Regionalism in India UPSC

Importance of Regionalism in India

Regionalism is a ‘insider-outsider’ conceptual concept in which loyalties are related to one’s home region. Regional movements are a type of ‘identification actions,’ in which the demands include unique privileges or self-rule, extended deprivation, or forget (actual or perceived) unites people to maintain their regional identity in a reported way, seeing it as a solution to the nation’s negative guidelines toward them.

Regionalism is based on a number of elements, including social structure and geography. Regionalism can sometimes generate healthy rivalry and serve as a forerunner to nationalism. However, it may also lead to animosity and petty politics, as in the case of several river water disputes in India.

Causes of Regionalism in India

Regionalism in Assam – The need for its Revival and Difficulties – TIMES OF  ASSAM

  • Regionalism and those who believe in its philosophy are concerned with increasing the political clout and influence of local communities. However, their demands do not limit themselves to sovereignty, separatism, secession, or independence. Regionalists prefer a loose confederation of nation-states than a unitary with a strong central government, however they are willing to tolerate different types of federalism.
  • People who support regionalism argue that strengthening governing bodies and political powers within a region will benefit the local population by improving the regional economic system through better asset allocation, nearby development, and better implementation of local regulations. Of course, this comes at the cost of diminishing or limiting the role of the primary powers in government.
  • Various foreign sociologists/students have countryside the focus on caste, tribe, language, and community at the same time that there is an innate sense of a pan-Indian identity. Counterpoints include the fact that regionalism has given multi-celebration politics in India a boost, expanding federalism. Regionalism isn’t always ‘anti-kingdom’ or even ‘anti-people,’ but there are both beneficial and harmful elements to consider.
  • Many local moves occurred in India over the next 100 years, with demands falling into the following large categories:
  • Militant/fundamentalist organizations – a new country apart from India – secessionist aspirations – intense shape
  • Separatist desires — the formation of a separate state that will better serve the region’s linguistic and ethnic minorities.
  • Full Statehood – Several Indian Union Territories have been granted full country side hood over the years.
  • Autonomy — a demand for more energy rather than political intervention from crucial authorities.

Regionalism and local political parties are distinct.

  • Regional political parties aren’t always regionalist political parties. Or, to put it another way, do not agree with inside the philosophy. A “nearby celebration” is any political gathering with a basis in a single location, regardless of its goals or platform, but “regionalist” parties are a subset of regional gatherings that particularly promote more autonomy or independence in their area.
  • Local events will join political coalitions or attempt to be part of the coalition authority if they can’t gain enough votes or parliamentary seats to be politically influential, as is frequently the case.
  • The 1996 coalition government, for example, was formed when all mainstream parties, including the Indian National Congress (founded on December 28, 1885) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), joined hands with each other and other political parties, including regionalist ones, to form the government. In India, there are a number of pertinent questions about regionalism.

What are the reasons behind India’s regionalism?

  • Language.
  • Religion.
  • Culture of the area
  • Financial illiteracy
  • Political events with a regionalist agenda are on the rise.

What are the ramifications of India’s regionalism?

  • Vote-bank politics is frequently promoted by regionalism, resulting in nationwide unity and overall team spirit. If not promoted effectively, regionalism has the potential to erode the time-tested material of ‘team spirit in diversity.’ For the most part, it’s in a bad way, as certain political parties promote regionalism in order to maintain their power and solidify it by manipulating people in their favor. At the very least, it pits citizens of the same country against one another.
  • India is a very diverse and pluralistic society. Its population was barely 340 million at the time of independence, but it has since risen to 1,350,438,098 in 2019. The merging of princely states after independence solidified the national nation. Following that, several states, like as Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960 and Punjab and Haryana in 1966, were created on a linguistic base to accommodate regional desires. The number of states has grown, and there are now 28 provinces and seven Union Territories.
  • There were both pro and con reasons for regionalism. According to some experts, there is nothing wrong if residents of a region have strong feelings of regionalism or sub-nationalism because: (1) it satisfies democratic urges, (2) it facilitates political administration, (3) it smooths regional and overall development, (4) it allows for greater access to and involvement in decision-making, (5) it improves regional accountability, and (6) it does increase unity.
  • These experts also bring up current developments in Russia and Pakistan, both of which are becoming more turbulent as a result of their failure to meet people’s regional expectations. Pakistan fell apart because it refused to recognise and respect the Bangla identity. The Soviet Union, despite its size, could not withstand the pressures of regionalism and sub-nationalism.
  • Another school of thought views regionalism as a process of Balkanisation or fragmentation of the country that divides people by raising slogans such as “Maharashtra for Maharashtrians” or “Assam for Assamese Only,” causing agitation and bloodshed. Many people are involved, which may help to stimulate such requests for more self-contained places. As a result, each act of fragmentation is perceived as fostering additional fragmentation.
  • Indeed, regionalist beliefs can become so powerful that states refuse to share resources such as river water (Kaveri water by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) or electrical energy (Punjab and Delhi) since they are neighbors. States such as Assam claim that, despite their significant contribution to national development, such as economic oil, tea, jute, and timber, they are largely ignored in development schemes, while states such as Jammu and Kashmir claim that, as a Muslim-dominated state, they are discriminated against in professional development schemes.
  • While certain regions’ financial backwardness approaches the source of disturbance, the truth must be told there (in other words. Some requests for new states are entirely political driven, such as Gorkhaland in western Bengal, Bodoland in Assam, Ahom situation in Upper Assam, Brij, Bundelkhand, and Rohilkhand in Uttar Pradesh, Maha-Kaushal in Madhya Pradesh, and so on (like Harit Pradesh and Purvanchal in Uttar Pradesh).
  • With increased personal and governmental understanding throughout all levels of society, mobilizing the public to demand a state split is not difficult. Order and legislative concerns will inevitably escalate if people’s objections are ignored. Such issues cannot be sustained for an extended period of time or paid for with company funds. It will compel people to experiment with violence. Their specific desires must be met through concessions and accommodations.
  • Many people believe that the expanding population will be difficult to manage. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra are still experiencing this problem. There were just 300 districts in India in 1947, but there are now over 640 districts in the country. Several countries have a population and land area larger than many UN members.
  • As a result, the justification of smaller nations does not always have to be seen as disintegration or the rise of regionalism. If the number of states is increased from 28 to 50, and the number of districts is increased from 650 to 700, administrative administration may improve, accountability may improve, and democratic participation may rise, assuming that the new states are economically viable.
  • Within a big country like India, regionalism and sub-national tendencies are unavoidable. Nothing is more important to the concept of regionalism and sub-regionalism than this. When the nation-state comes into being and national independence becomes a reality, regional attitudes and demands emerge as well. It’s the way things have gone in the past.
  • There is a compelling case in India, not just in terms of presence, but also in terms of the emergence of healthy regionalism witnessed from a governmental standpoint. The areas of India are classified based on the following characteristics: (1) language/ dialect, (2) personal composition, (3) ethnicity, (4) demographic features, (5) area (geographic contiguity), (6) economic climate and economic life, (7) historic antecedents, (8) governmental history, and (9) psychological makeup and group identification felt-consciousness.
  • When it enhances national identity, the process of nationwide integration necessitates the integration of those regions that are feasible. To be Indian, for example, does not preclude one from being an Assami, Bengali, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Maharashtrian, Naga, Tamilian, or Telugu. A reconciliation that is healthy regionalism and nationalism can actually blossom into national unity. Nonetheless, it is clear that chauvinism and misguided patriotism are both cancerous and disruptive on a local level.
  • As a result, just creating new governmental or administrative bodies will not jeopardize national integrity. India would not dissolve if regionalism is properly managed. Ethnic feelings and linguistic homogeneity, on the other hand, are practically never desired as factors in the formation of new states. There is a major resource shortage.
  • In most locations, there is also the persistent matter of militancy. Dangerous external and domestic threats loom enormous. As a result, interest in new states must be easily stifled and only granted after a thorough examination of each and every circumstance on the basis of financial viability and administrative convenience.
  • The Indian polity is considered an aggregation of regions and sub-divisions in numerous ways. For the natural areas of India, these locations and sub-regions have a distinct personality of social-cultural framework.
  • A good federal polity in India can be established on a solid foundation of acts that are consistent with India’s socio-cultural aspects. Certainly, the historical history of old and medieval India indicates the presence of these socio-cultural groupings, as well as their acknowledgement by several enlightened kings over the years.
  • One of the many notable tragedies of the colonial British has been the destruction and distortion of numerous vital socio-cultural aspects of our polity in some cases. The British policy had thrown India’s normal growth into a true national polity into disarray.


Leave a Comment