Project

On

ARTICLE 3 : Division of States –(an analysis on Telangana)

Registration No. 201118

Subject : constitutional Law I

Contents

Chapter I

 About the project

 Introduction
 Why we need division of states

Chapter II

 History of Andhra Pradesh

 Creation of Andhra Pradesh
 Merger of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
 Separate Telangana movement
 Srikrishna Committee report
 Petition against Srikrishna Committee report

Chapter III

 When will this division stop

 Future for evolution of state
 Impact of division on economics
 Making small states in India is good or bad

Chapter IV

 Suggestions
 Conclusion

Bibliography
ARTICLE 3 : Division of States –(an analysis on Telangana)

Chapter I

About the project

This project is projected towards various reports published in news papers and committee
reports as well as happenings going on throughout the nation regarding divisions. This project
comprises of more than 60% copy of the real article as to keep the originality of that article
and misinterpretation of it. So reader may catch plagiarisms but footnoting is provided to
avoid confusions regarding sources.

Introduction

Separation of states is the burning topic in India, which is birthing many other evolutionary
status of constitutional validity and basic principles of “unity in diversity”. Day to day many
states are demanding separation on the basis of linguistic, cultural, geographical, resources
and many other issues. This project will discuss basically on Andhra-Telangana separation
issues, its diversity and effect in nationwide as well as other amendments needed if
parliament accepts this division as valid demand for new State.

Article 3 of constitution of India talks about

Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing States.—Parliament may by law—
(a) Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting
two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any
State;
(b) Increase the area of any State;
(c) Diminish the area of any State;
(d) Alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) Alter the name of any State:
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in eithe r House of
Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the
proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the
States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State
for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the
reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period
so specified or allowed has expired.
Explanation I.—In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “S tate’’ includes a Union
territory, but in the proviso, “State’’ does not include a Union territory.
Explanation II.—The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the
power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or
Union territory to any other State or Union territory.

Why we need division of Indian states ?

Doubts about India

Prior to 1947, many pundits of the world history doubted if India would remain united as a
nation. Winston Churchill believed that India will descend into anarchy.

Looking at India of 1947, one might have easily concluded that it was impossible to keep
India together. It had so many religions, so many cultures, so many languages, and so many
kingdoms. It looked similar to multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual Europe or may be
Africa. How could such a continent live as a country?

Fast forward sixty years, and it looks like we have proved those pundits wrong. India is going
strong in economy, human development, science and technology, industry, agriculture and
military. India remains a vibrant, strong and united nation.

But is that really true? India saw its first breakup right at in 1947 when it created Pakistan
(and later Bangladesh). Partition of India led to massacre of half a million people. That
separation haunted Indian subcontinent for a long time.

‘Division is bad’

Thereafter, India looked at every division with suspicion. There was certain degree of iron
hand used to keep the country from getting divided. We always had uneasy feelings about
creating new states as if every such division would lead to another partition. Breaking up
meant proving the pundits right. Breaking up meant telling your enemies we are getting
weak. A strong nation doesn’t divide its states, we told ourselves. Those were the heady
times of nationalism and patriotism. Asking for a state meant anti-Indian.

Meanwhile, the Cold War ended. National fervors across the world subsided. External threats
decreased. War with Pakistan doesn’t look as imminent as it did before. India became
confident of itself. Our perception of India started to change. We were getting mature.

No Unity without Diversity

Unity is important, but not at the cost of sacrificing our diversity. Division is not as bad as we
thought it would be. Creation of states has been a continuous process. India created 21 states
starting in 1953 till 2000. It has not led to disintegration of the country.

We started to admit to ourselves that India is not homogenous, that people have group and
regional identities which were as important as national identity itself. It became clear that we
are a united nation only if our local identities are recognized.

Though Nehru was reluctant to create new states along linguistic identities, it is now seen in
retrospect as pragmatic and wise move. Creation of states along linguistic lines resulted in
containing lot of contention within India, making the people feel empowered. But limiting
ourselves to recognizing only language as group identity to form states, thereby ignoring all
other group identities, is quite unfortunate. India is now compelled into recognizing that there
are more group identities other than languages, as Telangana has established.

Group identities

Independent India accepted caste identities and made provisions for uplifting of lower castes
through reservations. India accepted sex identity half-heartedly – it allowed for laws to
protect women but has not done enough to ensure their proper representation.

While some group identities are spread uniformly like men and women, upper and lower
castes, other group identities have distinct geographies, like Telangana, Gorkhas, etc. Some
of them may feel that their aspirations are better addressed only in a separate state.
First 30 years: Big is good

For a long time, it looked like bigger states had better advantages in India. India being a
flawed federal system did not give equal importance to each state. Since Lok Sabha only
recognizes number of MPs; and since big states supply more number of MPs, it was clear that
big states have more clout and bargaining power from the Center. Indeed, the first thirty years
of India saw the monopoly of big states.

