छोट राज्य नहि स्थानीय नेता चाही

आशीष झा

समाज जखन भावनाक धार मे बहैत अछि, त ओकर दृष्टि बहुत सीमित आ संकुचित भ जाइत अछि। एहन मे समाज मे रहनिहार विद्वान कए सेहो दूर तक नहि देखबा स वंचित भ जाइत छथि। कहनो-कहनो ओ एहन समूहक संग एहन फैसला लेल मांग उठा दैत छथि, जे आगू चलि कए समाज लेल विनाशकारी साबित होइत अछि। किछु एहने आइ-काल्हि देश मे भ रहल अछि। बिहार कए बांटि कए मिथिला राज्य बनेबा लेल लगातार मांग भ रहल अछि। इ मांग नव नहि अछि, मुदा तेलंगाना कए केंद्र स सकारनत्मक उत्तर भेटलाक बाद देश मे कुल नौ- दस टा नव राज्यक मांग तेज भ गेल। एहि राज्य क गठन क मांगक पाछु मंशा जे हुए, मुदा कारण सब विकास बता रहल अछि। छोट राज्यक गठनक लेल सबस पैघ आधार बनल विकास आइ बहस क मुद्दा बनि गेल अछि। हमर विरोध छोट राज्यक गठन स नहि अछि, मुदा सवाल उठैत अछि जे की छोट राज्य विकास क पर्याय अछि। निश्चित रूप स एकर सर्वमान्य उत्तर नहि अछि। केंद्र सरकार 11 दिसंबर, 2009 कए जखन आंध्रप्रदेश स अलग तेलंगाना राज्य बनेबाक मांग कए स्वीकृति देलक, त तेलंगानावासी कए लगल जे हुनकर पुरान सपना आब सच भ रहल अछि। अलग राज्य बनला पर ओ आब अपन संग भ रहल बेमातर(सौतेला) व्यवहार कए नहि सहताह, संगहि हुनकर अपन सरकार होएत, जतय ओ अपन गप सही ढंग स राखि सकताह। एहि तरहे ओ विकास क मार्ग पर अपन सफर शुरू करि देताह। कमोवेश एहि तरहक धारणा मिथिला सहित अन्य छोट राज्यक मांग करनिहार लोकनिक सेहो अछि। एहि ठाम गौर करबाक गप अछि जे की ओ वर्तमान सरकार मे विकास स वंचित छथि। यदि ओ सही मे वंचित छथि त अपन सरकार कए ओ कोना चुनलथि। अपन वोट स चुनल सरकार पर ओ कोना एहन आरोप लगा सकैत छथि। कि आंध्र मे एकोटा मुख्यमंत्री तेलंगाना स नहि भेल, कि बिहार मे मिथिला क्षेत्र क गरीबी लेल एहि क्षेत्र स बनल मुख्यमंत्री जिम्मेदार नहि छथि। कि अलग राज्य बनलाक बाद वर्ततान नेता चुनाव नहि लड़ताह। निश्चित तौर पर छोट राज्य क गठनक मांगक पाछु मुद्दा विकास अछि, मुदा समग्र नहि। अलग राज्य बना कए अपन समाज कए पूर्ण विकसित करबाक जे सपना देखल जा रहल अछि, ओ अपन विकास तक संकुचित भ सकैत अछि। अगर एहन गप नहि होएते त 10 साल पहिने बनल तीनटा नव राज्य झारखंड, उत्तराखंड आ छत्तीसगढ़ एहि एक दशक मे कि सही मायने मे अपन तसवीर बदलि लेलक? की ओ अपनाआप कए ओहि ठाम पहुंचा सकल, जतय ओ विभाजन स पूर्व अपना कए देखि रहल छल। प्राकृतिक संसाधन स भरपूर झारखंड आइ केतबा विकसित भेल, इ त सबहकसामने अछि। झारखंड जखन बिहार स अलग भेल छल, तखन ओकर प्रति व्यक्ति सकल घरेलू उत्पाद 9955टका सालाना छल। आइ हालात मे कोनो खास बदलाव नहि भेल अछि। झारखंड बनलाक फायदा आदिवासी नहि उठा पाबि रहल छथि। नौ साल मे छह टा सरकार। मधु कोड़ा आ शिबू सोरेन सन मुख्यमंत्री। सत्तानायकक एहि बदनियतक खामियाजा झारखंड बनलाक बाद बिहार मे रहला स बेसी झारखंडक जनता उठा रहल अछि। छत्तीसगढ़ मे राजनीतिक स्थिरताक बावजूद विकास क गति बिहार सन राज्य स कम रहल आ नक्सल सन समस्या बढ़ल। 