Critical Analysis of Reorganization of State on The Basis of Language

PROJECT ON

critical analysis of reorganization of state on the basis of language

Submitted To: Ms. Shraddha Rajput(Faculty of Honours-I- Constitutional Law- Federalism)

SUBMITTED BY: FAISAL AKHTARROLL NO.: 44SEMESTER: IX

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26-10-13

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

Acknowledgements

I, FAISAL AKHTAR, feel myself highly elated, as it gives me tremendous pleasure to come out with the work on the topic Critical Analysis of Reorganization of State on The Basis of Language.First and foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Ms. Shraddha Rajput, Faculty, Honours-I, Constitutional Law, Federalism paper, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur for allotting me such topic to work on. She has been very kind in providing inputs for this work, by way of her lectures and suggestions. I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have helped me with ideas about this work. Last, but not the least I thank the University Administration for equipping the University with such good library and IT facilities, without which, no doubt this work would not have taken this shape in correct time.

FAISAL AKHTAR Semester-IX, Batch-IX Roll no-44

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements.............................................................................................................02Table of Contents...............................................................................................................03List of Abbreviations..........................................................................................................03Objectives..........................................................................................................................04Research Methodology......................................................................................................04Certificate of Declaration..041. Introduction..........................................................................................................05

2. History Of Reorganization Of States In India..07States in India Created after 1950..11Rationale behind Reorganization of States: View Point of Ambedkar..12Creation of New States and Constitutional Provisions....143. Effects and Side Effects: New States In India...16Issue Of Telengana..19Future Of Creation Of States In India..214. Critical Analysis Of Reorganisation Of States.24

5. Conclusion............................................................................................................37

Reference......39

List of Abbreviations & AcronymsEdn.Edition

MP..Madhya Pradesh

NSSONational Sample Survey Organisation

UPUttar Pradesh

UPA. United Progressive Alliance

UT.Union Territory

Vol.Volume

www..World Wide Web

ObjectivesThe work Critical Analysis of Reorganization of State on The Basis of Language deals with correlation of both these concepts. The objectives of the work are the followings:-1) To deal with the evolution of various states in India.2) To discuss the reasons for the evolution of various states in India.3) To discuss the pros and cons of emergence of new states in 21st century in India.Research MethodologyThe current work focuses on Critical Analysis of Reorganization of State on The Basis of Language. The method adopted for this work was analytical in nature based on empirical and non-empirical sources. Legal provisions (procedural and substantive laws), books, reports, journals and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this work a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and web articles have also been referred.Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a particular provision of law. Uniform Bluebook (19th ed.) citation format has been followed for footnoting. CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATIONThis is to declare that I Rajesh Kumar Mishra, student of 9th Semester, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, has worked on the topic- Critical Analysis of Reorganization of State on The Basis of Language. And the work is an original and genuine work and all the sources which have been used have been duly acknowledged.Date: 26th October, 2013.RAIPUR(FAISAL AKHTAR)

Chapter: 1IntroductionIndian constitution declares India a federation as well as a Union. The reorganization of state has been a major issue since independence and it still haunts the nation. While there are differences of opinions on the organization of states on linguistic basis, there have been demands for creation of new states. The country has witnessed a number of movements demanding creation of different states which have many a times taken radical turns creating lots of confusion and disturbances. The Indian state has too responded by carving out new states from time to time but the entire process remains afflicted with some kind of adhocism and cynicism. While in 2002 the states of Jharkahnd, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh were carved out from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively, the demand for the creation of Telangana has seen widespread agitation in Andhra Pradesh attracting national attention. Recently Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has proposed division of Uttar Pradesh into four states. Mostly the demands for creation of new states have been populist in nature and the political establishments tend to respond to them to gain political mileage. There is a need to rethink and discuss the issue of reorganization of states in broader perspective. In the context of national unity, integrity and to redress the regional grievances and to redress the problems of smaller regions, a national policy should be discussed and debated so as to make the process of reorganization of states in accordance with the national aspirations. For this there is a need of enlightened debate and well informed discussions in the national interests.Apart from that now a days the sole reason for the creation of the new state is based on political motive only. Apart from that economic condition of a particular area is also a condition for the creation of new states. This paper therefore looks at the following issues: is there an economic case for smaller states? Or alternatively, would the states perform better after they break up from into smaller states? Or the states are based on political motives? The motivation for this paper comes from the new states of this decade, which have left their parent states behind in growth rates and governance initiatives. This paper does not aim to find the correct size of a state, however it makes the point that there are two countervailing forces - one, smaller states may do better as administration can be more responsive to local needs and regional differences combined with greater homogeneity. And two, smaller states have access to lesser human capital and civil society institutions and therefore might be susceptible to the problem of poorer institutions and susceptible to take-over by non-desirable forces.This paper also focuses only on economic growth, not on other socioeconomic parameters. However, since most socio-economic factors that are used to measure progress are highly correlated with economic growth, arguably, economic growth should be one of the most important parameters to look at. That admittedly does not imply that growth is the only parameter to study.

Chapter: 2History of Reorganization of States in India[footnoteRef:1] [1: http://www.ciil-ebooks.net/html/langUse/reorg.html]

