Governance and Sub-Regional Autonomy: Challenges and Implications

When people demand a separate state or greater autonomy for their region, the argument is almost always the same: governance closer to home will be more responsive, more honest, and more attuned to local needs. This belief has reshaped the political map repeatedly, from the creation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand in 2000 to the birth of Telangana in 2014. Yet the experience of these regions reveals a more complicated truth. Smaller administrative units and autonomous councils do not automatically deliver better governance. Understanding why requires looking closely at how autonomy and governance are connected, and what actually makes governance effective.

Why autonomy and governance are linked 🔗

Demands for sub-regional autonomy rarely emerge in a vacuum. They typically grow out of a deep sense that existing governance has failed a particular region. When communities feel that their grievances are ignored by distant state capitals or by New Delhi, the call for self-rule becomes a way to reclaim control over their own affairs.

Autonomy, in this sense, is the power of a sub-national unit to independently decide and execute certain functions with minimal interference from the central authority. These demands take many forms. Some seek full statehood, as the Telangana movement did. Others, like the historical demands of the Akali Dal in Punjab, push for greater financial and administrative powers for existing states. Still others ask for autonomous councils within a state, such as the Bodoland demand in Assam or the Gorkhaland demand in West Bengal.

The logic behind all of these is the assumption that local governance is better governance. Advocates argue that a smaller unit, governed by people who understand local culture and problems, can deliver more inclusive, transparent, and efficient administration than a large, remote government can.

The case for smaller units 🔗

There is genuine merit to this argument. Uttarakhand’s creation was partly justified on the grounds that the unique challenges of hill development needed specialised administrative attention that a vast state like Uttar Pradesh could not provide. A government based in a hill region is more likely to prioritise mountain roads, disaster preparedness, and the needs of scattered hill communities.

The autonomous council model offers similar advantages. It addresses local aspirations for self-governance without the complex process of carving out a new state, and it allows governance structures to be designed around local realities. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, for example, grants Autonomous District Councils legislative, executive, and judicial powers over subjects like land, forests, inheritance, and customary law in the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura.

The reality after autonomy is achieved 🔗

Here is where the promise often meets a difficult reality. Decades of experience show that smaller states and autonomous regions can struggle with the very governance failures they were meant to solve. Achieving autonomy is not the same as achieving good governance.

Corruption does not disappear with size 🔗

One of the strongest assumptions behind the demand for smaller units is that they will be cleaner and more accountable. The evidence does not support this. Jharkhand offers a striking example. Despite being rich in minerals, it is classified as one of India’s poorest states on the NITI Aayog Multidimensional Poverty Index, with much of its rural population still lacking access to basic healthcare and education. Activists and investigators have repeatedly linked this gap to entrenched corruption in welfare and rural development schemes.

The state’s political history reinforces the point. In its early years, Jharkhand saw rapid changes in leadership, with multiple chief ministers in a short span, and several legislators and former ministers faced charges related to disproportionate assets. More recently, a former chief minister resigned following an arrest linked to an alleged land scam, and senior officials have been caught up in money laundering probes connected to the misuse of employment guarantee funds. Smallness, clearly, did not insulate the state from these problems.

Autonomous councils face the same struggles 🔗

The pattern repeats in autonomous regions. Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule were designed to protect tribal identity and ensure self-governance, but they face persistent challenges including financial dependence on state governments, allegations of corruption and mismanagement, and weak transparency.

These councils rely heavily on state governments for funding, and there is often a substantial gap between the budget approved for them and the funds actually disbursed. This dependence means that decisions about development projects in their own regions remain subject to the discretion of the state government, undermining the very autonomy the councils were meant to embody. Add to this the skills gap among elected representatives and staff, who frequently lack training in financial management and project monitoring, and the result is inefficient governance and missed development opportunities.

The problem of exclusiveness 🔗

Autonomy can also create new forms of exclusion. Sixth Schedule councils, for instance, have been criticised for the underrepresentation of women, partly because they lack the kind of reservation provisions that the 73rd Amendment introduced for Panchayati Raj institutions. Decision-making in some councils remains concentrated among local elites, leaving ordinary community members and non-tribal residents on the margins.

