Why Vidarbha Statehood Remains a Big Question

In Nagpur, early on Maharashtra Day 2025, activists of the Vidarbha Rajya Andolan Samiti (VRAS) hoisted a saffron-and-green flag, a symbol of their demand for a standalone Vidarbha state.

The annual protest, now observed with growing local support, was explicitly framed not as a mere demonstration but “a declaration of our identity and our right to self-determination.”'

Leaders say it underscores decades of neglect, citing chronic under-investment in farming, water and infrastructure. It reflects a feeling that Vidarbha’s needs will never be fully met under the current state government.

Similar rallies have been held in dozens of towns across the region, with organisers promising to intensify their campaign in the coming legislative sessions

Historical and cultural roots

Vidarbha’s call for statehood is hardly new. Its origins trace back to the colonial era. Traditionally, the eastern provinces of Berar (Amravati division) and the Central Provinces (Nagpur division) merged Vidarbha into Bombay State at independence and then into Maharashtra in 1960.

Yet locals note that the 1953 Reorganisation Commission, chaired by Fazl Ali, actually recommended Vidarbha become a separate state, a plan even supported by Dr B. R. Ambedkar.

Vidarbha’s distinct history has since fed a sense of a unique regional identity.

Scholars point out that its two halves followed different paths under British rule, one as part of Berar, one as part of the Central Provinces.

Marathi is the dominant language, but its Varhadi dialect and significant tribal communities (Gondi, Lambadi, Korku speakers) give the region its own flavour.

Some activists also recall the 1960 “Nagpur Pact,” an agreement that promised Vidarbha preferential development funds and irrigation water as it joined Maharashtra, pledges which locals say were largely unmet.

Although various state governments have occasionally pledged attention, enthusiasm has waxed and waned. Vidarbha became a major political issue in the 1970s when local parties and MP’s campaigned on it, and again in the early 2000s when regional outfits like the Vidarbha Janata Congress and Vidarbha Rajya Nirman Congress were formed.

In 2014, amid general elections, virtually all local parties (even the ruling Congress-NCP alliance then) vowed to back statehood.

But by the end of that decade, most leaders had fallen silent. A 2019 report noted that “in 2014, all pro-Vidarbha parties, including the BJP, had raised the issue vehemently,” yet by 2019 the demand had “fizzled out” with only fringe groups keeping it alive.

Many Vidarbha activists were bitter that those promises went unfulfilled. Even veteran Congress leaders from the region now concede they did not follow through on earlier pledges.

In this context, proponents have formed new coalitions, a 12-party “Vidarbha Nirman Mahamanch,” for example, and even prepared to contest elections directly, in hopes of forcing the issue.

Despite languishing on legislative agendas, the Vidarbha cause retains echoes of official recognition.

Nagpur is formally one of Maharashtra’s two capitals, and four of the state’s chief ministers, from Vasantrao Naik to Devendra Fadnavis, have hailed from Vidarbha. Yet locals argue these links brought little development.

Vidarbha is a net producer of power, with abundant minerals, forests and fertile land, yet remains one of the most backwards regions of the state.

In other words, just as historical visionaries foresaw, Vidarbha today is resource-rich but development-poor, a gap its advocates call a legacy of political neglect.

Economic and social disparities

While Maharashtra as a whole is one of India’s wealthier states, Vidarbha lags behind many parts of it.

The region’s 11 districts cover nearly a third of Maharashtra’s area but hold only about one-fifth of its population.

Vidarbha’s GDP (around ₹1.3 lakh crore in recent estimates) is roughly 15% of the state’s total and is smaller than that of several poorer Indian states.

Poverty and rural distress are widespread. Notably, districts like Gadchiroli, Yavatmal and Chandrapur are officially listed among India’s most underdeveloped.

This backwardness shows in human development indicators. Many Vidarbha villages struggle with poor health and schooling services, and infant mortality and malnutrition rates remain high, according to local surveys.

Agriculture dominates the region, particularly cotton farming. Yet, cotton cultivators here are among the most distressed. Vidarbha became synonymous with the farmer suicide crisis in the 2000s, a tragic trend that persists. According to official government data, 2,635 farmer suicides were reported in Maharashtra in 2024.

Of these, 1,051 were from the Amravati division and 307 from the Nagpur division, together forming Vidarbha’s core. This means more than half of the total cases originated from this region alone.

Irrigation projects, often cited as the key to agricultural stability, remain incomplete. Out of 131 planned schemes, only 46 have been completed so far.

The backlog remains one of the most significant indicators of administrative neglect. A recent High Court notice issued to the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra over this backlog points to the gravity of the issue. Farmers continue to rely on unpredictable rainfall rather than dependable canal networks.

Industry and jobs are also limited. Compared to the powerhouses of western Maharashtra, Vidarbha has far fewer businesses.

A 2015 government analysis found only 2–3% of Maharashtra’s medium and small industrial jobs were in the Nagpur and Amravati divisions combined, whereas much of the rest of the state, especially around Pune and Mumbai, accounted for over a third of such employment.

Incomes follow the same pattern. As of the mid-2010s, only Nagpur city had a per-capita income over ₹100,000, whereas Mumbai and Pune districts were much richer. In sum, Vidarbha’s share of the state’s industry, wealth and services is disproportionately low.

On several counts, then, Vidarbha residents feel left behind. They also make a political case out of contributions the region already makes to the state. It provides a large share of Maharashtra’s cheap electricity (via its thermal and hydro plants) and exports coal and minerals, along with farm produce like oranges and cotton.

Yet, as one entrepreneur put it, “our people from Vidarbha pay taxes with our electricity, minerals, and forests, but the government of the double-engine (Union and state) has nothing for Vidarbha” in return.