The history of reorganization of Indian provinces on linguistic basis can be traced back to 1858. In the British Parliament, John Bright said that the provinces of India should be grouped into 5 administrative groups on the basis of geography and language. In 1896, Mahesh Narayan of Bihar began a movement for removal of Hindi speaking regions from Bengal to keep under one administration. With the vivisection of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, the leaders of the nationalist movement began to give importance to the organization of States on language basis. In 1908, Lokamanya Tilak said before the Royal Commission that states should be organized on language basis and then onwards he became the forefront leader advocating this principle.In order to be effective and to reach the people in their own language and to achieve its goals, in December 1920, the All India Congress Committee at Nagpur, organized its administrative divisions on the language basis.The All Parties Conference set up the Motilal Nehru Committee (1928) to look into the aspects of reorganization. It supported the organization of regions on the linguistic principles. It opined that if the province has to educate itself and do its daily work through the medium of its own language, it must necessarily be a linguistic area. If it happens to be a poly got area difficulties will continually arise and media of instruction and work will be in two or even more languages. Hence it becomes most desirable for provinces to be re-grouped on a linguistic basis. It stressed that while reorganizing Language, peoples wish and administration convenience, including geographical position, the economic resources and financial stability of the area concerned should be the criteria. Indian National Congress had reaffirmed the principle of linguistic reorganization on three occasions between 1928 and 1947. The All Party Conference in its meeting from 28th to 31st August 1928 resolved to accept the reorganization of States on linguistic principle. The All India Congress in its 1945 election manifesto said that it is the aim of the Congress to provide opportunities to the people to develop according to their intentions and every group of people and every region of the country have to develop culturally. In order to achieve this, Congress has decided to organize the States on the basis of language and culture. Whereas the Linguistic Provinces Commission set up after the Independence of India under the Chairmanship of S.K. Dar (1948) in its report recommended that the emphasis should be primarily on administrative convenience and homogeneity of language will enter into consideration only as a matter of administrative convenience and not by its own independent force. It also felt that Linguistic homogeneity in the formation of the new provinces is certainly attainable within certain limits but only at the cost of fresh minority problem. On the recommendation of the Dar Committee the Government was of intention to postpone the reorganization. However due to pressure from the public to revive the case of reorganization of the States, the All India Congress Committee in 1948 at Jaipur constituted the JVP Committee. The JVP (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhabhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramaiah) Committee recommended postponing the formation of new provinces for a few years, so that we might concentrate during this period on other matters of vital importance and not allow ourselves to be distracted by this question.It may be noted that the opinion of all the Committees and Commissions on the reorganization of the states centered around four principles of administrative convenience language, culture, development and unity.The foundation for the second significant happening of the century, and first one after the Independence of the country, was laid on 22nd December 1953 with Jawaharlal Nehru's announcement in the Parliament of the Constitution of the States Reorganization Commission.The Resolution of the Government of India relating to the reorganization said thatThe language and culture of an area have an undoubted importance as they represent a pattern of living which is common in that area. In considering a reorganization of States, however, there are other important factors which have also to be borne in mind. The first essential consideration is the preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India. Financial, economic and administrative considerations are almost equally important, not only from the point of view of each State, but for the whole nation.The four principles that the State Reorganization Commission followed are:1. Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India;2. Linguistic and cultural homegeneity;3. Financial, economic and administrative considerations; and4. Successful working of the national plan.While examining the related issues the Commission looked into:1. Minimum of internal cohesion,2. Scope of positive expression of the collective personality of a people inhabitating a state or region,3. Common language may not only promote the growth of such regional consciousness but also cause administrative convenience, and4. In democracy it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the administration is conducted in a language which the people can understand.The Commission had to operate within certain limiting factors because it had to consider the multilingual situation. The limiting factors were:i) Not all the language groups are so placed that they can be grouped into separate statesii) There are a large number of bilingual belts between different linguistic zones.iii) There exist areas with a mixed population even within unilingual area.Because of such limitations, a considerable number of people speaking languages other than the dominant language of the state remains as minority in a state. To safeguard the interests of these people, regarding use of languages of such minority groups in administration, the States Reorganization Commission suggested for administrative purposes thata) A state should be considered monolingual when about 70% or more of the entire population of the state speaks the same language.b) A State should be considered as bilingual when about 30% or more of the entire population of the state speaks a language other than the language of the region. c) The language of the minority should be used for conducting official business in a district and not the official language of the state; if 70% or more of the population of the District speaks it. d) In bilingual districts, municipal areas or in Taluks where minorities contribute 15% to 20%, documents like Government notices, electoral rolls, ration cards, etc., are to be reprinted in both the languages.The Commission in its recommendation allocated Kolar and Belgaum to Karnataka. Kolar town has a Tamil majority, the district has Telugu speaking majority and Kolar has strong relation with Karnataka (then Mysore State). Similarly regarding Belgaum it was stated that all Taluks (ten) of Belgaum district have economic relations with both Marathi as well as the Kannada speaking areas. The Belgaum town is the centre of the transit trade in this area. Neither the Belgaum town nor the other disputed areas have any particular marked economic affiliation with Marathi speaking districts of Bombay. There is no case, therefore, for detaching either Khanapur or Belgaum or portions of Chikkodi from the rest of the Belgaum district ... If as many as nine out of the eleven taluks go to Karnataka (Chandgad going to Bombay and Belgaum being disputed), then, on administrative grounds, the Belgaum town which is the district headquarters along with Belgaum taluk should also go to Karnataka. Justice Mahajan in his Report on the Commission on Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala Boundary Disputes, 1967 recommended that The claim to the town of Belgaum is disallowed and the city is not recommended for transfer to the State of Maharashtra.It is nearly 30 years since reorganization, whenever any issue relating to use of language in education or administration is discussed passions rise and disharmony grows in this border. Language issue becomes a tool to revive the boundary dispute. Recently same thing can be seen between various states. Now a dispute arises between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha where both are fighting over two districts named Malkangiri and Gajapati as most of the inhabitants speak both the languages and both the govt. tries to woo the people of that said locality which brings conflict most of the time. States in India Created after 1950[footnoteRef:2] [2: http://www.facts-about-india.com/new-states-in-India.php]

Following are the new states in India created after 1950.Andhra PradeshCreated by the State of Andhra Pradesh Act 1953 by carving our some areas from the State of Chennai

Gujarat and MaharashtraThe State of Mumbai was divided into two States i.e. Maharashtra and Gujarat by the Mumbai (Reorganisation) Act 1960

KeralaCreated by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. It comprised Travancor and Cochin areas

KarnatakaCreated from the Princely State of Mysuru by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was renamed Karnataka in 1973

NagalandIt was carved out from the State of Asom by the State of Nagaland Act, 1952

HaryanaIt was carved out from the State of Punjab by the Punjab (Reorganisation) Act, 1966

Himachal PradeshThe Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to the status of State by the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970

MeghalayaFirst carved out as a sub-State within the State of Asom by 23 Constitutional Amendment Act, 1969. Later in 1971, it received the status of a full-fledged State by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act 1971

Manipura and TripuraBoth these States were elevated from the status of Union-Territories by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act 1971

SikkimSikkim was first given the Status of Associate State by the 35th Constitutional Amendment Act 1974. It got the status of a full State in 1975 by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975

MizoramIt was elevated to the status of a full State by the State of Mizoram Act, 1986

Arunachal PradeshIt received the status of a full state by the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1896

GoaGoa was separated from the Union-Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and was made a full-fledged State of Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act 1987. But Daman and Diu remained as Union Territory

ChhattisgarhFormed by the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 by dividing Madhya Pradesh on November 1, 2000

UttarakhandFormed by the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 by dividing Uttar Pradesh on November 9, 2000

JharkhandFormed by the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 by dividing Bihar on November 15, 2000

