Part1: Union and its Territory (Artical 1-4)

Art. 1 says that India, that is Bharat, is a Union of States.
There is an opinion that the term’ Union of States’ implies that India is a unitary system of government and is federal only in a secondary sense. However, the following explanation dispels such an interpretation.
In the Constituent Assembly, the Drafting Committee decided in favour of describing India as a Union, although its Constitution is federal in structure.

Ques. 1: Bring out the significance of the expression “Union” instead of the expression “Federation” in the Indian Constitution?

Ans. Moving the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly in 1948, Dr. Ambedkar explained the significance of the use of the expression “Union” instead of the expression “Federation”. Two reasons are given

• Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source.
• The expression- India is a Union of States was chosen as India was already a Union at the time of the Constituent Assembly debates.

There are two expressions used in the context of governance in India- ‘Union of India’ and ‘Territory of India’ the former includes States that share federal powers with the Union Government, the latter includes not only States but all other units like UT’s and soon. In other words, territory of India encompasses a larger area than Union of India. That is, Territory of India encompasses the entire territory over which Indian sovereignty is exercised while Union of India covers only the federal system.
Government of India can acquire any territory by purchase, treaty, cession, conquest or any other method, administer it on the basis of Parliamentary Act.
The States and the territories, thereof are specified in the First Schedule. ‘The territory of India ‘comprises of the territories of the States; the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and such other territories as may be acquired.

Ques. 2 : The amendment of the Article 2 and Article 3 are not to be deemed to be an amendment under Article 368. Discuss?

Ans. Art.2 says that the Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
Art 3. Formation of the States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States: - Parliament may by law:-
(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;
The relevant Bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the recommendation of the President.
The Bill should be referred by the President to the Legislature/Legislatures of the State/States for expressing views within such period as may be specified in the reference. Such period may be extended by the President. The opinion of the State Legislatures is not binding on the President. The Bill can be introduced in the Parliament- either House- only on the recommendation of the President. The Bill needs to be passed by the Parliament by a simple majority.
Art. 4 says that laws made under Articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and incidental and consequential matters are not to be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.

Ques. 3 : The use of the provisions under Article 2 and Article 3 since independence has been truly federal rather than unitary in nature. Examine the statement with examples?

Ans. A federation is one consisting of ‘an. indestructible Union of indestructible States’ as in the USA. India, though a federation, has Constitutional mandate for the abolition of a state. That is, in India, states are not indestructible’. A state can he abolished or merged with another state. Its boundaries, area and name can be changed. The process is initiated by the Union Government and the role of the affected state is only to express its opinion which is not binding on the Union Government. Parliament needs to pass the Bill only by a simple majority. The Council of States (Rajya Sabha) which is the representative of states does not have any special powers in this matter. Thus, the process is Unitary. However, there are certain aspects that require consideration
President is given the power to refer the Bill to the state concerned. The Bill can not be introduced in the Parliament without the Presidential recommendation. The President is unlikely to allow abuse of the power by the union government.

• The need for political integration after Independence even in the face of any provincial resistance was the overriding factor.
• The Constitution was drafted at a time when the country was partitioned and the danger from centrifugal tendencies made the Constituent Assembly members feel the need for a strong centre.

It is true that the provisions in Art. 2 and 3 are unitary in content. But, as shown the use of the provisions is truly federal.

The case of Pondicherry (Puducherry)

It is a former French colony. A treaty of cession was signed by India and France in 1956. It was ratified by the French parliament in May 1962. Till 1962, therefore, it could not be given the status of a Union Territory and was given the status of ‘acquired territory’. In 1962 India and France exchanged the instruments of ratification under which France ceded to India full sovereignty over the territories it held. It came to be administered as the Union Territory of Pondicherry from 1963. Its new name is Puducherry.
Parliament in 2006 passed a Bill to rename the Union Territory (UT) of Pondicherry as Puducherry in response to the wishes of the people of the Union Territory expressed through a unanimous resolution by the legislative Assembly in 1980.The Bill amends Part VIII, the First and Fourth Schedules of the Constitution and the Government of Union Territories Act 1963.
Puducherry encompasses four regions - Puducherry, Karaikal (near Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu), Mahe (near Thalassery, Kerala) and Yanam (near Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh).

