Should India be divided into further states?

i am gonna take part in some debate competition so please tell me a few lines. i have already read other
answers from yahoo
• 11 months ago
• Report Abuse
Additional Details
ms/mr or between those. sharni..whatsoever you are i guess you have got to wear spectacles to see the
details in which it was clearly mentioned that i need a few lines...i guess it's meaning was quite clear i.e. i
need only some lines not full debate just a simple answer like that of neelesha
11 months ago

bournvit...
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
A number of debates have followed the government’s 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 India’s weakness, not strength.
 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….
.

Is small beautiful? Are small states better governed? Here we present a debate featuring two
veteran political leaders in the wake of the Telangana [ Images ] statehood row.

Mani Shankar Aiyar [ Images ], former minister for Panchayati Raj.

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.

Let’s take Telangana issue as an example, here are some facts and personal views -Telangana was never
comfortable being part of AP, Telangana is relatively backward (socially, economically, in literacy rate), and
politically under-represented. I mean politicians with real power, not just numbers. Population of AP is 70
Million, so at 35 Million it will still be bigger than many countries in EU. I know the debate is about the size of
the state. But if I may digress - size is the least of problems in India! I think we should not confuse small state
with a separate state. A separate state could end up being small or big. The real issue is that of equity, a rich
state could have poorer regions in them, and vice versa. And as long as this happens, there will be vidarbha,
telangana, etc. Also, economic development or non-development rather, is not the only reason a demand is
made for a separate statehood. India is diverse, and therefore any differences in the region could be used as
a rallying cry for a separate statehood demand. In Telangana for example I think the fight is to “restore” its
cultural identity and a rightful place in the Andhra State. Misallocation of resources is of course the main claim
made by Telangana separatists.

Forward | Report abuse

Big states can be better governed

by subhash (View MyPage) on Dec 18, 2009 12:32 AM | Hide replies

It is not that small states are better governed. The states where there is CONTROLLED GROWTH OF
POPULATION ARE BETTER GOVERNED. Bihar lost Jamshedpur to zarkhand, yet we can't neglect its
high rate of population and corrupted politics for lack of development. Similarly UP's population now about
190 million,is too much.
Imagine a person with a family of 10-12persons, even if he earns Rs.50000 per month, he will face short of
money and will ask government for free facilities. He would need a big house and much more.But a person
with family of 4/5 will fulfil all the needs in just Rs.20000 can live in small house. Thus Newzealand is
considered as developed while Bangladesh is undeveloped. Remember both of them are small.
Population explosion is attack on nature as well, it is cause of forest cutting, global warming. Australia is
more developed than India as its population density is just 4-5persons per kilometer but that in UP is about
700 per KM, in Bihar-880 per KM, In Bengal 904per KM. Now that in MH is 325 and in Gujrat is just200,
now you can imagine what leads to better government and development.

Forward | Report abuse

Re: Big states can be better governed

by subhash (View MyPage) on Dec 18, 2009 12:41 AM
Remember the word CULTURE was unknown to Australia 200 yrs back. But now it is a
developed country.

Forward | Report abuse

 Message deleted by moderator

Indians Please think

by sukumar (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 11:09 PM

In India we have cosmopolitan cities like mumbai,delhi,chenai,Kolkatta,bangalore and hyderabad. All these
cities have people who are local and people who have migrated from other parts and they all work towards
surviving and developing their cities directly or indirectly. At any point the localites cannot say we are local
people we own this because all the imigrants have contributed a lot to the society eventhough they don't
belong to that city.Suddently now these hyderbadi's say we need separate state called telanaga and we
need to include hyderabad in that. Meaning few people so called hyderbadi's just want to enjoy all the
benefits and does not want to share with others who had contributed for the city's growth. what a selfish
people?? If you have guts why don't you join few rural areas in Andhra and say that we need a separate
state and we will develop that state similar to any other metros like hyderabad or mumbai in next 10 years.
The answer is no because these politicians who are behind this state agenda does not not have any
process in place on how to improve a city or state or even India as a whole.So verdict is if you get separate
city,state,country,district,street nothing is going to change.
Indians please think... and stop the violence.

