Divided India or Governable India

With the recent debate on the Telangana statehood gaining widespread coverage and inducing a lot of voices, it's fitting to visit the historical roots of the separate statehood problem.
In the 1950's the State Reorganization Committee (SRC) was formed to look into issues and frame general guidelines for the procedure to be followed when creating new states. The committee submitted it's report in 1955. The report established that the formation of states follow a linguistic pattern as a primary guiding force. Hence, the Indian Republic's states so far have been on a common denominator of language. However, in a special exception, the report made it's point clear that the merger of Hyderabad state and the Andhra region would not be conducive (although having the same language) owing to a lot of concerns of the Telangana people. The chief of those being, disproportionate taxation burden on the Telangana region post merger, creation of jobs for them since the Telanganas were less educated compared to the Andhra population, and the loss of control of the headwaters of Krishna and Godavari rivers.The then Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was against the merger on the same counts, terming the merger plans as "expansionist imperialism".

However, following what is called as the "Gentleman's agreement" the unification went ahead and the state of Andhra Pradesh now included the region of Telangana. Ever since, differences have cropped up between the two populations.
The situation has since then worsened with several Central Governments including a separate Telangana in their manifestos. The issue however was never given a higher priority by any Government which snowballed into widespread agitations and the consecutive decision by the Government in Dec 2009 to allow for the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

With hindsight, the decision was long pending. However, the crux of the matter is: What constitutes the basis for a separate state?
There are many factors, the chief being the language. Indian culture has been termed as a "salad culture" when compared to the "melting pot culture" of the USA. Where one merges and becomes one with the place in the USA, we in India love to differentiate ourselves with each other and calling ourselves Indian. The Indian does not lose his distinct identity. This then is the primary reason for the SRC to draw state lines on the basis of language.
The second part is the economic sustainability of a state. The states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh occupied vast stretches of land. Governance was often the loser in those cases. Today, Bihar is showing promise once Jharkhand has been carved. Chattisgarh and Uttarkhand can now be micromanaged.

Does this indicate that creation of states are up for taking? Hardly. The Indian Constitution clearly defines the role of the Centre vis a vis States. India is a federal structure with a strong Centre. Not surprising seeing the history we had. Should creation of new states be entertained in the future with around five regions already asking for statehood?

The solution lies in appointing a new Commission which can take the present scenarios in context and frame fresh guidelines. The focus is slowly shifting to economics today, the revenue generated, the taxes collected and the value of the land in question. A new time should be accompanied by new thinking by our intellectuals.