[kish404]

In lieu of various demands coming from different states for their bifurcation I would like to touch upon the possibilities, criterion, and solutions of small states demand.

Constituion has provided a very simple preocedure for the formation of new states under article 3. It vested complete power in the union parliament to alter any state boundary irrespective of the affected state's consent. It was correct at the time when constitution was framed and it was successful in containing further secession of the country.

When we analyse various small state's demands we can find various moot questions coming into fore.
1) Where from the demand for small state is coming ? Is it flowing from the people's aspirations to the leaders or from leader's political gains to the people.

2) Is there any rational criterion for the division of a state ? If yes, what is it ? Who forms it ?

3) After evolving a rational criterion one has to test this criterion in the state. Who does this job and is it possible to attain an unanimous opinion ?

Let me examine these issues in detail.

As we see in most of the states the demand for small state is coming from the politicians to attain their political ends rather than from the people of the state. This is clearly evident from the ongoing demand for Telangana in AP, Bundelkhand in UP, Saurashtra from Gujarat, Vidarbha from Maharashtra etc. Even the newly formed states Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand were formed because of political considerations. Can such states sustain ?

Experience in the newly formed states tells us that while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh became FAILED states despite of large mineral and natural resources Chattisgarh has started to zoom up. This clearly shows us that just a separate state is NOT a solution for all the developmental lacunae.

Coming to Rational Criterion, Usually commissions and committees were appointed to evolve a rational criterion for division of any state. Infact First States Reorganisation Commission drafted a criterion which involves economic viability, administrative convenience, willing of all parts of people living in that state etc.. But the moot question is how can one test this criterion ? For eg, If one has to test public opinion about the new state how one can elicit this. How one can assure the divided state will be economically sustainable after the division ?

In my opinion, EMOTIONAL INTEGRATION of the people should be the most important indicator in evauluating a criterion. Experience tells us that since independecs even after forming 28 states, people are not emotionally integrated despite of same language, culture etc in almost none of the states, forget about national integration. As long as people are not emotionally integrated the demand for division will become persistent.

So how to make people emotionally integrated is the key to the problem.

Some Solutions:
===============
1) Giving Panchayat Raj bodies autonomy.

2) Setting scientifically evolved developmental indicators (As the current human development indicators fail to identify actual development) and apportioning state resources as per these indicators as applied to different parts of the countries.

3) Trying to achieve political consensus in forums like "National Integration Council".

[Ruchi_S]

Hi Kishore,

I think that by saying "while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh became FAILED states despite of large mineral and natural resources Chattisgarh has started to zoom up" ,you mean Uttarakhand has started to zoom up?

Just clarifying.

Thx.
Ruchi.

[sivaharimani]

Originally Posted by kish404

Some Solutions:
===============
1) Giving Panchayat Raj bodies autonomy.

2) Setting scientifically evolved developmental indicators (As the current human development indicators fail to identify actual development) and apportioning state resources as per these indicators as applied to different parts of the countries.

3) Trying to achieve political consensus in forums like "National Integration Council".

kish it is a good write up. and your solution are also right.but can you give from what the base of your idea you have derived these solutions...means please explain in brief...

[chanda_s]

Originally Posted by kish404

This is clearly evident from the ongoing demand for Telangana in AP, Bundelkhand in UP, Saurashtra from Gujarat, Vidarbha from Maharashtra etc. Even the newly formed states Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand were formed because of political considerations. Can such states sustain ?

Experience in the newly formed states tells us that while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh became FAILED states despite of large mineral and natural resources Chattisgarh has started to zoom up.

thats a nice writeup, kish404.

can you tell us why you are calling chattisgarh and jharkhand as failed states?

is bundelkhand being demanded only from the districts of uttar pradesh or would it also include other districts of madhya pradesh as well (like sagar, chattarpur etc) which together form the bundelkhand?

[kish404]

Originally Posted by Ruchi_S

Hi Kishore,

I think that by saying "while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh became FAILED states despite of large mineral and natural resources Chattisgarh has started to zoom up" ,you mean Uttarakhand has started to zoom up?

Just clarifying.

Thx.
Ruchi.

Yes Ruchi... It was a typo.. Thx for clarification..

[kish404]

Originally Posted by sivaharimani

kish it is a good write up. and your solution are also right.but can you give from what the base of your idea you have derived these solutions...means please explain in brief...

