Vidarbha Statehood: Who Betrayed Vidarbha Cause? Poll Blow For Bjp Will Revive Statehood Movement | Nagpur News

With the Maharashtra assembly polls around the corner, the question of Vidarbha’s statehood could once again come into play, particularly if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) finds itself on the losing side, feels Shreehari Aney. A staunch advocate for Vidarbha’s statehood, the former advocate general of Maharashtra believes the upcoming elections may reignite the demand for a separate state.
However, he also warns that political realities make the movement a hard sell for any party.In an exclusive interview, Aney delves into the complex history of Vidarbha’s statehood movement, its near successes, and why it has failed to materialise despite being one of India’s oldest statehood demands.
Vidarbha statehood movement has been ongoing for decades without any success. What are your thoughts…
The Vidarbha statehood movement hasn’t failed in the traditional sense, it has just suffered setbacks. There have been moments when statehood was almost within reach. One of those moments was during the leadership of Jambuwantrao Dhote, who was a strong advocate of Vidarbha. Back in the 1970s, 14 MLAs and two MPs were elected to the Maharashtra Assembly on the statehood platform. Dhote had the ear of then prime minister Indira Gandhi, and it seemed like Vidarbha was closer than ever to becoming a reality. But after Indira’s assassination, the momentum died down. Dhote lost the people’s backing over time, and the movement slowly fizzled out.
The second time Vidarbha came close to statehood was during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure. Ministers like Vasantrao Sathe and NKP Salve — both from Vidarbha — were instrumental in pushing the issue. Rajiv Gandhi seemed open to the idea, but again, it lost steam due to lack of sustained pressure and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. In both instances, we were missing something critical — a leader like K Chandrashekhar Rao, who spearheaded the Telangana movement with unwavering determination. Vidarbha never had that kind of leadership continuity, which is why we’ve struggled.
You led a revival of the statehood movement in 2013-14. What happened during that phase? Why didn’t it succeed?
That was a crucial time. When we revived the Vidarbha statehood movement in 2013-14, BJP was in the opposition, and many of its top leaders supported our cause. People like Nitin Gadkari, Devendra Fadnavis, and Sudhir Mungantiwar were vocal in their support. Congress was in power, and BJP capitalised on that, saying they would push for statehood once they were in power. Fadnavis and Mungantiwar even participated in protests, and Gadkari gave us a written assurance that he would raise the issue in Parliament as soon as BJP assumed power. However, when the BJP came into power at both the state and national levels, the issue was sidelined. This wasn’t entirely unexpected, but it was disappointing. We had even attempted to float a separate party, Vidarbha Rajya Aghadi (VIRAA), and contest the assembly elections, hoping we could get a few legislators elected who would raise the statehood issue in the Assembly. But electoral politics is an expensive exercise — running a campaign costs at least `6 crore, and we didn’t have the financial resources to make it work. Eventually, the movement lost momentum again.
At 75, you’ve distanced yourself from leading the movement. Why did you make this decision?
I’ve always seen myself more as an academician, an ideologue than a political leader. My contribution to the movement has always been through ideas and legal frameworks, not as a leader standing on a platform rallying people. At my age, I simply don’t have the energy I had when I first joined the movement in my mid-40s. Besides, statehood is ultimately a political decision. It requires backing from a national party like BJP or Congress, as they are the ones who can pass a resolution in Parliament. Without the support of a political giant, there’s no realistic way to achieve statehood. Unfortunately, we’ve had to rely on political parties that have bigger priorities and agendas than Vidarbha’s statehood.
You’ve advocated for development boards for Vidarbha. How effectively have they worked so far?
Development boards were formed to address a very real problem — the diversion of funds meant for backward regions like Vidarbha and Marathwada to western Maharashtra. These boards were supposed to focus on critical issues like the irrigation backlog. For years, Vidarbha’s agricultural development was hampered because funds were being diverted elsewhere. The backlog was huge, and the boards were tasked with calculating it and ensuring funds were properly allocated. However, the boards had limited power and jurisdiction. While they did highlight some of the disparities in fund allocation, they didn’t have the teeth to enforce significant changes. The result was that they didn’t serve their intended purpose effectively.
What is the most compelling argument for Vidarbha’s youth to take up the cause of statehood?
For today’s youth, the argument for statehood must go beyond vague promises of job creation. Many young people will rightly ask, “If nothing changed when we had influential leaders from Vidarbha in power, what difference would statehood make?” That’s a valid question. Therefore, every argument for statehood needs to be well-rounded, addressing not just economic development but also regional identity, cultural preservation, and governance. If the movement is to gain traction among the youth, it needs to be grounded. We can’t rely on empty promises of a better future. The argument needs to address the specific concerns of today’s generation, like unemployment, economic disparity, and access to resources. At the same time, we need to remind people that Vidarbha’s rich history and cultural identity are worth preserving.
Do you think Vidarbha is ready for a revolution similar to Telangana?
Vidarbha doesn’t need the kind of revolution we saw in Telangana. Our circumstances are different. Telangana’s movement was fuelled by a history of armed revolts and extreme sacrifices, which is not the case in Vidarbha. We don’t need to take an aggressive, confrontational approach. Instead, the movement needs to be strategic, focusing on building regional pride and addressing the unique challenges we face. Vidarbha has always been resource-rich, which has been both a blessing and a curse. While we’ve had enough to sustain ourselves, it has also made us complacent at times. What we need now is a multi-layered approach — one that appeals to our distinct regional identity while also addressing the economic realities of the region.