Article 3 And Demand For Smaller States
Source: Indian Express
GS II: Polity and Governance- Federalism, Centre-State Relations
Overview
- The demand to divide Uttar Pradesh into four States highlights concerns over governance, regional development and political representation.
- Article 3 empowers Parliament to create new States, with the State Legislature’s views being non-binding.
- Smaller States may improve governance and regional development but pose challenges in resource sharing, administration and territorial disputes.
- State reorganisation should balance regional aspirations, equitable development and national unity through cooperative federalism.
Why in the News?
The demand for dividing Uttar Pradesh into smaller States has returned to the political discourse after Uttar Pradesh Minister and Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) leader Om Prakash Rajbhar claimed that the State could eventually be divided into four regions.
News in Brief
- The Minister has referred to Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Madhyanchal and Harit Pradesh in this context.
- There has, however, been no formal announcement of such a reorganization by the Union government.
- The issue is not new. The most concrete proposal came in 2011, when the then Uttar Pradesh government under Mayawati passed a resolution proposing the division of the State into Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh.
How is a State Divided?
- Article 3 of the Constitution deals with the formation of new States and alteration of the areas, boundaries or names of existing States.
- Under Article 3, Parliament may by law;
- Form a new State by separating territory from an existing State, uniting two or more States or parts of States; or uniting territory with a part of another State.
- Increase the area of a State
- Diminish the area of a State
- Alter the boundaries of a State
- Alter the name of a State.
- Procedure- A Bill for this purpose;
- can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the recommendation of the President;
- if it affects the area, boundaries or name of a State, the President refers it to the concerned State Legislature;
- the State Legislature is given a specified period to express its views;
- the views of the State Legislature are not binding on Parliamnet.
- India follows a flexible approach to internal territorial reorganization.
- The Constitution does not make the consent of an affected State Legislature a mandatory condition for its reorganisation.
- It is consulted, but Parliament can proceed even if the State Legislature disagrees.
- A law under Article 3 is passed through the ordinary legislative process and requires only a simple majority, rather than the special majority required for a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
- This reflects the constitutional position that Parliament has the ultimate authority over the internal territorial map of India under Article 3.
2011 Proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh
- The Mayawati government proposed dividing Uttar Pradesh into four States; Paschim Pradesh, Awadh Pradesh, Bundelkhand and Purvanchal.
- The proposal was justified by the then State government on the grounds that Uttar Pradesh’s enormous geographical size made administration and development difficult, while smaller States could potentially facilitate more effective governance.
- The Assembly passed the resolution in November 2011, but the proposal did not progress after the Samajwadi Party government came to power in 2012.
Why has there been a demand for division of Uttar Pradesh?
- Administrative efficiency
- Uttar Pradesh covers a very large geographical area and has a huge population.
- Supporters of smaller States have argued that dividing it could make administration and delivery of public services more manageable.
- Regional development
- Different regions of Uttar Pradesh have different economic, geographical and developmental characteristics.
- For example:
- Bundelkhand has historically faced issues related to drought and water scarcity.
- Purvanchal has distinct socio-economic and regional characteristics.
- Western Uttar Pradesh has a relatively different agricultural and economic profile.
- The argument is that region-specific governments could give greater attention to local development priorities.
- Political and Social factors
- The demand has also been connected with the different social and political compositions of various regions.
- The 2011 proposal had political implications because different regions had different caste and electoral configurations.
Regional Statehood Demands
Bundelkhand
- The demand for a separate Bundelkhand has existed for several years.
- The proposed region spans the Bundelkhand area of Uttar Pradesh, while the broader Bundelkhand region also extends into Madhya Pradesh.
- Issues such as water scarcity, drought and regional underdevelopment have contributed to demands for greater political and administrative attention.
Purvanchal
- The demand for a separate Purvanchal has also emerged from eastern Uttar Pradesh.
- Its proponents argue that the region has distinctive socio-economic and developmental requirements.
Harit Pradesh
- The demand for Harit Pradesh relates to western Uttar Pradesh, RLD leader Ajit Singh had earlier demanded such a State, citing the region’s distinct political and social characteristics.
Political Dimension
- The demand for dividing Uttar Pradesh has historically been viewed through different political interests.
- The 2011 proposal under Mayawati was formally presented as a measure to improve administration and development.
- However, the division of such a politically significant State also has implications for electoral geography, caste equations and regional political bases.
- The latest remarks by Om Prakash Rajbhar have therefore brought the issue back into political discussion, but a political statement or demand should not be treated as equivalent to a formal government proposal.
Why is Uttar Pradesh Politically Significant?
- Uttar Pradesh has considerable importance in national politics because of:
- its large population;
- its large representation in the Lok Sabha;
- its importance in national electoral politics;
- its geographical and economic diversity;
- its association with several important religious and cultural centres.
- The political parties seeking power at the Centre have historically had to perform strongly in Uttar Pradesh because of the State’s large parliamentary representation.
Arguments in favour of Smaller States
- Smaller States can improve administrative efficiency by bringing the government closer to the people and enabling faster decision-making.
- They allow greater focus on region-specific developmental needs, improve the implementation of government schemes and facilitate better monitoring of public services.
- Smaller administrative units may also ensure more effective political representation and give greater attention to historically neglected regions, thereby promoting balanced regional development.
Concerns associated with State Division
- However, the creation of smaller States involves several administrative and financial challenges.
- The division requires the redistribution of financial resources, natural resources, government employees, assets and liabilities between the newly created States.
- It may also lead to disputes over capital cities, infrastructure, water-sharing and territorial boundaries.
- Further, the establishment of new administrative institutions involves significant expenditure, while political competition over statehood demands may create regional tensions and affect Centre-State relations.
Creation of New States
- India has witnessed several State reorganisations after Independence.
- The most important phase was the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which reorganised States substantially on linguistic lines.
- Since 2000, three new States were created:
- Chhattisgarh — carved out of Madhya Pradesh
- Uttarakhand — carved out of Uttar Pradesh
- Jharkhand — carved out of Bihar
- Later, Telangana was created from Andhra Pradesh in 2014.
- These examples show that State formation in India has been driven by a combination of administrative, linguistic, cultural, economic and political considerations.
Conclusion
The creation of smaller States should be guided by administrative efficiency, balanced regional development and public welfare rather than narrow political interests. A transparent constitutional process under Article 3, supported by equitable resource sharing and cooperative federalism, is essential to ensure that State reorganization strengthens national unity while addressing regional aspirations.
UPSC Prelims and Mains Practice Question
Consider the following statements regarding Article 3 of the Constitution:
- Parliament can form a new State by separating territory from an existing State.
- The consent of the concerned State Legislature is mandatory before Parliament can create a new State.
- A Bill under Article 3 can be introduced in Parliament only on the recommendation of the President.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1 and 3 only
D) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: 1 and 3 only
Mains Practice Question
Q) The Constitution gives Parliament considerable flexibility in reorganizing the internal boundaries of India. Discuss the constitutional procedure under Article 3 and examine the administrative, developmental and political arguments surrounding demands for smaller States. (250 words)
Daily Current Affairs: Click Here