The fears that creation of more states would lead to disintegration of the country seems to be unfounded. These states can not be compared with those princely states we had at the time of independence. At that time the question was of dominion.... with all those princely states having the right to accede to either the dominion of India or the dominion of Pakistan.
It is a different situation now. We are a Union, a Federal Republic having power distribution between Central and the State Governments.
Sardar Patel himself created this system and all those princely states were organised into various States accepting the sovereignty of India. So no one, including the Constitution of India and Indian citizen, is basically against 'States' within the Union.
The question is how many.
It depends on various factors including population, territorial, administrative, political and economical. We can discuss division of Uttar Pradesh on these issues but should not link it to disintegration equating it with princely states at the time of Independence.
And purely on the population front we can see that with 35 states and UTs for 120 crore people we have a government for every 3.5 crore of populaion on an average. However in case of UP it is one government for the whole of 17 crore people. Bahut nainsaafi hai ye...
Going by national average we can have 5 states in UP and a few more in other big states.
1 December 2011
I hope one is not advocating one country-one state theory. I mean we have to be clear whether we are against the concept of smaller manageable and viable States or against creation of states on regionalism or on the basis of specific groups.
These divisions on religious or linguistic basis are different issues not directly related to creation of a state. A Punjabi in Delhi, UP or even in Assam is still a Punjabi and on the other hand within Punjab itself we have other communities and regional divisions. Malwa, Majha and Doaba are very prominent sub-divisions of Punjab.
Smaller viable and manageable states are good for the people of that state as well as for the development of the country.
Maharashtra, once one of the most prosperous states, is also stagnating because of its size. With a population of 11 crore Maharashtra can also be divided into 2 or 3 manageable states.
1 December 2011
Jharkhand, rather the political mess in Jharkhand is very often cited as a bad example of smaller states. But in our enthusiasm to play down creation of new states we should not pick-up bad examples only. It would have been better if we had talked about Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand too with comparatively stable governments.
Moreover we may recall that between Jan 1990 and Dec 2001 Gujarat state has had as many as 9 different CMs belonging to 4 different parties. Madhav Singh Solanki, Chimanbhai Patel, Chhabildas Mehta, Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta, Shankersinh Vaghela, Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Parikh, again Keshubhai Patel and then Narendra Modi belonging to INC, JD(G), RJP and BJP. Is it any better than the example of Jharkhand being quoted time and again? And what after this? After this Gujarat has known only one CM. It is simply not a criteria to be considered while discussing the concept of midsize viable States as compared to large unmanageable States. These are political games which can be played anywhere.
Secondly Prabhat Khabar group of newspapers had last year published "Jharkhand Development Report 2010". In this 163 page report it had observed that 'Jharkhand has come a long way from its inception'.
The highlights of this report are:
>Its Per Capita income- From Rs 10345 (1999-2000) to Rs 21465 (2008-09). Per Capita income for Bihar was Rs 12643 in 2008-09.
>Gross State Domestic Product up from 4244922 Cr (2003-04) to 6925332.
>Poverty down from 44% to 33.15% (2004-05)
>Law and Order-Considerable improvement- Police strength up from 8930 in 2002 to 29198 in 2007 whereas the figure came down for Bihar from 48968 to 45670 during this period.
>Length of railway lines increased by 7.43% (2001-07) against 0.29% for India and reduction in Bihar.
>Number of pre-college institutions/school increased by 15% between 2002 and 2007.
>Number of Engineering, Technical and Arch Insts tripled and medical colleges doubled while it remained stagnant for Bihar.
>Foodgrain yield up from 1199 kg per hectare in 2001-02 to 1588 kg/hect in 2007-08.
Besides it there is tremendous improvement in health and infrastructural development in the state. The state has got its own High Court now. Ranchi is a buzzing city. Infact you talk to any person from Jharkhand and you will not find a single negative for mid-sized states.
Another report from Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) had observed that 'Jharkhand and Orissa are growing at the fastest pace in terms of their per capita income'.
So I request all those opposed to the creation of viable states to look at the issue in entirety beyond any political or emotional considerations.
3 December 2011
We will find that bigger the state, more powerful the regional party and more its nuisance value. Secondly the focus should be on mid-sized, manageable and viable states, not merely 'smaller'. The relevance of very small states may also be reviewed if required.
As far as North-Eastern States are concerned, the size of these states is not the issue. Issue is bad politics and worst bureaucratic bungling.
And finally brother just think.असंतुलन कब है? जब हम कई 'mid-sized, manageable and viable states' बनाते हैं तब या जब हमारी तीन states 10-10 crore se jyada population wali hon aur 8 states 50-50 lakh se bhi kam. We are already imbalanced. Many a states are already unmanageable. We have to restore the balance.
