The departure of the British was also the arrival of a new set of challenges for India. The political integration of India was the most difficult task to be accomplished. At the time of independence 600 princely states were given the option of joining India or choosing independence. And the man who succeeded in uniting India as we see it today was Sardar Vallabhai Patel, known as the ‘Iron Man of India’ and compared to Bismark of Germany.
Arguably each princely state was different from the other on linguistic and cultural lines but they weren’t complete enough to declare themselves sovereign welfare states. For instance, Hyderabad was the largest princely state ruled by a Nizam but over 80 per cent of the population was Hindu and there was unrest among the subjects. The Nizam did not want to join the Union of India, so the Indian Army was sent in. In five days the Indian Army defeated the Nizam’s army and Hyderabad joined the Union. Patel’s efforts bore fruit and the Constitution of India, which came into force on 26 January 1950, declared India a sovereign, secular, democratic, republic, and a Union of states (replacing provinces) and territories.
The Constitution of 1950 named three types of states: Part A states, being nine in total, had been ruled by a British-appointed governor and were now to be ruled by an elected governor and legislature. These states included Bihar, Bombay (as it was then known) and Uttar Pradesh. Part B states were originally princely states but now were ruled by an appointed rajpramukh, who was often a former prince, and a legislature. These states were eight in total and include Hyderabad, Mysore, Rajasthan. The Part C states were both former British-ruled states as well as former princely states. They would be ruled by a Chief Commissioner appointed by the President. These 10 states included Delhi, Kutch and Himachal Pradesh.
In modern times
In more recent times India has faced several struggles from within demanding independent states. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) in Assam, the Red corridor or the Maoist heartland, Khalistan and the never ending Kashmir issue still haunt us. In these examples, the movements demand complete independence from federal India.
There is another parallel league of states which want more autonomy by breaking up into smaller states. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttaranchal are some new names which make up the 28 states in India. Telangana and Uttar Pradesh want to join the list for reorganisation now.
How is a state created?
Article 3 (Part 1) of the Indian Constitution deals with the formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states. First, the State legislature, (in the case of Telangana, the Andhra Pradesh legislature) will have to pass a resolution and forward it to the Centre. Then the Home Ministry will examine the issue and send the proposal to the Law Ministry which will examine it and send it to the Cabinet. The Union Cabinet will have to approve of the proposal before placing it before the two Houses of Parliament. The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha will have to pass the resolution with a two-third majority.
The Case of UP
Today Uttar Pradesh has a population of approximately 200 million. By itself it could be the fourth largest country in the world after China, India and the United States. But is this reason enough to disintegrate UP into smaller states? It is argued that this population should be self sufficient to meet all its needs, and in case it is dependent on others for resources, it should be in a position to pay them in time so as to keep the economy going. The other side of the coin is that since the ratio of dependent people and resources is too disproportionate the State should be divided as per needs.
The State’s Chief Minister Mayawati proposes to break up UP into four states. We start with Bundelkhand which happens to be the most backward part of UP as agriculture suffers from a lack of irrigation.
Similarly the Poorvanchal or eastern region lacks welfare and development facilities. Though it has the most fertile land in all of UP, it still shows poor productivity due to lack of opportunities made available to these farmers. The next in line is the Awadh region which includes Kanpur that promises some industrial growth. But yet again, basic infrastructure like electricity is lacking. Much skilled labour is leaving central UP and going to other parts of the country for work. Lastly we have the Paschim Pradesh which includes Meerut and Jat lands that cultivate sugarcane and other cash crops. Again resource crunch has led to underdevelopment.
The architect of the Indian Constitution, Bhim Rao Ambedkar, thought that greater participation of people in the democratic process would be better served through small states.
Distress in Telangana
The large-scale support for Telangana should be seen against the backdrop of the region’s extreme backwardness. Low literacy levels, domination of upper castes and exploitation of the marginalised in almost all spheres of socio-economic life gives us a glimpse of the Telangana region. At the time of Independence, 22 districts were home to Telugu-speaking people. Nine of those districts fell under the Nizam’s rule and included the region of Telangana. The rest fell under Yanam and the Madras Presidency. When Andhra Pradesh was carved out of the Madras Presidency, there was a demand to include Telangana in it. However the State Reorganisation Committee, perceptive of the gross inequalities between the two regions — Telangana was underdeveloped — gave a time-bound schedule for a merger of the two regions into one State after the general election in 1961, provided that there was a two-thirds majority in Telangana in favour of the merger. But the Indian Union went ahead nonetheless and merged the two regions in 1956 on the basis of an agreement that Telangana’s concerns would be considered and resolved.
Hyderabad which is the current capital of Andhra Pradesh falls under the Telangana region and contributes nearly 38 per cent to the State’s income. Very little of this reaches the poor and backward people of Telangana. The fight for Telangana goes beyond the rhetoric of ‘regionalism’. This is a case of obvious social and cultural oppression with marginalisation to an extent where identity crisis is a mere phenomenon. A pro-Telangana tweet recently said, “They say Telugu people should be together. But when they don’t even recognise our language as Telugu, why must we be with them?”
Budget allocations to Telangana are generally less than a third of the total Andhra Pradesh budget. There are allegations that in most years, funds allocated to Telangana were never spent. According to Professor Jayashankar, an ideologue of the Telangana movement only 20 per cent of the total Government employees, less than 10 per cent of employees in the Secretariat, and less than 5 per cent of department heads in the Andhra Pradesh government are from Telangana, those from other regions making up the bulk of government employees.
Why not smaller states?
Though there are passionate arguments in favour of smaller states due lessons should also be learnt from the other small states in the country.
Newer states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand or the smaller states like Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh have a different story to share about their performance and governance. Most of the North-East states are dependent upon the Central government for resources for their development programmes. These states are often tied in inter/intra conflicts and need external assistance to resolve their matters. An obvious outcome for a smaller state would be a more limited representation in the Lok Sabha, limiting access to resources at the Centre, hence creating a feeling of neglect. It is tough to argue that homogeneity of identity and cultures is the sole reason that smaller states are a solution and need of the hour. Creation of smaller states cannot be viewed as a substitute for poor policy making and implementation of welfare schemes. It is ideal to conclude with a simple understanding that development and good democracy are more often than not size neutral.
A good civil society, and honest government initiatives with cleaner implementation can have no better alternatives. Geographically big or small really doesn’t matter, if the basics of democracy and harmony fulfilling aspirations for a diverse population exist. Therefore, size does matter but not as a short cut for welfare for how ‘situations are’ and how they ‘ought to be’!
