Smaller States

If followed up energetically, the sub-division of large states is a sure way to dissipate sub-nationalism, which is a detractor of nationalism. And thus consolidating the integrity of the Indian nation. Smaller states of the size cannot hold the Centre to ransom. They thus make it stronger by default. At the same time, they achieve the much desired decentralisation, which brought a great deal of benefit to Gujarat and Haryana.

Ideally, there should be several states speaking the same tongue in order to preclude the growth of sub-nationalism around the language. For instance, there is no grievance of identity in the Hindi speaking areas but there is in say Andhra Pradesh. Would it however continue if there were also Telangana and Ryalseema which also spoke Telugu? The threat of linguistic sub-nationalism was exhaustively demonstrated by Bangladesh which seceded from Pakistan in 1971.

The fault lay with President Ayub Khan's mis-judgement. He amalgamated Baluchistan, NWFP, Punjab and Sind into a jumbo province, called West Pakistan. The intention was to counterbalance the population of East Bengal. Instead he should have sub-divided the latter into say four mini-provinces. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman might then not have been the leader of the entire eastern wing. Only the leader of one or two of the mini-provinces.To begin with Uttar Pradesh is desirable. The example, should be followed up not only in Jharkhand and Chattisgarh etc. Unity through sub-division is a paradox but a viable one!