5 December 2011
It is a different situation now. We are a Union, a Federal Republic having power distribution between Central and the State Governments.
Sardar Patel himself created this system and all those princely states were organised into various States accepting the sovereignty of India. So no one, including the Constitution of India and Indian citizen, is basically against 'States' within the Union.
The question is how many.
It depends on various factors including population, territorial, administrative, political and economical. We can discuss division of Uttar Pradesh on these issues but should not link it to disintegration equating it with princely states at the time of Independence.
And purely on the population front we can see that with 35 states and UTs for 120 crore people we have a government for every 3.5 crore of populaion on an average. However in case of UP it is one government for the whole of 17 crore people. Bahut nainsaafi hai ye...
Going by national average we can have 5 states in UP and a few more in other big states.
1 December 2011
I hope one is not advocating one country-one state theory. I mean we have to be clear whether we are against the concept of smaller manageable and viable States or against creation of states on regionalism or on the basis of specific groups.
These divisions on religious or linguistic basis are different issues not directly related to creation of a state. A Punjabi in Delhi, UP or even in Assam is still a Punjabi and on the other hand within Punjab itself we have other communities and regional divisions. Malwa, Majha and Doaba are very prominent sub-divisions of Punjab.
Smaller viable and manageable states are good for the people of that state as well as for the development of the country.
Maharashtra, once one of the most prosperous states, is also stagnating because of its size. With a population of 11 crore Maharashtra can also be divided into 2 or 3 manageable states.
1 December 2011
Jharkhand, rather the political mess in Jharkhand is very often cited as a bad example of smaller states. But in our enthusiasm to play down creation of new states we should not pick-up bad examples only. It would have been better if we had talked about Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand too with comparatively stable governments.
Moreover we may recall that between Jan 1990 and Dec 2001 Gujarat state has had as many as 9 different CMs belonging to 4 different parties. Madhav Singh Solanki, Chimanbhai Patel, Chhabildas Mehta, Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta, Shankersinh Vaghela, Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Parikh, again Keshubhai Patel and then Narendra Modi belonging to INC, JD(G), RJP and BJP. Is it any better than the example of Jharkhand being quoted time and again? And what after this? After this Gujarat has known only one CM. It is simply not a criteria to be considered while discussing the concept of midsize viable States as compared to large unmanageable States. These are political games which can be played anywhere.
Secondly Prabhat Khabar group of newspapers had last year published "Jharkhand Development Report 2010". In this 163 page report it had observed that 'Jharkhand has come a long way from its inception'.
The highlights of this report are:
>Its Per Capita income- From Rs 10345 (1999-2000) to Rs 21465 (2008-09). Per Capita income for Bihar was Rs 12643 in 2008-09.
>Gross State Domestic Product up from 4244922 Cr (2003-04) to 6925332.
>Poverty down from 44% to 33.15% (2004-05)
>Law and Order-Considerable improvement- Police strength up from 8930 in 2002 to 29198 in 2007 whereas the figure came down for Bihar from 48968 to 45670 during this period.
>Length of railway lines increased by 7.43% (2001-07) against 0.29% for India and reduction in Bihar.
>Number of pre-college institutions/school increased by 15% between 2002 and 2007.
>Number of Engineering, Technical and Arch Insts tripled and medical colleges doubled while it remained stagnant for Bihar.
>Foodgrain yield up from 1199 kg per hectare in 2001-02 to 1588 kg/hect in 2007-08.
Besides it there is tremendous improvement in health and infrastructural development in the state. The state has got its own High Court now. Ranchi is a buzzing city. Infact you talk to any person from Jharkhand and you will not find a single negative for mid-sized states.
Another report from Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) had observed that 'Jharkhand and Orissa are growing at the fastest pace in terms of their per capita income'.
So I request all those opposed to the creation of viable states to look at the issue in entirety beyond any political or emotional considerations.
3 December 2011
We will find that bigger the state, more powerful the regional party and more its nuisance value. Secondly the focus should be on mid-sized, manageable and viable states, not merely 'smaller'. The relevance of very small states may also be reviewed if required.
As far as North-Eastern States are concerned, the size of these states is not the issue. Issue is bad politics and worst bureaucratic bungling.
And finally brother just think.असंतुलन कब है? जब हम कई 'mid-sized, manageable and viable states' बनाते हैं तब या जब हमारी तीन states 10-10 crore se jyada population wali hon aur 8 states 50-50 lakh se bhi kam. We are already imbalanced. Many a states are already unmanageable. We have to restore the balance.
5 December 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment