From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

by smArtha Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:13 pm

Does it make more sense to re-organize states based on Socio-Cultural/Economic criteria instead of handling each division in response to long drawn out political agitations and opportunities? This combined with a National Shared Resources Distribution Board that ensures balanced and just utilization of resources that are spread across state boundaries should address the new state demands once for all. We can then move ahead on other aspects of nation building, development and human well-being

http://im.rediff.com/news/2013/jul/30map2.jpg

by Idéfix Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:48 pm

With Telangana, and to a smaller extent with the last three states, we have ended up with the most inefficient way of doing this. The current principle is: if you want a new state, you have to disrupt things in your current state for about ten years, and have at least a few dozen young men kill themselves, then you will get your new state. We will be better off with a second SRC that takes a more systematic approach and organizes states for the next 50 years of the republic.

India's population was 400 million when the last SRC was convened. The population of the new state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956 was around 30 million. Now India has 1,200 million people, and Andhra Pradesh has almost 90 million people. The new state of Telangana will have 35 million people. There may be legitimate reasons for organizing India into smaller states. And a new SRC would be a more organized way to that end.

I think language has served India very well as an organizing principle. And I don't see Telangana as taking away from that principle. If anything, it is a more granular application of the language principle, down to a dialect. All the new states I see being created (and all the ones on the map you gave) are similar: you take a current linguistic state and break it into parts, but you don't add areas where another language is in majority. So each state in the future will continue to have one major regional language. Each large linguistic group will have multiple states. Hindians have lived under such a regime throughout independent India, and their language or cultural cohesion hasn't suffered for it. I don't see why it should hurt Telugus, Tamilians, Kannadigas, and Marathis either.

by smArtha Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:23 pm

Idéfix wrote:
>> we have ended up with the most inefficient way of doing this. The current principle is: if you want a new state, you have to disrupt things in your current state for about ten years, and have at least a few dozen young men kill themselves, then you will get your new state. We will be better off with a second SRC that takes a more systematic approach and organizes states for the next 50 years of the republic. <<

In 2004, when Secondary SRC approach was proposed, TRS rejected it outright claiming it as delaying tactics. But the decision to divide itself took 10 years - this costed more time/property/life than it took for constituting, enacting and re-organizing based on First SRC. Hope the political leadership learns from this.

>> I don't see why it should hurt Telugus, Tamilians, Kannadigas, and Marathis either. <<
It'd not, if the divisions are based on well thought and negotiated principles for re-organization that'd be applicable across the board.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:09 pm

It's neither linguistic nor socio-cultural-economic. The number of MPs CONs can get elected - is the sole criterion. CONmen figured that they could win close to 17 seats if they gave Telangana. So, they decided to chop it off from AP.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:17 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It's neither linguistic nor socio-cultural-economic. The number of MPs CONs can get elected - is the sole criterion. CONmen figured that they could win close to 17 seats if they gave Telangana. So, they decided to chop it off from AP.

The real outcome of this separation is the vastly diminished clout of AP in central affairs. CBN was influential in deciding who becomes the United Front PM candidate. He also had clout in NDA govt. under ABV. YSR could deliver enough MPs for UPA twice and in return, the UPA govt. treated his state well. Now, with 17 for T and 26? for SA, neither of the two will have that much clout. UP, Bihar, Maha, WB will continue to have their influence. AP and T will both diminish. The greed of T politicians for Hyderabad and self-serving CON-Q-bee destroyed AP's clout in one stroke.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:54 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It's neither linguistic nor socio-cultural-economic. The number of MPs CONs can get elected - is the sole criterion. CONmen figured that they could win close to 17 seats if they gave Telangana. So, they decided to chop it off from AP.

The real outcome of this separation is the vastly diminished clout of AP in central affairs. CBN was influential in deciding who becomes the United Front PM candidate. He also had clout in NDA govt. under ABV. YSR could deliver enough MPs for UPA twice and in return, the UPA govt. treated his state well. Now, with 17 for T and 26? for SA, neither of the two will have that much clout. UP, Bihar, Maha, WB will continue to have their influence. AP and T will both diminish. The greed of T politicians for Hyderabad and self-serving CON-Q-bee destroyed AP's clout in one stroke.

TN always welcomes Seemandhra to merge... we will welcome our Gult brothers.

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:13 pm

>> Each large linguistic group will have multiple states. Hindians have lived under such a regime throughout independent India, and their language or cultural cohesion hasn't suffered for it. I don't see why it should hurt Telugus, Tamilians, Kannadigas, and Marathis either.

Because of Hindians divide and rule policy. Bengalis opposed when British attempted to divide Bengal into 2. Hindins dio the same.

I notice that VP expresses the same view "The real outcome of this separation is the vastly diminished clout of AP in central affairs." I agree.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:26 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:It's neither linguistic nor socio-cultural-economic. The number of MPs CONs can get elected - is the sole criterion. CONmen figured that they could win close to 17 seats if they gave Telangana. So, they decided to chop it off from AP.

The real outcome of this separation is the vastly diminished clout of AP in central affairs. CBN was influential in deciding who becomes the United Front PM candidate. He also had clout in NDA govt. under ABV. YSR could deliver enough MPs for UPA twice and in return, the UPA govt. treated his state well. Now, with 17 for T and 26? for SA, neither of the two will have that much clout. UP, Bihar, Maha, WB will continue to have their influence. AP and T will both diminish. The greed of T politicians for Hyderabad and self-serving CON-Q-bee destroyed AP's clout in one stroke.

TN always welcomes Seemandhra to merge... we will welcome our Gult brothers.

Not a bad idea. The new Madras state will have enormous clout with unlimited opportunities in education, manufacturing, agriculture, IT, etc.

by Sponsored content

From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria

Re: From Linguistic to Socio-Cultural-Economic Criteria