Dataviz: Why Indian Districts Are Not Equal

Take Gujarat’s Kachchh, for instance. At 45,674 sq km, it is India’s largest district in terms of area. This is about the same size as the entire state of Haryana, and over 5,000 times the size of Puducherry’s Mahe district (9 sq km), which is the smallest in the country.

Similarly, North East Delhi has the highest population density with 36,161 people per sq km. For context, Kolkata’s Eden Garden cricket ground has an area of 0.6 sq km. Dibang Valley in Arunachal Pradesh has just under one person per sq km.

Thane in Maharashtra had the highest population (11 million) in 2011--before Palghar was carved out of the district--and Dibang Valley has the lowest (8,004).

Districts are crucial, since the implementation of all developmental programmes initiated by the state and the Union governments are carried out at that level. Demarcation of districts can bring in administrative efficiency, but there are no clear norms or guidelines about what constitutes a district, experts say and our analysis shows.

How districts differ within states

Maharashtra, which has 35 districts, shows the widest divergence in terms of population--that is, the difference between the districts with highest and lowest populations in the state is the largest among all states. Lakshadweep has the smallest difference.

But this ranking is deceptive, since the difference is a function of the nature of these states.

Gini indices, conventionally estimated for income inequality, make for a better measure. We derived the indices for India’s 640 districts--as of 2011--based on area, population and population density. A Gini Index of 0 implies perfect equality while a Gini Index of 1 implies absolute inequality. So, closer the index is to 1, the higher the inequality.

Taken together, India’s districts are most unequal in terms of population density with a Gini index of 0.678, and least in terms of area (0.414).

Maharashtra has highest inequality on population density

Maharashtra is the most unequal in terms of population density. The erstwhile state of undivided Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu follow. Among the large states, Bihar, Punjab and Kerala show the least disparity in density.

Data show that urbanised and geographically diverse states tend to have more significant inequality, especially in terms of population density and area, whereas more homogeneous or smaller states exhibit lower levels of inequality across districts.

Within Maharashtra, population densities range from 20,980 people per sq km in Mumbai Suburban and just 74 people per sq km in Gadchiroli, as per Census 2011 data. Districts such as Thane, Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur have very high population densities, while others are much less densely populated.

Puducherry has highest inequality on population

In terms of total population, the Union territory (UTs) of Puducherry has the highest inequality. Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand follow. In 1998, two years prior to the state formation, Chhattisgarh more than doubled its districts from seven to 16. Subsequently, the districts have further doubled to 33.

On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), Haryana and Madhya Pradesh have the least population disparity.

Overall, smaller states or UTs like Puducherry tend to have more unequal population distribution, likely due to geographic factors and urbanisation concentrated in a few districts.

Within the UT of Puducherry, Mahe district has just over 41,000 people, whereas Puducherry district’s population is 20 times higher, at 950,000.

J&K most unequal on area

In terms of area, Jammu & Kashmir--before its bifurcation into the UTs of J&K and Ladakh--had the highest inequality, primarily due to the mountainous and diverse terrain in Ladakh and Kashmir regions. Puducherry and the National Capital Territory of Delhi follow.

Meanwhile, Goa and Tripura had the least disparity.

Within Jammu & Kashmir, Leh (Ladakh) district, spread over 45,110 sq km, has the highest area while Ganderbal district has the lowest (259 sq km).

No norms for district formation in India

Between 1961 and 2021, the number of districts in the country increased from 340 to 693, resulting in an average of 60 new districts per decade. In the decade 1991-2001, governments created 127 new districts, which is the highest since Independence. More recently, between 2021 and 2024, governments added 92 districts, taking the total to 785 (as of February 2024).

The number of districts is an estimate because there is a time gap between when districts are formed, and when the official notification for it is published, and the change is reflected in government databases and maps. Further, as district creation is dynamic, the number of districts vary around the year. For instance, on August 26, Home Minister Amit Shah announced the creation of five new districts in Ladakh, but this will not yet be reflected in maps or government databases.

Typically, the creation of new districts is justified on account of the increasing population that requires an increase in administrative capacity at the district level, research shows. Between 1951 and 2024, India’s population increased four times from 361 million to 1.4 billion. At the same time, with the creation of new districts, the average district population increased 53% from 1.16 million to 1.78 million, as per calculations based on Census numbers for 1951 and the UN Population Projections for 2024. For instance, the creation of Palghar, announced in the early 2000s and realised in 2014, was necessary due to Thane's enormous population (11 million in 2011) and diverse areas.

But, population has not been the primary criteria for district creation.

On one hand, there is North Twenty Four Parganas (bordering Kolkata) district, with more than 10 million population, while on the other hand there is Dibang Valley, which has the lowest population of all districts in the country, at 8,000, as per Census 2011 data.

Because of the lack of an overarching law or policy with clear guidelines on circumstances under which a government can establish a district, many new districts in India have been created arbitrarily, without sound justification or regard for public opinion, and often because of political considerations, said three former civil servants, who served as district collectors and held various administrative positions across Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra.

The authors are part of the The State and District Evolution Project, initiated by the Centre for Legislative Education and Research at FLAME University, which aims to track how states and districts in India have co-evolved from pre independence times, to the post-partition period and the present.

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.