It’s been a year since Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated to create Telangana and this week, the two states marked the anniversary in contrasting ways — with celebrations in Telangana and studied indifference in Andhra. The parting was painful for AP, which was forced to concede the capital, Hyderabad, to Telangana. Its finances have taken a beating — budget deficits now run into Rs 6,000 crore plus — while Telangana has a small surplus. The bitterness generated by the division has lingered on, impacting state-building in both regions. Both states continue to squabble on how best to divide assets. The transfer of employees has been delayed, crippling the administration. In retrospect, the AP bifurcation is a lesson in how not to reorganise states.
The reorganisation of states in 1956 and 2000 was marked by extensive consultations by the States Reorganisation Committee (SRC). Partisan considerations played a part but a larger consensus prevailed. There were, of course, differences and resentments, for instance, on Bombay’s status, between Maharashtra and Gujarat. The formation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand in 2000 was relatively uneventful and seemed to reflect a maturing polity.
Demands for new states will continue to be made. The main lesson to be drawn from the AP experience is that while forging a political consensus is difficult, it is essential for redrawing maps.
