5 Journal of Politics & Governance, Vol. 6 No. 3, September 2017, Pp. 5-9 ISSN: 2278473X (Print) 2456-8023 (Online) DOI: 10.5958/2456-8023.2017.00012.2 Understanding the Creation of New States Chaketi Raju * Abstract Granting statehood does not mean merely the formation of the new state, it is also about giving more relatively autonomous powers and freedom of action within the federation. In order to eradicate the regional imbalances in the neglected areas and underdeveloped regions, the earlier provision of establishing Regional Development Councils proved to be failed experiment for instance in the case of Telangana, Gorkhaland and Vidarbha. As a result the demands for new states have gained fresh momentum on the assumption that smaller states do well in the lives of marginalized sections of society. At present there are demands for more than 20 separate states from all four regions of the country such as Bodoland in Assam, Gorkhaland in West Bengal, Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Coorg in Karnataka, a Kuki state of Manipur and the demand for dividing Uttar Pradesh into proposed four states such as Avadh Pradesh, Bundhelkhand, Paschim Pradesh, and Purvanchal. In this context, this work has relevance and significance to examine the patterns in the creation of new states. All these ongoing demands are mainly focusing for better ‘social inclusiveness’ and ‘good development’ in terms of administration. Therefore, there is a clear shift on demands for creation of smaller states from a language/identity to the concept of governance and good development being the new motto in the present time. The demand for creation of new states might be on the ground of identity and regional deprivation, but finally it will also lead to a politics of recognition with carrying demonstrations, bandhs hunger strikes jail bharo as a violent struggle to pursue their demands. Keywords: Demands for New States, State in India, Social Inclusion, Politics of State Creation Introduction According to the very first Article 1 (1) of the Indian constitution that calls India as “a Union of States”. It traces back to the British regime where they had practiced power by establishing a highly centralized unitary type of administration. In order to control India, during the British regime they had to run it from the Centre so finally they hold the power in their hands. Thus, the British had needed a strong central authority for both colonial and an administrative necessity. However, in the Constituent Assembly, the Drafting Committee determined in support of describing India as a Union, even though its constitution might be federal in structure. While introducing the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly in 1948, Ambedkar briefed the significant use of the phrase “Union” instead of “Federation”. He said “what is important is that the use of the word ‘Union’ is deliberate, though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people living under a single imperium derived from a single source”. 1 * PhD Scholar in Political Science, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi E-mail: rajuchaketi@gmail.com