The Administrative Challenge of Scale in India: Governance, Population and Policy Implementation

Context

• India represents an unparalleled diversity of population, geography, language, and socio-economic conditions. Governing a population exceeding 1.4 billion through states of vastly unequal size has emerged as a core administrative challenge. Several Indian states today have populations larger than many sovereign nations, raising questions of governability and administrative efficiency.

Rationale for a Permanent Framework on State Reorganisation

• Existing approaches to state reorganisation have largely been ad-hoc, reactive, and episodic.
• Past reorganisations were often driven by immediate political pressures rather than long-term governance planning.
• A permanent, objective framework is proposed to replace sporadic decision-making with institutionalised analysis.

Historical Evolution of State Reorganisation in India

The First Phase: Linguistic Reorganisation (1950s)

• The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), 1953, was established to ensure stability after Partition.
• Linguistic identity was used as the primary criterion to:
  • Reduce regional tensions
  • Enable administration and education in the mother tongue
• This phase successfully created culturally cohesive administrative units.

Shift in Rationale

• Linguistic criteria addressed cultural integration but were not designed as a final administrative solution.
• Over subsequent decades, governance challenges increasingly stemmed from:
  • Regional inequality
  • Administrative overload
  • Developmental disparities

Contemporary Drivers of State Formation

• New states created since 2000 were driven by administrative and developmental imperatives, not language.
• Key motivations included:
  • Addressing neglect of backward regions
  • Improving governance delivery
  • Responding to sustained public demands rooted in perceived marginalisation
• These cases indicate that scale and governance capacity have outgrown earlier institutional designs.

Problem of Mega-States

• Several Indian states have populations exceeding 50 million, with some exceeding 100 million.
• Such scale creates structural challenges:
  • Excessive bureaucratic layers
  • Physical and administrative distance between citizens and decision-makers
  • Reduced accountability and responsiveness

Governance Implications of Large Administrative Units

• Policy formulation at the state capital often fails at the implementation stage.
• Consequences include:
  • Weak service delivery in health and education
  • Persistent law and order challenges
  • Ineffective monitoring of development schemes
• Demands for smaller states often reflect aspirations for closer, more responsive governance, rather than identity politics.

Limitations of the Existing Approach

• State reorganisation has high long-term implications for:
  • Fiscal federalism
  • Infrastructure allocation
  • Centre–State relations
• Addressing demands through political expediency risks:
  • Inconsistent outcomes
  • Structural inefficiencies
  • Long-term governance distortion.

Key Principles Proposed for a Permanent Framework

• Move beyond a single criterion such as language.
• Adopt a multi-factor, evidence-based assessment, including:
  • Economic and financial viability
  • Administrative efficiency and governance capacity
  • Developmental outcomes and regional equity
  • Impact on national unity and federal balance
• Ensure new states have a credible path to fiscal sustainability, avoiding perpetual dependence on central transfers.

Institutionalising a Proactive Governance Approach

• A permanent mechanism would enable:
  • Continuous study rather than crisis-driven responses
  • Objective evaluation insulated from short-term pressures
  • Predictable and transparent decision-making
• This represents a shift from reactive governance to planned institutional reform.

Broader Significance for Indian Federalism

• State reorganisation is not merely territorial adjustment.
• It is a structural reform aimed at:
  • Improving democratic responsiveness
  • Enhancing administrative reach
  • Aligning regional aspirations with national objectives

A systematic framework strengthens both governance outcomes and federal stability.

Sharing is caring!