2001मे एहि ठामक प्रति व्यक्ति सकल घरेलू उत्पाद 12400 टका सालाना छल। आइ हालात मे मात्र दू फीसदीक बढोतरी दर्ज कैल गेल अछि। एकरा कोनो खास बदलाव नहि कहल जा सकैत अछि। अलग राज्य बनलाक बावजूद एहि ठामक 80 फीसदी जनता कहूना अपन पेट चला रहल अछि। जहां तक उत्तराखंड क सवाल अछि ओकर स्थिति झारखंड आ छत्तीसगढ़ स किछु नीक हेबाक पाछु ओकरा भेटल विशेष राज्यक दर्जा अछि। जहां तक यूपी क मुख्यमंत्री मायावती क बुंदेलखंड आ पूर्वांचल बनेबाक मांग अछि। त इ तथ्य नहि बिसरबाक चाही जे मायावती ओ नेता छथि जे स्थायी सरकारक विरोध करैत रहलथि अछि। अस्थायी सरकार मे छोट-छोट दल कए महत्व बढि़ जाएत अछि आ राजनीतिक अस्थिरता मे एहन दल अपन भूमिका बढ़ा लैत अछि। एहन मे मायावतीक बंटवाराक प्रस्ताव क्षेत्रक विकास स बेसी हुनकर अपन आ बसपाक विकास स बेसी जुड़ल अछि। विकासक आधार पर मांगल जा रहल छोट राज्यक विकास लेल राजनीतिक स्थिरता सबस जरूरी अछि। मुदा गोवा आ झारखंड क अनुभव नीक नहि कहल जा सकैत अछि। एक-एक वोट स बनैत आ खसैत सरकार एहि ठाम विकास स बेसी भ्रष्टाचार कए बढावा देलक। जहां तक स्थानीय समस्याक निराकरणक सवाल अछि त उत्तरपूर्व क उग्रवाद आ झारखंड-छत्तीसगढ़क नक्सलवादक समस्याक निराकरण मे कोनो उल्लेखनीय प्रगति नहि भ सकल अछि। पैघ राज्य स टूटि कए बनल गुजरात, हरियाणा आ पंजाबक विकास मे ओकर छोट आकार स बेसी स्थानीय नेतृत्वक योगदान रहल। पिछला चारि साल मे बिहारक प्रगतिक पाछु ओकर आकार कोनो आधार नहि बनल। मिथिला क्षेत्र स जीत मुख्यमंत्री पद तक पहुंचल विनोदानंद झा, बीपी मंडल आ फेर बिहार कए गर्त दिस विदा करनिहार जगन्नाथ मिश्र एकएहि क्षेत्रक विकास करबा स के रोकने छल। मिथिला राज्य बनला स जे मैथिली भाषा कए राज्य भाषाक दर्जा भेटबाक दावा करि रहल छथि, ओ इ बिसरी जाइत छथि जे मैथिलीक विरोध करनिहनर मैथिलपुत्र जगन्नाथ मिश्र आ चतुरा बाबू सन मधुबनी स चुनल जाइत रहल जनप्रतिनिधि छथि। तीन-तीन बेर बिहारक मुख्यमंत्री बनलाक बावजूद जगन्नाथ मिश्र अपन विधानसभा क्षेत्र झंझारपुर कए स्वतंत्र रूप स सड़क मार्ग स नहि जोडि़ सकलाह। एकर कोन गारंटी जे नारायण दत्त तिवारी जेकां अगर ओ नव मिथिला राज्यक मुख्यमंत्री बनताह, त उर्दूक स्थान पर मैथिली कए राजभाषाक दर्जा देताह या झंझारपुरक समग्र विकास करताह। सवाल जगन्नाथ मिश्रक नहि अछि, सवाल विकासक प्रवृति आ संस्कार स अछि। एखनो मिथिला क्षेत्रक नेता स्थानीय स्तर स बेसी राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर काज करबा लेल तत्पर रहैत छथि। सवाल उठैत अछि जे विकास लेल छोट राज्य बेसी कारगर या मजबूत स्थानीय प्रशासन। जाहि प्रकारक विकास स समाजक दशा बदलैत अछि, लोककजिनगी मे बदलाव अबैत अछि, ओहि तरहक विकासक जिम्मा स्थानीय प्रशासनक हाथ मे होएत अछि। केंद्र आ राज्य स्तर पर गरीब लेल बनाउल गेल योजनाक क्रियान्वयनक जिम्मेदारी शुरू स प्रखंड विकास पदाधिकारी स ल कए जिलाधिकारीक हाथ मे रहलअछि। आंकड़ा बता रहल अछि जे गरीब क्षेत्र मे स्थानीय प्रशासन बेहद कमजोर अछि। जनप्रतिनिधि आ स्थानीय पदाधिकारीक मिलीभगत स भ्रष्टाचारक गाथा लिखल जा रहल अछि। गरीब जनता लेल केंद्र या राज्य मुख्यालय स चलल टका प्रखंड मुख्यालय तक जाइत-जाइत डूमरीक फूल भ जाइत अछि। अलग राज्य बनला स नहि त इ प्रशासक बदलताह आ नहिए जनप्रतिनिधि। हां, एकटा शहर नव राजधानी जरूर बनत आ एकटा नेता मुख्यमंत्री। एकर संग-संग गरीब जनता पर खर्च होइवाला टका नव राज्यक नाम पर ओकर प्रशासनिक आधारभूत संरचनाक निर्माण मे खर्च भ जाइत।

