Reality Check on the Vidarbha Statehood Movement
Reality Check on the Vidarbha Statehood Movement
Adv. Paromita Goswami
Dr. Kalyan Kumar
One expects the highest standard
of journalism from the Indian Express, which is why we were quite unpleasantly
surprised to read Shubhangi Khapre’s assessment of why the push for Vidarbha is
a non-starter (30 March, 2016).
Khapre’s begins by stating that
the creation of the new State would require ‘two thirds majority in both
Legislative Assembly and Council’ in the state legislature which the BJP does
not enjoy. It appears that Khapre has not bothered to read Articles 2 and 3 of
Constitution of India which specifically deal with the creation of new States
(a minimum expectation from the political editor). Article 2 gives almost
unlimited powers to the Parliament of India to admit into the Union, or
establish new States on such terms and conditions that it deems fit. Article 3
is a little more complicated as it states that the Parliament may by law (a)
form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any
State; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State. It is
further provided that no Bill for the above purposes shall be introduced in
either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and
unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries
or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to
the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such
period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as
the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired. It
is to be clearly noted that both Articles 2 and 3 deal with the powers of the
Parliament and President of India and therefore Khapre’s reference to
‘two-thirds majority in state legislature’ is a mere figment of her imagination
and one that seriously misleads readers. In the passing, one is curious to know
the identity of the ‘top BJP leader’ who has discussed this numbers game with
Khapre.
While it is true that the BJP has apparently abandoned the cause of Vidarbha Statehood, the reasons are unrelated to the number of BJP legislators in the state legislature. The real question that the political editor failed to ask is why is the BJP is shy of introducing a Vidarbha Statehood Bill in Parliament, given that the power of creating States is vested in the Parliament, that BJP is purportedly committed to the cause of smaller States, and that it has ample majority in the Lok Sabha? The answer to that question would have been truly enlightening.
Beyond this, Khapre’s analysis of the present status of the Vidarbha statehood movement has a Mumbai-centric perspective and does not take into account the recent incidents in the region. Far from being a non-starter, the Vidarbha movement is gathering steam once more. Even as we write, several hundred people from the region are agitating at Jantar Mantar under the leadership of Advocates Sreehari Aney and Wamanrao Chatap. In the last few months the movement has seen several large public rallies in places such as Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Buldhana, Sindkhed Raja, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha leave alone Nagpur which has long been the heart of the movement. Every district bar association and several trade associations in Vidarbha has passed resolutions in favour of Vidarbha. In December 2015 the winter assembly of the state legislature was repeatedly adjourned as the debate on separate Vidarbha rocked both Houses. Even the on-going budget session has seen heated debates on the issue leading to the dramatic resignation of Sreehari Aney as the Advocate General of Maharashtra. The resignation itself has given renewed vigour to large sections of pro-Vidarbha activists who are flocking together under the leadership of Sreehari Aney. Most importantly, Aney has repeated mentioned seeking the support of regional parties such as TMC, AAP, and JD(U) which may give a new twist to the tale.
Khapre has briefly mentioned the contribution of Loknayak Bapuji Aney (grandfather of Sreehari Aney) to the Vidarbha cause although she fails to mention that he was the President of the Indian National Congress, a position today held by none less than Sonia Gandhi. She also mentions Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s support for smaller States, but fails to mention that every commission formed to study the issue including Dar Commission (1948), JVP Committee (1948) and Fazal Ali Commission (1955) have supported the demand for separate Vidarbha.
Finally Khapre asserts that the demand for Vidarbha is slated to take a backseat because the Fadnavis government is pushing economic development into the region. On the contrary, even a cursory reading of the reports of the Dandekar Committee (1984), the Indicators and Backlog Committee (1997) and the most recent Kelkar Committee (2013), all of which had dealt with inter-regional developmental disparities in Maharashtra shows that the disparity between Vidarbha and Western Maharashtra is so vast as to be certainly unsurmountable in the short-term. Instead of lauding the fact that Vidarbha and Marathwada got 20% of the total investments in the Make in India Week, one should understand that these two regions comprise of half of the total number of districts in Maharashtra and therefore should have got 50% of the investments. In fact, the paltry amounts given to the two regions only buttress the contention that Vidarbha and Marathwada regions will never get their due share of development as long as they are part of united Maharashtra. In spite of the best intentions of the Chief Minister Fadnavis the two-dozen mega projects and Make in India investments are not adequate substitutes for a separate Statehood demand by a region that is reeling for decades under problems such as farmers’ suicides, Left Wing Extremism, malnourishment, irrigation backlogs, and so on.