However, that monopoly from big states was confined to politics, not necessarily
development. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar, some of the big states of
North failed miserably in all economic indicators though they had more political power.
Meanwhile, the smaller and nimble Southern States and Western States emerged as
successful states.

Next 30 years: Emergence of regional and identity parties

In absence of a proper representation for states at the Center, various states put up
regional/identity parties to make their case. Punjab and Tamil Nadu have a long history of
voting for regional parties in their states. Other states joined the fray. TDP came up in Andhra
Pradesh and Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. These parties contested against national parties on the
plank that they are able to get more benefits to their regions.

During the late 1980s, national parties could not muster majority to form government on their
own, and India went through a period of political turmoil to settle on what we call coalition
politics. The national parties started taking support of these regional/identity parties to form
the government at the Center. That’s how states started to negotiate for better representation.
Today, coalition politics has become the norm. Emergence of regional parties has led to
partial federalization of India. For those who ask why India has so many parties, this is the
answer- because India is not a strong federal country. The answer cannot get simpler than
that.

In coalition politics, the states that position regional parties to support the government at
Center bargain for better representation. That’s how some small-to-medium states have been
able to break the clout of bigger states and have been able to make great progress in economy
and human development.

Incumbent states didn’t pay for their crimes

One of the sad outcomes of suppressing every movement that sought new states was that
incumbent states became complacent. They could continue to neglect certain regions with
impunity and did not have to pay for the consequences.

Nehru tried to build democratic institutions, while Indira Gandhi went about destroying them
or emasculating them. Indira Gandhi suppressed many people movements with ruthless force.
In 1969 Telangana agitation more than 370 protestors were killed and more than 70,000 were
put in jail. With this action, Indira Gandhi allowed for complacency in many states. The
message was evident- they could go on marginalizing and discriminating certain regions
within the state without having to pay for their crimes. No court, no law, no institution could
protect these suppressed regions from the onslaught of the majority and privileged within a
state because the Center had no jurisdiction on how the state would allocate its funds, use up
resources, build hospitals and schools.

A state having two regions A and B could consistently marginalize and dominate region B
using the majority of A, and there is nothing the region B could do. The region A could flout
all agreements, revoke all rulings, and break all promises, deprive region B of its waters, its
jobs and its funds, and still there is no price to pay.

That complacency led to many regions getting completely neglected in India, the foremost
being Telangana because Andhra Pradesh was divided starkly along geographic lines with
many difference between the two people. The majority and privileged Andhras consistently
flouted all rules, all laws, and all safeguards to continuously oppress Telanganas. And
Telanganas couldn’t anything about it. All doors were shut. Indira Gandhi has set a precedent
that no matter what happens to you, you should still go back to the bully and ask for favors
and for forgiveness.
That’s where Indian democracy went really wrong. A weak-federal strong-central structure
led to creating a nation that could not uphold the cherished promises it made in its
Constitution to some of its people.

Chapter- II

History of Andhra Pradesh

India became independent from the United Kingdom in 1947. The Muslim Nizam of
Hyderabad wanted to retain his independence from India, he was forced accede his state to
India in 1948 as the Hyderabad State. When India became independent, the Telugu-speaking
people (although Urdu is spoken in some parts of Hyderabad and in few other districts of
Telangana) were distributed in about 22 districts, 9 of them in the Telangana region of
Nizam's Dominions (Hyderabad State) and 12 in the Madras Presidency and one in French
controlled Yanam. Andhra State was the first state in India that has been formed on a purely
linguistic basis by carving it out from Madras Province in 1953. Andhra State was later
merged with Telugu speaking area of Hyderabad (Telangana) to create Andhra Pradesh state
in 1956. In 1954, Yanam was liberated and it was merged with Puducherry in 1963.

Madras Manade movement

However, in 1953, Telugu speakers of Madras Presidency wanted Madras as the capital of
Andhra state including the famous slogan "Madras Manade" (Madras is ours) before Tirupati
was included in Andhra Pradesh. Madras at that time was an indivisible mixture of Tamil and
Telugu cultures. It was difficult to determine who should possess it. Panagal Raja, Chief
Minister of the Madras Presidency, in the early 1920s said that the Cooum River should be
kept as a boundary, giving the northern portion to the Andhras and the southern portion to the
Tamils. In 1928, Sir C. Sankaran Nair sent a report to the Central Council discussing why
Madras does not belong to the Tamils. But finally, it was decided that Madras would remain
in the Tamil region. According to the JPC report, (Jawahar Lal Nehru, Bhogaraju Pattabhi
Sitaramayya, C. Rajagopalachari) Telugu people should leave Madras for Tamils if they want
a new state.
Creation of Andhra State