मिथिला दर्शनक feb-2010 edition

नीक वा अधलाह - ज़रूर कहू जे मोन होय

comments

4 टिप्पणी

  1. We had 26 states and UTs in 1951 while population was 36 cror. For 1.4 cror population we had one state or UT. In 2001 we were 103 cror & now in 2011 we would be somewhere 114 cror. Population state ratio and for better governance, we should have somewhere 80 states on the formula adopted in 1951. What is wrong in cre…ating one Mithila state of 6 cror plus population? Come on Maithils ……

  2. maithil ke pete pahad chhain hunka me ekjutta bhaiy nai sakai je o alag mithila rajy banva sakait

  3. अहक विचार भावना पर अधिक आंकड़ा पर कम अछि_ ओना मिथिला राज्यक मांग तनत धरी जब्त राज्य सम्विधान्मे हो- हम ओना एकात्मक आ पूर्ण ग्राम तक विकेन्द्रित शाशन व्यवस्थाक पक्षधर छि- रहल बात झारखण्ड क त पढू When demanding Mithila state in India we are not against Neetish or others but have sufficient logic that small states fared better.
    The ill-named Jharkhand despite Kodas had done far better than parent state of Bihar
    Referring TOI (20.11.2011)
    In the article of Subodh Verma
    Vital statistics
    Bihar-
    2002-3 vs. 2009-10 Bihar Jharkhand
    % increase in primary schools 13 97
    Literacy rate 64(from 47) 68(from 54)
    Economic growth 6.8(from 4.9) 7.0(from 5.3)
    Infant Mortality rate 52(from 62) 44(from 70)
    Help from the centre(of grants and loans as % of total expenditure) 25 13
    Despite draughts more in Jharkhand plateau food production lowered -15 -19

    India is a union of state and Mithila fulfills all that is needed for any state- its rights have been denied and so it should be given otherwise its exploitation will continue.