Rationale behind Reorganization of States: View Point of AmbedkarAt the time of independence, India had more than 500 states, most of which were extremely small, unviable to function as independent economic entities. By 1950, these states were organised into 28 units, by merging tiny states into larger entities. For instance, in 1948, 30 princely states occupying a combined territory of 27,000 sq km came together to form Himachal Pradesh. States were multi-lingual, raising severe administrative and social issues. The initial demarcation of state boundaries was therefore contested, with demands for reorganisation on linguistic grounds. There was intense debate and though the State Reorganisation Commission set up in 1953 accepted the rationale of language as a basis of state composition, it also went into the criterion of size and resources in different regions while forming the states. With the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, linguistic basis became the benchmark for state creation. But not without severe criticism Dr.Ambedkars note, Thoughtson Linguistic States begins by pointing outThe Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter of no consequence and that the equality in the size of the status constituting a federation is a matter of no moment. This is the first and the most terrible error cost which the commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will indeed be a great deal.The disparity in population sizes was a fantastic result, bound to create huge costs for the nation. Ambedkars opposition to the Commissions recommendations stemmed from the imbalance of political power in the country - the large states in the north and balkanisation of the south would pit the two regions of the country against each other. The solution he offered used the size of the state and administrative effectiveness for making smaller states in the north: dividing the three large states - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh and using the rule that a population of approximately two crores which should be regarded as the standard size of population for a State to administer effectively. As Ambedkar clarified, one language one state should be the rule, but people with the same language can divide themselves into many states - this promotes more uniform balance of power within the country, satisfies social needs and most importantly, creates units that can be administered with ease, leading to better growth performance for the nation.While he used this rule to call for the division of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, he went into greater detail analysing his home state Maharashtra with 3.3 crore Marathispeaking population and an area spanning 1.74 lakh square miles it is a vast area and it is impossible to have efficient administration by a single State. According to his analysis, economic, industrial, educational and social inequalities in the regions of Maharashtra make for a clear division of the state into four parts - Bombay, Western (Konkan), Central (Marathwada) and Eastern(Vidarbha).Ambedkars recommendations with respect to these four larger states of course did not materialize in the early years, though the number of states and their boundaries changed through the sixties and seventies. While the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand in 2000 showed that the rationale for smaller states could not be suppressed, there are still, and growing, demands to break up Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Mayawatis support for the dismemberment of UP into Poorvanchal (Eastern UP), Harit Pradesh or Pashchimanchal (Western UP), and Bundelkhand (Southern UP) can be traced to Ambedkars strong views on the matter.]

Small and big are relative terms and while Ambedkar put two crores as a viable population size for administration, with Indias current population, this would now translate into more than fifty states for the Indian Union, a political impossibility. Is there a viable middle path? One suggestion is to use some combination of the 77 agro-climatic regions as an administrative unit within the state, which could prove more efficient than the current system. Another could be to ensure that a combination of criteria - minimum population of (say 5 crores) and with some economic-cultural-social homegeniety (as reflected in agro- climatic regions) - be used.Indeed there can be many different criteria that can be evolved, each leading to a different set of new states with differing sizes. Although there are many criteria but still some provisions are also there under the constitution which deals with this issues. So, in the next section, I will discuss the provisions which are applicable during the creation of new states. Creation of New States and Constitutional ProvisionsTo protect the unity and integrity of India, Article 3 of the Constitution vests the power to form new States in Parliament, which may pass the law on the subject. Prior to that it is necessary that the President initiate the procedure and it ends with Parliament passing the relevant Bill. If the Centre accepts the States recommendation, a Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament on the recommendation of the President, which in fact means the recommendation of the Union government.Before drafting the Bill, it is open to the Centre to appoint a Commission to fix boundaries and for sharing waters, providing other guarantees and location of capitals, High Courts and all other requirements of the States to be formed. It is only on receipt of a report of the Commission that the President may recommend the Bill, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.Thereafter, the Bill will be referred to the said Assembly for its view, consideration and ratification within a prescribed period. While such reference is mandatory, the President need not take a decision as per the opinion expressed by the Assembly. This means, even if there is opposition to the referred Bill, or such reference is not responded to within the prescribed time, or when such a Bill is approved, the President can go ahead with formation of a new State. However, it is a political requirement to build an opinion on the formation of a new State or States to prevail over the Union for fulfilling the aspirations of the people.

Chapter: 3Effects and Side effects: New States in India[footnoteRef:4] [4: http://vishwanathbite.blogspot.in/2010/03/effects-and-side-effects-new-states-in.html, updated on March 30, 2010]

Creating new states has been a very debatable issue right now due to the demands for new states like Telengana and seeing the Telengana state materializing, other regions reiterate their demand for a new state.Recently, the centre had consented to creating the state of Telengana from Andhra Pradesh. There has been a very mixed response to the creation of the new state. There have been riots for the cause of Telengana and there have been counter-riots for a United Andhra Pradesh as it is now. The last time India created new states; it was in 2000 when the states of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were formed from Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Many states have been facing riots for the creation of smaller states from big states. This is because when states are big, their administration becomes tough and development does not reach the required places. Examples include the Vidarbha area from Maharashtra, Harit Pradesh, Bundelkhand from UP, Coorg from Karnataka, Gorkhaland from Assam etc. The first problem while creating a new state is the facing of riots. There are always conflicts and extreme difference of opinions and a lot of fighting. This is a big problem Then comes the problem of creating the boundaries, making new legislature, elections, jurisdictions etc.It is an extremely time and expertise consuming process. At the same time, you have to force the centre and state governments to provide you with autonomy. All this consumes a lot of tax money also.After the formation of the state, the centre bears the duty to give it grants and funds. It also has the huge responsibility of promoting development in these states. It has to offer the state various subsidies, tax cuts, and other schemes in order to boost the states growth and bring it into mainstream India. Even after the formation of the state, there tends to be a state of unrest and insecurity within the state for which there is more diversion of resources.The idea of new states also means dividing more and more people based on region. This affects the national integrity and unity. This factor is one of the greatest disadvantages of creating new states.Apart from that other problems are as follows:1. Vulnerable to external events like natural disasters, which cause extreme volatility in state income and affect the entire population. (For instance, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Jharkhand.)2. Face an uncertain and difficult economic transition in trade in India and the world.3. Smaller private sector could mean lesser competition and lesser development.4. Lack major markets.5. Have little influence on Indian and global markets because of their small footprint.6. Smaller size of markets means lesser diversification in products and exports. One dominant activity tends to be replaced by another, which makes them vulnerable to changes in national and global trade environment.7. Income distribution may be more uneven. This income volatility could cause more hardships because the poor are less able to withstand negative shocks to income.8. Range of per capita incomes and rates of growth may not be significantly different from larger states.9. Seek more assistance from the center.10. Susceptible to land injustice. Bigger land holdings create more negative shock in smaller states than in larger states.11. Divide people on language, social, political, and economic grounds12. Diminish outlook. When India desperately needs her people to think globally, small states make them think regionally, even sub-regionally13. Weak education institutions, especially in higher education. Most students go to other states for higher education and do not return home for work because of weak career prospects.14. Lack depth to produce own educational material and resources to keep them up-to-date. This takes a serious turn when textbooks start to be written.15. Limited administrative capacity. This becomes acute as globalisation pushes smaller states into interacting with not only larger states in India, but with the world itself.16. Poor political and bureaucratic models. For governance to work well, it has to be impersonal and impartial. In smaller states, as administration goes local, proximity pushes politicians and bureaucrats into informal and flexible work ethics. They begin to bend rules to favour people they know and meet regularly in non-official circumstances. This makes everything illegitimate and irrelevant.17. Become wastelands: Once a small state becomes sick, it spreads the sickness. Vast tracts of such a state become wastelands. There is fighting, corruption, and sickness. (For instance, the Northeast.)18. Strengthen the centre.The last act in such a process is that a small state now makes the idea of bigger states, and a strong centre, look attractive. There is confusion. People wonder what happened to the idea that they could improve their life with smaller states. There is heartbreak. The younger generation has moved on, the older ones have no more illusions. New Delhi is, yet again, the only hope. This makes the centre bold and blind. Bold, because they gain control once more. Blind, because they think they are right. This puts people off and they want smaller states, again.However, there are many good sides of creating new states.New states are mainly regions which have been ignored by their respective state governments. These regions are the ones stricken by poverty and faces the brunt of many social problems. These new states could stem the problems of poverty if proper resources are allotted to them. They have enormous potential to develop. The states of Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand are living examples of total makeovers of states from poor, underdeveloped regions to highly successful, highly industrialized states. They have uplifted the conditions of the people. Even though it takes time to form and settle, un the end, it is worth it because it helps reduce poverty and also creates a lot of job opportunities. Due to the various subsidies and tax benefits, many industries and businesses are established there, bringing more and more prosperity to the state and also to the nation.Even though, it is highly advantageous to have new states in our country where it can address the issue of poverty, it should not be created unless absolutely necessary. It should not be created unless the centre is satisfied that creating a new state is the only situation to help the poor people in that region. Because otherwise, it creates a sense of disunity and also pressurizes the centre for precious resources it already lacks.Issue of Telengana[footnoteRef:5] [5: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/03/telangana-india-smaller-state, Updated on Saturday 3 August 2013]