In an effort to protect the interests of the Telugu people of Madras state, Amarajeevi Potti
Sriramulu attempted to force the Madras Presidency government to listen to public demands
for the separation of Telugu speaking districts (Telangana Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra)
from Madras Presidency to form the Andhra state. He went on a lengthy fast, and only
stopped when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru promised to form Andhra state. However,
there was no movement on the issue for a long time. He started fasting again for attaining
statehood for Andhra in Maharshi Bulusu Sambamurthy's house in Madras on 19 October
1952. It started off without fanfare but steadily caught people's imagination despite the
disavowal of the fast by the Andhra Congress committee.

The government of the day however did not make a clear statement about the formation of a
new state despite several strikes and demonstrations by Telugu people. On the midnight of 15
December (i.e. early 16 December 1952), Potti Sriramulu died and laid down his life trying to
achieve his objective.

In his death procession, people shouted slogans praising his sacrifice. When the procession
reached Mount Road, thousands of people joined and raised slogans hailing Sriramulu. Later,
they went into a frenzy and resorted to destruction of public property. The news spread like
wildfire and created an uproar among the people in far off places like Vizianagaram,
Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Eluru, Guntur, Tenali, Ongole and Nellore. Seven people were
killed in police firing in Anakapalle and Vijayawada. The popular agitation continued for
three to four days disrupting normal life in Madras and Andhra regions. On 19 December
1952, the Prime Minister of the country Jawaharlal Nehru made an announcement about
formation of a separate state for Telugu speaking people of Madras Presidency.

House no. 126, Royapettah high road, Mylapore, Madras is the address of the house where
Potti Sriramulu died and it has been preserved as a monument of importance by the state
government of Andhra Pradesh.

On the basis of an agitation, on 1 October 1953, 11 districts in the Telugu-speaking portion of

Madras State (Coastal Andhra and Rayala Seema) voted to become the new state of Andhra
State with Kurnool as the capital. Andhra Kesari Tanguturi Prakasam Pantulu became first
Chief Minister of thus formed Telugu State.
The formation of linguistic states is the single most important event in the history of South
Indian languages, as it provided an opportunity for these languages to develop independently,
each of them having a state to support.

Merger of Telangana and Andhra

In December 1953, the States Reorganization Commission was appointed to prepare for the
creation of states on linguistic lines.1 The commission, due to public demand, recommended
disintegration of Hyderabad state and to merge Marathi speaking region with Bombay state
and Kannada speaking region with Mysore state. The States Reorganisation Commission
(SRC) was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telugu speaking Telangana region of
Hyderabad state with Andhra state, despite their common language. Para 378 of the SRC
report said "One of the principal causes of opposition of Vishalandhra also seems to be the
apprehension felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be
swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the coastal areas."

The Chief Minister of Hyderabad State, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, expressed his view that a
majority of Telangana people were against the merger. He supported the Congress party's
central leadership decision to merge Telangana and Andhra despite opposition in Telangana.
Andhra state assembly passed a resolution on 25 November 1955 to provide safeguards to
Telangana. The resolution said,

"Assembly would further like to assure the people in Telangana that the development of that
area would be deemed to be special charge, and that certain priorities and special protection
will be given for the improvement of that area, such as reservation in services and educational
institutions on the basis of population and irrigational development."2

Telangana leaders did not believe the safeguards would work.3 With lobbying from Andhra
Congress leaders and with pressure from the Central leadership of Congress party, an

1
"SRC submits report". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 1 October 2005. Retrieved 2 October 2013
2
Vishandhra here and now. Special safeguards for Telangana. -Govt motion in Andhra Assembly - Page 5 of
Nov 26, 1955 Indian Express". News.google.com. 26 November 1955. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
3
"Telangana Leaders must Adhere to Delhi Resolution - High command advise; High command has open mind,
Claims Chenna Reddi - Plea for Telangana - Page 7 of Nov 27, 1955 Indian Express". News.google.com. 27
November 1955. Retrieved 2013-10-02
agreement was reached between Telangana leaders and Andhra leaders on 20 February 1956
to merge Telangana and Andhra with promises to safeguard Telangana's interests.4

Andhra state and Telangana was merged to form Andhra Pradesh state on 1 November 1956
after providing safeguards to Telangana in the form of Gentlemen's agreement.

Separate Telangana movement5

There have several movements to invalidate the merger of Telangana and Andhra, major ones
occurring in 1969, 1972 and 2000s onwards. The Telangana movement gained momentum
over decades becoming a widespread political demand of creating a new state from the
Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh.

