SUBJECT:

COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

ARTICLE 3 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION [REPORT ON THE NEED FOR FORMATION OF NEW SMALLER STATES]

PROJECT WORK ON THE TOPIC:

PROFESSOR P.B. SHANKAR RAO

SUBMISSION TO:

PARUL PRASAD 1ST YEAR, LL.M ROLL NUMBER - 2012-28

SUBMITTED BY:

NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW HYDERABAD

AT

DATE OF SUBMISSION:
01-10-2012

PREFACE

I am extremely grateful to my professor, Mr. P.B. SHANKAR RAO for his support for the project, from initial guidance in the early stages of conceptual inception, and through ongoing advice and encouragement to this day. He has been instrumental in conceptualization of this study. I would also like to extend my heartfelt regards and gratitude to the Library Staff and all those contributors whose names have not been mentioned here.

CONTENTS

HYPOTHESIS...................................................................................................................................... 4 A BRIEF OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5 ARTICLE 3 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA......................................................................... 7 WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR FORMATION OF A NEW STATE? ................................ 10 NEW STATES IN INDIA CREATED AFTER 1950.................................................................... 12 ASPIRANT STATES OF INDIA ..................................................................................................... 14 GOOD AND BAD SIDES OF CREATING NEW SMALLER STATES IN INDIA .................... 17 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 24 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 27

HYPOTHESIS

A question being debated at present is whether there ought to be a few more new States by
breaking some colossal States existing at present. There are local agitations here and there for carving out a few more States. In principle, there seem to be nothing wrong in having a few more States than the present 28. It is well known that a big State is administratively unwieldy and unmanageable. Comparatively speaking, a smaller State can be administered more efficiently. Though India can afford to have a few more States, what is necessary is that the new States ought not to be carved out on an ad hoc basis in a piecemeal manner keeping only political expediency in view. A commission should be appointed to study the question of formation of States deeply in all its aspects keeping in view inter alia such factors as administrative convenience, geographic homogeneity, economic visibility etc. According to my view, in a complex country like India with huge diversities, all attempts should be made to integrate the people in the national mainstream. No Indian should think of himself/herself belonging to a particular state or region but should think of being only an Indian. Creating the new states on the basis of distinct culture of people in the region serves only to create and foster artificial barriers among the people. This is undesirable for the future of India in the long run. However, creation of small states on the basis of administration may be considered necessary for the sake of faster growth, smooth administration and quickest execution of policy framed by the government and also the best monitoring of the plan and policy executed at the ground level. But what is the guarantee that small states will function properly and there will be all round development. The question whether smaller states are better governed than bigger ones is irrelevant. In our experience, both large and small states will continue to be badly governed until there is effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to local authorities, that is, elected panchayats in villages and urban local bodies in cities. Where the demand for new states have been raised on the issue of development, study should be conducted whether creation of new state would promote faster development or whether the new state would be perennially dependent on the central government for funds. New state should be carved out only if it is feasible. Most importantly, the focus of the governments should be on development. The state should remain at best the artificial entities created for administrative convenience. But otherwise, country should be a single entity. If the government can carry out uniform development of all the states in India, there would be no incentive for demanding a new state on the issue of development.

1
A BRIEF OVERVIEW

India is a country located in South Asia. With over 1.22 billion people, India is the most
populous democracy in the world. India has been characterised as a Union of States. At present the territory of India comprises of 28 States and 7 Union Territories. Today India has the following 28 States: Andhra Pradesh; Arunachal Pradesh; Assam; Bihar; Chhatisgarh; Goa; Gujarat; Haryana; Himachal Pradesh; Jammu & Kashmir; Jharkhand; Karnataka; Kerala; Madhya Pradesh; Maharashtra; Manipur; Meghalaya; Mizoram; Nagaland; Orissa; Punjab; Rajasthan; Sikkim; Tamil Nadu; Tripura; Uttar Pradesh; Uttaranchal; and West Bengal. There are 7 Union Territories as follows: Andaman & Nicobar Islands; Chandigarh; Dadra & Nagar Haveli; Daman & Diu; Delhi; Lakshadweep; and Pondicherry. The States of India were originally formed as a result of historical accidents and circumstances. [1] After independence there has been a growing demand for reorganisation of the States on more rational basis, in the context of not only from financial, economic and administrative management of independent India but also due to the growing importance of regional languages. [2] For the first time, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was constituted in 1953 to go into this problem and to recommend the principles and broad guidelines on which the States can be reorganised. In all, four broad principles guided the commission: [3] 1) The preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of the country; 2) Linguistic and cultural homogeneity; 3) Financial, economic and administrative considerations; and 4) Scope for successful working of the national plan. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was enacted by the Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The new States formed as a result of the reorganisation of States in 1956 are Andhra Pradesh, Bombay Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Punjab and Rajasthan. Thereafter the Parliament had also enacted various Reorganisation Acts from time to time i.e. the Bombay Reorganisation Act in 1960; The Punjab Reorganisation Act in 1966; the State of Himachal Pradesh Reorganisation Act in 1970 and North-Eastern States reorganisation Act in 1971. Further reorganisation, in stages, took place primarily either on linguistic or ethnic basis. In 1960, Bombay was bifurcated on linguistic basis into Maharashtra for Marathi-speakers and Gujarat for Gujarati speakers. In 1961, Goa, Daman and Diu joined the Indian Union and became a union territory. [4] Pondicherry also became a union territory in the same year. In
1 2

http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT_Wings_ATA_SR_srmaterial030508.asp http://www.kalimpong.info/2010/01/09/dooars-a-deceptive-demography-dr-sonam-wangyal/ 3 http://thecolloquium.net/colloquium/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:the-politics-of-statereorganization&catid=73&Itemid=244 4 Ibid.