Overall, one can say that although Khapre’s article has appeared in the ‘Explained’ page, it misinforms more than it explains.
While it is true that the BJP has apparently abandoned the cause of Vidarbha Statehood, the reasons are unrelated to the number of BJP legislators in the state legislature. The real question that the political editor failed to ask is why is the BJP is shy of introducing a Vidarbha Statehood Bill in Parliament, given that the power of creating States is vested in the Parliament, that BJP is purportedly committed to the cause of smaller States, and that it has ample majority in the Lok Sabha? The answer to that question would have been truly enlightening.
Beyond this, Khapre’s analysis of the present status of the Vidarbha statehood movement has a Mumbai-centric perspective and does not take into account the recent incidents in the region. Far from being a non-starter, the Vidarbha movement is gathering steam once more. Even as we write, several hundred people from the region are agitating at Jantar Mantar under the leadership of Advocates Sreehari Aney and Wamanrao Chatap. In the last few months the movement has seen several large public rallies in places such as Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Buldhana, Sindkhed Raja, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha leave alone Nagpur which has long been the heart of the movement. Every district bar association and several trade associations in Vidarbha has passed resolutions in favour of Vidarbha. In December 2015 the winter assembly of the state legislature was repeatedly adjourned as the debate on separate Vidarbha rocked both Houses. Even the on-going budget session has seen heated debates on the issue leading to the dramatic resignation of Sreehari Aney as the Advocate General of Maharashtra. The resignation itself has given renewed vigour to large sections of pro-Vidarbha activists who are flocking together under the leadership of Sreehari Aney. Most importantly, Aney has repeated mentioned seeking the support of regional parties such as TMC, AAP, and JD(U) which may give a new twist to the tale.
Khapre has briefly mentioned the contribution of Loknayak Bapuji Aney (grandfather of Sreehari Aney) to the Vidarbha cause although she fails to mention that he was the President of the Indian National Congress, a position today held by none less than Sonia Gandhi. She also mentions Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s support for smaller States, but fails to mention that every commission formed to study the issue including Dar Commission (1948), JVP Committee (1948) and Fazal Ali Commission (1955) have supported the demand for separate Vidarbha.
Finally Khapre asserts that the demand for Vidarbha is slated to take a backseat because the Fadnavis government is pushing economic development into the region. On the contrary, even a cursory reading of the reports of the Dandekar Committee (1984), the Indicators and Backlog Committee (1997) and the most recent Kelkar Committee (2013), all of which had dealt with inter-regional developmental disparities in Maharashtra shows that the disparity between Vidarbha and Western Maharashtra is so vast as to be certainly unsurmountable in the short-term. Instead of lauding the fact that Vidarbha and Marathwada got 20% of the total investments in the Make in India Week, one should understand that these two regions comprise of half of the total number of districts in Maharashtra and therefore should have got 50% of the investments. In fact, the paltry amounts given to the two regions only buttress the contention that Vidarbha and Marathwada regions will never get their due share of development as long as they are part of united Maharashtra. In spite of the best intentions of the Chief Minister Fadnavis the two-dozen mega projects and Make in India investments are not adequate substitutes for a separate Statehood demand by a region that is reeling for decades under problems such as farmers’ suicides, Left Wing Extremism, malnourishment, irrigation backlogs, and so on.
Overall, one can say that although Khapre’s article has appeared in the ‘Explained’ page, it misinforms more than it explains.
(Paromita is associated with
Trade Union Shramik Elgar and
Kalyan is Secretary of Elgar
Pratishthan)
