Some small States, like Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, are fine. But others like Arunachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal are politically unstable
The ongoing crisis in Uttarakhand of ‘aaya Ram gaya Ram’, shows that all is not well in the political system. Despite a stringent anti-defection law and other measures, legislators have been able to circumvent the system, more so in a small State. Things have blown out of proportion, as the crisis has raised constitutional questions and legal remedies. The High Court is now questioning the justification of President’s Rule. The story does not begin in Uttarakhand but it is in continuation of what happened in Arunachal Pradesh, when that State was brought under President’s Rule.
This brings us to the question: Why are small States politically fragileIJ The premise of carving out smaller States shifted in the 1990s. In the 1950s, States were re-organised on the basis of language. Now, the States are being carved out on the basis of backwardness and lack of development. It is said that small is beautiful, but in the case of Uttarakhand (which was carved out of Uttar Pradesh in 2000), it is its political instability that is hogging all the attention.
While it can be argued that bifurcations and trifurcations have resulted in better management of some States like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, most of the small States in the North-East as well as States like Goa, Jharkhand and Delhi (technically, the National Capital Region) have not come up to the mark. Some political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party are in favour of small States, where an Independent MlA like Madhu Koda could become Chief Minister (Jharkhand). But there also exists an inherent fragility of the polity in the newly-carved out States.
Now Uttarakhand has joined this fragile club. Its Assembly has not even passed the annual Budget as it was declared ‘carried’ by the Speaker amidst demands by the Opposition and rebel MlAs for division, which was not heeded.
So what is the message from the Uttarakhand crisisIJ First, even as more demands from various parts of the country are coming for bifurcating and trifurcating of big States, it cannot be said that small States are the panacea for all problems. Unless there is political stability, the State cannot grow.
Second, the failure of national parties like the BJP and the Congress may pave way for the emergence of regional parties. Third, the culture of horse-trading has not yet stopped. The ruling party and the Opposition indulge in horse-trading and maintain ‘camps’ of their MlAs who are shepherded from State-to-State to avoid poaching from the other side.
Fourth, the imposition of President’s Rule earlier in Arunachal Pradesh and now in Uttarakhand raises fears of Central overreach and the possible misuse of Article 356. Fifth, the Uttarakhand crisis will have its echo in the current Budget Session of Parliament as the Congress-led Opposition may not support the over-delayed Goods and Services Tax Bill, crucial for reforms.
Sixth, it is indeed a wake-up call for the Congress leadership, which misread the situation on the ground be it in Arunachal Pradesh or Assam or Uttarakhand. Gone are the days of Indira Gandhi, when Chief Ministers could be kept waiting for months. If the top leadership does not change its behaviour, the Congress may end up ruling just three or four States.
Seventh, President’s Rule can be imposed only when it passes the scrutiny of the courts. In the SR Bommai case, the apex court had categorically stated that, whether a Government enjoys majority in the House, is to be proved on the floor of the House. In Uttarakhand, President’s Rule was imposed just a day before Chief Minister Harish Rawat was to prove his majority. It would have been better if Uttarakhand Governor KK Paul had dismissed the Rawat Government on the question of constitutionality of the Budget instead of giving Rawat a week’s time to indulge in horse-trading.
The Uttarakhand crisis should make the political parties sit up and see how to set right the system. The logic of smaller States does not end with the creation of such States. They have to be empowered. Smaller States are no guarantee for better life. There are also fears that the creation of small States can lead to increased regionalism or parochialism which can fuel separatist sub-national tendencies, as in Nagaland. It is time to restore the balance and ensure stability of the fragile small States.