Telangana: How to Make a State - India Real Time - WSJ
Telangana: How to Make a State
By Louise Tillin
Noah Seelam/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Indian students of the Telangana Joint Action Committee at a pro-Telangana protest in Hyderabad, Jan. 7.
On Wednesday as the winter session of Parliament resumes, the legislation necessary to create Telangana – India’s 29th state — is high on the agenda.
The bill to carve Telangana out of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh was rejected by that state’s legislative assembly last week, but there is no constitutional obligation for the national government to respect that view.
In fact, Article 3 of the Constitution empowers India’s federal government – on approval of the national Parliament – to form a new state.
As such, Indian federalism is quite distinctive: In the U.S. for instance, the approval of both Congress and the state legislatures concerned is needed before a new state can be created.
Nevertheless, the passage of the bill to create Telangana is unlikely to be straightforward.
Not only are several regional parties opposing the bill, but the ruling Congress party remains concerned about the likely fall-out of any decision on their electoral prospects in Andhra Pradesh in upcoming federal polls this spring. After backing Telangana in the hope of salvaging their support base within the region, Congress now worries about the extent of the backlash for doing so in the rest of the state.
It is also worth remembering that, historically, the national government has trod cautiously in the face of opposition from a state facing a possible division in two. Presumably, the more than 9,000 proposed amendments or points of view received by the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly on the issue will need to be considered.
Let’s imagine though that the legislation does pass. If it does, and this remains a big if, what challenges lie ahead in terms of the practicalities of creating a new state?
Firstly, the most fundamental decision is the precise contours of the new state. Any legislation will have to list the districts comprising the two regions; usually new state borders simply follow the lines of existing districts.
As a result, changes to existing parliamentary or assembly constituencies are not generally required. Historically, where a new state is sparsely populated and has very few assembly seats within its ‘parent’ state, an increase in the overall number of assembly constituencies has been mandated. In Uttarakhand – a northern state created from Uttar Pradesh in 2000 — assembly constituencies were increased from 19 to 70 overnight.
No such alteration is proposed for Telangana or the new state of Andhra Pradesh. According to the draft Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, Telangana would have 17 MPs and a 119-member legislative assembly whereas Andhra Pradesh would have 25 MPs and 175 members of its state legislature.
Once the precise boundaries have been finalised, the next step is to create a new administrative apparatus for both states.
The ‘birth’ of a state is usually celebrated in a new state capital. In the year 2000, three of these were created – Raipur in Chhattisgarh, Ranchi in Jharkhand and Dehra Dun in Uttarakhand.
In the case of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh though, a delay to the creation of a new capital has been written into the plan. The two new states would share Hyderabad as capital for up to 10 years, despite the fact that the city would not be geographically contiguous with the residual state of Andhra Pradesh (unlike Chandigarh which remains the shared capital of Haryana and Punjab.)
Supporters of Telangana – if a new state is created – would celebrate the achievement of statehood in a capital shared with many who are currently opposed to the separation and may be in less celebratory mood.
This compromise over the state capital reflects the centrality of Hyderabad to the economy of the region, and the extent to which the statehood debate has revolved around contesting claims to the city. The major question of the governance of Hyderabad remains unanswered.
Where to locate a new High Court for the new state of Andhra Pradesh is also undecided and the draft bill leaves this an open question.
Even if Hyderabad were technically the shared capital of two new states, it is likely that plans would quickly be made to make provisions for building a state capital by the new state government of Andhra Pradesh, in consultation with the government of India.
This would require the acquisition of significant tracts of land for both new administrative buildings, as well as infrastructure projects, such as an airport upgrade, new roads and rail investments.
The existing draft bill contains a provision that, if necessary, the national government will denotify ‘degraded forest land’ for the construction of a capital – a taste of the likely wrangling over land acquisition that is likely to follow.
Land speculation has already taken place in the areas viewed as likely sites: The real estate industry of any new state is likely to be given a boost by a rapid change in land use in the region of the capital.
The draft bill also says that the federal government would look into establishing ‘rapid rail and road connectivity’ between any new state capital and Hyderabad.
There are also the more prosaic administrative challenges of dividing the state bureaucracy to consider. The state cadres of the All India Services — civil servants, the police service, and the Indian Forest Service — must be split in two. These personnel decisions can be very protracted. Recruitment to government jobs has long been a subject of contention for the Telangana movement. Legal disputes over postings were still being dealt with many years after the creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. This process could be even more drawn out in the case of Andhra Pradesh, because the shared capital would initially delay the physical movement of many officers.
There would be other thorny issues too. A settlement as to the division of assets and liabilities between the two states would need to be established. The sharing of the waters of the Krishna and Godavari rivers is a major area requiring a model of inter-state cooperation. Perceived neglect of irrigation in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh has been a historical grievance raised by the movement for a separate state. Inter-state water disputes are already the source of tensions within India’s federal set-up, and are likely to intensify in coming years.
For sure, this scenario remains hypothetical, but is intended to give a sense of just some of the challenges that might lie ahead if a bill to reorganize Andhra Pradesh by splitting it in two makes its way through Parliament. The creation of any new state takes time, and many of these issues will unfold over years not months.
Louise Tillin is a Lecturer in Politics at King’s India Institute, King’s College London. She is the author of “Remapping India: New States and their Political Origins” (London, Hurst & Co; New Delhi and New York, Oxford University Press)
Follow India Real Time on Twitter @WSJIndia.