1962, Nagaland was created out of Assam so as to appease the Nagas and their secessionist insurgency. In 1966, Punjab was trifurcated into Punjabi-speaking Punjab and Hindi speaking Haryana and the union territory of Chandigarh. The hill areas of Punjab were transferred to Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh was also elevated into state in 1971. The Khasi and Jaintia Hills were detached from Assam to form Meghalaya in 1972. The union territories of Manipur and Tripura were elevated into separate states in 1972. [5] Again, in 1972, Mizo Hills District and North East Frontier Agency were separated from Assam and made union territories first and later into the states of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh respectively in 1987. In 1975, Sikkim was admitted as an associate state and later was named as a state. Goa, Daman and Diu was also bifurcated in 1987 in which Goa became a state; and Daman and Diu a union territory. The latest in this category are the Reorganisation Acts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar which were enacted by the Parliament in November, 2000 under which Chhattisgarh out of the hill area of Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand out of the hill areas of Bihar; and Uttarakhand out of the hill areas of Uttar Pradesh were created. [6] Creation of new states in India is an ongoing process, but the context in which territorial changes were carried out have shifted, though fuzzier, from the main discourse of linguistic homogeneity; and latter ethnicity to the notion of development or lack of it, and administrative efficiency. Therefore, The demand for the creation of new states that involve reorganisation of existing state boundaries has once again resurfaced as a major issue of debate across the country. Most of the existing statehood movements are politically mobilised along the notions of mal-governance, neglect and unbalanced development. The formation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand was interesting because successive Central Governments reluctantly conceded to the formation of new states. [7] After a gap of over 25 years new states had been carved out of the existing states, the last being Meghalaya. All other states created thereafter already existed as union territories, and their creation was simply elevation to full statehood. The justification of creating Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand was manageability and administrative viability. The constitution empowers the Parliament to form new states and alter of areas, boundaries or names of existing States, although it remains silent on the criterion for such reorganisation. [8] The circumstances and contexts of creating new states have changed, and are not necessarily guided by the guidelines set by the State Reorganisation Commission. The prime mover in redrawing the state boundaries, especially in the non-Hindi speaking areas, throughout the 1950s and 1960s was the linguistic basis. The same logic was not applied in the north-eastern region, where ethnicity combined with the question of national security was taken into consideration when several states were created out of Assam. Now, the notion of balanced development and administrative efficiency has come to occupy the basis for redrawing boundaries of the existing states and creating new states. [9]

5 6

http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT_Wings_ATA_SR_srmaterial030508.asp www.freedomindia.com/26.html 7 realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... 8 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_India 9 www.proud2bindian.in Incredible India Future of India

2
ARTICLE 3 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 3 of the Indian Constitution enables Parliament to effect by law reorganisation inter
se of the territories of the States constituting the Indian Union. The provisions of Article 3 are as follows: [10] Article 3 {Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States} [11] Parliament may by law form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; increase the area of any State; diminish the area of any State; alter the boundaries of any State; alter the name of any State: Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired. [12] Explanation I- In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory. [13] Explanation II- The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory. [14] [15] Article 3 has empowered the parliament that it "may by law form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or part of the states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state ." The spirit behind this concept of federal structure of the country with a strong centre as envisaged in the Constitution was to ensure the geographical, political and economic unification of the diverse Indian society for the overall welfare and equal opportunities for the growth of its people. [16] Article 4 (which deals with Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters) says that the law referred to in Article 3 shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368 (which governs parliamentary procedures to
10 11

The Constitution of India by Dibyajyoti De http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_I 12 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1659104/ 13 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061213093045AAyInwW 14 Ibid. 15 The Constitutional Law of India by Professor Kailash Rai 16 http://abhishekkatiyar.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/new-state-formation-process-india/

make constitutional amendments). [17] This means Article 4 obviates the need for laws made under Article 3 as it does not require the support of two-thirds of the members of each House of Parliament present and voting as required under Article 368. In other words, Parliament can pass the law to reorganise States with a simple majority. Parliament has plenary and comprehensive powers to pass a law to reorganise the States and Union Territories and to deal with all the problems constitutional, legal, administrative arising as a result. Parliament has so far passed 20 laws under Article 3 to reorganise various States. The last Act to be enacted under this provision is the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. (The Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Acts, 2000, preceded this.) [18] According to a Supreme Court judgment in 1967, Parliament cannot form by law a State that does not have effective legislative, executive or judicial organs. [19] Therefore, the law is expected to make the necessary supplemental, incidental and consequential changes, essential for effective State administration, expenditure and distribution of revenue, apportionment of assets and liabilities, provisions regarding services, application and adaptation of laws, transfer of proceedings and other related matters. Article 3 is the key to the survival of India as the world's largest multicultural, multinational democracy. This feature has allowed the majority at the Centre to respond to minority demands from the States for greater linguistic and cultural autonomy. If India had been a unitary state neither the majority, nor the minorities, would have had this constitutional flexibility available to them. The reorganisation of three States in 2000 illustrated the value of the flexibility that the Constitution gives Parliament. The Constitution under Article 3 stays silent about the kind of federal units the Indian Union was to have or the basis on which they would be created, that is, geography, demography, administrative convenience, language or culture. [20] [21] That decision was left entirely to the wisdom of Parliament. Certain guidelines which have been adopted by the Parliament, over the years to consider the demands for the creation of new States are: [22] Demands must stop short of secession; Demands based on language and culture could be accommodated, but not those based explicitly on religious differences; Demands must have clearly demonstrated public support; Division of multilingual States must have some support from different linguistic groups; and If the demand is driven by the specific needs of the political economy of development, then it qualifies for due consideration by the Centre. The exercise of the power under Article 3 by Parliament is subject to the following conditions: [23] A bill for any such purpose cannot be introduced in a House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President.