The Case of Sikkim

Sikkim was originally a protectorate* of India. Reflecting the wishes of the people of Sikkim, the Constitution (Thirty-fifth amendment) was passed in Parliament in 1974 to up-grade the status of Sikkim from a protectorate to an associate state of the Indian Union.
Sikkim Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution in April, 1975, abolishing the institution of the Chogyal (royalty) and declaring Sikkim as a constituent unit of India. The Assembly also resolved to submit its resolution to the people of Sikkim by way of a general referendum. Consequently, Parliament made the Thirty- sixth Constitution Amendment Act in 1975 and Sikkim became the 22nd state of the Indian Union.
*In international law, a protectorate is a political entity that formally agrees by treaty to enter into a relationship with another, stronger state, called the protector, which agrees to protect it (diplomatically or militarily) against third parties, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations.

Union Territories

‘The reasons for having UTs differ with the Union Territory in question. General reasons are: unique history; geographical size/location; cultural heritage; Inter- State disputes; need for territories administered by the Union Government.
Specific reasons are
1. Delhi — capital of India.
2. Pondicherry - French colonial & cultural heritage - small far-flung areas.
3. Daman & Diu - Portuguese colonial & cultural heritage - far from Goa.
4. Dadra & Nagar Haveli - Portuguese heritage - far from Goa, Daman & Diu.
5. Andaman & Nicobar - group of islands deep into the Bay of Bengal far from the mainland.
6. Lakshwadweep - group of small islands deep into the Arabian Sea - far from mainland.
7. Chandigarh - dispute between states of Punjab & Haryana - Punjab Accord awarded to Punjab - transfer not yet through - continues as UT.

Creating New States

Even before Independence, Government was exploring the appropriate basis for states reorganization. Dhar Commission was set up by the President of the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1948 to consider the question of reorgnization of states in India. The Commission favoured reorganization on the basis of administrative efficacy and not language. The Indian National Congress at its Jaipur Session (1948) set up a high level committee called Linguistic Provinces Committee - consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh bhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitararniah to consider the Dhar Commission’s recommendations. In its report (J.V.P. Report) the committee counseled utmost caution in proceeding with the proposal for the linguistic reorganization of states.
Political movements for the creation of new language based states emerged after indepen-dence. The Telugu-speaking people agitated in Madras State for the formation of Andhra. In 1953, the 16 Telugu-speaking districts of Madras State became the new State of Andhra. It comprised Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema Regions. In 1956 Andhra State was merged with the Telangana region of Hyderabad State to form a united Telugu-speaking state of Andhra Pradesh.
Jawahar Lal Nehru subsequently appointed the States Reorganization Commission (1953) that included Fazl Ali, KM Panikkar and HN Kunzru. In 1955 the States Reorganization Commission submitted its report recommending that many British-imposed administrative boundaries be redrawn to recognize certain regional, cultural, and linguistic configurations. The change was justified or the basis of administrative efficiency - the use of a single language in a given state. Explaining the criterion of language as the basis for constituting a state, it said:

Ques. 4 : “Linguistic homogeneity provides the only rational basis for reconstituting the state for it reflects the social and cultural pattern of living obtaining in well defined regions of the country”? Critically examine the statements.

Ans. The four criteria laid down by the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) for accepting the demand by a region for the formation of a State are:

• Creation of new States should strengthen and preserve national unity.
• States are to be formed on the basis of linguistic and cultural unity.
• Financial, administrative and economic viability should govern the formation of new states.
• It should aid the process of implementation of five years plans.

Parliament passed the States Reorganization Act (1956) that was based on the SRC report. This was the beginning of states reorganization in India on a linguistic basis. It was a major development toward incorporating cultural identities into political and administrative units. The federal devolution of power strengthened this expression of cultural diversity. Linguistic reorganization of states was the only viable model as it helped administrative efficiency; greater citizen convenience; effective management of diversities and thus strengthening the federal system of governance. It prevents fissiparous tendencies like separatism and disintegration.
Formation of States in India on the basis of languages in 1956 was because language represented relatively acceptable base in comparison to other contending criteria like geography, ethnicity, ecology, economic development and so on.

States Reorganization Act 1956 and Constitution (Seventh) Amendment Act 1956

In order to understand the significance of the SR Act 1956 and the Constitution (Seventh) Amendment Act 1956, the nature of political and administrative organization under the British needs to be followed. British India had two types of territories

• provinces, governed directly by British officials who were responsible to the Governor-General of India and
• princely states under the control of local hereditary rulers having British government as the sovereign but enjoying autonomy based on a treaty
  When India became Independent on August 15, 1947, British dissolved their treaty relations with over 600 princely states, who had the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan. Most of the princely states joined India. Hyderabad was incorporated into India after armed intervention.
  In the three year period during 1947-1950, the princely states were politically integrated into the Indian Union- either merged with the existing provinces or organised into new provinces.
  The Constitution of India, when it came into existence on January 26, 1950 had three class of states.
• The nine Part A states, which were the former governors’ provinces of British India, were ruled by an elected governor and state legislature:
• The eight Part B states were former princely states or groups of princely states, governed by a Rajpramukhs, who was often a former prince, along with an elected legislature. The Rajpramukh was appointed by the President of India.
• The ten Part C states included both the former chief commissioners’ provinces and other centrally administered areas except Andarnan and Nicobar islands. The chief commissioner was appointed by the President of India.

