That will be a mockery of well thought-out criteria. What the new state needs is special funding
Atul Sharma | October 22, 2014
The UPA-2 government had offered the special category status to Seemandhra as part of the decision to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh between Telangana and Seemandhra (post-bifurcation Andhra Pradesh). The new, Narendra Modi-led government hinted early on that it was going to consider the proposal. But this idea is disastrous, unprecedented and unprincipled. Clearly, this decision is prompted by pure and simple political expediency. This came against the backdrop of states like Bihar, Odisha, West Bengal and even Tamil Nadu’s clamour for special category status.
Historically, the concept of a special category state followed the Fifth Finance Commission’s decision to accord preferential treatment to a few disadvantaged states. Later, in 1969, to recognise the inherent disabilities of some states to mobilise resources for development, certain criteria reflecting these features were laid down. On the basis of these criteria, 10 states – eight northeastern states, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir – were accorded special status. The criteria were:
In principle, the decision to grant special status rests with the national development council (NDC) which includes the prime minister, some of the union ministers, chief ministers and members of the planning commission, and which is also to guide and review the work of the plan panel. The declaration to grant special status to Seemandhra has not yet received the approval of the NDC and, thus, not formalised. Therefore, the new government should take a fresh view on this tentative decision.
Why is it such a bad idea to accord special status to Seemandhra? First, Seemandhra does not satisfy any of the above, well-thought-out criteria. It is not a hilly state, its population density is not at all low, it is not strategically located, it is a middle-level state in income terms, its infrastructure may not be as good as that of the advanced states but is still better than that of several others. If Seemandhra is still given special status, it would amount to making a mockery of the well-laid-out criteria and opening a Pandora’s box.
Second, if Seemandhra is given special status, several other states that have sought the same cannot be denied their claim on a rational basis. In fact, as mentioned earlier, a few states that are not as well off as Seemandhra are also racing for the special status. If these states’ claim is ignored and Seemandhra is given special status, the very foundation of the Indian federal system would be shaken.
However, it is not to argue that Seemandhra does not require a large fund for building a capital of its own as well as for creating infrastructure comparable to those in Hyderabad that have induced huge private investment. It clearly does. One can, therefore, legitimately argue that Seemandhra should be provided adequate funds by the central government to build its own capital and infrastructure – not only for one year but also for several years.
This leads us to a broader issue. Ever since India has shifted to a market-driven system, the level and quality of social, economic and administrative infrastructure have emerged as the most crucial determinant of private investment in a state. In fact, only five more advanced states together have attracted and absorbed close to two-third (65.5 percent during 2001-05) of the total foreign direct investment, or about three-fourth (74 percent) of the FDI projects. This means that the states with lower level and quality of infrastructure have failed to attract private investment. That has put them at a great disadvantage. Moreover, in the current policy regime there is hardly any instrument to direct private investment to the lagging states. After all, less than 20 percent of the plan investment now takes place in the public sector.
As a result, the disparity in per capita income between states has widened in the market-driven policy regime. For example, in 1991-92 the per capita income in the poorest state, Bihar, was just 36.6 percent of the per capita income of the highest income state among the major states, Maharashtra. Two decades later, in 2011-12, Bihar and Jharkhand together accounted for even less – at only 27 percent of the per capita income of Maharashtra. Similarly, Bihar’s per capita income as proportion of 17 major states’ per capita income slumped from 49 percent in 1991-92 to 35 percent in 2011-12.
Such worsening disparity between states is highly undesirable. In fact, it could be the source of major discontent among states. Though the removal of regional disparity has been one of the major objectives of successive five-year plans from the beginning, regional disparity worsened even in the physical control regime with access to various instruments to direct investment.
In a market-driven system, it is important to provide a level-playing field to the states in terms of the level and quality of infrastructure. But under the current transfer mechanisms, no instrument exists to do so. Therefore, there is a strong case for setting up a large development fund out of which interest-free loan can be provided to states that are lagging behind.
Sarma, a visiting professor at the Institute for Human Development, was a member of the Thirteenth Finance Commission.
This story appeared in the October 16-31, 2014 print issue
The dazzling diamond trade has been hit hard by the Nirav Modi episode, which saw the billionaire jeweller flee India just before a massive fraud amounting to Rs 11,000 crore was detected at a Punjab National Bank branch in Mumbai. But, Nirav Modi is not the only diamond tycoon who has been
PM Narendra Modi on Sunday laid the foundation stone for Rs 16,700 crore Navi Mumbai International Airport. The first phase of the construction is expected to be completed by December 2019. The project is going to be implemented 21 years after it was first proposed. The airport is likely to handle 10 milli
Health groups have expressed their disappointment with a February 12 order of the supreme court, refusing to review or recall an earlier order disposing off a case against the mala fide suspension of the vaccine public sector units (PSUs) and government’s tendency to pamper private sector with public
The Punjab National Bank`s fraudulent transactions worth Rs 11,300 crore should act as a strong trigger for the government for reducing its stake to less than 50 percent in the banks which should then be allowed to work on the lines of private sector lenders with a full sense of accountability to their sha
Budget 2018, forecast to be a “please all” budget, has come out as a “disappoint all” budget. The public is looking askance at a budget that gives with one hand but takes away with both, the Sensex has gone into a tailspin and the pink papers are issuing dire warnings.
Should public sector banks be privatised?