Context: It has been 10 years since Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, in this context, it becomes important to examine the impact of State reorganization exercise that has been carried out by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act of 2014. it is also of important for us to examine the impact of formation of smaller states by bifurcation of large states:
Background of State Reorganization in India:
- The States of India were originally formed because of historical accidents and circumstances. After independence there has been a growing demand for reorganization of the States on a more rational basis, in the context of not only from financial, economic, and administrative management of independent India but also due to the growing importance of regional languages.
- For the first time, the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was constituted in 1953 to go into this problem and to recommend the principles and broad guidelines on which the States can be reorganized. The Commission submitted its report in September 1955. To give effect to the scheme of reorganization which emerged from the consideration of the proposals contained in the Report, the States Reorganization Act, 1956, was enacted by the Parliament under Article 4 of the Constitution of India.
- The new States formed because of the reorganization of States in 1956 are Andhra Pradesh, Bombay Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Punjab, and Rajasthan.
- Thereafter the Parliament had also enacted various Reorganization Acts from time to time i.e. the Bombay Reorganization Act in 1960; The Punjab Reorganization Act in 1966; the State of Himachal Pradesh Reorganization Act in 1970 and North-Eastern States reorganization Act in 1971.
- Later, the Reorganization Acts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar which were enacted by the Parliament in November 2000.
- Latest in this category is Andhra Pradesh, Telangana was bifurcated from Andhra Pradesh in 2014 by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act of 2014.
Points in Favor of creation of Smaller States:
- More targeted governance: Division of states means that every state will have its own leaders. Looking at the bigger picture, this means that a government who had to formulate policies for 5 crore people, will now have to do the same for only 2 crores. Thus, there will be more efficiency in the administration and less pressure of performance on the governance. Better administration fuels growth.
- Proximity to the capital city: Access to Capital city is important as people of the state go to the capital to air their grievances. All major government offices, judicial houses like state high courts and political quarters are housed there. A new state means a closer capital city and thus provide relief to the people. This cannot be said about larger states.
- E.g.: If a citizen in western U.P. were to be heard in any of the state commissions or courts, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow, spending large sum of money to get justice. Reduced distances between the state capital and peripheral areas would improve the quality of governance and administrative responsiveness and accountability.
- Better space to articulate concerns: The people of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh now have the space to articulate their concerns independently. The people of Telangana are now part of a separate State, which means that they are not dominated by politicians from Andhra Pradesh. Local issues such as riparian rights are highlighted and heard.
- Proper utilization of central funds: Problem in large states is that the allocation of funds by the Centre can never be evenly distributed. So, some parts stand to lose and thus remain backwardly developed, while the part which holds maximum political affiliate gains.
- Increased Growth Rate: According to Planning commission data, Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) for Chhattisgarh rose from 3.1% average growth over 1994- 95 and 2001-02 to 8.6% average since 2004-05. Uttarakhand also shows a similar trend (4.6% to 12.3%). The industrial sector in Chhattisgarh grew at 13% over this 5- year period while the growth rate was only 6.7% for Madhya Pradesh. With an efficient and more targeted administration, growth is inevitable.
- Better Living Standards: Per Capita income of people in Uttar Pradesh rose from Rs.9721 in 2000-2001 to Rs.17349 in 2010-11. The same for Uttarakhand rose Rs.14932 to Rs.44723, much better than its mother state. Over 2004-09, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand have done a better job in reducing poverty than their mother states, reducing the poverty rates by 14.7% and 6.2% respectively while Uttar Pradesh and Bihar could manage figures of 0.9% and 3.2% respectively. These figures speak for themselves.
- Better law and order management: Experts have observed that the Naxalism issue in Andhra Pradesh was a result of constant neglect and lack of progress in the Telangana region, after the creation of new State, this issue has been largely addressed.
Fig: Shows Telangana’s social indicators over the past 10 years.
Points Against the creation of Smaller States:
- Division vs. governance: Much more than the size of a state, it is the quality of governance and administration, the diverse talent available within the state’s population, and the leadership’s drive and vision that determine whether a particular state performs better than the others. Devolution of powers to the grass root level and an accountable bureaucracy is what is needed for governance, not division.
- If only smaller state creation were the panacea, Jharkhand should have been a developed state. But that is far from true. Corruption in mining licenses, Naxalism still plague the state. Both Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand account for 68% of insurgent attacks.
- Reduced Self-Sustainability: A small state is likely to face limitations in terms of the natural and human resources available to it. Moreover, it will lack the kind of agro-climatic diversity required for economic and developmental activities. All these factors make it more dependent on the Centre for financial transfers and centrally-sponsored schemes.
- Example: Post division, Telangana has become a landlocked state by losing out on major ports, coastline, golden quadrilateral and major railway freight corridors.
- Example: Post division from UP, Uttarakhand has become more dependent on Centre and World bank for the finance of even medium scale projects like household water supply scheme.
- In the case of Telangana, while it leads in economic indicators, this however has not translated into social development.
- Cost of Infrastructure: New States may find themselves lacking in infrastructure (administrative and industrial), which requires time, money, and effort to build. There is a massive amount of infrastructure needed for building up new capital and to make new states self-sufficient.
- Mobilizing capital required for big infrastructure setup, which is a herculean task, it adds up more pressure on the already dwindling fiscal reserves of India. It is argued that a systematic and planned approach for development within the current state can handle the issue of growth better than division.
- Hurts unity: If states are divided based on factors such as dominant caste, creed, language, culture, the idea of making “One India” as laid down by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and the idea of present government i.e. Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat gets impacted. Such divisions cause more hatred amongst the states, which is not favorable for interstate relations and trade.
- Creation of Institutions: After bifurcation, both states have demanded Separate institutes of National importance, while some promises have been fulfilled, like IIT in Tirupati and AIIMS at Vishakhapatnam, but some commitments like creation of South Coast railway Zone at Vizag haven’t been fulfilled.
Conclusion and way forward:
- Focus on governance: We can see that the poor governance is not necessarily linked to the size of the state. Today, technology can help in better governance, even for the large states and even smaller states can remain misgoverned because of lack of political and administrative will.
- Strengthening PRIs: In most states, the perception of exclusion has led to the demand for smaller states, this perception of exclusion needs to be addressed, the best way to deal with this is to strengthen PRIs and grassroot devolution as per the constitutional scheme of 73rd amendment.
- Long term assessment: Thus, creation of smaller states on one side holds potential for targeted governance, economic growth, better representation, and addressing sentiments of people, it also comes with challenges like resource conflict, short term economic strain, and potential administrative disruptions and bureaucratic burden. The need therefore is of informed, sensitive, and participatory approach, keeping the larger national interest in mind, instead of merely pacifying political needs.