The demand for a separate State bifurcating Tripura is new. The tribal populace living in the State has every right to raise the demand. But when an ally of ruling coalition raises the demand, it raises many questions. The most important question is if Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura (IPFT) is so determined to have a separate homeland for the tribal people residing in the State, why is the party continuing in the ruling coalition, as the major partner Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already made it clear that it is not in favour of bifurcation of the State. Moreover, Tripura has a mixed population. So anyone becoming a minister in the State is duty bound to think about the welfare of the entire State and its people. If IPFT is so committed to its demand how can the party ensure free and fair administration, especially in the departments where its leaders are the ministers. Surely, it is unethical for IPFT to have the best of both the worlds.
For the benefit of IPFT leaders a page from the History should be reproduced here. In 2004 general elections, Telengana Rashtriya Samiti (TRS) entered in to a pre-poll alliance with Congress, when the later promised to consider the demand of a separate State favourably. With this assurance, TRS chief K. Chandrasekhar Rao even became a minister in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. But after couple of years, when Mr. Rao found that the Central Government was not that favourable towards the demand, he resigned from the cabinet and started the movement once again. But in the case of Tripura, when BJP and IPFT joined hands, it was made clear by the former that under no circumstances would the demand for a separate State be entertained. After BJP made its stand clear on this very issue, IPFT has every right not to have an electoral pact with the saffron party. But as it was keen to grab power in the State; IPFT went ahead with electoral tie-up and readily agreed to share power after the alliance’s historic win. So making separate State as its main plank after the elections is not only a betrayal to its ally, but also to the people of the State.
Instead of raising the demand for a separate State, IPFT should make efforts to further strengthen the existing Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous Council (TTADC). The council was formed to expedite development in tribal dominated areas of the State. The said council governs almost two-third of the State’s geographical area and a population of over 12, 16, 000 people. If TTADC performs its task well, the condition of tribal populace living in Tripura will certainly be improved. It is a fact that in most states of the country such councils have failed to deliver the goods because of respective State Government’s interferences and apathy. But the case of TTADC is different. Now IPFT is in power in the State. Being a part of the state administration it is in an advantageous position to influence the decisions of government as well as release of sufficient funds for the development of tribal people. So, instead of indulging in rhetoric, if IPFT remains sincere for the welfare of its people, it can easily do that. Thus the argument that welfare of the tribal people can be ensured only after the creation of a separate State holds no ground.