When the states of what would be independent India were drawn up in the dying days of the British Raj, the criterion used was linguistic: people who mostly spoke the same language were brought together in one state. This principle ignored minority languages and dialects within these areas, as it glossed over the fact that several north Indian states were all predominantly Hindi-speaking.Demands for regional autonomy or separate statehood began to be raised fairly quickly in different parts of India. Among the first was the demand for a separate state of Telangana, which had been merged with other Telugu-speaking regions to create the state of Andhra Pradesh, despite local opposition. The States Reorganisation Commission of 1954 did not recommend the merger, especially as the area was just emerging from the Communist party-led Telangana uprising, a moment that is still regarded as an inspirational struggle for the left movement in India. But the merger went through, with some supposed safeguards, even though the then prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said this particular marriage should contain provisions for divorce.The concerns of the people of Telangana were mainly economic, including the distribution of resources such as river water, as the headwaters of the Krishna and Godavari rivers were in Telangana but the planned irrigation projects at coastal Andhra. There were worries that, because this region was less progressive with lower levels of education, those from other parts of the state would take the desirable jobs and become the ruling elite, and that the fiscal revenues would be disproportionately given to other areas.Some of these concerns have indeed been justified, but Telangana is by no means the part of the state that is struggling most that dubious privilege rests with the Rayalaseema region and some northern districts. The state capital, Hyderabad, which is emerging as a major modern metropolis, lies squarely within the region. While it is true that locals have fewer of the coveted jobs in Hyderabad, in most other respects it is hard to make much of a case for economic discrimination of the region.But the sense of injustice has remained to some extent, and has been periodically fed by political forces. The Telangana Rashtra Samithi party was formed in 2001 when some leaders split from the Telugu Desam party to focus on this one demand. Since then the TRS has been in alliance with the Congress party at a national level, and Congress in turn has blown hot and cold on this issue. The first United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government promised Telangana statehood but did not deliver. Many hunger strikes and riots later, it seemed that this on-again-off-again state of affairs would continue, possibly indefinitely.What changed was not on the ground, but political calculation within Congress. The party dominated the last Lok Sabha (lower house) elections in Andhra Pradesh, which in turn contributed a precious 35 seats for the ruling coalition. But when the charismatic but corrupt local leader YS Rajasekhara Reddy died in a helicopter crash in 2009, the Congress party suddenly realised that it had created too powerful a regional governor and so came down heavily on his son and heir, who is now in prison on a corruption charge despite the huge following he has massed in much of the state. There are indications that Congress may be wiped out in the state in the next general elections, which are likely to be held around next April. So this could be a last-ditch attempt to win itself some votes at least in one region of the state, while throwing the other parties into confusion and perhaps gaining from that disarray.This petty political calculation is obviously not explicitly stated: instead, the official talk is about the genuine grievances and concerns of the people of Telangana. But already the decision which will take around six months to implement has generated significant side effects nationally. Regional separatists across the country have upped their antes: demands for separate states such as Gorkhaland in northern West Bengal, Bodoland in Assam and Vidarbha in Maharashtra, are getting louder and more insistent. There is even a demand that the huge state of Uttar Pradesh should be broken up into four states. India may be in for a period of enhanced instability on that score.Some argue that this is fine, because smaller states are easy to govern. And there may well be a case for another State Reorganisation Commission to look into all of these issues. But the recent history of newly formed states such as Jharkhand does not suggest that things are always better in smaller states. What is clear is that the Congress party, in its push for some immediate political benefit, has let the genie out of the bottle with very uncertain consequences. Once again, we are reminded that we need to be careful what we wish for.Future of Creation of States in IndiaAfter the uproar of the creation of state Telangana, demands for separate states have come from across the country -- for Kukiland in Manipur to Kongu Nadu in Tamil Nadu, for Kamatapur in North Bengal to Tulu Nadu in Karnataka. If we count then certainly we can found out that in future India may have at least 50 states as the home ministry has received representations for creation of more than 20 states.[footnoteRef:6] [6: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-may-have-50-states-if-new-demands-met/Article1-1103069.aspx]

