Telangana Conundrum (Divide, divide again and rule?)

This post is about the flavor of the week. It is my take on Telangana and the argument for breaking up the larger states into smaller more efficient states. When I sat down to write this post, I was against any division of the states. The “divide, divide again and then rule” approach was not making sense and appeared colonial. However, a little bit of research has managed to partially change my opinion. I will try and present some of the data that I came across.


First, comments on what has been happening

The pro-Telangana politicos are in hot pursuit of their goal for statehood. Chidambaram issued a statement that kicks of the process of state-formation.

Going by Chidambaram’s track record on contentious issues (e.g. Operation Green Hunt) the directive to the Andhra government is probably a red herring aimed at a) diffusing a potential crisis and/or b) an effort to divide the opposition benches by throwing a bone to regional parties who have state autonomy as a part of their agenda.

I will stick my neck out to predict that in all probability, Chidambaram will “clarify” his statement in studio interviews with anchors in a few weeks. The clarification will say that the issue is first a state subject and unless the legislature passes a resolution his hands are tied. He will once again play the “state subject” card with ease.

As far as Telangana is concerned, he chose his words (as always), with great care. In the process, he created a win-win situation for a fleeting moment. The media, and all parties concerned, bit the bait hook, line and sinker.

However, his statement has set the cat amongst the pigeons in regional political circles. Many regional forces are brining back their demand for state-hood. Area that are being discussed include

• Vidarbha (Maharashtra)
• Bundelkhand (Uttar Pradesh)
• Gorkhaland (West Bengal)
• Bodoland (Assam)

Second, the crux of the debate

Two questions that are resurfacing and are being debated include-

• Is the division of state based on language the right thing to do?
• Are smaller states easier to govern and they do they tend to have better administrative efficiencies?

For starters the two questions are VERY different. The first question has political roots. Identity based on language has been a useful political platform for regional parties (e.g. MNS in Maharashtra and DMK in Tamil Nadu). I am not going to bother analysing this question. I think any discussion on these lines will be counter-productive.

The second and far more relevant question is about  administrative efficiencies. Do Small states address development priorities and administration better than a large state? Do they have less corruption?  The rest of this post is an attempt to figure out the answer.

Small states and administrative efficiencies?

• Small Assemblies
  One down side of the small state assembly (number of MLAs) is that they may be unstable. Small assemblies and the divisive nature of local politics leads to brittle governments with wafer thin majorities. Horse trading is rampant and governments may change more than once between elections. Haryana, Goa and Jharkhand are examples that come to mind.
  
  My Argument:  If I were forced off the fence, I would say that it will not necessarily help in brining about better administrative efficiencies.
  
  
• Corruption
  Will small states breed less corruption? Hard to say! Data that I found on the net did not provide any conclusive proof that small states fair much better than large states. However it is apparent that the level of corruption appears to be marginally less in the smaller states.
  My Argument- Based on available data. It appears that small states deal slightly better at dealing with corruption particularly when it relates to their poorest citizens.
  

Note - Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Himachal, Uttarakhand, and Punjab are treated as “Large States” by the original report/source

• Voter Turnout
  Since we are a democracy, one good way to judge how healthy our democracy is to see what the voter turnouts looks like. Data Available in the National Election Study 2009 (courtesy EPW) seems to indicate that small states produce far better voter turnouts. This is a positive sign and an argument that works in favor of smaller states.
  
  My Argument: Electorates seem more responsible in smaller states.
  

• Literacy Rates
  One interesting indicator that should shed some light on development is literacy rates. According to the data available with the National Literacy Mission smaller states are performing much better than larger states. The area that grabs my attention is literacy rates amongst women.
  
  My Argument: Small states seem to have better literacy rates when it comes to women.  It reflects that a key government portfolio is being delivered more efficiently if the state is smaller. Can we extend this to other indicators? Maybe or maybe not. At the risk of sounding radical, literacy and women’s literacy are good enough reasons to start creating smaller states.

• Sate Per Capita Domestic Product
  Data is not readily and uniformly available on Per Capita domestic product (maybe I was looking in the wrong places). I will present two graphs based on Government of India data for 2009 (data downloaded with some difficulty).
  Source: MOSPI.gov.in [India in figures - 2009]
  
  My Argument: If this economic indicator is to be believed, smaller states are doing better economically (at least on a per capita scale). We can find case specific reasons for each small state and why they are where they are in these rankings. However, the fact remains, that citizens in small states appear to be doing better than the larger ones. Again, an argument in favor of small states. 

• Urbanization of India
  Over 28% of India now lives in its cities.By 2030 this number will be close to 40% (source: EPW Vol 48, 2009).
  It is not just the metros that are bursting at the seams. Like metros, towns and cities across the country have grown. What was a large town 50 years ago is now a sprawling city. Many of these cities have remained underdeveloped.
  My Argument: Infrastructure infusion into capital cities in new and smaller states will ease the burden on Metro cities in the country.There will be a multiplier effect around these cities that will give a better geographic spread to development.
  

