GROUP DISCUSSION

Should India Be Divided Into Smaller States

Favour

By dividing the problem in small parts and cooncentrating on the problems regionvise there are more chances of better growth We need governance at small level so that we can manage and regulate the life more appropriately By recognizing the india into smaller states on the basis of problems(illittracy,poority)can give the chance to goverment to resolve those problems on those portions of india

Against

Dividing india into not the solution of the problem.Because it creates hatered and bifurcation between people of 2 states. More over dividing on the basis of caste and religion is creating more issues like minor ,major population with in newly created state Even if we divide on the basis of problem We can resolve that perticular problem but that state again left in total growth. The resources of the india become property of that state so other states become insecure and only people of that perticular reason become more rich.

Conclusion

Recognizing the india into smaller states is not a good idea We can recognize few more states on the basis of problem in that area so that those problem could be resolved but proper laws should be there Dividing the india into smaller states on the basis of caste and religion is not worthy.

For - Reorganizing India into smaller states would mean better organized and manageable units of land with better administration. - It would result in better growth as government would govern with better efficiency. - Government would concentrate more on the problem of people as smaller states would mean smaller population. - It would homogeneously divide our population as there is no uniformity amongst the state. For e.g. - Madhya Pradesh is a bigger and more populated are as compared to Bihar. - The problems related to illiteracy, health and poverty could be well assessed. Against - Due to the political implications after the divide, there are chances that reorganizing India into smaller states would turn out to be a bad ploy. - People after the divide would develop a feeling of animosity for each other and this would hamper Indias unity.

- It will create confusion as to where they belong and most of all about their identities. - There are chances that the reorganized state would get substantial help from the government, which would create a feeling of insecurity among other states. - There will be no proper division of the resources, which would make one state richer than the other. It is time to bring a change by reorganizing India into smaller states as it would mean better management. Peoples benefit should be of utmost importance and politics should not interfere in fulfilling that criterion. RE: India should be reorganized into smaller states.

Argument The demand for separate state is often used by regional and national parties as a political issue with a widespread belief that the separation guarantees development The lack of unity among the members of Grand Alliance on seat sharing in the elections and the fact that CPM is opposed to formation of small states would only work in favour of the Congress. Division of a state has an influence on people and political parties of other states as well. During the telangana issue Mayawati had voiced her demand to divide U.P in four different parts because it is believed that smaller states are easier to administer.Also the there were demand for separation of Vidarbha from Maharashtra for its betterment. So politicians take advantages of unrest happening in other states to play their political games rather than focussing on current welfare of the state India is already a diverse country.The struggle for a separate state of Telangana has created a social divide between people from the Telangana and non-Telangana regions in Andhra Pradesh. The separation of a state can also create imbalance of resources in the separated states.With separation the district consisting of hyderabad will be in telangana which might create an imbalance in term of development as hyderabad is the most developed part of A.P Divisions of states induces a lot of violence causing communal riots and and can disturbs the economy of the whole state.

RATIONALE Positives -- It has been felt by some that large states are difficult to govern effectively. As a result, development activity suffers and good governance fails to reach far-flung, remote or interior areas of the state. -- In addition, in large states, the voices of certain regions or groups of people may not be sufficiently heard. Smaller states can ensure better representation for all regions and groups of people. -- In some cases, certain regions/ people have felt that they have been exploited by other regions. For example, before the creation of the state of Uttarkhand, the people of the hill areas in Uttar Pradesh felt that they were being exploited by the people of the plains. Thus, there was an agitation for a separate state. -- Problems of Maoist rebellions and other agitations can be traced to the absence of governance in certain areas of the country -- Governments in smaller states may be more accountable to the people, thus reducing issues of corruption etc -- In some ways, local languages and cultures may also be better preserved in smaller states On the other hand:

-- Giving in to demands to split certain states, may give rise to similar demands from other states. This has already been seen in recent times; when there were demands to split Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra etc, while the Telengana issue raged. -- More states could result in more inter-state disputes; over water-sharing, power-sharing, even border disputes, etc. Disputes over sharing of the Cauvery river waters etc are a case in point. -- This could serve to hamper the unity of the country at a time when such unity is necessary in order for India to take her place on the world-stage. -- Other countries might exploit the internal chaos that results from such demands. Concerns that China, Pakistan etc might exploit the situation in India have already been raised. The Way Forward Thus, given the pros and cons of the issue as discussed above, the Government needs to tread carefully. It appears likely that a new State Reorganization Commission could be set up. This is expected to examine in detail the legitimacy, practicality and usefulness of demands for new states coming from places like Vidharbha, Telangana and the Darjeeling Hills. The agitation for a Gorkhaland has been ongoing for some time in the Darjeeling Hills. In addition, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Ms Mayawati, has spoken of creating three new states out of Uttar Pradesh. It is clear that there needs to be a broad-level consensus to implement such major changes. All sections of society and different regional groups must first agree to the proposal, otherwise it may result in the kind of chaos that we have seen over Telengana. Thus a mechanism where people democratically agree to such a division either directly (possibly through a referendum on the issue) or indirectly (through decisions made through their elected representatives, who are supposed to reflect the views of the majority) may be the way forward.

India should be reorganized into smaller states. Favour

By dividing the problem in small parts and cooncentrating on the problems regionvise there are more chances of better growth We need governance at small level so that we can manage and regulate the life more appropriately By recognizing the india into smaller states on the basis of problems(illittracy,poority)can give the chance to goverment to resolve those problems on those portions of india

Against

Dividing india into not the solution of the problem.Because it creates hatered and bifurcation between people of 2 states. More over dividing on the basis of caste and religion is creating more issues like minor ,major population with in newly created state Even if we divide on the basis of problem We can resolve that perticular problem but that state again left in total growth. The resources of the india become property of that state so other states become insecure and only people of that perticular reason become more rich.

