By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,
Sometimes when one divides something one actually multiplies it.
So when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance government, in November 2000, divided Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh to create Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, it actually multiplied the number from three to six. And the number of states in India jumped from 25 to 28.
What is strange is that this decision, taken in one go, was made without any recommendations of the States’ Reorganization Commission––as in mid-1950s. As politically it suited the BJP, the party went for it soon after coming to power in New Delhi. The party bigwigs and their supporters in the media put up fantastic arguments. They were not prepared to listen to the counter-points nor were they willing to accept that small states are more prone to political instability––Goa, North-East etc. In fact the credit for introducing Aya Ram Gaya Ram––horse-trading––politics goes to Haryana, a relatively small state with 90-MLA Assembly.
The BJP in fact wanted to nip in the bud the original demand of the JMM to have a Greater Jharkhand, a big tribal state spread over Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. That would have been detrimental for the Sangh Parivar politics.
But the whole move to divide tribal heartland backfired. In no time Chhattisgarh became a Maoist bastion and Jharkhand witnessed many high-profile attacks by the Red army. A couple of years into its existence the state with the highest mineral deposit became a national caricature. All sorts of experiments were made with this young state. Once even small party and Independent MLAs were abducted and taken hostage in Jaipur by the BJP as their poaching was going on in a big way. An Independent MLA, Madhu Koda, got the opportunity to rule it for 23 months. But all out of sudden those who were backing him––Congress prominently––deemed it fit to see him behind bars.
However, after December last assembly election it was thought that everything was now sailing smoothly. But the four month young Shibu Soren government landed up in hell lot of trouble––all of its own making. Guruji, as Soren is loving addressed, flew to New Delhi at the request of, none else but the BJP, to vote in favour of the Cut Motions. Since he is still the member of the Lok Sabha and not elected to the Jharkhand Assembly he was eligible to vote. On April 27 instead of voting in favour of the Cut Motions he did just the opposite.
As all this was happening another small state, Meghalaya, was having a change of guard. People now do not keep a count of the number of chief ministers who come and go in the states with very small strength of Assemblies.
What prompted Soren to switch side––or different button in Parliament––was beyond anybody’s comprehension. However, it was a bonus for the UPA. Moments later the media was rife with stories of a deal with the Congress. It was speculated that he is likely to be inducted into the Manmohan Singh cabinet and his JMM, with 18 MLAs, would be supporting the 14-legislator strong Congress and other secular parties to form the government. Media reports also suggested that Shibu’s son Hemant Soren would become new deputy chief minister in the new arrangement. The very next day the BJP announced the decision to withdraw support from Soren government.
However, the strangest development was to follow. Shibu announced that he mistakenly voted in favour of the UPA. He even apologized for this act. As an atonement he offered to support the BJP in forming government in the state.
The move flummoxed the BJP. The JMM too got divided as there were many leaders who were strongly opposed to giving support to the BJP. Taking support from it is all right, but not giving, they argued.
Is Soren so prone to commit such a blunder while pushing button in Parliament? After all 17 years back its six MPs did bail out the then Narasimha Rao government during a no-confidence motion. The JMM MPs bribery case is still fresh in the mind.
It is really difficult to read Soren’s mind. But one thing is clear: by creating states with smaller strength of the Assembly we have committed a big blunder––at least it seems. As it is easy to indulge in horse-trading in states with smaller number of legislators political uncertainty is very much inherent in them.
The Anti-Defection Law, which initially required one-third MLAs to formalize split in the legislature party failed to check the horse-trading. Then it was amended and now two-thirds MLAs are required. Even that did not prove much difficult.
Take the case of the 81-member Jharkhand Assembly where big parties like JMM and BJP got 18 seats each. Breaking two-thirds MLAs from them is not a big deal in the present political scenario. So far smaller parties are concerned they get split at the drop of a hat.
It is not that the bigger states are epitome of virtue. But since the strength of the Assemblies are much bigger causing split in the legislature parties is not so easy a job. Even in fractured verdict big parties do not end up getting 15-20 seats, but many times more. Thus the smaller states, even if it is developed one like Goa, witnesses the change of government almost every year. Now that there are so many small states in the country––and Telengana and Gorkhaland may soon follow––the likely solution to the political stability is the increase in the number of Assembly seats in them so that horse-trading can at least be minimised, if not totally ruled out.