Conclusion
When I began this post, I was convinced that Small states would not work well. What data I found says I may be wrong. I am confident, based on what I have read in the last two days, that most development indicators will be better in smaller states. Maybe this question deserves some serious thought. If the division of states happens based on regional developmental goals and not feudal family structures, I think we should invest in the shift.

Urban Activists and Their Double Standards

A discussion group dedicated to one of the most elite neighborhoods in the country has been rife with discussion about a land grab. An order by the Supreme Court to preserve a piece of lung-space has been circumvented by the state government and the property has been transferred to the person who has the property titles to the land.

I appreciate and laud the efforts of these citizen activists who are democratically and legally waging a battle against the transfer of this lung space back to private hands.

These very same urban activists however call me a leftie or socialist when I say that the transfer of tribal land to the private sector is a similar issue. I find it amazing that some of the richest citizens in Bangalore could be so thick-skinned about how similar these issues are. When a land grab affects them directly it is an issue about environment. When a land grab does not impact them directly or indirectly it is encouraged as a necessary developmental sacrifice.

This very same discussion group recently had a thread related to how villagers near the Agra Lake area in Bangalore were forcing their way into a traditional burial ground and about how it was making life uncomfortable for the residents of nearby apartment blocks. Here again I was surprised with the tone in which the person who started the thread felt that the residents had a legal right to block the grave yard, construct on the grave yard and literally dance on graves. The lack of sensitivity to the rights of the villagers who are being displaced by the rapid development of Bangalore is embarrassing to citizens like myself.

Another discussion on the same list was related to how slums were coming up in the HSR layout area. The area is being developed rapidly and population levels are fairly high. On the one-hand, residents need the labor from these slums. They refuse to pay wages that would provide them with quality housing. On the other hand, they claim rights as tax payers to evict these slum dwellers. They fail to realize that the insanitary conditions in which they live is directly related to the level of wages that the people of HSR pay the residents of these very slums.

This divide between urban upper middle class India and the rest of India is worrying. The dichotomy in their perspectives is pure hypocrisy.

Uncle Sam In India?

Most people who mark 26/11 as a global watershed and all world events as its aftermath conveniently forget the elephant in the room. That elephant is arguably the single biggest terrorist organisation in the world - the government of the United States. It has been consistently condemned by international courts for acts of terrorism. The Indian media chooses to forget this easily and is ready to apportion all blame of 26/11 to Pakistan and buy into the US definition of who constitutes a terrorist or a rogue state.

When convenient, the US government has supported, and will continue to support, brutal regimes. For example - The Taliban in Afghanistan in the 80s, The Shah in Iran, Nicolae Ceaucescu in Romania, Israel and its suppression of Palestine for over 30 years, and countries across the length and breadth of South, Central and Latin America. They have repeatedly used military aggression against civilians in the name of democracy. They have done this in Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. How is killing people in the name of terror different from killing people in the name of democracy? The US has attacked over 50 countries in the last 50 years.

The killing of thousands of civilians in the name of “democracy” and calling it the "war on terror" has to end. We have to have the collective balls to tell the US that they are the “real” terrorists and they need to stop encouraging terrorism in their government and around the world. 26/11 allowed the media to seed fear in the minds of the urban middle class Indian. Fear sells very easily and the media has capitalised on this fear.

The US government, for several decades now, has decided that it will use repressive violence to manage world affairs and retain control of the global stage. The latest in its long list of atrocities can be found in Pakistan. The US army is indiscriminately bombing villages in Pakistan. There are hundreds of civilians dying. In fact it would not come as surprise if they are using chemical weapons. They are killing people in order to track down their brothers who they created, in order to fight a proxy war against the Soviets.

Thanks to the support of the United States, terrorist organisations have spread like wildfire from Iraq, to Pakistan and now to India. The media has us believe that Iran, like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the brink of chaos. The common thread across all these countries for decades is constant US interference. The fact that the US government manufactures the chaos is brushed under the carpet.

India is now going to be at the receiving end of the US policy of “global terror.”Our media has successfully created a fear psychosis about terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan buying right into US global rhetoric. This fear psychosis is very similar to the fear that Clinton and then Bush manufactured against Iraq with the WMD theories. They sold the fear to the media and the media in turn sold it to the people. If we continue on this path, it will not be long before an Indian attack on Pakistan will be justified with the words "just cause". America used those very same words when invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

We cannot expect Pakistan to do anything about India's concerns unless the US leaves the region permanently. An overwhelming US presence in the form of military aid and military strikes in Pakistan will be a distraction to peace and stability in the region.

The US departure will be in the interests of democracy, the South Asian Region and India in particular. If the US leaves, the civil War in Pakistan will end and the two countries (India and Pakistan) will have an opportunity to constructively resolve issues, particularly the contentious question of Kashmir. Addressing these would require an attitudanal change from all sides which can be catalysed by the absence of the US and the prevalence of peace.