The States Reorganization Act 1956 brought about linguistic reorganization of the states under which absorbed the former British provinces and princely states on the basis of language. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution (1956) abolished the difference between Part A and Part B states- both became “states” constituting a single category. Part C states were renamed “union territories.” The personal privileges of the princes - the Privy Purse, the exemption from customs duty etc continued till they were abolished in 1971.

Criticism of Linguistic Reorganization of States

The linguistic reorganization of the states encouraged various ethnic groups to demand statehood. This was because ethnic identity was provided a territory under the scheme of linguistic reorganization. Such potential has been further sharpened because linguistic reorganization in a vast and diverse country like India cannot satisfy the cultural aspirations of all groups. The dissatisfactions of some of the unrecognized minority linguistic groups also continue to simmer. Such problems exist with regard to the Konkan region of Maharasthra/Goa, Nepali-speaking groups of Darjeeling, Sikkim, and Assam, and Maithili and Avadhi language groups in Bihar. There are several political parties which are ethnicity-based, and they will very willingly build their strength by exploiting the linguistic identities of their constituencies.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) hinted at weaknesses of the linguistic reorganization of states in this respect when it said:
Very often, the sub-national sentiment which is initially based on linguistic, religious or ethnic groupings, gains strength with a blend of economic issues, such as those relating to... economic backwardness. One of the most significant developments has been the rise of linguistic chauvinism, rearrange-ment of the boundaries of the States on linguistic basis.., resulting in fissiparous tendencies.
Three new states were created in 2000 not on the basis of language but primarily for good governance.
Since the SRC report was acted upon first in 1956, many new States came into existence first in South and West and later in the Northwest arid the Northeast. The last phase of the reorganization was in the north and the Central India in 2000 There are demands for new States still like Harita Pradesh (western UP); Bundelkhand (UP) Koshal (western Orissa); Telangana (AP); Kodagu (Karnataka); Vidarbha (Maharashtra); Jatland (Haryana); Ladakh (Jammu and Kashmir); Bodoland (Assam); Gorkhaland (West Bengal); UTs of Puducherri and Delhi.
Needless -to say, the demands could not he met as it would lead to proliferation of states to a point of making federal coordination difficult; they are not economically viable; national unity would he threatened ; small states may he unable to tackle political threats like naxalism; 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 general reasons.

Ques. 5 : Do you think that increasing demand for seperate states is a proxy for the administrative effeciency and will make the Indian Policy more federal? Critically examine the statements?

Ans. States reorganization has been taking place since mid-fifties-first in south and later in northwest and northeast and now in the northern, central and eastern India so that big states are made more governable through bifurcation on linguistic, cultural, ecological, economic or any other criterion or a combination of them. The case for small states rests on.

• big states needed to be divided for administrative viability
• better system of administration through participative planning
• avoid neglect of certain regions and sections of society
• remove regional economic imbalances etc.

Examples of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh are shown as successful small states. Northeast is cited to show that without the reorganization, there would have been greater levels of insurgency.
While there is no opposition to carving more states out of the big states like Bihar, MP and UP as social and economic indicators show that for reasons of governability, there should be bifurcation, the costs are cited as the following

• viability problems creating fiscal stress for Centre
• more demands by other regions
• leave the parent state with drastically reduced resources
• federal coordination becomes difficult
• higher rates of taxation on citizens to raise the required resources for the following reason: when a UT becomes a State, it foregoes financial - assistance that it enjoys as a UT. It necessitates resort to higher taxation to compensate for the central assistance that is no longer available.

According to some development experts, the need for division of big states is undeniable but the debate regarding the desirability of small states is basically one of how to enable balanced development and facilitate better administration. According to them, the answer lies in Local self government institutions; institutionalization of regional planning through autonomous councils etc; sustaining the existing funding mechanisms through Planning Commission (Gadgil formula for plan assistances) and Finance Commission -mediated transfers on the basis of poverty; special category states etc.

