top of page

By:

Anusreeta Dutta

26 April 2026 at 1:22:24 pm

One Maharashtra, Unequal Priorities

Six decades after statehood, constitutional safeguards remain necessary to bridge the gap between western Maharashtra and the regions left behind. Maharashtra is often referred to as India’s economic engine. The state, which is home to Mumbai’s financial ecosystem and Pune’s industrial corridor, contributes about 14 percent to the GDP of India. There is a long-standing dispute behind this achievement that has affected state politics for decades. Is every district in Maharashtra thriving at...

One Maharashtra, Unequal Priorities

Six decades after statehood, constitutional safeguards remain necessary to bridge the gap between western Maharashtra and the regions left behind. Maharashtra is often referred to as India’s economic engine. The state, which is home to Mumbai’s financial ecosystem and Pune’s industrial corridor, contributes about 14 percent to the GDP of India. There is a long-standing dispute behind this achievement that has affected state politics for decades. Is every district in Maharashtra thriving at the same pace? It is not just a political question. It is written into the Constitution proper. Unlike most states in India, Maharashtra has a unique constitutional provision under Article 371(2) which empowers the Governor to ensure that development funding and opportunities are equally shared between Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra. The clause was born out of fears that some areas would be forgotten once the state was established in 1960. Six decades later, the existence of this constitutional safeguard raises an uncomfortable question: why does Maharashtra need tools to balance regional development still? Regional Disparity The seeds of regional disparity were sown long before the birth of Maharashtra. Western Maharashtra had early investments in irrigation, cooperative sugar mills, educational institutions and transportation. The centres of industrial growth followed by agricultural commercialisation were Pune, Satara, Sangli, Kolhapur and part of Nashik. Vidarbha and Marathwada chose the other. Agriculture was still heavily dependent on monsoon rains, industrialization was slow and irrigation coverage was less than the state averages. Regional studies in Maharashtra have repeatedly shown that irrigation intensity and agricultural yield are higher in western districts than in much of eastern Maharashtra. These differences subsequently led to calls for institutional safeguards. In contrast, in western Maharashtra, government moves are increasingly geared towards growth, not deficit reduction. The region’s success is built on industrial corridors, logistics infrastructure, urban mobility projects and advanced manufacturing clusters. Pune has emerged as a hub for vehicles, computer technology, defence production and startups. Mumbai remains a major draw for investment in metro rail networks, coastal roadways, financial services infrastructure and international business zones. Agricultural practices in western Maharashtra are in a relatively advanced stage of development. Irrigation coverage is much better than many districts in the east, so the authorities can concentrate on raising productivity, export-oriented, value-added farming and agro-processing industries. Western Maharashtra’s policy, in a nutshell, is to make competitive regions more competitive. Eastern Maharashtra is very different. Here, the Governments have not only focused on accelerating growth but also on reducing the backlog of development. The main policy question is irrigation. For many decades official studies have consistently identified irrigation as the most important factor for regional disparities. Even with dedicated funds, the backlog of irrigation in Vidarbha and Marathwada kept growing, requiring repeated interventions by successive governments. To tackle this, region-specific irrigation corporations, such as Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) and Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC) were established with a specific mandate to speed up water infrastructure projects. The Union Government has sanctioned a special irrigation package for Vidarbha, Marathwada and draught prone areas of Maharashtra, with an objective to increase irrigation potential and improve water security of the farmers. Even today, a lot of public money is spent on irrigation projects in eastern Maharashtra. Government affidavits and parliamentary replies say crores of rupees are spent every year to make up for irrigation shortfalls and to finish long-pending projects. This emphasis reflects an important reality: while the western part of Maharashtra talks about competitiveness, the eastern part of Maharashtra continues to debate water access. Another area where there are divergent approaches is industrial policy. Market forces have played a major role in the industrial expansion of western Maharashtra, a process assisted by the existing infrastructure and urbanization. In contrast, Eastern Maharashtra has frequently depended on state-led interventions to draw investment to lagging regions. Projects such as the Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur (MIHAN), logistics corridors, special industrial incentives and infrastructure subsidies were to divert industrial expansion away from the Mumbai-Pune region. Likewise, recent government announcements have earmarked Vidarbha to become a future hub for solar energy, semiconductors, aerospace manufacturing and logistics, with Marathwada being pitched for electric vehicle and electronics investments. Whereas in western Maharashtra, the policy tends to buttress pre-existing advantages, in eastern Maharashtra the industrial policy aims to generate such advantages from the beginning. Regional Equilibrium These divisions have persisted, leading to separate institutions of governance. Vidarbha and Marathwada have statutory development boards to monitor regional imbalances and recommend corrective actions. Their emergence is an indication of a broader acceptance that market forces alone have not been adequate to promote balanced growth in Maharashtra. The second capital of Maharashtra is also Nagpur. The same ideology. The state legislature meets every winter in eastern Maharashtra to ensure that the issues concerning the region remain in the political focus. The issues discussed generally are irrigation, agriculture, tribal welfare and regional development in these sessions. The controversy over regional equity, however, is still unresolved. According to critics, despite decades of special packages and focused strategies, many irrigation projects continue to face delays, cost overruns and implementation problems. Several big projects in Vidarbha remain incomplete despite years of cash pledges. There is now a growing body of policy thinking that suggests that Maharashtra may have to give up the very terminology of backlog elimination. In its own discussion on balanced regional development, the state attaches more importance to reforms in governance, diversification of the economy and speeding up growth, than to compensatory spending. The challenge is not just building canals and roadways anymore but building lasting economic ecosystems that can hold on to talent, draw investment and create jobs beyond the traditional Mumbai-Pune boom corridor. The real test for Maharashtra will be whether future policies can turn Vidarbha and Marathwada from regions requiring special support to regions capable of driving growth on their own. Till then Maharashtra’s development story will be two stories. (The author is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political research analysis and energy policy. Views personal.)