    Magadh was benefited ruling over Mithila. Read what George Grierson wrote in his Linguistic Survey of India page 5, in the description of Bihari language)
    “Magadha, on the other hand, although it is intimately connected with the early history of Buddhism, was for too long a time cockpit for contending Musalman armies, and for long subject to the head-quarters of a Musalman Province, to remember its former glory of the Hindu age. A great part of it is wild, barren, and sparsely cultivated, and over much of the reminder cultivation is only carried on with difficulty by the aid of great irrigation works widely spread over the country, and dating from prehistoric times. Its peasantry, oppressed for centuries, and even now, under British rule, poorer than that of any other neighboring part of India, is uneducated and unenterprising. There is an expressive word current in Eastern Hindustan which illustrates the national character. It is ‘bhadesh’, and it has two meanings. One is ‘uncouth, boorish,’ and the other is ‘an inhabitant of Magadha.’ Which is the original, and which the derivative, I do not know: but a whole history is contained in these two syllables.”

    Magadh and Mithila have been different. Why any Magdhi will rule over Mithila or a Bhojpuri – they too need states. Make magadh a union territory to be best dealt for Naxal menance and Bhojpuris part of Purvanchal need named as Bhojpur. In Up may be Purvanchal- but India’s Purvanchal is Manipur, Assam etc. Call that Bhaojpur.
    Anyway that is not our problem – we need Mithila state under India(Nepali Mithila should be a state of Nepal) keeping international boundary intact.
    Dr. Dhanakar Thakur
    In fact Bihar has Ang also but Ang has been with Mithila always(from the days of Mahabharat) sharing same shade of cultre and language.

