EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 24 November 2008

Need For Small States

GOOD FOR GOVERANCE

By T.D. Jagadesan

The demand for separate States of Telangana and Vidharbha has been under consideration of successive Governments for some decades. Today, it has gathered urgency with the BJP promising the creation of Telangana with 100 days of being voted to power.  Since the demand for smaller States has been raised by others also, the Central Government should seriously consider appointing a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) to go into the merits of the respective claims.

Needless to say, whenever the demand for new States is pressed by the people of a region, the opponents to the creation of small States come up with a variety of arguments.  Mainly, that the formation of linguistic States in the 50s was itself a mistake as it seriously harmed the process of national integration.  This is a fallacious argument for two reasons.

One, the formation of new States in the 50s was not entirely on the basis of language; linguistic identity was only one of the many criteria followed in creating them.  Two, experience has shown that linguistic States have in no way been a hindrance to national integration; they have only made administration smooth and better.  If linguistic identity was the only criterion, there should have been only one State for all Hindi-speaking people.  This, of course, would have been an administrative monstrosity.

Indeed, the demand now is for forming new States out of large States, even if they have a common language.  The main motivation of the people who demand the separate States of Telangana and Vidharbha is the conviction that they have a sub-cultural identity and that a separate State alone can enable them to get an equitable share of the benefits of development.

Importantly, the framers of the Constitution were fully conscious that there would be need for changing the boundaries of a State which were primarily created for the convenience of the colonial rulers.  The reason why very liberal provisions were incorporated under Article 3 of the Constitution, giving the Union Cabinet and Parliament adequate powers to form new States by separation of territories from existing States or uniting two or more States, or parts of some States, or altering the name of a State.

The most important justification for the creation of new States is that this would help the cause of better governance. Those familiar with the administration of development programmes know that one of the main reasons for their unsatisfactory progress has been the inadequate supervision by senior officers.

Under the Parliamentary system of Government, the formulation of polices is the responsibility of the political leadership with the assistance of senior officers, while the implementation is mainly the responsibility of bureaucrats at the field level. Senior officers are expected to maintain a close watch on programme implementation through field visits. But in the case of States with a very large population, this important responsibility is not adequately attended to.

Therefore, reducing the size of the States has become an absolute necessity if the people are to get the full benefits of development programmes.  Out of the 28 States in the Indian Union, 10 have a population above 50 million and five, namely Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal and U.P. have a population of over 75 million each.

The demand for the division of States has arisen most forcefully from the people of these States as they have been experiencing the disadvantages of having a large size of population.  Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 166 million, is a chronic case of under-development.  The need for its division is obvious.

In the past, some senior politicians had resisted the idea of carving smaller States out of UP as they feared that such a step would reduce its importance in national politics.  But now most political parties are in favour of getting three or four new States out of U.P, notwithstanding the creation of Uttaranchal.

Besides, there have been experiments, through Constitutional amendments, to provide for preferential treatment to certain regions within a State in matters such as education and employment. The boldest attempt in this direction was the provision for the establishment of Development Boards for backward regions like Vidharbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra.  Article 371 (2) of the Constitution provides for vesting the Governor of the State the power for ensuring equitable allocation of funds to the backward regions.

It may be recalled that when Dr P.C. Alexander was the Governor of Maharashtra, he held the view that the special powers for the Governor diluted the responsibility of the Chief Minister and his ministerial colleagues, who were always to remain accountable to the legislature.

In the ultimate analysis, if a separate State is what the overwhelming majority of the people of a region wish to have on grounds of better administrative convenience and efficiency, conceding such a demand will be in keeping with the spirit of Article 3 of the Constitution and with the principles of democracy.—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)