Conclusion

Recognizing the india into smaller states is not a good idea We can recognize few more states on the basis of problem in that area so that those problem could be resolved but proper laws should be there Dividing the india into smaller states on the basis of caste and religion is not worthy.

The last few days, oh months there has been a great debate on the formation of a seperate state ,of Telengana from Andhra Pradesh. The people are revolting, doing dharnas, fasting, violence,students have joined the movement for the formation of the state. The politics on the issue have also been active on the same issue. Sadly many people have also done suicide for the demand of formation of the state. The central government finally have agreed and formed a committee to review and start the process of the formation of Telengana, we may see a new independent state if everything goes on well names Telengana.

Demand for separate States With the government appointing a committee for the assessment of the formation of new states, the other parts of the country have also been demanding the separate small states. The first attempt was done by GJM i to declare the Darjileeng area as "Gorkhaland" with Capital Siliguri. For this, 21 young activists of Gorkha Janamukti Morcha(GJM) started indefinite fasting and processions in the district of Darjeeling. This movement of separation was follwed by Uttarpradesh where voices raised for declaration of 3 different states namely Poorvanchal, Harit Pradesh demanded by RLD and Bundelkhand demanded by BMM.The demand for separate Vidarbh fromMaharashtra has been from long. There have been voices for the demand of Saurashtra as a separate state in Gujarat. These demands have emerged as a result of the government decision on Telengana.

Does Small States means better governance

The people are demanding for small states on the basis that the governance is better. The state gets better accessibility to funds and government schemes which is not happening in large states. For instance, a person has to move to Lucknow if he is UP for the High Court, a small state will result in better accountability and efficiency to run the state. We have seen separate states in past. There are positive outcome of the division like Punjab, Haryana, HP, Uttrakhand, Gujarat, where they have grown faster than their parent state, whereas at the same time there is negative outcome has also seen as in case of Jharkhand, where the past CM ahs done the

biggest scam in the country and state has become more poor, Chattisgadh have also been facing the problem of Naxals after separation.

The separation of the state is not a problem for our country, but the issue is if it is separated then it has to be run by a able leader and the politicians must not take mileage out of the feelings of the people. The people of India are now smart enough to understand that. The formation of the state are also going to disturb a lot, now it is on the government and the committee for the assessment of formation of new states to take a decision in the favour of the people of the nation. .

Merits India can be developed faster because each and every state government is responsible for the development of the state. By having multi cultural society people can learn the tradition and culture of different states. By having state government it is easy to find out the detail of any person as done in NRGES in this scheme government has detail of everyone by its state wise. The benefits of the government polices can be implemented very easily. Demerits Every state has not having equal opportunity to developed, some state can become richer and some become poorer, like Panjab and Bihar. State government and politician can play their dirty politics very easily on the name of language ( Marathi, panjabi etc, ) on the name of God ( muslims are more in number in UP, Hindu are more in number in other any state) Economical speaking then difference in VAT rate, each states has their own VAT rate which decide the estimated price like the state VAT and other taxes. Having different state their is a much different in caste also, MP and bihar having number of SC/ST. The most important demerits is having states different political party in some states like Bengal, AP.
Merits: India will move towards the true definition of a republic. With smaller area of states, administration will definitely be better and each area will be properly represented at the centre through ministers who can more directly help the local people. Diversity of lifestyle within a state will decrease and no one can complain that the culture is too different from one end to the other. For example, people of hilly region in Darjeeling won't feel that a state government in the plains of Kolkata are too different to understand their need. Demerits: Given the practice of Indain politicians, they will just play around for votes and not true development. They will consciously increase differences and make people of their region biased against the other states. Habits, languages, culture etc in India will become more diversified and Indians wil gradually forget their unity. Unlike other countries Indians will continue becoming Marathis, Gujratis, Punjabis or Tamilians first and Indians next. Communal feelings will gradually destroy the insipid spirit of "Unity in Diversity" in India. Source(s): Editorial in TOI

The argument that small state will develop is not entirely true. While states like Haryana and Punjab prosper, those like Jharkand is a failure. The decision to form new state should equally be on the basis of economic viability apart from other political reasons. There is no point in a new state if there is no mineral wealth or possibilities for industrialisation. Yet, in spite of coal mines, Jharkhand is a failure due to political reasons only. Hence, small or big, the leadership should be enlightened.. More small states will be an avoidable drain on the finances, for setting up new govt. and all the paraphernalia attached to it. Just for political reasons the existing well developed Capital city may have to be ignored and a new one built,( like it is going to happen for Hyderabad), whether viable or not. Large states have both failed and prospered, like for instance UP & Bihar in the former category and Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the latter. To sum up, both large and small states are good, if porperly administered.

Merits as it is said smaller states would grow faster. more people will have opportunities o become CM. Demerits one more cause to fight. Increased borders means more fights. Extra load on center govt. Explanation I don't actually understand demand for separate states. If u can tell me why exactly we have divided states into districts? If state govt can not handle load of full states to say a certain no. of districts how do u expect centre to handle a load of more no. of states? then argument may come that smaller countries will develop even faster. then what we do divide again... See as per my opinion fault is not with current system but the operators, it is politicians who only concentrate on their areas, vote banks for development. we should cause them to concentrate on india and not only local areas. See for administration India is divided into states, states into districts, Districts into Talukas......... If we operate it correctly we won't need to make more states. We already see border fights bet maharashtra-karnataka, karnataka-tamilnadu .......... don't u think creating more states will add to problems of centre govt.

