Maha Bharat: Episode 14

What are Union Territories?

← See all episodes

India has 28 official states and 8 Union Territories with the recent conversion of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh into Union Territories. This was the first time a state in India was converted to a Union Territory. But what does that actually mean? what changes in these places and what are Union Territories and why do they exist?

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Links to clips used in this episode —

Full Transcript of Episode 14

Namaskar Doston,

There are 28 states and 8 union territories in India – does that number seem different to you? 

Jee haan – 8 union territories, because recently, there have been some changes — 

[We hear a news report about Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh being declared as Union Territories]

So yes, Jammu & Kashmir, which used to be a state and Ladakh, which was a town, are now union territories. But what does this mean? What has changed in these two regions now?

What is a union territory and why do we need them?

Let’s find out. 

Did you know, the concept of a ‘Union Territory’ is actually unique to India? The Hindi word for Union Territory is Kendriya Shasit Rajya. This explains the meaning clearly: Union Territory ek aisa rajya hai, jiske upar kendra ka shasan hai. This is an administrative division – yaani, ek prashaasnik vibhaag.

A state, as we know, is governed by elected representatives (chune hue neta). They control finances, law and order, social welfare. But with union territories, it is not that simple. Most of the responsibilities of the state government  are carried out by the centre in these regions. 

At the moment, we have 8 union territories in India – Delhi, Chandigarh, Puducherry (पुदुचेर्री), Daman and Diu aur Dadra (दादरा) and Nagar Haveli (Dhruv – This is now clubbed as 1 Union Territory, so need to say this together), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands, Jammu and Kashmir aur Ladakh. 

On January 26th this year, Daman and Diu aur Dadra and Nagar Haveli got clubbed together into one union territory. So, while it may take you some time to say it, these two territories are together!

So, who makes these decisions? Can a state government decide to simply become a union territory?

No, not quite. According to the Article 2 of the constitution, only the Parliament can create territories in India. And Article 3 allows the Parliament to create states and union territories, and to increase or decrease their areas. It can even merge states. 

Now, this probably sounds like a simple clause. But I’m sure you’re wondering — doesn’t this interfere with the rights of the state?

Dr. Ambedkar came up with a solution — an amendment was added to the constitution. It was decided that a bill to form new states or new union territories can be taken up in the parliament only through the recommendation of the President. Most importantly, the President would have to consult with the state first. 

In 1919, India had 6 union territories. But that time, these regions weren’t called union territories.

So how did the term “Union territories” come about? What were they called before?

Why don’t we take a quick history lesson? Before the British came to India, administration – yaani, shasan — was very different from what we know today. 

Power was in the hands of the king of an empire. This empire was then divided into provinces, which were divided into districts. This system changed from time to time — during the rule of Changragupta Maurya, the power dripped down from the king to the lower levels. In fact, villages were the most important part of administration! 

On the other hand, the Mughal rulers kept power with the king. Smaller districts – or sabahs – had faujdars who policed these areas. So, even though these administrators enforced rules, they couldn’t make their own. The king ruled, after all.

The British and the East India Company tried to introduce a uniform law and order in the country. In the 1860s, they created the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Council Act. Inspite of this, under the British Raj, the administrative divisions (vibhaag) were a mess (tehes-mehes). 

They brought in new positions of the sarkar. Jaise ki, governors, who were appointed by the British government, in charge of specific provinces or presidencies. There was also a Chief Commissioner, who, similar to a governor, was the administrator of a province. The difference was, he was usually in charge of a province which did not have an elected assembly.

So, ek taraf pe thi princely states ruled by Maharajas, and dusri taraf thi presidencies, ruled by governors. Even apart from this, there were certain pockets of land ruled by Chief Commissioners, called Chief Commissioner Provinces. 

This is important. There were six Chief Commissioner Provinces – Delhi, British Baluchistan, Ajmer-Merwara, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Panth Piploda.

How were these regions different? The Chief Commissioner, who ruled these regions, would be directly appointed by the centre (kendriya sarkar chun ti thi). These areas did not have the same autonomy as provinces, and they were under the centre. This provision actually went on to become the basis for the Act 239 – which will tell you about the governance of the present-day union territory. 

