The United State

When my wife returned from a business trip to New Jersey, she talked about how and why it is called the "Garden State" and the discussion generally went into why (most) American states have nicknames. This got me wondering if Indian states can be given nicknames and also got into a discussion with another friend about it. That's the motivation behind this and perhaps some more future posts. Obviously, I will start with my home state...

Maharashtra celebrates 50 years of existence this year and I am told there are several cultural events and books being written to commemorate 1st May 1960. I would venture to state here though that many yuppies from my generation are probably not really aware of the significance of the celebrations and of the immense sacrifices made by the average Marathi folk to achieve this dream of theirs. The arson and rioting that accompanied the various events in the Telangana dispute recently brought home some of the aspects of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement of the 1950s and made it slightly easier to understand why, in the years following the adoption of a democratic constitution and the creation of a republic where sovereignty rested with the people, lives had to be given up in the demand for statehood - a manifestation of linguistic pride and identity.

Calling Maharashtra "the United State" would help forever reminding the uninformed of the 106 martyrs, whose memorial in south Mumbai with their names on it does not seem to be sufficient for the purpose. With the lamentable ignorance of history now reaching epidemic proportions, it is quite common to hear of uninformed arguments on granting statehood to Mumbai. Not only is this practically unfeasible - given that Mumbai receives most of its water supply, electricity, labour, food supply etc from (the rest of) Maharashtra - but is also an ignorant and insensitive attitude towards the struggle for keeping Mumbai in Maharashtra only 5 decades ago - a struggle whose adherents included Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Acharya Atre and Senapati Bapat to name a few.

This nomenclature would not however be without its share of controversy. The movement for a separate Vidarbha will now fall into the second wave of states reorganization where developmental necessities rather than linguistic reasons are cited for creation of states. Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh have successfully achieved statehood on that mandate and Telangana, if/when it is formed, would also be included in this list. The densely forested districts of Vidarbha face continual lack of development, exploitation of tribal areas and people, and the largest percentage of farmer suicides amongst all such affected regions in the country. The demand for statehood, given the currently prevalent attitudes, would seem logical to many. The feeling of neglect in the Vidarbha districts will not be quelled by telling them that they are part of a United Marathi state if the privilege is not supplemented with vast investments made in the region to bring it to the same level of development as western Maharashtra.

Lastly, the name also would be seen as a final acceptance of the fait accompli that is Belgaum - a stand advised by many influential Maharashtrians such as B. G. Deshmukh, the Punekar former Cabinet Secretary of India. In his memoirs, Deshmukh talks of him having advised this to then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Sharad Pawar. The Mahajan Committee also denied the transfer of Belgaum from Karnataka to Maharashtra, although several villages in the vicinity were deemed fit to be granted to Maharashtra. Many Maharashtrians would want to hold back naming their state the United one until Belgaum remained in Karnataka. Being only born in Belgaum and not claiming any other psychological or emotional links to the issues, I guess it is much easier for me to differ...