Reorganisation of states - UPSC Polity Notes

State Reorganisation commission

To study the prospect of linguistic restructuring, the government created a commission chaired by S.K. Dhar. The administrative reorganization was prioritized by the S. K. Dhar Commission above linguistic reorganization. A linguistic foundation was also rejected by the JVP Committee, which included Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya.

However, the first linguistic state, Andhra Pradesh, was founded in 1953 when the Telugu-speaking districts of the Madras State were separated. The agitation claimed the life of Potti Sriramulu, who had been on a 56-day hunger strike. Because there were so many more linguistic requests, a commission was made up to study the demand, led by Justice F. Fazl Ali and including members H. N. Kunzru and KM. Panikkar.

In 1955, it submitted its report. The States Reorganization Act was approved in 1956 after its recommendations were adopted with changes. With the Seventh Constitution Amendment, the 4 allocations of States had been overtaken by 14 as well as six Union Territories

Reasons in favour of reorganizing the state based on language.

A linguistic foundation would enable greater local engagement in administration.
Linguistic areas were inherently spatially continuous, making them easy to manage.
The local tongues that had been ignored by the British might now thrive.
In many sections of the nation, a highly combustible scenario had arisen, as well as the decision to establish linguistic states assisted in modifying the situation.

Reasons opposing reorganization of the state based on language.

It fostered a sense of regionalism.
It hampered economic cooperation between nations.
It fostered an adversarial attitude toward neighbours.

State Reorganisation Commission (Fazal Ali Commission)

The Creation of Andhra Pradesh intensified the demand for the creation of states on a linguistic basis in other regions as well. The Government was forced to re-examine the whole question. Thus, a new commission, known as the State Reorganisation (Fazal Ali Commission), was set up.

The Fazal Ali commission was a three-member State Reorganisation Commission that was set up in December 1953. Its other two members were K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru. The commission submitted its report in September 1955. It acknowledges 4 major factors for the reorganization of states:

First, Linguistic and Cultural similarities.
Second, strengthen and preserve the unity and integrity of India.
Third, administrative, financial and economic considerations and
Fourth planning and promotion of people’s welfare

The Government accepted these recommendations with minor changes. States Reorganisation Act 1956 and the 7th Amendment Act 1956 were passed. The distinction between Part-A and Part-B states was repealed and Part-C states were abolished. Some of the states were merged with adjacent states while others were designated as union territories.

However, the reorganisation of states has been an unfinished task as outcome of linguistic reorganisation has not been quite positive in the long run:

Resulted in unequal sizes of province: Differences are visible in States like UP and North eastern states. This has led to imperfect resource distribution. With few states garnering attention, while few states shrouded in negligence.
Opened pandora’s box: In India there are more than 600 languages and many dialects; satisfying linguistic aspirations of all groups is quite impossible. For example: demand for redistribution of boundaries of Maharashtra and Karnataka based on language.
Fueled the forces of regionalism: As a result, India is still a nation in making and its sub-national sentiments are given precedence over Indian unity and integrity.

Recent creation of new states like Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand are based on developmental needs, where it was found that states, even after having enough resources, could not grow like the rest of its parent state.

In recent times, Belagavi issue has created political tussle between Karnataka and Maharashtra. Belagavi is an area in Karnataka, which has a sizeable Marathi-speaking population and has been at the heart of a five-decade-old border row between Karnataka and Maharashtra whose final order from Supreme Court is still awaited.

Second State Reorganisation commission

Actually, there is a demand of new States by dividing the larger states like UP along with the demand of Saurashtra, Timaraland, Gorkhaland, and Bodoland.

Basis of Formation of New States:

Physiographic character/distinctiveness: It is an important factor for the demand for the creation of new states, for example, Uttarakhand is a mountainous region, Jharkhand is a plateau and Chhattisgarh is a basin.
Level of Economic Development: The lack of industry, agrarian crisis, and a low level of infrastructural facilities push demand for such states, growth can be achieved in spite of these handicaps. Eg. Gorkhaland
Resource base: The new state should be self-sustainable for Eg. Tulunadu, Kudagu would not be a self-sustainable state. The demand for Bundelkhand and Maru Pradesh is based on this factor only.
Ethnicity: One main reason for the creation of new states in India is cultural or social affiliations. For instance, the state of Nagaland in the Northeast was created taking tribal affiliations into account.
Size of state/Geographical area: Big size of the state makes the governance of the larger area difficult, which leads to inequality in the level of development within in the state. For example demand for Harit Pradesh in UP and Maru Pradesh in Rajasthan is based on the above consideration.
Tribalism or nature of society: This is based on the argument that specific planning like area-based planning or tribal planning are required to develop the region. For example – Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand.

Arguments in favour of Small States:

Fасtuаl analysis of the development reроrt of three newly states in 2000 (Uttarakhand, Jharkhand аnd Сhhаttisgаrh) аnd Telаngаnа in 2014 сreаted shows that all оf them have shown remarkable аnnuаl grоwth in the develорment.
Better democratic governance: Comparatively smaller but compact geographical entities tend to ensure that there is better democratic governance, as there is greater awareness among the policymakers 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 аnd effiсienсy in the аdministrаtiоn.
Decentralisation, Devolution and Democracy: The democratic polity of India is better served by smaller states where decision-making power is devolved to smaller regions, and funds are devolved to the people. Thus, fulfilling the democratic aspiration of the people.

Arguments in against of Small States:

A small state is likely to face limitations in terms of the natural (physical) and human resources available to it. Moreover, it will lack the kind of agro-climatic diversity required for economic and developmental activities. It would also be restricted in its capability to raise resources internally. All these factors would only make it more dependent on the Centre for financial transfers and centrally sponsored schemes.
Small states can also lead to the hegemony of the dominant community/caste/tribe over their power structures. In such States, aggressive Nationalism too can develop and lead to the growth of Son of Soil doctrine.
The attainment of statehood can also lead to the emergence of intra-regional rivalries among the subregions as happened in Himachal Pradesh, religious communities in Punjab and Caste tribes in Haryana.
The creation of small states may also lead to certain negative political consequences. Since the strength of the state legislature would be rather small in such states, most of the ruling party or ruling coalition would remain fragile as in the present situation in Uttarakhand. In such a situation, a small group of legislators could make or break a government at will.
The creation of smaller states can lead to an appreciable increase in the inter-state water, power, and boundary disputes.
The division of states would require huge funds for building new capitals and maintaining many Governors, Chief Ministers, Ministers and administrators as the case in the division of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (establishment of new capital at Amravati).
In human development indicators also, there is a mixed result where smaller states including Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, and bigger states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc. top the list, indicating that good governance and not size, what determines development.

Conclusion

To summarise, Evidence shows that both large and small states have fared well, and that poor performance is not necessarily linked to size. In fact, today, technology can help make governing larger territories easier and bring even far-flung areas closer.

A more effective autonomous institution could also be considered in the form of an empowered body statutorily on par with 6th Schedule areas and assigned, say, all the functional areas under the State List except law and order, maintenance of infrastructure like national and state highways, power transmission networks and disaster relief establishment.