Recently in the wake of Telangana issue, once again the issue of dividing the various states has got the ground in the political sphere of our country. A demand of dividing one of the largest state in the country i.e. UP has gained ground to such an extent that its echo can be listened even in state's assembly. A long pending demand of dividing UP in 3 or more part has once again came into prominence. Now, it is pertinent here to think how useful is to divide any state and create a new one. It is often

said that smaller states has more prospect to grow than larger one and this statement can even be supported by citing the example of Punjab,Haryana etc. Perhaps because of this or only because of this belief Assam was ruined and divided into various part keeping in mind that it would also helping creating the engine of growth .But needless to say what happened to our North eastern states, not only they could not ripe the fruits of development but also the demands of further division of states have risen periodically. So dividing larger states into smaller one is not the ultimate solution. Further, i will ask here a question, which state in India has the potential to be on the top? Mh, GJ or southern states... any guess...i will bet for Jharkhand....it is the most prosperous stete in the country in the term of mineral wealth. Also , it is endowed with natural beauty which only enhances its prospect of becoming prosperous. Bihar was divided and Jharkhand was born in the winter of 2000 with the hope that this would usher an era of development but needless to say what is the present condition of Jharkhand. So even the availability of resources should not be the taken as assurance for the development of state In India, most of the states are dependent on central aid for their survival as their own income is not high enough to feed their own population. So by just dividing states and creating new one will only aggravate the burden of central government. Moreover the financial assistance required for the setting up the administrative machinery will only do the worse. Further it is the centre which has to bear the additional cost of erratic election caused by irresponsible state politicians. So any further division of any state will thus create only additional burden on the centre. Then what is the solution? Before looking into the possible solution, just takes a case study. What is the difference between PB, HR and UP,BH . An ordinary person will say that first league of state is more prosperous than later but I will say second league of state has the potential to make 100s of PB and HR out of them. But why are they lagging? Because they are large or they dont have resources? The eastern UP and northern Bihar has one of the most fertile land not only in India but also in the world but still they are lagging. But what is the reason? The answer is the psycho-social condition of these states.. The reader will be amazed to know that more than 70% of land holding belongs to the elite of respected areas which in no case would be more than 10% of population of related areas. Land being the only resources and agriculture being the single most important occupation of rural folks, this type of inequitable land distribution will only create the havoc in the states and such demand of dividing the state is inevitable. Similar is the case of many states in India. So instead of dividing the state on the name of development we should look into the matter more deeply and instead of trying the solutions that is cliche we should go for more novel solutions. We should not feed the unsatisfied politicians to make their own career and work for better recourse management and upliftment of socio- economic condition of our citizens

On October 19, 1952, Potti Sriramulu commenced a fast-unto-death on behalf of tens of millions of Telugu speakers, who wanted to carve out their own state within India. After 58 days of fast, Sriramulu died. His death triggered riots, pressurising New Delhi to acquiesce to the formation of the

Telugu-speaking state of Andhra Pradesh in 1953. In fact, his death also led to the linguistic reorganisation of Indian states. After 60 years, K Chandrashekar Rao brought into play the tactics of Sriramulu and went on a hunger strike demanding the division of the state the latter died for. This time, New Delhi has been more cautious. As Rao's health started deteriorating, the Central government okayed the carving out of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh. A number of debates have followed the governments announcement; many criticising New Delhi for setting a wrong example for other regional movements calling for separate statehood. Some of the regional movements are: Bodoland (Assam), Bundelkhand (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh), Bhojpur (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), Coorg (Karnataka), Gorkhaland (West Bengal), Marathwada (Maharashtra), Mahakaushal (Orissa), Harit Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh), Mithilanchal (Bihar), Muru Pradesh (Rajasthan), Poorvanchal (Uttar Pradesh), and Vidarbha (Maharashtra). I do not disagree with those who side with the formation of Telangana, arguing fragmentation will help strengthen governance and hence ensure development. After all, more focus on remote and impoverished regions will pave the way for their development. The people demanding separate statehood for Telangana cite reasons such as inadequate industrial infrastructure, lack of educational and employment opportunities, inter-regional inequalities, among others. But do we really need to carve out another state in a bid to focus more on poor regions? Or shall I say there will be no disparity left in Telangana once it is out of Andhra Pradesh? Is fragmentation truly an alternative of good governance and development? I wonder if dividing a state is a solution to the problems that provoke separatist sentiments. In 1953, Andhra Pradesh was carved out of Madras Presidency, and three years later the Telangana part of Hyderabad was merged with the state. In 2009, Telangana is on its way out of Andhra Pradesh. Can the torchbearers of fragmentation ensure that Telangana will stay intact in the future? India is famous for its multi-cultural and multi-lingual society, and I feel that dividing states will aggravate already-high regionalistic discrimination. I fear that the concept of regional identity may soon overshadow the one of national identity. It is significant to pay attention to the specific needs of the backward regions across the country, to allot ample funds, and to share resources with them. Better administration and governance should not come only after states are divided into smaller fragments. The policies should be devised to ensure better and equitable economic distribution of resources within states and better protection of the marginalised sections of the population for a more plural and participative developmental politics in India. At a time when the international community is trying to wipe out borders and come closer to ensure better development, India is drawing new borders within itself. It is high time that India should ensure better political representation of different communities within one state, rather than caving

in to the demands of political fiefdom by them. I fear such divisions will turn diversity into Indias weakness, not strength.!!!!!!!!!!

