आउ, करी एक छोट अध्ययन! कि भारतमें छोट राज्य बनबाक चाही - पंजाब विश्वविद्यालयकेर राजनीतिशास्त्र-प्रोफेसर आशुतोष कुमार द्वारा प्रस्तुत निम्न लिंक पर पूरा-पूरी पढी। हम एतय हुनकर लिखल बस छोट राज्य बनेबाक पक्ष आ विपक्षकेर बात कोपी करैत ध्यानाकर्षण चाहब हरेक विन्दु पर: पक्षमें: *विकासलेल छोट राज्य जरुरी छैक (बिहारसँ अलग झारखंड, मध्य-प्रदेशसँ अलग छत्तीसगढ आ उत्तर-प्रदेशसँ अलग उत्तराखंडक उदाहरण सहित), *स्थानीय मुद्दापर बेहतरीन ध्यानसँ भाषा आ संस्कृति सहित भौगोलिक विकास, *मतदाता लेल बेहतर प्रतिनिधि चुनबाक भरपुर अवसर विपक्षमें: *विभाजन-चिन्ताक स्मृतिमें एनाय, जेनाय पंजाबकेर विभाजन भारत राष्ट्रीय एकता आ अखंडतापर पर प्रश्न ठाड्ह करैछ। *पैघ राज्यमें एकता आ स्थिरता सुनिश्चित हेबाक सामान्य समझपर आपसी विभाजनसँ खतरा जे हिंसक सेहो भऽ सकैत अछि। *छोट राज्यक छोट स्तरक अर्थतन्त्र होयबाक कारणे निगमवाद (कोरपोरेट्स) आ बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनी संग माफियाक पकड बढबाक डर। *राजनीतिक स्वार्थ आ अवसरवादिताक खेल बढबाक पैघ संभावना - यथार्थपरक मूल्य आ सिद्धान्त आधारित प्रजातांत्रिक आ विकाससँ इतर शक्तिक नव राज्य बनबय के पाछू सक्रियता। एक नव राज्यक मांग हेतु: १) सांप्रदायिक या अलगाववादी प्रकृतिक नहि हो, २) जनमानसक लोकप्रिय समर्थन आ व्यापक सहमतिक आधार हो, ३) पैतृक राज्य द्वारा सहमति देल गेल हो, ४) उद्देश्य सक्षम सामाजिक आ आर्थिक राज्य सृजनकेर हो। उपरोक्त समस्त विन्दुकेँ आधार मानि आ मिथिला समान ऐतिहासिक संस्कृतिक उपेक्षा देखि स्वयं मनन करू जे आखिर मिथिला बिना राज्य बनने अपन भविष्य केना निर्माण करत, आ केना अपन पौराणिक सम्मानकेँ रक्षा कय सकत। हरि: हर:!! ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF SMALLER STATES Does India need smaller states? Let us consider the following three arguments in favour. First, the argument that ‘small is beautiful’ does find resonance in the developmental experiences of the newly created smaller states. Factual analysis shows the development and efficiency argument does work in favour of the new states when compared with the parent states. During the tenth five-year plan period, Chhattisgarh averaged 9.2 percent growth annually compared with 4.3 percent by Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand averaged 11.1 per cent annually compared with 4.7 percent by Bihar, and Uttarakhand achieved 8.8 per cent growth annually compared with 4.6 percent by Uttar Pradesh. Arguably, getting ‘a territory of their own’ unleashes the untapped/suppressed growth potentials of the hitherto peripheral regions. Second, comparatively smaller but compact geographical entities tend to ensure that there is better democratic governance, as there is greater awareness among the policy makers about the local needs. Smaller spatial units having linguistic compatibility and cultural homogeneity also allow for better management, implementation and allocation of public resources in provisioning basic social and economic infrastructure services. A relatively homogeneous smaller state allows for easy communicability, enabling marginal social groups to articulate and raise their voices. Third, smaller states provide gains for the electorates in terms of better representation of their preferences in the composition of the government. In a patronage-based democracy like in India, the amount of the transfer of state resources/largesse a constituency/region gets depends crucially on whether the local representative belongs to the ruling party. Understanding this electoral logic of patronage distribution, the electorates of a smaller region have a propensity to elect representatives with preferences more closely aligned to those of the bigger region within the state. Such a motive, however, would no longer operate once the region constitutes a separate state. ARGUMENTS AGAINST SMALLER STATES One also needs to address and negate some of the oft-repeated apprehensions raised against creating smaller states. First, reminiscent of ‘partition anxiety’, many fear the rise of regional and linguistic fanaticism as threats to national unity and integrity. A global surge in ethno-nationalist conflicts serves to rekindle these fears. No region has ever experienced secessionist movement after being reorganised as a separate state except for a brief time in Punjab. Second, many believe that bigger states ensure cohesion and stability; however, there are myriad forms of political violence going on unabated in the big states (eg. Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal). In these cases, violent movements are expressions of a demand for recognition, justice and autonomy; relatively homogeneous smaller states would always be better poised to provide a wider range of policies in response to local conditions. Third, smaller states (like mineral rich Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand) are often viewed as being much more vulnerable to the pressures of the corporations and multi-nationals due to their small-scale economies and the greed of the newly emergent regional elite. Now, if this is so then what explains the presence of coal mafias and land sharks in the bigger states like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka? Corruption or political wheeling-dealing in high places is not confined to the smaller states as any discernable observer of Indian states would be able to tell. Fourth, political expediency and opportunism rather than the objective evaluation of democratic and developmental potential are said to be involved in the making of new states. Even if this was present in some instances, it is not the norm. Certain principles have always been adhered to without exception with the establishment of states in the past. The demand for a new state: a) is not to be communal or secessionist in nature; b) should have popular support and enjoy a broad consensus; c) should be agreed upon by the parent state, d) aims at the creation of socially and economically viable state. lokniti.org/pdfs_dataunit/A.Kumar.pdf
Posted on: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:36:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015