India was created by a consolidating hundreds of princely
states. And yet again there is a pushover for creation of newer states. The 29th
state of India was born on August 1, 2013 by bifurcating the state of Andhra
Pradesh into Telangana and Seemandhra. This division was a result of decades of
agitation by the people of Telangana demanding a separate state.
But was this division inevitable? Or is it a consequence of
electoral compulsion? Lets us take a closer look at it. Bifurcation leads to
smaller states and smaller states ideally imply strong governance due to
administrative ease. Also smaller states are found to be more progressive, have
higher literacy rates and higher growth rates. States like Kerala, Haryana, and
Himachal Pradesh are good examples. But on the other hand states like Jharkhand
(carved out of Bihar) haven’t done well on the same parameters. Pro- division
people argue that a country as large and diverse as India needs smaller units
for governance. Creation of new states is not simply the acknowledgement of the
cultural aspirations of the region but also an amalgamation of social and
political factors.
The downside of creation of newer states is that instead of
making borders irrelevant it is making them more and relevant. Often, the
creation of political and administrative boundaries, become social and economic
barriers. Issues like resource redistribution, sharing of water bodies, sharing
of revenue system between the newly divided states sours the celebratory
atmosphere and often becomes a bone of contention.
Recently India witnessed agitations involving the creation
of Telangana and demanding the creation of newer states of Bodoland (by
dividing Assam), Gorkhaland (by dividing West Bengal) and Haritpradesh (by
dividing Uttar Pradesh). But the
question arises that why the clamour for creation of new states is so sudden?
Apart from providing administrative ease, smaller states
result in decentralization of power. After the division, the new government has
to concentrate on smaller area with lesser population. It makes the government
more effective and responsible. This decentralisation of power is purely based
on the Panchayati- Raj system which is the basis of governance in India. Also,
division results in regional similarities like sharing a common cultural
history or a common language or belonging to the same caste or religion. These
factors enhance the probability of living harmoniously in that region.
The state reorganisation committee listed linguistic
barriers as the foremost basis for considering division of a state. This is why
the state of Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1996 owing to cultural and
linguistic differences. But social, political and economic factors also hugely
determined the creation of new states. Owing to trust deficit in the government
of Uttar Pradesh and cultural differences between the hill tribes and backward
castes, Uttaranchal was born in 2000. Similarly, Economic disparities, caste
distinctiveness and uneven distribution of natural resources led to the
creation of Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh.

But the question arises, are the newer state agitations
strengthening federalism? This is because the turbulence concerning the
bifurcation may not necessarily be separatist. Whimsical parallelisms are often
drawn about the states being like two couples asking about two private rooms.
But is our democratic structure strong enough to withstand this
disintegration in the unity of our country? Or are we heading towards United
States of America? These questions remain unanswered will stand the test of
time. No doubt the creation of Telangana has opened up a Pandora’s Box. It may
seem small and innocuous at the beginning but the aftermath may be perilous.
Well written and informative. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Delete