Second SRC

It has been more than fifty years since the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) gave its report. It had the mammoth task of regrouping the states essentially on linguistic lines and absorb the princely states. The process of states reorganization continued since- 1956 SR Act with three new states being formed in 2000- Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal (renamed Uttarakhand by the Parliament, according to Art.3 in the winter session of 2006).

There are demands for seeing if the reorganization done so far has worked well.
Also, there have been agitations for statehood in the Telangana, Vidarbha and Darjeeling regions and elsewhere in the country.

Ques. 6 : What is Telangana issue? Is the recommendation of the B.N. Srikrishna Committee a step in the right direction?

Ans. An early expression of regionalism was the Telangana movement in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The region consists of 10 northwestern districts of Andhra Pradesh including the state capital, Hyderabad. The Krishna and Godavari rivers flow through the region from west to east. In 1953, based on the recommendation of the States Reorganisation Commission, Telugu-speaking areas were separated from the former Madras States to form Andhra, India’s first state established along linguistic lines. Telangana was merged with Andhra to form the new state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956.
The concerns about Telangana stem essentially from economic under-development. Compared to the costal region, the contrast is stark. Being backward, people of Telangana had the disadvantage in education and jobs. The Telangana movement grew out of a sense of regional identity and not from a sense of ethnic identity. The movement demanded redress for economic grievances and recognition of a sense of cultural distinctness. The local disadvantaged people of Telangana are called Mulkis.
The 1956 “gentlemen’s agreement” provided reassurances to the Telangana people in education, jobs and ministerial berths. The use of Urdu was to continue in the administration and the judiciary. A Regional Council for Telangana was to be responsible for economic development, and its members were to be elected by the members of the state legislative assembly from the region.
The demand for Telangana as a separate state re-emerged in recent years and it is mentioned in the NCMP that the demand will be considered at an appropriate time after due consultations and consensus. To look into the issue of Telangana region B.N. Srikrishna Committee was formed in.

Ques. 7 : The demand for seperate states has led to a range of Constitutional and non-constitutional mechanisms to be put in place to satisfy demands for autonomy and respect for cultural identity. Bring out these mechanisms chronologically?

Ans. The demand for statehood has the following explanatory factors:

• “Development deficit” due to the uneven development of the country is one reason. Those regions that have not seen fruits of growth want a new state.
• Population explosion- electorate today is about 70 crores which is a five fold increase over the 1950s figure. It has created pressures that have found expression as demands for special status.
• Cultural identities have become the basis for political agitations for separate statehood which is partly the offshoot of language-based statehood followed since 1950’s.
  Political parties also are instrumental in encouraging such demands for their own ends.
  So far, a range of Constitutional and non-Constitutional mechanisms have been put in place to satisfy demands for autonomy and respect for cultural identity.
• They are special category states like the north east, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand etc that receive central plan assistance at liberal terms
• there are autonomous councils as in Ladakh, Darjeeling, Bodo where regions enjoy autonomy in administration
• development boards (Art. 371(2)) for the backward regions of the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat
• Finance Commission recommends more finances in terms of tax share and grants for the underdeveloped states
• 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts for local self government strive to satisfy local aspirations through decentralized governance
• Inclusions of languages in the 8th schedule of the Constitution for the cultural development of the people.
• Sixth Schedule benefits

In spite of the above facilities, there is a feeling that a second SRC be formed to recommend further steps.

Ques. 8 : What is Regionalism? Does it have any effect in stabilizaing the polity? Give your answer with examples from Indian Polity?

Ans. Regionalism refers to a group of people in a region or a state coming together to demand and agitate for more powers of autonomy or a separate state for any of the following reasons

• Collective feeling of neglect
• Economic backwardness
• Their resources are being spent on others
• The state is too large for them to be given adequate attention in development.

Government reacted to the regionalist demands in the following manner

• Grant of a separate state- Uttarakhand, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand in 2000.
• Autonomous council
• Inclusion of the language in the Eighth Schedule as in the case of Bodos
• Special provisions for certain regions in a State which are underdeveloped- Art. 371(2) for Gujarat and Maharashtra.
• Constitutional establishment of the local self government institutions (73rd and 74th Amendment Acts in 1992).

Regionalism as seen in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Assam and elsewhere has the effect of stabilizing the polity with the following contributions

• Ensuring that the regional feeling of neglect does not degenerate into separatism
• Checking the centralization tendency and help the states receive more powers and thus develop ‘cooperative federalism’
• Contribute to better management of “cultural diversities’ through devolution of powers
• Greater proximity of the government to the people and thus help evolve participative planning systems.