So, in a way, you can say that this is where Union Territories come from. 

But it wasn’t that simple! 

After Independence, India inherited this mess of administrative divisions. There was intense debate in the constituent assembly about how to make new divisions. 

The new government of India decided to make four divisions. 

First Part: Nine British Presidencies and provinces like Assam, Bombay, Bihar etc with a Governor as its head. Then the second part, eight former princely states such as Hyderabad or Mysore and in some cases, the merger of former princely states into Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat with a Rajapramukh as its head.

3rd, Remember the Chief Commissioner Provinces? There were 10 chief commissioners’ provinces and some small princely states such as Bhopal, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Coorg which were to be governed by a Chief Commissioner.

And finally, Part 4, comprised only Andaman and Nicobar to be governed by the Union Government because of its strategic importance.

So, Andaman and Nicobar became India’s first Union Territory in name (kehne mein). India now had 27 states and 1 union territory.

But this division did not last long. Soon, the states demanded to be divided based on the languages spoken. In the States Reorganization Act of 1955, these parts were replaced with just two divisions: 14 states and six smaller, “special areas” (khaas kshetra).  These areas were known as union territories. 

Sawal yeh uthta hai, ki why have union territories (union territory ki zarurat kya thi), when we already had states in the country?

To understand this, let’s look at the difference between states and union territories. A state is a division of Indian administration that has its own government and police force. It has a sizable / large population. The people living in a state share a culture – matlab, their language, food, clothes, are often similar. Within the federal structure of India, a state has a certain amount of autonomy. 

Union territories, on the other hand, are often smaller administrative divisions that are controlled directly by the centre – we already know this. But why? There are many reasons that these special areas needed to remain separate. 

For instance, Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands are far away from the mainland, and thus at strategic locations. It was important for the centre to have direct power in these areas, in case of an emergency. 

But what about Delhi – here, the population, too is big enough right? But since Delhi is the capital of India, the centre needs to have direct power in this region. 

On the other hand, places like Daman and Diu and Puducherry were small colonies of the Portuguese and French. If these were made into states, then the centre would have to spend money on a legislative assembly, council of ministers and police force, which would be an extra burden, as you can imagine.

These are only a few examples of the union territories. But you get the gist, right? Even though states did exist, some special areas needed to be under the direct control of the centre. Others were too unique to be clubbed into states, or too small to be made into independent states. This is why they were made into Union Territories. 

When we talk about union territories, there are as many stories as they are union territories! Almost every union territory was made for a different reason, often at a different time and like their different history, their governance is also slightly different. 

Think of a Union Territory like a state, but with President’s Rule. The Article 242 of the Constitution allows the President to make decisions in the territories. 

Every Union Territory has a Lieutenant (लेफ्टिनेंट) Governor, often called the LG. The LG is a representative (pratinidhi) of the President of India, and is selected by the Central Government. 

I told you before that Union Territories don’t have their own Legislative Assemblies. But there are 3 exceptions —

Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry. These 3 territories elect representatives to govern them. 

If you look at that list, you notice that Puducherry is quite small compared to the other two, so why this provision? 

Before the merger of Puducherry with India in 1954, India signed a treaty that ensured that this new Union Territory had power to govern itself. This was called the “Puducherry model”

Waise, Delhi’s story is quite interesting (dilchasp). In 1991, Delhi was named the “National Capital Territory’ and was granted partial statehood. Iska matlab hai – Delhi’s state government can control education, health and other welfare departments. But police, public order and land? Still under the union or center. 

So how are Union Territories run?

The President is the main (apex) ruler of all Union Territories and makes the final decision. 

But since the president cannot look over every territory, he appoints an administrator for each one. He makes sure that all the important decisions are assented by the President. In the Union Territories with Legislative Assemblies, he works with the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister. 

But remember — the Administrator has more power. If the UT legislative Assembly passes a bill, the Administrator can withhold it. 

An Administrator is not like a head of the state, but like an agent of the President. 

Ek baat toh reh gayi – what about the Judiciary in these states? Do Union Territories have a court?

Haan bhi, aur naa bhi! The constitution states that every union territory has the same right to judicial power as a state (adaalat ka haq hai). It gives the Parliament the power to extend the jurisdiction (adhikaar ka kshetra) of another state’s high court to a Union Territory . 

So, of the 8 UTs, only Delhi has its own High Court. The rest UTs share a high court with other states. In fact, would you believe it: The Kolkata High Court has jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar Islands!

Doston, now that we know about union territories, let’s go back to where we started from. 

In August last year, the Parliament passed the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act. This divided the state of Jammu Kashmir into 2 union territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The centre also scrapped Article 370, a provision that gave special status to Jammu & Kashmir. 

[We hear the voice of Manish Tewari speaking in the Parliament]

This was Manish Tewari, a Congress representative in the Lok Sabha. He’s right – this move is a historical one. A state has never been converted into a Union Territory before. 

So, what has changed in these regions?

As union territories, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are now under the direct control of the centre. The local governing bodies – like the J&K Public Service Commission – and the police force are under the Home Ministry now. The Union Territory of Ladakh, which is a small area consisting of Leh and Kargil, will not have a legislative assembly. 

The UT of J&K, on the other hand, will have one. According to the provisions of the 239A Act, the Legislative Assembly for Jammu & Kashmir will make laws on the State and Concurrent list. But  when it comes to police, public order, trade and commerce, the centre will have the last word. 

Lieutenant Governors will now be appointed to both of these Union Territories. 

This was a unique example of how a state was made into two union territories. What about the other way around?

A union territory becomes a state when there has been stability in that region. For instance, the politics of linguistic and cultural identity became a major force in North East India. Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Tripura, Manipur demanded statehood, to preserve their cultural identity. They were made into states.

Himachal Pradesh and Goa, too, were once Union Territories. On demands from these regions, they were made into states. 

So, these administrative divisions are not permanent. Though the existence of both states and union territories are important — with time, each can evolve. 

In February 2019, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal announced that he will go on an indefinite fast. Why?

He had one demand: 

[We hear Arvind Kejriwal speaking about the benefits of statehood for Delhi]

Since 2015, there has been a tussle between the state government and the central government. The Aam Aadmi Party has been demanding statehood for Delhi. This is so that the state government can have stronger power for the people of Delhi. 

What I’m trying to say, doston, is that even though the system of states and union territories has been well thought of, there are still drawbacks. 

In a report studying the political and administrative set up in India, I found that the author Sudhir Kumar points out several defects in the structure of administration in Union Territories. According to this report, the people of Union Territories do not have a real say in how their own area is government.

And that makes sense, right? After all, they can’t elect their own representatives. Some UTs have a legislative Assembly, some don’t. The pattern of administration is not uniform (ek-samaan/ek-roop). Aur agar states ke compare kiya jaye, then some UTs are considerably weaker. This is because the legislature for a Union Territory is provided in an act — the 239A act. While for the state, it is provided in the constitution. 

In the beginning itself, I told you that Union Territories are unique to India. However, similar provisions may exist in other countries — jaise, Washington D.C. in the USA. It’s the capital city of the country, but it’s not a part of any of the U.S. states. The central government of the USA has direct control over it

As far as India is concerned, the concept of union territories is important to the country’s structure. 

This makes me wonder — what if there were no Union Territories in India?

Well, that would raise a question about the autonomy of certain regions. For instance: the region of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. While the population is sparse, the people prefer to remain a union territory to retain their portuguese culture. This is why they do not prefer a merger with Gujarat. A similar reason also applies to Puducherry. 

Not to mention, the question of security. Territories like Andaman and Nicobar Islands or the Lakshadweed islands are at strategic locations. If they form a state government, then the centre might lose power if there is a threat to the country’s security. 

Without Union Territories, India would look different, don’t you think? 

Doston, that’s it for today’s episode. Like always, I hope I was able to tell you something you didn’t know, and encourage you to learn more about our country. 

I’ll be back next week with a brand new episode of Maha Bharat. 

Credits

Narrated by – Dhruv Rathee
Producer – Gaurav Vaz
Written by – Gaurav Vaz and Anushka Mukherjee

Title Track Design – Abhijith Nath
Audio Production – Madhav Ayachit