17 18

http://www.frontline.in/fl2825/stories/20111216282501600.htm http://realindianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/mayawatis-proposal-to-divide-uttar.html 19 http://www.frontline.in/fl2825/stories/20111216282501600.htm 20 Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain 21 http://realindianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/mayawatis-proposal-to-divide-uttar.html 22 http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2824/stories/20111202282407500.htm 23 Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla

If the bill affects the area, name or boundaries of a State, then before recommending its consideration to Parliament, the President has to refer the same to the State Legislature concerned for expressing its views on it within such time as he may fix.

3
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR FORMATION OF A NEW STATE?

The Constitution of India came into being on November 26th, 1949 which enshrined the
powers of formation a new state to the Centre alone. This was done so as to ensure that reckless division of states for the petty motives driven by linguistic and cultural considerations of local leaders may not affect the ultimate goal of 'national integrity' which our nation strives for. So the Article 3 of our constitution laid down the rules of balkanization of a state, the powers of which are vested in the Parliament which subject to consideration may pass the law after careful deliberation. [24] The Procedure: First of all, for the formation of a state, a bill on the matter has to be referred by the President to the legislature of whichever state (or states) is affected by the proposed change in area, boundary or name, so that the legislature can express its views within a certain period. [25] The State Legislature needs to give its approval which is done by passing it as a resolution for creating the new state. The President on being ascertained with the views of the state government, the resolution is tabled before the Parliament (however, this is not mandatory Parliament may on its own motion take up the issue through a direction from the President). [26] Once it reaches the Centre, the home ministry will examine the issue and send the proposal to the law ministry which in turn whets it and sends it to the Cabinet. [27] The Union Cabinet will have to approve it before placing it in the two Houses of Parliament. It is introduced in the Parliament as a bill. Upon discussions and deliberations, debates and recommendations, the reviewed bill is sent back to the State Legislature which is supposed to review the said changes that have made to the original recommendations of the State. That includes merging of two or more states or union territories (Article 3A), changes in the boundaries of the new states that to be carved out (Article 3B, 3C, 3D), the sharing of waters, formation of High Court, fixing of state capital, change of name for the proposed new state (Article 3E) etc. This drafted and reviewed bill is to be reviewed by the State Assembly and is supposed to send its deliberations and apprehensions of the changes made by the Centre within a particular period as specified by the President or included in the Reference. The purpose of the provision is to give an opportunity to the State Legislature concerned to express its views on the proposals contained in the bill. [28] Parliament is not bound by these views. All that is contemplated is that Parliament should have before it the views of the State Legislature affected by the proposals contained in the bill, the Parliament may accept or reject what the State Legislature says. If the State Assembly fails to reach to a conclusion or is in disarray with the changes brought in by the Centre, the President has every right to quash the State
24 25

http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/146717-Process-formation-new-state-India.aspx http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-10/india/ 26 www.legalserviceindia.com/.../company_formation_procedure.htm 27 http://www.deccanherald.com/content/40648/how-state-formed.html 28 http://www.sambalpuri.co.in/kosal-diary/an-overview-of-state-formation-and-demands-for-separate-states-in-india/

10

government's opinion in this regard and holds all the power to proceed with the matter as it likes. [29] However, if the reviewed bill is approved by the State Assembly, a separate bill on the matter is introduced in the Parliament on the recommendation of the President. The bill for reorganisation of state will have to be approved by the Parliament with simple majority, for the formation of new states from the existing ones. The bill upon being ratified by the President, the new state is formed. When Parliament acts under the above-mentioned constitutional provisions, [Article 3] to admit or create new states, or to reorganise the existing States, it can also effect such amendments in the First and Fourth Schedules to the Constitution as may be necessary to effectuate the new proposals. [Article 4(1)] After Parliament gives its seal of approval, begins the complex issue of the physical formation of the state. The logistics required for a new administration will start with Centre sending a team of officials to put things together for creation of the new state. One of the first tasks is the drawing of the boundary of the states. Other requirements include setting up of administrative and police cadres, transfer of revenue documents and infrastructure such as setting up new office buildings. [30] As for the IAS and IPS cadres and the government employees, they will be given the option to choose between the two states. The sharing of the tax revenues will be done by a negotiating team of the two states under the guidance by the chief secretary of the existing state with the assistance of the existing Accountant Generals office. [31] There is also the issue of devolution of funds, which will be done by the Finance Commission, and revenue sharing between the existing state and the new one. Until the Finance Commission frames the formula, the Centre will make an interim allocation. The new state will also have a new high court. As for political governance, the MLAs of the constituencies falling in the new state will automatically become MLAs of the newly formed state. Election for the state Assembly will be held only after the MLAs complete their five year term. [32] [33] In all, up-to-date Parliament has passed 23 Acts under Article 3 and 4 since 1950 to effect changes in the areas, boundaries and names of the States. In the United States of America, the consent of the concerned State Legislature is essential before a State is reorganised [Article IV, section 3(1) of the U.S. Constitution]. In Australia, in addition to the consent of the State Legislature, the consent of the electors in the affected State is also stipulated [Section 123 & 124 of the Australian Constitution Act, 1900]. On the other hand, in India, what is needed is a mere reference of the proposals to the concerned State Legislature for expression of its views and, subject to this stipulation, the matter of State reorganisation rests solely with Parliament. [34]

29 30

abhishekkatiyar.wordpress.com/.../new-state-formation-process-india/ http://www.deccanherald.com/content/40648/how-state-formed.html 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 http://bsarun.wordpress.com/ 34 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_India

