The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
If India’s states were nations, 10 of the world’s top 21 nations would come from India. Uttar Pradesh, with more people than Pakistan, would be the world’s fifth largest country. The chief minister of that state rules as many people as the Chancellor of Germany and the prime ministers of France and Britain put together.
We have five states each with populations larger than Europe’s largest nation, Germany, which has 80 million citizens. Maharashtra has almost twice as many people as Europe’s second largest nation, France. Rajasthan has more people than the United Kingdom while Karnataka, our ninth largest state, has more people than Italy.
Have a look at the figures of the top 10 Indian states: Uttar Pradesh 200 million, Maharashtra 112 million, Bihar 104 million, West Bengal 91 million, Andhra Pradesh 84 million, Madhya Pradesh 72 million, Tamil Nadu 72 million, Rajasthan 68 million, Karnataka 61 million, Gujarat 60 million.
That’s not really the end of the list and even India’s sixteenth largest state, Haryana, has more people than Australia.
The average American state with a governor and a local legislature has six million people. The average Indian state with a chief minister and an assembly has 42 million citizens or seven times as many. The average number of people in a UK constituency is 97,000. The average in India is 2.2 million.
India’s citizens are under-represented in parliament and assemblies and under-administered by the civil service. Each of our states is run by an elite corps of overworked bureaucrats. There are 3,384 Indian administrative service officers running 28 states, an average of 120 officers per state, who have to deal with files for dozens and often hundreds of programmes.
It is remarkable that there are people who say India should have a smaller government. The numbers show that the problem is the opposite — not enough government because states are too big.
To the Indian citizen, the administration is distant and unapproachable. It is true that he is alienated from the municipality and also from the district administration, but the source of the problem is the size of the state.
The confederating unit in India is the state and there is no argument against smaller states that trumps their unmanageability. As I said, the size of our states is only one among the reasons why they are not governable, but size is the most important factor. Even talented and hardworking managers like Narendra Modi in Gujarat, Shivraj Chauhan in Madhya Pradesh and Nitish Kumar in Bihar have a problem managing the size of their domains.
The issue of smaller states keeps coming up episodically. It began in the 1950s when linguistic states were formed under Nehru after a protest in Madras Presidency that led to the creation of Andhra Pradesh. The redrawing of lines that followed generally led to stability because, in most cases, language decided borders. However, some demands remained.
In the last week, it was announced that Andhra Pradesh would now be further divided into two parts, creating another state called Telangana.
The issue was old but difficult to solve because of the asset of Hyderabad. The capital of the Nizams falls in Telangana and it is what powers the economy of the state and contributes much of its local taxes. The moth-eaten Andhra Pradesh that remains must find another city worthy of being a capital and this will not be easy in a state that has only just begun to have a modern economy.
There are other states where a break-up might create more problems than solutions. Jammu and Kashmir is particularly difficult because Ladakh is Buddhist and Jammu has a large Hindu population, while the Valley is now almost entirely Muslim. Breaking up the state will be like Partition because it will be along religious lines. It is, therefore, unlikely that any government will want to experiment with a smaller state there.
For most other states, for instance UP and Maharashtra, the logic of the break-up is impeccable.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (36)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725967717-0/Untitled-design-(3)1725967717-0-405x300.webp "article")
1719925273-0/BeFunky-collage-(46)1719925273-0-165x106.webp "article")
1730412280-0/kamala-(3)1730412280-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Bhai Log Lets start with punjab first, it is long overdue, besides out national unity is being effected due to over-bearing/over-reaching control of punjab. We don't want any balkanization pakistan. Sindh can be worked on later. It is not a national issue!
@Pakistani Ostrich: We need to divide Sindh as well
ETBLOGS1987
Some good points by @abhi and @Alann. I can see merit in perhaps a couple of more states from UP e.g. HArit Pradesh and also Gorkhaland. The demand for Vidarbha is directly related to the issue highlighted by @abhi i.e. lopsided development of Maharashtra which makes people want a state of their own.
While it is true that for the most part the 3 states carved out f UP, Bihar and MP have better metrics rgan their mother states on most socioeconomic indicators, it is also a fact that this led to more difficulty in co-ordination and hence Maoism also grew rapidly in the aftermath of those states being created.
Chopping states down for the heck of it makes little sense.