There is a deeper tension here too. An overemphasis on tribal or regional exclusivity can hinder integration with the wider polity and complicate relations with the rest of the state. Frequent clashes between district councils and state governments, as seen in Meghalaya, illustrate how autonomy can generate friction rather than smooth governance. The granting of special privileges to certain groups also tends to spark fresh demands from other communities seeking the same benefits, creating a spiral of competing claims.

What actually makes governance effective 🔗

If autonomy alone does not guarantee good governance, what does? The answer lies in a set of broader factors that matter regardless of whether a region is large or small, autonomous or not.

The pillars of good governance 🔗

Good governance rests on several core elements: transparency, accountability, participation, and the rule of law. Transparency ensures that government actions are open to scrutiny, which makes corruption harder to hide. Accountability ensures that officials who misuse power or resources can be identified and corrected. Participation brings citizens into decision-making, and the rule of law provides a fair framework that protects everyone.

Accountability is perhaps the most consequential of these. It cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law working alongside it. In India, institutions like the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Central Vigilance Commission, and the Lokpal exist precisely to hold those in power answerable. Tools such as the Right to Information Act of 2005, social audits, and e-governance platforms have given citizens real means to demand answers from their governments.

Leadership and political stability 🔗

The comparison between the three states formed in November 2000 is revealing. Uttarakhand, despite being resource-poor, has generally outpaced mineral-rich Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh on indicators like per capita income, literacy, and poverty reduction. The difference is not size or resources but governance quality: relatively stable leadership and stronger administrative systems in one case, and political instability, corruption, and weak institutions in the others.

This shows that the quality of leadership and the stability of government shape outcomes far more than the boundaries on a map. A region with abundant resources but unstable, self-serving leadership can stagnate, while one with fewer resources but capable, accountable leadership can move forward.

Trust and active civil society 🔗

Governance is not only the work of government. It involves a wider set of actors, including non-state players like NGOs and research institutions, and a civil society made up of media, citizen organisations, and community groups that hold authorities accountable. High levels of corruption and poor public services have made the demand for accountability from civil society especially urgent in developing contexts.

Trust among these stakeholders is essential. When citizens trust that their participation will matter, they engage more actively, and when governments are answerable to an alert public, the temptation to misuse power shrinks. The shift in governance thinking from treating governance as something done for people to something done with them captures this idea. Without an engaged civil society and mutual trust, even a perfectly designed autonomous structure will underperform.

Autonomy as a beginning, not a destination 🔗

The lesson from India’s experience is not that sub-regional autonomy is a mistake. Autonomy can be valuable for protecting cultural identity, addressing genuine neglect, and bringing administration physically and politically closer to the people. The autonomous council model, when backed by adequate finances and a real transfer of powers, can accommodate diverse aspirations without fragmenting the country.

The mistake is to treat autonomy as the finish line. Creating a smaller state or a new council simply changes the scale at which governance happens. Whether that governance is good depends on what fills the new structure: honest and stable leadership, strong institutions of transparency and accountability, genuine financial devolution, inclusive representation, and an active citizenry that demands results. Where those ingredients are missing, the old problems of corruption and exclusion reappear in a new package.

In other words, autonomy reshapes the container, but the substance of governance must be built deliberately, every single time.

What do you think? If creating smaller states does not automatically improve governance, should the focus shift toward strengthening accountability and civil society within existing units instead? And how might autonomous councils be redesigned so that genuine local participation, rather than control by a few elites, drives decision-making?

References

1. https://www.dalvoy.com/en/upsc/mains/previous-years/2025/anthropology-paper-ii/regionalism-autonomy-india
2. https://theprint.in/elections/big-budgets-political-nexus-jharkhand-corruption-probe-puts-rural-development-under-scanner/2085102/
3. https://prepp.in/news/e-492-autonomous-district-councils-adcs-sixth-schedule-of-indian-constitution-upsc-current-affairs
4. https://chahalacademy.com/sixth-schedule
5. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/good-governance/
6. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/why-uttarakhand-outpaced-jharkhand-chhattisgarh-a-tale-of-progress-resources-missed-opportunities
7. https://theprayasindia.com/gs_2/gs-2_social-issues_2-aspects-of-governance-transparency-and-accountability/