When the state of Vananchal is carved out, as the government promised in its national agenda, Bihar stands to lose two-thirds of its gross revenues of Rs 3,100 crore. The putative state in south Bihar contribute Rs 2,200 crore to the state's exchequer because its districts in Chhotanagpur and Santhal Parganas are India's mineral El Dorado.
Not surprisingly, north Bihar has always opposed the region's separation. And the Samata Party, one of the ruling coalition allies, has demanded a special economic package worth Rs 50,000 crore to both compensate for the loss of the southern districts and to create alternative infrastructure for what has always been one of India's poorest and most backward states.
Of the many minefields the Vajpayee government is committed to treading on, fulfilling the promise to create three new states "" Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhattisgarh "" out of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh is clearly the most explosive. Indeed, in an effort to redraw India's map the government at the Centre may well change hands.
The immediate administrative glitches over statehood could be some time away. Home ministry officials say the procedural arrangements are nearly complete only for Uttaranchal (or Uttarakhand as it was known). This is because considerable groundwork had been done mainly by the Ramashankar Kaushik committee set up by the Uttar Pradesh government. Similar groundwork for Vananchal and Chhattisgarh, will begin in right earnest as Bihar and Madhya Pradesh go to assembly polls.
But as the Vananchal example shows, of all the pulls and pushes that will inevitably accompany the formation of these new states, it is the economic issues that affect the political positions of their votaries and critics alike. It is no coincidence that each of the proposed new states is rich in natural resources.
Take Udham Singh Nagar, the name of one of the districts in Uttarakhand. This forms is the rice bowl of the region, having hundreds of rice mills and grain (basmati) export houses. Here, the wheat produce per acre is said to be higher than that of Punjab or Haryana. Udham Singh Nagar's prosperous population also has a strong percentage of Sikhs, which explains a recent statement by the Akali Dal's Prakash Singh Badal that the district should not be included in the new state.
Then again, Chhattisgarh covers a highly industrialised belt that includes the Bhilai Steel Plant and other major public and private sector units, besides one of the most dense forest reserves in Bastar.
Yet cold statistics suggest that these sections have been ruthlessly exploited by the Centre and the parent state in terms of royalties and revenues generated without commensurate development. The case of Vananchal provides the most stark evidence of this. The districts in the Chhotanagpur and Santhal Parganas have always subsidised Bihar's poor, agrarian economy. Yet Vananchal is also the theatre of most abject forms of exploitation (of tribals) and poverty.
To be sure, there could be a case for carving out these new states. Each of the parent states are huge and the new states have a history of agitations. The point is the list of demands for new states is lengthening by the day: Bodoland, Telengana, Karbi Anglong, Garoland, Greater Nagaland, Vidarbha, Mithilanchal, Zeliangrong. And votaries of each demand are equipped with similar selective representations of history and geography to substantiate their claims.
With the debate over whether smaller states are better off than larger ones yet to be settled, why the rush by the Vajpayee government to create these three new states? The reasons are clearly political.
Displacing the Congress, the BJP has emerged as the single most dominant political force in the Uttaranchal and Vananchal regions. In the recent Lok Sabha elections the BJP-Samata combine won 12 of the 19 seats in Vananchal while Uttarakhand went the BJP way after Mulayam Singh Yadav cracked down on Uttarakhand activists with a heavy hand in 1994. The BJP won all four Lok Sabha seats and 17 of the 19 Uttar Pradesh assembly seats in Uttarakhand. So the ruling party wants to reward local people for their support.
And with Madhya Pradesh going to assembly polls later this year, the Chattisgarh card is expected to bring in further dividends for the party. BJP insiders say the process to create Chhattisgarh will begin only after the assembly elections -- after, they reckon, the BJP is voted to power in Bhopal. Otherwise, the case for Chhattisgarh has already been powered by the relentless Chhattisgharh Mukti Morcha. The BJP would clearly like to hijack the Chhattisgarh card from the Left elements in the movement.
But in giving into demands for statehood, the BJP has clearly displayed a strong element of subjectivity. The party's concept of Vananchal differs widely from the better known Jharkhand. Vananchal is restricted to Bihar, while Jharkhand envisioned the adjoining districts of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. The boundaries set by the BJP marginalises the various Jharkhand groups, mainly the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Also, those committed to the original idea of Jharkhand would now be silenced by the creation of Vananchal by viewing it as a stepping stone for future enlargement.
Meanwhile, preparations for Uttaranchal are inching forward. Under constitutional provisions, a new state's assembly should have at least 60 members. Currently, there are 19 assembly constituencies here. According to the draft bill on Uttaranchal, a provisional assembly of 30 legislators is to be formed. Apart from the existing 19 MLAs, 11 are to be nominated from the local bodies. Elections would be held after the delimitation exercise is carried out for 60 constituencies. There is no move right now to increase the number of Lok Sabha seats from the existing four. It will also be a while before the state's capital is decided. The choice is between Chandranagar, Kalagarh and Mohaan.
As for the other two states, they may well be non-starters since the Pandora's box will have been opened for another dozen-odd potential states.
