The Telangana Rashtra Samiti's decision to quit the UPA over the Centre's refusal to agree to its demand for a Telangana state may not have much impact.
In the absence of a political consensus on the issue, the UPA government has preferred to go slow on the TRS demand for bifurcating Andhra Pradesh.
However, the demand for a Telangana state is legitimate. Smaller states lend themselves to better governance. One of the contentious issues that could come up if Andhra is divided will be the status of Hyderabad, the state capital.
There is a suggestion that Hyderabad should be made a Union territory and host the governments of Telangana and Andhra. There is the precedent of Chandigarh, which is a UT and the capital of Punjab and Haryana.
However, it is time to ask if we should burden metropolises like Hyderabad with administrative duties related to the provinces.
Cities like Hyderabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are state capitals but have long ceased to be merely provincial headquarters. They are home to a new globalising India.
These cities are incubators for new generation firms in IT, biotech and pharma and nurture a cosmopolitan labour force that has to keep up with global standards.
This new persona is often at odds with the provincial character of its ruling elite, a contradiction which has led to accusations that metros are promoted at the expense of the provinces. Bangalore and Hyderabad have suffered greatly because of this.
The way ahead is to liberate the metros from the provinces which can develop new capitals. Cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai and Chennai should become UTs or adopt the Delhi model and constitute themselves as city states.
This obviously calls for a refiguration of our notion of states. Linguistic and ethnic identities have so far been the basis on which states were formed. That is no more the case.
When new identities shaped by economic forces and urbanisation are formed, old forms of linguistic and ethnic bonding may start to recede.
That apart, city states can act as catalysts for economic and social change. The new state capitals will in the long run evolve into metros and hopefully take the pressure off existing ones.
The US has successfully followed a similar model of state and city building.
Cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco have evolved as great urban centres without being capital cities of the provinces in which they are located.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1927616,curpg-1.cms
In the absence of a political consensus on the issue, the UPA government has preferred to go slow on the TRS demand for bifurcating Andhra Pradesh.
However, the demand for a Telangana state is legitimate. Smaller states lend themselves to better governance. One of the contentious issues that could come up if Andhra is divided will be the status of Hyderabad, the state capital.
There is a suggestion that Hyderabad should be made a Union territory and host the governments of Telangana and Andhra. There is the precedent of Chandigarh, which is a UT and the capital of Punjab and Haryana.
However, it is time to ask if we should burden metropolises like Hyderabad with administrative duties related to the provinces.
Cities like Hyderabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are state capitals but have long ceased to be merely provincial headquarters. They are home to a new globalising India.
These cities are incubators for new generation firms in IT, biotech and pharma and nurture a cosmopolitan labour force that has to keep up with global standards.
This new persona is often at odds with the provincial character of its ruling elite, a contradiction which has led to accusations that metros are promoted at the expense of the provinces. Bangalore and Hyderabad have suffered greatly because of this.
The way ahead is to liberate the metros from the provinces which can develop new capitals. Cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai and Chennai should become UTs or adopt the Delhi model and constitute themselves as city states.
This obviously calls for a refiguration of our notion of states. Linguistic and ethnic identities have so far been the basis on which states were formed. That is no more the case.
When new identities shaped by economic forces and urbanisation are formed, old forms of linguistic and ethnic bonding may start to recede.
That apart, city states can act as catalysts for economic and social change. The new state capitals will in the long run evolve into metros and hopefully take the pressure off existing ones.
The US has successfully followed a similar model of state and city building.
Cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco have evolved as great urban centres without being capital cities of the provinces in which they are located.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1927616,curpg-1.cms