@BlackJack : IT is unclear what would be the benefit of having 1500 MPs instead of 42. What is more needed is greater financial empowerment of the 3 million local self government representatives by the respective states and a greater financial empowerment of state MLAs by the center.
@Pakistani Ostrich:
"Can some indian posters enlighten me if in india everything from economy,army,industry and politics is controlled by one state/s and for the benefit of that state only, at the expense of the rest of the country? As is case with our punjab."
Not everything. And I wouldn't use the word control. But the Delhi politics is mostly dominated by UP and Bihar.
Unfortunately, these two states also produces the worst kind of politicians in India : Greedy, ignorant, stupid, arrogant and most importantly communal.
If international comparisons are to be made for potential of Goa then Kashmir too can hope to be Switzerland, a landlocked land. Not that I agree with any such comparisons.
This is to one "Satish Chandra" for his posts
The great Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung was right when he said that ‘the pendulum of the mind operates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.’
if goa were independent it has the potential of becoming the next dubai, singapore etc
but if kashmir were to become independent it would be a basket case simply because it's landlocked.
I don't know about the indian case but here in pakistan we need to break up punjab. All the provinces feel alienated, dominated by punjab and they feel that they have no stake or future in the land that was gifted/created by QeA for all the muslims. Can some indian posters enlighten me if in india everything from economy,army,industry and politics is controlled by one state/s and for the benefit of that state only, at the expense of the rest of the country? As is case with our punjab.
So why are we going to divides our pakistanis provinces to smaller province??
@Arzoo, fully support your sentiments. Wish there were many more with your thought process in both India and Pakistan. All Indians and Pakistanis need to focus on how they can improve their countries, rather than wishing the other ill. I believe, just like Arzoo does, that both countries will get their act together and prosper.
@gujranwala789: I stand corrected. Leh is 77% Buddhist and Kargil is 80% Muslim.
@thor:
The information provided by you is only for Leh district of ladakh which I already acknowledged is 77% buddist. But there is also another district of ladakh called Kargil which is more than 80% muslim, not surprsing because it borders pakistani baltistan. The populations of both Leh district and kargil district are roughly same.
This is an interesting development in Leh & Kargil.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130713/jsp/nation/story_17112799.jsp#.Uf5IgpKW9JA
If the Ladakh’s Buddhists and Muslims join hands & demand Ladakh to be declared as an Union Territory, it would be beneficial to both of them.
@Satish Chandra:
What is learning whose attaining sees no passion wane, no reigning love and self-control?
Does not make the mind a menial, finds in virtue no congenial path and final goal?
Whose attaining is but straining for a name, and never gaining fame or peace of soul?
("Panchtantra" Trans.from Sanskrit:Arthur W. Ryder)
@Jadoon: Yeh ..i mistook the chart..thanks for correcting me.:)
@thor Leh is 77% Buddhist and Kargil is 80% Muslim. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladakh#Demographics Chart given in this article is not correct. See demographic composition of whole kashmir in this article, see ladakh part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JammuandKashmir#Demographics
I ) Indian media should cover nothing but Satish Chandra. India can economically grow 30% per year or more without foreign investment and be the world's supreme military power immediately for which he -- the world's greatest scientist -- has been suppressed with 24-hour satellite surveillance for 36 years. Modi is CIA-sponsored. All politicians are CIA-controlled. India's government is a proxy for the CIA. The requirement, brought by Manmohan Singh, for mid-career Indian civil servants (sending military officers for training to the United States has the same purpose) to go to U.S. universities for training so their future career prospects, promotions, etc. are controlled by Americans is meant to make India's government as a proxy for the CIA more perfect. A long-standing requirement in American and British universities is that to receive a Ph.D. degree from them, Indians have to agree to work for American or British intelligence agencies. IndiasLegitimateRulerSatishChandraDOTblogspotDOTcom
People from Telangana try hard to get into the United States despite the racial discrimination though in language, culture and history they differ a lot more from the United States than from the rest of Andhra Pradesh, because the United States is rich and powerful. In an India that is the most prosperous and powerful country in the world -- as Satish Chandra can make it -- there will be no separatist demands such as Telangana. For this chase the Anglo-Americans and their Indian proxies out of India. Or just focus on the media people and beat them to death for suppressing Satish Chandra.
