Will demand for newer States lead to a disintegration of India?

India is an idea, an aspiration, a belief in humanity and its potential to better itself without resorting to forced top down approaches based on imported ideologies and beliefs. If we look to history, the concept of India has been there for a very long time but India as it is today, with its political structure as a nation State is still in a developmental mode. At present, we have a federal India with a strong Centre and with continuing demands for newer States to be carved out from pre-existing ones.
These demands have often been violent and have seen considerable participation from university students with quite a few number of deaths. In this context, it is but natural to ask the question “Will demand for smaller States lead to disintegration of India?”
The demand for a newer, smaller State should be seen in the light of federalism and thus the recognition of the continued wish to remain within India should be recognised. What is demanded is not secession but inclusion and a recognition of the particular needs of the community demanding the separate State. Thus, the idea of disintegration is in direct opposition to the demand for new States.
Despite the presence of a strong Centre, the model of Indian federalism allows for enough control to the respective States to develop and implement policies for the betterment of their States with regards to subjects like education, employment and the like. Thus, disparate developments within a State based on cultural and linguistic differences seem to be the reason for these demands.
There is strong ground to argue against the formation of newer States based on administrative difficulties and unnecessary expenses due to the small size of these new entities. However, only geography cannot be taken into account and reflects a wrong approach. Examples from European countries, which are very small compared to India, have even smaller areas where considerable autonomy has been given. Examples could include Flanders in Belgium, Catalonia in Spain. Thus, the focus only on the size of the new States being demanded reflects a fundamentally flawed thinking.
On the other hand, given the immense cultural ethnic and linguistic differences in India the fear of disintegration seems plausible. After all, proponents of this theory would argue, the example of the Balkans is right before us. The idea of a Balkanised India is however nothing but a wrong way of countering legitimate claims to aspirations. It is also not taking into account historical realities, political culture and ground realities.
Unlike the Balkans, India despite its multitude of ethnicities, language and culture hardly contains any historical enmities. The idea has been of co-existence and accommodation, unlike the Balkans where unity was opposed due to a particular coercive political system. What is present though is a strong sense of local identity along with and not in place of the pride of being an Indian. Thus, there is a need to allow for the feeling of belongingness and a consolidation of the local identity along with the national identity.
Another argument against new States looks at the domino effect that could follow the formation of the states demanded as of now. In fact the current agitations have led to the rise of dormant demands with Vidarbha and Saurashtra prominent among them. This brings us to question the final number that might be reached and whether this process may throw many more such demands. However to deny legitimate aspirations based on these reasons seem to be the failure of Indian democracy. The executive as well as the legislative should be able to analyse between the demands of the people and the vacuous demands of attention mongers and politicians.
In fact, the smallness of States can lead to better administration. Despite the formation of Uttarakhand in 2000, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mayawati has asked for the formation of newer States for the sake of better governance.
The not so wonderful performance of the newer States leads people to argue that this process does not augur any economic benefits. However, economic results should not be taken in isolation and should be seen in light of other factors which affect such performance. Besides, it takes time for the newer States which usually do not have much development to attract investors and produce better economic results.
A sense of paternalism is being seen with other people deciding what is best. It should be left to the people concerned. Although such decisions affect the rest of India and other Indians as well, the primary people to be affected are the residents of that particular place.
Rational aspirations and the capacity to fulfil them make a democracy. India is a vibrant democracy and has been due to its citizens. The right to protest and demonstrate forms a part of this nation and has been the fabric of the nation since pre- independence times.
The question of newer States is also a test of India’s democratic credentials, which is among the least tainted one in South Asia and the immediate neighbourhood. The initial demands of State reorganisation based on linguistic basis have not brought about disintegration. In fact, it has allowed for the development of democratic principles.
Despite all the reasons in favour of new States, it is imperative to look for alternatives especially when creation of newer States may lead to more problems than solutions. In this regard, if the demands for States are made by a geographically small area, which is administratively unfeasible, there could be the creation of special districts according to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the demands for newer States should not be seen as a demand for smaller States leading to a disintegration of India.. Rather it should be viewed in light of its historical, cultural and political scenario reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the people. Only economics cannot be the deciding factor and it should be balanced with the emotion of the people as well.