Post independent india

Recently formed state Telangana has continuously been among the top ranks in the list of ease of doing business in the country, since its formation. Creation of new states offer possibilities of having better governance structure, greater participation for people, administrative convenience for the State and equitable distribution of resources. Regional development strengthens the equitable and symmetric growth of India.

Benefits from the Creation of New States:

• The Economic Survey 2016-17 stated that smaller states in India trade more than the rest. Smaller states offer better and efficient administration which leads to creation of infrastructure strengthening the connectivity in the area, expand its access to market and boost trade for the overall economy of the country.
• People of the region gain control over its resources and an organic model of growth can emerge to address their economic aspirations.
• Political stability that arises from better representation of people creates conducive environment for investment in the region. Thereby encouraging regional economic development.
• The new states can have political freedom to frame legislations that address the unique and specific economic problems of the region affected by its geographical location, sociological conditions, technological advancement, availability of human capital etc. Factors that can hinder the economic growth following the creation of new states:
• New states may find itself lacking in infrastructure (administrative and industrial), which requires time, money and effort to build. As was observed in the creation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh.
• The stabilization of the government and administrative institutions requires time for resolution of various issues such as division of assets, funds and of the state civil services. Also the creation of sustainable linkage from the other parts to the newly formed state’s capital can take time affecting the overall economic stability of the country.
• Territorial issues, disputes over water sharing (eg Krishna water dispute between Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra), disagreements over capital (as observed in the case of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over Hyderabad) are some other issues that can hinder the economic progress of these States and the country.
• Mere creation of newer states out of the existing ones cannot guarantee faster and inclusive economic development in the region. The economic benefits from the creation of new states can only be reaped if it is followed by establishment of good governance, sustained socio-political stability and better coordination with the rest of the country.

Early on in the company's rule, the East India Company began reorganising the territories in the states they captured, starting with Bengal, Bombay, and Madras Presidency. Since then, reorganisation and consolidation of states has been a constant process.

Phase-1 1850’s to 1947:

• After the revolt of 1857, the British government accelerated the process of continuous political and administrative reorganisation.
  • New presidencies were created (Central Province)
  • Several independent states became part of the Chief Administration provinces (Assam, Awadh)
• North-West Frontier Province, was created in 1901 from the north-western districts of the Punjab Province.
• Bengal was partitioned in 1905 on the basis of religion and language.

Phase 2: 1947- 2022:

• In 1950, the Indian Constitution contained a four-fold classification of the states of the Indian Union- Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D States on a political and administrative basis.
• In 1953, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) under Fazal Ali was constituted to recommend the reorganisation of state boundaries.
  • Subsequently, the 7^th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed which laid out two classifications of units:States and Union Territories.
  • Andhra Pradesh became the first state to be formed on a linguistic basis.
• Several territories acquired from the Portuguese (Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra Nagar Haveli, and Puducherry) were incorporated into the Union Territories (Goa was given statehood later).
• The creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand was made possible by disintegrating regional boundaries and political territories from within the existing States of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, respectively.
• In 2014, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014 was passed that carved Telangana State out of Andhra Pradesh.
  • The demand for separate statehood for Telangana has rested on factors such as the scale of inter-regional inequalities causing socio-economic backwardness of the region, inadequate industrial infrastructure, lack of educational and employment opportunities, diversion of water and natural resources of Telangana to the coastal region of Andhra, the hegemonic control of the coastal capitalist class over the Telangana region, etc.
• Most recently, in 2019 the State of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised for administrative and security purposes.

As our Indian Constitution is a living document, which allows reorganisation of states and union territories (Article-3), reorganisation of states may remain a continuous process with regard to the evolving nature of political and administrative dynamics.

Though the demand for linguistic states precedes India’s independence, it was resisted by national leaders in the early years of independence. It was feared that demand for separate states along linguistic lines would endanger the unity of the young nation. It was felt that linguistic states may foster separatism and create pressures on the newly founded nation.

However, the prophets of gloom and doom have been disproved. Linguistic states have strengthened not weakened Indian unity. It did not lead to the disintegration of the country as was feared. By accepting linguistic claims of all regions, the threat of division and separatism was reduced. The linguistic states underlined the acceptance of the principle of diversity. By embracing democracy, India did not merely adopt this format of elections, but it was a choice in favour of recognizing and accepting the existence of difference which could at times be oppositional. By reorganizing states on linguistic lines, a major grievance and source of discord was removed which could have led to separatist tendencies.

Further, linguistic states have in no manner adversely affected the federal structure of the union. The central government wields as much authority as it did before. If anything, national government has been strengthened by the creation of coherent state units which could be administered through a medium that the vast majority of the population understands.

In hindsight, instead of being a force of division, language has proved to be a cementing and integrating influence.

The monarchical states subordinated to British India were termed as Princely States. The word ‘princely’ was deliberately retained during the British regime, to ascribe subordination of the rulers to the British Crown.

Administrative issues:

• Lapse of British Paramountcy: The Indian Independence Act of 1947 (based on the Mountbatten Plan) provided for the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown over the Indian states. Many of the rulers saw the departure of the British as the ideal moment to declare autonomy and announce their independent statehood on the world map.
• Signing of Instruments of Accession: The instruments of accession executed by the rulers, provided for the accession of states to the Dominion of India (or Pakistan) on three subjects, namely, defence, external affairs and communications.
• Power and Prestige: The princely states were not comfortable with the idea of giving away their power and prestige. Some of these states that posed problems were Jodhpur, Bhopal and Travancore before independence and Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir post-independence.
• Availability of Natural Resources: Some of the Princely States had good reserves of natural resources, it was believed it could survive on its own and hence wanted to remain independent.
• People Resentment: The Maharaja of Manipur, signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian government. Under the pressure of public opinion, the Maharaja held elections in Manipur in June 1948 and the state became a constitutional monarchy. The Government of India succeeded in pressurising the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement in September 1949, without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur.
• Connectivity and Agrarian Support: The Rajput princely state, despite having a Hindu king and a large Hindu population, strangely had a tilt towards Pakistan. Jinnah offered free access to the Karachi port, to arms manufacturing and importing along with military and agrarian support.

Socio-cultural challenges:

• Kashmir: It was a princely state with a Hindu king ruling over a predominant Muslim population which had remained reluctant to join either of the two dominions.
• Hyderabad: It was the largest and richest of all princely states, covering a large portion of the Deccan plateau. Nizam Mir Usman Ali was presiding over a largely Hindu population in the princely state.
• Peasant Protest: The Telangana Rebellion of 1946–51 was a communist-led insurrection of peasants against the princely state of Hyderabad in the region of Telangana that escalated out of agitations. It brought the struggles of the peasantry to the forefront and served as a reminder of the sacrifices made by the people of this region in fighting against the autocratic rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad.

The rulers of most of the states signed a document called the ‘Instrument of Accession’ which meant that their state agreed to become a part of the Union of India. Accession of the Princely States of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and Manipur proved more difficult than the rest.