However, except Uttar Pradesh, which during the Mayawati-led BSP government proposed to create four states dividing the country's most populous state, no state government had given any recommendation for carving out a new state. But the demands continue to pour in. The demands for creation of separate states were received by the home ministry through representations from various organisations or individuals over the years. The demands for separate states are as follows:1. In Uttar Pradesh, there have been demands for Awadh Pradesh, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand and Pachimanchal or Harit Pradesh.2. There is also demand for creation of a Braj Pradesh, consisting of Agra division and Aligarh division of Uttar Pradesh and districts of Bharatpur and Gwalior from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.3. A demand for creation of Bhojpur comprising areas of eastern UP, Bihar and Chhattisgarh has also been received by the home ministry.4. There has been an old demand for creation of a separate Vidarbha by curving out the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra.5. The most vocal demands for separate states came from Gorkhaland, by curving out Darjeeling and its adjoining areas in West Bengal.6. Demands for Bodoland, comprising Bodo dominated areas in Western Assam, and a separate state of Karbi Anglong, comprising the Karbi tribals living areas under Karbi Anglong autonomous district in Assam, have also been pending with the Centre.7. There is a demand for Mithilanchal comprising Maithili speaking regions of Bihar and Jharkhand.8. The Centre has received demand for creation of Saurashtra by curving that region out of Gujarat.9. The Dimasa people of Northeast have been demanding a separate state called Dimaraji or Dimaland comprising the Dimasa inhabited areas of Assam and Nagaland.10. There is a demand for creation of Kongu Nadu comprising parts of southwest of Tamil Nadu, southeast of Karnataka and east of Kerala.11. Demand for creating a Coorg state, comprising the Coorg region of Karnataka has also come to the Centre.12. Representation has also received for creation of separate Kosal state comprising some districts of Odisha, parts of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.13. There is a demand for Tulu Nadu comprising a region on the border between Karnataka and Kerala.14. The demand for separate Kukiland, comprising Kuki tribal inhabited areas in Manipur has also been raised.15. A demand for creation of Konkan, comprising Konkani speaking part of Western India along the Arabian sea coastline has also been raised.16. There has been a demand for creation of Kamtapur comprising some districts West Bengal, including Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri.17. Some people from Garo regions of Meghalaya are demanding for a new state of Garoland.18. Besides, there is a demand for a separate Eastern Nagaland by curving out some parts of the Northeastern state.19. The demand for creation of an Union Territory for Ladakh has also been pending with the Home Ministry.So far, India has 28 states and seven Union Territories. But if in future new states will carved out from the existing states then the no. of states will reach upto 50 with lots of Union Territories. So as per my view the idea of creation of states should be dropped else the unity will be put at stake.

Chapter: 4Critical Analysis of Reorganisation of States1. Quest for National IntegrityThe first inevitable fallout of such reorganisations driven by linguistic and cultural differentiation would definitely be on national integrity. There is no dearth of theories on the implications of regional and linguistic politics. This issue merits all the more attention in a diverse country like ours where keeping national integrity intact has always been a daunting test. For centuries India has been a unified country despite its cultural and social diversities. However, the disintegrative movements evinced by us in the recent past have thrown a challenge to the validity of our legal and political theories. During the last four decades since independence, several divisive forces and separatist tendencies have emerged and severely threatened the country's unity and integrity. The increasing demand for new states manifests this intensification in regional and linguistic fanaticism. The two terms linguistic and cultural have never been more misused than in recent times. Demand for Vidarbha in Maharashtra. Tclangana in Andhra Pradesh and Kamtapur in West Bengal arc some of the glaring examples of emerging importance of regional and lingual identity over the identity of nation as a whole. Realising this pernicious growth of these divisive forces and their consequential destabilising effect on the country's unity and integrity, the Supreme Court of India has sharply focused this problem in its one of the landmark judgments.[footnoteRef:7] The Court observed that: [7: Dr Pradecp Jain vs Union, AIR 1984 SC 1420]

The question of national integration has assumed considerable significance in the present-day context because we find that today the integrity of the nation is threatened by the divisive forces of regionalism and communal and linguistic loyalties are gaining ascendancy to destroy national integrity. We tend to forget that India is one nation and we are all Indians first and Indians least.India is a multilingual, multicultural and multi religious country. For a diverse country like ours, national integration becomes difficult when different cultural, social and lingual groups are not intermingled but each one of them is living like as a compact group in a separate region.It is difficult to understand what has happened to our power of assimilation and why the feeling of linguistic and regional fanaticism is gaining ground day by day. The increasing demand for new states apparently manifests this tendency cropping up in our country and unfortunately by creating more states, our government has further intensified the problem. The unfortunate part is that most of the times, the sectarian instinctof the ignorant masses are stirred up by the professional politicians to serve their narrow ends. On many occasions, the constitutional provision under Article 3 has been used to satisfy the regional aspirations of the people and some political parties have reciprocated by starting secessionist movements as witnessed in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and various other rebel movements in Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland.Regional identity to a certain extent is justified but it becomes a curse when political parties demand separate statehood to satisfy their lust for power and to gain political mileage. Under the cover of reorganisation of states, a gradual balkanisation of the country should not be encouraged, as that would defeat the preambular mandate of and our persistent quest for national integrity.2. Impact on FederalismOurs is a country that pleads federalism as one of the basic structures of the Constitution. On the contrary, we have Article 3 which puts a question mark on the entire concept of federalism. The provision under Article 3 of the Constitution empowers the president, which practically means the central government, to recommend through a bill in parliament a change in the political map of the country. The party in power at the centre can easily redraw the boundaries of any of the states by its unilateral action because of its majority in parliament. The sway of the states in matters relating to alteration of their boundary lines has been reduced to an ineffective extent. The mere requirement of referring such a matter by president to the would be affected state for the sake of eliciting its opinion is a mere formality and the centre is not at all bound to honour those opinions. Furthermore, such a proposal is not required to be referred to that state for the second time even though substantial changes have been made by the centre at the time of its introduction or during the course of debate in the parliament. There is plethora of examples when the centre has acted unilaterally in pursuance of its policy of drawing and redrawing political map of the country. Article 4 of the Constitution also ordains that any law made in the pursuance of Article 3. shall not be taken as an amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of Article 368. In fact the mere requirement that a bill under Article 3 must be recommended by the president is also a farcc because Article 255 prevents the judiciary from in validating any such law on the ground that its introduction was not recommended by the president. These are some of the flaws, which go against the mandate of federalism in Indian constitutional democracy. The provision under Article 3 of the Constitution, that the centre may destroy the very existence of a state by altering its boundary lines in a way it chooses, gives a picture of unitary form of government actually prevailing in our country- in the garb of federalism. The fundamental principle that a federation depends upon the territorial integrity of states seems to have been overlooked.3. More States or More Development?One of the objects that the centre claims to have behind creating more states is better governance and socio-economic development. If past experiences have any streak of credence, then such claims seem to be enveloped under superficiality. To presume that creation of new states will solve the chronic problem of neglect and discrimination would unearth the ignorance of some hard facts. We have the examples from the north-east that depict the real picture of how creation of new states has resulted in a sting of new problems. New states created in that region in the name of development do not seem to have served the desired purpose. Almost all nonh-eastem states are reeling under militancy and extremist movements. In fact over the years, these relatively underdeveloped regions have only witnessed what we may call as development of underdevelopment. The most recent illustration is the bifurcation of Bihar. A close review of the events preceding the bifurcation would reveal that political considerations rather than developmental needs led to the reorganisation of erstwhile Bihar. Even if we draw a presumption in favour of such reoiganisation, the post-reorganisasion scenario brings to light several far-reaching ramifications. Presently Bihar is almost on the verge of bankruptcy due to the economic divide and uneven distribution of resources brought about by the reorganisation. On the other hand Jharkhand, despite having sufficient financial and other resources, has not demonstrated the anticipated rate of progress. Instead it is struggling to cope up with its internal problems. The recent acrimony and lawlessness over the domicile issue in regard to governmental employment in the state indicates the genesis of an unhealthy culture of hostility and bitterness emerging in our country. The dangerous fallout of such tendencies on a nation state is easily conceivable. The complementary role that the two regions used to play is no more there.The notion of small is beautiful seems to be illusionary; at least past experiences suggest that. It would be the most profound mistake if anyone thought that creation of new states is panacea for all the problems. The need of the hour is to concentrate more on development of the states already existing. It is immaterial whether the state is small or big; what is required is a strong political will to govern with full honesty and sincerity. Development requires a conducive atmosphere to be created by both: leaders and citizens.4. Economic Growth and State FormationEmpiricism demands the following a) a sufficiently long enough time should have elapsed after the reorganisation, b) a number of cases of such reorganisation should have occurred, c) measures across a range of economic, socio-economic and governance parameters need to be available, and d) such measures need to be available both before and after the reorganisation at the sub-state level. Indeed, none of these conditions are fully met in the case of India. However, all of these conditions are met partially to facilitate some indicative analysis.First, consider the criteria of major cases of state reorganisation. Post independence, the organization of states between the period 1947 and 1950 occurred under Sardar Patel. At the time hundreds of small princely states were very rapidly integrated into 28 units. The objective, at the time, was to ensure rapid integration of otherwise diverse states into the Indian Union. It was well recognized that this was not a long term solution and a more sustainable solution was essential. This resulted in the formation of the State Reorganisation Commission in 1953, which gave its well known language basedstates recommendations in 1956[footnoteRef:8]. Since the mid-sixties,[footnoteRef:9] three cases of major state reorganisations have occurred. [8: Language was the predominant criteria for the State Reorganisation Commission, but not the only one - economy, population, synergies between different regions, all played some role.] [9: The 1960 Bombay Reorganisation Act that created the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat have not been included in our analysis due to paucity of data from the pre-reorganisation period. Our analysis therefore begins from the mid-sixties.]