Forward | Report abuse

small states better governed/

by ananta tpalli (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 09:31 PM

It all depends on the sincereity of the politicians.

If some body spends the public money on statues, some politicians swindel funds meant for public welfare
to buy properties like hoels, resorts etc.
Can you identify any politicans who is sincere?
There are NONE.
Politics is a business and its an addiction.

Forward | Report abuse

More details about the writer of this article

by shiva prasad (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 05:25 PM

Keeping in view of Telangana Movement and present situation, it is better to tell about the region or birth
place of the writer Mani Shankar Aiyar.
If he is from andhra then he will some how oppose the telangana formation.
If he is from telangana then he will support.
If he is from other state, and if there is a similar struggle in that state, then his statement depends on their
regional politics.
In any case, his designation as former minister etc does not give any useful details to the reader.
So, I request the web site to please update his details here. otherwise, other readers please give.
Thanking you
 Forward | Report abuse

Goa is disgusting and hence small is not better

by kaladhara saralaya (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 04:34 PM

Look at Goa politics. In the plitical field, few locals heros hold the key. Invariably, they are powerful
business tycoons. Invariably, the will modify the law to suit their convenience.

Forward | Report abuse

Size?
by Vijay T (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 10:52 AM

Demand for separate states is not really for smaller states. The size does not matter for governance. If the
issue is of people not able to reach government, the solution lies in governments reaching the people, as
Gujarat has shown.

If smaller states are easy to govern, the merging of the over 600 princely states (kingdoms!) was foolhardy!
We could have made each a separate state!!

The politicians' games are no more secrets. What happened to all the noises we were hearing about states
based on language. This was one of the foolish decisions of the so-called "visionaries" of the past. Rules
and decisions that cannot be followed and maintained are meaningless; it would be better if rules and
decisions are not made for their own sake.

Forward | Report abuse

Smaller states are good. So are smaller countries...howz that?

by Prasanna Thyamagondlu (View MyPage) on Dec 17, 2009 12:39 AM

Singapore is a small wealthy, well organised & better managed country than US in terms of law & order,
drug control, crime management, pollution & resource management.

Does that mean that we should split every city of India to become an independent country? No...

The need of the hour for India is not to work like bin-Tughlaq. The need of the hour is to get integrate the
country under uniform law & order. The need is to control population & there by reduce demand for limited
supply of resources. The need is to control corruption & reduce fundamentalism. The need is to bring all
people into national mainstream.

Maharashtra & Kerala wants parts of Karnataka.

Tamilnadu & AP wants more share of rivers from neighbouring states.
Central govt does not fund Karnataka/Bangalore projects if Congress does not rule the state.
Central govt keeps Huriyat leaders in palaces & does not bother about displacement of Pundits.
The 74% reservation in Tamilnadu leaves a general merit candidate, re-think his living in the state.

All these factors leave many people dis-heartened & forces many talents to leave the country.
 India seems like a piece of meat on street to the stray dogs, Pakistan, China, Kashmiri fundamentalists,
factionists within India & politicians who employ divide & rule policies to rule India.
The Indian citizens are torn apart in the name of religion, reservations & language barriers. Nepotism rules
over merit even in glorified IT industry.
May god bless India

Forward | Report abuse

Smaller states a recipe for disaster

Kingshuk Nag
29 June 2009, 08:36 AM IST

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.

Time to restructure States

Thu, 19 Aug, 2010,02:19 PM
.

Within minutes of the Centre telling the Supreme Court

that Belgaum district in Karnataka cannot be ceded to
Maharashtra just because it has a large chunk of Marathi-
speaking villages, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray came
down heavily on it saying that if language is not the
criterion, all the states which have been structured on a
linguistic basis should be dissolved. And no wiser words
were said.
.

