The demand for a separate North Karnataka state has resurfaced once again, this time from within the ruling party. Congress MLA Bharamgouda (Raju) Kage has written to the President of India, the Prime Minister, the governor and the chief minister, calling for a new state carved out of 15 northern districts. He cited decades of neglect since the unification of Karnataka in 1956 and pointed to a signature campaign supported by over one crore people.
Behind the letter lies a grievance that is both old and real. Districts in what is now called Kalyana-Karnataka consistently rank at the bottom on human development indicators. Access to quality education, healthcare, irrigation, industry and stable employment is much weaker than in Bengaluru and the southern belt.
Large numbers of young people from Raichur, Yadgir, Koppal and Ballari migrate to other states or cities for basic livelihood. The state itself has acknowledged this gap through the DM Nanjundappa Committee report on regional imbalance, the more recent Govind Rao committee set up to review it, and through the special status granted to the Kalyana Karnataka region under Article 371(J) of the Constitution. The problem is not lack of diagnosis, but lack of adequate response.
The question, however, is whether breaking Karnataka is the only way to address this crisis. Statehood is a drastic remedy. It requires a long and uncertain process under Article 3 of the Constitution, a political consensus that does not yet exist, and a complex division of assets, staff and institutions.
It would raise fresh questions about the sharing of rivers and reservoirs in a region already strained by water disputes. It would also cut across the emotional idea of ‘Akhanda Karnataka’, which was built through a long movement for a unified Kannada-speaking state.
Before choosing such an extreme instrument, it is necessary to examine whether less disruptive but serious structural reforms have been exhausted.
The core complaint that residents of North Karnataka describe is not only about the amount of money spent, but about distance from power. In several districts, many taluks are more than 100 km from the district headquarters. For a woman who needs a signature on a scholarship form, a farmer who disputes land records or a worker who wants to pursue a grievance, this can mean losing a full day, spending on travel and depending on local intermediaries. That physical distance translates into a feeling that the state is remote, slow and unaccountable.
In this context, one concrete instrument is district reorganisation. Karnataka has used it several times, for example through the recent creation of Udupi, Koppal, Chikkaballapur, Ramanagara Yadgir and Vijayanagara districts. These changes have brought the deputy commissioner’s office, the district hospital, the court complex and other key services closer to citizens. A new district also becomes a local growth centre.
The establishment of a new headquarters leads to investment in government buildings, housing, markets, transport and services. This can generate jobs and stimulate local economies in the region that otherwise sends its youth away.
Further, for decentralisation to have real meaning, creation of districts must go hand in hand with other measures. Along with capital allocation, the state needs to clear administrative bottlenecks at the district and taluk levels so that funds are actually allocated and released on time instead of getting stuck in the system. It must also commission independent evaluations whether projects are completed and services improve.
Seen in this light, the renewed demand for a separate North Karnataka state is best read as a warning signal that large sections of the state feel that unification has not brought them equal citizenship in practice. The more honest response from the State government and from political parties across the spectrum would be to shift the conversation. Instead of debating only on dividing Karnataka, they should ask why so many people still travel such long distances to access basic state services.
The first step towards an answer lies in a clear and time-bound agenda to create additional districts in the region, locate more institutions there, and ensure that the public investment committed to the region is spent effectively.
If the state uses the instruments it already has to bring governance closer and to narrow long-standing gaps, the appeal of statehood will naturally weaken. If it does not, then demands for a separate State will continue to return, each time with slightly greater force.
Jehosh Paul
Lawyer and research consultant from Kalyana-Karnataka region