    y: Dhritiman Gupta
    As the Telangana statehood movement continues to simmer, people continue to ask if creating new states is good or bad for India. There is very little information on how a newly created state performed vis-a-vis its parent state.
    What are the arguments in favour of and against divided states? How do the growth and prosperity indicators stack up over time? Dhritiman Gupta picks up the trail of the three divided states that were formed in 2000. The inevitable conclusion: breaking up may be hard to do but is good for everyone.
    But for reasons which may not be what you would think. Specifically, all the states– Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh – have seen their residents’ lives improve dramatically with massive jumps in per capita income and overall economic growth.
    New States Have Higher Growth
    Significantly, all three states beat their mother states in industrial growth. While Chhattisgarh is an exception of sorts, the new states also achieved greater progress in terms of social indicators compared to the mother states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh & Madhya Pradesh.
    Let’s start by comparing the growth rates of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) of the states pre and post separation.
    Table 1- Growth before 2000
    Years State Pair 1 State Pair 2 State Pair 3
    JH BI UT UP CH MP
    1994-95 4.2 10.9 8.8 5.7 1.2 2.8
    1995-96 2.6 -13.9 -0.2 3.6 3.0 6.1
    1996-97 -4.1 23.7 6.4 10.7 4.1 6.5
    1997-98 26.3 -3.8 1.8 -0.09 3.1 5.0
    1998-99 5.7 7.5 1.6 2.7 5.3 6.5
    1999-00 -2.7 3.6 0.8 5.4 0.2 10.5
    2000-01 -9.8 16.0 12.0 2.1 -5.1 -6.9
    Average Growth over 1994-95 and 2001-02 3.6 4.9 4.6 4.0 3.1 4.7
    (Figures are in %)
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    Note 1: JH-Jharkhand, BI-Bihar, UT-Uttarakhand, UP- Uttar Pradesh, CH-Chhattisgarh, MP- Madhya Pradesh
    Note 2: Even though the states did not exist before 2000, Planning Commission has data for the areas which formed the new states.
    Table 2: Growth after 2000
    Years State Pair 1 State Pair 2 State Pair 3
    JH BI UT UP CH MP
    2001-02 6.7 -4.7 5.5 2.1 13.2 7.1
    2002-03 2.5 11.8 9.9 3.7 -0.06 -3.9
    2003-04 8.0 -5.1 7.6 5.2 16.5 11.4
    2004-05 15.2 12.1 12.9 5.4 5.4 3.0
    2005-06 -3.2 0.9 14.0 -6.5 3.2 5.3
    2006-07 2.3 17.7 14.1 8.0 18.6 9.2
    2007-08 20.5 7.6 17.8 7.3 8.6 4.6
    2008-09 -1.7 14.5 12.6 6.9 8.3 12.3
    2009-10 4.9 10.4 11.1 6.1 3.2 10.5
    2010-11 6.0 14.7 7.3 7.8 11.1 8.1
    2011-12 6.5 13.1 8.8 6.2 10.8 NA
    Average since 2004-05 6.3 11.4 12.3 6.8 8.6 7.6
    (Figures are in %)
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    Note 1: JH-Jharkhand, BI-Bihar, UT-Uttarakhand, UP- Uttar Pradesh, CH-Chhattisgarh, MP- Madhya Pradesh
    If we take a look at average growth rates for the period before the formation of the states (over 1994-95 and 2001-02) (Table 1), we see that with the exception of Uttarakhand-Uttar Pradesh pair, the mother states were growing at faster rates over that period.
    Jharkhand was growing at 3.6% while Bihar grew at 4.9%. Madhya Pradesh was growing at 4.7% while Chhattisgarh grew at 3.1%. Uttarakhand’s growth rate was 4.6%, marginally higher than Uttar Pradesh, which grew at 4%.
    The period after 2000, (Table 2) was a good period for the newly formed states. Uttarakhand did particularly well, stepping up its average growth rate to 12.3% since 2004-05 which is way better than the figure for Uttar Pradesh at 6.8%. Chhattisgarh also outstripped Madhya Pradesh over the same period by 1 percentage point. Jharkhand, however, has failed to match Bihar’s performance since 2000.
    Agriculture The Growth Driver
    Bihar’s growth was mostly powered by a steady agricultural growth rate of 8.1% over 2004-09, while the corresponding figure for Jharkhand was 1.4%. This could be one of the reasons behind Jharkhand lagging Bihar post 2000.
    Agriculture in Chhattisgarh grew at 2.8%, which was way better than Madhya Pradesh at 0.8%. The gap between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand was, however, mostly thanks to industrial growth. Agricultural growth in Uttarakhand was 1.5%, lower than figures for Uttar Pradesh at 2.7%.
    Better Industrial Growth
    If we look at the average industrial growth rates of the states over 2004-2009, we see that the newly formed states have outstripped their mother states.
    The industrial sector in Chhattisgarh grew at 13% over the 5-year period while the growth rate was only 6.7% for Madhya Pradesh. The growth rate of industries in Uttarakhand was 11.8% while the figure for Uttar Pradesh was only 6.5%. The figures for Jharkhand and Bihar are 11.5% and 5.8% respectively.
    Better Per-Capita Income
    We will look at per-capita income of the states to get an idea of general well being of its people.
    Table 3
    State Per-Capita Income 2000-01 (Rs.) Per-Capita Income 2010-11 (Rs.) Per-Capita Income of 2010-11 as a multiple of 2000-01
    1. Bihar 6,554 13,632 2.0
    2. Jharkhand 9,980 21,734 2.1

    3. Madhya Pradesh 11,150 22,382 2.0
    4. Chhattisgarh 10,808 27,156 2.5

    5. Uttar Pradesh 9,721 17,349 1.7
    6. Uttarakhand 14,932 44,723 3.0
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    The new states have managed to increase its citizen’s incomes much faster than their mother states. Bihar and Jharkhand have doubled the per-person income over the last decade.
    Madhya Pradesh also doubled its citizen’s income but Chhattisgarh did better with a figure of 2.5. The stand out was Uttarakhand, which tripled the per-capita income while Uttar Pradesh failed to even double it.
    Table 4
    States Poverty Rate 1993-94 (%) Poverty Rate 2004-05 (%) Poverty Rate 2009-10 (%) % Reduction in poverty since 2004-05
    1. Bihar 60.5 54.4 53.5 0.9
    2. Jharkhand NA 45.3 39.1 6.2