The British, during their 90 years’ rule had divided India

Archives - Editorial
into Presidencies or Provinces on an ad hoc basis which
turned out to be multi-lingual and multi-ethnic.
Whatever might have been their intentions in doing so,
such provinces added to our sense of national unity and
cultural togetherness.
The Congress Party on the other hand set up its regional
parties along linguistic lines and when the demand arose
for re-organisation of states on a strictly linguistic basis it
found itself in a dilemma.
There were many, including Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru who were uneasy with the thought. His hands were
forced by the relentless stand taken by the likes of the
Telugu leader Potti Sriramulu who went on a hunger strike
that ended with his tragic death.

He had sought the creation of Andhra Pradesh and his

wish came to be fulfilled. Thus came to be set up states
like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and
Gujarat.
It was then fondly hoped that creation of linguistic states
would help in greater oneness among people and make for
faster progress but that has turned to be a dream.
The reality is that linguistic states have brought out the
worst in us such as been witnessed in Mumbai where even
the resurgence of malaria is attributed to ‘outsiders’
mostly labour from Bihar.
This calls for a new approach. The concept of linguistic
states has its own merits - no one can deny that - but if
the demerits outclass the merits, it is time for some deep
introspection.
The anti-Hindi hatred spewed by the Shiv Sena as when
an MLA took his oath in Hindi at the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly should wake us up.
There are in India, three kinds of states: mega states like
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and
Maharashtra.
Uttar Pradesh still has the reputation of being the sixth
largest administrative unit - population - wise in the world.
Then there are mid-sized states like Punjab, Haryana and
Himachel Pradesh and finally we have mini-states like the
north eastern Seven Sisters, Goa in the East and
Pondicherry in the East.

There is now a strong school of thought which holds that

the mega-states have become ungovernable and perform
poorly in every Human Development Index measure and
for many years the people in Telangaga and those in
Vidharbha have been demanding separate statehood, one
carved out of Andhra Pradesh and the other from
Maharashtra.
That makes sense. Obviously, language is not necessarily
a unifying force. There are other factors such as having
greater say in development matters among compact
regions within a state and those have to be attended to.
The mega states, with the best of intentions are unable to
meet the development requirements of specific regions
and that has been painfully evident in Telangana and
Vidharbha.
More than 80% of the people in these regions would be
happy to get the status of new states. Both Vidharbha and
Telangana have very strong cases for separate statehood.
Two points are raised in this connection one, that small
states do not have the kind of leadership that is needed to
administer them effectively and that such leadership that
exists are easily susceptible to corruption. The example of
Jharkhand is cited in this connection.

Himachel Pradesh was considered a basket case when it

was founded in 1971 but it is a well-functioning and stable
state today.
Besides, is it the case that the largest the state, the less
the corruption? The recent developments in a couple of
states in the matter of illegal mining should give us a
wake-up call.
The size of the state has nothing to do with the
administrative qualities of its leaders. Politicians in large
states can be no less corrupt as their counterparts in
smaller ones.
But why should only Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra be
further divided? Why not Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh as
 well, not to speak of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan?
And how many states should we, in the final analysis, set
up? The United States has some 50 states, large and
small. India can have between 45 and 50, for better
governance.

If we divide the population of India by the population of

Punjab/Haryana, for instance, we get a figure between 45
and 55.
According to one authority, the following potential
candidates stand up for statehood: Telangana (from
Andhra Pradesh), Ryalseema (from Andhra Pradesh),
Monaseema (balance coastal pacts from Andhra Pradesh),
Kongu Nadu (from Tamil Nadu), Coorg or Kodagu and
Vijayanagar both from Karnataka, Marathwada, Konkan,
Khandesh and Vidharbha (from Maharashtra), Western
Maharashtra (also from Mahashtra, Saurashtra (from
Gujarat) Kutch (from Gujarat), Marwar (from Rajasthan),
Mewar (from Rajasthan), Bundelkhand (from Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh), Bagheihand (from Madhya
Pradesh), Mahakoshal (from Madhya Pradesh, Awad (from
Uttar Pradesh), Rohilkhand (from Uttar Pradesh),
Poorvanchal (from Uttar Pradesh), Gorkhaland (from West
Bengal) Kalinga/Utkal (from Orissa) and Kosala (from
Orissa).
And the state of Jammu and Kashmir can be divided into
Jammu, the Vale of Kashmir and Ladakh. We tend to get
emotional about splitting of states as if they are planned
to destroy the linguistic unity of the people.
It is nothing of the sort. It is plainly intended to provide
people’s participation in the administration and make
democracy more meaningful.

