Remembering Anil Agarwal: What DTE founder editor thought of 3 new states formed in 2000

The formation of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand in the year 2000 marked a significant moment in India's post-independence history of state reorganization. While often celebrated as a fulfillment of long-standing regional aspirations, environmentalist Anil Agarwal, the insightful founder editor of Down To Earth (DTE) magazine, offered a critical perspective that highlighted a crucial oversight: the lack of foresight regarding the long-term economic sustainability of these newly carved-out entities. His critique remains highly relevant for understanding the complexities of India's federal structure and development challenges.

**Background Context and Demands:**

For decades, movements for separate states had simmered in these regions, driven by a complex interplay of factors. In what became Uttarakhand (then Uttaranchal), the demand stemmed from cultural distinctiveness (Garhwali and Kumaoni cultures), geographical challenges, and a sense of neglect by the vast Uttar Pradesh administration, leading to underdevelopment despite rich natural resources (forests, water). Similarly, Chhattisgarh's movement from Madhya Pradesh was fueled by its tribal identity, abundant mineral wealth, and the perception that its resources were exploited without commensurate development reaching its indigenous populations. Jharkhand's struggle against Bihar was perhaps the most intense, rooted in a strong tribal identity, significant mineral resources (coal, iron ore), and a history of economic exploitation and political marginalization. These movements often highlighted administrative inefficiency, cultural suppression, and uneven resource distribution as primary grievances.

**The Formation in 2000:**

After years of political deliberation and public pressure, the Union government proceeded with the creation of these three states. The process involved specific parliamentary acts:

1. **Chhattisgarh:** Formed on November 1, 2000, from the southeastern districts of Madhya Pradesh, through the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.

2. **Uttarakhand (then Uttaranchal):** Formed on November 9, 2000, from the hilly northern districts of Uttar Pradesh, through the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.

3. **Jharkhand:** Formed on November 15, 2000, from the southern districts of Bihar, through the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

**Anil Agarwal's Critique and Key Stakeholders:**

Anil Agarwal's critical analysis, coming from an environmental and developmental perspective, questioned whether the administrative division alone would resolve the deep-seated issues. His primary concern was the economic viability and sustainable development of these new states. He likely argued that merely creating smaller administrative units, especially in resource-rich but historically exploited regions, without a robust economic blueprint, could perpetuate existing patterns of resource extraction without broad-based benefit. He emphasized that the focus should not just be on 'how to divide' but 'how to develop sustainably'.

Key stakeholders involved included:

* **Union Government and Parliament:** Responsible for enacting the reorganization laws (exercising powers under Article 3 of the Constitution).

* **Parent States (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar):** Faced the challenge of dividing assets and liabilities and adjusting to reduced territory.

* **New State Governments:** Tasked with building administrative machinery from scratch and delivering on developmental promises.

* **Local Populations:** Had high expectations for improved governance, development, and cultural recognition.

* **Environmentalists and Civil Society (like Anil Agarwal):** Advocated for sustainable development, equitable resource distribution, and protection of ecological balance in these often ecologically sensitive or resource-intensive regions.

**Significance for India and Constitutional Context:**

This episode is significant for several reasons. Constitutionally, the power to form new states or alter existing ones lies with the Parliament, as stipulated in **Article 3** of the Indian Constitution. This article allows Parliament to form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state. It also allows for increasing or diminishing the area of any state and altering the boundaries or names of any state. The process requires a Bill to be introduced in Parliament only on the recommendation of the President, and the President must refer the Bill to the legislature of the state(s) concerned to express its views within a specified period. However, the Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature.

Economically, the creation of these states highlighted the persistent issue of regional disparities. While the new states were expected to foster more focused development, Agarwal's critique underscored the challenge of achieving this without a sound economic strategy. Politically, it showcased the dynamic nature of Indian federalism and the continuous negotiation between central authority and regional aspirations. Socially, it aimed to address the identity and developmental concerns of distinct cultural and tribal groups.

**Historical Context and Future Implications:**

Historically, India's state reorganization began primarily on a linguistic basis with the **State Reorganisation Act, 1956**, following the recommendations of the Fazal Ali Commission. The 2000 reorganizations, however, moved beyond language, focusing on administrative viability, developmental backwardness, and distinct cultural/geographical identities. This shift continues to influence debates on new state demands (e.g., Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Bundelkhand).

Anil Agarwal's concerns about economic sustainability have largely proven prescient. While all three states have made strides, they continue to grapple with developmental challenges. Chhattisgarh, despite its mineral wealth, struggles with Naxalism and poverty in tribal belts. Jharkhand, rich in minerals, faces issues of resource curse, corruption, and inadequate human development indicators. Uttarakhand, with its fragile Himalayan ecosystem, balances development with environmental protection, grappling with issues like disaster management and sustainable tourism. The future implications underscore the necessity of comprehensive planning that goes beyond mere administrative boundaries. Any future state reorganization must incorporate detailed economic viability studies, environmental impact assessments, equitable resource-sharing mechanisms, and robust governance frameworks to truly empower the new entities and ensure sustainable, inclusive growth, validating Agarwal's farsighted critique.