1966:Haryana was carved out of Punjab and some districts went to Himachal Pradesh 1971:Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Mizoram were separated from the state of Assam2000:Uttaranchal (re-named Uttarakhand in 2007) created from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh.There was also the separation of the UT Goa, Daman and Diu into the state of Goa and the UT of Daman and Diu.Thus we can at-best have three years or five cases of reorganisations. The first criterion of a significant number of cases is therefore met only partially. Second, consider the time period. Apart from the cases of Punjab and Assam, less than a decade has elapsed after the reorganisation of UP, MP and Bihar into six smaller units. But the full benefits and costs of state-level reorganisations are likely to take many years to play out. Economic policies, administrative systems, human capital creation etc., take many years to reorient and another few years to have a significant impact. Moreover, data is also available with some gap. Having said that ten, years is not entirely an insignificant time period, and some insights can be obtained about the performance of these states as well.Third and fourth, consider the availability of the relevant measures at the sub-state level for the period before and after the reorganisation. And here as well the picture is not entirely sparse. The various surveys of the NSSO have identifiers that enable the researcher if she so desires to estimate a range of socio-economic conditions over time. For the Punjab and Assam cases, this may be difficult as the older years data do not have large enough sample sizes. But post 1980s the data are of decent enough depth and quality to enable measuring socio-economic performance of various regions or sub-states. Moreover, the CSO has also released some data on state level NDP for the six new states created in 2000. It is not clear how, but state level NDP has been estimated for all the six entities (spanning the older UP, MP and Bihar) from 1993-94 onwards - about 6 years before these states came into existence.Overall, therefore, we have some evidence that can better help understand the performance of these states, pre- and post-reorganisation. We focus on only one parameter, economic growth as measured by the NSDP or net state domestic product.We seek, as much as data permits, to answer four questions: Do states grow faster after they break away from larger states? Do the erstwhile larger states grow faster after the smaller unit has broken off? Does the overall entity grow faster after the reorganisation? How does this state-level growth compare with the rest of the country pre- and post reorganisation?Data: A briefIdeally, all instances of major reorganisation should be examined. However, there are severe data limitations; state income series published by the CSO begin only from 1960-61 and have missing values for new states in early years. For instance, Meghalaya and Mizoram series begin in 1980-81, while constant prices are not available for Mizoram till 1999-00. Himachals reorganisation occurred at the district level, and district level series are not available, Haryanas data before the reorganisation is also not available, etc. Analysis is therefore conducted on a case by case basis with the most appropriate data points available, and there are important qualifiers in each of these.Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh[footnoteRef:10] [10: For Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, data is available to some extent from the Punjab and Himachal Pradesh Statistical Abstracts from 1950-51. However, there are missing values in the series, which were intrapolated using other sources e.g Himachal Pradesh series for 1960s was created using the 3% growth rate for the period 19611974 given by the Planning Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh.]

Since separate estimates of the constituent states are not available for the period prior to reorganisation, the available state incomes of Himachal, Haryana and Punjab (before and after its reorganisation) were combined to create a single entity named Greater Punjab that could be comparable across time. Trend growth ten years, before and after 1966, was estimated using the GSDP series created for the larger state (named as mentioned, Greater Punjab and comprising of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal).The table below shows that indeed, the Greater Punjab region saw much more rapid growth after the reorganisation than before. Moreover, though the available data do not allow for a state-wise comparison we can comfortably argue that all three states of Himachal, Punjab and Haryana have not performed worse than the national average in terms of economic growth after their reorganisation into smaller independent entities.Since the reorganisation also broadly coincided with the Green Revolution in the states of Punjab and Haryana, it could be argued that the single example of the success of Punjab should be ascribed to the Green Revolution and not to the reorganisation into smaller states.But that would be fallacious. The success of the Green Revolution cannot be treated as an exogenous shock. Rather it could be quite convincingly argued that a smaller, more homogenous Punjab, could better work with the central government in ensuring the success of the Green Revolution - something that a state like UP could not manage[footnoteRef:11]. In other words, the smaller state of Punjab was better able to focus its efforts towards a single objective of ensuring rapid increase in agriculture productivity. [11: The Green Revolution in Uttar Pradesh was and has remained restricted to the western districts and is not sufficient to yield higher growth rates for the state as a whole. Again, if details of the district incomes of the state had been available for these years, it would have made for more illuminating analysis.]

We do however admit that there is a counter-argument - a Greater Punjab may have been better able to spread the benefits of the Green Revolution. That is, the time taken for the Green Revolution to spread through Haryana could have been lower had it remained a part of the Greater Punjab. It would generally be very difficult to obtain unambiguous empirical evidence supporting or opposing the creation of smaller states because of such counterfactuals. But Punjabs story is not the only one.AssamWhat we call Greater Assam was reorganized into Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Mizoram in 1971. For most of the smaller states, data are not available for the years pre, or immediately post, reorganisation - Meghalaya and Mizoram data begin in 1980-81, Mizoram income series at constant prices begins only from 1999We therefore are constrained to use only the state that we call new Assam for the analysis.[footnoteRef:12] [12: And here as well there is some amount of ambiguity of what the data covers. Assam NSDP series is generally available only from 1971 onwards.]

Table 2: Comparison of economic growth - Assam and India Time Period AssamIndiaPre-reorganisation trend growth1961-62 to 1970-71 3.8%3.4%Post Reorganisation trend growth1971-72 to 1980-81 2.7%3.5%Post Reorganisation trend growth1971-72 to 1985-86 4.0%3.8%As the figures show, there is some cause to believe that though Assam may not have gained post its reorganisation, it was not inordinately harmed from the perspective of economic growth.[footnoteRef:13] [13: Note that Assam has suffered inordinately due to various law and order problems throughout the seventies, eighties and even later. These have affected its growth significantly in the post-reorganisation years. It would be difficult to correct for the impact of these elements.]

It could be argued that the smaller size of the state made it more difficult for the state to garner enough resources and expertise to be able to put together a more robust opposition to the various militant elements. Hence, like the Green Revolution should not be treated as exogenous to the reorganisation of Punjab, the persistence (if not the emergence) of militant elements, it can be argued, should not be treated as independent of the states reorganisation in 1971. However, in later sections we argue that the presence and persistence of militancy in larger states, strongly indicates that greater size is not a good enough criteria to judge a states ability to counter militancy.This admittedly is incomplete analysis, as we are unable to estimate growth for the smaller states that constituted Greater Assam, pre and post reoragization. The available evidence for Assam therefore seems to indicate that though reorganisation may not have boosted economic growth, it did not harm it either on a long term basis. Other factors were more important.The Reorganisation of 2000 - Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, MP and Chhattisgarh, and Bihar and Jharkhand:The CSO has been able to estimate and put in the public domain NSDP data on the new states formed in 2000 for the period 1993-94 onwards. Separate state incomes have been provided by the CSO from 1993-94 and these have been used to compare the states for a seven year period prior and post reorganisation. Hence the numbers are largely comparable, and though the time periods are not really adequate enough to capture the pre- and post- trends, this is the best that is possible.India has shifted on a higher growth path around 2001 and consequently the growth trends are about a couple of percentage points higher. Moreover most evidence around 2000 pointed towards relatively lower growth persisting in the northern states - and UP, MP and Bihar were at the bottom of that list.The figures show quite interesting results in the annualised growth trends:0.Of the six new states formed out of the three older states, five have grown at a rate greater than the national average - MP being the only exception.1.All the smaller states (Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh) growth rates increased by a range of 4 to 6 percentage points post reorganisation, far higher than the 2 percentage point for India as a whole.2.UP and Bihar have also had significant increases in growth rates (about 3 and 3.7 percentage points respectively).We address Bihars ramped up growth first. Unlike in the other two cases of MP and UP, Jharkhand was a very large part of the original Bihar, and its separation would have had a significant impact not only on itself, but also on the new smaller Bihar. The last few years have seen a significant increase in Bihars growth. Can Bihars reorganisation be given some credit to this? We would argue that it should. It is generally argued that Bihars improved performance in recent years can be ascribed to the better governance levels of the new administration. Given that many institutions as well as the administration were not functioning as desired, a smaller state, with a narrower ambit, would have made it easier for the new administration. In other words, Bihar is a good case for the argument, that smaller states make it easier to govern well.The increase in growth rates of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh can all be, to some extent due to the fact that the new administrations in these states could better focus on the issues of relevance for them.Moreover, in the case of both Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh, the region under consideration accounted for a very small proportion of the larger states of UP and MP - in terms of population, land areas, as well as economy. In the case of Jharkhand this was less so, as it was always a significant part of the larger Bihar. Hence post reorganisation, greater focus on the issues at hand would enable much greater improvements in these states of Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, than would be expected in Jharkhand. The data reflect the same. In the case of Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh the annualized growth rates increased by about 6 percentage points in both these states in the post reorganisation years. In Jharkhand as well there was an improvement, about 4 percentage points, significant but not as large as the other cases.Next consider the argument, on how much the larger state gains. In the case of MP and UP, as mentioned earlier, the broken off states were a small proportion of the total. The benefits would therefore be limited. Not surprisingly, UPs increase in growth was by a magnitude of 1.9 percentage points - about similar to that observed nationally. In the case of MP however, the growth rates have further fallen - a result that is likely due to other factors, and not so much the break-up.Table 3: Annualized Trend Growth pre and post Reorganisation of 2000 1993-94 to 2000-01 2001-02 to 2008-09 %Point Change post reorganisationIndia6.2%8.1%+2.0%UP3.9%5.8%+ 1.9%Uttarakhand3.1%9.0%+5.9%UP +Uttarakhand3.8%6.1%+2.2%MP5.1%4.7%- 0.4%Chhattisgarh1.6%7.9%+6.3%MP +Chhattisgarh4.1%5.6%+1.5%Bihar4.8%8.5%+3.7%Jharkhand4.6%8.7%+4.1%Bihar + Jharkhand4.8%8.6%+3.8%From the limited data that is available, therefore we can postulate that when states break up, the smaller regions have the capability to work on their strengths and correct their weaknesses in a more efficient and cohesive manner towards higher growth. At the same time smaller states may also be more susceptible to other forces that can cause systemic disruptions.5. Need for Constitutional ParametersAs Article 3 of the Constitution permits creation of new states from within the existing states, there are however, no criterion laid down on the basis of which a new state will be formed. Article 3 stipulates that any such bill may be introduced only on the recommendation of the president, which practically means the central council of ministers whose advice is binding on the president under Article 74(1) of the Constitution. This gives excessive discretion to the central government, which tends to leave room for arbitrariness. It could be plausibly argued that reorganisation of states should be left to the discretion of our political representatives who take any such decision after taking into consideration the majority opinion. Of course, in a democracy majority rule should prevail. However, what we have in our country is not pure majoritarianism but a constitutional democracy. Also, the majority does not have the monopoly of being always right and still less: to be always just. One may ask the reason behind accepting the demand for a separate state of Jharkhand in Bihar and rejection of Telangana in Andhra Pradesh. There is an urgent need to streamline the provisions enshrined under Article 3 of the Constitution whereby some sound juristic criterion for the creation of a new state are laid down and the matter is not left to the blanket will of the central government. This would also inspire the nation to meet the daunting challenge of disintegration and separatism. Some of the broad principles that may be considered are enumerated below:No new state should be created on the ground of religion, culture or language: This will put a check on the intensifying regional and linguistic politics, in fact Dhar Commission appointed by the government of India in 1948 to examine the organisation of the components of Indian union totally rejected the basis of linguistic composition of state. However, politics prevailed over wisdom and states were created and arc still being created on linguistic and cultural grounds. No new state under Article 3 should be created on the basis only that majority inhabitant of the proposed new state speak a particular religion or follow a particular culture or profess a particular religion.The model bill relating to reorganisation must be passed by the state legislature of the concerned state: In the present constitutional framework creation of any new state depends upon the discretion of the political party or coalition in power at that time in the centre. In fact, the sway of the state governments in matters relating to alteration of their boundaries has been reduced to a great extent, it would be rather better if any question that relates to the alteration of any present state begins from the legislature of that state and not from the authority or power at the centre. Before creating any new state, the centre should also consider the popular support at the mass level. This concept of popular support' would be better manifested if it is made essential for a bill to be passed by the concerned legislature of the state before it is reorganised. This provision will also strengthen the federal structure of our constitutional governance.A permanent body in the name of state reorganisation commission should be constituted: Formation of new states should be left to a competent commission or to any other body or authority that may be set up either ad hoc for a particular purpose or in general terms as a kind of statutory, constitutional authority having quasi-judicial character that may decide upon the issue. Economic viability must be considered before any reorganisation: Economic viability is an important aspect as many times we have witnessed that a newly created state lacks required financial resources to carry on its functions. Therefore, no new state should be created unless it has the resources or revenue to incur at.

