If they have no bread, let them have more districts. That seems to be the message emanating from State rulers who want to ensure their own stability.

Populist politics is running out of ideas -- cheaper rice or wheat programmes are no longer officially affordable and vote-catching prohibition promises are being openly broken. More and more administrative units being created are the answer to the prayer of the slogan-bereft politicians in power. Like Mayawati, who has to make amends for the grossly unpopulist announcement of her government's intention to revive the law against malpractices in school and college examinations. The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister has already ordered the creation of five new districts in a month and a half, besides the two she had brought into being during her previous tenure. She has done so, despite the risk of creating a delicate situation by carving a Mahamaya Nagar out of the Aligarh district and that too without providing for any budgetary provision. She has a southern counterpart in J. H. Patel, trying precisely the same method to meet a tough political situation. The Karnataka Chief Minister's gift of several new districts to his State on this year's Ugadi, the Kannada New Year, was his response to his post-Deve Gowda problems, especially inside his own party. The move, however, proved counterproductive when it raised demands for more districts by Janata Dal rebels, particularly in north Karnataka, also the base of Ramakrishna Hegde. Tamil Nadu had earlier created districts only to be named after deceased leaders. The practice will appear unexceptionable when a proliferation of districts is allowed as the legitimate product of party politics.

There can be cases for redrawing the maps of States. These, however, deserve serious consideration only if they are grounded in principles of administrative good. There can be no bar on political demands for new districts. But they should be considered only if they are administratively feasible. District creation is not synonymous with decentralisation. It can actually serve the opposite purpose, if the units are administratively unviable. More districts do not necessarily mean more development. They can make for less, if economic units evolved over the years are enfeebled by the exercise. Multiplication of districts spells an expansion of district-level officialdom and bureaucratic machinery that is not easily compatible with the nationally acknowledged need to curtail government expenditure.

A word in particular, about UP. The unwieldy size of this most populous of States, with more districts than any of its rulers can ever remember, has often been commented upon. A case for the break-up of the State, on which a disproportionate political clout had been conferred, was convincingly argued by K. M. Panikkar in a note of dissent to the report of the States Reorganisation Commission. The casual creation of more districts is no answer to the problems of UP's governance that have only been aggravated since then.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.