Dr. Devendra
Kothari PhD
Population and Development Analyst
Forum
for population Action
India was never meant to be a
union of linguistic states, but a union of well-governed and managed states.
Thus, the demand for newer administrative units will be a continuous one,
seeking to bring distant provincial governments in remote capitals closer to
the people.
Quartz
India
There is a widespread perception
that splitting super states into smaller ones will improve administration and
governance by bringing power centres closer to the people. [1] Is it time to restructure India into smaller states? The
post aims in this direction.
There are 29 states in
India. Their populations range massively in size –
the largest, Uttar Pradesh, holds around 200
million people, the smallest, Sikkim, just over half a million. About half of the country's population lives in
five States, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal and Andhra
Pradesh in 2011; and ten most populated states or super states of India contribute
more than three- fourth of India's population (Table 1).
India's largest state is
Uttar Pradesh which, with a population of 199,812,341
in 2011, is larger than most countries in the world. If it were a country in
its own right, it would be the sixth largest in the world in 2011, falling just behind China, India, the United States, Indonesia and
Brazil. Two other Indian states are home to more than 100
million people - Maharashtra ( 112.4m) and Bihar (104.1m).
Whether level of socio-economic development is affected by
the size of an administrative unit? As per
the Rajan Panel Report, around 50 per cent of total population of India is
residing in the least developed states after 60 years of the planned
development. And most of these states –
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan - are very large containing
around two-fifth of total population in
2011. [2]
So what kind of achievement did we
achieve?
Table 1: Ten most populous states of India in 2011 and
ranked if they are a separate country in the world and projected population in
2051
Rank
|
State
|
Ten most populous
states in 2011
|
Projected population in 2051
in million
(% of total
Population)
|
||
Total population in
million
(% of total
population)
|
Number of children per
woman (Total Fertility Rate)
|
Ranking in the world
as if a separate country
|
|||
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
6
|
|
1.
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
199.8
(16.5)
|
3.4
|
6
(After Brazil)
|
352.9
(20.2)
|
2.
|
Maharashtra
|
112.4
(9.3)
|
1.8
|
13
|
154.3
(8.8)
|
3.
|
Bihar
|
104.1
(8.6)
|
3.6
|
14
|
187.1
(10.7)
|
4.
|
West Bengal
|
91.3
(7.6)
|
1.7
|
16
|
110.7
(6.3)
|
5.
|
Andhra Pradesh*
|
84.6
(7.0)
|
1.8
|
19
|
101.3
(5.8)
|
6.
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
72.6
(6.0)
|
3.1
|
24
|
111.6
(6.4)
|
7.
|
Tamil Nadu
|
72.1
(6.0)
|
1.7
|
25
|
73.0
(4.2)
|
8.
|
Rajasthan
|
68.5
(5.7)
|
3.0
|
27
|
121.3
(6.9)
|
9.
|
Karnataka
|
61.1
(5.1)
|
1.9
|
31
|
74.5
(4.3)
|
10.
|
Gujarat
|
60.0
(5.0)
|
2.4
|
33
(After Italy)
|
78.9
(4.5)
|
Sub total
|
808.8
(66.8)
|
1,385.1
(78.1)
|
|||
India
|
1210.8
(100.0)
|
2.4
|
1,751.1
(100.0)
|
||
* The united Andhra
Pradesh was divided into two states – Andhra Pradesh (Population 49.4 million
in 2011) and Telangana (35. 2 million) – on June 2, 2014.
|
|||||
Source: Census of India 2011; U.S.
Census Bureau International Data Base; and Projected figures from: The
Future Population of India, Population Foundation of India and Population
Reference Bureau, New Delhi.