What is an Education for-A Crisis of Mind?

NEP 2020 envisions education as the foundation for building an equitable and innovative society. Although it is a comprehensive vision, its full realization is evaluated by its capacity of overcoming significant implementation challenges, especially in governance and equitable access. According to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the primary goal of education in India is to transform the system to an integrated, versatile, multidisciplinary, and aligned to the 21st century needs, and the ultimate objective is to create an equitable and diverse knowledge society. Forgetting the simple answers that involve: “to get a job”, “to learn facts”, a critical analysis of education would reveal that education is an extremely contested terrain of power, ideology, and social vision. We shall conjecture about the purposes of education and consider its conflicting roles in society. Any education should not just be a policy-making, but should be skill based with student orientation to nurture the ecology as well. and It is the predominant narrative in the present day. Schooling is an investment in human resources. It is focused on providing skilled, conforming workers to the economy, innovating, and increasing national competitiveness. They are informed that education is a means of questioning employment and economic mobility. Critiques of this view ask: Are students merely "products" to be fitted to market needs? Does this reduce learning to training?


Depending on the works of Socrates and Rousseau, these views on education are individual development and enlightenment. It focuses on developing the “whole person”, that is, moral reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, and wisdom. It is aimed at individual freedom, self-actualization, and the “good life”.


To democratic theorists such as John Dewey, education is the foundation of a healthy democracy. It gives rise to knowledgeable, active citizens who are able to take part in public life, hold power accountable, ideas and promote social cohesion. In this case, education is a social reproduction of democracy itself. Critics indicate that schools usually prepare passive citizens and nationalistic narratives as opposed to truly critical participation.


Education can be structured to build true agency, educating students to question, and not just to answer. It has the potential to develop the ability to solve problems together, deliberate ethically, and act socially. Actually, poverty has not been conquered by illiteracy but by education. Education is destroying the ecology in the name of development.


Asking "what is education for?" forces us to ask: Who benefits? The answer is never singular. Education is determined by the values and power of the people who control the institutions, the curriculum, and assessment. Truly critical education, nevertheless, renders this conflict visible. It must not only prepare students to perform well within the system, but also to analyze, critique, and transform the system itself. Its ultimate aim, as per this critical perspective, is not adaptation to the world as it is, but the development of the ability to re-imagine and rebuild the world as it ought to be. In order to accomplish this, the policy shifts the focus of content-heavy, rote-learning approaches towards an education that encourages critical thinking, creativity, morals, and practical problem-solving.


In place of these myths, Orr proposes six guiding principles for what education should be for:

1. All Education is Environmental Education: By what is included or excluded, every lesson teaches students they are either part of or apart from the natural world.


2. Mastery of Oneself over Subject Matter: The primary goal is not intellectual command, but the development of wisdom, humility, and self-discipline.


3. Knowledge Carries Responsibility: Learning should be accompanied by awareness of the impact on people, communities, and biosphere.


4. Minimize the "Say-Do" Gap: Education must confront the gap between its proclaimed ideals (e.g., justice, sustainability) and institutional practices.


5. Learning Transcends the Classroom: Real education takes place when we are directly engaged with the living world and community.


6. Improve the Learning Process: Go beyond the passive lectures to the interdisciplinary approaches that educate about interconnectedness.


The main thesis expressed by Orr is that the ecological crisis is a “crisis of mind”. He transfers the failure to a technical know-how to the flawed educational paradigm that teaches domination as well as separation. Critical pedagogy should go beyond education. While thinkers like Freire critique education for social oppression, Orr extends this to ecological oppression. He agrees with Freire in his disdain of the “banking model” of education, instead promoting an educational model based on engagement with place and community. His philosophy is similar to but extends beyond the critical theory by making the human-nature relationship the centre.


According to some critics, ecological awareness is necessary, but education should deal with economic systems, political power, and social justice, with equal rigor. The Orr-inspired curriculum risks, in other words, is a curriculum that concentrates on consciousness, but does not prepare students to deconstruct the structural drivers of unsustainability. His localized, place-based paradigm is strong but immensely challenging to scale in and resource-limited public education systems. Finally, David Orr makes us evaluate education based on its results: Does it help people who will preserve a habitable, humane, and beautiful world? His essay is a fundamental and provocative work for anyone reconsidering the ultimate purpose of education.

(The writer is Head and Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mahatma Basweshwar College, Latur. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page