Mayawati’s creation of ten new districts since 1994 is just ‘political gimmickry’, conceptually flawed and makes administration more difficult, say experts.
On September 27, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati announced the formation of three new districts —Prabuddha Nagar, Panchsheel Nagar and Bhim Nagar in the western part of the state, taking the total number of districts in the state to 75.
Justifying the decision of the state government, Mayawati said UP was “too big” to govern. And for “administrative reasons”, it was “important” to have “more decentralisation”. Earlier, too, Mayawati had made similar claims. In 2007, in the run-up to Assembly elections, Mayawati had even announced the splitting of UP into smaller districts as one of her promises, claiming they would ease the delivery of public services.
This isn’t the first time that districts in UP, which already are the highest in the country, are being further divided under to improve “administration”.
Since 1993, when she first tasted power in UP, Mayawati has created ten new districts. These include: Sant Ravidas Nagar created in 1994, Ambedkar Nagar (1995), Sant Kabir Nagar (1997), Gautam Budh Nagar (1997), Mahamaya Nagar (2002), Kashiram Nagar (2008) and Chattrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar (2010)—the majority of them named after Dalit icons, Mayawati’s main political base. Justifying her recent decision to create smaller districts, she reportedly said: “The idea of smaller units was propagated by leaders like Bhim Rao Ambedkar and Jyotirao Phule.”(Click here for MAYAWATI’S DISTRICT FETISH)
What could be the real reason behind the creation of these new districts?
Firstly, nationwide data on district composition, compiled by Business Standard, contradicts Mayawati’s assertion that smaller districts are needed for better administration (see charts). The data suggests that in states such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, which are considerably bigger in size, the administration continues to perform better, despite the number of districts being much less than in UP.
Take the case of Maharashtra, where each district has around 50 lakh people, versus UP’s 28.5 lakh, implying that in Maharashtra, each district has to look after twice the number of people than those in UP need to. However, in spite of having less people to control, the Human Development Index (HDI) of Maharashtra is much better than UP’s. Of the big states, both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have considerably bigger population per district to control than UP. (The HDI of Rajasthan is same as that of UP’s.)
If the average area under each district is compared, then the situation becomes even rosier for UP. At an all-India level, the area under each district in UP is 15th highest. This is despite UP being the fourth-largest state in terms of land mass. The state with the maximum area under each district is Jammu and Kashmir, with around 15,000 sq km. This is followed by Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. In UP, each district has around 3,500 sq km.
Political scientists, former bureaucrats and public administration experts frown at the reasons given by Mayawati for creating new districts and said that there was no reason to believe that smaller districts were more efficient. According to them, usually the decision to have a new district is determined by political reasons rather than administrative considerations, and Mayawati’s was was no exception.
Yoginder Alagh, Chairman, Institute of Rural Management, Anand, said there was a greater need for strengthening local institutions and existing administration such as police, health services amongst other organs, than creating new districts. “There is no sense in having more districts if the local institutions are weak. A state like Maharashtra does well as the local governments work with the district administration, which doesn’t happen in UP. So, you find a single district being able to control a large area,” says Alagh.
Rakesh Hooja, Director, Indian Institute of Public Administration agrees with Alagh and said more number of districts in any state actually makes the job of administration more difficult. “In most states in India, district administration flows from the divisional commissioner to the district magistrate/district collector. If there is more number of districts, then the task of the district commissioner becomes more difficult as he has to monitor more districts,” Hooja said.
According to Hooja, constitution of more districts also puts more financial burden on the exchequer of the state, as more infrastructure and personnel are needed to run them.
Former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra also agrees and says that creation of new districts is just “political gimmickry”. He said that instead of creating new districts, the government should strengthen the existing machinery by filling the empty posts.
“Where are the people to fill the posts of collectors and superintendents of police that will be needed to run these new districts? In the case of UP, there is much shortage of police officers and civil administration. The government should first fill these shortages and then create new districts,” Chandra said. “Announcing a district is one thing, and ensuring that it runs smoothly is completely different.”
However, political scientist Yogendra Yadav said while politics could be a reason, smaller districts also improved administration. “The decision is both political and administrative. It is political as it makes the people of that region happy. It is also administrative because the district administration has less number of people to monitor,” says Yadav. “The challenges that a district administration in any district of the country faces are unparalleled to anywhere else in the world. The district to population ration should not be more that 10 lakh,” he adds.
Sudha Pai, who is at the Centre of Political Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, has another interpretation of Mayawati’s move. She says that while having smaller districts may bring governance closer to the ground, it was not the driving force behind the decision. Instead, Pai says that this was a naked political gambit—Mayawati’s eyes were set on capturing the Jat votes, before the 2012 election.
“In western UP where these districts have been created, there is much agitation over the land issue,” she says. “By drawing three new districts she has tried to gain Ajit Singh’s Jat votes and also address the issue of land acquisition which recently got her a lot of flack,” Pai said, referring to the violence surrounding the acquisition of land around Noida for development.
If this is so, then Mayawati has invented yet another chapter in a potential book on votebank politics.
