FROM BUSINESS WORLD OF 8 AUGUST 2005
Independence for Bombay
Bombay’s misfortune was entirely fortuitous. It is a rainy
place; getting three times the rain ever received would have caused havoc in
any circumstances. But Bombay has many problems besides rain. And it has missed
the bus in the past decades – Bangalore and Madras have overtaken it in
attracting new activity. So its woes have occasioned much breastbeating and
finger-pointing. The question has again come to the fore whether being a part
of Maharashtra is good for Maharashtra.
This question first arose when
Maharashtrians were trying in the 1950s to separate from Bombay State. Bombay
once included Sind, Gujarat, the present Maharashtra minus Marathwada. It lost
Sind to Pakistan, but when states were reorganized linguistically in the 1950s,
it gained Marathwada from the erstwhile central provinces. Bombay was initially
not divided up linguistically because of Bombay. It was a multilingual city; it
was industrialized by Gujarati and Parsi capital, and it had a large north
Indian population. But politicians started a Samyukta Maharashtra movement, and
disrupted life in Bombay so much that the central government was finally forced
to divided up the Bombay state. At that time, it was proposed to make Bombay a
separate state; but the same Samyukta Maharashtra movement made that impossible
with its violence.
That was the beginning of the end
of Bombay. Annexation by Maharashtra was not the only reason for its decline.
The rise of Shiv Sena in the 1980s did more harm; industrialists got fed up
with hooliganism and extortion and went elsewhere. Trade unions were the other
destructive force. Datta Samant was as dreaded for his violent tactics as the
Shiv Sena. The trade unions kept up wages in Bombay textile mills when
competition came from small factories housing a few powerlooms, which sprang up
in Bhiwandi, Kolhapur and Surat. Slowly, Bombay lost its place as India’s
premier industrial center. I remember visiting the industrial areas on
Thane-Belapur in the late 1960s. At that time, a new enegineering industry was
coming up in that area, which was humming with activity. I went there again in
the 1990s; it was a waste land.
In West Bengal, the decline of
industry caused a revolution. Workers of the factories in trouble formed the backbone
of CITU. Their violence made industrialists run away from Calcutta. But they
became a part of a political movement that worked out a technology of snuffing
out dissent and monopolizing political power. In Bombay, Shiv Sena tried
something similar. But it did not have the dedicated workers or the
bureaucratic organization to spread out. Its leaders got too busy enriching
themselves and getting close to Bollywoodies. So it could not spread outside
Bombay and sew up Maharashtra as CPM did West Bengal.
The industrial decline of Bombay
was concealed by the fact that it continued to be the financial capital of
India. Indeed, after the coming of computerization and of the cartelization
SEBI has forced on the financial industry, the dominance of Bombay increased.
It is because of the financial sector that Bombay continues to make so much
money – and two pay almost two-fifths of India’s income tax. And because of the
presence of money, living and working conditions remained good for the rich.
And the rich are a magnet for the beautiful. So Bombay also became the capital
of glamour.
But this is just glitter at the
top; underneath, the Bombay economy has been hollowed out. We talk of making a
Shanghai out of Hollywood. But Shanghai has a hinterland whose industrial
output exceeds India’s. Its port handles shipping traffic that approaches
India’s total traffic. Where is Bombay’s hinterland?
If Bombay is separated from
Maharashtra, it should be given its own hinterland. It should include territory
halfway up to Poona and Nasik; it should get ample space to grow, nurture and
develop.
But if Bombay, why not Madras,
Calcutta, Delhi and Bangalore? The concept of the linguistic state has outlived
its utility. States should be designed to maximize development potential. Looked
at in this way, a state should have an urban center as capital and the
surrounding countryside as its hinterland. The whole of India should be divided
up into states centering on its 100 major cities. The present states have spent
money on their capitals and left the rest of the country undeveloped. Many
states have little potential and have remained undeveloped. As a result,
development has been confined to a dozen metros and their environs. More states
will counteract this tendency towards concentration, and spread development
more evenly across the country.
