“Effective governance requires creation of smaller states in India”

India has an amazing ability of doing all the “right” things in absolutely the “wrong”
way! The way in which the Home Minister, Chidambaram, exactly one year back, had
handled the ‘near-granting’ of the creation of the state of Telangana, and its ripple effect
across the country was a classic example. As forces favoring a larger number of smaller
states gather momentum, the question of whether they indeed perform better needs to be
answered empirically. There is no administrative rationale, no strong economic
justification, no compelling political logic, and not even any linguistic or cultural
framework for further dividing the states of India. Though I agree there has been some
development in areas post reorganization, this development was inevitable even with
proper governance of the larger state.

It is only with empowerment of local communities that people will secure their
entitlement to basic amenities. Our goal of inclusive growth will not be realized unless
there is good governance, and this is not determined by size.

There is a strong school of thought that the mega-states are largely unmanageable, and
perform poorly on every development index measure. The mini-states on the other hand
are unviable, largely from an economic standpoint, and also face a lot of political
instability (the classic example being Goa).

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. 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 decentralize of power, things move forward and people are better off to.

Karnata 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. 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 that It has not
held any panchayat elections for a decade since it was formed. In fact the 1st panchayat
election was November 27, 2010. Unless power goes to the people instead of remaining
concentrated in a single authority, there is no hope for the people in this state. .

.The progress of the larger states has much to do with the manner in which its
governments have been able to distribute funds among different levels of government,
taking power directly to the masses. This, and not a state's size, is what helps governance.

‘Small’ and ‘big’ are relative terms and while Ambedkar put two crores as a viable
population size for administration, with India’s current population, this would now
translate into more than fifty states for the Indian Union, a political impossibility for us in
our presentt position. Going by that logic, India will have to increase No. of states every
10 years or so with the present rate of population growth.
There is no knock-down argument that can prove that small states within a federal polity
will always be better

I would just like to conclude by saying, Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and
lead, is watchword of the wise.