This country has had enough of linguistic fascism. The

encouragement of intense linguistic separatism is doing
terrible damage to the concept of One India One People,
and these chauvinists must be put in their place.
What is presently required is an intense debate throughout
the country. We are supposed to be moving towards Great
Powerhood but what sort of Great Power can we possibly
be if we are divided amongst ourselves on linguistic lines
barring free movement from one state to another through
an appeal to our worst instincts?
We need to marginalise our chauvinists in order to stay
together. Just think of the way a former Chief Minister of
Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu was treated in
Maharashtra. It is sign of things to come. We must wake
up before we slide into anarchy.

The economic case for creating small states

SA Aiyar
20 December 2009, 12:53 AM IST

Should India be broken up into smaller states? After the decision to give statehood to Telangana, many
analysts want a new States Reorganization Commission.

India today has 28 states. Assuming 20% population growth since the last census, Uttar Pradesh has 198
million people, more than Brazil, Russia or Pakistan. Maharashtra has 106 million, West Bengal 96 million
and Andhra Pradesh 90 million. All are much bigger than France or Britain. At the other end of the scale,
Sikkim has just 0.6 million people, Mizoram 1.1 million and Arunachal Pradesh 1.3 million. Clearly,
statehood has been determined by political expediency, not logic.

Is there an economic case for carving smaller states out of large ones? Some analysts say small states
won’t be economically viable. Others believe small states will fare better, since ordinary people will have
better access to power elites. Consider the record of three states carved out of larger ones in 2000 -
Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Ignore data for the first few transitional years. Instead, focus
on the average growth rate of gross state domestic product for the last five years, from 2004-05 to 2008-
09.

Amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth
annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 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.

Some caveats are in order. The central government exempted industries in Uttarakhand from excise duty,
a concession already applicable to other hill states such as Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir and the north-
eastern states. Many big industries rushed to Uttarakhand for the tax break, giving the state’s growth an
artificial boost. Still, Uttarakhand easily outperformed Himachal Pradesh (8.47%) and Kashmir (5.98%).
Remember, Uttarakhand was once considered the poorest, most backward part of UP. After statehood, it
has become a growth champion.

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.

Their rapid economic growth has been tainted by massive corruption. Sheer money power enabled an
independent, Madhu Koda, to become chief minister of Jharkhand and rule for years. He handed out
dozens of mining licences, instead of auctioning them to the highest bidder. Alas, this problem affects the
whole of India: Natural resources from coal to the telecom spectrum are constantly gifted to favoured
parties instead of being auctioned, and this enables politicians to amass fortunes. But just as the telecom
revolution has been good for India despite corruption, so has private entry into mining and processing.

Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are not growing fast simply through mining. They have experienced a
manufacturing boom. Read what research firm Indicus Analytica has to show:

"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".

Now, millions of tribals have been bypassed, especially in remote areas where Maoism flourishes.
However, the biggest tribal agitations against giant mining projects are in Orissa. The big Jharkhand
projects of Tata and Mittal are in limbo since the state has stalled land acquisition.

The neglect of tribals and consequent rise of Maoism is a blot on the record of Jharkhand and
Chattisgarh. The creation of the vigilante Salwa Judum to counter Maoists in Chattisgarh has widely been
condemned for violating civil rights.

The two states account for 68% of all Maoist attacks. That’s bad for civil rights and security. Yet,
achieving fast growth amidst such insurgency is a major economic feat. It highlights the dynamism
created when backward regions become separate states. Hopefully, this economic dynamism will help
mitigate the backwardness on which Maoism thrives.