11

4
NEW STATES IN INDIA CREATED AFTER 1950

Following are the new states in India created after 1950. [35] [36] [37]
Andhra Pradesh: Created by the State of Andhra Pradesh Act 1953 by carving our some areas from the State of Chennai. Gujarat and Maharashtra: The State of Mumbai was divided into two States i.e. Maharashtra and Gujarat by the Mumbai (Reorganisation) Act 1960 Kerala: Created by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. It comprised Travancore and Cochin areas Karnataka: Created from the Princely State of Mysuru by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was renamed Karnataka in 1973. Nagaland: It was carved out from the State of Asom by the State of Nagaland Act, 1952 Haryana: It was carved out from the State of Punjab by the Punjab (Reorganisation) Act,1966 Himachal Pradesh: The Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to the status of State by the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 Meghalaya: First 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 fullfledged State by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act 1971 Manipur and Tripura: Both these States were elevated from the status of UnionTerritories by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act 1971 Sikkim: Sikkim 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 Mizoram: It was elevated to the status of a full State by the State of Mizoram Act, 1986 Arunachal Pradesh: It received the status of a full state by the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1896

35 36

www.facts-about-india.com/new-states-in-India.php www.sambalpuri.co.in/.../an-overview-of-state-formation-and-deman... 37 www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2626/stories/20100101262602100.htm

12

Goa: Goa 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 Chhattisgarh: According to the procedure prescribed in Article 3, a bill for creation of Chhattisgarh was drafted by Union Government and then sent to Madhya Pradesh where it was unanimously approved. Both Congress and BJP, the leading national parties, supported the resolution in the State Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. The election manifestos of both Congress and BJP included demand for creation of separate Chhattisgarh. The bill was then passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha after which the President gave the consent, thereby creating new state of Chhattisgarh on 1st November 2000. Chhattisgarh comprises sixteen districts of Madhya Pradesh: Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Dhamtari, Durg, Janjgir, Jashpur, Kanker, Kawardha, Korba, Koriya, Mahasamund, Raigarh, Raipur, Rajnandgaon, and Surguja. [38] Uttarakhand: State of Uttar Pradesh passed a motion demanding Uttarakhand on 12 August 1991. The Central Government under NDA drafted the bill in 1994 and through the President of India asked the state assembly to provide its opinion on various provisions of the bill. The State Assembly adopted a resolution for creation of Uttarakhand on 24 August 1994 with as nearly 26 amendments, including the one to exclude Haridwar from becoming part of the new state. It also excluded giving rights over many irrigation and power projects and natural resources. The State Assembly passed another motion on 24 April 1997. The bill for creation of Uttarakhand was passed in Lok Sabha on 1 Aug 2000 which negated some of the amendments made by the state assembly, like the which sought exclusion of Haridwar. The state of Uttarakhand was created on 9 November 2000. Uttarakhand comprises thirteen districts of Uttar Pradesh: Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehradun, Haridwar, Nainital, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Rudra Prayag, Tehri Garhwal, Udham Singh Nagar, and Uttarkashi. In January, 2007 Uttarakhand was renamed as Uttaranchal. [39] Jharkhand: The state of Bihar took the initiative in creation of Jharkhand when Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council was formed in 1995 comprising 18 districts. Coming under the pressure from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) which supported Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) to form the government, Bihar adopted a resolution for creation of Jharkhand on 22 July 1997. However, a year later, Lalu Prasad Yadav of RJD reversed his earlier position. In the next election, RJD needed support from Congress to form the government. Congress extended the support on the condition that Jharkhand is formed. Lok Sabha passed the bill in the year 2000 though two key allies of NDA, and RJD and CPI-M opposing the bill after which the state of Jharkhand was formed on 15 November 2000. Jharkhand state split from Bihar, as provided by the Bihar Reorganization Bill, which was passed on 2000-08-02. Jharkhand comprises eighteen districts of Bihar: Bokaro, Chatra, Deoghar, Dhanbad, Dumka, East Singbhum, Garhwa, Giridih, Godda, Gumla, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Lohardaga, Pakur, Palamau, Ranchi, Sahibganj, and West Singbhum. Ranchi, formerly the summer capital of Bihar, became the capital of Jharkhand.

38 39

http://iasaspirations.blogspot.com/2011/05/formation-of-states-in-india-in.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/55717785/NEP

13

5
ASPIRANT STATES OF INDIA

Demands for the creation of new states have been a chronic feature of the Indian polity since
the inception of the republic. Such agitations typically base themselves on claims of neglect or discrimination meted out to them by the central or relevant state governments. Some such ongoing agitations are chronicled here. [40] The bifurcation of states in India was mostly based on linguistic population in various parts of the country. [41] However there is demand for further bifurcation or trifurcation of states mostly based again on languages/ castes and creed. [42] In the following existing States in India there is demand for further bifurcation or trifurcation of States as indicated below:- [43] Jammu and Kashmir Ladakh, capital at Leh. Panun Kashmir, proposed homeland by the Kashmiri Pundits, demanding a status of Union Territory, including Srinagar, Anantnag, Sopore, Baramulla, Varmul and Awantipura. Uttar Pradesh Harit Pradesh, capital at Meerut or Noida. Awadh, capital at Lucknow. Purvanchal, capital at Varanasi or Gorakhpur. Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand- 7 districts from Uttar Pradesh and 13 districts from Madhya Pradesh comprises the proposed Bundelkhand state, with its capital at Jhansi. Bagelkhand- Sonbhadra and Chitrakoot districts from Uttar Pradesh, and rest of the part from NE Madhya Pradesh, with capital at Rewa. Vindhya Pradesh, capital at the historic city of Rewa. Madhya Pradesh Mahakoshal, capital at Jabalpur. Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh Gondwana, comprising Gondi tribal people's land. Maharashtra Vidarbha, capital at Nagpur. Rajasthan Maru Pradesh, capital at Jaisalmer.
40 41

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirant_states_of_India www.ytears.in/2012/06/indiaa-union-and-aspirant-states-of.html 42 sagarsrivastavagd.blogspot.com/2012/01/aspirant-states-of-india.html 43 iasaspirations.blogspot.com/2011/.../formation-of-states-in-india-in.ht...

14

Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar Bhojpuri, comprising Bhojpuri speaking areas of eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand.

