In 2000, Jharkhand was created especially for its tribal communities with great fanfare. It was said that after a long and sustained struggle the tribals now had their own home State. Political parties had proclaimed from the rooftops that the aspirations of the tribal population had been fulfilled and now they would prosper in their own identity-based State.
But the reality is that, between 2001 and 2013, Jharkhand has experienced political instability, widespread corruption and its leaders have come to occupy a special status of criminality among politicians. The dreams and expectations of the tribals lie shattered, as they have been betrayed by their own leaders in their State.
After President’s Rule was revoked on July 13, the ninth Government of Jharkhand was formed with Mr Hemant Soren as Chief Minister leading a rag-tag coalition. After the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha-BJP alliance collapsed, the President, on the recommendation of the UPA Government at the Centre, had suspended the State Assembly while proclaiming emergency rule in the State. This allowed for political manipulations that set the stage for fractured groups to come together and cobble another coalition Government. This process of coalition formation often leads to corruption of the worst kind. For example: All the six independent MlAs who have extended support to the new regime have asked for Cabinet ministership in return.
Chief Minister Soren has proclaimed that, “This Government will launch itself into development works of the State with enthusiasm”. Does his statement carry any conviction, considering the power- greedy Soren clan’s past recordIJ One must ask why his father and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren withdrew support to the previous GovernmentIJ Mr Shibu Soren had demanded the ‘rotation’ of Chief Ministership, so that his son, who was then Deputy Chief Minister, could be elevated to the post of Chief Minister. Is there now any doubt that coalition Governments, formed as a consequence of fractured and fragmented electoral verdicts, practice opportunistic and non-ideological politicsIJ
Also, a deeper understanding of Jharkhand’s tribal society will reveal that there are four important groups that contend for power in the State whose tribal population is not a monolith. The result is that while one former tribal Chief Minister, Mr Madhu Koda, has been cooling his heels in jail, another tribal Chief Minister, Mr Arjun Munda of the BJP, has just lost power while being replaced by a third tribal Chief Minister, Mr Hemant Soren. Does a home State for the tribals means only tribal leaders as Chief MinistersIJ
Also, a larger point to be made here is that the creation of smaller States on the basis of supposed demands of one section of society, whether tribal or non-tribal, is not the answer to their specific problems, be it in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Uttaranchal or earlier in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. This also applies to the regions of Telangana, Vidarbha and Bundelkhand clamouring for separate Statehood.
Any identity-based State offers an open invitation to parochial politics. By creating more such States, policy makers are encouraging more such movements for separate States. They are institutionalising the fragmentation of Indian society. Today Assam is faced with the Bodo problem while West Bengal must contend with the dispute over Gorkhaland. When regionalist groups in these areas see the experience of others across the country, such as the tribals in Jharkhand, they are emboldened to make similar demands themselves.
An unsubstantiated message has been spread by those championing the cause of smaller States that it is easier to develop such States. But if this was true, then Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat would not have been some of India’s most developed States.