[Assam] Fwd: Demands for Separate states in India

[Ram Sarangapani]

Bhuban da,
You made some excellent points.

>Statehood confers a lot of benefits especially to the politically
aware >and literate sections of the people.

It certainly does. But the backdrop of my question was: Do we create
new states for the sake of such benefits or do we create states
because a particular area (with a large section of people) need a
state because the existing state governance is unable to do a good
job?

>It has been proved without room for any doubt that a small state is >viable

Again, Bhuban da, I have no doubt about this. But how small can it get
and yet be viable? The situation in an advanced country may be
differenr, but a poor country like India, strapped for capital
resources, may have a problem with too many 'chiefs and few Indians'

>However, none of them has yet produced an Ian Smith

Not jus that. None of these states have any inkling to seek
independence. And they don't separation from India because a good
majority in these states feel that they are very much a part of India.

> Who are to blame for the possible disintegration of India in course >of time? Its people, the political thinkers, the so-called leaders of >today.

You didn't quite answer the question. Some netters would undoubtly put
the entire blame on the GOI, but I contend, as always, people have a
greater role in the type, form and quality of government than often
portrayed. They can't escape that.

>Once Assam is sovereign, you Ram can become the President of >the
country, Chandan the Prime Minister and I an ambassador of >Assam
accredited to the Court of St James,  United Kingdom

Hehehe! I would love to be the President of this imaginary country (if
they will have me). Imagine, being the Prez. I would want to take it
easy, but then if C'da is the PM (he would have all the powers) and
throw me out in a coup .........:-)

>Now a popular and powerful Chief Minister has to kowtow to >Central
Government to go abroad on invitation as an honoured  >guest; in an
independent  sovereign country such a situation is >unthinkable.

Of course, then he wouldn't have to ask anyone. He is in charge. Why
should he be accountable to anyone? :-)

--Ram






On 8/25/06, BBaruah at aol.com <BBaruah at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ram
>
> Statehood confers a lot of benefits especially to the politically aware and literate sections of the people. Without beating about the bush, let us say that an MLA/MP earns an adequate salary. There are lots of people these days who are either unemployed or not fully occupied and would like to be paid politicians. Then there are those who failed to be elected for one reason or the other. A new State Legislature will definitely absorb some such people. And some of them will become Ministers. Let me again assert that a Minister is adequately paid.
>
>
>
> As soon a new government comes to being, there is an entirely new set up with Secretaries to Government, Heads of Departments etc etc. There was a Fourth Grade Naga employee in the State Legislature where I worked. When Nagaland became a State he got a job there as a clerk and I am told in course of time he became a deputy secretary in the new set up at Kohima.
>
>
>
> The All Party Hill Leaders of former Assam made a very successful bid for separation from Assam. They had cent per cent support from the hill people. The Khasi peoples' demonstration at Shillong was spectacular. I have a feeling that that it  was not precisely statehood they had in mind but because of the impossibility of seceding from India through peaceful means made them to be wiser.
>
>
>
> The question remained open as to the plains tribals of Assam, say for example the Bodos, Mising and many others. Their grievances were not a whit different from those of the hill tribals.
>
>
>
> Now sovereignty. This is the most attractive alternative. Punjab, Bengal, Tamil, Andhra, Maharashtra and most other States of India have full legitimacy, I believe, to declare themselves sovereign.   They have territory, a homogenous population, resources, and capable of generating a national will. However, none of them has yet produced an Ian Smith. It has been proved without room for any doubt that a small state is viable; these days it is not essential to have a sizable army to defend itself. International law prohibits forced capitulation of an independent country.
>
>
>
> Assam is a state endowed with natural resources, much of it is depleted though. Once Assam is sovereign, you Ram can become the President of the country, Chandan the Prime Minister and I an ambassador of Assam accredited to the Court of St James,   United Kingdom. Nalbari, Jorhat, Dibrugarh will have Governors of our choice. Now a popular and powerful Chief Minister has to kowtow to Central Government to go abroad on invitation as an honoured  guest; in an independent  sovereign country such a situation is unthinkable.
>
>
>
> I now do not remember where I read but political scientists predict that India will be divided into many independent states in course of time.
>
>
>
> Who are to blame for the possible disintegration of India in course of time? Its people, the political thinkers, the so-called leaders of today. The members of the Constituent Assembly envisaged a divided India and advised to take timely steps to integrate India. This did not happen. In England it has now been accepted that  multiculturalism is anathema to nationhood(in India we prided with the slogan 'Unity in Diversity'). The Sixth Schedule to the Indian Constitution did bring benefits to the downtrodden people of India but at the same time it disintegrated the country.
>
>
>
> This is a very rough and ready blueprint to do away with your doubts.
>
>
>
> Regards Bhuban