Odisha Kosal, capital at one among the cities of western Odisha. Gujarat Saurashtra, capital at Rajkot. Andhra Pradesh Telengana, capital at Hyderabad. The city of Hyderabad is in a dilemma, of either becoming capital of Telengana or becoming a union territory. Andhra, capital at Vishakhapatnam, or Vijaywada or Tirupati. Rayalaseema, capital at Kurnool. Karnataka Tulu Nadu, capital at Mangalore. Kodagu, capital at Medikeri. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Konga Nadu, capital at Coimbatore. Puducherry Karaikal demands for a separate union territory, separating from the union territory of Puducherry. Bihar and Jharkhand Mithilanchal, capital at Darbhanga. Bihar Anga Pradesh, state comprising the Angika speaking people in India. West Bengal (Paschim Banga) Kamtapur, capital at Cooch Behar (Koch Bihar). Gorkhaland, capital at Darjeeling. Assam Bodoland, capital at Kokrajhar. Karbi Anglong, capital at Diphu. Assam and Nagaland Dimaraji, comprising districts of Assam like Dima Hasao, parts of Cachar (Silchar), Karbi Anglong and Nagaon and from Dimapur district of Nagaland. The above list is not exhaustive. There may arise some more demands from some State for separate state formation.

15

A question being debated at present is whether there ought to be a few more States by breaking some colossal States existing at present. There are local agitations here and there for carving out a few more States. In principle, there seem to be nothing wrong in having a few more States than the present 28. It is well known that a big State is administratively unwieldy and unmanageable. [44] Comparatively speaking, a smaller State can be administered more efficiently. Though India can afford to have a few more States, what is necessary is that the new States ought not to be carved out on an ad hoc basis in a piecemeal manner keeping only political expediency in view. [45] [46]A commission should be appointed to study the question of formation of States deeply in all its aspects keeping in view inter alia such factors as administrative convenience, geographic homogeneity, economic visibility etc. [47] It is needless to say that the demands of all aspirant states cannot be met as it would lead to proliferation of States to a point of federal burdens; they are economically unviable and national unity would be threatened.

44 45

www.scribd.com/doc/.../Should-India-be-divided-into-smaller-states pages.rediff.com/aspirant-states-of-india/442108 46 www.followyours.com/tag/Aspirant+states+of+India/277893708/4 47 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aspirant_states_of_India_annotated.png

16

6
GOOD AND BAD SIDES OF CREATING NEW SMALLER STATES IN INDIA

In 2012, 56 years after the very first round of the reorganisation of states, we seem to have
arrived at the crossroads on one of the basic features of our federal structure. Federal unity is no longer a serious concern like in the 50s and 60s, but with a spate of demands for new states coming up from practically every corner of India at different intervals and with varying intensity, and that too from within states once seen as linguistic and cultural wholes, one wonders if we have slowly begun to move away from the idea of the linguistic state and have taken a simultaneous investment of faith in smaller states. [48] Should India be broken up into smaller states? India today has 28 States and 7 Union Territories. No. of aspirant states is 21. The population of India in 2012 is 1.22 billion. Uttar Pradesh has 198 million people, more than Brazil, Russia or Pakistan. Maharashtra has 106 million, West Bengal 96 million and Andhra Pradesh 90 million. All are much bigger than France or Britain. At the other end of the scale, Sikkim has just 0.6 million people, Mizoram 1.1 million and Arunachal Pradesh 1.3 million. Creating new smaller states has been a very debatable issue right now due to the demands for formation of new states in several parts of the country. Many states have been facing riots for the creation of smaller states from big states. [49] Small states as such are not a threat to a strong nation. Let us also understand that a strong nation does not exist, it has to be created. Regional aspirations in a diverse nation should be respected. But, we should not gloat in matters such as the gorkha or tamil pride. The tone and body language in which we shout maharashtra mazza ani mi maharashtracha exhibiting arrogance towards people from other States is like winning the battle for the State and losing the war for the nation. [50] The question whether smaller states are better governed than bigger ones is irrelevant. In our experience, both large and small states will continue to be badly governed until there is effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to local authorities, that is, elected panchayats in villages and urban local bodies in cities. Our goal of inclusive growth will not be realised unless there is good governance, and this is not determined by size. [51] Whether it is a small state like Sikkim or a big one like Bihar, good governance depends on the extent to which power is devolved. We have seen it in a big state like Madhya Pradesh under Digvijay Singh and a smaller state like Bihar under Nitish Kumar. It has to do with devolution of powers rather than anything else. There are many smaller states but do you see size guaranteeing their development? Again, if a large state has an enlightened leadership that sees merit in devolution of power, things move forward and people are better off with regard to access to basic goods and services. [52]
48 49

realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... socyberty.com Government 50 zeenews.india.com/news/.../of-divisions-and-development_744507.ht... 51 blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../the-economic-case-for-creating 52 www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/.../2009/.../does_india_need_more_states.html

17

Karnataka is not a small state, but it's in the forefront when it comes to taking funds, functions and functionaries to the grassroots level. This helps in ensuring transparency and, hence, accountability. This, and not a state's size, is what help governance. Kerala is a smaller state but its progress has much to do with the manner in which its governments have been able to distribute funds, functions and functionaries among different levels of government, taking power directly to the masses. On the other hand, Jharkhand, which was created by dividing Bihar, has not been able to make its mark as a developed state. The reasons are there for all to see. It has not held any panchayat elections since it was formed. [53] Unless power goes to the people instead of remaining concentrated in a single authority, there is no hope for the people in this state. Of course, many demands for smaller states have to do with ethnic identities and their sense of insecurity. That may or may not be a valid reason for such demands, but as far as governance is concerned, nothing can be a substitute for devolution of power. [54] If the administration in a large state suffers from inefficiencies, what is the guarantee that it will become competent by merely creating a smaller state? Reasons for separate State demand? [55] The relative under development of a particular region as compared to the other regions of the same state. Lack of participation in mainstream politics and decision making from a particular region. Distinct cultural identity based on language, tribe etc existing in a particular pocket of the state. Distance from the power centre in the state leading to problem of administrative inefficiency and sense of alienation among the people. Politics of vote bank. States feel neglected, exploited, and backward & so feel that separation is the best solution.