II ) JULY 16-20, 2013: The following is a comment I posted on Chitra Subramaniam's piece on Quattrocci's death and Bofors at newslaundryDOTcom; the comment went for 'moderation', then published, then deleted within minutes by the CIA and then restored when the CIA saw I had seen it had deleted it and was about to repost it, then deleted again when I was away from the computer for a few hours after I wrote, regarding CIA's plan to use India's population for AIDS vaccine development and its blackmailing Rajiv Gandhi, who at first refused, with the Bofors and HDW kickback disclosures to agree to this plan, about Rajiv Gandhi and Vajpayee agreeing to CIA-RAW spreading heroin addiction in India's tribal Northeast to create a population of AIDS infected people for this purpose; now the CIA is preventing the comment from being reposted :-
"The CIA keeps deleting my comment. I am reposting it. India's government is a proxy for the CIA. The requirement, put in place by Manmohan Singh, for mid-career Indian civil servants (sending Indian military officers for training to the United States has the same purpose) to go to U.S. universities for training so their future career prospects, promotions, etc. are controlled by Americans is meant to make India's government as a proxy for the CIA more perfect. There has been a long-standing requirement in American and British universities that to receive a Ph.D. degree from them, Indians -- this included Manmohan Singh -- have to agree to work for American or British intelligence agencies. All politicians are controlled by the CIA and deserve death. The world's greatest scientist and India's legitimate ruler -- Satish Chandra -- has been systematically suppressed using 24-hour satellite surveillance for the past 36 years. IndiasLegitimateRulerSatishChandraDOTblogspotDOTcom
I called this piece of dog-faeces -- Chitra Subramanian -- to say that the Bofors and HDW kickback disclosures were orchestrated and calibrated by the CIA to blackmail Rajiv Gandhi into letting India's population be used as guinea pigs for the development of an AIDS vaccine after he at first refused and that, while the kickback charges were true and should be reported, the use of the charges for this purpose should also be reported. The center of this operation was Harvard's School of Public Health and I had detailed and first hand knowledge of it. This piece of dog-faeces, who worked for the CIA, knew I was the world's greatest scientist but called the information I gave her a "conspiracy theory" and insultingly blew me off. She reportedly has cancer and I hope has a gruesome death. There were only a few hundred cases of AIDS infection in India at the start of the plan to use India's population as guinea pigs for AIDS vaccine development and to spread AIDS infection in India for this purpose; now India has several million cases of AIDS infection. India's RAW, on behalf of the CIA, undertook to spread heroin addiction -- sharing needles among addicts is a principal route of AIDS infection -- in India's tribal Northeast under a 3-way agreement between the CIA, Rajiv Gandhi and Vajpayee. But, of course, the infection did not remain confined to the tribal Northeast. A report in India Abroad newspaper quoted someone at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences saying 'Why should we let our tribal people be used for AIDS vaccine development?' To deal with such resistance, a former head of the Indian Council for Medical Research, V. Ramalingaswami, was brought to the Harvard School of Public Health and given the royal treatment, to the extent of the secretaries adopting British pronunciations in deference to his pronunciation of words. After the CIA's plan was accepted by the Indian government, he was rewarded with a several year appointment at another U.S. university. When he was still resisting the CIA's plan, a report in the same newspaper quoted Rajiv Gandhi defiantly saying he will not be pressurised by "transfer of technology", etc. Once Rajiv Gandhi agreed to have India's population used for AIDS vaccine development, the Bofors disclosures stopped and Vajpayee when prime minister actively covered up the Bofors matter. In press releases and letters and articles to the press I have described these developments over almost 3 decades."
On August 9, 2008, CIA Director Michael Hayden and former chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee, K. Subrahmanyam, came on line and offered to transfer one crore (ten million) rupees into my bank account within 48 hours if I agreed to work for the CIA. This was coupled with various kinds of threats and abuse. Several dozen of the most abusive comments were deleted by them before I saved the comments on my computer but the offer to transfer one crore rupees into my bank account is in the comments saved and their text only version can be seen at HaydenSubrahmanyamDOTblogspotDOTcom (many are harassive comments posted by them in my name). To see the comments as they appeared on the published page, go to PsychotherapyDOTeBoardDOTcom, then on the page that appears click on the tab labeled "Offer to me by CIA Director and K. Subrahmanyam", go to the bottom of the page that appears then click the link at the bottom of that page. This file of their comments has also been attached to my press releases, including today's, thousands of times. When I did not respond to their offer, Hayden said "I am concerned that Satish Chandra may not cooperate due to his super-patriotism and high intellect" and K. Subrahmanyam said "I am hoping tht Satish Chandra's patriotism can be purchased. His deductive skills are amazing and he can of great use to the cause of Indo-US friendship". First K. Subrahmanyam said "I admire your courage. But I must know how you know so much about myself, RAW operations, and the C.I.A.-RAW nexus. You are a genius indeed, and we would like to do business with you", and Hayden said "We at the CIA are also amazed at the deductive skills and intellect of Satish Chandra" -- a testimonial to my patriotism and intellect from the enemy.
