Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has expressed strong disapproval of the BJP government’s decision to annul nine newly created districts, describing it as a short-sighted move driven by political vendetta.
Gehlot’s criticism follows the BJP’s decision to undo the reorganisation of districts that was carried out during his tenure. In a statement shared on social media, he stated that the decision was an example of imprudence and an attempt to undermine the previous government’s initiatives for political reasons.
Gehlot took to X to explain the reasoning behind the creation of these districts during his time in office. He said that a committee led by senior administrative officer Ramlubhaya was formed in March 2022 to review the administrative structure.
The committee, after studying reports from various districts, proposed the creation of new districts.
Gehlot highlighted that the decision was part of a wider effort to improve administrative efficiency, especially after the creation of Chhattisgarh, which left Rajasthan as the largest state in the country in terms of area.
Before the reorganisation, Rajasthan had districts with an average population of 35.42 lakh and an area of 12,147 square kilometres. Gehlot explained that the new districts helped reduce the population per district to 15.35 lakh and the area to 5,268 square kilometres.
He argued that smaller districts would lead to more effective governance, faster service delivery, and quicker resolution of public grievances. He believed that reducing the size of districts would enhance the reach of administration, ensuring that people’s concerns are addressed in a timely manner.
The former Chief Minister criticised the BJP’s reasoning for cancelling the districts, specifically their claim that smaller districts must have at least three legislative assembly constituencies.
Gehlot pointed to Pratapgarh, a district that still has only two constituencies despite a delimitation exercise by the BJP in 2007.
He also dismissed the BJP’s argument that smaller districts were less effective, offering examples from neighbouring states like Gujarat, Haryana, and Punjab, where smaller districts with fewer people were functioning effectively.
Gehlot further refuted claims about the size of the districts, pointing out that the size of a district should depend on its geographical conditions.
He gave examples of districts in Gujarat, Haryana, and Punjab, such as Dang in Gujarat with a population of 2.29 lakh and Malerkotla in Punjab with a population of 4.3 lakh, which were operating well despite their smaller size.
Additionally, Gehlot criticised the BJP for cancelling the districts after his government had already appointed district-level officers, allocated budgets, and made plans for the development of the districts.
He argued that the annulment of the districts was unnecessary and politically motivated, serving no purpose other than to undermine the work done by the previous government.
Gehlot’s response to the BJP’s decision highlights the ongoing political rivalry between the two parties and underscores the impact of administrative decisions on governance.
By pointing out the advantages of smaller districts in terms of administrative efficiency, Gehlot has emphasised that changes to district boundaries should be based on practical considerations rather than political agendas.
His remarks reflect the broader debate around decentralising governance and the importance of effective public service delivery in a state as large and diverse as Rajasthan.
Follow us
