Tikamgarh, MP, Nov 20 (UNI) Uttar Pradesh Small-Scale Industry Minister Badshah Singh has claimed that converting Bundelkhand region into a separate state is the Bahujan Samaj Partyβs chief objective.
 |
|
|
Mayawati seeks reservation on economic criteria
Published on November 19, 2007 by IANSViewed 27 times
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati unfolded a new social vision here Sunday, calling for reservation for poverty-stricken people in upper castes and religious minorities. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) president said that the goal of social justice would not be met unless all downtrodden sections of the polity got equal opportunities and that was possible by offering them reservations in jobs and admissions.
Mayawati was addressing a rally in the winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir. Gujjars and nomadic Bakerwals were present in noticeable numbers and frequently raised slogans hailing the Uttar Pradesh chief minister.
Mayawati castigated the Congress and the earlier BJP-led governments at the centre for ignoring the masses and allowing themselves to be guided by the interests of the business houses. “They have become parties of the business houses,” she said, adding: “We are the party of the people. And that is the difference.”
She did not talk about the Kashmir issue, and terrorism also did not find any mention in her speech.
This was the BSP’s biggest ever show here in years and its state-level leaders projected the rally as the starting point for the party’s election campaign in Jammu and Kashmir.
The BSP has already announced that it would contest all the 87 seats in the assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir due in 2008.
The party won one seat in the 2002 elections and four in the 1996 elections before that.
| Giving up Maya of UP |
| Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati has caught all her political opponents off guard by publicly declaring that her party is not averse to the trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh. Though Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh in 2000, the demand for creation of at least two more States, if not three, from out of the existing territory of the State has been simmering for several years now. Some of these demands date back to the early 1950s, but Ms Mayawati has sensed that a further partition of Uttar Pradesh is inevitable and has, therefore, decided to gain political mileage in areas which are crying out for separation. Ms Mayawati’s declaration that her Government is ready to convene a special session of the State Assembly to pass a resolution for the formation of the new States if the Union Government takes the initiative in this regard, has given her an advantage over her rivals because incumbent Chief Ministers never advocate partition of States they preside over. |
| It is not easy for a party which commands a reasonable level of electoral support in a State to readily back demands for vivisection of that State. It is always worried about the reaction of the majority of the people in the State to the demand for separation. Of the two main national parties, the Congress has never been comfortable about partitioning existing States. This is a hangover of the Nehru era. |
| Jawaharlal Nehru disfavoured formation of States on linguistic lines, but the fast-unto-death by Potti Sriramulu, which led to the creation of a separate State for Telugu-speaking people, forced his hand and led to the appointment of the first States Reorganisation Commission headed by Justice Fazl Ali in 1953. Many new States came into being after this commission submitted its report in 1955. Thereafter, there was a second round of reorganisation with the division of Punjab and the formation of Haryana (1966). Himachal Pradesh gained full Statehood in 1971. Since then, many new States have come into being with the Congress reluctantly conceding the demand for breaking up a larger State or grudgingly accepting the inevitable. |
| The BJP, on the other hand, has sensed electoral opportunities in supporting creation of new States well ahead of the Congress in regions like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Uttarakhand. These moves have given this party sufficient political mileage in these new States. But Ms Mayawati appears to have clearly outwitted even the BJP in regard to the trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh. |
| In fact, the idea of breaking up Uttar Pradesh into more manageable units was suggested by Sardar KM Panikkar over half-a-century ago. Panikkar was a member of the Fazl Ali Commission. He was the first to propose the partition of Uttar Pradesh. In his famous note of dissent (specific to Uttar Pradesh) which is appended to the report of the Commission, Panikkar declared that for the successful working of a federation, the units would have to be “fairly evenly balanced”. Disagreeing with the Commission’s decision in favour of a large, undivided Uttar Pradesh, he said it would be imprudent to put one-sixth of the country’s population into a single State. “Too great a disparity is likely to create not only suspicion and resentment but generate forces likely to undermine the federal structure itself and thereby be a danger to the unity of the country,” he said. |
| Looking back, one can only marvel at Panikkar’s foresight because the presence of such a huge State created terrible political imbalances which led to strong regional movements. However, leaders from Uttar Pradesh were not as perceptive as him. They told the Commission that the existence of a large, powerful State in the Gangetic Valley would guarantee India’s unity; that such a State would be able to correct the “disruptive tendencies” in other States; that Uttar Pradesh is the “back bone of India”, the centre from which “all other States derive their ideas and their culture”. Finally, it was argued that undivided Uttar Pradesh was a homogeneous and integrated State and its partition would “ruin its economy and create discontent”. |
| History has shown us how specious these arguments were. Far from guaranteeing the country’s unity, the presence of such a large State with a disproportionate slice of the political cake encouraged centrifugal forces and became a threat to national unity. People in other States resented the view that while Uttar Pradesh was the “backbone”, they were all prone to “disruptive tendencies”. As regards the claim that a united Uttar Pradesh was a homogeneous and integrated State, every Indian knew that this was totally unfounded. There was, however, more amusement than resentment to the view that Uttar Pradesh was the storehouse of ideas and culture and was, therefore, worthy of emulation. |
| Panikkar found no substance in these arguments. He felt that undivided Uttar Pradesh would be administratively unmanageable and, therefore, proposed creation of a new State comprising some districts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. This new State could consist of Meerut, Agra, Rohilkhand and Jhansi divisions of Uttar Pradesh (minus Dehra Dun and Pilibhit districts), the districts of Datia from Vindhya Pradesh and the four districts of Bhind, Morena, Gird (Gwalior) and Shivpuri from Madhya Bharat. The total area of this new State would be 51,346 sq miles and the area of the residuary Uttar Pradesh would be 74,998 sq miles. He felt that the new State could have Agra as the capital and could be called the State of Agra. |
| When Panikkar made this suggestion, Uttar Pradesh had a population of 63 million. Today, the State has close to 170 million people. The demand for a separate Bundelkhand State, which is now gaining momentum, appears to be somewhat in line with his plan. The Bundelkhand Mukti Morcha wants seven districts of Uttar Pradesh and 22 districts of Madhya Pradesh to be brought together to form a new State. In addition, the movement for a separate State in western Uttar Pradesh, called Harit Pradesh, is gaining momentum under the leadership of Mr Ajit Singh. Not to be left behind, the tribals of Vindhyachal are quietly building up a case for a separate State. |
| With Ms Mayawati endorsing the demand for the further partition of Uttar Pradesh, these movements have got a fresh impetus. Further, the resistance of the political class to the formation of smaller States has weakened over the years. The time is, therefore, ripe for a second States Reorganisation Commission to consider all these demands. |
