and to see how a better balance can be struck in centre–state relations.
The messy politics of Indian federalism was witnessed in October as the Indian cabinet hurriedly decided to approve the creation of a new state of Telangana, by dividing the state of Andhra Pradesh. Although the demand for a separate state had been longstanding, there was political uproar from opponents of the partition.
After sitting on the demand for years, the cabinet took the decision for what seemed to be purely tactical electoral considerations dictated by the political interests of the ruling Indian National Congress party. The Telangana case reflects the ad hoc way that states have been created in India over the past four decades, and is symptomatic of the lack of a federal balance.
A strong case can be made for more states in India — where a country of over one billion people has only 29 states and a few federally governed territories — and for a further decentralisation of political power. That smaller states are easier to govern well, and that their residents are likely to be more satisfied with public services, is intuitively obvious, although there are notable exceptions.
In India, however, almost every creation of a new state has been mired in controversy. In part, this is a function of three contradictions in Indian federalism vis-a-vis the redrawing of internal boundaries.
First, India is the most diverse country among all the world’s federations, yet states have virtually no role to play in the creation of new states or, indeed, even in their own division, were that to happen. The Constitution of India has given supreme powers to the Indian parliament to create new states and change the borders of states by enlarging or decreasing their area. The view of the affected state is considered, but there is no obligation to act on it.
Second, there has always been tension over the criteria that should determine the creation of a new state. In the early years after independence, and even in the initial discussions within the States Reorganisation Committee (whose recommendations helped to create the first 16 states in 1956), there was a view that states should be organised on the principle of administrative efficiency and after consideration of what would be best for their economic development. These principles were, however, sidestepped and a linguistic criterion that gave preference to a common language as being the basis for statehood was adopted.
But instead of settling issues, the reorganisation on the basis of language strengthened linguistic chauvinism. Be that as it may, this linguistic criterion continued until the creation of Telangana as the 29th state. The irony is that when the Telengana region was merged with the Telugu-speaking areas to create Andhra Pradesh in 1956, the criterion was a common language. But last month the decision to separate it from Andhra was ostensibly taken on grounds of history, a distinct identity and economic needs.
Third, because there is neither closure on the number of states, nor even a linguistic criterion now, there is a perverse incentive for nearly every distinct linguistic, religious and ethnic identity to demand statehood.
What is the way forward?
Clearly, many Indian states would be better governed if more manageable administrative units were carved out of them and fashioned into new states.
But what should the criterion be for the creation of new states?
The time is ripe for a ‘New’ States Reorganisation Commission to identify a set of criteria based on best practices across the world and consults deeply and widely within India to determine the basis upon which new states should be created.
In India the federal principle would work best if there was real devolution of power, not just to the states but also to the villages, as Mohandas Gandhi had envisioned. So far, this has only been achieved in a very small measure. Here, each state would become the facilitator of political decentralisation to the grassroots.
And while each state would ultimately enjoy autonomy within its administrative space to articulate macro policies aligned with the priorities of its residents, and to secure their distinct cultural identity, there would be no economic firewalls between states.
An India that is economically integrated as one great free market and politically decentralised as millions of empowered villages in several facilitating states would be a formidable country, in every sense of the word.
Amitabh Mattoo is Director of the Australia India Institute and Professor of International Relations at the University of Melbourne.
Organizing administrative areas on linguistic basis has worked well in different parts of the world. The reason for linguistic states in India to not realize their full potential is the absolute centralization of power with union government. While the author argues for decentralization of power down to the villages, the very first step of decentralization should start from the union government giving up its many responsibilities to respective state governments.
States with a larger number of MPs control the policy decisions by union government. This has been a hindrance to India’s growth. The state I reside in, Karnataka, has very bad railway connectivity. As Indian Railways is controlled by union government of India, new railway projects are seldom announced in Karnataka. Most of the railway projects go to states with bigger number of MPs (members of parliament). If Karnataka were to own railways under its territory, good connectivity between its cities would’ve been built by now, giving push to much needed economic activity and growth.
The way ahead for Indian federalism is, very clearly, empowering of states and not creation of smaller states.
Priyank has put it aptly. The reason for India’s uneven growth is not because of the creation of linguistic states but for over centralisation of power by the Union Government.
The creation of lingustic states have well thought out structure as language is not just used as medium of communication but medium of co operation. The way forward is to empower states. There needs to be a relook on the concurrent list most of which is controlled by the union.
Creation of states on a linguistic basis is both very scientific and valid.
Making smaller states will not help. Even now there are many small states within India. Going by the writer’s view these smaller states of India should have recorded good progress by now. Why its not happening?
The problem is not with the size, the problem is with the over centralized administrative structure. As rightly said by Priyank, giving more powers to states will make the nation more powerful.
With the failure of the increasingly deteriorating Westminster model that has led to a governance paralysis and unfair lotteries for a chosen few states and their ministerial nominees, India must move to a Presidential form of government to liberate the Executive. The popularly elected President may well provide a unity and central focus that will allow the government of India to start really governing, rather than ingratiatingly balancing the parliamentary power equations all the time. The states must also be allowed to assert their federal character better, with untangling of responsibilities and constitutional assertion and enforcement of their rights.
So far as the states reorganisation in the mainland India is concerned the arguments put forth by the worthy professor hold true in every aspect. We need many more states and the establishment of a new “States Reorganisation Commission” is all the more important. But once this reorganisation issues touches the periphery of India like North-East or Jammu and Kashmir, even if for administrative convenience, reorganisation becomes a taboo. The so called ‘Darbar Move’ between the two capitals of Jammu and Kashmir—Srinagar and Jammu—is a great liability on the people of the state. Crores of rupees spend every year and there is no possibility to make Srinagar or Jammu as the only capital of the state. Under such conditions, also because of a sense of marginalisation on both sides, sooner the state is divided, the better it is. I am fully aware of the history and sensibility of our state. But whenever the issue is finally settled it should have nothing to do with the division of the state. The state is already divided between the Indian and Pakistan administered parts.
First part of this article sums up neatly, the fact that India is “federal” in theory, not practically. So it is incorrect to conclude the states formed on the basis of languages ( which is scientific and correct ) are failures. Too much power concentrated @ one place (read centre), has curtailed the power of states. The system in current form needs a serious revamp with devolution of more powers to states, thus empowering states.The arguement “Small-states-easy-to-develop/govern” is also unwarranted as the condition of smaller Indian states tell a different story. So with out self-rule, smaller states will do no good and would be dud experiment. More powers to states with out centre poking its nose in each and every affairs of states is the way ahead to make India a truely federal state.