|
| Small needn't mean better | | Several factors need to be considered before creating new states |
| Business Standard / New Delhi Dec 20, 2009, 00:28 IST |
|
What started off as more than 500 states at the time of independence, were aggregated into 28 in 1950 under Sardar Patel. These were reorganised again in 1956, largely, but not only, on the basis of language by the first State Reorganisation Commission. Further reorganisations occurred in 1965 (Punjab), 1971 (Assam) and 2000 (UP, MP and Bihar) largely on cultural lines. The State Reorganisation Commission had delved into these arguments that were not just on issues of a common spoken language but also on economics, governance, etc. The importance of having a large enough population, sharing of common water resources, availability of food and other resources within the borders, the economic structure of the state etc. were considered by the commission. It also recognised that the newly created states may not “work” and allowed for the possibility of a reversal or reorganisation. There is ambiguity in the empirical evidence on the benefits from reorganisation of states into smaller units. On the one hand, the creation of smaller and relatively more homogenous entities makes it potentially easier to govern and enable socio-economic advancement. The success of Punjab, Himachal, Uttaranchal gives some indication of the significant advantages that smaller states enjoy. On the other, smaller entities are less likely to have the depth of institutions and availability of human capital in their administration and civil society, both are critical for ensuring sustainable progress. The governance problems in Jharkhand and many of the north-eastern states are well known.
Indeed, there are many examples of take-over by a closely knit group or a family, domination by a business group, in Indian states. For the smaller states, the possibility of the creation of such “Dukedoms” is far higher than in larger states where there are many more counteracting political and demographic forces. Indeed some of the agitations for smaller states are clearly being powered by those who have narrow political ends. Be that as it may, it is clear that the forces that favour smaller states are gathering momentum across all parts of the country. Telangana, Gorkhaland, and now Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal and so on are only a few examples. Such forces are only expected to become more powerful in the years ahead. And if the BJP and the Congress positions are any indication, the national parties are quite likely to acquiesce in most of these cases, giving into the demands of their smaller allies, in their political battles against the larger regional parties. But pure political pressure cannot and should not be the sole criteria governing the creation of smaller states. Whereas short term strategic considerations drove the first state re-organisations under Sardar Patel, language was the key criteria for the second set of reorganisation under the State Reorganisation Commission. This has since evolved to cultural-political factors powering the Punjab, MP, UP and Bihar re-organisations. India now needs to move towards a more rational and well thought out system of determining which areas should be given statehood and which areas require other means of addressing their problems. A new state needs to have a certain minimum size for it to function adequately, it needs to have a well developed civil society, it requires some economic resources, and it needs well functioning democratic systems. States that are very small are unlikely to meet such criteria, hence whatever be the benefits of smaller, more homogenous, and as a result more governable states, does not necessarily mean they will be better governed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
