Rationality of statehood demand
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: March 14, 2014 -

India will have more than 50 states if all demands for statehood are conceded by the Centre. The Home Ministry has reportedly received representations for creation of more than 20 states.

The demands for separate states have come from across the country for Kukiland in the State to Kongu Nadu in Tamil Nadu, for Kamatapur in North Bengal to Tulu Nadu in Karnataka.

The main contention over creation of new states is neglected development in the region of aspiring states. Earlier, many states have been carved out from larger states in view of political and administrative conveniences.

Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal renamed as Uttarakhand and Jharkhand were the three states to be created 13 years back and now Telangana has become the youngest state of India.

The states that have been formed in the last decade happened to be parts of large resourceful states and so they might not have faced financial crunches at the time of their formation.

However, statehood demand in a financially unsound state like Manipur seems to be illogical.

The State, itself without much resource and revenue, is running at the mercy of the Centre.

The Central funds are the lifeblood of the State, without which the whole state machineries would be defunct.

Mere political issues should not be the basis for demanding states. Without resources, a state would not be able to run smoothly.

The development aspects of the people would be out of sight if the State is running only on central assistances.

Telangana or whatsoever states created from large resourceful states may be successful in fulfilling developmental needs of the people, but it is quite doubtful in case of smaller states.

Mere fulfilment of statehood demand would not address the development needs of the people. Central funds would not be enough even to pay the state employees. People’s longing for development will obviously be delayed or denied.

Practically, smaller states are easier to govern. However, many are of the view that formation of new smaller states is mainly to cater for political considerations and to increase the number of red beacon cars.

The question of administrative and financial viability of the new states must be considered properly.

Usually, when demands for statehood are made, there are equally strong claims about the viability of these states.

In the case of Jharkhand, for example, it was claimed that abundance of mineral resources was enough to make the state prosperous.

A decade later, the reality is different. Similar claims are being made in the case of Telangana.

Very often, new states continue to get special grants and outright transfers for extended periods. A proliferation of such demands will be an unhealthy trend.

If, hypothetically, the states are conceded they will certainly require financial help from the Centre for a long time.

Above all, political representation of states in Parliament is not based on any theory of “equality of states”.

The population of each state determines the number of members it sends to the Lok Sabha. Similarly, there is no notion of equality in the Rajya Sabha.

Creation of smaller states automatically gives greater political power to large states. But creating small states without ensuring equity in representation can have unforeseen political consequences.

It will certainly upset the inter-state political equilibrium in the country.

There are also strategic and national security issues in creating new states with ethnic majorities especially in border regions. So, the question of new states in India needs to be deliberated with care and sensitivity.

It also requires a hard-nosed look at financial, administrative and national security concerns.