I am neither proponent or opponent of a separate statehood. But want to understand

the situation before taking a stand. Ofcourse the decisions would not be turn in or
our with my stand:)
I read your answers well and they are good indeed but are not imposing. No once
disagrees the fact that Telangana region is underdeveloped. But I seriously question
how can it take the path of 'The developed' by the status of a state with in the
federal structure. Agreed that Telangana is rich in Coal mines. You mine it and
generate electricity and electrify your regions. But its easy said than done. Because
Mineral wealth in India is a central subject and the state would not be able to get
much of it for its own use and the sharing criteria is governed by the Gadgils
formula. Coming to the power generation, the leaders of telangana can 'fast-unto-
death' for their legitimate share of not just power but also of your own resources like
water and more aptly the funds for development. I do not see a reason why only a
separate statehood could solve all the economic problems of a region. I can give
some reasons why a separate state would hinder the pace of the development. We
now have a 42 member strength in Lok Sabha. With a separate state we would fall
into a numerical minority in teh center. Consider the North-East states. They have a
huge natural resource base and more more nio-friendly, but still they are not at par
with the rest of the country. teh only reason I see is they have had hardly 1 member
representing them at the center, which makes it almost impossible to get funding for
the projects in those regions. This would be the same if AP is bifurcated. Instead by
staying united we can bargain for more funds and then our own MLA's from
Telangana can do the same thing to get majority of funds. Its just a matter of voting
in assembly as leaders from Telangana has a good majority. This atleast do not need
a statehood. I hear people talking about 'our water, our funds, our jobs'. Water share
is also governed by the Central Water Board which makes it almost impossible for a
state to use all of thier water for their use and must be shared as per the states
requirement again based on Gadgils formula. More than just rivers Krishna and
Godavari only flow through Telangana and not from. With a separate state these
waters would be divided and the result is Maharastra's share would diminish. This
poses a serious problem again.
I am not against your sentiments but if the leaders fighting fof the cause should
atleast give out an agenda of a plan of action on how teh state would develop as a
separate entity?

Some History: There was a gentleman's aggrement in 1956 saying that 'There shall
be a Deputy CM from Telangana of CM is from non-telangana and vice-versa'. This
was not implemented and evertime this issue was raised, the then TPS (Telangana
Praja Samithi by MC Reddy) merged with Congress as the later promised cabinet
berths to the former. Instead they should have fought, then, for the cause with out
being flattered.

I hope something similar would happen this time even, with KCR and a few others
end with a cabinet post. And we common people who suffer because of these
Bandh's get nothing apart from a further slew of taxes. Awating another
Gentleman's aggrement

harikishan.sadhu@gmail.com

kishansadhu
 Posts: 2

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:42 pm

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by nagh » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:57 pm

Its a comprehensive and scientific analysis by

SOCIALIST UNITY CENTRE OF INDIA (COMMUNIST) Party.

Announcement for Formation of Separate Telangana

And it’s Aftermath

Dear Friends,

After some political developments in Andhra Pradesh the Central UPA government led by
Congress(I) declared at midnight on 10th December 2009,, without consulting any of the
concerned, more particularly without taking into confidence the people of Andhra Pradesh, that
the process for formation of separate Telangana state would be initiated. As a reaction to this,
through out Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra regions of the state we are witnessing a wide spread
emotional out burst. Through out the country also demands for separate Bodoland, Goorkha land,
Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Kurg, Sourashtra, Mithilanchal, Haritpradesh, Purvanchal etc.,have come
to the fore again. All the political parties are trying to use these unfortunate developments for
their petty narrow political ends. When today the people, the exploited majority, in all states and
in all regions irrespective of their place of birth or workplace suffering from multifarious problems
like sky rocketing prices, unemployment, retrenchment, lay offs, lack of educational and health
facilities, poverty, hunger etc. are coming out in united movements, the ruling class through its
trusted political agents has connived to divert the attention of the people from the real problem by
whipping up regionalism and separatist mentality. They are resorting to a conspiracy of developing
mistrust, disbelief and hatred among the people disrupting their united struggle which is the prime
need of the hour. However, it is quite heartening that majority people of Andhra Pradesh have not
fallen victim to this political game and conspiracy and they are cherishing unity from the depth of
their hearts.

