The statehood fight: Is it about development or political egos?

Size matters. The smaller the states the better governed they are. It is easier for people to be heard, and their development needs are taken care of better. Central policies are easier to implement and monitor if the states are smaller. It frees people of the deprivation complex and the feeling of getting oppressed by more powerful sections from other regions of the bigger state. Also, it fuels new aspirations. This has been the argument of the proponents of smaller states for long. Nothing wrong with the core idea. It has its roots in the continuing underdevelopment and neglect of areas away from the power centres in bigger states. In Maharashtra, for example, it’s the Mumbai-Pune-Thane region which is highly developed. The rest of the districts are either equal or worse off than the BIMARU states. Smaller states, should, theoretically at least, take care of the regional imbalance. [caption id=“attachment_135824” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The CM wants a four-way division of Uttar Pradesh. Her contention is UP is too big to be administered efficiently. PTI”]  [/caption] The only problem is it has not worked according to the script in case of smaller states in the country. The results in Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh created in 2000, have been mixed. Political egos have been satisfied in these states but there’s no proof yet that popular aspirations have been met. Naxalism has only got stronger in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. It’s too early to jump to a conclusion but indications are that the idea of smaller states does not really work unless it is supported by strong leadership, a population that’s aware and aware a clear roadmap for growth. That leads us to the question: How many divisions are good enough? Would it help address development imbalance better if the country were broken up into a thousand states? Obviously not. More small states also mean more weak states. The centre strongly fears that Naxalism would be back in Andhra Pradesh if the demand for Telangana state gets a go ahead. The fear is not unfounded. While this argument is not good enough to stop new states from being created, it makes a strong case for giving statehood demands proper consideration. Such division also entails a lot of adjustments in the parent state and has serious revenue and financial repercussions on it. Mayawati wants a four-way division of Uttar Pradesh. Her contention is UP is too big to be administered efficiently. Smaller units would make administration better in the far-off regions. If the move is not designed to meet political ends, it has to be an open admission of failure from a chief minister. What makes her move odd is, there’s no vociferous demand on the ground for creation of the states. At this point, it looks like an election freebie to the groups or outfits demanding statehood for their regions. Does a chief minister of a state with numbers on her side have infinite powers to break-up a state? No. But that’s another story. On Telengana, according to an Indian Express report, the centre could either go for formation of a regional council, grant it an attractive economic package or set up the second States Reorganisation Commission to have a comprehensive view of statehood demands across the country — the home ministry is believed to have at least ten such demands on its hands. The SRC is not a bad idea — since creation of states cannot be reduced to a frivolous exercise — but it’s a long-drawn process. For short-term solution, regional councils with some autonomy are a good proposition. Full-fledged statehood could follow if the experiment with such councils is successful. The point here is, states should not be created for political expediency or on the basis of popular sentiment. The exercise must take into consideration the economic viability of the new units and the cost at which they come. Mayawati can wait till the whole country discusses the entire issue. Size does matter. But it certainly is not everything.