The perils of smaller states

State capture becomes easier for political dynasties

The momentum is building up for the creation of new, smaller states. On Monday, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly passed a resolution for carving Uttar Pradesh into four states, as Chief Minister Mayawati had proposed recently. Meanwhile, the long-standing agitation for hiving off Telangana from Andhra Pradesh continues apace. Next, someone in Maharashtra may revive the idea of trifurcating the state which, after Uttar Pradesh, sends the largest number of members to the Lok Sabha. At some point, the logic of the situation might necessitate appointing another states reorganisation commission.

In this context, a so far ignored factor that should get attention is the importance of preventing states from becoming private fiefdoms of political clans, or an oligopoly of clans. Does the country want, say, the Pawars to “own” the politics of a new Marathwada state, as the Badals already dominate much of Punjab politics? How easy would it be for crypto-Maoist forces to become the dominant force in Telangana, or for Ajit Singh and the Jats to become laws unto themselves in a new Harit Pradesh (Western Uttar Pradesh)? The smaller a state, the easier it is to amass such overwhelming political power that the organs of state – the police, the administration, even the courts – become captive. Given the mushrooming of mini-dynasties and a pattern of coalition rule at the Centre, the Indian political arrangement could start looking more like a bunch of semi-autonomous fiefdoms, nominally ruled from New Delhi under a constitutional scheme, but in practice comprising satrapies in which ordinary citizens have no real defence against marauding state leaders who are all the more powerful because they prop up the government at the Centre.

Concern about state capture by a politician or his family may sound odd when national politics has been dominated by the Nehru-Gandhis since Independence. But except for brief periods, this has not meant wholesale capture of the nation-state by one political dynasty. Indeed, the size and complexity of the country militate against such capture — one reason why an army coup in India is not possible, whereas multiple coups have occurred in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, states that are much smaller than India. The problem of mis-governance and overweening influence over supposedly autonomous agencies does not arise in only small states, of course. Consider why the Supreme Court has felt it necessary to move the trial on corruption charges against Jayalalithaa to Karnataka, and cases arising from the Gujarat pogrom to Maharashtra. Still, it should be obvious that in small states a man’s reach is more likely to not exceed his grasp.

Should this be the overriding factor in determining the wisdom of smaller states? Not so. It is easy to see that Uttar Pradesh, with some 80 districts and a population approaching 200 million, is simply too big and too populous to be ruled from Lucknow. But should that mean four new states, or just two?