Let us now analyse the positives and negatives of creating smaller states in India. [56] Advantages of creating new smaller states in India: [57] Federal reorganisation of India into smaller States would not only fulfil the political aspirations of the people of the backward regions but also ensure their rapid economic development. It would accelerate the pace of modernisation (in those States) by increasing administrative efficiency and bringing the administration closer to the people there. India can be developed faster because each and every state government is responsible for the development of the state.

53 54

realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... promiseofreason.com/formation-of-new-states-criteria-and-... 55 satyameva-jayate.org Debates & Discussions 56 www.oppapers.com/.../advantages-and-disadvantages-of-small-states-... 57 www.oppapers.com Governments Military Research Papers

18

By having multi cultural society people can learn the tradition and culture of different states. The benefits of the government policies can be implemented very easily. Consider the record of three states carved out of larger ones in 2000 - Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand and let us focus on the average growth rate of gross state domestic product for the last five years, from 2004-05 to 2008-09. Amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 7.35%. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economies stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states. It has been further argued that according Statehood to various regions would also resolve the problem of identity crisis in them. This would enable them to develop their language and culture. It would help them in getting rid of the felling of internal colonialism. As a result of attainment of Statehood, the people of the backward regions would be able to free themselves from the dominance of the political elite of the developed regions. The reorganisation of the country into small States would also make the federation more balanced by making the representation of the present-day large-sized States, like UP, MP and Maharashtra, and the small States, like Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, more proportionate. India will move towards the true definition of a republic. With smaller area of states, administration will definitely be better and each area will be properly represented at the centre through ministers who can more directly help the local people. Diversity of lifestyle within a state will decrease and no one can complain that the culture is too different from one end to the other. Small states means Better Administration Better Government Participation of common man in the administration Creation of small state is one of the answers to Reduce corruption or at least corruption amount. Smaller state means reduced physical distance between place where a citizen stays and the capital of the state. Government officials and ministers availability for a citizen increases. This means time needed for expressing desires for a citizen is less and expense wise cheaper too. Officials and the ministers would understand problems more easily and in a better way. Possibility of finding solution increases because of reduction in size of the state. Experience of smaller states like Goa, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand etc. shows that smaller state are unstable on account of political problems. Elected representatives have a tendency to change their loyalty from one political party to other.
19

It will increase administrative efficiency leading to proper utilization of resources. Development will take place and regional disparities will become narrow. Small states are more effective for fiscal management. The popular demands, needs and problems of thf; region may be addressed to efficiently. There shall be greater competition among states for more development. Smaller states will have more homogenous preferences.

Disadvantages of creating new smaller states in India: [58] [59] Those who favour a reorganisation of India into small States seem to overlook the negative repercussions of such an exercise. The following are some of the disadvantages of having new smaller states in India. Some or all of them may be present in larger states as well. But, their impact is severe on smaller states. [60] Statehood cannot guarantee rapid economic development of those backward regions which do not have the required material and human resources for accelerating the pace of economic growth. Besides, some of the small States may not be having the potential for economic viability. A few of them may also be lacking in dynamic political leadership, development-oriented bureaucracy and competent technocrats. The people of some of the small States could also be deficient in the spirit of enterprise, zeal for hard work and other qualities needed for ensuring adequate development. Every state will not have equal opportunity of development, some state can become richer and some can become poorer. Politicians will just play around for votes and not true development. Small States could also lead to the hegemony of the dominant community/caste/tribe over their power structures. There could develop aggressive regionalism too in such States leading to the growth of the sons-of-the-soil phenomenon and the consequent intimidation of the migrants. The attainment of Statehood could result in the emergence of intra-regional rivalries among the sub-regions as has happened in Himachal Pradesh, religions as has been in the case of Punjab, communities and castes/tribes as has happened in Haryana and Manipur if the regional identity of the new States remains weak due to demographic factors and historical reasons or owing to their cultural backwardness.

58 59

www.oppapers.com/.../advantages-and-disadvantages-of-small-states-... lifeandtherepublic.blogspot.com/.../dark-side-of-small-states... 60 knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4640

20

The creation of small States may also lead to certain negative political consequences. Since the strength of the State Legislature would be rather small in such States, the majority of the ruling party or ruling coalition would remain fragile. In such a situation, a small group of legislators could make or break governments at will. The political opportunists, power-brokers and power-hungry politicians could hold the Chief Minister of a small State to ransom. They might extract too heavy a price for extending support to his government and cause political uncertainty by frequent threats of withdrawal of support. In this way, attempts to topple the government would be quite frequent, often necessitating mid-term elections. Alternatively, in such States the risk of centralisation of powers in the hands of the Chief Minister, the members of his family and the Chief Ministers Secretariat would be greater. And so would be the possibility of the Chief Minister turning the State into a political machine and becoming its boss merely by purchasing the support of MLAs. He could do so by inducting most of them in his Ministry and accommodating the others as Chairmen of various Boards and Corporations. The support could also be obtained or retained by using money power or exercising coercion. The administration of such States would tend to be highly personalised and politicised. This type of regime has really been in existence in Haryana since its formation on November 1, 1996 except for a brief interlude, owing to the small size of the State both in terms of area and population. The creation of small States would lead to increase in inter-State-water-power-andboundary disputes. Apart from the strain on their limited financial resources, these would require huge funds for building new capitals and maintaining the growing number of Governors, Chief Ministers, Ministers and administratorsif the existing States are reorganised into smaller States. They will consciously increase differences and make people of their region biased against the other states. Habits, languages, culture etc in India will become more diversified and Indians will gradually forget their unity. Unlike other countries Indians will continue becoming Marathis, Gujratis, Punjabis or Tamilians first and Indians next. Communal feelings will gradually destroy the insipid spirit of "Unity in Diversity" in India. The argument that small state will develop is not entirely true. While states like Haryana and Punjab prosper, those like Jharkand is a failure. The decision to form new state should equally be on the basis of economic viability apart from other political reasons. There is no point in a new state if there is no mineral wealth or possibilities for industrialisation. Yet, in spite of coal mines, Jharkhand is a failure due to political reasons only. Hence, small or big, the leadership should be enlightened. More small states will be an avoidable drain on the finances, for setting up new govt. and all the paraphernalia attached to it. There are only demerits in further bifurcating states which are already divided on linguistic basis. There is sincerely no merit in dividing and creating more states but

