State Of Separation

Even though he is not the only one raising the demand, speaking out for Marathwada also earned him the epithet of “Pakistan’s Hafeez Sayeed” in an editorial in Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna. “Some intellectuals in Vidarbha, including Shrihari Aney, have long felt that Vidarbha should be a separate state,” says senior BJP leader Madhav Bhandari. “He has only articulated the same old argument again. However, the fact is that he sets neither the BJP’s agenda nor the government’s policies.”

“Fadnavis, who had championed the cause of a separate Vidarbha before becoming chief minister, did offer to salvage the situation,” says Aney, who did not want the issue to be “managed” this time.  

Aney’s stint as advocate-general was as controversial as it was short. He took stands contrary to expectations on several issues. He had called the government’s attempt to treat all criticism as seditious ridiculous. He argued that the burden of proof under the law banning beef needs to be on the inves­tigating agency and not the accused. He spoke in favour of releasing water from Nashik to Marathwada. He also advised the gove­r­nment to appeal against Salman Khan’s acquittal in a hit-and-run case.

“In 1960,” says Aney, sitting in his seaside office, “we were promised that Vidarbha would be given resources in proportion to its population, which meant that 22 per cent of Maharashtra’s financial resources would be budgeted for Vidarbha, besides 22 per cent reservation in state-run educational institutes and 22 per cent in jobs. We also got Article 371(2) through the Seventh Amendment in 1956. Yet, not even once since 1960 did Marathwada get 22 per cent of the budget or the jobs. In the past three years, Pune got 52.5 per cent of the jobs, while two commissionerates in Vidarbha put together got just 2.5 percent! The BJP had promised a separate Vidarbha in 1979. Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were created but Vidarbha was left in the cold.”

People close to Aney say he is not poli­tically ambitious and is committed to the cause of Vidarbha. “He imbibed the cause from his grandfather, Congress MP Bapu Aney, the first proponent of separate statehood. He can’t let go of it,” says Sujata Anandan, political editor, Hindustan Times, who hails from Nagpur. “Devolution of finances is a complex thing, though. Just because Vidarbha has forests or power generation, it doesn’t mean the region will benefit financially by separating.”

Room For More Shrihari Aney believes in having smaller states Photo by Amit Haralkar

Journalist Kumar Ketkar says Aney has played a masterstroke. “To mobilise more support for a separate Vidarbha, Aney has reinvented the idea by asking for a separate Marathwada. He has got Fadnavis, the RSS and leaders from Vidarbha in a tight spot in one go. Both the regions have been treated unfairly compared to western Maharashtra, which has an upper hand in state politics. That’s how the disconnect between the Marathas of Marathwada, who were ruled by the Nizam, and those in the western parts has played out.”

Even though RSS leader Manmohan Vaidya went on record saying that his organ­isation favoured dividing Mahara­shtra into four smaller states, Aney has a better sense of politics than to take that as an indication of the ruling party’s intent. He understands the political compulsions that work against statehood for Vidarbha and Marathwada. “No party will allow division unless they are sure they would rule from both Nagpur and Mumbai,” he says referring to then chief minister Shankar­rao Chavan promising the moon to Vidarbha for not splitting away like Gujarat.

There are, of course, those who support the idea of smaller states in general, saying it makes for better administration. “I am for smaller states because Mahar­ashtra is too huge to manage. The matter should be decided by a referendum,” says Anjali Dama­nia, former AAP leader from Vidarbha. Both opponents and supporters of dividing the state bring up the example of Goa, which was created after a refere­ndum.

Aney expects nearly 70 per cent support for Vidarbha if a referendum is held. “Either you have a demand or you don’t,” he says. “You measure it, count it and finish it. Here is a majority that does not wish to stay with you. Let it go to Parliament, where you need a simple majority. If it doesn’t go through, it is okay. And anyway it requires ratification by states. The government, however, is relu­ctant to even test it.”

The larger question being asked, however, is whether his resignation will damage the state government in litigations pending in the high court. Aney has both defended and prosecuted Bal Thackeray, has got the case against Ashok Chavan reopened and does not believe in the intolerance deb­ate much. As advocate-general, he had set himself high standards.

“The role of the advocate-general is to uphold the truth and not to protect a government,” says Aney. “You are the first lawyer of the people. You repr­esent people’s interests even when they are contrary to the government’s. I have taken this to heart.”

He is also campaigning for getting the high courts and the Supreme Court to work 365 days in a year. “India is the only country in the world where the high courts and the Supreme Court go on a vacation.”

Whether the statehood demand was viable or not, whether it was timely or not, it is the outcome that is troubling. “He is a fine human being,” says Anandan. “The way Raghuram Rajan is keeping Indiaís neck up internationally, Aney was playing the same role in the state. It is sad that a lawyer who was representing the interests of the people had to go.” With verdicts in the beef ban and Haji Ali Dargah cases awaited and a probe against Ashok Chavan in the Adarsh scam on the cards, one wonders if the people of Mah­ar­­ashtra lost a good lawyer.