India as nation has 28 states till now and Telengana issue seems to be boiling forth and some believe rightly so. Even after being in Andra Pradesh that region has not seen any development and there are large no of farmer suicides too. The need of hour is having a small state.
In a democratic Independent India the formost job of any government is that it provide all the people with equal opportunities which in some case in some states may not to be.
Jharkahand in particular was a good example of a state saved from Bihar and same goes the case with Uttrakand and Chattisgarh . Now there are demands for Vidharbh, Harit Pradesh , Telengana , Marwa Pradesh and Gurkhaland.
Some how one feels that Uttar Pradesh for one needs to be divided in order to have better governance , Harit pradesh that is the western Uttar pradesh is plagued by goon culture and it will be a great service if such states are carved out as more focused approach could be taken in dealing with the menace.
Though detractors have their own view they say that it would lead to partition of India and division of resources additionally they say that the 3 states such as uttrakhand , Jharkhand and chhattisgarh performance has not been such that other states could be brought in the same lines.
Few Facts about our Indian states –
- Uttar Pradesh with population of more than 167 million is bigger than Germany + France or Russia ,Pakistan , China, America, Brazil and Indonesia are the only few nations who are bigger than Uttar Pradesh.
- TamilNadu (62.2 million) is bigger than Britain and Italy.
- Andhra Pradesh (76.4 million) is little bigger than Germany and Vietnam
- Bihar is bigger than Mexico
- Maharashtra with 92.1 million is bigger state than Germany. Maharashtra has ten million more than Germany.
- West 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.
People of Haryana, which was carved out of Punjab , 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 , spending large amounts of money in an attempt to get justice and even the Uttar Pradesh Technical University is another example if you have any problem with your papers or result and your college is based in Noida as they are usually , you need to travel all across to Lucknow to get it checked.
People in western UP see for themselves how their neighbours in Haryana and Uttarakhand 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 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 , 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 , it would be as big as Rajasthan. 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.
Delhi didn’t notice what was wrong with sugarcane farmers till they came and made ruckus in 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.
Amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and chhattisgarh 7.35%. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economies stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states.
Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh were the most backward parts of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, which in turn were among the most backward states of India. Yet, after becoming separate states, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have emerged as industrial dynamos. Both have large tribal belts with pathetic infrastructure. In Chhattisgarh, four-fifths of habitations lack road access. Both states have ample minerals like coal and iron ore. But this was not an economic advantage when they were part of larger states. Rather, their mineral revenues were diverted to state capitals. This diversion ended after they became separate states.
Since 2001, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have moved up into the top 10 (industrial states), displacing Rajasthan and Punjab… The phenomenal growth in these two states has seen the share of manufacturing in their GDP rise dramatically as they have attracted industrial projects. Looking at the share of income that originates in the manufacturing sector, these two states have shown higher levels than Maharashtra, Haryana and Tamil Nadu…Being newer and smaller states, they responded more rapidly than their larger — and in some cases better endowed – neighbours… Raipur in Chhattisgarh has now entered the top 10 districts of India in manufacturing, with two industrial estates at Urla and Siltara.
Every sensible economist will argue having a smaller state is much better than a larger state where the power is just for the civil servants and politicians but certainly who are born and brought up on the socialist ideals would never agree. After all it is the socialistic mindset through out the world which make the creation and sustenance of such large states. However these very socialist have failed to bring any economic changes for the betterment in the lives of people of the nation. One would certainly disagree with their ideology because talking is all good and being intellectual is all “fashionable” but food and cloth along with good life is the true need of a human being.