Sardar Panikkar when deputed by the government of India, to find out facts, analyse the problem and formulate a plan for the Reorganisation of States, gave as his definite opinion, that Uttar Pradesh should be split into two.

As an erudite scholar of the politics of many a land, Sardar Panikkar ought to have noticed, the msassiveness of Uttar Pradesh and ought to have recommended the splitting up of that State, so as perhaps to safeguard political equilibrium. His words were not heeded to, and Uttar Pradesh remains the biggest State, in the Federation.

We referred to the problem of Geo-politics last week. And Sardar Panikkar knows the intricate problem of Geo-politics better than anybody else. From the days of the Athenian Confederation right up to the present the federating or confederating units, if they are of unequal size or strength, or potentiality, there is bound to be concentration of power in the hands of the strongest of the units. And the strongest need not always be the Just—oftentimes the contrary is found to be the fact.

And this problem has been admirably explained by Dr.Sinha in an article captioned 'Power politics in India', in the Modern Review, May issue.

Dr.Sasadhar Sinha is not, we hasten to explain, advocating separation. He but analyses the present political set up and issues like many of his way of thinking, friendly advice and sympathetic suggestion. And here is what the Doctor has to say about Uttar Pradesh;-

"The position of Uttar Pradesh remains unrivalled as formerly. It is not only the mot populous State in the Union, but also the most important politically. At the head of the States stretching right across India, from the East to the West, it provides a fulcrum to the so-called Hindi block now in the making. Having seized control of the machinery of the Congress and the Central government it wants to give its power an impregnable territorial basis."

It is this feeling that was responsible for the pungent remark of another commentator, "India that is Bharath, that is Utta Pradesh."

Many leaders from our own State do take us into their confidence in private, and stress this fact—the domineering position of Uttar Pradesh and its concomitant evils.

Uttar Pradesh by vittue of its size, population and resources, is able to get, or even to wrest much from the Centre, and in this process it is able to get itself entrenched.

Geo-politics means this much—political power when allowed to get itself concentrated in a particular territory, in a common political set up, then that territory gets the Master's position, and from that position, it is able to still further stengthen itself, making the other units look small, slavish and feeble. That is what is now taking place. And this is not the view of the 'Separatists'—but of Dr. Sinha who still wants to save United India from chaos.

"The pattern of power, both within it and the Central government, will clearly demonstrate that it has come more and more to be identified with a particular area, which indeed is the point of departure for a new sinister development in Indian politics. What is being aimed at is nothing short of a calculated application of Geo-politics to an Indian setting."

The move is calculated! The scheme is sinister! And it is being done in the name of an enchanting ideal, 'India is one and indivisible.' Those who probe into this reality and issue notes of warning are denounced as traitors, and those who succumb to its charms are hailed as patriots. If anyone dares to point out history, they are dubbed bookish, and if others nattate the practical difficulties, they are derided as men devoid of idealism. Some deny the fact, that there is a sinister move at Geo-politics, and there are still others who do not deny the move, but refuse to call it sinister, but the bravest of them all is our Chief Minister Kamaraj, who presumably from out of the abundance of knowlwdge of History and Politics. Geography and Science, and Economics, gathered from all the nooks and corners of the land during all these years of his study-tours, comes forward to accept all that, and ask bluntly, what if? Well, when one takes up that stand, nobody could withstand! One can meet and annihilate arguments, but not an exhibition of stupendous indifference to the most elementary facts of Geography and History and Economics. Those who are conversant with the history of aggrandisement know full well, that the aggressor need not always be of the ferocious type, he can don on a charming smile, to screen off the sinister moves. And that is what is happening at present.

Explaining Geo-politics, Dr. Sinha says it is an "attempt to dominate the whole of India from a strategically advantageous position by a system of checks and balances, by a graduated system of patronage."

Through this method, Uttar Pradesh is fast becoming the citadel of Hindi Chauvinism.

Political domination in the modern context inevitably leads to economic domination; and that unit which has become the most powerful within a federation, is able to formulate economic planning that would be most advantageous to itself.

There are some who attempt to dispel the natural suspicion in the minds of the thinking section, by presenting platitude. They say, it is a federation not an Unitary form of government, hence, States cannot be said to have lost their individuality and freedom.

Dr.Sinha explodes this argument admirably. Says he, "India is called a Union of States but it must be realised that the States at present are beginning to count for less and less, and more and more power is being concentrated at the Centre."

The Centre controls the purse strings, and the patronage that it could afford to distribute, are so many baits. And the flesh being weak, many succumb to the temptation betraying their own land.

Nor is this centralisaition diminshing; on the other hand, the Centre is utilising every available opportunity to grab more and more power for itself. As Dr. Sinha says, "This tendency towards increasing centralisation, is indeed the fons et origo, the fount and source of current power politics in India'.

