Introduction:

The Indian ‘model’ of federalism has several marked differences from the classical federal models one finds in countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia. A notable difference has been the unilateral power of the union parliament to reorganize the political structure of the country by forming new states and to alter the areas, boundaries or names of existing sates. The article 1 of the constitution, “India is a Union of states”, means that states were created for administrative convenience. States have no right to secede from the union and hence states do not have a say in their creation.

Body:

Reasons for demand for the break-up of large states:

• The regions include Gorkhaland and Kamtapur in West Bengal; Coorg in Karnataka; Mithilanchal in Bihar; Saurashtra in Gujarat; Vidarbha in Maharashtra; Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal, Braj Pradesh and Awadh Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh and Bundelkhand comprising areas of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
• Significantly, some of these regions have enormous populations comparable to countries of the global north in terms of territory and population.
• Electoral politics in the ‘post-Congress polity’ has been marked by the politicization and mobilization of social cleavages along territorially confined lines of caste, religion and region by state-level ‘ethnic’ parties.
• The issue of language and culture-which had shaped the earlier process of reorganization– shifted to those of better governance and greater participation, administrative convenience, economic viability in the developmental needs of sub regions.
• Centralized federalism under the shadow of the development-planning model failed to achieve its avowed aim of bringing about equitable development across and within the regional states.
• India has also been witness to what may be called the ‘secession of the rich’ as regions attracting huge private investments and registering impressive growth, have started resenting the dependence of relatively underdeveloped regions on the revenues transferred to them (for example, Harit Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh).

Creation of smaller states is a much needed move:

• It’s a well-known fact that creation of smaller state in India had experiences the betterment of Indian economy. The growth of GDP, better governance and development.
• Factual analysis shows the development and efficiency argument does work in favour of the new states when compared with the parent states.
• During the tenth five-year plan period, Chhattisgarh averaged 9.2 percent growth annually compared with 4.3 percent by Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand averaged 11.1 per cent annually compared with 4.7 percent by Bihar, and Uttarakhand achieved 8.8 per cent growth annually compared with 4.6 percent by Uttar Pradesh.
• Arguably, getting ‘a territory of their own’ unleashes the untapped/suppressed growth potentials of the hitherto peripheral regions.
• Comparatively smaller but compact geographical entities tend to ensure that there is better democratic governance, as there is greater awareness among the policy makers about the local needs.
• Smaller spatial units having linguistic compatibility and cultural homogeneity also allow for better management, implementation and allocation of public resources in provisioning basic social and economic infrastructure services.
• Smaller states provide gains for the electorates in terms of better representation of their preferences in the composition of the government.
• In a patronage-based democracy like in India, the amount of the transfer of state resources/largesse a constituency/region gets depends crucially on whether the local representative belongs to the ruling party.

However, there are challenges too:

• Reminiscent of ‘partition anxiety’, many fear the rise of regional and linguistic fanaticism as threats to national unity and integrity. A global surge in ethno-nationalist conflicts serves to rekindle these fears. No region has ever experienced secessionist movement after being reorganised as a separate state except for a brief time in Punjab.
• Many believe that bigger states ensure cohesion and stability; however, there are myriad forms of political violence going on unabated in the big states (eg. Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal).
• In these cases, violent movements are expressions of a demand for recognition, justice and autonomy; relatively homogeneous smaller states would always be better poised to provide a wider range of policies in response to local conditions.
• Political expediency and opportunism rather than the objective evaluation of democratic and developmental potential are said to be involved in the making of new states.
• A new state may find itself lacking in infrastructure, which requires time, money and efforts to build. On the political front too there are many challenges that smaller states have to face, as the dream of new smaller states was ushered in by the leaders need.
• Small states depend to a substantial extent on central government for financial aid. It will not be economically prudent to set up new states as it would incur expenditure to set up state machinery.
• With India however the diversity and multiculturalism is so connected in Indian culture that the idea of separate sovereign nation states wouldn’t be viable as all Indian states have such a diverse mix of Indians.
• To create a nation state based on the idea of culture or language in such a diverse society would cause hatred of the outsiders who the natives felt didn’t belong in that state.

Way forward:

• The federal polity of India does need to accommodate the ongoing demands for smaller states.
• In most regions, even if the local, urban entrepreneurial/middle classes (with a hidden class agenda in some cases) lead the demands, these demands represent the democratic aspirations of the hitherto politically dormant, neglected and discriminated masses from the peripheral regions.
• For democratically negotiating such demands, a second state reorganization commission must be constituted by the centre.
• The commission must have the quasi-judicial power to ascertain a set of objective and coherent criteria (not lopsided political considerations) that can be uniformly applied, like in the case of the state reorganisation commission set up in 1953.
• It could be a constitutional body to oversee transparency of the consultation process.
• Concomitant revenue raising powers may also be devolved to such an autonomous institution to avoid its undue financial dependence on the state government.
• The creation of smaller states would contribute to the federal agenda of enhancing democratic development based on decentralized governance and greater autonomy for units.