Synopsis: The creation of new districts in India, such as Majuli’s elevation in Assam, often garners local attention but rarely answers key questions about governance and necessity. With the number of districts rising from 310 in 1951 to 785 today, their formation is primarily a state decision, influenced by political motives rather than clear criteria. Research by FLAME University highlights that new districts often lack public consultation and data, and improving governance requires more than just administrative changes. Rigorous criteria, adequate funding, and public involvement are essential for genuine administrative improvement.

Reaching Assam's Majuli, the world's largest riverine island, isn't easy. You must ferry across the mighty Brahmaputra from Jorhat, passing sandbanks and small islands. The 1.5-hr journey, however, is breathtaking - if the river is in a good mood. But when the Brahmaputra is in spate during the monsoons, it's best not to challenge the mighty one. Majuli remains off-limits.

In 2016, this 400 sq km island, famous for its neo-Vaishnavite monasteries, became Assam's 35th district, India's first river island district. 'We elevated Majuli so that people don't have to take a boat every time they need to approach the district administration,' the then-BJP excise minister Parimal Suklabaidya had told reporters.

Majuli's promotion from subdivision to district made national headlines. However, such news is an outlier. While creating new states grabs attention, formation of a new district - a vital third-tier of governance where government schemes take root and vast sums of public money flow - rarely stirs interest beyond the local level.

Yet, since Independence, districts have seen their fair share of bifurcations, trifurcations, mergers and renamings.

In 1951, India had 310 districts. By 2011, they had soared to 640. Today, we have 785.

In 1981, India had 412 districts, with an average size of 7,788 sq km. By the 2011 census, the average size of 640 districts was 4,948 sq km.

Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014 caused a surge in the number of districts. Telangana has 33, while AP has 13. The most populous states - UP, Bihar and Maharashtra - have 75, 38 and 36 districts, respectively.

GoI has no role in altering or creating new districts - it's the states' call. New districts can be created either through an executive order or by passing a law in the assembly. Many states prefer the former.

While so many districts have been created, some key questions usually remain unanswered:

What drives formation of districts? When this is not answered, crises happen. In 2013, the Congress government in Rajasthan created 19 new districts, taking the total to 50 to 'improve governance'. The present BJP government is now reviewing the decision.

In 2022, West Bengal announced that it will carve out seven new districts. Residents of Murshidabad and Nadia districts, the two under the knife, protested, arguing that the move would dilute their historical importance. There was also some eyebrow-raising over the name 'Ranaghat' for the new Nadia district, with locals pointing out its less-than-glamorous association with a dacoit from the 1800s.

Why are some states experiencing rapid increases in district numbers?

Does creating new districts lead to better governance?

A new research initiative, 'India: State and District Evolution', led by Shivakumar Jolad and Mehr Kalra of FLAME University, Pune, is trying to answer these questions. 'When districts are formed, governments rarely offer a clear rationale. Is it due to demographic, geographical, historical or cultural reasons? The usual response - 'administrative reasons' - masks political undertones. Like creation, renaming is also a political move, often serving the ideology of the party in power,' explains Jolad.

The project involves digitising political and administrative maps at provincial, state and district levels, segmented by decades, and systematically tracing and mapping changes in provincial and district boundaries over each decade. It focuses on splits, mergers, and creation of new provinces and districts in colonial and postcolonial India.

While in most cases, public consultation is absent, Jolad argues citizens must remain involved for several reasons:

Devolution of power Most government schemes devolve at the district level. District development officers, for example, conduct development plans and projects, act as chief liaison officer of the state, and anchor the implementation of GoI's programmes.

Public finance Each new district requires significant investments. New district courts must be established, bureaucrats appointed and offices and buildings constructed. Citizens must know where the money comes from.

Dead notifications Often, announced districts remain uncreated. Hnahthial district, announced in 2008 in Mizoram, remained non-functional until 2020. Citizens must demand their right to know why this happened.

Lack of data British India government's district gazetteers offered insights into a district's geography, political and administrative history, demography, natural resources, industries and revenue administration. But post-Independence, many gazetteers haven't been updated for decades. With the last census in 2011, it's unclear how such policy decisions are being taken without basic data.

But do smaller or new districts improve governance? 'Creating new districts gives the state more arms to pursue its policies and agendas, but it doesn't necessarily translate into decentralisation, as... panchayats, urban municipalities and municipal corporations aren't adequately empowered,' says Jolad.

True devolution involves a shift of power to subnational units. District collectors, however, largely operate as state agents, and the state government exercises supremacy over local governments (like zila parishads), undermining true empowerment. If improving governance is the main motive behind creating new districts, specific steps must be taken:

Provide criteria Common and differentiated criteria should be followed based on a combination of demographic indicators and relevant social and historical parameters. A dedicated entity, accountable to the public, should review proposals.

Demarcate funds Make provisions for infra changes and ensure the new district has trained personnel.

Show data Invest in data-backed research to determine whether new districts can improve governance.

Undertake public and stakeholder consultation before creating new districts.

With several assembly elections this year, district-making could become a handy political tool. But carving out new ones without rigorous and meaningful public participation will serve no real purpose, except a cartographic change. Governance - and a 77-yr-young independent democracy - will suffer.

In conversation with The Economic Times: Prof. Shivakumar Jolad, Faculty of Public Policy, and Mehr Kalra, Research Assistant at the Dept. of Public Policy at FLAME University.