Remapping India: new states and their political origins

Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 2002

The Nuffield Foundation provided funding for a fieldtrip to India in February-April 1999 which allowed me to extend and update previous research, and which is very gratefully acknowledged. My thanks also to Stuart Corbridge and Glyn Williams for their comments and criticisms. The arguments in this paper have been presented at seminars and conferences in Jawaharlal Nehru University, Edinburgh, SOAS and Bristol, and in each place I received very helpful feedback. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers. The usual disclaimers apply. Word count: 9294 2 Redrawing the Body Politic: Federalism, Regionalism and the Creation of New States in India. In 2000 the federal map of India was redrawn to create three new States, signifying a significant shift in the attitude of many of India's major political parties towards territorial reorganisation. This paper suggests that a new era in the political economy of Indiaassociated with economic liberalisation; the rise of the Hindu Right; the regionalisation of politics; and the emergence of a coalitional system of government in New Delhiprovides a new 'field of opportunities' for regions demanding State recognition. The paper concludes that, in this matter, the major political parties are primarily by expediency and opportunism rather than, as is claimed, by an evaluation of the democratic and developmental potential of smaller States.

Contemporary South Asia, 2014

2005

I wish to thank Praveen Priyadarshi and Noni Meitei for great research assistance. I also wish to thank the members of the research team who conducted the surveys. This paper is part of a work in progress and comments, criticisms, and suggestions are more than welcome) 1 The term ethnicity is employed as shorthand for linguistic, religious, and tribal identities, this is not to say that each of these identities are not specific. 2 The classic statement on political decentralisation has been made by Arendt Lipjhart, 1977, Democracy in Plural

2006

Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in this Working Paper, the Crisis States Research Centre and LSE accept no responsibility for the veracity of claims or accuracy of information provided by contributors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without hte prior permission in writing of the publihser nor be issued to the public or circulated in any form othr than that in which it is published.

2017

In recent days, the process of federalization within the Indian Union has become more debatable due to the unequal federal development at various levels. In this context, the issues of state formation in India have become very crucial within the domain of the Indian federal structure. In the 1950s, the nature of demands for a new state was based on the ‘identity’ aspect under federal governance; but at present, the focus has shifted to ‘regional development,’ particularly to the aspects of socio-cultural, economic and political opportunities. The main objective of adopting the federal structure in Indian polity was to promote cultural homogeneity and improved federal governance in all the Indian states. However, the unequal development between the states and lack of socio-economic and political opportunities in society has challenged federalism in India. This situation has opened the door for the emergence of many regional parties, volunteer groups and civil society organiza...

Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 2012

Ever since the reorganisation of states in India in 1956, the Central government has reacted to the pressure for the creation of new states on a case-by-case basis, leading to the emergence of new states in fits and starts. But the resistance that is developing to the promise of new states like Telangana suggests that there is no guarantee that

Political Geography, 1998

The mutual connection between the class structure and state actions, and also the spatiality of state actions in India are examined under two headings: how does the class structure affect the nature of state policies over time?, and, why is there a spatial unevenness in state's success in implementing its own policies? The Indian state, like all capitalist states, has certain necessary causal properties because of its insertion into a capitalist social structure. It has to create political and economic conditions for the reproduction of capitalist relations, and it can offer economic concessions to exploited classes. But exactly how it carries out its functions-what sorts of policies it implements and whether it succeeds in implementing these-is conditioned by the factors that cannot however be reduced to its capitalist character. Two of these factors are discussed. These are: the ensemble of class relations (i.e. the coexistence of both capitalist and 'semi-feudal' class relations, and the spatio-temporally changing power of classes), and, the formal aspects of the state (i.e. its democratic and territorial forms). The operation of these factors means that the state works not merely as a capitalist state but as a capitalist-landlord, federal-democratic state. The historical-geography of state interventions is a product of the fact that these factors affect the way the state works.

India Review, 2017

India Review, 2017

This article critically examines territorial strategies adopted by the Indian state to accommodate territorially concentrated minority groups in two very recent cases: the formation of Telangana (2014) and the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) (2003). We situate both cases within the broader context of linguistic state reorganization in India since the 1950s. We argue that while the formation of states on the basis of linguistic principle was necessary given the long history of demand for linguistic states in India, it is, as Telangana and BTC clearly bear out, not sufficient to accommodate minorities. This is especially the case when, inter alia, language is: (1) appropriated by the dominant group within a state (or states) as a vehicle to perpetuate political majoritarianism, (2) supplemented by weak power-sharing arrangement, and (3) occasioned by longstanding popular perceptions of historical injustices and relative deprivation.