On the page containing the CIA Director's and K. Sbubrahmanyam's comments, where the latter mocks the people of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for their English, a comment of mine says: "1) Citizen inspectors should constantly inspect all nuclear facilities ... to ensure that no IAEA inspections take place. 2) No firangi should be allowed on the streets of Indian cities or elsewhere unless accompanied by firangi-watchers and firangi-hunters and can satisfy the latter that he/she is going for some legitimate purpose ... . 3) Any Indian found associating with firangis in any way should be beaten to death on the spot." At this the BJP president said that the English language has caused a great deal of damage to India. At this a Congress party spokesman on July 19 '13 said "I sometimes feel like laughing at our friends. On one side their vision document is outsourced to people who don’t speak any language other than English" -- meaning myself because I had written that in a telephone conversation I had to apologize to Vajpayee for switching to English as I was no longer fluent in Hindi. The Anglo-Americans killed over ten million Indians -- by gun and sword not famine -- in just the ten years after 1857 in just Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Bihar and continue to hold India in the deepest slavery because of which no politician or media organ dares to utter my name. If, despite this, a political party does not make the coast-to-coast destruction of the United States the central part of its vision document, it is not serious about reversing the damage done to India by the Anglo-Americans. I have already given India the means to destroy Washington and New York now and the rest of the United States five years later.
The BJP General Secretary in Tamil Nadu was killed by RAW -- which is a branch of the CIA (WhatYouShouldKnowAboutRAWDOTblogspotDOTcom ) -- to replace 'Anyone found associating with firangis should be beaten to death on the spot ' , above, with 'Anyone found associating with Hindi-speakers ... '. When I write about defending against the United States, RAW carries out terrorist attacks or border incidents to replace it with defence against Muslims or Pakistan. In Pakistan, Iraq, etc., the CIA makes Shias and Sunnis fight each other to replace fighting their common enemy, the United States. It has successfully made China and Japan fight over some islands to replace fighting their common enemy, the United States.
English is dominant because the Anglo-Americans militarily dominated India and remain India's rulers via their Indian proxies. English in India is an aspect of India's continued slavery to the Anglo-Americans and is a consequence of India's military subjugation to them. Other aspects of the slavery include, for example, the Indian government spreading AIDS in India to provide its white masters a population of AIDS infected people to use as guinea pigs for vaccine development. Another aspect, for example, is the Indian government inviting its foreign masters to use India's population as slave manufacturers and collaborating in the suppression of the world's greatest scientist and greatest Indian of all time (IndiasTraitorGovtAndMediaDOTblogspotDOTcom ). The important thing is the coast-to-coast destruction of the United States. That will destroy all aspects of the slavery including linguistic slavery.
III ) How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More: HowIndiasEconomyCanGrowDOTblogspotDOTcom
Suppose a government wishes to increase the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by twenty, thirty or forty percent in a given year over and above, say, a seven percent increase that is expected. All it has to do is print and spend an additional amount, equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP, in that year on productive purposes. By definition, the GDP would have increased by an additional twenty, thirty or forty percent that year (not counting the multiplier effect, referred to in my letters to the press, which will depend on how the money is spent). Printing the money takes no creativity, thinking up productive purposes to spend it on does not take much either. The money can be spent directly by the government, through private parties or both ways though, of course, by spending the money directly, the government does not have to wait for private parties to come up with proposals. The important thing is that how much the GDP grows next year-- seven percent or twenty seven percent or more-- is strictly in the government's own hands.
