The I, me syndrome turns brazen

Frank Moraes, when he was editor of Indian Express in the late 1960s, once mentioned an incident when he was abroad in the company of foreign journalists. There was a discussion on who constituted minority in India. One of the foreign journalists remarked that Indians were the minority in India. On being asked by Moraes on why he contended so, the journalist stated that Indians think in terms of being a Maharashtrian, Gujarati, Andhra, Tamilian, so on and so forth and very few think that they are Indians, first and foremost.

I was reminded of this when I was watching the remarks by constitutional functionaries that South was being discriminated against while some of them were raising voices of a separate South Indian state. In Andhra Pradesh it all started with the demand for special category status and some constitutional functionaries cautioned that if their genuine demand was not met divisive forces might take over.

Tamil superstar and new political entrant Kamal Haasan also mentioned about a north - south divide. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaih raised the pitch while ‘mentioning’ that southern States were financially subsidising the northern States. Finally, DMK heir-apparent MK Stalin talked of the need for a separate Dravidian state.

All these expose the sickening attitude of the present day leadership, where they are willing to go to any lengths for their political survival, including questioning the very integrity of the nation. Ironically, most of them were at one time or the other part of the ruling party or the ruling coalition looking after the affairs of the nation. Sadly, as is the wont of a majority of Indian politicians, there is a change of attitude when they are out of the ruling class. 

It is the extent that they are willing to raise any issue, including the integrity of the nation, because for them political survival is paramount. One of the triggers for this, seems to be the terms of reference to the 15th Finance Commission, which was urged to take 2011 Census figures for division of funds between the States based on population criteria instead of 1971 Census figures, which were taken as the base by successive earlier Finance Commission panels. 

Such a major shift in the terms of reference, independent of the merits of the decision, it would have been better if the Union Government instead of taking at its level unilaterally had taken the NDC into confidence considering that all incumbent Chief Ministers are members. But that is no reason for political leaders, one after the other, to come out with such drastic opinions. 

In a democracy there are forums to raise these issues lobby with other states, which are going to be affected by such a change in the criteria and bring pressure on the Centre. Venting such fissiparous views is not the right way of approaching the problem.

Coming to the terms of reference for the 15th Finance Commission, it may be pointed out that the 14th Finance Commission itself remarked that 1971 population-base was outdated but they are  forced to adopt it in view of the terms of reference. Which one should be taken as a basis is a debatable point and can benefit some states at the expense of others. 

The rationale for taking 1971 population figures as the base is to ensure that the states which have done better on population control are not penalised for their better performance. Population growth can also happen with migration which is the case for some of the states, particularly in metropolis.

Even when 1971 population is taken as the base corrective factors of weightage is given to population growth to arrive at a balance. But when such a major shift was planned, the Union Government has committed a blunder by not taking the states into confidence and arriving at a formula after detailed discussion.

Coming back to Siddaramaiah‘s comment that southern states are subsidising the northern states it’s a very superficial statement not befitting a person holding the post of the Chief Minister. In an economy which is getting integrated and where major share of resource distribution is done through a Finance Commission based on the number of criteria it is wrong to assume that some states are subsidising the others. 

If we take consumption of fertilisers, Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal consume greater share of the fertilisers. Fertiliser subsidy is a major expenditure of the government of India. 

Does it mean these states are being subsidised by the rest of the country? Southern states had qualitatively better leadership after independence and this has resulted in higher levels of development. Further due to their stature these leaders were able to get a far better deal to the southern states compared to the northern ones. 

Especially, during the coalition era the amount of flexing of muscles both Karunanidhi and Chandrababu Naidu have done has resulted in substantial gains for their respective states. Forgetting all this, to talk of a north-south divide would only be taking an opportunistic stand not befitting leaders of their stature.

The Union Government should seriously consider bringing in a legislation automatically disqualifying any person from any position, constitutional or otherwise, for indulging in such speeches and actions questioning the unity and integrity of the nation. If there is one thing these leaders love more than their voice is the post to which they cling on to, come what may.