This sense of unfairness fuels the sentiment that an autonomous Vidarbha could redirect resources locally.

Public opinion in Vidarbha has historically tended to back these grievances. A post-poll survey in 2014 by the CSDS research institute found nearly two-thirds of people in the Vidarbha region supported carving out a separate state. By contrast, a majority of voters in the rest of Maharashtra opposed it.

That strong regional support has persisted among activists even as it remains a fringe issue for most outside the region. Interviews and small opinion polls suggest many Vidarbha voters indeed endorse statehood as a solution, even if the question barely registers among other Maharashtrians.

Political debate and the statehood question

Politically, the Vidarbha statehood demand has found most traction with regional activist groups and a few local leaders. The Vidarbha Rajya Andolan Samiti (VRAS) is among the most visible.

Its conventions and marches stress the development gaps. A recent VRAS meeting resolved to “mobilise activists and highlight Vidarbha’s socio-economic issues,” including farmer suicides, malnutrition and unemployment.

VRAS leaders regularly cite Article 3 of India’s Constitution, which empowers Parliament to form new states as the legal basis for their demand, and say they will “intensify” their campaign until lawmakers act.

In recent years, several organisations have kept the issue alive, but momentum has faded after 2014. The BJP, which had supported the cause in principle, fell short of action. Congress and other major parties did not pursue the matter further.

Shrihari Aney, once a leading face of the statehood demand and former Advocate General of Maharashtra, stepped back due to age and health. He now plays a guiding role, urging fresh leadership to carry the demand forward. The vacuum has since been filled by former MLA Wamanrao Chatap, who currently leads the Vidarbha Rajya Andolan Samiti (VRAS). Chatap has staged protests, demanded appointments with central leaders, and publicly stated that the issue is not merely regional, it’s constitutional.

By contrast, the major state-wide parties have been mostly muted or opposed. The Shiv Sena has long declared itself the guardian of Marathi unity and has led counter-protests. In one 2016 campaign event, Shiv Sena cadres burned an effigy of Shrihari Aney and raised the Maharashtra flag as a show of defiance.

The breakaway Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) similarly organised loyalty rallies, slamming the statehood activists. Congress, which once flirted with the idea, has not revived the issue in recent years.

Though the ruling BJP did not formally drop the cause, its national leaders have offered only vague support.

Union minister Nitin Gadkari surprised locals in 2019 by saying he personally “supported and respected” the Vidarbha demand, but he immediately added that one must first lay out a plan to properly develop the region.

Importantly, BJP leaders admit they lack the parliamentary numbers to legislate a state split on their own, and can only raise it if opposition parties agree.

In practice, therefore, none of the big alliances has staked its electoral strategy on carving up Maharashtra. Leading up to the 2024 assembly elections, most candidates for all parties barely mentioned the issue at all, disappointing ardent advocates.

Both proponents and opponents of Vidarbha statehood put forward concrete arguments. Supporters say a separate state would mean a government focused on local needs. They point to Telangana, which split from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, as a hopeful example of revitalised farming and industry.

They argue that only with its own capital and bureaucracy can Vidarbha attract the investment it deserves. Another activist, lawyer Avinash Kale, warns that Vidarbha will face an even “graver” future if kept in Maharashtra and needs a louder, unified voice to break the cycle of unfulfilled promises.

Critics counter that splitting the state would not automatically solve these problems. The most pragmatic objection is financial: Vidarbha’s taxable base is relatively small.

In 2013, then-Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan pointed out that the Vidarbha divisions contributed only a tiny fraction of Maharashtra’s tax revenue, roughly ₹3,500 crore of an almost ₹1.8 lakh crore VAT pool. He argued that on its own, Vidarbha might face a severe budget shortfall.

Aney and others call this a misconception, insisting Vidarbha has enough industry and resources to be viable.

Observers note that even if revenues suffice, setting up a new state entails costs (new legislative and administrative machinery) and potential border disputes with the rest of Maharashtra.

Some caution that a fission could trigger other demands (for a separate Marathwada, for instance), or weaken Maharashtra’s overall influence in national politics.

No expert analysis of the Vidarbha state budget has been formally released. Economics remains a matter of debate between pro- and anti-statehood camps.

Other drawbacks are mostly political. As one veteran pointed out, Vidarbha has had representation at the highest levels of Maharashtra government for years, yet the region still lags.

Splitting the state, he argued, would simply trade one large Maharashtrian bureaucracy for two smaller, each with its own share of inertia.

Meanwhile, opponents warn that the Rajya Sabha impasse is real. The Congress and smaller parties have little incentive to approve a BJP-dominated division plan. In short, creating a separate state would hinge not just on economics but on a rare bipartisan consensus, something so far elusive.

Leaving the debate open

The push for a Vidarbha state has entered a new phase. After a lull of several years, local leaders are holding more meetings, writing to central politicians, and even planning grassroots campaigns.

The media spotlight has turned back on the issue as activists stage rallies and hoist the regional flag year after year. What happens next is still uncertain.

The Maharashtra and Union governments have made no commitment, and larger parties remain focused on other priorities.

One thing is clear, that, the Vidarbha question is now firmly part of public discourse.

Activists believe the conversation itself is a victory of sorts, raising awareness about rural distress, irrigation gaps, and economic neglect.

The endgame is far from determined. Some expect the debate to continue simmering through election cycles and budget sessions, with each side increasing its advocacy. Others think it may fade again if immediate solutions (like better farm loans or new factories) begin to arrive. For now, the region is watching closely.

Vidarbha’s statehood campaign has reignited the conversation about how to ensure equitable development in Maharashtra.

Whether that conversation eventually leads to a separate Vidarbha or other reforms within the existing state is a question that remains unresolved, but one unlikely to disappear from regional politics anytime soon.