Hi Mani,

I will try to explain the solutions..

1) Giving Panchayat Raj bodies autonomy.

The basic idea behind this solution is to use division as antithesis to a division. I mean, if a demand for division of state is coming up, annul this division by further devolving powers to local bodies. Then local problems get attended at the local level thus evolving local solutions.
The constitutional machinery of PRI bodies can be used to strenthen PRI bodies.

Even a bit wild, I have one idea in my mind in this respect. Lot of small state demands are coming up because of political considerations. To annul this, remove the state as political entity. It will give way to say, district administration, mandal administration, village administration etc.. [ I said it is wild..may be weird too ]

2) Setting scientifically evolved developmental indicators (As the current human development indicators fail to identify actual development) and apportioning state resources as per these indicators as applied to different parts of the countries.


This solution aims at tackling small states problem with development mantra.. The indicators of development being literacy, longevity, poverty, etc.. But the problem lies in the definitions of these indicators.
For eg: let us take poverty line definition. A/c to it, any person who gets 2400Kcal per day is considered as above poverty line. Let us take this scenario: suppose a person gets the above said calories a day but do not have clothes to cover his body and no hut to live. Is he really above poverty line ???

If a state goes by such definitions and announces that govt has achieved development in so called undeveloped region, the demand persists as the ground level realities are different.

Therefore a state needs to develop comprehensive developmental indicators and analyse each region of the state with these indicators. If certain region is backward according to these indicators it has to spend more resources to develop such region as compared with other regions. All this information should be communicated to the people in a transparent way so that discontent is not arised in the people of other regions. Once all the regions are developed on par, then the allocation should be equal for all parts of the state.

3) Trying to achieve political consensus in forums like "National Integration Council".

This is based on the idea of achieving political consensus on small states demand in national forums such as "National Integration Council" instead of unnecessarilly going to streets and disrupting public life.

[kish404]

Originally Posted by chanda_s

thats a nice writeup, kish404.

can you tell us why you are calling chattisgarh and jharkhand as failed states?

is bundelkhand being demanded only from the districts of uttar pradesh or would it also include other districts of madhya pradesh as well (like sagar, chattarpur etc) which together form the bundelkhand?

Hi Chandra,

I called Chattisgarh and Jharkhand as failed states because of their unability to solve their problems and take developmental path.

Chattisgarh is now a worst sufferer of naxalism because of which the Law & Order is badly affected. Law & Order is an important pre-condition for development. If L&O is affected no development can take place.

Jharkhand from it's inception was suffering from political instability. A politically unstable government cannot give a stable governance and hence good governance is the casuality.

Regarding Bundelkhand I don't have any idea on it.. Can someday please help me to understand the issue of bundelkhand..

[sivaharimani]

thats good kish. thank you. and one more point., there should be proper decentralisation of financial powers to the PRIs. this power has not yet been properly and sufficiently decentralized.

[aspirant2007]

In my opinion demand for small states can be analyzed on following grounds :-

1. How the formation of new states will influence the security, integrity and unity of India?

2. Will small states accentuate the developmental process?

3. Will small states take the governance near to the peole making it more responsive and accountable?

4. People in small state will be less alienated form their government, so , will it not help in suppressing the problems like naxlism?

5. Are small states areas easy for regional planning and policy implementation?

6. Don’t we think political aspiration of people of small states are unfairly compromised by having big state like UP, which alone can decide who will rule Delhi?

7. Creation of small states can be seen as the burden on exchequer as this will need extra expenditure (civil services, new capital etc). But don’t it be taken as the investment in long term.



Considering the above points, I think small states are better for economic, social and political development of India. Moreover the present demand for small states in diffent part of the country is not based on language or religion (as it was in 1950s and 60s); these are mostly based no developmental issues, which is again a contributory factor in overall, inclusive and equtable development of India.

[rahul jain]

sir, in any form of governance, it's not size of unit but the quality of governance that matters.

In India folowing three points are main basis of state organisation, viz.

1. Administrative Efficiency
2. Economic viability, and
3. Aspiration of people.

We as aspirants of UPSC, can hardly afford to criticize the Politics os Politicians as we are aspiring to serve these Politicians only.

Rahul Jain