Article 371(2) and the development boards

The Nagpur Pact of 1953 promised Vidarbha and Marathwada a fair share of development in a united Maharashtra. Decades later, that promise found a constitutional home in Article 371(2) — a provision that gives the Governor of Maharashtra a special responsibility for the balanced development of the state's regions. For MPSC, this is one of the most important Maharashtra-specific topics in Polity, and it links directly to the Economy section on regional imbalance.

What Article 371(2) says

Article 371 contains special provisions for certain states. Clause (2) concerns Maharashtra and Gujarat. It provides that the President may, by order, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for:

1. the establishment of separate development boards for:
   • Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra;
   • Saurashtra, Kutch and the rest of Gujarat;
2. with the provision that a report on the working of each board will be placed each year before the State Legislative Assembly;
3. the equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure over these areas, subject to the requirements of the state as a whole;
4. an equitable arrangement providing adequate facilities for technical education and vocational training, and adequate opportunities for employment in services under the state government, in respect of all the said areas.

Origins

• The provision dates from the Seventh Amendment (1956), when the bilingual Bombay State was created. It originally applied to Bombay State.
• After the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 created Maharashtra and Gujarat, the clause applied to both new states.
• For decades, however, the boards were not set up in Maharashtra.

The development boards (1994)

After long demands from Vidarbha and Marathwada, the President issued an order, and three development boards were established in 1994:

• Vidarbha Development Board (Nagpur);
• Marathwada Development Board (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar);
• Development Board for the Rest of Maharashtra.

Each board included experts, legislators and officials. Their functions were to:

• assess the development levels of their regions;
• identify backlogs in sectors such as irrigation, roads, education and health;
• recommend allocations to remove the backlog;
• report annually, with reports placed before the Legislature.

The Governor's directives

On the basis of the boards' work, the Governor issues directives to the state government on the allocation of funds for developmental expenditure among the three regions — especially for irrigation, which has been the most contested sector. This is one of the few areas in which the Governor exercises a special, non-routine responsibility.

Measuring the imbalance: backlog

The Dandekar Committee (1984)

The state appointed a Fact Finding Committee on Regional Imbalance, headed by economist V. M. Dandekar. It:

• measured development in terms of indicators across sectors;
• calculated the backlog — the investment required for lagging regions to reach the state average;
• found significant backlogs in Vidarbha and Marathwada, especially in irrigation.

The Indicators and Backlog Committee

A later Indicators and Backlog Committee updated the backlog as of 1994, which became the basis for the boards' work and the Governor's directives.

The Kelkar Committee (2013)

The High-Level Committee on Balanced Regional Development Issues in Maharashtra, chaired by Vijay Kelkar, submitted its report in 2013. Key points:

• It moved away from the backlog approach to a broader view of human development and regional disparities.
• It recommended the taluka (rather than the region) as the unit for identifying backwardness, since there are poor talukas in every region — including in western Maharashtra.
• It suggested a range of measures for agriculture, water, industry and social development.

The report generated debate, and not all its recommendations were accepted.

Why the issue remains alive

• Irrigation backlog in Vidarbha and Marathwada — incomplete projects and lower irrigation coverage.
• Industrial concentration in the Mumbai–Pune–Nashik belt.
• Human development gaps — tribal districts such as Gadchiroli and Nandurbar, and drought-prone Marathwada.
• Farmer distress — especially in Vidarbha's cotton belt and Marathwada.
• The demand for a separate Vidarbha state — which revives periodically.

Arguments for and against the boards

Other special provisions under Article 371

Article 371(2) is part of a larger group of special provisions for states (371A to 371J), such as:

• 371A — Nagaland;
• 371D — Andhra Pradesh (and Telangana), on public employment and education;
• 371J — the Hyderabad–Karnataka region of Karnataka (added in 2012), modelled partly on the idea of regional development boards.

Practice

Prelims-style:

1. Which regions are covered by development boards under Article 371(2)?
2. In which year were the development boards established in Maharashtra?
3. Who headed the 1984 committee on regional imbalance?
4. What unit did the Kelkar Committee recommend for identifying backwardness?
5. Which other state is covered by Article 371(2)?

Mains-style:

• "Article 371(2) has been more significant in principle than in practice." Examine.
• Discuss the causes of regional imbalance in Maharashtra and evaluate the role of the development boards.