INDIA AND ITS TERRITORY

Date: January 04, 2015

INDIA AND ITS TERRITORY

Part I of Indian constitution provides provisions related with Union and its termites, from Art. 1 to 4. India is also known as a country of destructible states and indestructible union. According to Art. 1 (1)  India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

(2) The states and the territories there of shall be as specified in the first schedule.

(3) The territory of India shall comprise-

(a) The territories of the States

(b) The Union territories specified in the first schedule and

(c) Such Other territories as may be acquired

Art. 2 The parliament has power to establish or admit new states

Art. 3 Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states

Process The parliament can enact by simple majority, provided that no will of the purpose shall be introduce in either house of parliament except on the recommendation of President. The President refers this will to the state concerned for expressing its views there on with in such period as may be specified in the reference

Formation of new states and alteration of boundaries

1- No will for the purpose can be introduce in either house of parliament except on the recommendations of the President (Art-3)

  1. As per the 5th amendment Act 1955 the period of the bill referred by the President to the legislature of that states for expressing its view will be specified by him (President) (Art-3)
  2. As per the 8th amendment Act 1966 the bill may be introduce even though the views of that states have not been received by the President
  3. As per the Supreme Court verdict in Ram Kishor Vs. Union of India, 1966 the term “state” include union territories also.
  4. As per Babul al Vs. state of Bombay once the original bill is referred to the state or states, no fresh reference shall be required every time an amendment to the bill is moved
  5. In the case of Jammu & Kashmir no bill can be introduce in parliament without consent of the state legislature.

Originally India has 14 states divided in 3 categories (A, B & C) but by the 7th amendment these category were abolished.

 

Formation of states in India

No

Name

Date of formation

Official language

Administrative capital

1.

Andhra Pradesh

1 Nov, 1956

telugu

Hydrabad1

2.

Arnachal Pradesh

20 Feb, 1987

English

Itanagar

3.

Assam

15 Aug, 1947

Bodo, Bengali

Dispur

4.

Jharkhand

15 Nov, 2000

Hindi

Ranchi

5.

Kerala

1 Nov, 1956

Malayalam

Thiruvananthapuram

6.

Tenlangana

2 June 2014

Telugu Urdu

Hydrabad

7.

Odisha

1 April 1936

Oriya

Bhubaneswar

8.

Gujarat

1 May 1960

Gujarati

Gnadhinagar

9.

Karnatka

1 Nov 1956

Kannada

Bangalore

10.

Rajasthan

1 Nov, 1956

Rajasthai, Hindi

Jaipur

11.

Tamil Nadu

26 Jan, 1950

Tamil

Chennai

12.

Madhya predesh

1 Nov 1956

Hindi

Bhopal

13.

West Bengal

1 Nov,1956

Bengali, English

Kolkata

14.

Bihar

1 April, 1936

Hindi, Mgadhi, Maithili Urdu

Patna

15.

Maharashtra

1 May 1960

Marathi

Mumbai

16.

Uttar Pradesh

26 Jan, 1950

Hindi, Urdu

Lucknow

17.

Sikkim

16 may 1975

Lepcha, Limbu, Manggar, Newari, Sherpa, Sunwar , Tamang

Gangtok

18.

Mizoram

20, Feb1987

Mizo

Aizawl

19.

Goa

30 May, 1987

Konkani

Panaji

20.

Nagaland

1 Dec, 1963

English

Kohima

21.

Manipur

21 Jan 1972

Manipuri

Imphal

22.

Meghalaya

 21 Jan, 1972

English Garo, Hindi, Khasi, Phar

Shillong

23.

Tripura

21, Jan 1972

Bengali Tripuri

Agartala

24.

Jammu & Kashmir 

26 Oct, 1947

Dogri, Kahmiri, Urdu

Srinagar

25.

Haryana

1 Nov 1966

Hindi, Haryanvi

Chandigarh

26.

Punjab

1 Nov, 1966

Punjabi

Chandigarh

27.

Chhattisgarh

1 Nov 2000

Chattisgarhi, Hindi

Raipur

28.

Uttarakhand

9 Nov, 2000

Hindi, Sanskrit

Dehradun

29.

Jharkhand

15 Nov 2000

Hindi

Ranchi

Union Territories

1.

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

English, Hindi

Port Blair

2.

Chandigarh

English, Hindi, Punjabi

Chandigarh

3.

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Einglish, Gujarati, hindi, Marathi

Daman

4.

Lakshadweep

English, Malayalam

Kavaratti

5.

National Capital Territory of Delhi

English, Hindi, Punjabi,Urdu

Delhi

6.

Puducherry

French and Tamil

 Pondicherry

7.

Daman and diu

English, Gujarati, Hindi, Marathi

Daman

Note:- 1- Andhra Pradesh was divided into two states on Jun 2, 2014 that is Telangan and a residual Andhra Prades. Hydrabad is the joined capital for both states for next 10 years.

 

 

Changing the Name of States

First of all for change in the name of the states resolution is past in state assembly this resolution is once past is forwarded to the central Govt. by this the state assembly authorizes the state Govt. to place the matter before the Govt. of India for the change of the name of state.