21

what needed is real development which should reach millions of citizens which have remained in poverty for generations. Creation of small state will divide India Creation of small state will take the India to pre British era Danger from China, china wants to divide India Small states in India are not making progress, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand. Small States are not necessarily better-governed as seen in the north-east; administrative problems about creation of institutions like High Court, Secretariat etc; the costs of setting up a capital etc, to name some problems of creating new states. Small states Depend on Central Government Have little influence on Indian and global markets because of their small footprint. 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. Face an uncertain and difficult economic transition in trade in India and the world. High transport costs make it harder for them to make Indian markets compensate for the small size of their own state markets. Private players may see smaller states as more risky than larger states. Smaller private sector could mean lesser competition and lesser development. Insufficient institutional capacity to participate fully in national trade and finance negotiations, the outcomes of which can profoundly affect their economies. May start taxing imports from other states and countries as a means of revenue. Poverty levels may be higher. Range of per capita incomes and rates of growth may not be significantly different from larger states. Seek more assistance from New Delhi, instead of lesser. Divide people on language, social, political, and economic grounds. Thus, diminish outlook when India desperately needs her people to think globally, small states make them think regionally, even sub-regionally.

22

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. 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 favor people they know, this makes everything illegitimate and irrelevant. It will open the Pandora's box creating demand for more states. It will add to the burden of administrative expense, which could have been utilized for development work. Smaller states do not necessarily show better economic performance, e. g. North eastern states. The disputes may lead to more and more demand for special packages for enjoyment by the parent state Small is beautiful but small is also politics. Small states are vulnerable to be taken over by closed groups or lobbies. This can defeat the purpose of establishing small states and the benefits associated with it mainly for the neglected regions and people. A few greedy politicians in collusion with mining and real estate lobbies can derail empowerment of the poor in the otherwise neglected regions. This minority group can have a pervasive hold on all democratic institutions starting with the local governing bodies. The only corrective for this is active civil society and vigilant institutions. Side by side with regional autonomy, people should eschew narrow regional jingoism which may erode the Indian republic.

So to conclude, I would say that federalism as an idea and a process enriches democracy in a multi-national/cultural country like India, as it tends to promote democratic values and temperament by recognizing, accommodating and protecting diverse regional identities and rights. [61] The creation of smaller states would contribute to the federal agenda of enhancing democratic development based on decentralized governance and greater autonomy for units. India should go for a reorganisation of states to ensure development of all regions and the belts which have remained backward even after 64 years of independence. [62] The risk if any does not lie in small states. It lies in the growing feeling that politics is the note chapne ki machine.

61 62

http://www.goanews.com/blogs_disp.php?bpid=218 http://www.lokniti.org/pdfs_dataunit/A.Kumar.pdf

23

7
CONCLUSION

Creation of small states on the basis of administration may be considered necessary for the
sake of faster growth, smooth administration and quickest execution of policy framed by the government and also the best monitoring of the plan and policy executed at the ground level. [63] But what is the guarantee that small states will function properly and there will be all round development. [64] There are still many states like Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Jharkhand, Chattishgarh etc where no sign of development or growth is visible because entire energy is lost in change of government. [65] State government is too small to be stable. There are many tiny political parties and groups which have got no actual party manifesto or plan to do work. There is more dirty politics and tug of war for power (and the money they earn through power) among politicians of various colour and group. [66][67] Democracy is meant for people but in fact Government in these smaller states is for political party leaders, by the leaders and of the leaders. [68] So far as the smooth functioning and monitoring of policies and real development is concerned, we have for this purpose already in place a reliable set up called as District administration. [69] To monitor three or four districts there is office of commissioner and then comes state administration. Similar structures are already built up by our constitution makers and forefathers for police department as also for judiciary to ensure quality functioning. But if head of the states fail to do their duty, fail to monitor the progress of every district and indulge in cheap party politics to serve their vested interest, there is no question of development taking place. Smaller political parties may be dominated by local musclemen or local goodas and they may also come to power. [70] If member in cabinet is too small, person like Madhu Koda can manage the cabinet as per their whims and fancies, play with government fund and become owner of property worth Rs 4000/ crores in two years of regime. There should not arise any demand for small state if each district works honestly for the development and execute the policy framed by state and central government on their respective subjects enlisted in the constitution. Unfortunately district administration is not allowed to function properly, seriously and honestly by dirty politicians of our country in general and of smaller states in particular. Politicians in general have more faith in cheap agenda to earn cheap popularity. They have an inclination towards making money and
63
64

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55717785/NEP http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/04/do-smaller-states-ensure-better-governance/ 65 http://blogs.siliconindia.com/danendra/Why_we_need_to_divide_larger_states-bid-ftw84JYC98897318.html 66 Ibid 67 www.lkadvani.in/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6917 2/2 68 http://sawaal.ibibo.com/general-knowledge/what-meant-demandstates-law-demand-784360.html 69 http://blogs.siliconindia.com/danendra/Why_we_need_to_divide_larger_states-bid-ftw84JYC98897318.html 70 http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/04/do-smaller-states-ensure-better-governance/

