Regional aspirations are not
averse to nation-building unless accompanied by anti-national aggressive
sentiments coupled with tumultuously armed assertions. Nation-building is not something that can be
accomplished once and for all times to come.
Immediately after independence, India had to cope with issues of
partition, displacement, integration of princely states, and reorganization of
states. North-East had no consensus to
be a part of India and the Dravidian movement briefly toyed with the idea of a
separate country. The Indian approach
was very different from the one adopted in many European countries where they
saw cultural diversity as a threat to the nation. India adopted a democratic approach to the
question of diversity that allows the political expressions of regional
aspirations and does not look upon them as anti-nationals. Sometimes, the concern for national unity may
overshadow the narrow regional politics and community aspirations. At other times, a concern for the region alone may
blind us to the larger needs of the nation.
Some of the old problems have never
been fully resolved. The struggle for North
Bengal as a separate state and the demand for Gorkhaland are both
unresolved issues. The feeling of
neglect has been a long-trodden one for the people of North Bengal. During the 30+ years of the Left misrule in
Bengal, North Bengal was so neglected that it was almost on the verge of
extremism. The subsequent TMC led govt.
is more of an organized and centralized consortium of money-minting meddlesome
interlopers with no affirmative action and vision for the state or the region. The Rajbonshi/Koch community supported
the Left Front during its 34-year misrule, except at its fag end when it
shifted allegiance to the TMC finally bringing it to power in 2011. Armed rebellion was suppressed during the Left
rule and TMC had to put no effort to douse the fire of separate statehood. In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, the BJP swept
the region, largely on the back of support from the Rajbongshis. But since inception in 1998, Rajbongshi
groups like the CGPA, Kamatapur People’s Party, the Greater Cooch Behar
Demanding Committee (GCDC), the All-Koch Rajbongshi Students’ Union, and
the Koch Rajbongshi Sanmilani have demanded a separate state. There are hundreds of self-styled intellectuals
running Facebook and WhatsApp groups that have a considerable fan following on
this topic. The struggle for a separate Gorkhaland
State is older than India itself and is a dream of a homeland for Indian
Gorkhas as an essential pre-requisite to acquiring a distinct identity separate
from those in Nepal. The District of Darjeeling
has witnessed two major violent movements in recent times for their long-standing
demand for a separate state as Gorkhaland. Their regional aspirations got steered into
autonomy aspiration and Darjeeling Gorkha Hills Council was formed which
was quickly replaced with Gorkha Territorial Administration. Sooner than later, it is realized that limited
regional autonomy is no substitute for the dream of a Gorkha homeland.
Other reasons behind the demand for a separate identity
Other than linguistic basis which
has predominantly been put forward as the best ground, geographical continuity,
and financial self-sufficiency, administrative convenience, capacity for future
development should be generally the recognized test for the reorganization of States
and Union territories. North Bengal and Gorkhaland
have felt neglected for all good reasons.
North Bengal is a geographically narrow corridor region popularly and
strategically known as India’s chicken neck.
It shares four international boundaries and two of these neighbors are
hostile. China has developed infrastructures
in close proximity in regions like Doklam and Nepal is more of a foe than
a friend. Doklam is critical as
it brings China even closer to the Indian border in a vulnerable location
towards the direction of the 27-km-long Siliguri Corridor that links the
northeastern states to the rest of India.
A religious self-style Muslim scholar has very recently instigated
religious sentiments with fellow fanatics and vouched to sabotage India’s access
to North-East by mobilizing the majority Muslim population residing at the chicken
neck area. Mandarin is being taught at Nepal’s
primary school along the border shared with India and the sentiments are highly
anti-India. Nepal claims hill areas up
until Sikkim as their own. The distance
between Kolkatta from Cooch Behar is more than 700 km. This is less than or equivalent to the distance
between say Kolkatta and Dhaka, Bangladesh (690 km); Kolkatta
and Janakpur, Nepal (680 km); Kolkatta and Benaras, UP
(670 km); and, Kolkatta and Tibet (736 km). Large states with clumsy geographical terrains
are inconvenient to manage. North Bengal
and Darjeeling have high growth potential but are subjected to continuous
neglect as a state policy. Large-scale
illegal infiltration has changed the demography of the region and the state is
a mute spectator because of its minority appeasement policy. North Bengal and Darjeeling therefore
gloriously qualify to have a separate statehood for themselves.
What about political losses to
political parties?
India needs to be a union of
states with strong states with a much stronger Union. It is a dangerous idea to give
superintendence to narrow political interests over national security. Nation first.
India needs a strong union and the regional narrow political interests
have to give way to the larger national interests. Every decision taken has repercussions and a
decision like the reorganization of states is bound to have severe repercussions
both political and psychological. It may
be beneficial for some socio-political entities and disfavor others. All said and done, past reminiscences of the separation of states would show that those who favored separate states
ultimately gained and became the rulers of such new states and those who opposed
had to pay the price in terms of votes, popularity, and seats. The newly created states focused well and performed
extremely well in terms of poverty elimination, infrastructure development, and
rising the living indices of its people.
Political losses, if any, are all collateral damages for a noble cause.
Who will do it?
The authors of the Indian
constitution, unlike the current generation of Indians, did not believe that
the states, districts, and mandals within India are static, unchanging, and
permanent. They had the maturity to
accept that states would evolve and change, and hence made provisions for the creation of new states in the Indian Union. Article
3 of the Indian Constitution addresses the topic of ‘Formation of new States and
alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States’. The Proviso thereto says that no Bill for the
purpose 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 to be 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 a such
further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or
allowed has expired. In Article 3, in
clauses (a) to (e), the State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, the State
does not include a Union territory for obvious reasons as the Union Territory
might not even have a legislature of its own. The power conferred on Parliament by clause
(a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part
of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.
The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State legislature to express its view within the time
allowed. If the State Legislature fails
to avail itself of the opportunity, such failure would not invalidate the
introduction of the Bill. There is
nothing in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the
view of the State Legislature. Indeed,
two State Legislatures may express totally divergent views. All that is contemplated is that the
Parliament should have before it the views of the State legislature to the
proposals contained in the Bill and then be free to deal with the bill in any
manner it thinks fit and following the usual practice and procedure prescribed
by and under the rules of business. What
is to be referred to the State Legislature is the proposal contained in the
Bill. It is not necessary that every
time an amendment of the proposal contained in the bill is moved and accepted,
a fresh reference should be made to the State Legislature. Parliament has been vested with the exclusive
power of admitting or establishing new states, increasing or diminishing the
area of an existing State, or altering its boundaries, the legislature or
legislatures of the States concerned having only the right to an expression of
views on the proposals. For making such
territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions
governing constitutional amendments.
Supreme Court’s verdict on the
issue of new states
Back in 1960, a Bill was
introduced in the Indian Parliament proposing the formation of Maharashtra and
Gujarat. This Bill was referred by the President to the State Assembly to
obtain their views. Upon receiving the views, the Bill was passed in Parliament. A petition was filed against
this by Babulal Parante in the High Court of Bombay: His contention was that the said Act was
passed in contravention of the provisions of Art. 3 of the Constitution, since
the Legislature of Bombay, had not been given an opportunity of expressing its
views on the formation of the composite State. The High Court dismissed the
petition. In this case, Babu lal Parante v. State of Bombay, the
Court explained the provisions of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. The period
within which the State Legislature must express its views has to be specified
by the President, but the President may extend the period so specified. If,
however, the period specified or extended expires and no views of the State
Legislature are received, the second condition laid down in the proviso is
fulfilled in spite of the fact that the views of the State Legislature have not
been expressed. The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State
Legislature to express its views within the time allowed; if the State
Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity, such failure does not
invalidate the introduction of the Bill. Nor is there anything in the proviso
to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State
Legislature. Clearly, Indian Constitution envisioned a situation where a state
may refuse to provide its view or provide negative views about a formation of a
new state, and therefore gave full powers to Indian Parliament to go ahead with
its decisions irrespective of opposition from the State Assembly.
Why Now?
India has become much more
inspirational, and so are the people of North Bengal. Quality education, Infrastructure, and
Industry are not luxuries but the tripod of necessity on which the existing
state government has miserably failed.
The people of North Bengal are desperate to touch base with the
developed states and not become migrant workers whose families are living on
freebies. Every section including the
tribals and tea garden workers who have made sporadic visits to other states
are becoming more aspirational. The
quality of governance in the present form is that of a rogue state and on the
verge of bankruptcy. Regional
aspirations and interests are motivated by the urge to cope up with the rest
of the country. The present state
government has a track record of being hostile to the corporate sectors. Businesses have tested the waters, burned their
fingers, licked their wounds, and ran away from the region because of highly organized
corrupt sentiments and demands from top to bottom. North Bengal is desperately looking forward
to opening itself to trade, industry, and quality education and not being part of a
banana republic anymore. The question is not why but how soon.