    3. Madhya Pradesh 44.6 48.6 36.7 11.9
    4. Chhattisgarh NA 49.4 48.7 0.7

    5. Uttar Pradesh 48.4 40.9 37.7 3.2
    6. Uttarakhand NA 32.7 18.0 14.7
    Note- Poverty Rate- Number of people below poverty line as a % of total population
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    Of the 354 million poor people in India in 2009-10, these 6 states had 180 million or 50.8%. Uttar Pradesh had the maximum number of poor people in the country at 73 million.
    New States Reduce Poverty Better
    Over 2004-09,Uttarakhand and Jharkhand have done a better job in reduction of poverty than their mother states reducing the poverty rates by 14.7% and 6.2% respectively while Uttar Pradesh and Bihar could manage figures of 0.9% and 3.2% respectively. Chhattisgarh did badly reducing its poverty rate by 0.7% where the corresponding figure for Madhya Pradesh was 11.9%.
    If we take absolute number of poor people into account Bihar did the worst with an increase of 5 million (49 million to 54 million) over 2004-09. Jharkhand reduced the number of poor people by 1 million (12 million to 11 million).
    Madhya Pradesh reduced its poor population by 5 million (31 million to 26 million) while in Chhattisgarh the number of poor people went up by a million (11 million to 12 million).
    Uttarakhand did the best by reducing the number of poor by 12 million (29 million to 17 million) while in Uttar Pradesh the numbers went up by 0.7 million (73 million to 73.7 million).
    Let’s look at the literacy rates of the states.
    Table 5
    States Literacy Rate in 2001 (% of population) Literacy Rate in 2011 (% of population) % Improvement
    1. Bihar 47.0 63.8 16.8
    2. Jharkhand 53.5 67.6 14.1

    3. Madhya Pradesh 63.7 70.6 6.9
    4. Chhattisgarh 64.6 71.0 6.4

    5. Uttar Pradesh 56.2 69.7 13.5
    6. Uttarakhand 71.6 79.6 8.0
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    Better Literacy Rates
    The first thing to note is that the newly formed states had a more educated population than their mother states in both the years 2001 and 2011.
    While the impressive improvements recorded by Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh,16.8%, 14.1% and 13.5% respectively, can be attributed to low bases in 2001, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, at 6.9% and 6.4% respectively have not done so well. Uttarakhand despite being on a higher base than Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh recorded a higher improvement rate of 8%.
    IMR: New States Perform Better
    As a health indicator, we will use Infant Mortality Rates, instead of Life Expectancy as we have done in previous article, due to unavailability of such data for Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Infant Mortality Rate is defined as number of child deaths per 1000 live births.
    Let’s look at the Infant Mortality Rates (IMR)
    Table 6
    States IMR in 2006 IMR in 2008 IMR in 2010 Reduction since 2008
    1. Bihar 60 56 38 18
    2. Jharkhand 49 46 30 16

    3. Madhya Pradesh 74 70 42 28
    4. Chhattisgarh 61 57 44 13

    5. Uttar Pradesh 71 67 44 23
    6. Uttarakhand 43 44 25 19
    Source: Planning Commission Data
    In 2006, all the newly formed states were better than their mother states when it comes to infant mortality. Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh had IMR figures higher than 70.
    Since then improvements have taken place. Particularly since 2008, Madhya Pradesh has reduced IMR by 28. Now Chhattisgarh is behind Madhya Pradesh.
    Uttarakhand has done better than Uttar Pradesh all through. In fact in 2010 Uttarakhand had the lowest IMR of all these 6 states. And even though Jharkhand does better than Bihar when it comes to IMR, Bihar has done a good job reducing its IMR by 16 since 2008.
    The numbers as a whole do suggest that small states clearly have an edge when it comes to transforming the lives of their citizenry. While a 10-year study is useful and insightful, we would also admit that perhaps a longer time horizon is needed for a sharper assessment of what worked and didn’t. For now, this is story the figures tell.


    Author can be reached at: dhritiman@indiaspend.org
    Originally published at: http://www.indiaspend.com/states/jharkhand-uttarakhand-the-post-split-growth-story

Comments are closed.