BIFURCATION OF INDIAN STATES

IN NEWS:

• Allegations over the bifurcation of Tamilnadu and West Bengal have reignited the debate on bifurcation of larger states into smaller ones.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

• Article 1 describes India as a ‘Union of States’, although its Constitution is federal in structure.
• India is described as ‘an indestructible union of destructible states’, since the Parliament can redraw the political map of India according to its will, without the consent of states.
• Article 3 of the Constitution authorises the Parliament to form new states or alter the areas, boundaries or names of the existing states.
• Laws made for creation of new states or alteration of existing states are not considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368. Such laws can be passed by a simple majority and by the ordinary legislative process.

HISTORY:

• Despite the integration of princely states with India after independence, there has been persistent demand for reorganisation of states on linguistic basis.
• Dhar commission and JVP committee rejected language as the basis for reorganisation of states. However, the creation of Andhra state intensified the demand for creation of states on linguistic basis.
• Hence, the government appointed the three-member States Reorganisation Commission under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali.
• The commission broadly accepted language as the basis of reorganisation, but rejected the theory of ‘one language - one state’.
• By the States Reorganisation Act (1956) and the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956), 14 states and 6 union territories were created on November 1, 1956.
• Even after the reorganisation, the political map of India underwent continuous change due to the pressure of popular agitations and political conditions.

PRESENT STATUS:

• Presently, India comprises of 28 states and 8 Union Territories that includes the NCT of Delhi.
• However, there are several demands for statehood/autonomy within the country.

WHY THE DEMAND FOR BIFURCATION?

• Economic backwardness:
  • Economic backwardness of sub-regions is a major ground on which demands for smaller states are being made. This is evident from the demands for the formation of Vidharbha and Saurashtra.
• Neglect of cultural uniqueness:
  • In some cases, the perception of parent state’s inability to safeguard the distinct culture of sub-regions has led to demand for statehood.
  • Eg: The demand for Statehood for the Gorkhaland region of west Bengal has been raise mainly on the issue of distinct hill culture of the region, which is different from rest of the State.
• Misplaced fear of regionalism:
  • At the time of independence, leaders decided to keep the bigger States intact to counterbalance the tendencies of linguistic regionalism, which they feared could threaten national integration. However, today, such fears are unfounded.
  • Eg: Many small states were created after 1956 in North East, which strengthened rather than weakened the Union.
• Promote regional development:
  • A new small state can develop tailor-made policies to address its unique regional development deficits, which could lead to infrastructural development, employment generation and improvement in quality of life.
  • Eg: Since its formation, Telangana has been attracting investments into the state by enhancing ease of business, incentivizing industries and providing tax rebates for investors.  
• Break the resource curse:
  • Some of the regions demanding for statehood are the richest in terms of natural resources. This is a result of weak governing institutions, where the gains from resource extraction are captured by a few elites. Statehood can help rectify this imbalance.
• Responsive democracy:
  • Exponential population growth and multiplicity of development functions have rendered governance in large States inefficient. In this situation, smaller states are better placed to administer and respond to the needs of the state’s citizens.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST BIFURCATION:

• Economic viability:
  • A small state is likely to face limitations in terms of the financial and human resources available to it. It would also be restricted in its capability to raise resources internally. Here, a larger state may be more economically and financially viable and better capable of serving people and achieving planned development.
• No guarantee for effective administration:
  • The grant of Statehood cannot guarantee rapid economic development of those backward regions which do not have the required material and human resources for accelerating the pace of economic growth.
• Negative political consequences:
  • The creation of new states may enhance the weaknesses of coalition politics, as a small group of legislators could make or break a government at will.
  • The small States could also lead to the hegemony of the dominant community/caste/tribe over their power structures.
  • It may also foster aggressive regionalism and consequent intimidation of the migrants.
• Cost of transition:
  • Past experiences show that it takes about a decade for a new state and its government and administrative institutions to become stable. The cost of this transition is not low and the state’s performance may suffer during this interim period.
• Increase intra-regional friction:
  • The creation of new states would lead to an appreciable increase in the inter-State water, power and boundary disputes.
  • Eg: The conflict between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh over sharing of Krishna River water.
• Success of bigger states:
  • It is good Governance and not size that determines development. This is evident in the case of human development indicators, as bigger states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka top the list alongside smaller states like Kerala and Punjab.

WAY FORWARD:

• Objective evaluation of demands:
  • Reorganisation needs to be seen not as a task undertaken at a single point of time, but as an ongoing process that remains unfinished. However, economic and social viability must be given primacy while considering demands.
  • For this, a scientific assessment of the factors behind the demand, population size, socio-cultural factors, resource availability, strategic nature of the location etc. must be considered.
• Enhance the quality of administration:
  • More than the size of a state, it is the quality of governance and administration that determine whether a particular state performs better than the others.
• Encourage decentralization of power:
  • Empowering already existing institutions like Gram Panchayat and cooperatives can bring about the desired political attention and diffusion of development to the backward areas of the states.
• Utilise technology:
  • ICT, off-grid power, footloose industries, farm mechanisation etc. must be utilised for enhancing public service delivery and promoting balanced regional development.
• Resolve resource curse:
  • Resolving the resource curse can revitalize the local economy and create crucial job opportunities. This will help reduce the demands for smaller states while promoting national development.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. India is in need of a second state reorganisation. Critically examine?