The question whether smaller states are better governed than bigger ones is irrelevant. In our experience, both large and small states will continue to be badly governed until there is effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to local authorities, that is, elected panchayats in villages and urban local bodies in cities. For governance is not merely a question of how to deal with Pakistan or how to tackle Naxalism. It is more a question of good quality of living, of providing basic services of education, good health facilities, drinking water, employment and other basic requirements. In our race to accelerate growth, we have concentrated entirely on economic reforms to the total neglect of delivery of public good and services to the people at large. There is no public intervention in agriculture, handlooms and other sectors which have a bearing on the lives of a large section of the population. This is why income inequalities are widening so drastically; why the rich are getting obscenely richer and the ordinary citizens are finding even basic necessities getting further out of their reach. Forbes has just informed us that 0.0000001 per cent of population controls 25 per cent of the GDP of the country. In these circumstances, whether states are bigger or smaller is an issue that does not change anything. It is only with empowerment of local communities that people will secure their entitlement to basic goods and services. Progress in implementation of grassroot programmes in health and education occurs only in such states where some devolution has taken place. India's [ Images ] middle class has shown that over two generations of access to basic services has enabled it to get empowered. Our goal of inclusive growth will not be realised unless there is good governance, and this is not determined by size. Whether it is a small state like Sikkim or a big one like Bihar, good governance depends on the extent to which power is devolved. You have seen it in a big state like Madhya Pradesh [ Images ] under Digvijay Singh [ Images ] and a smaller state like Bihar under Nitish Kumar. It has to do with devolution of powers rather than anything else. There are many smaller states but do you see size guaranteeing their development? Again, if a large state has an enlightened leadership that sees merit in devolution of power, things move forward and people are better off with regard to access to basic goods and services. Karnataka [ Images ] is not a small state, but it's in the forefront when it comes to taking funds, functions and functionaries to the grassroots level. This helps in ensuring transparency and, hence, accountability. This, and not a state's size, is what helps governance. Kerala [ Images ] is a smaller state but its progress has much to do with the manner in which its governments have been able to distribute funds, functions and functionaries among different levels of government, taking power directly to the masses. On the other hand, Jharkhand, which was created by dividing Bihar, has not been able to make its mark as a developed state. The reasons are there for all to see. It has not held any panchayat elections since it was formed. Unless power goes to the people instead of remaining concentrated in a single authority, there is no hope for the people in this state. Of course, many demands for smaller states have to do with ethnic identities and their sense of insecurity. That may or may not be a valid reason for such demands, but as far as governance is concerned, nothing can be a substitute for devolution of power.

I do not want to get into the debate of whether states should be divided for any other reason. I would like to look at the matter only from my agenda taking power to the people. Ajit Singh, Rashtriya Lok Dal chief Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] is a classic example of how small states make better sense in a democracy. It is the sixth largest in terms of population in the whole world. Physically, too, it is very big. In a democracy, a dialogue between the ruler and the ruled is absolutely necessary. That is completely out of the question in a state the size of UP. The districts in western Uttar Pradesh, where we are demanding a separate Harit Pradesh, represent a totally different lifestyle, culture and even language as compared to that of, say, Bundelkhand on the other side of the state. That is another aspect of the problem of size. People of Haryana, which was carved out of Punjab [ Images ], can go to the capital to air their grievances or get their problems heard in the secretariat and return home by evening, whichever part of the state they are in. But if a citizen in western UP were to be heard in any of the state commissions or courts, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow [ Images ], spending large amounts of money in an attempt to get justice. People in western UP see for themselves how their neighbours in Haryana and Uttarakhand [ Images ] have prospered after becoming part of smaller states. Their per capita income is much higher compared to the earnings of people in western UP. So they feel a smaller state is essential to have any kind of progress. On the other hand, there are problem states like Jharkhand. Was Jharkhand any better off when it was part of Bihar? Naxalites [ Images ] had always been there. There are, however, other states like Haryana and Andhra Pradesh that have set good examples. The latter was part of Madras Presidency till it was carved out. Again, Gujarat is better off after being cut from the larger Bombay Presidency. Punjab was split into three -- Himachal Pradesh [ Images ], Haryana and Punjab and all of these are better off. Before the division, Haryana was the poorer part of Punjab. Men from Western UP never married the women there as they were known to walk 10 km to fetch water. Today, such a situation cannot be imagined in Haryana. Cultural identity is another reason why people demand separate states. But the underlying factor is a sense of alienation the people feel from the power centre. If Harit Pradesh is created by incorporating administrative divisions like Meerut, Bareilly, Mathura and Agra [ Images ], it would be as big as Rajasthan [ Images ]. So it won't necessarily be a small state. At present, UP has 80 parliamentary seats, and if it is divided by three excluding the five seats for Bundelkhand, it still makes for three big states. Gujarat, for instance, has 25 seats. Of course, one doesn't rule out demands for further divisions in western UP (demand for Brij Bhumi, a small stretch running from Mathura to Mainpuri) but that is a cultural issue rather than one of governance. The problem is that the Centre does not have pre-determined norms for dealing with such demands, but it acts only when people get violent. This sends a wrong message. As a result, people start burning buses at the slightest provocation as they feel that is the only way to draw Centre's attention. Did Delhi [ Images ] notice what was wrong with sugarcane farmers till they came and surrounded the capital? Despite the Congress and K Chandrasekhar Rao having made a pact in 2000 to form Telangana, the Centre waited for Rao to go on a fast unto death to react. Today, the district of Coorg is also demanding statehood as it has a totally different cultural identity. Maybe the solution is not statehood here. But there are states whose chief ministers would not be able to remember the names of the districts or their district magistrates. This certainly is a sign that such states is ungovernable.

