|
|
 |
|
At the stroke of the midnight hour a year ago, when rest of India was asleep, Bihar was divided again. Unlike the cataclysm that followed partition of India, this geographical surgery of the state appeared to be a non-event, with no political or economic tremor. They fell apart as if they were never together. This vivisection may be first in the current century, but nobody can say with certainty that this is the last. In the previous century also, Bihar was subjected to geographical surgery several times. Possibly no other state had to face such ignoble situation so often. With political configurations becoming increasingly market centric, where acquisition is the only hallmark of success, the absence of subnational ignobility could have been ignored, if only the benefits of division were greater that its cost. If wishes of Bihar's political elites were horses, then this benighted state would have celebrated 'Diwali' today with financial bonanza from the Central Government, ranging from astronomical Rs. 2 lakh crore as demanded by BJP to modest Rs. 50 thousand crore by cocksure Samta Party. Unlike limitation of its vision, the RJD was not constipated in seeking financial compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.79 lakh crore. But not a single paisa had come to the state. Thus the first 'Diwali' of divided Bihar will be celebrated with depleted internal resources, with the banishment of the rich Jharkhand plateau and financial deaf ear of the Central Government. It is strange that anybody with even a modicum of understanding about the financial capacity
of the Central Government could have imagined a compensation of this magnitude. It is a tragic irony that the financial health of the Central Government is even worse than that of Bihar. With the increasing deficit and mounting debt bill (resulting to interest payment to the tune of more than Rs. 50 thousand crore annually), it was inconceivable that it could have subsidized the reorganization of a Hindi Heartland state.
It is absolutely ironical that the three mammoth states of the Hindi Heartland, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, which have generally scripted the electoral composition of the Central Government, had to face the division themselves. Essentially, these states were divided mainly because of the absence of a substantial entrepreneurial middle class, which would have undoubtedly raised the banner of sub-nationalism preventing any division of their respective states. The problems of the Hindi Heartland get more politically and socially confounded. Due to abhorrence to modernization and absence of sub-nationalism, the 'caste' was the only vehicle of identity. Further, these states also did not witness the emergence of a class which had vested interest in securing regional market, which could trigger capitalist transformation, both in agriculture and industry. It is not an accident that due to absence of industrial class interest, the policy of 'freight equalisation' in coal and iron ore was allowed, inspite of a powerful Chief Minister like Srikrishna Sinha, immediately after independence. This spelled doom for the industry in Bihar, inspite of the natural advantage of mineral resources. Like industry, the agricultural resurgence is also fettered in the last one decade in Bihar. Even though Bihar has reversed its position from food 'deficit' to food 'surplus' in the last eight years, the development of agro-capitalism got severe setbacks, due to the 'pricing' and 'procurement' policy of the Central Government. In the absence of full capitalist growth of agriculture in plain or industry in plateau, inspite of favourable objective conditions, united Bihar could never experience economic integration within the state.
The division in Bihar could take place, essentially due to the state politics, arising out of the assembly election of 2000. On the other hand, the politics that is unfolding in Jharkhand now is a result of the vivisection of the state. In Bihar, politics determined the geographical divide; on the contrary, geography is now determining the politics in Jharkhand. As regards development, it would need two contrasting strategies for Bihar and Jharkhand, the former's economy banking on foodgrains and the latter's on mineral resources. In case of foodgrain, its disposal and utilization will need immediate strategy. Already there is glut in the foodgrain market. In the absence of a proper marketing and storage strategy, the new green revolution in Bihar will go totally waste. In contrast, the exploitation of mineral resources will need a visionary effort. Over and above, both the states should develop its economic linkages with metropolice of Kolkata. The port there, for landlocked states of eastern India, is a gateway to the world of sea route. Without development of Kolkata metropolitan center, the states in its economic catchment area cannot develop. Introduction of Shatabdi Express from Ranchi earlier and Patna now is a belated step towards economic integration with eastern metropolitan center. Bihar and Jharkhand should now give up its political acrimony and work for an economic union, to be extended later to all the eastern states.
The developmental strategy now will need new grammar of economics. With the globalisation and the overriding writ of WTO, the market will play more important role. Any development strategy, for a truncated state of Bihar and a nascent state of Jharkhand, will need a lot of imagination and boldness. Further any development strategy will have to compete with democratic populism.
With the 'downsizing' becoming the new 'mantra', the state centric development or recruitment policies will have to be abandoned. Government, being a major employer, can make or break electoral fortune of a party in power. So it was not an accident that the person on the saddle of public recruitment bodies will be either from the caste of the Chief Minister or his or her trusted aid. This policy was more or less followed from the first Chief Minister of Bihar, to the present Chief Minister. But with the increasing role of the market and the reduced role of the government, the foot soldiers of the state will soon find themselves redundant. Powerful ideologue and initiator of backward class movement like Jyotirao Phule or Kamraj Nadar advocated for agricultural or industrial entrpreneurship rather than elbowing for job in the state. Phule had such powerful impact on Shahu Maharaj who ruled Kolhapur in southern Mahrastra from 1894 to 1922, that he transformed the agrarian and industrial landscape there. When Kamraj Nadar became Chief Minister of Tamilnadu in early fifties, he exhorted his fellow Nadar castemen, basically toddy tappers, to go for entrepreneurship. Within few years, one of the most backward and marginal castes of Tamilnadu, developed as a flourishing entrepreneur. If Srkrishna Sinha or Laloo Prasad had replicated this role in Bihar, then this state would have been in the different trajectory of development. It is hoped that where Srikrishna Sinha and Laloo Prasad failed, Rabri Devi will succeed. Social justice movement has to transcend beyond Mandal and build Bihar with modern and knowledge entrepreneurship ethos.
Dr. Shaibal Gupta*  
|
