‘Parliament alone has powers to create a new State under Article 3 of Constitution’

“Technically, assembly resolution will have no bearing on Parliament decision”. In fact, the issue of formation of a separate state needs to be debated only in the Parliament. While Article 2 states that the Parliament may by law admit into the Union or establish new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, Article 3 refers to formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.

It may be recalled that the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966 amended Article 3 to specify that the expression “State” will include a union territory also and to make it clear that the power to form a new state under thisArticle includes a power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of a state or a union territory to another state or union territory.

It may be noted that the Parliament alone has the powers to (a) 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; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State.

While a group of lawyers has been supporting a separate statehood for Telangana rejoiced and celebrated, another group is opposing the formation of new state. The opposing group some days back shouted “Jai Andhra” slogans inside the Andhra Pradesh High Court showing their disapproval for an independent state. The lawyers opposing the formation are from the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema region, who insist on an integrated state.

People at large oppose the formation of a separate Telangana state, saying that once this is done, it will open a pandora’s box of demands for smaller states by power hungry politicians across the country.

Besides Telangana, there are 2 more new states waiting to be formed. One being Darjeeling and the other is Vidarbha. The West Bengal Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, has made it categorically clear that Darjeeling is internationally known as a popular tourist destination, hence it being the pride of West Bengal, cannot be made into a separate state.

Vidarbha is the eastern region of the State of Maharashtra and is made up of Nagpur and Amravati Divisions. Vidarbha is quite rich in coal and manganese, and iron ore and limestone have been identified as potential mining resources, besides, it houses power projects which generate over 3,500 Mw. Even though Vidarbha enjoys adverse publicity due to a large number of farmer suicides, it is quite rich in cash crops such as cotton, oranges and soyabean. Amravati is the largest orange growing district. Unfortunately it has become quite infamous due to growing Naxal activities.

The formation of a separate Vidarbha state will have a direct impact on the state’s economy. It has been warned that the statehood issue needs to be taken with due care as the rest of Maharashtra will then have to enter into separate agreements for procuring power and developing mines, in particular from Vidarbha.

The demand for formation of a new state is not new. The Fazal Ali Commission, as early as in the 1950s, had then recommended separate states for Telangana and Vidarbha for their speedy growth. The demand for a separate state began soon after the formation of the state in 1956.

The Fazal Ali Commission on the states reorganization was appointed by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, submitted its report in 1955. One of the important recommendations that was being made by the Fazal Ali Commission was that the north eastern border region should remain under the direct administration of the Centre in view of the security implications.

While new states started to take birth post November 1956, consequent to the recommendations of the Commission, the north eastern region remained part of Assam, excluding the princely States of Manipur and Tripura. However, following the Nagaland militancy which resulted in extensive disruption of public order in that region, then Prime Minister Nehru announced statehood for Nagaland withall the trappings of a State in 1963.

Quite apart from other administrative processes of sharing assets, there will also be questions about sharing resources such as coal, mine, river water, electricity etc. All these issues can be sorted only through a process of political and emotional adjustments. One needs to ask how small is small. States getting divided into smaller states, districts into smaller districts and cities into smaller cities. The list of division seems endless.

Separation of the States may create more Chief Ministers, Ministers, Leaders of Opposition and a more lalbattis (red beacon vehicles). But will that help solve the problems faced by the common man. Separation of the states may lead to more inequalities and powers into the hands of haves than the have-nots. In future it will be on these local political parties to work for and work with the people of their state to ensure that the benefits arising from the separation of these States gets percolated to the common man. Only time will tell if separation was indeed the right way ahead for inclusive development of the State.