Given that territorial disputes and separatism are great interests of mine, I took note of yesterday’s news that a new state will be created in India. It is important to note though that, “The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated” and thus while likely, there is no guarantee.

India announced on Thursday that it planned to create the country’s 29th state, after a hunger strike by a regional leader and escalating protests from supporters. Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the government would begin work to found the separate state of Telangana, which will be carved out of Andhra Pradesh in the southeast. [...]

Since the partition of British-ruled India in 1947, various separatist and state movements have raged across the vast nation. Three new states were created in 2000, when Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were divided to give rise to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.

Although a precedent by no means, it may still take years to actually come into being and around 60 state legislaters that day turned in resignations in protest. By today, that number is up to around 130.

Background

After Indian independence in 1947, events not unlike today’s played out. In an effort to gain an independent state, and protect the interests of the Telugu people of Madras State, Amarajeevi Potti Sreeramulu fasted until death. Public outcry and civil unrest after his death forced the government to announce the formation of a new state for Telugu speaking people. Andhra attained statehood on 1 October 1953, with Kurnool as its capital.

And yet, three years later, on 1 November 1956, the Andhra State merged with the Telangana region of Hyderabad State to form the state of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad, the former capital of the Hyderabad State, was made the capital of the new state Andhra Pradesh.

Just over a year ago, in November 2008, the Nava Telangana Party declared the region’s statehood. Thus, today’s announcement is no surprise given the regions 60+ years of unrest and seeking autonomy/independence.

Questions

1) Will this new state be economically viable? How will it earn revenue with a smaller, poorer tax base?

2) Will a new smaller state with a more homogenous population and thus government actually be able to govern more effectively?

3) Will this further propel the Hyderabad region upwards as it no longer has the anchor of poorer regions dragging it down?

4) How will this affect the balance of power between the individual states? And how will it affect the balance between political parties? Andhra Pradesh will lose voting power nationally with the creation of a new state and the new Telangana is far more likely to gravitate left than right. What does this mean for the major politically parties like the INC and BJP?

5) How will this affect the endless other separatist groups (violent and nonviolent) and ethnic minorities agitating for more autonomy? Will this make India more or less stable?

6) What will the long term effects be of this new states success or failure?

Final Comments
Although it is unlikely this issue will receive much more international attention, it will be of interest to India watchers and especially those interested in devolution, separatism and related issues. Newly independent states such as Kosovo are often the most studied while developments such as this inside functioning states and that are legally sanctioned receive less attention. I’ll try to keep an eye on this and would always appreciate further comments from readers who may have more to add.

I’ve recently discussed the Georgia/Russia conflict here, here and here. Now, Jamestown weighs in on the Russian troop movements into Abkhazia with additional insight:

If indeed the Georgians have massed 1500 troops with some guns in the upper Kodori, they cannot possibly be used as “a bridgehead” to begin an attack on Abkhazia. The upper Kodori is a geographically bottled up place: Several hundred Georgian solders could possibly infiltrate down through mountain trails without heavy weapons, but on the coastal plane they would surely be outnumbered, outgunned and wiped out by Russian and Abkhaz armor.

Last October at a press conference in Moscow the Abkhaz leader Sergei Bagapsh told journalists that his government was seriously considering an operation to oust Georgian forces and the pro-Georgian Abkhaz government out of the upper Kodori, stating that full control of all of Abkhaz territory might facilitate recognition of the separatist regime. Such an operation by Abkhaz forces with Russian support may now be in the offing. While there is fighting in the Kodori, the reinforcement of Russian peacekeepers on the Inguri separation line makes sense to keep the Georgians at bay. Russian threats maybe intended as a warning to prevent a Georgian overreaction that could transform a relatively limited Kodori operation into all-out war. Such a scenario seems more plausible than Russia’s latest improbable statements about Georgian aggression from a “Kodori bridgehead.”

Jamestown believes the increase in Russian troops may serve to prevent a Georgian “overreaction” and thus full scale war. We’ll be following the situation closely here. Stay tuned.

With the independence of Kosovo, it seemed that Russia had backed down on its threats to recognize other separatist regions and indeed it did. But it was unlikely there would be no reaction which left analysts wondering when the second shoe would fall. It has:

The breakaway Abkhazia region in Georgia has called on the UN and other international bodies to recognise it as independent. The appeal was made by the separatist Abkhaz parliament on Friday, a day after Russia said it was lifting trade restrictions on the territory. [...]

On Wednesday, Georgia’s other breakaway region, South Ossetia, asked the UN and other international bodies to recognise its independence. [...]

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said the situation regarding Abkhazia had completely changed. He denied the move had anything to do with recognition by some states of Kosovo’s independence. Russia says Kosovo remains part of Serbia.

In lifting trade restrictions and thus withdrawing from a 1996 treaty which bans trade, economic, financial, transport, and other links with Abkhazia, Russia opens the door to openly support the Abkhaz with weapons among other things. The treaty was signed by 12 CIS members and it remains to be seen whether any others can be cajoled into following Moscow’s lead. Indeed, as RFERL notes, the timing was meant to coincide with the recent NATO meeting and remind Europeans, wary of NATO expansion, that Russia will do whatever necessary to block its march eastward.

The move by Russia could be a first step towards annexation of the territory, a move that would essentially go unpunished unless Georgia were a member of NATO. After all, Moscow has already issued Russian passports to Abkazians and South Ossetians in a clever move to provide cover for future involvement to “protect its citizens.” In fact, both regions even voted in Russia’s recent elections. One thing is for sure, although Russia has nothing to offer the world, it can and will continue to play the spoiler.