Telangana: How to Make a State
By Louise Tillin
Noah Seelam/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Indian students of the Telangana Joint Action Committee at a pro-Telangana protest in Hyderabad, Jan. 7.
On Wednesday as the winter session of Parliament resumes, the legislation necessary to create Telangana – India’s 29th state — is high on the agenda.
The bill to carve Telangana out of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh was rejected by that state’s legislative assembly last week, but there is no constitutional obligation for the national government to respect that view.
In fact, Article 3 of the Constitution empowers India’s federal government – on approval of the national Parliament – to form a new state.
As such, Indian federalism is quite distinctive: In the U.S. for instance, the approval of both Congress and the state legislatures concerned is needed before a new state can be created.
Nevertheless, the passage of the bill to create Telangana is unlikely to be straightforward.
Not only are several regional parties opposing the bill, but the ruling Congress party remains concerned about the likely fall-out of any decision on their electoral prospects in Andhra Pradesh in upcoming federal polls this spring. After backing Telangana in the hope of salvaging their support base within the region, Congress now worries about the extent of the backlash for doing so in the rest of the state.
It is also worth remembering that, historically, the national government has trod cautiously in the face of opposition from a state facing a possible division in two. Presumably, the more than 9,000 proposed amendments or points of view received by the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly on the issue will need to be considered.
Let’s imagine though that the legislation does pass. If it does, and this remains a big if, what challenges lie ahead in terms of the practicalities of creating a new state?
Firstly, the most fundamental decision is the precise contours of the new state. Any legislation will have to list the districts comprising the two regions; usually new state borders simply follow the lines of existing districts.
As a result, changes to existing parliamentary or assembly constituencies are not generally required. Historically, where a new state is sparsely populated and has very few assembly seats within its ‘parent’ state, an increase in the overall number of assembly constituencies has been mandated. In Uttarakhand – a northern state created from Uttar Pradesh in 2000 — assembly constituencies were increased from 19 to 70 overnight.
No such alteration is proposed for Telangana or the new state of Andhra Pradesh. According to the draft Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, Telangana would have 17 MPs and a 119-member legislative assembly whereas Andhra Pradesh would have 25 MPs and 175 members of its state legislature.
Once the precise boundaries have been finalised, the next step is to create a new administrative apparatus for both states.
The ‘birth’ of a state is usually celebrated in a new state capital. In the year 2000, three of these were created – Raipur in Chhattisgarh, Ranchi in Jharkhand and Dehra Dun in Uttarakhand.
In the case of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh though, a delay to the creation of a new capital has been written into the plan. The two new states would share Hyderabad as capital for up to 10 years, despite the fact that the city would not be geographically contiguous with the residual state of Andhra Pradesh (unlike Chandigarh which remains the shared capital of Haryana and Punjab.)
Supporters of Telangana – if a new state is created – would celebrate the achievement of statehood in a capital shared with many who are currently opposed to the separation and may be in less celebratory mood.
This compromise over the state capital reflects the centrality of Hyderabad to the economy of the region, and the extent to which the statehood debate has revolved around contesting claims to the city. The major question of the governance of Hyderabad remains unanswered.
Where to locate a new High Court for the new state of Andhra Pradesh is also undecided and the draft bill leaves this an open question.
Even if Hyderabad were technically the shared capital of two new states, it is likely that plans would quickly be made to make provisions for building a state capital by the new state government of Andhra Pradesh, in consultation with the government of India.
This would require the acquisition of significant tracts of land for both new administrative buildings, as well as infrastructure projects, such as an airport upgrade, new roads and rail investments.
The existing draft bill contains a provision that, if necessary, the national government will denotify ‘degraded forest land’ for the construction of a capital – a taste of the likely wrangling over land acquisition that is likely to follow.
Land speculation has already taken place in the areas viewed as likely sites: The real estate industry of any new state is likely to be given a boost by a rapid change in land use in the region of the capital.
The draft bill also says that the federal government would look into establishing ‘rapid rail and road connectivity’ between any new state capital and Hyderabad.
There are also the more prosaic administrative challenges of dividing the state bureaucracy to consider. The state cadres of the All India Services — civil servants, the police service, and the Indian Forest Service — must be split in two. These personnel decisions can be very protracted. Recruitment to government jobs has long been a subject of contention for the Telangana movement. Legal disputes over postings were still being dealt with many years after the creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. This process could be even more drawn out in the case of Andhra Pradesh, because the shared capital would initially delay the physical movement of many officers.
There would be other thorny issues too. A settlement as to the division of assets and liabilities between the two states would need to be established. The sharing of the waters of the Krishna and Godavari rivers is a major area requiring a model of inter-state cooperation. Perceived neglect of irrigation in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh has been a historical grievance raised by the movement for a separate state. Inter-state water disputes are already the source of tensions within India’s federal set-up, and are likely to intensify in coming years.
For sure, this scenario remains hypothetical, but is intended to give a sense of just some of the challenges that might lie ahead if a bill to reorganize Andhra Pradesh by splitting it in two makes its way through Parliament. The creation of any new state takes time, and many of these issues will unfold over years not months.
Louise Tillin is a Lecturer in Politics at King’s India Institute, King’s College London. She is the author of “Remapping India: New States and their Political Origins” (London, Hurst & Co; New Delhi and New York, Oxford University Press)
Follow India Real Time on Twitter @WSJIndia.
