A few weeks back I woke up to news that the Indian government had decided to split the state of Andhra Pradesh into two. Just like that.
I wondered if I had been missing news threads since this came to me as a surprise. I dug around. And I found that there indeed had been simmering demands for a new state. The leader of the "Telangana People" had even been on a fast onto death for his cause. News threads indicated that this seemed to be the start of a long arduous debate about the need for a new state, times of political posturing and long negotiations.
And then came the announcement one midnight. Just like that.
I found the news quite worrying since it seemed fundamentally opposed to the pluralistic nature that defines India. We started in 1947 as a state with multiple people and cultures. We were 568 different states, 30 different languages, and a varied religious representation. And this was against the backdrop of the creation of a neighboring nation, Pakistan, with "One People" and one religion binding them. Over the years, India has evolved into a thriving democracy, a vibrant country and a role model in the community of developing nations. Pakistan however teeters on the verge of becoming a failed state, a haven for terrorists, a security threat to the world and India in particular.
A big reason why two nations, starting out at the same time, with similar people and history turned out so different is the fundamentally different philosophies that lead to their creation. India – trying to bring different people together, wedded to the idea of inclusion, and brought together by the concept that in a nation as large and diverse it was fine to disagree about issues. Pakistan on the other hand came to be with the notion that a state with "one" people was the best bet for successful nationhood. Successful nationhood was hinged on the idea of one people, one belief and one philosophy. One people, is there anything like that notion - Within a nation, a state, a family, even a household. Human beings are fundamentally different and diverse. Small nuances set them apart. People unite under a shared vision and ideal, not because they are similar. A lot of the unrest we see in the world today – Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of china are because of the lack of a shared vision of the future, not because the people are different. For there is no concept of "One people". Nations unite under one umbrella for reasons such as economic, geographic and shared benefit. Not because they are one people.
The argument that Telangana under the construct of a separate state will bring economic focus seems valid at the outset. But dig deeper and you see faults in the argument. If economic focus is indeed the concern why is a new state the only solution? A new state brings overheads (economic, administrative, and operational) that could be detrimental to the end objective – betterment of the people of Telangana. And does the "common man" in Telangana care at all about the State boundaries? Why can't the betterment of the people of Telangana happen under the existing construct of the Andhra Pradesh state but with a renewed political pledge to the people of the region? Do we just need a new state because of the enormous benefits to a few key political players?
That said, creation of a new state of Telangana might bring in economic prosperity to the area. The region might thrive, industries might grow and the people might prosper. But this comes at the cost of India's fundamental philosophy that a nation does not need to be "One People". That diverse creed can come together under a shared vision and create benefits for all. That boundaries are drawn for administrative purposes not to house different cultures. And if better administration is what Telangana needs we should act incisively to give exactly that. Not create a new state that could drive us into a vortex of demands of new states, divisions of the country and a breakdown of our national fabric.
