Did you foresee the support you are getting in Vidarbha after your resignation?
I did not. I had expected an impact and repercussions of the action (resignation). But I had not visualised the extent of the impact.
When you resigned, you cited ‘institutional stability and conflict of duty’ as reasons, and not Vidarbha?
Yes. It was not the Vidarbha movement (behind resignation). But it did concern issues related to Vidarbha and Marathwada, which framed themselves in the form of litigation in the context of which I was required to take a stand. I found that there were severe limitations on the position that I could take. I was really torn between my allegiance to the cause and representing the State. I tried to resolve it as much as I could. The Advocate General is the first lawyer of the people. He must put forward the views of the people even if it means speaking against the government.
What are the reasons behind this movement?
When the movement began in 1950, it was an emotional one: for the loss of land. Then, Jambuvantrao Dhote (former Member of Parliament) entered the scene and the movement took a turn. It became a movement against deprivation. There was a demand to shift the Akola Krushi Vidhyapith to Rahuri in western Maharashtra. When the students protested, nine of them were shot dead. This led to an action which was no longer only emotional. Vidarbha was being seen as deprived.
The perception that our money and resources are being taken by western Maharashtra started developing.
In 1984, the Dandekar committee made the perception even stronger as Rs.12,500 crore (meant for Vidarbha) had been used by western Maharashtra. In 2000, the indicator and backlog committee told us that Rs. 6,600 crore have gone out of Vidarbha’s coffers. The question was no longer only of emotion or discrimination.
Think of a state like Goa. Had Konkan remained separate from Maharashtra, it would have been something like Goa. When you look at the configuration of the State, Maharashtra has debt of Rs. 3,57,000 crore. It can’t service its loans. It cannot take care of Vidarbha.
They would allocate the money for Vidarbha and then divert it to western Maharashtra. When the Governor questioned, they stopped diverting the money, but waited for the budget to lapse so that it could get back to the consolidated fund.
The Nagpur pact had said that if Vidarbha was to join Maharashtra, it would get its share according to its population. Since 1960, till today, not even in a single year, have we got 22 per cent of funds, jobs or allocations.
The drain has been the other way. Vidarbha has been fulfilling the needs of Maharashtra, and not the other way around. If there is an economic inability to sustain itself, it is of Maharashtra and not Vidarbha.
Vidarbha is economically viable and capable to take care of itself. But because of our financial affluence, Maharashtra stands to gain and that is why they won’t part with Vidarbha on an economic level. The BJP does not have any illusions about governing Maharashtra even in the best of scenario without Shiv Sena. I don’t think they can afford to create Vidarbha.
Is separate state the only solution?
Yes, I don’t think we can any longer take care of the backlog. It has increased. The Dandekar committee had made a recommendation in 1984 that if you want to reduce the backlog in a given number of years, 82 per cent of the State’s budgetary requirements must be diverted to Vidarbha. Our (Vidarbha) 80 per cent population is either farmer or tribal. The whole planning should be for this. I saw a wonderful airport in Yavatmal where the maximum number of suicides take place. For what purpose I have no clue. If it doesn’t rain this year, Marathwada is gone, Vidarbha will be dead next year. We depend on rainwater because we are getting it. That is why nobody bothered to develop irrigation here.
Did the earlier leaders of this movement take people of Vidarbha for a ride?
Yes, you are right. We have a very serious problem of credibility crisis among leaders (who led this movement earlier). The faith (of people) in the movement has been shaken greatly because of the behaviour of the leaders. Our leaders seem to have deserted our movement.
Post my resignation, there seems to be a kind of hope. I do not consider myself a leader, but a new line of leadership is perhaps coming about, which is genuinely interested in Vidarbha.
Why this change is coming about? Do you see it happening practically and politically?
In the past 10 days, I have addressed many meetings across Vidarbha, and the response is huge. If the BJP doesn’t make its position clear by this year end, I can see a confrontation in the coming years with the party. This confrontation will have to assume a political dimension if it has to carry on. A mere social movement will not work. We will have to bring about a political movement. The current Chief Minister, once, used to talk like this. Even RSS leader are advocating it now.
I have a great faith that they (BJP leaders) will do it because these are not small leaders. They are people who genuinely believe that Vidarbha should be created. What is preventing them from doing it is maybe we have not pushed them far enough to do it. May be its time to move in that direction. I wish that with the current Central government, it (Vidarbha) gets done because we may never see this kind of majority of a single party in parliament that we see today. The BJP has said that it is their intention to create Vidarbha, this is the best time to compel them to do so.
The CM said he has appointed you as the advocate of Vidarbha. How do you respond to the allegations that you have been relieved or sent here to revive this movement by the CM?
He did say that at a function. There is no doubt in the minds of the people of Vidarbha, that Fadnavis wants Vidarbha. Why is he not doing anything about it is a question. The same goes for (Union Minister) Mr. Nitin Gadkari. These are genuine people who are definitely standing in favour of Vidarbha, which is why we are trying so hard that the BJP does it. But I cannot rely on political parties because they have failed in the past. Political parties don’t deliver. We need to compel them to deliver.