24

accumulating wealth for their future generation and have a common tendency to become richest person in shortest period. [71] This is why it can be rightly said that it is immaterial whether states are small or large. As long as people are corrupt one cannot dream of development. We have in the recent past created small state like Jharkhand carved out of Bihar and seen and experienced the pathetic position of Jharkhand in the hands of madhu Koda and all his predecessors. We have seen how UP and Bihar governments in their states have created many new districts apparently for real development and strict monitoring but really for deviating the minds of local people from real issues of non-development and for sharing of ill-earned money . As such solution of all problems lies in quality of people and not size of the state or district. After all India is one and should remain as one and everyone is duty bound to maintain federal structure of the country. After studying the issue of the demand of new states, I am against the demand of creation of any more new states on the basis of culture of the region or race of the people. [72] In a complex country like India with huge diversities, all attempts should be made to integrate the people in the national mainstream. No Indian should think of himself/herself belonging to a particular state or region but should think of being only an Indian. Creating the new states on the basis of distinct culture of people in the region serves only to create and foster artificial barriers among the people. This is undesirable for the future of India in the long run. Secondly, where the demand for new states have been raised on the issue of development, study should be conducted whether creation of new state would promote faster development or whether the new state would be perennially dependent on the central government for funds. [73] New state should be carved out only if it is feasible. Most importantly, the focus of the governments should be on development. The state should remain at best the artificial entities created for administrative convenience. But otherwise, country should be a single entity. [74] If the government can carry out uniform development of all the states in India, there would be no incentive for demanding a new state on the issue of development. If however there is consensus on formation of small states it should be well discussed, planned and structured jointly by all dominant political groups. There should be one national policy defining the area and population fit for efficient state. Lastly government should take its own initiative from time to time say in ten years to make new states based on language or any national issue of development. It is not good that the responsible authorities sleep on such demand for decades and when the movement becomes violent and uncontrollable they succumb to pressure and agree to even improper, unacceptable and unjustified demand. Such hasty decision may ultimately result in rising of similar many more demands and ultimately prove to be fatal and endanger the unity and integrity of the country.

71 72

http://anubhaksingh.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated http://www.scribd.com/doc/24760637/A-Report-on-Demand-for-Creation-of-Small-States-in-India 73 http://qna.rediff.com/questions-and-answers/should-telangana-be-declared-a-separate-state-why-and-whynot/16171737/answers 74 http://sawaal.ibibo.com/economics/which-indias-4-richest-states-1031427.html

25

26

8
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS The Constitution of India by Dibyajyoti De The Constitutional Law of India Professor Kailash Rai Indian Constitutional law M.P. Jain Constitution of India V.N. Shukla

WEBLINKS http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT_Wings_ATA_SR_srmaterial030508.asp http://www.kalimpong.info/2010/01/09/dooars-a-deceptive-demography-dr-sonamwangyal/ www.lkadvani.in/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6917 2/2 http://thecolloquium.net/colloquium/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=94:the-politics-of-state-reorganization&catid=73&Itemid=244 www.freedomindia.com/26.html realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_India www.proud2bindian.in Incredible India Future of India http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_I http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1659104/ http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061213093045AAyInwW http://abhishekkatiyar.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/new-state-formation-process-india/ http://www.frontline.in/fl2825/stories/20111216282501600.htm http://realindianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/mayawatis-proposal-to-divide-uttar.html http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2824/stories/20111202282407500.htm http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/146717-Process-formation-new-stateIndia.aspx http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-10/india/ www.legalserviceindia.com/.../company_formation_procedure.htm http://www.deccanherald.com/content/40648/how-state-formed.html http://www.sambalpuri.co.in/kosal-diary/an-overview-of-state-formation-anddemands-for-separate-states-in-india/ http://bsarun.wordpress.com/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_India www.facts-about-india.com/new-states-in-India.php www.sambalpuri.co.in/.../an-overview-of-state-formation-and-deman... www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2626/stories/20100101262602100.htm http://iasaspirations.blogspot.com/2011/05/formation-of-states-in-india-in.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/55717785/NEP en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirant_states_of_India www.ytears.in/2012/06/indiaa-union-and-aspirant-states-of.html

27

sagarsrivastavagd.blogspot.com/2012/01/aspirant-states-of-india.html iasaspirations.blogspot.com/2011/.../formation-of-states-in-india-in.ht... www.scribd.com/doc/.../Should-India-be-divided-into-smaller-states pages.rediff.com/aspirant-states-of-india/442108 www.followyours.com/tag/Aspirant+states+of+India/277893708/4 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aspirant_states_of_India_annotated.png realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... socyberty.com Government zeenews.india.com/news/.../of-divisions-and-development_744507.ht... blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../the-economic-case-for-creating www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/.../2009/.../does_india_need_more_states.html realityviews.blogspot.com/.../india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.ht... promiseofreason.com/formation-of-new-states-criteria-and-... satyameva-jayate.org Debates & Discussions www.oppapers.com/.../advantages-and-disadvantages-of-small-states-... www.oppapers.com Governments Military Research Papers lifeandtherepublic.blogspot.com/.../dark-side-of-small-states... knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4640 http://www.goanews.com/blogs_disp.php?bpid=218 http://www.lokniti.org/pdfs_dataunit/A.Kumar.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/55717785/NEP http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/04/do-smaller-states-ensure-better-governance/ www.lkadvani.in/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6917 2/2 http://sawaal.ibibo.com/general-knowledge/what-meant-demandstates-law-demand784360.html http://blogs.siliconindia.com/danendra/Why_we_need_to_divide_larger_states-bidftw84JYC98897318.html http://anubhaksingh.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated http://www.scribd.com/doc/24760637/A-Report-on-Demand-for-Creation-of-SmallStates-in-India http://sawaal.ibibo.com/economics/which-indias-4-richest-states-1031427.html

28