The case and caution for smaller states

Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, the three states formed in November 2000 in response to longstanding regional demands for recognition, autonomy and development, have now completed 25 years of their political existence. They were carved out of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh respectively. The trajectories of the three states offer a lens to assess whether the argument for smaller states has held up — whether political aspirations have been met, development goals realised and if India may again contemplate reorganising its administrative map.

Jharkhand entered statehood with some inherent benefits: rich mineral reserves, manufacturing potential and a robust tribal cultural identity that had fuelled its decades-long autonomy movement. But its path has been discordant. Though the state economy has been expanding, its growth rate (about 5.1% in real GSDP from 2012-13 to 2021-22) has been below the national average of 5.6%.

This growth, largely driven by mining and steel production, has failed to translate into social development. As a result, the indicators of human development are lower than the national standards. And the very tribal communities whose political mobilisation drove the demand for statehood often find themselves excluded from the gains of economic growth. 

Mining-induced displacement, unresolved land rights and environmental degradation remain characteristic of the lived experience of many communities. 

Frequent government changes, fragile coalitions and corruption scandals have undermined long-term policymaking, while administrative inefficiencies have limited the state’s ability to convert its natural wealth into sustained human development. The expectation of stronger tribal representation and real empowerment, too, remains largely unfulfilled.

Chhattisgarh presents a more balanced yet complex picture. 

It began its journey as one of India’s least developed regions, predominantly rural and with an impressive tribal population. Over the past quarter-century, it has made considerable gains in health, education, infrastructure and welfare sectors. 

Some of its initiatives, from reforms in the public distribution system to innovations in rural healthcare and programmes to enhance school enrolments, went on to become national models. Cities such as Raipur and Nava Raipur are among the top cities in the chart of planned development, indicating the benefits of a specific administrative focus. But development has not been even across the state. 

Crucially, Chhattisgarh’s progress has unfolded against the backdrop of a prolonged Maoist insurgency. The regions of Bastar, Dantewada and Sukma became centres of Left-wing extremism, triggering prolonged military actions, large-scale displacement and derailment of local life. The statehood did help provide a more focused administrative response to conflict and development, but it alone could not respond to historical deprivation. Despite challenges, Chhattisgarh fares better than the other two states in terms of the developmental dividends that smaller states can offer, aided by a relatively stable governance and purposeful leadership.

Aspirations and contradictions

Unlike the other two states, Uttarakhand’s creation was rooted in questions of geography, demography and cultural identity. For years, the Himalayan districts of undivided Uttar Pradesh remained neglected by a distant political centre in Lucknow. Statehood was viewed as a remedy to administrative alienation. 

In the early years, Uttarakhand registered high achievements in the areas of literacy, connectivity and industrial development, more so in the districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar. Tourism and pilgrimage, focused on destinations such as Kedarnath and Badrinath, were big economic boosters. The hydropower projects were expected to bring revenue and electricity. But the state’s development story has been far more uneven. The hill districts are still facing the challenge of outmigration, lack of employment opportunities, weak infrastructure and environmental vulnerability. Industrial development, which is concentrated in urban centres, does not seem to have brought livelihood security in rural areas. 

Uttarakhand’s development model has repeatedly come into conflict with the region’s ecological realities. The expansion of hydropower projects, unregulated tourism and rapid infrastructure development have all increased the region’s vulnerability to natural disasters. While statehood has given the people a stronger political voice, it has also exposed the limits of a development strategy that fails to factor in environmental realities.

Beyond size

The key question across these three states is, did the creation of smaller states fulfil the hopes that led to the reorganisation? The answer is disparate. Smaller states have gained in terms of efficient governance.

While statehood improved tribal representation in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh and gave hill communities in Uttarakhand a stronger voice, structural challenges have persisted. The states have recorded varying levels of economic performance and all continue to grapple with regional imbalances within their borders.

In the backdrop of the experiences of these three states, should India consider division of its large states? There are some reasons in favour of such a move. A significant one is administrative efficiency: states such as Uttar Pradesh, with a population of over 240 million, are just too large to be efficiently governed. The regional identities remain strong in states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan and West Bengal, where many regions feel overshadowed by dominant political centres. Smaller states can also enable more focused development policies. This could strengthen democratic representation through a more balanced federal structure, one in which political power is less concentrated.

However, there are compelling arguments against further fragmentation. Many regions are unable to maintain statehood without significant central transfer. Partisan interests are more likely to drive demands for new states, often overshadowing the real developmental needs. An increase in the number of states could also intensify competition over resources such as land and water. Developments over the past 25 years show that the benefits of smaller states are not organic but conditional and highly dependent on the quality of the government, political stability and development policy.

While India may contemplate further reorganisation, such a move would require a clear framework, one that factors in economic viability, cultural cohesion, ecological and administrative capacity and local aspirations. 

As population grows, environmental demands mount and the necessity to improve representation becomes more evident, the size issue ought to be seen as a question of structure, not a question of size. As seen in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, smaller states can strengthen governance and reinforce regional influence but cannot be a panacea. Their successes and frustrations underscore one important reality: statehood must be coupled with inclusive politics, strong institutions and development schemes that are sensitive to local realities. 

(Jisu Ketan Pattanaik, Assistant Professor of Sociology & Sumit Kumar Singh, Research Assistant and Student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi)