued and the issue was again raised in July 1985 when Rajiv-Longowal According was signed.
A Commission under Justice Balakrishna Eradi, a Judge of the Supreme Court, was set up to determine the share of water of rivers Ravi and Beas among the four disputing states namely, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan. The Commission submitted its report on January 30, 1987. It was rejected by Akali Dal of Punjab and also opposition parties of Haryana and thus the dispute continues.
Delhi has water dispute for its share from Yumana river water with neighbouring states. Every summer when Delhi faces serious water shortage problem, the crisis come to the fore but no solution has as yet been found.
In fact, there is no state which is not involved in river water dispute in one form or the other.
Son of the Soil Theory:
In India regionalism also finds its expression in the form son of the soil theory as well. In it efforts are made to reserve job in public and private sectors as well as in government offices for the domiciles of the stale. A less talentatcd person is preferred, if he belongs to the area, over a brilliant person from outside the state.
Demands are made that those who do not belong to state should leave it, particularly if they are having flourishing business or control over services.
Demands are also made for reserving quotas and permits for the people of the state. Slogans like Maharashtra for Maharashtrians, Gujarat for Gujaratis and Assam for Assamese, etc., etc., are often heard. Not only this, but some political parties like Shiv Sena and Assam Gana Sangram Parishad have become popular for their unqualified support to this theory.
At times the organisations evenbecome violent. When one state champions and accepts son of the soil theory usually there is chain reaction and other states too take similar steps thus adversely effecting national cause.
Senas as Form of Regionalism:
Regionalism finds its expression in the form of Senas, which have been organised in different parts of the country. These infuse in their followess feelings of love for their own region. These usually insist militant approach and follow aggressive policies. Some such senas include Shiv Sena in Maharashtra; Tamil Sena in Tamil Nadu, Anti- Hindi Sena in West Bengal, Sardar Sena in Gujarat, etc.
These Senas exploit the sentiments of the people of the region by pointing out that they are being exploited by the outsiders who are draining out wealth of the region, reducing them to poverty. These propagate that all available sources, should be available to sons of the soil.
These also insist on fixing domicile qualification for promoting and protecting the interests of the natives. Almost in every state the migrants are not well treated. Seats for the natives are reserved in educational institutions. In 1995, Maharashtra Shiv Sena B.J.P. governmental one point of time was thinking in terms of banning the entry of non- Maharastrarians in Bombay.
Because of their aggressive attitude the people usually follow their dictates to avoid harassment.
Regionalism in India is posing threat to national unity and territorial integrity, which the constitution makers wanted to achieve at all costs. Threat of regionalism becomes still more serious because some of the states in the country have already been demanding that powers of the centre should be curtailed and the states should be made more powerful.
In regionalism one point which always draws attention is that people of certain areas demand separate statehood e.g., Telengana, Jharkhand, Vidarbha, etc., and when this demand is denied agitational outlook develops. Regionalism on the whole in the country and regional political parties in many states have got deep roots.
These parties propagate regional issues. AIDMK and DMK in Tamil Nadu, Akali Dal in Panjab, National Conference in J & K, Telugu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, Asom Gan. Parishad in Assam, etc., are some examples to be quoted. In fact, in every state regionalism is raising its head.
Now a question arises as to why a demand for statehood is denied. One of the arguments advanced is that small states will weaken India’s unity. But it need be studied seriously whether bigger or smaller states have made more and rapid progress and which of the two categories of states are contributing more to India’s unity and prosperity.
But all the more, every effective step should be taken to discourage extreme regionalism so that people all over think of India as a whole and not of any region. Any laxity or latitude on any ground from any comer with whatever motive or intention can do a lot of harm to the nation as a whole.
Forces of regionalism are always on the outlook for an opportunity, when these can raise their head. These have gay days when political authority and power is weak and engaged in internal disputes or when there is political instability in the country.
4. Essay on the Case for and against Regionalism:
Generally regionalism is not favourably viewed because it is believed that it is responsible for dividing the nation and stands on the way of national unity and integration. It promotes narrow outlook and in it national interests are subordinated to regional interests.
It is this concept which leads to militancy and agitations, demonstrations, violence, etc., which retard economic progress. All sorts of demands are put on the centre which cannot be met, thus, straining centre-state relations.
But there is other side of the picture as well. There are scholars and critics who point out the plus points of regionalism. They point out that in a vast country like India regionalism should be and is bound to be a legitimate activity and as such it will be wrong to brand it an anti-social activity and brush it off.
It is a channel for the expression of sentiments of the people which should be knit in larger national frame work.
It is regionalism which ensures more meaningful participation of the people in democratic activities, decision-making and political processes at least at the regional level.
Again it is regionalism which puts a check on the central authorities to have excessive concentration of powers. Thus, it performs the functions of a vigilant partner in political system. Needless to say excessive concentration not only leads to corruption but also to in efficiency.
It is basically wrong to believe that regional political parties are secessionists. Practical experience in India has shown that these parties have shown good performance in their own region without demanding separation from India.
It helps the Central government know the feelings and aspirations of regional people so that that takes timely action to redress the grievances. Many problems in India would not have posed very serious threats to national unity had regional parties been heard and timely action taken other view point.
Present Position:
Whatever may be theoretically said about the advantages or puts points of regionalism, in India it has everywhere created a problem. It has given birth to militancy and violence e.g., in Punjab, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, etc. It has created serious problem for law enforcing agencies and has provided a foothold to foreign powers.
It has given set back to the whole process of economic development on the one hand and process of national integration on the other. It has put many strains on centre-state relationship and encouraged wrong thinking. At present regionalisim in many cases is playing negative rather than positive role in India’s political system.