Berubari Union case  After division of India and Pakistan by Redcliff line a dispute name Berubari came into picture this dispute rose due to omission in  the written text. This dispute was resolved by Nehru-Noon agreement of 1958 where by half of the Berubari union was given to the Pakistan. Now the question was whether the parliament have right to transfer any territory of India to any other nation. The detailed examination of Art-3 was done by Supreme Court on a reference made by President in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the parliament do not have right to implement Nehru-Noon agreement consequently parliament made 9th amendment Act to implement the agreement.

Case of Sikkim

Sikkim was firstly added as a associated states under Art.2A it was repealed by constitution (36 amendment Act 1975) Sikkim was originally ruled by Chogyals for more than 3 hundred years, when India became independent in 1947, a popular vote in Sikkim rejected to join in Indian Union. However Chogyal Tashi Namgyal was successful in getting special status for Sikkim. By the beginning of 1970, Sikkim faced political movement for democratic set up on May 1973. There was agreement between Chogyal, political parties and Govt. of India.

The constitution 35th amendment on February 1975 added a new Art. 2A in the Constitution. Which provided Sikkim a state with associated status. However in 1975 itself there was a complete collapse in the administration in Sikkim. In 1975 the Kazi (Prime Minister of Sikkim) requested to India parliament for a change in status of Sikkim so that it could become a state of India.

In April India Army entered into Sikkim and captured Gangtok, and after that referendum was held in which more than 95% people voted in favor of joining India. On 16th May 1975 Sikkim officially became the 22nd state of Indian Union though 36 constitutional amendment Act 1975.

Small states Vs. Big states

 The formulation of states either bigger or smaller depends upon the current socio-political needs of the people. In the last few years we have seen a constant tug of war between champions of smaller states and supporters of bigger once. States are only administrative units they cannot and should not be used as a means of politics only.

Smaller states have been the new political mode of addressing basic issues that were otherwise left unresolved. However, fighting for a new state and reconstructing on a more sustainable democratic content are undoubtedly two different issues all together. One does not automatically promise the other if there is anything to learn from the previous history of smaller states in India.

Bigger states on the other hand, follow principle of economy of scale i.e. the cost of production and service delivery will automatically reduce in case of large scale machinery. There are following points in favor of small states.

 

 

Points  in favour :-

  1. More citizen centric :- the division of states facilitates that every state institution is more responsible and accountable towards citizens, simply if the state have to serve less number of people then it can concentrate more on their facilities. The pressure on administrative system is reduced due to increase in administrative efficiency.
  2. Increased growth rate:- In case of small states the growth rate is generally more in comparison with big states for example. According to Planning commission data, Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) for Chhattisgarh rose from 3.1% average growth over 1994-95 and 2001-02 to 8.6% average since 2004-05. Even Uttarakhand shows similar trend (4.6% to 12.3%). Also, the industrial sector in Chhattisgarh grew at 13% over this 5-years period while the growth rate was only 6.7% for Madhya Pradesh. With an efficient and more targeted administration, growth in inevitable.
  3. Proximity of capital city:- it is a known fact that the capital city is where the people of the state go to air their grievances as all major government offices, judicial houses like state high courts and political quarters are housed there. A new state would more often than not, mean a closer capital city and thus provide relief to the people. This cannot be said about larger states. For e.g. : If a citizen in western UP were to be heard in any of the state commissions or courts, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow, spending large amounts of money in an attempt to get justice. Thus reduced distances between the state capital and peripheral areas would improve the quality of governance and administrative responsiveness and accountability.

 

Points against :-

  1. Division vs. governance:- Much more than the size of a state, it is the quality of governance and administration, the diverse talent available within the state’s population, and the leadership’s drive and vision that determine whether a particular state performs better than the others. Devolution of powers to the grass root level and an accountable bureaucracy is what you need for governance, not division. If that was the case, Jharkhand should have been a developed state. But that is far from true. Corruption in mining licenses and Naxalites haunt the state. Both Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand account for 68% of insurgent attacks.
  2. Reduced self-sustainability :- a small state is likely to face limitation in terms of the natural and human resources available to it. Moreover, it will lack the kind of agro-climatic diversity required for economic and developmental activities. All these factors would only make it more dependent on the Centre for financial transfer and centrally-sponsored schemes. Taking example of Telangana, post division, Telangana would become a landlocked state by losing out on major port, golden quadrilateral and major railway freight corridors.
  3. Cost of infrastructure: - A new small state may find itself lacking in infrastructure (administrative and industrial), which requires time, money and effort to build. There is massive amount of infrastructure needed for building up new capital and to make new states self-sufficient. Mobilizing capital required for such big infrastructure setup is a herculean task. Which will add more pressure on the already dwindling fiscal Reserves of India Rather a systematic and planned approach for development within the current state can handle the issue of growth better than division.
  4. Hurts unity: - If states are divided on the basis of religion, caste, creed, language, culture etc. the whole idea of making “One India” as laid down by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel goes down the drain. Such divisions causes more hatred amongst the states, which is not favorable for inter state tourism as well as trade. India is a museum of cults and customs, creeds and cultures, faiths and tongues, racial types and social systems. Dividing India on such fragile factors can only lead to anarchy. We cannot go back to following “Divide and Rule” policy of the British Era.

;