Proponents of a separate Telangana state feel that the agreements, plans, and assurances from
the legislature and Lok Sabha over the last fifty years have not been honoured, and as a
consequence Telangana has remained neglected, exploited, and backward. They allege that
the experiment of Andhra Pradesh to remain as one state has proven to be a futile exercise
and that separation is the best solution.

Srikrishna Committee report on Telangana

There are seven Terms of Reference for the committee.

1. To examine the situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the demand
for a separate State of Telangana as well as the demand for maintaining the present
status of a united Andhra Pradesh.
2. To review the developments in the State since its formation and their impact on the
progress and development of the different regions of the State.
3. To examine the impact of the recent developments in the State on the different
sections of the people such as women, children, students, minorities, other backward
classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

4
"SRC sub committee said no decision on Visalandhra taken.- Page 1 of Feb 1, 1956 Indian Express".
News.google.com. 1 February 1956. Retrieved 2013-10-05
5
Main article: Telangana movement, www.google.com , retrieved on 1st October, 2013
 4. To identify the key issues that must be addressed while considering the matters
mentioned in items (1), (2) and (3) above.
5. To consult all sections of the people, especially the political parties, on the aforesaid
matters and elicit their views; to seek from the political parties and other organisations
a range of solutions that would resolve the present difficult situation and promote the
welfare of all sections of the people; to identify the optimal solutions for this purpose;
and to recommend a plan of action and a road map.
6. To consult other organisations of civil society such as industry, trade, trade unions,
farmers' organisations, women’s organisations and students' organisations on the
aforesaid matters and elicit their views with specific reference to the all round
development of the different regions of the State.
7. To make any other suggestion or recommendation that the Committee may deem
appropriate

The six options presented in the report were as follows:[17]

1. Maintaining Status Quo – Keeping the Andhra Pradesh State as it is with no change in
the Telangana, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra regions.
2. Bifurcating the state of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telengana regions with
both of them developing their own capitals in due course of time. Hyderabad to be
converted to a Union Territory – This proposal was similar to the Punjab-Haryana-
Chandigarh model.
3. Dividing Andhra Pradesh into two states – One of Rayala-Telangana with Hyderabad
as its capital and second one of the Coastal Andhra Pradesh
4. Dividing Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged Hyderabad
Metropolis as a separate Union Territory that will be linked geographically to district
Guntur in coastal Andhra via Nalgonda district in the southeast and via
Mahboobnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalaseema
5. Bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhrâ as per existing boundaries
with Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra to have a new capital.
This was the second most preferred option according to the report.
6. Keeping the State united and providing for creation of a statutorily empowered
Telangana Regional Council for socio-economic development and political
development of Telangana region. This was the most preferred option
Criticism:

Economist and former Planning Commission member C.H. Hanumantha Rao said that the
Srikrishna Committee's recommendations are at variance with its own analysis. He said the
committee did not study the reasons for the failures of earlier protections, and how future
protections will do justice to Telangana. He said that even while the committee's own
analysis and data supports the formation of an independent Telangana, it only recommended
this as the second-best option

Petition against srikrishna committee report 6

January, a petition7 was filed pleading to declare the Committee Report as 'invalid' since it
did not make public the contents of the eighth chapter of its report, which deals with the law
and order situation. The Attorney General of India arguing the case said that the Report was
only a committee submitting its advice and the Union government was not obliged to act on
its recommendation.8 The central government submitted that the contents would not be made
public since it was a privileged document under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence
Act of 1872. On 17 February, the justice hearing this case said "It is unfortunate that this
report and its related exercise was presided over by a former judge of the Supreme Court...
this committee has spent Rs 400 million of public money for preparing its report. Any person
with a semblance of faith in the system of democracy would lose faith in it. The report
prepared by the front office of an MP would have been more sensible than this report. Even
the high command of a political party would have hesitated to prepare such a report"9

On 23 March, Justice L Narasimha Reddy of Andhra Pradesh high court ordered central
government to make contents of 8th chapter of Sri Krishna Committee, which was submitted
in a sealed secret cover to the centre.[64] Justice in his 60 page judgement said "The
Committee travelled beyond the terms of reference in its endeavour to persuade the Union of
India not to accede to the demand for Telangana". SKC secret report as quoted in paras 68–
72, argued against Telangana state while discussing communal violence, Maoist violence and
social tensions. The supplementary note to secret report has three parts, ..