With the decline of the Mughal Empire, India broke into fragments. Many ex-governors of the Mughal subahs declared independence and by the middle of the 18th century there were a diverse set of rajas and nawabs who held sway over 600 principalities across the subcontinent. It was in this India that Robert Clive came from nowhere and defeated the forces of Nawab Sirajudaulah at the historic battle of Plassey in June 1757. This established British raj in the country that was to last 190 long years. Noteworthy is the fact that Clive was able to emerge victorious with the help of a section of the Nawab's army who, not bound by feelings of nationality, did not find it an act of treachery to let their nawab down. This was repeated 100 years later in 1857 when the English were able to stave off the challenge to their rule from Indian forces by using other sections of Indian forces. Again these Indian forces who supported the English thought nothing of betraying their countrymen because the feeling of nationality that we have today was not existent then.There were Marathas, Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Biharis and Jats but no Indians. In fact one of the unintended benefits of the Raj was the integration of India which ultimately gave rise to an Indianness that was responsible for catalysing our freedom struggle. It is this Indianness that we have fostered and nurtured in independent India. Now it is this Indianness, that gives a unity of purpose to this great nation which is being sought to be destroyed by the demand for small states. The home ministry has made it public now that the demand for creation of 10 new states is lying before the government. The demand is from diverse regions ranging from Saurashtra in Gujarat to Telangana in Andhra Pradesh and from Vidarbha in Maharashtra to Harit Pradesh in UP. Not that the home ministry is in any hurry to create these new states, but can you imagine what would happen if 10 new states are added to the list of 30 already existing? Well, demand for 10 more states will come to the fore. You don't believe me ? Allow your mind to go back a few years. There used to be Uttar Pradesh the largest state in India. Then Uttaranchal was carved out of it. Now there is a demand to create Harit Pradesh out of Uttar Pradesh. Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar, the same time as Uttaranchal. Now there is a demand for Mithilanchal, a new state to be created out of Bihar. This is a never ending spiral. Once Saurashtra is carved out of Gujarat, the Kutchis will demand their own (there is already such a move by the erstwhile maharana of Kutch). In Andhra Pradesh, the talk of Telangana has caused disquiet in Rayalaseema region which wants its own state. Muslims in Hyderabad region want their own Urdu state.

At the end of it India may land up with 100 states which, though not as bad as 600 principalities, will again give rise to fissiparous tendencies and weaken the unity of India seriously and make it very very vulnerable. That this is not a mere apprehension will become startlingly clear when we look at the anarchy prevailing in countries that border India whether it is Pakistan, Nepal or Bangladesh. While making a case against breaking up states, I do realize that the demand of many who want small states is genuine. The feeling of being discriminated is high in these areas because development has by passed these regions even 62 years after Independence. In some places these demands are also born out of the desire to preserve a unique culture. A

good example of development bypassing it is Telangana which lies in the otherwise prosperous state of Andhra Pradesh. And the best example of a desire to keep its culture intact is Coorg, where a demand for a separate state has been made although it is just one single district in Karnataka. Again at some places, the desire for a separate state has been fuelled by the desire to break the hegemony of the higher castes in politics. Again Telangana is a good example where the desire for a separate state is a manifestation of the OBC desire to play a dominant role in politics. But my point is that breaking up a state to fuel faster development or to give OBCs a more prominent role is akin to touching your mouth by bringing your hand around the face. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru described India as a country with "unity in diversity.'" Let's keep a balance between this 'unity' and ' diversity' and not allow the latter to dominate over the former. Otherwise a new-age Robert Clive would come knocking at our doors.

Divide and Conquer: Are Smaller States the Answer in India?

Published: August 04, 2011 in India Knowledge@Wharton One of the first things Mamata Banerjee did after becoming chief minister of West Bengal was to spearhead a bill to return to farmers the land acquired by the Tatas for the Nano auto manufacturing plant in Singur. That issue is now with the Calcutta High Court (with instructions from the Supreme Court that the case be decided in three months). Banerjee's second major move has been somewhat less controversial, but it is bound to have much wider ramifications. Her government has signed an agreement with the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), a political formation, to set up a Gorkhaland Administrative Tribunal to give greater autonomy to the northern hill region -- a move described as letting a "genie out of the bottle," by The Telegraph, a Kolkata-based morning newspaper. On the face of it, Banerjee's efforts are praiseworthy and should have attracted universal plaudits. After all, the Gorkhaland region has been in turmoil for nearly three decades now. A demand for statehood has so far been denied and violence in its support has claimed more than 1,000 lives. But the opposition Left Front has come out strongly against the accord; they claimed that setting up the tribunal is the first step toward dismemberment of West Bengal. The plains around Darjeeling -- the natural capital of the hill region -- went on a 48-hour bandh (a complete closedown) even as the agreement was being signed. In addition, despite Banerjee's claims that West Bengal would not be split, GJM leaders alluded to the agreement as a "semifinal" within hours of the accord. The finals would come with full statehood. Gorkhaland is a problem for Banerjee. For Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who was present at the signing, it is just another of his plateful of autonomy-related woes. The flashpoint today is not West Bengal but Andhra Pradesh in South India. Leaders from the