Terms such as "deficits" (there are no deficits when all the money a government spends is printed by it; if the government does take in money as taxes or charges, the effects of deficits on interest rates occur only if the government borrows the additional money, not if it prints it) and "overheating" of the economy are worthless concepts which only serve to maintain the status quo in which various people have a vested interest. As I wrote some years ago, "people get pleasure from the pain and deprivation of others and [reference to a head of government], who is no exception, will not want [a change]".
Note that the recommendation above is to print and spend an amount equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP IN ADDITION TO whatever the government was otherwise going to do by way of taxing (unnecessary as it is) and spending, etc. Since the production of goods and services, including consumer as well as capital goods, will rise right along with the additional spending, any effects of the additional spending will be benign. Even if some adverse effects are postulated, in no way can they overcome the huge advantage from a GDP growth of twenty seven percent or more over seven percent in a year.
During war, government spending on equipment and supplies (guns and bullets, etc.) can suddenly increase ten, twenty or fifty times. During World War II, the United States government put in place price controls (under J. K. Galbraith) to curb the inflationary effect of such spending (since production capacity was diverted to war equipment and supplies from consumer items). (It was the enormous increase in U. S. government spending during World War II that gave rise to its 'National Debt'). A similarly sudden and large increase in government spending in peace time on the production of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc., for the citizenry will not result in the kind of price rise the United States expected in World War II, because the production of consumer goods and services will increase along with the money supply-- even if a lot of the additional spending is directed to military purposes. In any case, price controls can be used in peace time, if necessary, as in war time.
It is noteworthy that both the United States government and the Indian government had proceeded to implement my proposal about money, as I have described in letters dated August 1, 2001, September 6, 2001 and April 13, 2001 (also letters about stock market manipulation by the U.S. Treasury Department by pumping money into the stock market; Bush made a trip through an underground tunnel from the White House to the Treasury Department to see the set up created for such manipulation) that appeared in the American online newspaper thecurrentonline; they can be found at SatishChandraInTheCurrentonlineDOTblogspotDOTcom . The Vajpayee government set up a separate Cabinet Committee on Economic Strategy for the purpose of stealing my proposal about money. When I pointed out that they were trying to STEAL my proposal about money, they stopped implementing it. The U.S. Federal Reserve has been buying more than a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasury bonds every year -- another way of applying my proposal about money. The DMK government in Tamil Nadu was having Indian currency printed in China with the connivance of the head of the Reserve Bank of India, given to A. Raja as bribes and used to give freebies to the people of Tamil Nadu -- its way of applying my proposal about money since the Central government would not apply it to India as a whole.
I have said (see my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' ) in letters to the press in 1998 and subsequently that the firangis gave the Nobel prize in Economics to the mediocre Indian named Amartya Sen as a substitute for the Nobel prize for me since they would not let their crimes against me, committed in collaboration with India’s RAW and India’s prime ministers, be exposed. When Clinton, as president, held a White House conference on the “New Economy”, the “New Economy” was the economy that my proposal about money leads to; of all the dozens of Nobel prize winners in Economics, he invited Amartya Sen to the conference -- though Sen had absolutely nothing to do with the “New Economy” -- because he is their mediocre Indian substitute for the greatest Indian of all time they have been committing crimes against. When Amartya Sen was given the Nobel prize, Vajpayee left New Delhi for several days to avoid meeting him, because he knew Sen was the firangis’ dummy substitute to cover their crimes against me, but RAW kept Sen waiting in New Delhi several days till Vajpayee yielded and gave him all the honours CIA-RAW wanted him to receive as a substitute for me.
Satish Chandra
@Alann:
I don't think you understand the concept of diversity.
You cluster different groups of people into a large state and impose a singular culture and language on them all (mostly through education). That is precisely what is generally referred to as cultural genocide.
It's happening in India in a slow way. This has exactly what has caused tension in many parts of this country. Creating more states both for the sake of administration and preservation of culture is what is needed in a country like India.
In case you are not aware, our forefathers understood this concept very well, \and hence the states were created exactly on these lines : language and culture.
You are changing your argument. You read what you wrote, you clearly talked about land area.
Nonetheless, your argument that India needs better politicians, is completely irrelevant to the topic. Irrespective of whether we have more states or not, we always need good politicians.
But division of states helps in better management.
I can't believe that Indians can't see the live examples of Kerala, Sikkim, Goa etc.
On the contrary larger states are utterly mismanaged in India : MP, Maharashtra, AP, TN, Karnataka, UP, Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab... etc.
