Note:-Every opinion in this post is purely personal and no statement was written intentionally and I'm sorry if my words hurt anyone.You need not to consider anything as I'm not an intellectual and I'm only a jejune. I apologize for all the grammatical mistakes and every point here(besides from opinions) has source and I can provide that source.
In India, an average district is bigger than 85 nations in the world(in terms of population).Uttar Pradesh would have been the 5 th largest nation in the world if it had to be a nation
Today I got a learning opportunity to hear some veterans and hear them debating on "With out a strong regional identity there can be no strong national identity" I really admire Telegraph's idea of organizing a debate as I completely believe that discussion and debate are very important in successful functioning of democracy.Its a pleasant experience to hear speakers who respect other's view, even though, its a sensible topic.
Its a topic where lot of homework is needed and I admire Jatindar Nayak, who had made a few quick points like,"Arbitrary administrative division is not acceptable so language is taken as a marker to divide states." Its very key point because there is no problem in creating new states or keeping the states intact.Formation of new states is neither cataclysmic nor it can be a panacea but it should be addressed constitutionally and genuine markers should be identified.We can't take development as a marker as it is rampant in India and language can't be marker any more as almost every major language(Leaving Hindi) have a separate state now.The problem of identifying markers should be addressed constitutionally.The most important point he made is about "Vacuum being created" (This vacuum is occupied by violence(naxals etc,) ) because of over-centralization of power.If I am not wrong, this point was put-forth by Dr.Jaya prakash Narayan(Former national advisory council member,present MLA of Andhra Pradesh,ex-IAS officer) in some meeting before 5/6 months and many of Jatindar ji's ideas seem to be taken from Dr.J.P's paper.
Another interesting speech was given by Swapan Das Gupta and the most interesting point he made is that national identity and state identity are negotiable and his example of person aged 100 years ,who was born in India and presently living in Bangladesh has three identities of being an Indian,Pakistani and Bangladeshi.But he missed out everything in democracy is negotiable and we should turn all negotiations into win-win outcomes.
I couldn't understand Sitakant Mohapatra, who made points regarding Partition of Bangladesh and the failure of Soviet union.He was unable to make any peculiar,genuine points. when we observe the history of US, and its way of forming states and all that,we can't really appreciate his view.A benefit of doubt is there that may be I was unable to understand him or he is not understandable.
Dr.Nivedita Mohanty,the first speaker of the evening who made a few points regarding Odisha's history and most contradictory statement," Odisha would have gone the way of A.P if our forming fathers didn't take measures." I dont think A.P is different from Odisha or Odisha has advantage over A.P. I am not an A.P chauvinist and what matters more for me is this nation's development as a whole and some times I feel,I love Odisha more than my birth-state but her idea and her point shocked me .Whether she made her home work rightly? Her track record and bio-data was quite impressive and no one expects such an infectious statement form a person of her stature.Madam, can you tell me the specific details which made you to speak this line. Don't see it as an A.P problem as Telangana issue is on board presently.Unfulfilled potential nurtures differences and it will lead to different type of problems and almost every state in India is in this pathetic condition including Odisha and you feel Odisha has the advantage because of its forming pattern,I have no say but let me tell you with the policies like Rs.3/ Kg.rice and other dirty policies,Odisha and Andhra are in the way of bank-ruptacy.(I dont know much about Odisha budget patterns but out of common sense and as I'm observing A.P budget patterns I can say this that these are not goo policies).
I have problems with K.B.Singhji's opening statement that Odisha is rich in H.R( For God's sake can you tell me about the source of this information or is this a comparison with other poor states).Another statement,"Even though 100 constitutional amendments were done we never touched the basic structure of constitution" .He said it as our achievement or our positive point but I feel its wrong and not touching it is a mistake and I dont completely agree with not touching the basic structure.What about 73 and 74 amendments( a way to district governments) and what about 100 presidential rules in the last 48 years.Isn't it a failure of our federalism. He qouted subash chandra bose "A government which can't be strong can't deliver effectively and K.B singh said,"Strong hand can come from central hand only".Subash Chandra Bose who was the muncipal commisioner of Calcutta appointed by Chitranjan Das would have never said this statement in K.B.Singh's context because S.C.Bose created history by being a municipal commisioner when he was in the jail too(until he was shifted to Aligarh jail) and how could he make this statement? Subash Bose was a supporter of local self-governements.K.B.Singh ji's admiration of Vallabhai is really required but I have problem with his other statements.
S.R.Pattanaik is good.He is only one who quoted about technology and the need of congruence between centre and states and he pointed out the government's failure because of political interventions. and he is the one who stressed on individual identity and crisis and his pointing about congruence is an important one.
A few questions were unanswered or neither touched like,"How to tackle the problems like sharing natural resources like water between the states?What can be the pragmatic approach to handle issues like kosala and Telangana?"
"How to handle the over-centralization of power ? Don't they think that the power should be decentralized as it is erratic now?Especially in the last 60 years ,never an issue from Union/concurrent list has been shifted to state list? whats the reason?
Nothing about article2,article3,article 254,article 356 was touched and I think its essential as a constitutional and political glimpse is essential as it is not a philosophical issue.
Over all,I rate this debate as average one( even though I enjoyed the evening) and the topic is really an issue which is going to govern this nation's future in the coming 20/30 years.Its good that a process of dialogue and debate has been started and personally I believe its time to shift to the third tier of federalism that is district governments and I really appreciate this idea put-forth by Dr.Jayaprakash Narayan,who is my child-hood hero. As Malcolm Gladwell says in 'Tipping point' that every thing starts at a moment but it takes time to reach tipping point and I'm waiting for that tipping point as we can address every problem constitutionally and can fulfill our potential.In this process,we should not forget that education and politics have no substitute.
No comments:
Post a Comment