In the year 1956 the Centre, under the leadership of the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru, initiated a process of territorial re-demarcation of the country. The State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was formed to oversee the ‘redrawing’ of the Indian map on linguistic lines. As a result, the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc were formed between the years 1956-1960. The current states of Punjab and Haryana were formed in the 1966, while Uttarakhand and Chattisgarh were formed in the year 2000.

THE DEMAND for a separate state of Telangana is today more than 50 years old. The state of Andhra Pradesh was formed against the recommendation of the SRC, which wanted to keep the region separate. A pact—Gentleman’s Agreement—was signed in 1956 between Telangana and Andhra leaders. The agreement provided safeguards with the purpose of preventing discrimination against Telangana. The alleged violations of this agreement are cited as one of the reasons for demands of a separate statehood for Telangana. In this battle for statehood, Telangana’s not the only participant. The past decades have seen an increase in the demand to break up existing states—the Hindi Heartland of UP into Bundelkhand, Purvanchal, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh. The Vidarbha region of Maharashtra is also demanding for political autonomy. The premise of these demands are being set is ‘administrative viability’. The argument is that smaller states are better governed, and thus are more likely to develop. While the newly-formed Chhattisgarh is performing relatively better, its mother state Madhya Pradesh has not been able to replicate the success story. The failed state of the Northeastern region of the country, after the breakup of Greater Assam into several smaller states, also raises questions on the argument of administrative viability. In the past few years, Bihar has seen a dramatic growth; however Jharkhand has failed to do the same. It could be argued that Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand got small parts of their mother states, but Jharkhand constituted a significant part of undivided Bihar, owing to its under performance. But it cannot be ignored that the success of Bihar is a product of strong governance and political will. Now there are Vidharbha, Telangana and Bundelkhand—all demanding political autonomy. That leads us to ponder over Nehru’s decision of dividing states on linguistic lines. Existing small states do not always lead to success stories—so do / can smaller states lead to wholesome development? The available data presents a mixed image, thus it will be safe to say that division alone is not the answer. Is not better to invest the available resources in the making the current infrastructure robust? How viable is the idea of smaller states for India? DW spoke to experts Dr Asha Sarangi, Professor of Political Science at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Professor Ambuja Kumar Tripathy, Professor of Political Science at the Delhi University, for the Issue of the Month.

DR ASHA SARANGI//The idea of forming new states and dividing larger ones into smaller entities began in the 1920s. It was only after independence that the idea of states being formed on the lines of linguistic homogeneity and geographical compactness started especially with the formation of States Reorganisation Commission, and prior to that, with the Dar Commission and JVC. But the 14 states formed, were too large. Amalgamated areas which could have been cut into separate, smaller states. Thus, regional imbalances and diversities were not administratively taken care of. And states began to breed the logic of ‘internal colonialism’ (more prosperous parts asserting their economic and cultural hegemony over the backward ones). A number of protest movements arose due to these internal disequilibrium across regions. In terms of population growth, often it is the idea of ‘size’ that leads to a demand for partition. Importantly, the demand can also be seen as a regional assertion and can be a result of coalition politics, with regional parties leading the drive. Also, partition demand has a lot to do with identity politics, and issues of distributive justice and equality. Backward states often feel discriminated due to their developmental deficit and believe that a break-up into smaller entities might prove to be advantageous. Break-up also demands attention of the Centre and extra investment of resources. HOWEVER, A division is not simply a question of resource and investment, but accounts for political stability, and to a large extent, warrants administrative efficiency. It has to do with the nature of coalition politics in a region, and its manipulative tactics on the part of the dominant regional party or parties and players. If it is too strong then the Centre often gives in to the demands. Whether or not such divisions bring success cannot be ascertained simply. We can not rely only on GDP figures to indicate growth, as it does not address the issue of regional inequality, structures of poverty and backwardness. Cutting the size of states to manageable administrative units might be a short term answer to manage equitable distribution of wealth. But it will be so only in those cases where developmental parameters are already in place, and a certain degree of political maturity exists. In can occur in states geared towards de-centralization of power and resources. If there is a need to redraw the map of India, considerations such as equitable distribution of resources, fair share of natural resources for the intra-state uses, transparency and accountability of rule, and inter-state parity should be kept in mind. The present-day politicians need to remind themselves about the democratic agenda of change, and the urgent need to take peoples wishes into account. For instance, in case of Telangana, both Congress and the TDP need to come to terms with the demand for separate statehood for Telangana on some fundamental issues, and not indulge in populist tactics. Partially, I agree with the idea that instead of breaking-up states, perhaps strengthening the current infrastructure and focusing on making the system more robust would be a better option. However, infrastructural growth and development has to be in accordance with egalitarian ethos. Simply corporatising the economy is not an answer for the growth and development of a plural society such as India.