The media has to be more responsible and understand that they are not dealing with a democratic government in the United States. They are dealing with a polyarchy. The US is one of the few countries in the world where corruption in the form of lobbying is legal. Special interests groups dictate US policies more than the electorate. The triangle of Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the Iraq War is probably the most conspicuous example of US polyarchy. Obama is not above this. Over thirty percent of his election funds came from lobbyists. His recent track-record is proof that he is no different from Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter or Nixon. Incidentally, Carter started the Afghan conflict by funding the Taliban in Pakistan. Carter is now a Nobel Laureate for peace while the region burns.

The media needs to stop breeding insecurity and focus its attention on the US stranglehold on world politics. We need to target our solutions at getting the US out of Asia permanently and disarming their ability to invade countries unilaterally. It is this irrational power that the US has over the international community that is preventing democratic forces from tackling terrorism. For example, no UN resolution against Israel and its oppression of Palestine has ever been passed because the US government vetoes it. If you prevent democracies from acting in unison in a situation like Palestine, you are bound to breed more terror on both sides of the war on terror. The US is replicating the Palestine story across Asia. Do we ignore it because we are naïve or because we are puppets? Either way, we are in grave peril if we continue to do so.



Post Script-
According to this article at CounterCurrents.org....

Begin Quote -
As a start, on May 27th, we learned that the State Department will build a new "embassy" in Islamabad, Pakistan, which at $736 million will be the second priciest ever constructed, only $4 million less, if cost overruns don't occur, than the Vatican-City-sized one the Bush administration put up in Baghdad. The State Department was also reportedly planning to buy the five-star Pearl Continental Hotel (complete with pool) in Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to use as a consulate and living quarters for its staff there.
- End Quote
Reminds me of Saddam's Palaces.

The Hindu Business Line on Drugs, Water and Pepsi

Before you come to the conclusion that I am on Drugs or Pepsi please see THIS

Here is the summary – (i) Pepsi is going to fight anemia (!!?) and (ii) they are patenting a seeding technology for dry land paddy to help farmers who are affected by the water scarcity that invariably affects farmland in the vicinity of wherever they set up shop.

Let us look at the first absurd claim – They are going to launch a soft drink with medicinal properties that will treat Anemia. The clinical trials for this will begin in India.(ROFL)

There is a very fundamental and contradictory problem with that objective. Pepsi Co are a disease themselves. They first need to get their pipes out of India's vulnerable water resources before they start wearing a halo around their heads.

• In 2002, PepsiCo India used 6.21 liters of water per liter of beverage manufactured by it. YOU do the math!
• The volume of Blue Gold that they consumed can be best described as vulgar. This is happening when the country is struggling for water!
• More accurate reports estimate that Pepsi saved 8 billion litres of water last year by applying some "new" technology. Now, how much did they waste?
• Plachimada in Kerala is an excellent example of how ground water resources are over-exploited and locals are denied the right to an equal share of water by the beverage giants. Toxic chemicals are in abundance in wells 1km away from the beverage factory.
  
• Thanks to local voices and the Supreme Court the factory eventually lost its license.

This same factory (Coke) was getting environmental awards! An eerie reminder of the Satyam Fiasco and it’s Corporate Governance awards. Every time a company splashes a Press Release about an award, I promptly take a clip off the clothesline and take it to the bridge of my nose.

The HBL article in question refuses to address the intolerable levels of pollution created by beverage companies, their poaching and unbridled looting of water resources, and the cognizant exploitation of water resources that are essential to farmers.

We have a water crises on our hands and they have the gall to launch a product with medicinal value? Since senior citizens are likely to read this blog, I will desist from profanity.

Pepsi now says they will sell soft drinks that cure anemia. They conveniently ignore the fact that excessive groundwater extraction causes diseases far graver than Anemia. The idea itself is anemic and my face turned pale the first time I read the article.

You can not fool all the people all the time! Their publicity stunts are becoming intolerable. Their claim of "sustainability" needs to be proven!

What is alarming about the piece is the tag line - "India lead country in global project; clinical trials soon". It is well known that the pesticide levels in their drinks are not great. Now they want to run clinical trials? We are supposed to be guinea pigs for some grand CSR scheme that messes with our livers?

The second issue is typically American. The profiteering is transparent in this line - "Pepsi is in the process of patenting the seeder which seeds the soil directly"

First you take away their water. Then you invent technology that seeds without water. Then you patent the technology. This vicious cycle is getting absurd.

Navadarshanam, a Gandhian Ashram in the outskirts of Bangalore has been growing dry land paddy without fertilizer for several years. They brought in farmers from North Karnataka who were experts in this crop because of the perennial drought conditions in Northern Karnataka. If Pepsi thinks that dry land farming and related technology is their invention - they need to read up on the history of Agriculture. We do not need a bunch of R&D suits from the US telling us how to plough, till and harvest.

God forbid, if we ever need to kill a large number of innocent civilians in a third world country, we will call upon the expertise of the US corporate sector and their R&D wing.

The outstandingly brilliant journalists who wrote this piece must been on drugs themselves. It looks like they lapped up every piece of bovine manure that the Pepsico CEO regurgitated without questioning it one bit.