Chapter: 5ConclusionFrom the above discussion we have found out that earlier there was a time when the state was divided on the basis of language but now a days it is purely based on political motive. Just because of mere politics the politicians are dividing regions and taking the advantage of that. So at this juncture the unity of the county is put at stake. So such things should be checked. Apart from that, now, regardless of any agreement we all know that even within a family there are differences and disputes. Relatively backward and advanced areas exist not only in all States but in different regions of the same State. In the Andhra region many members have drawn attention to areas such as Rayalaseema and Srikakulam. The Telangana region may be backward region but it does have better-off areas.[footnoteRef:14] [14: http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2013-10-09/Reorganisation-of-States-Compulsions--necessities-73517, Reorganisation of States: Compulsions & necessities, updated on October 09,2013, 10.34 AM IST]

Merely because an area is comparatively backward is not reason enough for taking drastic or irreversible decisions. Where will this process end? I am not at all afraid of this being catching; that is not the point. But where does anyone draw the line? Will each district want to be separated? Some people have advised the division of UP. Where to divide? Into two, three, four, into how many areas do you divide it? Do you go back to the old, very small States, princely States; do you go back to that? Somewhere a line has to be drawn. You cannot just say that because of backwardness there should be division.Economic backwardness can go only through hard work and the effort of the entire nation. Backwardness is really a general problem and it is a part of the much larger problem of poverty itself. all these matters have to be thought of not in terms of emotions but in terms of calm and collective thought. And not in terms of today, or tomorrow or the day after but of what it will mean to them and the country ten years hence, 20 years hence, a hundred years hence. Do we need further elaboration or rationalisation on this issue?Regional disparity is a ubiquitous phenomenon in both developed and developing economies. Multiple creations of States will not solve the problems of poverty, backwardness and regional disparities. But poverty anywhere in the country is a grave danger to prosperity everywhere.Whether the concept of small is beautiful is still relevant in terms of good governance when distances between places are being annihilated, thanks to technological progress. This has to be examined afresh. So, the third tier Federation created by the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution should be made use of to counter divisive tendencies and promote development from below through participatory planning.Last but not the least; language should not be a basis of division of regions rather the regions should be based on economic conditions. Then only our country can prosper a lot.

ReferenceBibliography1. H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd (4th ed. 1996).2. Arvind P. Datar, Commentary On The Constitution Of India Wadhwa And Company Nagpur (2nd ed. 2007).3. Modern Law Publications, Jagdish Swarup, Constitution Of India, Constitutional Law Of India (2nd ed. 2007).4. Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Constitution making Since 1950 (2nd ed. 2004)5. UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD., SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, FRAMING OF INDIAS CONSTITUTION (2nd ed. 2004)

Statutes Referred1. The Constitution of India, 19502. The State Reorganisation Act, 1956Websites Referred:1. http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/midea/pdf/Balveer.pdf2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_integration_of_India3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act,_19564. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Commission5. http://toostep.com/debate/making-small-states-in-india-is-good-or-bad6. http://www.halfmantr.com/display-polity/170-state-reorganization-in-india7. http://www.bombaychamber.com/uploads/ANALYTIQUE%20Jan-Mar%202010.pdf8. http://vishwanathbite.blogspot.in/2010/03/effects-and-side-effects-new-states-in.html9. http://lifeandtherepublic.blogspot.in/2009/12/dark-side-of-small-states-in-india.html10. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/03/telangana-india-smaller-state11. http://www.enotes.com/indian-reorganization-act-1934-reference/indian-reorganization-act-193412. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/342a06f6-fb4c-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ctf0yRgT13. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-it-takes-to-form-a-new-state/article2630885.ece14. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1868591/report-creation-of-new-states-will-weaken-the-country-anna-hazare15. http://www.fairobserver.com/article/principles-and-prospects-resizing-india%E2%80%99s-states16. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-13/demands-grows-for-the-creation-of-more-new-states-in-india/488310617. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-may-have-50-states-if-new-demands-met/Article1-1103069.aspx18. http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/creation-of-new-states-threatens-india-s-unity-n-santosh-hegde-113080601386_1.html19. http://world.time.com/2013/08/05/political-calculation-not-culture-or-identity-persuade-new-delhi-to-ok-indias-newest-state/fEDERALISM (Consti. Hons.)Page 40