6
http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2011/wp/wp_1569_2011.html
7
Sri M. Narayan Reddy v The Govt. of India,Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by Home Secretary,New Delhi &
another
8
"Hearing on the case to reveal concealed Chapter of SKC Report". Fullhyderabad.com. 9 February 2011.
Retrieved 1st October 2013
9
"High court Justice criticises SKC report (Sakshi news paper February 17, 2011)". Retrieved 2nd October 2013.
 "a) Political management: Action also needs to be initiated for softening the TRS to
the extent possible .. Inputs indicate that this agitation can be tackled if Congress
Leaders do not give an impression indicating any covert / overt support to it. Hence
the Congress MPs / MLAs need to be taken into confidence and asked not to lend any
form of support to the agitation. The Congress High Command must sensitise its own
MPs and MLAs and educate them about the wisdom for arriving at an acceptable and
workable solution. With the ruling party and main opposition party (for Telangana
demand) being brought on the same page, the support mechanisms have a higher
probability of becoming successful."(para 75)

 "b) Media Management: ..Andhra Pradesh has got about 13 Electronic Channels and
5 major local Newspapers which are in the forefront of moulding the public opinion.
Except for two Channels (Raj News & hmtv), the rest of them are supporters of a
united Andhra Pradesh. The equity holders of the channels except the above two and
the entire Print Media are with the Seemandhra people. The main editors/resident and
sub-editors, the Film world etc. are dominated by Seemandhra people. A coordinated
action on their part has the potential of shaping the perception of the common man.
..In the Print Media all major Newspapers are owned by Seemandhra people and the
Regional contents published by them play a vital role. .. The editorial opinions, the
banner headlines, the Regional content, the District editions need to be managed .."
(para 80). “The print media is hugely dependent on the Government for advertisement
revenue and if carefully handled can be an effective tool to achieve this goal”. (para
91)

 c) Full preparedness: As under each of the options there is a high possibility of

agitational backlash, notwithstanding the actions taken in advance as suggested in (a)
and (b) above, an appropriate plan of deployment grid of police force (both Central
and State) with full technical support needs to be immediately drawn up. ..The likely
troubled spots (e.g. Osmania, Kakatiya, Krishna Devraya Universities etc.) and the
trouble creators in the three regions must be identified in advance and suitable action
plan prepared. In my discussions with Chief Secretary and DGP, the kind of
equipment and weaponry to be used were also discussed and it was agreed that
weaponry used should be such as not to cause fatal injuries, while at the same time
effective enough to bring the agitationists quickly under control. ”(para 94)
Justice said (in para 96) "If the committee has suggested use of arsenal of lesser degree, it is
not because there is any pity or sympathy towards the agitators. Obviously, it is to avoid the
wrath of the human rights agencies". The justice further said(in para 103) "The maneuver
suggested by the Committee in its secret supplementary note poses an open challenge, if not
threat, to the very system of democracy. If the source of inputs that gave rise to this is the
Government, it (the Government) owes an explanation to the citizens. If, on the other hand,
the origin of inputs is elsewhere, the Government must move in the right earnest to pluck and
eradicate such foul source and thereby prove its respect for, and confidence in, the
democracy."e Telangana JAC and Telangana leaders from all political parties demanded
prosecution of Sri Krishna Committee members.10

On 26 April, a division bench comprising the Chief Justice of the AP high court has stayed
the order of Justice L Narasimha Reddy who had directed the Centre to make public the
secret Chapter.[70][71]

On 9 December 2009, Government of India announced process of formation of Telangana

state. Due to objections raised in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions immediately after
the announcement, and due to the agitation in those regions for 14 days, the decision to form
to new state was put on hold on 23 December 2009. The movement continues in Hyderabad
and other districts of Telangana.

On 30 July 2013, the Congress Working Committee unanimously passed a resolution to

recommend the formation of a separate Telangana state from Andhra Pradesh to the INC-led
central government. Hyderabad was proposed to be the joint capital for both Andhra Pradesh
and Telangana for 10 years. Process to create proposed State gives a general overview of
steps to be taken for formation of proposed state

Chapter III

When will these divisions stop?

10
"Telangana JAC Seeks Prosecution of Srikrishna Panel". Outlook. 23 March 2011. Retrieved 2nd October 2013
With the creation of Telangana in the background, I would like to discuss the division of
states in India and why I think these divisions would eventually stop, reaching an acceptable
equilibrium.

Because of the prevailing tone set by Indira Gandhi who opposed formation of Telangana no
matter what happened inside Andhra Pradesh, incumbent states got the message that no new
divisions will be tolerated. After the successes of 1970s, when Andhras could even reverse a
Supreme Court decision that tried to safeguard interests of Telanganas, the majority and
privileged of Andhra escalated the marginalization and discrimination of Telangana with
impunity because now it was given that the center will never create a new state.
That was also the reason why most political parties of Andhra Pradesh agreed to support
separate Telangana in 2004 and 2009 elections, falsely believing that Center will never grant
statehood to Telangana. When they made their promises they never thought they had to live
up to them. Hence abrupt consternation ensued when P Chidambaram, who believed their
letters written in support for Telangana, came out on 9th December 2009 to announce the
steps towards formation of separate Telangana.
The biggest transformation that has happened in the recent past, second to the passing of RTI
act, is the acceptance by all national parties a need to create new states. With creation of
Telangana, there will definitely be a clamor for more states.