Cause for Backwardness and Unemployment

Whether one agrees or not we live in a capitalist society. In this system uneven development of
regions is an absolute law, as Great Lenin pointed out long back. This happens because the
capitalists prefer to establish their industries in areas where basic facilities like electricity,
transport, communications and natural resources are available. Another reason for unequal
development is discrimination, partiality and narrow regional mentality shown by all the successive
governments and corrupt political leaders of all the parties which work against the justifiable use
of the available natural resources. Geographical feasibility is also a point to be considered. These
are the reasons for uneven development and backwardness of any region. This phenomenon is not
limited to regions alone. This difference is there even among the districts of the same region and
among the mandals of the same district and among villages also. If every body demands separation
showing this backwardness where will we end up? Surely in the dark medieval ages. As per the law
of development of society we advanced from tribes to kingdoms, then to nations. We are to now
develop as world socialist society and consequently as an international human society. Separatism
is a step backward and reactionary. Fighting for equal opportunities against discrimination is the
only solution and not separation. It is worth mentioning here that no leader of any separatist
movement not to speak of Mr.Chandrasekhar Rao of TRS has ever developed any movement against
the exploitative capitalists for the redressal of problems of the common people about whom they
shed crocodile tears day in and day out.

What is required for overall development is a comprehensive plan for scientific utilization of the
entire natural resources of the state after proper and exact estimation of the availability of all
natural resources like water, minerals, forests etc., While implementing any project priority
should be given to backward areas. Concrete steps should be taken to develop educational and
health facilities and to create employment opportunities in all the areas. It is possible today by
using modern science and technology to provide irrigation even to geographically unfavorable
uplands also. But what is lacking is political will and commitment on the part of the so called
leaders. The parties which ruled our state, the Congress(I) and the TDP have worked only to
safeguard the interest of the capitalists and neglected the backward areas. All problems got
aggravated as a result of the policies implemented by these parties. People are thoroughly
dissatisfied with the despotic rule of these parties. Taking advantage of this situation parties like
TRS have raised the bogie of separate Telangana state. Even some so called intellectuals and
students were misguided by such slogans. Communal BJP true to its color and even the pseudo
communist parties and naxalite groups were actively involved in this separatist movement. The
role of the media is heinous. They are sensationalizing every thing for their commercial benefit
throwing all norms of journalism and sense of social obligation to winds. This has further vitiated
the whole social atmosphere.

Separate Small States and Development

Some people argue that small states develop well, resources will belong to the locals only, and
local leaders will do all good for them, and the locals get employment. But what is the reality?
Look at the small states like Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur formed long ago and also
Jarkhand, Uttaranchal, Chattisgadh formed a few years back. There is absolutely no development
in these states nor is there any hope of development in the future. Small or big every state
remains a part and parcel of the existing capitalist system only. Which ever political party forms
the government it will only serve the interest of the exploiters. Only gullible persons can expect
any thing good from the rulers of the separate small states. Can any one expect uninterrupted
industrialization in any new state while industries in the world including our country are getting
closed one after another due to the severe world economic recession? Even in Telangana region
hundreds of industries have been closed and every day many are getting closed. It is mere illusion
if any one thinks that these industries will be opened when separate Telangana is formed.
According to official estimates there are three lakh vacant posts to be filled by government in our
state since almost two decades. No government is taking any measures to fill up these posts
because of the ongoing ban on recruitment. In separate smaller states also the same ban will
continue. Who ever rules the new state; they will also follow the same anti people policies of
globalization, liberalization and privatization. Hoping that the rulers of small separate states will
give up these anti-people policies is height of ignorance.

Will the Problems of the People be solved in a Separate State?

Through out the country including our state a suffocating situation is prevailing. Social, economic,
political, cultural, ethical and moral crisis ie., an all out crisis is engulfing. There is no educational
and health facility for our people, no employment for millions of our educated youth, no security
for our mothers and sisters. Retrenchments and closures of industries are throwing thousands of
our workers on to the streets. Suicides of peasants due to debts are going on unabated. Because of
capitalist exploitation millions are becoming paupers while a few handfuls are becoming
millionaires. This situation is prevailing through out the country, in every state and in every
region. In Telangana also the exploitation of the poor by a few rich will become more ruthless after
separation. Regional capitalists and business barons will continue their exploitation more severely.
No people’s problem will be solved in separate states. Rather every problem will surely get
aggravated. Capitalism is the root cause for each and every problem. Capitalists are the enemy and
not the people of other regions. This truth must be understood by all the common people;
otherwise the real enemies will escape from the growing wrath of the people. For redressal of
their problems people should unite and fight against capitalists rulers.