AMBUJA KUMAR TRIPATHY // The demand for smaller states is not new, and similar cries have been heard from time-to-time, sometime on basis of ethnicity, and increasingly on basis of a demand for better governance and rapid development. The country has witnessed people’s agitation based on this demand. According to estimates, a rational re-organisation of the federal country into smaller states will give India around 50 states. In mid 1970s, Rasheeduddin Khan had argued for 56 states, on the basis of social and cultural factors. Post-2000, there has been a spate of demands after the formation of three new states; Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand. The Telangana agitation has raised interesting questions about the relationship between state size and better development—does size matter? Are smaller states better governed? Those in favor of smaller states argue that they make for better delivery of public services, accountability, opportunities and access to opportunities. There are no definitive answers. After all, what is the effective size of an administrative unit if it wishes to deliver good governance and citizens’ services? Evidence of performance of small versus larger states is highly mixed, showing clearly that there is little relationship between size and developmental efficacy. As W. Arthur Lewis has noted: any understanding of “the engine of growth” would be a “theory of government, where government would appear to be as much the problem, as the solution”. So, it is the quality of government intervention that really matters. It is debatable whether this is dependent on the size of state. Let us look at the hard data concerning the roles that state governments have played in fostering rates and patterns of economic development. During the Xth Five Year Plan period, Chhattisgarh experienced 9.2 per cent of growth (annual) compared to MP’s 4.3 per cent, Jharkhand saw an 11.1 per cent annual growth compared to Bihar’s 4.7 per cent, and Uttaranchal achieved 8.8 per cent growth compared to UP’s 4.6 per cent. If we take some more estimates, we can see that the BPL population is 32 per cent in Chhattisgarh, 14 per cent in MP, 25per cent in Uttaranchal and 14.4 per cent in UP. Research indicates that the richest states (like Punjab) grew three to four times faster than poorer states (say, Bihar) between 1970 and 2005. The Gini coefficient of per capita consumption is found highest for Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra (0.35 and 0.4 per cent) showing extreme variations intrastate even in the richest states. The mixed record is the testimony to the fact that the size of state and degree of development may not have the direct causal relationship. However, it also must be noted that there is nothing wrong with the core idea of creating new states—but given the plethora of demands a serious case-by-case analysis is to be made. Federal unity or stability is no longer a concern like in the 1950s and 1960s, so demands should not be perceived as threats to federalism. Smaller states are being proposed on the grounds of more pragmatic parameters such as economic growth, development, demographic size and administrative convenience rather than merely on the linguistic or cultural principle. So the underlying basis of numerous demands now could be made subject to rational analysis. Conceptually speaking, in smaller states it is easier for people to be heard, and their development needs are taken care of better. Central policies are easier to implement and monitor. It frees people of the deprivation complex and the feeling of domination by more powerful sections from other regions of the bigger state. Sometimes, such demands have roots in the continuing underdevelopment and neglect of sub-regions within large states, for instance demands for the formation of Vidharbha, Bodoland and Saurashtra. In such cases, we need to address the basic issues of better governance, economic viability, administrative convenience and greater people’s participation. The groups making demands are to be convinced that the mere creation of smaller states out of the existing bigger ones does not guarantee good governance and faster and inclusive economic development.