Future for evolution of States

India is going to see creation of many more states in the near future. There could be at least
another 20 states created in the next 10 years. So, we could ask, ‘when will stop this division,
why won’t this go completely out of control creating a domino effect? Why won’t there be
1000 states? Why won't this lead to break up of this country into many nations?’
Most Indians fail to understand why India continues to be a united nation. It stays united not
because its people are forced into staying together, but because Indians have faith in this
country. We are all willing citizens of this country, not the oppressed subjects. The fact that
we are still together in spite of so many problems is a testament to our belief in this country.
India will not break up so easily just because we create few more states. In fact, creating
more states will result in reaffirmation of our faith in this country that it cares for us by
actually addressing our problems.
According to some pundits, India could easily add few more states, like Harit Pradesh,
Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, etc.
This does not mean we will continue to break up states into smaller states forever ad
infinitum. Big states will not go out of fashion no matter what. There are certain advantages
in living a big state and those advantages will continue to motivate people to stay together.
Creation of the next set of 20 or more states will set in motion many changes in how the
incumbent states will behave.
The incumbent states will start fearing that some of their neglected regions may seek
separation any time. Such fear is good because the incumbent states will now concentrate on
improving those neglected regions. Neglected regions will get incentives and sops, including
better representations and opportunities, safeguarding their interests, reducing the need for
these regions to form separate states. Major breakups and separations would decrease with
time because most states by then would have learnt their lessons NOT to marginalize or
discriminate their regions.
We would have reached a level of maturity then - may be in another 30 years. That’s when
these divisions will stop. And who knows, we may see reunifications and mergers after that.

More states can be good

We call Telangana a ‘small’ state. Telangana once formed will be home to 35 million
people. If it was a country, it would rank 36 amongst 224 countries in the world, more
populous than Canada, Australia or Malaysia.

USA with 300 million people has 50 states while India with 1,200 million people has only 28
states. Why should India stop at 28? Why can’t we have 50 or 80 states?

For a very long time, Indians did not believe that small states could do well. There were
prevailing examples of Northeast states which were really small and showed no progress in
economy, standard of living, education or industry.

At the same time, big states did not necessarily mean better development. Uttar Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar were big states of North that performed poorly in all
indicators. With creation of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chattisgarh, it was recognized that
small states could do much better than big states. By 2009, Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31%
growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 7.35%, some of them more than national
average. Per Capita of Chattisgarh is 29,000 while it is 18,000 in Madhya Pradesh. Infant
Mortality in Uttarakhnd is 44 compared to 67 in Uttar Pradesh. Literacy Rate in Jharkhand is
61 compared to 55 in Bihar.

The states like Haryana- carved out of Punjab, and Gujarat- carved out of Bombay State, are
examples of states doing good economic progress.

India started to see the advantages in being small. No longer do people have to put their faith
in big states for development and improvement. Smaller states are able to give better
administration, allow for electing leaders with more accountability without giving any
excuses, and give empowerment through better representation of regional identities.

Impact of division in Economics 11

Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh were the most backward parts of Bihar and Madhya
Pradesh, which in turn were among the most backward states of India. Yet, after
becoming separate states, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have emerged as industrial
dynamos. Both have large tribal belts with pathetic infrastructure. In
Chhattisgarh, four-fifths of habitations lack road access. Both states have ample
minerals like coal and iron ore. But this was not an economic advantage when
they were part of larger states. Rather, their mineral revenues were diverted to
state capitals. This diversion ended after they became separate states.

Their rapid economic growth has been tainted by massive corruption. Sheer money power
enabled an independent, Madhu Koda, to become chief minister of Jharkhand and rule for
years. He handed out dozens of mining licences, instead of auctioning them to the highest
bidder. Alas, this problem affects the whole of India: Natural resources from coal to the
telecom spectrum are constantly gifted to favoured parties instead of being auctioned, and
this enables politicians to amass fortunes. But just as the telecom revolution has been good
for India despite corruption, so has private entry into mining and processing.

Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are not growing fast simply through mining. They have
experienced a manufacturing boom. Read what research firm Indicus Analytica has to show:

11
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com, retrieved on 4th October , 2013
"Since 2001, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have moved up into the top 10 (industrial states),
displacing Rajasthan and Punjab... The phenomenal growth in these two states has seen the
share of manufacturing in their GDP rise dramatically as they have attracted industrial
projects. Looking at the share of income that originates in the manufacturing sector, these two
states have shown higher levels than Maharashtra, Haryana and Tamil Nadu...Being newer
and smaller states, they responded more rapidly than their larger — and in some cases better
endowed - neighbours… Raipur in Chhattisgarh has now entered the top 10 districts of India
in manufacturing, with two industrial estates at Urla and Siltara". Now, millions of tribals
have been bypassed, especially in remote areas where Maoism flourishes. However, the
biggest tribal agitations against giant mining projects are in Orissa. The big Jharkhand
projects of Tata and Mittal are in limbo since the state has stalled land acquisition.

The neglect of tribals and consequent rise of Maoism is a blot on the record of Jharkhand and
Chattisgarh. The creation of the vigilante Salwa Judum to counter Maoists in Chattisgarh has
widely been condemned for violating civil rights.

The two states account for 68% of all Maoist attacks. That’s bad for civil rights and security.
Yet, achieving fast growth amidst such insurgency is a major economic feat. It highlights the
dynamism created when backward regions become separate states. Hopefully, this economic
dynamism will help mitigate the backwardness on which Maoism thrives.

Making small states in India is good or bad?

In India, when congress declared that a new state Telangana will be created from AP.
Everyone in India started to discuss about the creation of small state, is creation of small state
is good for India ? or is creation of small state is bad for India?
Many Indians opposed this creation of small states in India by giving many reasons.
Following are the few reasons why people oppose the creation of small states.12
• Creation of small state will divide India
• Creation of small state will take the India to pre British era
• Danger from China, china wants to divide India.

12
Created by : MAJETY CHANDRA SHEKHAR, Construction-Residential, SINDHU INFRATECH | 3 years
ago , retrieved on 3rd October , 2013
• Small states in India are not making progress , Chattisgarh and Jharkhand
• Small states Depend on Central Government
• What is the guarantee that small states will make the progress?
• Politicians want to become the chief Minister or for the political power.
• Hatred Among state will increase
• Election vote should be counted who is defeated

Chapter IV

Suggestions:

Managing States in India

There are two initial conditions for the current set of problems we are facing where many
regions are clamoring for new states.

Problem 1: The center was averse, reluctant and sometimes downright opposed to formation
of new states in India equating it to balkanization of the country.
Problem 2: India being a weak-federal strong-central country, the incumbent states like to
remain big so that their bigger strength in the Parliament gives them better negotiating terms.

These two problems form the premise for most of the problems that we are facing with
various neglected regions in India. There are two ground realities that emanate from the
diversity of this country.

Reality 1: Though there are many states in India, we do not recognize various kinds of
identities in India. While some identities (like languages) got statehoods, others did not.
Many states have one majority identity clubbed with few or many minority identities.
Reality 2: All individuals and all identities work with self-interest. If unchecked, a majority
and privileged group could inadvertently dominate and marginalize the minority and
underprivileged group within a state, even when no preset agenda or a plan exists.

Over a prolonged period of time, the above two problems combined with above two ground
realities could result in the following situation.
Situation

Imagine a state where region A forms the majority and the privileged while region B forms
the minority and the underprivileged. Reality 1 and Reality 2 suggests that there should be
safeguards, protections, guarantees and reservations to protect people of region B. In most
states those safeguards and protections do not exist because of shortsightedness and
reluctance of India to recognize those identities as valid constituents.

And where those safeguards and protections exist, like in Andhra Pradesh for Telangana, the
region A could still flout them with impunity using the clout of majority; and there is nothing
the region B could do other than complain, protest, agitate, and in the worst case scenario ask
for separate statehood.

When the region B clamors for separate statehood, the incumbent state will be unwilling to
let go of this region no matter what, because of Problem 2 – they don’t want to become
smaller. All efforts by region B to get attention from the Center will be snubbed, because of
Problem 1 – center doesn’t want to create more states.

So how do we get out of such situations? Here I propose some of the possible methods.

1. Run states as mini-nations

India should allow states to run like mini-nations. That means recognition of an identity
should not stop at state level, but should extend it within the state as well. The way a nation
protects the states from each other’s domination, a state should protect the regions from each
other’s dominations. That means the current setup of treating a state as a homogenous entity
where only the number of people’s representatives has a role to play is fraught with
problems.

The way a nation has states, a state in turn should have regions. If state is a mini-nation, then
each of those regions is a mini-state. Each of those regions should have their administrative
safeguards, protections, and reservations. For example, extending Mulki Rule kind of
protection (as done in Andhra Pradesh with an intention to protect Telangana) should be the
norm not the exception. Having a head, like mini-Chief Minister for those regions could also
be considered.