If a separate state is formed, at best a new assembly, secretariat, police head quarters, high court
and directorate head offices will be formed which will provide a few extra jobs to a microscopic
minority. And for that, the burden of the entire top heavy administrative expenditure will be put
on the shoulders of common people. More so in small states people’s movements can be
suppressed by the police and administration more easily. People particularly employees, youth and
students must realize this very important fact.

United Movement on Common Burning Issues – The Only Way Out

In the past the British imperialist rulers tried to suppress the freedom movement by adopting the
policy of divide and rule. In the same way today the domestic capitalist rulers are trying to nip in
the bud the democratic mass movements of the people by diverting their attention towards
secessionist and parochial movements. Their ultimate aim is to disrupt the unity of exploited
people. Even the media, particularly the electronic media in their mad commercial competition is
behaving irresponsibly fanning up all types of reactionary tendencies and are trying to blunt the
sensitivities of the people by repeatedly showing the same scenes of violence and crime. They are
trying to channelise people’s anger and discontentment arising out of capitalist exploitation into a
wrong path. People particularly the employees, students and youth should be on guard against
such ploys of the exploiters and their agents. They should realize that who ever instigates
communal, parochial, casteist and divisive tendencies, they are the enemies. We appeal to the
people not to be swayed away by emotions. Exploited people belonging to different regions should
guard their unity like an apple of an eye and unitedly fight to solve their burning problems like un-
employment, price-rise; fight for strengthening public distribution system, completion of all
pending projects and re-opening of all closed industries. They should fight against capitalist
globalization, liberalization and privatization policies. They should fight against privatisation of
educational and health facilities. They should develop these movements in a way conducive to anti
capitalist socialist revolution, the ultimate remedy for all the basic social maladies.

In this critical hour we urge upon the people to maintain unity irrespective of caste, creed,
language, and region and launch struggle against their common enemy the capitalists. We appeal to
the to realize that their enemy is not the people of other regions. Their enemy is their own
capitalists and their political agents. We call upon the people to turn their grievances in the right
direction and come forward for mighty democratic united mass movements on their burning
problems.
SOCIALIST UNITY CENTRE OF INDIA (COMMUNIST)
S.U.C.I (C)
STATE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE.
PH: 040-23317522.

nagh

Posts: 1

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:39 pm

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by Naga » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:12 pm

I am not sure why we were thinking that separate state would resolve all the problems. The same
parties, the same politicians are going to rule even if a separate state is formed. How could this
ensure the development of telangana even after the separate state formation?

No body is responsible for backwardness of any region. Its the same telangana leaders who were
elected for the telangana region for past 50 years. Why didn't they fight or gone for fast to death
for the development of region. Why didn't they do these when the water, education or any other
stuff were not provided to telangana region. Does people understand this?

Even if the separate state is formed, there would be corrupted people who would be willing to
bribe and politicians who would be willing to take. Also, look at the states of Jarkhand,
Chatthisgarh, etc., What kind of development they have seen.
Unless corruption is eliminated, nothing will change. Young educated politicians are required.

Otherwise, even if you get 10 telanganas nothing will change comman man's issues.

