By D Suba Chandran
Are the regional aspirations in India essentially against the national
interests? Or, is there a huge gap between the two, that the
successive governments and political parties both at the national and
regional levels have failed to address?
While the current focus is on the foreign policy disaster in terms of
Indian Prime Minister not attending the CHOGM in Sri Lanka due to
pressure from Tamil Nadu, this is not a new trend. Earlier, West
Bengal asserted itself against a similar visit to Dhaka. While the Sri
Lankan Tamil issue is behind Tamil Nadu’s present pressure, West
Bengal used the sharing of Teesta river waters as an issue, thereby in
both cases damaging Indo-Sri Lankan and Indo-Bangladesh relations.
While it needs a separate analysis on the merits and problems of the
above two, the larger question is: do the sub-regions and the rest of
nation understand each other? True India is a huge country with
different regions, which in turn are heterogeneous. But, is India not
also a democracy and federal, both being sanctified by the
Constitution and considered as fundamental by the learned Supreme
Court? Is it not the essential functionality of a democracy and
federation to ensure that the regions and the rest of nation are on
the same page?
Certainly, the size of India and its heterogeneous nature cannot be
seen as a problem; perhaps, it could be perceived as an excuse, as it
has been done by successive governments since independence. The
problems between the regions and the nation are elsewhere.
First and foremost, it is the failure of governments at the national
level, irrespective of whichever political party was leading the
Parliament in New Delhi. The government, its cabinet and the Prime
Minister in particular should have been the biggest bridge between the
centre and the regions. It is a biggest irony in India that for the
government, cabinet and the Prime Minister, the regions are last in
their priorities. Worse, at times, they were never even in the list of
priorities. How else can one explain the dis-connect between the
different governments, and at times even within the same government?
Take the case of Dr Manmohan Singh, for example and his interest
vis-a-vis J&K. What has happened between 2007 and 2013 to his
approach? What did the region expect from him when he appointed those
five working groups and inaugurate the cross-LoC bus service? What
happened to the Round Table Conferences that he himself inaugurated?
The interest of the Centre and its priorities are the primary problem
for creating the dis-connect between the nation and the regions. The
regions rightly feel sidelined, ignored and overlooked. The case is
same in the Northeast, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.
Second, the coalition politics, undoubtedly exerts a pressure in the
communication between the regions and Centre. Sri Lankan Tamil issue
was not new; the entire community was under pressure and prosecution
in Sri Lanka by successive governments and especially under the
present Rajapakse government. But, why is that it has become an issue
today, and not few years ago? As long as the DMK was a part of the
coalition, there was a better understanding between New Delhi and
Chennai. Worse, as long as the cases of corruption by its own MPs, the
DMK went slow in pressurizing New Delhi. Today, there is an ADMK
government in Tamil Nadu, and the Sri Lankan Tamil issue is an
important emotional issue that the political parties are using to gain
narrow political mileage within the State.
The coalition politics, and the internal politics within the States,
thus do play a role in creating an emotional gap between the State and
Centre. In the process, it also creates a gap between the societies.
Third, the failure of governance and the high level of corruption in
the regions/States play an important role in the State government
blaming the Centre for all the ills. Consider the case of the
Northeast; in particular, Nagaland and Manipur are ruled by the
underground, where the militant groups openly “collect” a percentage
as “tax” even from the government officials! Goods cannot move easily
from one part to the other, without “paying” at the multiple
unofficial checkposts managed by the non-State actors. Funds and goods
from rest of India reaches the State; but, there is an organized
underground, which takes it and distributes itself. As a result, the
common man suffers immensely and is extremely angry about the present
situation.
The State governments in the Northeast are only happy to shift the
blame on the Centre. The Centre is well aware of the problem, but it
is also a part of the problem, as there is an unholy nexus between the
bureaucracy, political leaders and the underground. If the States are
shifting the blame on the Centre, the latter is only interested in
maintaining the status quo
Fourth, the national media, especially the electronic media is
jingoistic and irresponsible, in terms of projecting the regional
issues and aspirations, as if only few States around Delhi constitute
the Indian nation! If the national media is jingoistic, the regional
media is narrowly focussed. Whether it is firing across the LoC, or
Teesta river, or the Tamil issue, one could easily observe a pattern
in how the regional and national media sees the problem and projects
the same.
Besides the media, the research institutions and think tanks at the
national and regional levels have a role to play. Again, it is
unfortunate, that there are not many think tanks and research
institutes at the national level understand the regional aspirations.
On the other side, it is equally unfortunate, there are not many
quality research institutions and think tanks in the States and
regions, that could project their aspirations and alternative
approaches.
Finally the role of Members of Parliament. For example, when it comes
to India’s Lookeast Policy, everyone in the Northeast complain that
the Center is insensitive to the regional interests and overlook the
region. Perhaps, this perception is even true. But how many Members of
Parliament from the Northeast have raised this issue in a sustained
manner and articulated what the region wants, and how it would like to
play a positive role. What is the primary purpose of MPs? How
effective they are in terms of being a bridge between the region/State
and the rest of India?
There is an all round failure and all of us are suffering. How to
ensure that the nation and region perceives that their interests are
not antithetical, but complimentary? Can the nation move forward
without taking the regions along? And can the regions move forward if
they want to leave a negative impact on the rest of nation?
D Suba Chandran, Director, IPCS – Eurasia Review
