“Manpower without
unity is not a strength unless it is harmonized and united properly, then it
becomes a spiritual power.” – Sardar Vallabhai Patel
India is a diverse country, with its multilingual and
multicultural states. Every person living in India identifies him/herself based
on the states he/she belongs to. But bringing forth regionalism in politics
could result in dissonance since whole of India is dependent on policy makers
and the people who govern such a big democracy. Dependent on their
impartiality, people of India should be able to trust national politics, and
not be discontented with their ignorance or marginalization of certain regions
for apathy towards other regions.
Regionalism in politics could lead to equivocation and
favoritism, inadvertent or intentional, the possibility exists. How can we be
sure that with regionalism, the linguistic diversity of India will not become
an obstacle as it did in the 1950s?
Jawaharlal Nehru didn’t want the creation of linguistic
states, but creation of Andhra was made inevitable due to Potti Sriramulu. It
led to a wide spread agitation, as the same was being demanded by other
linguistic groups. M.S Golwalkar had once said that creation of linguistic
states would “lead to bitterness and
give rise to fissiparous tendencies endangering the unity of the country”
and Jawaharlal Nehru shared the same thoughts with the RSS supreme.
Therefore, possibility of such conflicts is imminent and so
is the possibility of autonomous politics; just like reign of one party which
is predominant in only a few regions. Reasons for the same could entail
linguistic identities of those securing votes, or various other factors causing
regionalism. Thus, political parties aspiring to be in power, use regional
factors to come into power. And the same then becomes a vindication for
autocracy, vociferously aiming for cultural “identity”. Thus, citizens of that
region, feel the urge to behave in a detrimental way to the citizens not
belonging to that particular region and hence feelings of antipathy percolate;
and this indeed, is a vicious cycle.
A citizen, even more than his/her cultural identity, needs
the political class to recognize his/her basic human rights and needs the
political class to be responsible enough to protect its citizens. Freedom to
live a life of dignity should not be denied at any cost, or violated for personal
interests of one region at the cost of other. And such negotiations and
compromises will be insuperable since geographical factors also come into play
in regional politics.
Regionalism in politics would demarcate locals from
“outsiders”. The regional political parties, long since the first general
election in 1952, seem to formulate their policies and programmes on the basis
of regional demands, grievances and interests of the people of their region. Our
government must strive to create a nation which with its citizens is one
without disparity, and one of integrity. Schisms of region and religion need to
fade away, for a democratic nation to thrive and for it to remain prosperous. The origination of regionalism seems vested in
vexation from being neglected. Some might argue that the same frustration can
be placated by granting independent administrations in the Indian polity. But
would it not be regional separatism then? Would India still remain a sovereign
nation then?
Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the man behind the integration of
princely states, has rightly said, “Little
pools of water tend to become stagnant and useless. But if they are joined
together to form a big lake, the atmosphere is cooled and there is universal
benefit.”
Equality and emancipation have been long fought for;
therefore confining liberty to regions is no liberty at all. More so, such
demarcations may lead to monotony and may rob people off the chance to grow and
to learn, in what we call a “diverse” country. Regionalism in politics will
strip India off of harmony and create a nation of absolutism. Such would be a
subtle line of demarcation which would disturb the equilibrium of the states,
translating into retrogression.
India is a sovereign and secular nation, and in its
political culture, should transcend cultural and regional horizons and identify
with all of its citizens belonging together. We as citizens uphold our civic
duties and aspirations and it is the duty of the political class to not disturb
our economic equilibrium, for the benefit of their regions. Regionalism in
politics will not be able to sustain a democracy where cultural difference is
inevitable. A democracy encircles independence, candour, honesty and respect
for the rights of people. People should be able to make their own decisions
regarding their cultural identity within the ambit of law. Regionalism would
deter people to have such liberty and freedom and would create for them
superfluous laws.
Bertrand Russell has put it as,
“The only thing that
will redeem mankind is cooperation”
Cooperation to tackle global challenges as the international
market and globalism become developers of a nation is vital between the nation
states. And vide history; it is the failure to cooperate that has led to the
greatest tragedies. One of the most brutal forms of regionalism was the one
involving A.Z Phizo’s Naga National Council and T. Muivah’s National Socialist
Council of Nagaland. Jawaharlal Nehru wanted for the tribal people to
‘retain their individual culture’. He said “India
should signify not only a protecting force but also a liberating one.”But they
‘could not succeed’ and ‘the people of these areas drifted away’.
Togetherness, I feel is the need of the hour. Regionalism in
politics cannot support the structure of nationalism. It would not be able to
support a nation as diverse as India, which needs the voice of people from all
regions, together, so that it remains a harmonious nation. So, regionalism in
politics would be like a potent poison, a ruination of national unity and
integrity.
Lastly I would like to quote Abraham Lincoln,
“Government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”