|
|||||
The truth is that
states in India were formed on no real and common basis, as argued by Mohan
Guruswamy. There are different reasons applicable for different states. The
northeastern states were formed to suit certain tribal aspirations. Goa had its
own historical antecedents. Punjab was formed to accommodate the religious
sentiments of the Sikhs with the Punjabi language serving as a convenient fig
leaf for it. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were formed for another reason
(that is political), which hardly makes any sense. The four southern States
were formed for linguistic reasons, just as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa and
West Bengal were. But now there is demand for separate states among these
States. The Government of India has 10 applications for the creation of new states
including a separate Vidharba in Maharashtra, Saurashtra in Gujarat,
Mithilanchal in Bihar, Bhojpur in Bihar and UP, Harit Pradesh and Bundelkhand
in Uttar Pradesh and Coorg in Karnataka, and Gorkhaland and Cooch Behar in West
Bengal, etc. It means dividing country alone on the linguistic lines in
1956 was not a valid reason. [3]
While drawing the boundaries of the states,
topography was not taken into account. The difference of topography of existing
states is huge - and thereby the differences in culture and economy for a state
to be ruled from one Capital. Maharashtra is a case in point. Whilst Konkan is
water rich with coconut and fish important ingredients in the food - and one
can see the effect a humid environment on clothing. Marathwada & Vidarbha
on the other hands are dryer and aridest comparably. And all of them are ruled
from Mumbai - at the very fast west end.
Further, Uttar Pradesh is a classic example of how
small states make better sense in a democracy. It is the most crowded state in India
and additionally the most populated nation subdivision on the planet. Physically,
too, it is very big. In a democracy, a dialogue between the ruler and the ruled
is absolutely necessary. That is completely out of the question in a state the
size of UP. The districts in western Uttar Pradesh, where people are demanding a separate Harit Pradesh, represent
a totally different lifestyle, culture and even language as compared to that
of, say, Bundelkhand or eastern UP on the other side of the state. That is
another aspect of the problem of size. [4]
In contrast, people of Haryana, which was carved
out of Punjab, can go to the capital to air their grievances or get their
problems heard in the secretariat and return home by evening, whichever part of
the state they are in. But if a citizen in western UP were to be heard in any
of the state commissions or courts, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow,
spending large amounts of money in an attempt to get justice.
In addition, the large states are also most
unmanageable states due its population size. Sometime in the late nineties, I was
discussing the population issue faced by the state with officials in the Chamber
of the Chief Secretary; I was shocked to learn that there was an utter
confusion about the exact number of districts of the State let aside their
names.
India does need a lot more states to be able to have better governance in
many parts. UP can be divided at least into 4 or 5 parts. States like
Maharastra & Bihar and Madhya
Pradesh can be divided into 2 to 3 parts each. West Bengal, Rajasthan Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat to at least 2 part each.
The
Government of India must, therefore, constitute the second States
Reorganisation Commission to redrawn the internal map of India. While India's internal map may not soon start
looking like the pre-independence jigsaw puzzle presented by the myriad
provinces and kingdoms, the world's largest democracy could add a few more
States if it takes its cue from the world's oldest democracy - USA. The 50
States the US has for its population of 300 million is almost double the
number of states India has for its 1300 million-plus people. I think that
the era of large ungovernable States is past.
The
population of India is projected to increase from 1210 million in 2011 to 1750 million
in 2051, as per Population Reference Bureau (Table 1) that is in the next thirty
two years – an increase by 540 million. As a consequence, the total population
of 10 most populous or super-states of India will increase from 927 million to
1366 million. And this fact must be kept in mind while redrawing the map of
Indian Union. As such, division of existing super states is must. For governance
and socio-economic reasons, the total population of to be carved out smaller
States should not exceed more than 50 million each with administrative friendly
inter-state boundaries not like existing boundaries in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan.
Further, India
has become a very youthful country with 70 per cent of its people below the age
of 35, of whom about 350 million are below the age of 15. Clearly, the task of
government is not only much more enormous, but also much more complex when the
rising expectations, impact of new technologies and demographic changes are
factored in. Our record so far is a cause for great concern, and is a severe
indictment of the failure of the system of governance in India.
In the end, I will
like to quote the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 1955: ”manageable states are a must if we have to
keep the republic healthy and strong”.
[1] Kothari, Devendra. 2011. “India’s quest for smaller states and
development”, blog Population and Development in India at: http://kotharionindia.blogspot.in/2011/11/indias-quest-for-smaller-states.html
.
[2] Kothari, Devendra.
2013. “Rajan panel report on backwardness of States of India”, Population and
Development in India at
http://kotharionindia.blogspot.in/2013/10/rajan-panel-report-on-backwardness-of_3169.html
[3] Guruswamy, Mohan. 2006. India: Issues in
Development, Hope India Publications, Gurgoan (see chapter “Small States and
Better Government”).
No comments:
Post a Comment