Telangana region -- the part of Andhra that is striving for statehood -- had earlier resigned en masse from the state assembly and the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). They are threatening to do so again. There is opposition to the Telangana movement, too. NonTelangana leaders of Andhra have met with Chidambaram and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to plead for keeping the state intact. For Chidambaram, this is one of many such delegations. There's Vidarbha (in Maharahtra), parts of northeast India and at least a dozen other places that are campaigning for more autonomy. And territorial disputes over Kashmir have been a source of unrest for many years now. "Telangana has been a demand for a few decades, as have movements for Vidarbha, etc," says Rajeev Gowda M.V., chairperson of the Centre for Public Policy at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore (IIMB). "The new settlement in Bengal seems to address both political and economic aspects through the creation of an empowered elected body for the region and the guarantees of significant investments by the state and central governments. This may become the new model for addressing unrest within states on issues involving unequal economic development." Gowda implies that it is mainly "unequal economic development" that causes states to become divided. But the issue is more complicated than that. Look at the two key examples today -- Gorkhaland and Telangana. The Gorkhaland separatist movement started in 1907, when a delegation of the Hillmen's Association of Darjeeling approached the British administration for an independent governing structure. The request wasn't about economic deprivation of any sort. Darjeeling originally belonged to Sikkim, which, in 1975, voted to become the 22nd state of the Indian union. It was taken from Sikkim by the ruling British as a sort of holiday home for the country's army officers. Thus, when Bengal suffered famines, Darjeeling was living off the fat of the land. The desire to have a government separate from the rest of Bengal came from a feeling of superiority, not for being discriminated against. Telangana was part of the Nizam of Hyderabad's empire. (Hyderabad is today the capital of Andhra Pradesh.) It never came under British rule. The region was combined with coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema on purely linguistic grounds under the States Reorganization Act of 1956. The cultural divide between Telangana and the rest of the state dates back to that time as well. "Telangana is demarcated along the lines of the Telugu-speaking portion of the erstwhile Nizam of Hyderabad's kingdom," notes Gowda of IIMB. What is the advantage of smaller states? "The logic of creation of small states should be to lead to more efficiency and better governance," according to B. Venkatesh Kumar, a professor at the School of Management and Labor Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). "It also helps in addressing local concerns and giving more autonomy." But the smaller states first need to be economically viable, he adds. Sunil Bhandare, advisor for government and economic policies at the Tata Strategic Management Group (TSMG), notes that smaller states have done better by way of social and economic development, administration and reaching out to the people. "The smaller states are more responsive to local aspirations," he says. In addition, Gowda points out, "Smaller states have been able to garner a [proportionately larger] share of centrally-distributed resources, including IITs [Indian Institutes of Technology] and IIMs [Indian Institutes of Management], on the grounds of equity. They have also been able to attract investment through special concessions."

Gowda explains that the opposition to new -- and smaller -- states is because it is a politically sensitive issue. "Governments have been reluctant to change the status quo, right from the time of India's independence," he says. "Governments have acted only when their hand was forced. Changing state boundaries has as many opponents as supporters." According to Kumar of TISS, governments prefer larger-sized states because "it gives them political power, [including] more political representatives at the state level, as well as their presence in the federal parliament, and access to economic resources arising out of a large geographical space -- more so, if the state is endowed with rich resources and if the taxcollection buoyancy is high. In addition, the human capital or the demographic dividend is also available with a large state." Bhandare of TSMG agrees, noting that "Government is reluctant for various reasons. One, it reduces the sphere of influence of politicians. Two, in a large state there are some regions that do very well in terms of economic development and other parameters. The state politicians exploit this in order to disguise their incompetency in other regions. Three, the larger states have a stronger influence on national politics. And four, no one wants to take unpopular decisions. There are political considerations to be met. It's a question of both mindset and political will." Rajesh Chakrabarti, professor of finance at the Hyderabad-based Indian School of Business (ISB), raises another point. "State break-up requires considerable costs for the new governance set-up, including infrastructure investment in the new capital for the smaller state. There is a political battle in parallel as well, with major political personalities reluctant to give up direct control over large regions An International Issue The small states versus big states argument is an international issue. "Many countries across the world look at India and learn from our nation-building process," says Kumar of TISS. Almost all the major countries have the problem of fissioning states. The Soviet Union was composed of 15 republics, most of which have since broken away from big brother Russia. But problems in regions such as Chechnya continue. Here again, the move for greater autonomy is of ancient vintage. The first uprising was during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 when the Chechens tried to take advantage of Russia's preoccupation with the conflict. The same pattern that has repeated itself every time the former Soviet Union has been engaged in military operations. In China, Tibet and Inner Mongolia have been problem areas. In the U.S., too, there has been a lot of noise though very little action. The last state created by carving out part of another is West Virginia. That was way back in 1863. But practically every state has witnessed split proposals since then. In an article titled, "Divided We Stand", The Wall Street Journal asked: "What would California look like broken in three? Or a Republic of New England? With the federal government reaching for ever more power, redrawing the map is enticing." Have smaller states in India worked better? The jury is still out. According to a study by economic research firm Indicus Analytics: "We find evidence that the reorganization of states in the past has been followed by higher economic growth. Moreover, we find that states that have been a small part, or on the periphery of, a larger entity gain much more than states that

were significant parts of the larger states. However, whether all of India's large states should be broken into smaller entities requires much more analysis." It has been a mixed experience on the ground. The smaller states of an earlier generation -Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, for instance -- are doing very well. The more recent examples -- Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, which were carved out of bigger entities in November 2000 -- have recorded solid growth. But they also have been hard hit by violence from Left extremists. In Jharkhand, rogue politicians have been running riot. One former chief minister, Madhu Koda, is in judicial custody for illegal money transfers. Another, Shibu Soren, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case, although the judgment was later set aside by the Delhi High Court. "The case of Jharkhand has shown that the levels of corruption and maladministration can be extraordinary," says Gowda of IIMB. The fact that there are no clear answers is evident from Telangana. In early 2010, facing mounting protests including hunger strikes and suicides, the Union government announced the formation of a committee under retired judge of the Supreme Court B.N. Srikrishna to look into all aspects of the matter and come up with a recommendation. On 30 December 2010, a day before the deadline, the committee published a 505-page report. It gave six options, with "maintain status quo" at one end and various bifurcation options at the other. According to the report's epilogue, "The facts of the case have been fully investigated and findings placed on record. It is hoped that the Union Government may now be able to find a solution to this long-standing and contentious issue."

