The state of creation

The question is how far can these demands be met without endangering the overall territorial integrity of India. Also, will this centrifugal re-organisation of states within the Indian federation really serve the interests of the people in these areas? Recalling the history of the states8217; reorganisation initiative would be relevant here. The idea of re-casting the constituent territorial units of India was not a post-partition, post-independence phenomenon. The Indian National Congress, while outlining its vision of the territorial organisation of free India, took note of the fact that provincial boundaries of British India and the boundaries of the princely states were drawn either due to the osmosis of historical events in the 18th and 19th centuries or for administrative convenience. It was then decided that territorial units of Independent India should have linguistic and cultural homogeneity, while acknowledging the diversity of our civil society. A special commission was appointed in 1953, to explorethe possibilities of re-demarcating state boundaries on the basis of linguistic and cultural principles. The commission submitted its Report 8212; the State Reorganisation Commission Report 8212; in 1956.

The immediate compulsion to set up such a commission was the demand for a separate, Telugu-speaking state. Putti C. Ramalu, who led the movement for Andhra Pradesh, had fasted unto death to meet this objective in 1953. The result was the old princely state of Hyderabad and Telugu-speaking areas of the old Madras Presidency and portions of Mysore, were integrated to create the state of AP. Nehru correctly anticipated a chain reaction to this re-organisation of states. So, while agreeing that the State Reorganisation Commission should respect the linguistic identities defining the regional diversities of the republic, he suggested that the re-drawing of the boundaries of states should abide by certain over-riding principles: First, to preserve and strengthen the unity of India and, second, to be mindful of the administrative, economic and financial constraints that could arise, third, to temper cultural and linguistic aspirations by considerations of national consolidation.

The States Re-organisation Act, passed in 1956, created eight major states: Assam, West Bengal, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. There were demands even at that time for the creation of Jharkhand, for a separate Punjabi Suba and Gujarati-speaking state.

The government of India, on the commission8217;s recommendations, did not accept these demands. But, by the 1970s, there was a further territorial re-organisation of the country. A separate state of Punjab was created, two new states 8212; Haryana and Himachal Pradesh 8212; emerged. The North-Eastern portions of India, which were administered by the state government of Assam, were re-constituted into seven states based on tribal, linguistic and cultural identities. The old Bombay Presidency was bifurcated into the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The point in recalling these developments is to underline the fact that the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal is not a new and disruptive development but part of an evolutionary process.

One, however, has to examine whether the creation of these states would meet the aspirations of the people. One also has to consider whether the creation of new states and their new governments would be an expensive proposition. Also, will the new political and administrative power structures created provide representation to all the people? And, most importantly, will this exercise providing for separate legislatures and councils of ministers meet the aspirations of the people?

The substantial objective is to ensure that the newly-created territorial units get focussed attention in processes of governance, allocation of resources, formulation of projects and other interventions that would meet the hitherto neglected needs and expectation of the people. This is where, more than the creation of new territorial units and new governments, the important requirement today is decentralisation and devolution. It is against these principles that the validity of the creation of new and smaller states should judged. It is equally important to ensure that this exercise does not constitute a huge burden on the national exchequer. Indications regarding this important factor are not too re-assuring so far. The controversies involving the designation of new capitals for these states, the scramble for ministerial berths and administrative posts send out disturbing signals. One also notes with some disappointment that the chiefministerships of all the three states have been subject to controversiesand in the case of Uttaranchal these is a major complaint that the person appointed is from Haryana, not Uttaranchal.

It is rash to be prescriptive about political processes in a democracy as volatile as ours. But the solution lies in the Union government stipulating certain disciplines about the constitution and functioning of the governments in these new states. The stipulation could be that the chief minister and the council of ministers must comprise persons of local origin. Two, there should be a ceiling on the size of the Cabinet. Three, the membership of the legislatures should be proportionate to the constituencies making up the new state.

Generally, administrative and financial powers should be delegated to the existing institutional arrangements in terms of district, sub-divisional and local self-governing bodies. The creation of new institutions and arrangements should be undertaken only where they are absolutely unavoidable. If these broad considerations are not accepted each new state will be a white elephant without serving the purpose for which it was created 8212; namely, to provide a government more responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Nehru suggested that certain principles guide the re-drawing of state boundaries, including the tempering of regional aspirations keeping in mind national interest