UP set to make history with Mahakumbh 2025

Preparations for Mahakumbh 2025 are ongoing, with...

‘Anti-Assad rebels take most of key southern Syrian region’

A UK-based war monitor reports that the...

India with 75 states will lead to optimized growth and development

opinionIndia with 75 states will lead to optimized growth and development

Ideally, one could have 75 states with a population of roughly 2 crore each.

With India’s burgeoning population, socio-economic and socio-political challenges staring at us, there is now an increasing sense of acceptance that states in the country are too large to ensure optimal governance for their potential growth and development.
The average constituent federal unit in Switzerland (canton) and the United States (state) has 3 lakh and 66 lakh inhabitants, respectively. In India it is a whopping 4.92 crore. For purely administrative convenience it is advantageous therefore to have small states with considerable devolution of powers within a state.
At the time of Independence, India consisted of fairly large provinces of the erstwhile British India and a motley collection of smaller and larger Princely States, around 550 in all. Thanks to Vallabhbhai Patel, all these were placed on the same constitutional footing, save one. It was clear that this hotchpotch would need to be modified and possibly this was the reason why Article 3 was phrased in the way it was. Reorganization of state boundaries was made a fairly simple business and lay in the hands of Parliament alone.
The States Reorganization Commission (1955) did the first major job in redrawing the boundaries of states, although the process began, in the case of Andhra Pradesh, as early as 1953. Subsequent demarcations were largely a result of agitations, demands and movements for the formation of smaller states which were held to be more representative of people’s aspirations.
Interestingly, Andhra Pradesh which was the first state to be carved out on linguistic lines was also the first non-Hindi speaking state to be bifurcated in 2014 with the creation of Telangana. In 1956, language was a sufficient marker of identity; by 2014 it was deemed to be unnecessary.
There is a good case for smaller states in terms of the economy. There are also sound geographical, historical, cultural, geostrategic and administrative reasons for making smaller states. These reasons draw on the rich diversity of our country. Diversity is what characterizes India. It is our strongest point. We need smaller states because only then can true diversities emerge and flourish. Any aspirational nation is proud of its assets and as a consequence its citizens positively feel to be part of a larger endeavour. In India, we have unfortunately tended to highlight our weaknesses—be they religious divides, caste identities or linguistic chauvinisms.
The reflexive counter-argument is that smaller states would result in balkanization and disruption of the country. Others would argue that having, say, 75 states would make the Union government oppressively powerful to the detriment of state identity. Both arguments are contestable. They might be valid in a nation state like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, USSR or the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. They are not true in a civilizational state where identifying distinctive characteristics of small population groups would only make them all feel a part of being under a big canopy of Bhāratavarsha, a concept that transcends religion, caste and creed. What one is arguing for is essentially a new Constitution that better measures true diversity in this vast land. Ideally, one could have 75 states with a population of roughly 2 crore each.
States have the major responsibility of providing healthcare, education, grassroots governance and law enforcement. In a working federation, states should be in a position to generate adequate finances to undertake these responsibilities and the freedom to spend the money they generate without interference from the Centre. The Centre should restrict itself to just matters of strategic, security and national importance, namely, defence, external affairs, communications, taxation and currency management along with formulation of broad fiscal policy. In this case it would be doing what any Union government should be doing and restricting itself to only that. India needs economically strong states and a politically strong Centre. What we have now sadly enough seems to be the reverse.
Smaller states can definitely be leveraged economically. In a recent book, I have suggested the outlines of 75 states and I will select four of them—Kashmir, Kutch, Kongunadu and Kashi—to illustrate this point. Kashmir can be made a hub for value-added products, from saffron to lavender and rose, allowing it to compete advantageously with Bulgaria, Iran and Spain. Kutch, with its low population, dry weather and sunny climate is the ideal location to become the solar energy nucleus for India and be compared to Israel in this regard. Kongunadu can similarly overtake Bangladesh in the textile and garment industry, while Kashi, incorporating the Bhojpuri speaking areas of eastern UP and Western Bihar, can easily be made into a cultural capital of the world that rivals say Vatican City in terms of its tourism revenues. Smaller states can concentrate on their niche areas, thereby generating large revenues to use for day-to-day needs of their people. If states are given enough freedom by the Centre to generate and spend their revenues, we have the makings of 75 economic powerhouses in India.
A natural corollary to the formation of small states is the complete separation of legislative and executive wings of government at both Central and State levels, largely like in the US. It is interesting to note that our Constituent Assembly did consider the US Constitution briefly. Why it did not adopt the same can only remain a matter of speculation, but one could believe that we defaulted into the Westminster model simply because we were a British colony. This model anyway becomes unworkable with 75 states.
What these matters need is a thorough discussion in public forums, in a non-emotional way. The natural genius and talents of Indians do not find their full expression if one examines the state of our country 75 years after Independence. Would it be unreasonable then to say that the basic template of our governance structure needs reconsideration?
Bharat: India 2.0, Vitasta Publications, New Delhi (2022) attempts to shed more light on these matters.
Gautam R. Desiraju is an Honorary Professor in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (gautam.desiraju@gmail.com)

- Advertisement -

Check out our other content

Check out other tags:

Most Popular Articles