The demand for more states only comes because of lope sided development policies of gov. and very narrow minded working of private businesses. We need to think why only capital cities develop! That is the main reason why people want small states they think if a their cit becomes capital they will be benefited. People of AP are already debating about capital of newly for state. If instead of releasing the fund for a new state if gov. uses the same fund to develop the cities, there will really be no demand for new states. Having smaller state may actually harm the interest of people as there will be more overhead of administrative cost. You can already see that Jharkhand is not doing very well. the argument of breaking UP also makes no sense, the proposed 4-5 states will be too small and SP/BSP which are considered as regional parties so far will become national parties.
@Vakil Talat: What a nonsensical and hatred filled comment from you. Why would you wish disintegration of India???? As a Pakistani, I do not share your thoughts, much less your meanness. India is democratically run, with a population quite content with the Republic's center. It has an economy expanding at a fast pace and the country emerging as a regional super-power. It has freedom of speech and religion. As an ancient civilization it has its problems, specifically of poverty, that I hope in time will be alleviated. We created Pakistan with a vision to be a safe homeland for Muslims of the sub-continent where we could be free to practice our faith and see the growth of our culture and language; all goals in which we have miserably failed because of our inherent weaknesses and excesses. We drove away our own brethren of Bengal by exploiting and misusing them. Let us not show further depth of our low character by wishing ill-will towards our neighbors as expressed in your comments. Instead, let us rededicate ourselves to encounter our problems, better ourselves, develop ourselves, and be a voice of reason and stability in the region.
Water Bottle: "India’s strength is ‘diversity’. Trying to eliminate diversity will result in a situation like Pakistan. A failed state." Do you realise thats exactly what you are suggesting by demanding to divide states into smaller ones? Demanding division of states which were formed (to a major extent) based on the regional "cultural influence" is precisely what is "Trying to eliminate diversity".
And, I stand by my point. India doesn't need more "smaller states" to govern them 'efficiently'. Able politicians is the need of the day, not smaller states. Dividing states for political motives and labelling it as being "better for regional development and administration" doesn't really help - it creates more problems.
@Alann: I agree with you. States like UP and Maharashtra could be divided, but the balance do not really require a separate state government, and I don't buy the rather specious argument that seeks to equate further division of states (already divided on linguistic and ethnic lines) with diversity. People who make such arguments also need to realize that many of these 150-odd states won't be financially viable entities. What we need (as Aakar also argues) is for greater representation. By that count, the number of MPs should go up from 543 to at least 1500 for a start. Similarly the number of MLAs must also be increased in every state, not just in the top 10. This will also have benefits to the common man in terms of greater accountability and accessibility on local issues and will also limit the scope for corruption. By merely drawing a line on a map and sending a percentage of elected representatives across, neither of these objectives are achieved.
@gujranwala789:
Religions in Ladakh Religion Percent Hindus 8.1% Muslims 13.7% Buddhists 77.2% Others† 1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladakh#Demographics
It's not the numbers that matter (such as UP). . It is the quality. 23 Million population of Netherlands is doing far better than 99% of Indians. Just imagine, a country of 23 Million comes into world's top economies and per capita income that Indians can only dream of!
@Vakil Talat: " ... This is the beginning of the end of India as a “country” … the smaller they are, the harder it is to defend… "
So, in the 1971 war with India was Pakistan fighting with Indian Bengal or Indian Punjab or Rajasthan or Gujarat or Tamil Nadu or Kerela ? Same question holds good for the Kargil conflict.
But I do see your point of view. The Pakistani Army is predominantly geared to protecting Pakistani Punjab.
@Alann:
What you have written is meaningless.
You don't manage land. You manage people.
People have illiteracy, people have health problem, people have economic problems, people have infrastructure problem.
People have problems. And to address the problems of such a huge population, India needs more states.
There is a saying that dialect changes every 50 km. With that also change culture and other aspects of people. Even to better preserve local cultures and languages, we need more states.
Like someone mentioned, Indians are as much emotional idiots as as Pakistanis. We do not even understand the meaning of a state.
Simply put, dividing India into several dozen more smaller states, we can eliminate a lot of problems and in fact strengthen India.
India's strength is 'diversity'. Trying to eliminate diversity will result in a situation like Pakistan. A failed state.
