The debate is back on centre-stage — how many states is too many? Does the solution to managing (ruling) big states lie in breaking them down into more administratively convenient smaller units? The political class and the bureaucracy should be delighted as they would have more offices to distribute and more positions of power to enjoy!

The debate, as it is developing in the country today, begs two questions. Firstly, do we need smaller states? Secondly, should a Second States Reorganisation Commission be constituted to look into the question of the demand for the creation of new states? Let us be clear on the fact that both the questions do not necessarily lead to the same logical conclusion.

We may have very valid and persuasive reasons to favour or oppose the demand for smaller states. The creation of a Second States Reorganisation Commission is a totally different ball game! The political dispensation in Delhi is contemplating this move to review the entire question. Given the seriousness of the subject, such a high-powered commission would surely take its time to deliberate, consult and formulate its final recommendations.

Until such time, any decision on the issue is on the political back burner and the promise can always be held out that the matter is under “serious consideration.” When the commission finally submits its report, the political weather may have undergone a sea change. The appointment of a commission brings us no closer to an actual reorganisation of the states.

Are smaller states the route to more efficient politico-administrative management of the country? Is it the panacea to ironing out regional tensions and giving due recognition to legitimate ethnic identities? On the face of it, one may be tempted to vote ‘yes.’ Several studies have underscored the fact that the smaller states have been able to usher in positive change and accelerate development at a much faster pace. Size has a lot to do with their success story.

The creation of language-based states in the late 1950s provided the necessary framework for consolidating an important identity that was seeking recognition. The formation of ethnicity-based states in the subsequent years further cemented the process. More recently, the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand were a logical continuation of this process. Even today, if there are important identities which have a genuine claim to being recognised as territorial units within the Indian federation, they need to be given serious consideration.
A caveat needs to be added at this stage. When talk of the commission first began, it was linked to the demand for a separate Telangana and Vidarbha. Soon Darjeeling appeared in the list of ‘probables’, with the trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh joining the bandwagon. With each passing day the list is bound to expand. The creation of such a commission could unleash forces/demands which may be impossible to control/ satisfy and could verily cause a political earthquake. If the goal of the powers-to-be is merely to silence the demands for the creation of new states by appointing such a commission, it then acquires a totally different political colour.

If the Centre is serious about the creation of new states, it should ideally be examined on a case-to-case basis and not favour a general overhaul, which the constitution of a second States Reorganisation Commission suggests.

Equally important is the question of ensuring federal fairness, by ushering in meaningful decentralisation of power and functions from the Centre to the states and from the states to the local government. Such a process, would weaken the case for creation of more states as decision-making and plan implementation would then be done at the local level.

With the epicentre of Indian politics shifting from the Centre to the states, a natural corollary should be the genuine and meaningful empowering of states and the local governments. A new States Reorganisation Commission appears merely to be a political ploy to buy time.

(The writer is a senior political analyst)