Naga

Posts: 3

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:00 pm

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by gupta » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:43 pm

small states can be controlled efficiently rather than larger states .

by forming small states economy can be increased
so jai telangana

gupta

T
o
p
Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang
Email this Topic link to your Friends

by kimkki » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:43 pm

what will happen after separate telangana state: Light tesuko bosss....
1. people who are NOT stayed in telangana for >14yrs are considered as NO telangana and they are
not eligible for any JOBS..... it could be either children or adults
2. any company whos owner is ANDHRA (can be from maharastra,rajasthan,orrisa,even Pakistan
can)
must pay 70% additional TAX to Telangana goverment.
3. officaly 50% of jobs are reserved for telangana ppl, (after u add this to rest of reservation, its
-0% for andhra ppl. So its as good as there is NO job
4. if both parents are from ANDHRA, they have to pay 50% higher STAMP duty for any property;
they buy
5. NO andhra ppl have rights to vote for TELANGANA elections... (andhra ppl dnot know history
so...).
6. ONLY after telangana studetns get admission then only andhra students must get addmission (its
as good as DEBARING andhra students from studying in hyderabad....
7.

hi friend rest of what will happen evenone write.....

kimkki

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by rajkumar_manda » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:37 pm

advantages:-
1. GDP will be grow up.
2. administrative power
3. atleast budget money will be utilized for telangana.
4. self- respect.
5. our state, our people, our cm.
6. there is no maoist problem.
7. no social and economical inbalanced.
8. we will get all seat to our students.
9. minerals and water resoures will be utilised better way.
10. and last one is our aim is to become a very very good and peaceful state in the country, who
never seen before in India. because in past 60 years of indipendence of our country did nothing for
poor people, even thow they don't have election id card for those people. how they treated as
Indians or un indipendence people in our country for those who are fighting for independence in
our country.

rajkumar_manda

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by Naga » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:01 am

The above can be achieved only if we have a legislative mahatma Gandhi's. Certainly I deny this.

When separate state is formed all the funds to be directed to growth and not sure how it will grow
GDP.
admistrative power for long awaiting unemployed political people.
After seperation all the smaller states are suffering tremendous maoist problem and hence the
operation Green hunt. No body can deny this.
Social and economical imbalance is there for ages (a section called Dora's and others treated
inferior to them)
Seats for competitive students are always available. Its only the matter of management students.
Minerals and other resources utilization again depends on the mercy of politician's willingness
The last point not relevant to seperate state.

Naga

Posts: 3

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:00 pm

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by krishnag2001 » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:16 pm

Lots of Advantages are there if telangana is seperated from andhra for both the regions.

krishnag2001

T
o
p
Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Telang
Email this Topic link to your Friends

by Guest » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:55 am

i really afraid, of this separate telanga issue, WHAT if this virus spread to Bangalore... and the
Kannadiagas say "KICK the Telanagana PPL" out of bangalore.... "NO more JOBS to Telangana ppl in
Bangalore" " NO HYDERABAD ppl MUST come for INTERVIEW to Bangalore".. YOU telangana guys are
robbing away our jobs..... you are creating traffic problems, you guys are spoiling the city....

if it this thing keeps spreading to pune, mumbai... but i guess not to worry. hyderabad id enough
for ALL telangana ppl, student to work and live happily.......

Guest

T
o
p

Re: what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate Te

Email this Topic link to your Friends

by rajseo » Wed May 19, 2010 10:25 am

I don't think there is a need of another partition politician are raising voices for the sake of their
political benefit only................

Nepal Trekking|Kerala Tour Package

rajseo
 Posts: 2

Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 10:20 am

•
T
o
p

Top of Form

All posts Post time Ascending Go

NextDisplay posts from previous: Sort by

Bottom of Form

Post a reply
Post a new topic

13 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 12

RELATED TOPICS
• RELATED TOPICS

REPLIES

VIEWS

LAST POST
• What are the advantages and disadvantages if seperate telangana comes?
by Maha » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:35 pm

938

by Maha
Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:35 pm

• What is your opinion about "Telangana" a separate state in A.P.?

by Ambica » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:33 am

588

by hussian md
Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:51 pm
• what is the use to get telangana as seperate state?
by Naga » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:22 pm

515

by swamy
Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:51 am

• No Need Separate State

by hydboy1212 » Wed May 12, 2010 12:01 pm

16

by hydboy1212
Wed May 12, 2010 12:01 pm

• Is the andhrapradesh elections will play vital role to split the state in to three
states(telangana,coastal an?
by rln_79549 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:49 am

41

by rln_79549
Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:49 am

• Forum Main Page

• Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC + 5:30 hours