Some years back I heard a professor's talk in Adelaide, Australia, where in he told his audience that Indian states being too large the rulers of the state are very far from the people and therefore cannon know or understand problems of remote parts of the state. The Professor's solution was to break up the states into a smaller one with populations around 20 million. Australia which has a population of 22 million has hundreds of politicians which results in an almost absence of corruption. Countries like India and Pakistan and Bangladesh should follow this.
Water Bottle: "If USA has 50 states with 400 million, we should have 150 states, given our population." You fail to see US has much bigger land area compared to India. US' geographical size is much bigger than its population, whereas it is the opposite in the case of India. So dividing administrative provinces into multiple smaller entities does not really make it simpler to govern them. Instead it makes it more complex. For development on the local levels, we already have municipalities and grampanchayats at the district/village level.
Getting back on topic, I'd like to say it is logical to some extent to divide Uttar Pradesh into 2-4 states givens its size and its huge population, most of which is below poverty line. However at the same time, I'm of the opinion that States should not be made smaller because "smaller states are easier to administrate". It DOES NOT depend on the size of the states; rather, it depends on the willingness and the ability of the politicians governing them.
Even in the fresh case of Telangana - This is a state which was not formed for "better administration". Telangana is Congress' way of playing with people's emotions for political gains in the upcoming elections.
So, as a reply to the author: No, India doesn't need more smaller states - their current 'structures' should be left intact. What India needs is able politicians, who will put their state's progress, India's progress, above their personal and political gains.
Aakar Ahmed, I fully agree with you. Size should be manageable. Any state with population exceeding 50 million is difficult to manage. Smaller means smarter and quicker in all aspects of delivery to the public.
UP assembly under Mayavati had already passed a resolution to divide UP in four parts. Each part should come up with plans to create a new well planned city as its capital. This will push development and increase employment for millions. India has billions of money to spare for free food, free cash and free corruption, why not on establishing new well planned city with modern aminities.
What is the negative fall out of having smaller states? Other than the monopoly or unreasonable clout of Maya or Mulayam from UP or Nitish from BIHAR or Pawar from Maharashtra in deciding who is going to be the king-maker of breaker in Delhi which is detrimental to smaller states like NE states, southern states or Punjab?
Thank you Aaker for finally admitting MODI is talented and hard working. I hope you will use your 'talent' in spreading the word.
Mr. patel you lack information regarding ladakh. It is 50% buddist mainly the leh area but the other 50% of ladakh is muslim which is mainly kargil and dras areas of ladakh.
Why Aakar Patel is overly interested in breaking and merging of states in all the hypothetical scenarios? P.S: He wrote an article about "what if Pakistan/India had not partitioned".
Alongside, I can not comprehend that How or Why ET has published a column which is totally irrelevant to Pakistan. Has it been in the IHT, would have made it more appropriately positioned.
This is the beginning of the end of India as a "country" ... the smaller they are, the harder it is to defend... as the saying goes, "Allah (God) ka Chakra dheere chalta hai... LEKIN BAARIK peesta hai!" ... in other words, the WHEELS of fate (or God) turn slowly... ever so SLOWLY, however the grinded pieces that result are THAT MUCH THE SMALLER (in size) !!! India is fated to DIE a slow death... if not militarily (as Pakistan had hoped for in 1947-48 or in 1965) ... but due to its sheer bloated oversize and incompetent bunch of fools trying to run it.... and only succeeding in breaking it up, even if (for now) in a so-called "provincial or adminstrative or governance sense" ... to the sheer delight for the entertainment of the rest of the world!
Very well written and soundly argued. All the states in your list of top 10 Indian states need to be broken up. Unfortunately Indians are emotional and will not easily agree to more states, which is the need of the hour.
Smaller states are always good. In any country.
Look at India and you will find that smaller states have better administration and less corruption, higher literacy, lesser poverty. Examples : Goa, Mizoram, Kerala, Pondicherry (UT)...
Besides, what are states, if not smaller administrative units.
Andhra Pradesh is not an enemy of Telangana. On the contrary, they are more likely to be intertwined in trade etc more than any other states.
India has 29 states (including Telangana). In my opinion, India should have at least 100 states.
Just look at an analogy. If USA has 50 states with 400 million, we should have 150 states, given our population.
At last a good and positive article by author. No doubt, Uttar Pradesh needs to be divided into 4-5 states. Its too big to be managed from Lucknow.