We should realize that it may come natural for a majority region to suppress a minority
region in each state – it comes as a natural outcome of common man and his leaders acting
selfishly in their narrow schemes. We should not see it as an exception but as a norm and
design our states keeping that in mind. It’s time we realize that we have far too many
identities and that all of them cannot be accommodated with a state for each of them.

If Andhra Pradesh was run like a mini-nation, Telangana would NOT have been so easily
discriminated and marginalized. A smaller region would have almost equal power as the
larger region and thereby nullify the discriminatory resolutions. We should learn lessons
from Telangana and make sure other states do not go through similar problems.

2. Make India a federation

The inherent assumption that center is always the best decision maker is flawed. Many
decisions that the center has taken have not gone well with many regions and they have
suffered for that. It is also high time we started moving towards full fledged federation.
Right now, we are a very weak-federal country- called quasi-federal.

We became a strong-central country because our forefathers who framed the Constitution,
and the first few Prime Ministers, had to contend with the possible problem of breaking up of
the country. They believed that a Center was more benevolent compared to the states when it
came to the mandate of keeping the country united. This concentration of absolute power at
the Center also led to certain excesses where Chief Ministers were fired again and again by
New Delhi. The only way to combat the excesses of the Center was to position regional
parties at the states. That’s exactly what happened in the last thirty years where regional
parties came to power diluting the national parties’ power, forcing New Delhi to work with
coalitions to recognize the needs and demands of states. Coalition politics came as a
substitute for federal system in India.

After 60 years of freedom, we don’t have to feel insecure anymore. We should accommodate
more states. We can also look at more options to make our country more federal in nature.
Senate for India

USA has two houses – Congress and Senate. US Congress elects candidates from each
constituency reflecting the population of each state. Bigger states have more Congressmen.
The Senate, on the other hand, has two members from each state. The Congress represents
the people while the Senate represents the states. Even a small state is equal to the biggest
state in the Senate thereby bringing in the federal nature of that country.

We could scrap Rajya Sabha completely and replace it with a Senate like structure. Currently
Rajya Sabha has absolutely no real use. The Senate like structure at the Center should have
equal number of representatives from each state. They should be elected directly by the
people and not appointed.

Such a strong federation will allow for small states like Mizoram and Nagaland to get the
deserved attention. With a strong federation, there is no more a compelling reason to be big.
Incumbent states that have neglected some regions, marginalized and discriminated some
regions, or failed to create equitable society in wealth and opportunity amongst various
regions, will no longer be able to continue the injustices, because the regions could break
away and form new states.

3. Democratization of political parties

Though the Indian political parties participate in democracy and expect people to vote their
leaders in an open election, they do not necessarily practice democracy within their party.

A candidate for MP or MLA is chosen by the high command; they are not elected by the
party workers of that constituency. Therefore, an MP or MLA is always subservient to the
high command thereby nullifying the very concept of democracy.

Lack of right spirit of democracy in political parties has resulted in MPs and MLAs making a
beeline to touch the feet of the high command, grovel on the floor, lick their feet, making
Indian democracy a farce. The CM of a state is removed or appointed and the whims and
fancy of the ruling party in New Delhi. Many regions feel that their leaders do not truly
represent their aspirations and therefore the demands for separate states become more
prominent and vociferous.

Promoting intraparty democracy will usher real democracy making elected leaders more
accountable to the people of the region without having to bow down to the majority region.

Selection of candidates, election of party leaders and registration of party members should be
democratized and overseen by Election Commission or any equivalent body. This will bring
in true democracy making candidates more accountable and responsible towards the people
rather than their party high command in the hands of one single leader or the family.

Conclusion

Governing states like mini-nations and regions like mini-states, creating a strong federation,
introduction of Senate-like structure, and democratization of political parties will make India
mature in handling current issues coming from regionalism and make India a strong and
vibrant democracy. We will see fewer demands for new states because smaller regions will
now be protected from dominance of bigger regions if run as mini-states. We will see a
decrease in the number of regional parties because now with strong federation, regional
aspirations are met even by national parties.
 Bibliography:

Reports:

 Ministry of Home Affairs link with the Report, Appendices and Corrigendum for the
Committee for consultations on the situation in Andhra Pradesh (CCSAP)
 Final Report submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs
 Appendix to Final Report submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs
 AP High Court Judgment Full Notes on Sri Krishna Committee's Chapter 8
 How SKC Report tried to suppress truth and deceive Telangana – Published by TDF

Book:

 Constitution of Indian , V N Shukla, Eleventh Edition

Sources of articles:

 The Hindu
 The Times of India
 Deccan Chronicle
 Outlook
 The Indian Express

Websites :

 www.ndtv.com
 www.google.com
 www.wikkipedia.org
 www.indianexpress.com
 www.thehindu.com
 www.thetimesofindia.com
 www.constitutionofindia.com