Shoud India be divided into smaller states? The recent Telangana issue that it should be divided from Andhra Pradesh because of backwardness is no reason. Earlier India was divided into states based on language. Now the context is development. But my question is those politician who ask for a separate state has not done anything for their respective constituencies and as such there is no development. And now they are asking for separate state on developmental issues!! This division will only lead more such movements as in AP itself( rayalseema), UP, West Bengal(Darjeeling),Maharastra (Vidarba), Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP and so on. But does it really help the poor.Haryana and Himachal has taken nearly four decades to be successful. The rampant corruption and Maoist issues in Jarkhand and chhattisgarg tell a different story.There are smaller states in North East but where is the development? And it is only the richer will get richer. There will be new CM, and ministers, new head of police, judicial, etc (leading to more corruption on account of newer projects)and only the higher class will be benefited. But the farmers will be farmers. The poorer will be poorer. Instead of a separate state, they should be given autonomy. Except for legislative and military powers all other powers can be given. Let them have a new High Court, new University etc.But then the politician will not get involved as there are no New Ministerial berths created.

India Creation Of Small States Need of the Hour For INDIA Small states means Better Administration Better Government Participation of common man in the administration Creation of small state is one of the answers to Reduce corruption or At least corruption amount. Know Why we should support the creation of small states?

Reality Views by sm In India, when congress declared that a new state Telangana will be created from AP. Everyone in India started to discuss about the creation of small state, is creation of small state is good for India ? or is creation of small state is bad for India? Many Indians opposed this creation of small states in India by giving many reasons. Following are the few reasons why people oppose the creation of small states. Creation of small state will divide India Creation of small state will take the India to pre British era Danger from China, china wants to divide India. Small states in India are not making progress , Chattisgarh and Jharkhand Small states Depend on Central Government What is the guarantee that small states will make the progress? Politicians want to become the chief Minister or for the political power. Hatred Among state will increase Election vote should be counted who is defeated Like these I am sure there are many more reasons to oppose creation of small states. But I still I say and insist that Creation of small state is good for India. Lets understand and know why creation of small states is good for India? Before Arrival of British people in India, there was no India.There were small kingdoms and big kingdoms. Today when we say India, there is feeling, My India, in olden times there was no such feeling, all those feelings were for there king or god. I will fight for my king, my God. Today our army when fights it fights for the India, not for Prime Minister of India. If Prime Minister of India will try to sell the India I am sure our army will not hesitate to arrest the Prime Minister or any other leader.

Today nothing is superior than India , Olden times everything was king, if he wanted to donate his kingdom to someone without asking anyone he donated that, and foolish population of that state accepted that willingly as their all feelings were for there king. If you read the history carefully you will understand, and find that xyz warrior died for his king, today when any army man dies he dies for his mother land, for our India. After the arrival of British People in India, they started the real formation of India, Under there influence and rule, we got the feeling of oneness among us, one India. In olden times, before the arrival of British, for the people of small states for whom there king, there caste and religion was more important, everyone always obeyed the family of king. Remember the battle of Plessey, Robert Clive with the help of just 300 white soldiers won the battle by giving bribe. And he won the battle by defeating more than 50000 Indian soldiers. They surrendered because there army head said that I surrender, today if in India one head says that he will surrender to small enemy , drop your weapons ,do you think Indian forces will drop the guns or they will arrest that head and will fight for the nation. In that times when outsiders came fought with the small states, that time neighboring states did not help that state, when Arab people looted the small kingdoms and become the rulers of that state. Other kings kept enjoying there life and kingdom, they did not thought about the safety of neighbor state. Today if Pakistan attacks on Kargil, we hear the voice from every corner of India that destroy enemy.After 26/11 we heard voices from every corner of India to Punish Kasab,this never happend in old asian kingdoms. So now I think you got the point that today when we create the small state, the feeling of one India, oneness will not go. Creating small states will not take us back to the pre British era, as before the arrival of India there was no India. Mere creation of small state will not destroy the feeling of one ness , the feeling of Indian on the contrary will increase this feeling and love towards India and will reduce the feeling of love towards there language or state. For small states love for India will grow. And also small state will be created from the big state so there will be 2 states or more states which will speak same language. In this way we will solve the problem of language also. On the contrary in the future when states will become rich, there is a possibility and chance that these big states will make there police force very strong and will demand the independence from India. When we divided India on basis of language we made mistake, and today you may not agree with me, but when States will make progress and will make money and other states will not make money, these money making states will demand the independence and because of finance and big nature of state, they will do this very easily by purchasing arms from china.

