Out of limited literature available on location of capital cities, Vadim Rossman’s ‘Capital Cities: Varieties and Patterns of Development and Relocation’ is a classic. He makes a distinction between inclusive capital cities and exclusive disembedded capital cities. The inclusive capital city is where all regions and groups feel their presence in the capital and benefit from the capital and is built on principles of fairness and identity.
They are built on the foundations of discussion consensus and are accepted and owned up by different regions and groups. Hence, they are successful and long-lasting.
On the other hand, exclusive capitals are built on the principle of ethnic favouritism. In such cases, capital city location is not based on inclusion and integration of diverse groups and interests, but based on catering to the interests of one particular group. They tend to be fragile and their growth and existence will be linked to the person or the dynasty, which promotes the capital city. They are so closely linked to a particular individual or a dynasty that the successor finds it necessary to break away from the same. In his view, they are extremely short lived, highly unstable and expensive to build and operate and come with hidden agenda.
Amaravati unfortunately right from the beginning fell into the second category. The recommendations of the competent committee appointed under the Act were ignored and in a strategically manipulative way unanimous recommendation of the Assembly was obtained and the capital city was announced.
Historical pacts like the Sri Bagh were ignored.
What was till now perceived as a hidden agenda of insider trading is laid bare in the Assembly by the Finance Minister. As predicted in the theory, the successor is finding it necessary to break away from it. It is in this context Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Jagan Mohan Reddy announced in the Assembly the possibility of setting up of functionally distributed capitals, executive capital at Vizag, legislative capital at Amaravati and judicial capital at Kurnool.
The committee of experts appointed by the government presented its report after the announcement of the Chief Minister in the Assembly wherein it has recommended setting up of executive capital at Vizag, legislative capital at Mangalagiri and High Court at Kurnool. Certain other functions are to be discharged by the government from the existing location of the capital at Amaravati.
Within the theory wherever capital cities are formed by spatial compromise between distinct and powerful regions, it can happen in terms of choosing a neutral point acceptable to all for location of the capital city or by functionally dividing the capital city and locating different functions in different cities. In most countries comprising regions with distinct identities, neutral area is chosen for location of the capital like it happened in USA and Australia. Washington DC emerged after a compromise formula between the Northern and Southern States so also Canberra in Australia. This is the most successful process of achieving spatial compromise by locating the capital city in a neutral area agreeable to all regions.
It is only in South Africa, this spatial compromise is reached by locating the functions of the State in different cities, executive at Pretoria, legislative at Cape Town and judicial at Bloemfontein. In terms of spatial compromise, this is the least preferred alternative and South Africa is only one example whereas the most successful locations based on spatial compromise are locations of the capital city in a neutral area like it happened in Washington DC and Canberra. Distributed capital will be an administrative pain and end up as a long- term burden. A better alternative would be to build a consensus on the location of the capital city and locate it in a neutral area where all the functions of the State are located.
An alternative theoretical background for location of the capital city can also be considered. Locating the capital city at the most strategic place to make use of the strategic location for the benefit of the country or the State. If this is considered, then it would be in the interest of the State to locate the capital city at Vizag. That would attract large scale investments into the State and since it is already a big cosmopolitan city, can be developed to rival cities like Hyderabad. The fact that there is no major metropolis between Kolkata and Chennai gives this city another added advantage.
In which case, the High Court can be located in Rayalaseema. Whereas the relationship between executive and legislature is intimate and intertwined, same is not the case with judiciary. Hence, the High Court being located at a different place may not lead to administrative inefficiencies. India also has examples of such locations in almost a dozen States.
Any one of the above two alternatives would be beneficial to the State in the long run. Going in for functionally divided capital city with the legislature located at one place, judiciary at another place and executive at a different place as suggested by the expert committee will make the capital city functionally inefficient and end up as a long-term burden.
IYR Krishna Rao
Former chief secretary, Andhra Pradesh