When the British first entered the political scene in India, the division of the country followed no logical bounds. Rajahs, Maharajahs, Nawabs and their like ran the country, their rule autocratic, their laws tradition-bound. Hyderabad, under the Nizam was multi-lingual. What bound people together was obeisance to the one in command. Patriotism, such as we know it now, was conspicuously absent and Bharat was no more than a Vedantic concept.

Territorial expansion stopped with the defeat of the Peshwas. When the British began their conquest they followed no special programme. As it has been said, it just happened. The early 'presidencies' such as that of Bengal and Madras grew following no rhyme or reason. Including in the Madras "presidency" were people speaking Oriya, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam and Tulu. With the coming of independence and linguistic nationalism, the map of India was re-drawn to reflect linguistic unity.

Thus were born Tamil Nadu, Telugu Desam (Andhra Pradesh), Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The Hindi-speaking north followed other criteria in the formation of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar etc. but it was presumed that in the absence of other forces language would be the uniting factor, no longer. In recent months both Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have been divided as was Punjab in the past. Now there is a very for the division of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and even Orissa.

After the demand for a new 'Koshal' state in western Orissa, a few groups and organisations in southern Orissa have begun clamouring for a separate Kalinga state. In Andhra Pradesh the demand is for a separate Telangana. In Maharashtra, even Sharad Pawar has started pitching for a separate Vidarbha State. And in Karnataka voices are being heard for a separate statehood for North Karnataka language, it seems, is no longer a unifying factor.

The demand for a separate North Karnataka state had always been there but it has been kept muted. With Karnataka Chief Justice N K Jain's refusal to establish a separate high Court bench in Hubli or Dharwar, North Karnatakans have felt slighted. At this point they wouldn't mind Karnataka being bifurcated. Time was when linguistic love led to the chanting of the song 'udaya vagali namma cheluva Kannada nadu' (May the beautiful land of the Kannada speaking people, rise like the dawn). That song is seldom heard these days.

The northerners want to cohere on their own. The concept of a linguistically united Karnataka has lost its glamour. It was Potti Sriramulu who first agitated for separate Andhra Pradesh. He literally gave up his life for the attainment of his dream. What he would say for the separation of Telangana is anyone's guess. So strong is the demand for Telangana that tha TRS chief K Chandrashekar Rao told the media on 10 September that "we will drag Sonia Gandhi and Rajashekhar Reddy to the bazars, if Telangana does not get statehood."

If that was further delayed, he warned, Telangana would be turned into an agnigundam (volcano). Strong language and no doubt Chandrashekhar Rao is serious. But are small states justified? would they be economically viable? Won't they, in due course, descend into the whirlpools of uncontrollable corruption? But, goes the counter-argument, if Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Goa can exist, why shouldn't Telangana or Vidharbha? Or for that matter, a Koshal or a Kalinga? Small states are nothing new under the sun.

Consider some of the small states in the world like Belgium and the Netherlands in Europe, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, el Salvador and Costa Rica, not to mention Panama in North America, Uruguay and Paraguay in South American and so on. There are more states in the United States of America for its 220 odd million people than in India for its billion and odd people. The argument that small states are unviable, therefore does not necessarily hold.

One of the reasons that people in north Karnataka are demanding a separate state for themselves is, as has already been stated, the government's refusal to have a separate high court bench for them in their own region. The point has been made that litigants of North Karnataka districts comprising Belgaum, Dharwad, Haveri, Gulbarga, Bidar, Bellary, Raichur and Koppal cannot travel all the way to Bangalore to seek justice. That is not necessarily a valid argument.

Before the re-organisation of states on a linguistic basis people in these districts had necessarily to go either to the old Madras or to Bombay which were far enough, and there were no complaints. If a separate high court bench is presently denied to North Karnataka it is because, goes the explanation, the number of cases pending from the region is less than one third of the total.

It is only when the cases exceed one third that the case for a separate bench is a entertained. But then it is asked how come the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir functions at two places, Srinagar in summer and Jammu in winter, that the Guwahati High Court has benches at Imphal, Kohima (for Nagaland), Aizwal (for Mizoram), Agartala (for Tripura) Shillong (for Meghalaya) and Itanagar?

Why should Kolkata High Court have a bench at Port Blair and the Madhya Pradesh High Court should have a Bench at Indore and another at Gwalior? Former Congress Minister H K Patil who hails from North Karnataka has taken a serious exception to the denial of a bench for his region on the argument that it has fewer cases. In a recent statement he said: "Cases originating from North Karnataka region have increased fourfold in the last ten years. Two committees headed by Justices G C Bharuka and Ashok Bhan have submitted a report favouring a Bench in North Karnataka."

The usual plea for a separate state comes from people who feel that they have been economically neglected for decades. It is true that in the case of Karntaka, the southern half has done better than the northern in some ways but not necessarily because of state government favouritism. That part which once was part of Mysore state was educationally far in advance prior to independence and has remained so even after independence. Bangalore has become a thriving capital also because of its location and climate. No wonder it has become literally the IT capital of India.

There may be some justification for the demand for a separate Kalinga state to be carved out of Orissa on grounds of neglect, but really not much. Orissa even now is a small state and to separate Koraput, Nowrangpur, Malkangiri, Rayagara, Ganjam and Gajapati makes little sense. Surely, Bhubaneshwar can be persuaded to be more even-handed in the distribution of largess than in the past, especially considering that Chief Minister Navin Patnaik hails from the southern district of Ganjam? The demand for a separate Vidharbha is nothing new. It has been there for a long time but for some strange reason has never caught fire.

Staunch linguistically-oriented parties like the Shiv Sena are strongly opposed to the concept of a separate Vidharbha state on the grounds that it would considerably reduce Maharashtra's eminence in the country. But of late the scenario has been changing.

One reason may be the rout of Congress-NCP in Vidharbha during the recent Lok Sabha polls, when the alliance could bag only one out of eleven parliamentary seats from the region.

The NCP hardly matters in Vidharbha while for Congress, winning over the region means winning Maharashtra. Vidharbha alone contributes about 34 out of the party's tally of 74 in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

If Vidharbha becomes a separate state, the Congress will lose its predominant position in the Congress- NCP alliance and, as one expert has noted, my even come second to the NCP. Sharad Pawar's NCP has a strong base in western Maharashtra and can count on increasing its numbers in Maharashtra and North Maharasthra. For all one knows, despite these factors, the demand for a separate Vidharbha may yet fructify, but one can be assured that the concept will be bitterly resisted by the Shiv Sena.

What is remarkable about all these developments is the turn-around in the thinking of politicians to whom linguistic states was once their mantra to success. What is clear is that language is no longer a uniting force. What people want is administrative efficiency accompanied by social uplift.

The earlier linguistic state was conglomerate of many regions of wide range of economic prosperity. It was like a joint family where everybody contributed to the general welfare of the entire family and the karta decided how the revenue should be distributed. That social structure holds good no longer.

As it is, the joint family system has been slowly dying. It is the nuclear family that is now more fashionable. Brothers do not stay together. If there is any ancestral property they want it divided, so that each goes his own way. And so, it seems, is presently the fate of the linguistic state. The old fervour for such a state is dying, if not already dead. Pakistan learnt that religion is not a binding force.

India is learning that language is not a binding force either. The Shiv Sena may feel deeply hurt - after all, it was in the forefront of the agitation for a united Maharashtra - but times change. For all one knows there may come a time for the creation of a Gomantak State, comprising of the districts west of the ghats. The force that will have to be reckoned with in the future is economic prosperity; not religion, not language, not even politics. And it won't be a bad idea either.

Courtesy: www.samachar.com