So remember big states will divide the India in future not the small states. A small state is the only one solution which can keep us integrated as India. As India is divided on the basis of language, In one state all same language speaking population is staying which encourages more love for state than India the hatred is rising as few states are making progress and others come to this state, this gives rise to hatred. This is not gift of small state. And we do not see language problem in small states, if media will stop giving importance to this problem automatically this language problem will go to dustbin, Anyways after 25 or 30 years I am sure they will not find language problem takers... Today power of knowledge is with Indian youth and no one can make them fool for a long time. Few Facts about our Indian states 1. Uttar Pradesh with population of more than 167 million is bigger than Germany + France or Russia ,Pakistan 2. China, America, Brazil and Indonesia are the only few nations who are bigger than Uttar Pradesh. 3. TamilNadu (62.2 million) is bigger than Britain and Italy 4. Andhra Pradesh (76.4 million) is little bigger than Germany and Vietnam 5. Bihar is bigger than Mexico 6. Maharashtra with 92.1 million is bigger state than Germany. Maharashtra has ten million more than Germany. 7. Bengal is bigger than the Philippines If the big states means progress then why India has not made progress like America, Germany, France or Hong Kong or England. America, Hong Kong both were ruled by England just like India. Do small states suffer? Not if one views Punjab , Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. This shows that there is no guarantee that big state will make progress or small state will make progress. Remember it does not matter state is small or state is big, most important thing is who is our law maker and how honest he is with his job and nation. If law maker, politician is not good then small or big it does not matter, he will do the corruption and he will take the wrong decisions. When law maker, politician is corrupt no one can save the nation. But when law maker is good he can take the small state to such heights that the small

nation can rule the world. Once England ruled the world and today we can see the progress made by the USA or Hong Kong or Taiwan. Our democracy works like this - one head of the state, then other elected members, run the state with the help of IAS officers and bureaucrats. When the state is big, those officers and elected politicians, law makers are not able to watch carefully every project and how the money is utilized by everyone in every project. Today budget of Government is becoming so big that common people find it difficult to understand, and even studied accountants find it very difficult to understand and find out the mistakes. If common man does not understand the budget How he can participate and keep watch on the politician to stop the frauds and mistakes done by politician When state is small, if any government employee or law maker or politician will do the fraud, immediately it will show the effect on the other projects as it will become very difficult for that chief minister to bring new funds or hide his black deeds. Just take the example of classroom of 100 students and classroom of 25 students, so in this case which classroom will be easy to manage and give the results. Today as our states are big, many times villagers from remote places even find it difficult to reach the place of district court, forget about the High court of state. When small state will be created it will give easy access to high court. Small state means small government, small budget, and small departments, very less chance to show fingers on each other by saying that, that department is not doing the work so file is pending. Small states will create competition among each other; this competition will be with the same mother tongue speaking language population. Because of big nature of states today indirectly the law maker, politician has become the king of that particular area. Because of this honest people will rarely get chance to rule the state or to get elected. Small states will not give chance to politician or law maker to hide his failure or fool the people by saying that this time we have given funds to west or north, as small state means the population will know in real what is happening in every part of his state. Big states does not benefit towards saving money ,but the nature of big states help to waste the money as well as it gives unlimited scope to do corruption which benefits to the law maker or politician. In small state if any politician will amass wealth, the people of that state can easily notice that

and will know how he is earning and making the money, this will help to expose the wrong contracts and his hidden property. Even Indian constitution has article 3 which favors and talks about the creation of new state. It states that . Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. If party who support the creation of small state does not win the election this does not mean that the people of that district do not want separate state. The election is held to choose leader ,MP or MLA and they do not vote for the creation of state. Even if when there is not 100% voting how can it become the will of that district ? Our constitution of India does not have this provision, to get the peoples vote to decide regarding the creation of small state . The ball is ,power is with the parliament.

Again I will come to the point that Small states will divide India, one of the best parts of our Constitution is that the duties between state and central government are divided. Central government is in charge of our army, naval and air force. The heads of these forces do not report to the chief minister, further more brilliant clause, is that our forces do not have common one head of all the forces. This means we got 3 heads, Army head, Naval Head and Air Force Head, and all these 3 heads report to the Prime Minister and President. We do not have one head of all these 3 forces, if there is one head then he will become so powerful that he can with the help of few states can form the new nation, but as we do not have one head, army forces will not obey the head of the naval force, each one has there own ranking. So when you say that small states will divide India, think again now? When there is no money, no big budget, no big police force, and no big coastal guards how can small state will become Independent and will think about waging war against India. USA is smaller than India but they got more than fifty states. Remember big states are good for political parties and corrupt leaders or uneducated leaders. Big states are good for the government servants. Our complete Indian working system has become rotten and dirty and these corrupt people have become so rich and powerful that honest common man will not be able to fight with them and win We will need another civil war to repair this corrupt system or to repair this corrupt Indian system we need creation of small states which will help us to break this nexus, friendship of government servants and businessmen and politicians and political parties. Today in India we got different political parties, but do we see any difference between there political vision.

Every party has only one vision, win the election, get the chair and make money. Regarding our political situation in India I am not dreamer, No politician will make changes in this system, a system which makes them as well as there future generations the king of India. To change this we need civil war in India or reforms like creation of small states which will give chance to common Indian to know and understand how the chief minister and his office is working. Small state will give chance to participate in the administration of government, we can monitor them. With small states there are unlimited benefits and with big states benefits are less and finally everything depends on Good law maker. When small state will get corrupt law maker or politician we can have satisfaction that the corruption amount is not big which will be also in millions. Lets hope that in future States Reorganization Commission (SRC) will not give more importance to language when dividing or creating new states. States should be created only after consultation with scientists, engineers and taking consideration of geographic area and advantages.