SMALL STATES

Prof. N.S. Ramaswamy

Some political leaders have often expressed the need for constituting a second States Re-organization Commission (SRC) to consider the demand for separate States. Telengana has already galvanized public opinion. Vidharbha has often talked about it. A B Vajpai had openly stated that the BJP is in favor of small States. During the NDA regime, three small States were formed – Uttarkhand, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. Nobody has come forward with a serious proposal, as all are afraid that an SRC would open the Pandora’s box. They are not sure whether they would gain by an SRC. Ideology, rationality and national interests are no longer in the agenda of political leaders and parties. The UPA has appointed a Committee to consider issues affecting Center-State relations. The movement would gather momentum when parties start preparations for the next Lok Sabha.

There is a strong case for appointing a SRC immediately. Any further delay would make the situation worse. We now have an absurd set up. UP, with 140 million people, has become ungovernable. 90 nations in the world have less than four million population, which is the typical size of many districts. New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark and others have full fledged Cabinets and administrative secretariats, while our Districts of the same population, are administered by Collectors. Further, our districts have far more problems of governance and development. No wonder we have 200 m poor. Sub-regional loyalties are strong. Bigger States are bullying, and even confronting, the Centre. It may be even difficult to form a government after the present tenure of UPA ends.

Nationally, the situation is bad. The Party in power at the Centre and some States have coalition. Certain States have no representation in the Cabinet. Once, in the past, the Central Cabinet had none from the South, and on another occasion, very few from the North. Such distortions would be less in the proposed set-up.

Most of these ill-effects and dangers can be avoided if small States are formed, taking into account sub-regional loyalties, natural boundaries and endowments, economic viability, political maturity etc. Taking these factors into account, the 10 large States are to be split to form 29 small Sates.  Table shows the present population, proposed number of States and average population.

 A.P                76   ¸ 3 =  26               Bihar                    83   ¸ 3 =    28

 Gujarat            51   ¸ 2 =  26                Karnataka             52   ¸ 2 =    26

 M.P                50   ¸ 2 =  25                 Maharashtra          97   ¸ 3 =    32

 Rajasthan        57   ¸ 2 =  29                Tamil Nadu           62   ¸ 2 =    31

 U.P                    166     ¸ 5 =  33                 West Bengal          80   ¸ 3 =    27

There will be no change in the other 18 States and 7 Union Territories [U.T] Population (in millions) is given below: 

  Haryana    ……….          21     Chatisgarh ……….          21     Nagaland    .……….. 2

 Jharkhand ……….        27                                                             Meghalaya ………. . 2

Orissa       ……….           37     J&K          .……….               12    Manipur     .………. ..2

                                                                                      Goa                                  1                       

 Assam      ……….           27      Uttarakhand……….      10    Mizoram     …………1    

 Kerala       ……….            32      H.P             ……….             6    Arunachal   ………   1

 Punjab      ……….           24    Tripura       ……….     3    Sikkim      .………  1

                                                     

U.T. :  Delhi ……..              16      Pondicherry ….      1.2            Chandigarh …….  1

Other territories have small populations             

         

It may be seen that 16 States will have population ranging from 20 to 37 millions, which means more or less equal.  These can be easily governed better, and development would be faster.  It is well known that areas away from the State capitals never get attention.  20 more towns would  become State capitals, which can be easily accessed.  Sub-Regional/linguistic loyalties will be satisfied, which will give them a sense of pride helping development. The four backward Hindi States will come up quickly.  Centre will become stronger vis-à-vis States. Centre can decentralize development.  States cannot easily confront the Centre, as being done now.  With every Finance Commission, share of States from the Central revenue, as per statutory mandate, is going up. If the present trend continues, States may not care the Centre.  Now States are dependent on Centre for discretionary allocation of funds.  More leaders will emerge.  There will be space for 20 more Chief Ministers coming from different sub-regions.

Most important benefit will be that linguistic passion will come down, when more than one State speaks the same language.  The Belgaum dispute is now a confrontation between Marathis and Kannadigas.  In the proposed set up, the dispute will be restricted to one between North Karnataka and South Maharashtra. The Cauvery dispute would be between Karnataka South and TN South. Other parts of the States would not take interest, and thus language-based agitations can be surmounted. If TN-A confronts the Centre, as it happened sometime back, TN-B and TN-C would side with the Centre. Centres of power would be easily accessible to the people. At present, Government Head Quarters are so far away that people in the outlying areas hardly get attention. Areas, from where the CM and heavy weights come, get more attention.  Others are neglected.

Delhi and the other five Metro cities, (together with the surrounding areas) - Mumbai, Kolkatta, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad – should be converted as City States. These Metros have been developed with resources of the whole nation and they enjoy all-India markets. Head Offices of most companies are located in these Metros, though production takes place elsewhere. They get disproportionate share of Income Tax. Moreover, there are sizable linguistic minorities. Linguistic parochialism is generated and fomented in these Metros, which affect national unity. Language is the strongest bond; languages divide peoples all over the world. India is united, thanks to the culture nourished for thousands of years by the four religions born in India. Slowly, this unity is being eroded due to parochial attitude and policies in these Metros.

          Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh developed faster after bifurcation of old Punjab.  Similarly, development will be faster in the proposed dispensation.  Centre could become more powerful for governance and States for development. Unity will be fostered.

====