After arguing that centralisation is the major source of current demoralisation in Indian administration and public life, Dr. Sinha wants the Centre to divest itself of the powers already grabbed, restore genuine autonomy for the States, and take for itself the role of co-ordinating agency. If such a healthy reform is not forthcoming, Dr.Sinha warns, that there would be dire consequences, breaking of the unity, chaos and confusion.

We are of course, not going to doubt the wisdom or sincerity of Dr. Sinha, and we do offer our deepest sympathies to him. He is attempting to soften a stone, and we are afraid, he would not succeed in convincing the Centre. For the Centre, having had a taste of power in abundance, has become almost addicted to it.

We are thankful to Dr.Sinha for laying bare the stark reality of the situation—the idea 'India one and indivisible' has led to the happiness and prosperity not of India as a whole, but to the most favoured unit.

And now, we ask, should we not consider, a way out—simple, and sure?

When men like Dr. Sinha were to argue for de-centralisation, other political pundits would come forward to point out the defects and dangers inherent in a loose federation. There would be never-ending discussion and no decision could be undertaken.

Hence we put forward the most natural and simple solution—Separation.

Independent States could forge friendship, come under some form of association, and live in peace and amity, everyone of them extending the hand of friendship to the other. And assured of an Independent status, everyone of the National states could grow to its highest perfection, utilising its native talent and tradition. And India could become a delightful garden, of many hues and colours, and fragrance.

"Oh! that is Balkanisation"—would the Congress boss say employing mockery in his tone. The term 'Balkanisation,' we admit, has become an odium. It is mentioned in a contemptuous way. But let us analyse and find out, whether Balkanisation is as bad as many claim it to be.

We are happy to procure the services of D.R.Gadgil of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics to argue the case. In his book "Federating India" D.R.Gadgil explodes the myth that has gathered around the word Balkanisation.

"In the light of known facts of Balkan History, it is difficult to see what exactly is implied by the use of the term. Nobody seems to deny the fact that the Balkan peninsula is inhabited by separate groups of people who have not found a way of living peacefully with each other.

"If by Balkanisation is merly meant the creation of new States following upon the recognition of difference, it is a historical process to which no opprobrium could attach. In fact, the lesson of history elsewhere is that the creation of separate States offer a better prospect to different groups of people living amicably as neighbours than forcing them in one incompatible Union."

And our stand is this and we invite anyone to dispute our argument and deny our thesis—the so-called India today is nothing but an incompatible Union, and however strong one attempts to make it, the forces of weakness are bound to have the upper hand.

As Mr. Gadgil puts it, "It has to be remembered that the claim of separation arises from a feeling that the specific interests of a group are likely to be sacrificed to such a large extent in the whole. that the acceptance of some inconvenience or some disadvantage is preferable to continuing the unity."

And that is why the D.M.K. feels very strongly and pleads with all sincerity for the Separate Sovereign State, so that there could be justice in the fullest sense of the term and a realisation of the best and the noblest, that the people inhabiting Dravida Nad are capable of achieving.

Those who attach all importance to the ideal, naturally refuse ot yield, refuse to compromise, for it would be akin to a "man putting out his eyes the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope."

But there are, we admit, with a pang, some who succumb to the sweets of tempation. The flesh is weak!

With understandable bitterness and admirable boldness, a Member of Parliament spoke about the domineering position of Uttar Pradesh, long before Dr.Sinha wrote his analytical article on this subject. The House was discussing problems connected with the Sugar Industry, and the M.P. stood up to say,
"Sir, I have no intention to criticise any provincial government, much less the government of the U.P. I know it enjoys a very privileged position today. It is not persona non-grata with the Centre as some of the other provincial governments are.

"I would not ahve mentioned the name of the U.P. government here, but for the fact that the policy with regard to sugar is being decided not in Delhi but in Lucknow."

Such an outspoken remark came forth from the lips of a Congress M.P.; let us not tax your patience. It was Mr.O.V.Alagesan who made such a bold statement. But, alas, the Imperialists had the means in their power to seal the lips, and after being raised to the level of a Deputy Minister, this champion became the chaprassi of the Imperialists. That clearly is an illustration of the point, the flesh is weak.

But in spite of desertions and betrayals the cause is everyday gaining new converts and fresh strength and it was with pardonable pride that we read some days ago, a group of bold and upright men standing up to demand a Separate Bengal! We salute those dauntless patriots. They may be small in number and their opponents might be in possesion of massive size. But that should not, and we are sure would not, deter this group from advocating a cause. We know that some of the non-Congress parties stated that they would attack this demand for Separation, tooth and nail! We do not know the strength of their tooth and nail, nor do we know why they are talking about such primitive weapons. We know this much, when there is a National upsurge, cannons were found to be ineffective to stem it, and where fire and sword failed, we do not think that "tooth and nail" would succeed!

(Editorial - 20-07-1958)