India should liberate its cities and create more states
In his first decade in office Narendra Modi used centralisation to help modernise the country. His ideal is a strong leader, with a national mandate and a majority in Parliament, who can direct the central government to force through changes across a huge country. Election results on June 4th cast doubts on that approach because Mr Modi’s party lost its majority and now relies on allies to rule. Centralisation appears to have reached its limit. That means it is worth considering the alternative: delegating power by creating more independently run cities and even more states.
The opening line of India’s constitution declares that the country “shall be a union of states”. After independence in 1947, princely realms were folded into new states, residual colonial territory annexed, and borders reorganised along linguistic lines. The system continues to adapt. Three new states were born in 2000. Telangana, the newest, turned ten this month. Today, India’s 28 states are powerful. They employ more people than local and central governments put together. And they are constitutionally responsible, or jointly responsible, for most basic functions, including health care, education, law and order, agriculture and the supply of welfare.
Yet today’s set-up has two problems. One is that India’s mega-cities lack autonomy: they are typically part of states with large rural populations whom politicians tend to put first. The other is that many states are too large. America, with a quarter of the people, has 50 states. China has 27 provinces and autonomous regions but its administrative energies are concentrated at the sub-provincial level. Uttar Pradesh (up), the largest Indian state, has 240m people, more than Nigeria or Brazil.
Because of India’s vast political and economic diversity, centrally imposed one-size-fits-all policies only sometimes work, and exclude many policy areas that are crying out for change. More local autonomy creates an alternative mechanism for reform by boosting flexibility, accountability, experimentation and competition. Since its creation, Telangana’s share of gdp has risen from 4.1% to 4.8%. Neglected when it was part of the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh, its rural areas now have regular power and water.
This newspaper does not usually argue for more government. But it has no hesitation in arguing for more governments. True, India has tried this before. In the 1990s Parliament passed constitutional amendments aimed at devolving power from states to local governments, but states proved reluctant to cede control.
Our solution is different: to allow mega-cities to govern themselves and to have more states. The constitution grants Parliament unilateral power to create states, extinguish existing ones (as Mr Modi did with Jammu and Kashmir in 2019) and change boundaries. up should be divided up. Other places have solid claims to independence. In Maharashtra, Mumbai should have more clout; relatively poor eastern Maharashtra has long demanded statehood.
Decentralisation does have downsides. With lots more states and cities, there would be non-stop elections, so India would need to create synchronised, regular voting cycles. The distribution of resources between states, from tax revenues to energy, is a delicate affair; extra states and cities would make it more complex still. And redrawing India’s internal administrative borders would open up the thorny question of its parliamentary-seat boundaries, which give disproportionate power to the wealthy south at the expense of the poorer north.
Yet these problems would be outweighed by the benefits of better administration, more responsive government, improved services and faster-growing economies. In the long run, creating new states would help India thrive. ■
Stay on top of our India coverage by signing up to Essential India, our free weekly newsletter.