Parochial thinking...
There is no case in point that after Mahajan Commission after hearing all parties, witnessing the disputed areas, taking a holistic picture of the ground realities, decided to allot the states abutting Maharashtra-Karnataka, Maharashtra-Andhra and Kerala-Karnataka areas to one state or the other. The Award was a comprehensive document with well researched documentary reasons and complied with all legal formalities. Notably in the border areas, there is likelihood of people speaking the language of the State which is adjoining. Carving out states on linguistic basis was one of the blunders of makers of modern India.
The States that were carved out should have territorial affinity, administrative feasibility and economic viability. Each of the States should produce revenue and must be self sufficient. The administrative apparatus should be able to reach out to the border areas, and there must not be any restriction of the minority in the boarder areas, if they are speaking another language. With these qualifications, the State Reorganization Act 1956 carved out new states by merging smaller states like Travancore-Cochin-Malabar and by ceding some areas from the Madras Presidency to Kerala, Karnataka was enlarged and boundaries were redfined, Andhra’s map was created, and Bombay was bi-furicated to Bombay and Gujarat by Bombay Re-organization Act, 1960.
In the Act, there is a mechanism for adjudication, in case, different states had different perspectives about the areas delineated or added. These adjustments were part of the consensus between the parties in a give and take spirit of arbitration. If two states, by mutual consent, agreed for some alterations, this clause could be used to rectify the consensus arrived.
Maharashtra filed a suit in 2004 asking for transfer of Marathi speaking areas of Belgium which was live-case pending in the Supreme Court. The State has challenged certain provisions of the State Re-organization Act, 1956 and the Bombay Re-organization Act, 1960. Further during the tendency of the case, the state amended the petition arguing that the disputed Mrathi speaking areas of the pre-independence province of Bombay should have continued with the erstwhile state of Bombay, and then with Maharashtra, on the basis of principles of reorganization of States Reorganization Commission adopted. The State held that the transfer of Mrathi speaking areas to Karnataka was contrary to the basic principle of State re-organization and amounted to an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental premise underlying Article 3 are the linguistic and cultural homogeneity and the wishes of the people of the area affected by re-organization. Maharashtra blamed the Central Government for bifurcating the two States without adopting a scientific and rational approach. There has been discrimination as violation of Article 21 in so far as the rights of the inhabitants of the disputed area are a flagration of the constitutional duty of the Union Government. The Central Government through an affidavit before the highest Court of the land has termed it as incorrect the contention stated by the State of Maharashtra.
There are also contentious issues at the disputed Babli site in the Andhra-Maharashtra areas. Maharashtra also claimed Karwar and some of Konkan areas, as it had a dominant Marathi people speaking. MES had a foot hold in these regions. Karnataka is clamouring for Kasargode/Manjeshwar areas which are Kannada speaking areas in the Kerala-Karnataka border. Tamilnadu has been making an issue of the Mullapariyar issue, at the same time arguing in different voice for the Cauvery waters. All public properties belong to the Indians. We should face the problems in a give and take manner, instead of unnecessarily clashing over for nothing.
The Country has politicians. But it has very few Statesmen. What the country require today, are Statesmen who could think in the larger context of India, and uniform growth spread so that all people enjoy the Country’s wealth.
The states are carved out for easy administration and theory of convenience. All the States of India constitute the Union. When people are able to traverse, carry on their occupation, get education at state’s expense, why language should be made an issue, and in the name of statehood, merger of areas, and demerger of areas, valuable government property should be destroyed? The Politicians cause all problems in this country, and they should not cause divisions on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, which are highly personal. It should not be glued to political thinking. Only by right actions, our Country can improve.
There is no case in point that after Mahajan Commission after hearing all parties, witnessing the disputed areas, taking a holistic picture of the ground realities, decided to allot the states abutting Maharashtra-Karnataka, Maharashtra-Andhra and Kerala-Karnataka areas to one state or the other. The Award was a comprehensive document with well researched documentary reasons and complied with all legal formalities. Notably in the border areas, there is likelihood of people speaking the language of the State which is adjoining. Carving out states on linguistic basis was one of the blunders of makers of modern India.
The States that were carved out should have territorial affinity, administrative feasibility and economic viability. Each of the States should produce revenue and must be self sufficient. The administrative apparatus should be able to reach out to the border areas, and there must not be any restriction of the minority in the boarder areas, if they are speaking another language. With these qualifications, the State Reorganization Act 1956 carved out new states by merging smaller states like Travancore-Cochin-Malabar and by ceding some areas from the Madras Presidency to Kerala, Karnataka was enlarged and boundaries were redfined, Andhra’s map was created, and Bombay was bi-furicated to Bombay and Gujarat by Bombay Re-organization Act, 1960.
In the Act, there is a mechanism for adjudication, in case, different states had different perspectives about the areas delineated or added. These adjustments were part of the consensus between the parties in a give and take spirit of arbitration. If two states, by mutual consent, agreed for some alterations, this clause could be used to rectify the consensus arrived.
Maharashtra filed a suit in 2004 asking for transfer of Marathi speaking areas of Belgium which was live-case pending in the Supreme Court. The State has challenged certain provisions of the State Re-organization Act, 1956 and the Bombay Re-organization Act, 1960. Further during the tendency of the case, the state amended the petition arguing that the disputed Mrathi speaking areas of the pre-independence province of Bombay should have continued with the erstwhile state of Bombay, and then with Maharashtra, on the basis of principles of reorganization of States Reorganization Commission adopted. The State held that the transfer of Mrathi speaking areas to Karnataka was contrary to the basic principle of State re-organization and amounted to an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental premise underlying Article 3 are the linguistic and cultural homogeneity and the wishes of the people of the area affected by re-organization. Maharashtra blamed the Central Government for bifurcating the two States without adopting a scientific and rational approach. There has been discrimination as violation of Article 21 in so far as the rights of the inhabitants of the disputed area are a flagration of the constitutional duty of the Union Government. The Central Government through an affidavit before the highest Court of the land has termed it as incorrect the contention stated by the State of Maharashtra.
There are also contentious issues at the disputed Babli site in the Andhra-Maharashtra areas. Maharashtra also claimed Karwar and some of Konkan areas, as it had a dominant Marathi people speaking. MES had a foot hold in these regions. Karnataka is clamouring for Kasargode/Manjeshwar areas which are Kannada speaking areas in the Kerala-Karnataka border. Tamilnadu has been making an issue of the Mullapariyar issue, at the same time arguing in different voice for the Cauvery waters. All public properties belong to the Indians. We should face the problems in a give and take manner, instead of unnecessarily clashing over for nothing.
The Country has politicians. But it has very few Statesmen. What the country require today, are Statesmen who could think in the larger context of India, and uniform growth spread so that all people enjoy the Country’s wealth.
The states are carved out for easy administration and theory of convenience. All the States of India constitute the Union. When people are able to traverse, carry on their occupation, get education at state’s expense, why language should be made an issue, and in the name of statehood, merger of areas, and demerger of areas, valuable government property should be destroyed? The Politicians cause all problems in this country, and they should not cause divisions on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, which are highly personal. It should not be glued to political thinking. Only by right actions, our Country can improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment