Redraw India’s map to socially empower all neglected regions

India stands at a pivotal moment. As the country continues to grow economically and technologically, it must ask difficult questions about internal governance: are existing administrative structures adequately serving all regions and communities?

For decades, many parts of the country have been marginalised in terms of culturally, economically, and politically. In this context, the creation of new states is not about dividing the Union; it is about empowering communities, ensuring equitable development, and strengthening democracy.

From Vidarbha to Bundelkhand, Purvanchal to Gorkhaland, Mithilanchal to Kongu Nadu, demands for statehood are rooted in frustration that were born out of long-standing neglect, lack of infrastructure, inequitable resource distribution, and identity marginalisation. These are not separatist movements; they are calls for recognition, dignity, and self-governance which are the essential elements of social empowerment in a diverse nation.

Lessons from history:

India has a history of using state reorganisation to address regional aspirations and ensure inclusive governance. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, implemented on the basis of the States Reorganisation Commission’s recommendations, redrew provincial boundaries largely on linguistic and cultural lines. The subsequent decades saw the creation of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh in 2000, which addressed administrative challenges and historical underdevelopment in these regions. More recently, Telangana was carved out of Andhra Pradesh in 2014 to correct inequities and provide a governance framework better suited to the local population.

Social Empowerment through smaller States:

Smaller states allow governance to move closer to the people. They create opportunities for citizens to participate actively in democratic life, strengthen local leadership, and foster accountability. When administrations are attuned to local realities, policies are better aligned with the specific needs of communities, from education and health to infrastructure and social welfare. Economically, new states unlock neglected potential. Regions that have historically lagged in development gain access to investment, resources, and infrastructure.

Crucially, statehood can empower communities socially and culturally. Where populations feel marginalised or ignored within large states, new states provide recognition, a platform for local voices, and renewed confidence in governance. In this way, decentralisation becomes a mechanism for social justice and equity, not just administrative convenience.

Unfulfilled aspirations:

Since Telangana’s creation in 2014, serious public and political discussions about new state formations have largely been stalled. However, regional aspirations remain alive: Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Purvanchal, Harit Pradesh, among others, continue to seek recognition. These movements stem from neglect in infrastructure, water scarcity, economic stagnation, and lack of social services, not a desire to fragment the nation.

For instance, Vidarbha, despite its wealth in minerals, forests, and energy potential, has seen persistent marginalisation in resource allocation and industrial investment, resulting in prolonged agrarian distress. Bundelkhand has faced recurring droughts and systemic neglect.

Role of Parliament and the Centre:

Constitutionally, only Parliament can create new states or reorganise existing ones under Article 3. This responsibility demands careful deliberation, consultation with state legislatures, and a thorough assessment of social, cultural, economic, and historical factors. Statehood should not be reactive, driven solely by social movements, but a deliberate, democracy-driven, and socially conscious decision.

Establishing an independent commission, akin to the original States Reorganisation Commission, could periodically evaluate regional disparities, administrative feasibility, and social aspirations, and submit recommendations to Parliament. Such an approach ensures that state creation is transparent, fair, and aimed at empowering communities, rather than becoming a politically expedient exercise.

New states are not a threat to national integrity; they are instruments of social justice and inclusion.

Addressing counter-arguments:

Critics raise valid concerns. Administrative and financial costs of establishing capitals, secretariats, and public services are significant. Resource disputes may emerge over rivers, forests, or minerals. Some fear political fragmentation or regionalism. These challenges are real but manageable. Transparent planning, clearly defined criteria for economic and administrative viability, and inclusive consultations with affected communities can ensure that new states are sustainable, stable, and beneficial.

Empowering regions socially and economically ultimately strengthens national unity rather than weakens it. India’s strength lies in its diversity, not in uniformity. Its unity is reinforced when communities are empowered, voices are heard, and development reaches every corner of the country. Creating new states is not about division; it is about social empowerment, justice, and inclusive growth. It is time for Parliament, policymakers, and citizens to revisit the unfinished promise of federalism. Through thoughtful, constitutionally sound, and socially oriented state reorganisation, India can ensure that governance reaches the people, inequities are corrected, and every region and community is given the opportunity to thrive.

Decentralisation is not a threat — it is the pathway to a stronger, fairer, and more empowered India. Let the nation embrace it fully.

(The writer is Assistant Professor (Sociology), Banaras Hindu University. Views expressed are his personal)