India is not merely a country; it is an embodiment of civilisational diversity, a subcontinent defined by a breathtaking mosaic of cultures, languages, and topographies. Our Constitution vests the unity and strength of the nation in the promotion of individual interest, but promoting that interest in a country of 1.4 billion people living across states of vastly unequal size and complexity has become the central challenge of modern Indian governance.
It was in recognition of this systemic challenge that I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the last session of Parliament, seeking to establish a clear, objective, and permanent framework for the reorganisation of our states. My logic is simple: The time for ad-hoc, reactive decisions, like the messy creation of Telangana, has passed. We must now engage in a pre-planned, consistent study that replaces ad-hoc and responsive populism with administrative prudence.
The first and most pivotal wave of state creation was born out of crisis and vision. Following the tumultuous years of Partition, the task of nation-building required a strategy to reduce regional tensions. Under the guidance of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was constituted in 1953, with a mandate for an “objective and dispassionate” study to secure the welfare of the people. This led to the formation of states primarily on the basis of language (ironically, the first demand was to unify all Telugu speakers), a necessary measure that provided cultural cohesion and stability to the nascent republic.
The linguistic principle served its purpose admirably, by translating diverse identities into manageable political units and ensuring that education and administration could be conducted in the mother tongue. However, the linguistic map of the 1950s was merely the foundation, not the final administrative structure. Half a century later, the rationale for the creation of new states has shifted entirely, from cultural integration to developmental and administrative urgency.
The creation of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand in the year 2000, and the painful bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, were driven not by language (since each state actually had a unifying common language with the larger entity it was separated from), but by socio-political imperatives. These included the need to develop backward regions, address regional disparities, and respond to intense public sentiment rooted in feelings of neglect. These events confirm that the challenges of scale and governance have outgrown the administrative architecture inherited from the SRC.
The core of our contemporary governance crisis lies in the sheer scale of our largest states. In India today, several states are home to populations of 50 million or more: UP is over 240 million, Maharashtra and Bihar each around 130 million. To put this in perspective, these administrative units are larger than most sovereign countries in Europe. While size might once have been viewed as a symbol of power, in the 21st-century administrative context, it has become a debilitating burden.
The hard truth is that such large states are often administratively unwieldy. The distance between the capital and the lowest-level citizen becomes vast, both geographically and bureaucratically. A collector in a small state might interact directly with the state’s chief secretary or minister; a collector in a mega-state might find her voice lost in layers of bureaucracy. This unwieldiness leads to a tragic but predictable outcome: Governance benefits do not always descend to the lowest levels. Policies crafted in the state capital, however well-intentioned, often fail to penetrate the hinterland. Development schemes suffer from implementation gaps, public services like health and education remain inadequate, and law and order become difficult to maintain across vast, disparate territories. The cry for a separate, smaller state is fundamentally a cry for better, more responsive governance — a desire to bring the seat of power closer to the people.
At one time, the UP Assembly discussed dividing the state into four. Long-standing complaints about the alleged neglect of regions like Vidarbha or “Gorkhaland” persist. Deeply held cultural identities and the genuine, widespread will of the people must be respected, along with administrative logic. But we cannot afford to keep addressing these demands through knee-jerk reactions driven by political expediency or last-minute compromise. State reorganisation is a matter of profound national consequence, impacting budgets, infrastructure, and federal relations for generations. It must be guided by a rational, comprehensive, and consistent national policy.
In saying this, I am not endorsing any specific demands. My Bill proposes to institutionalise a process for considering them, by establishing a permanent mechanism for reorganisation that moves beyond the single criterion of language and encompasses a holistic, evidence-based approach. Any future study must take into account a claim’s economic and financial viability; a new state must have a credible pathway to self-sufficiency. We must avoid creating entities that are permanently dependent on central grants, thereby distorting the national financial balance. Administrative efficacy must be another vital consideration. The purpose of division is to create a structure where the machinery of the state can function optimally, ensuring more efficient delivery of justice and services than at present. National unity remains paramount. Reorganisation must not fracture the federal fabric. It should be a tool to harmonise regional aspirations with national goals, not vitiate the latter.
By mandating a pre-planned, consistent process based on these diverse factors, we ensure that the decision-making process is informed, objective, and sustainable. This shift from a reactive mode to a proactive, policy-driven approach is the essence of good governance.
The reorganisation of states is not merely about drawing new lines on a map; it is about re-engineering the vehicle of democracy to make it faster, more responsive, and more effective. By adopting a modern, scalable, and multi-factor framework for state reorganisation, we will finally fulfil the founding promise of our republic, a commitment to the ultimate welfare of the people of each constituent unit, and of the nation as a whole. This is the mandate of my Bill — a vision for a stronger, more equitably-governed India.
The writer is Member of Parliament for Thiruvananthapuram, Lok Sabha and the author of India: From Midnight to the Millennium, The Battle of Belonging and other books on Indian nationhood
