Smaller States: Good or Bad?
|
large
number of states may
affect the federal structure of the country. The criteria for states
formation need to be formated and more discussion on it need to be done. We
should respect their
democratic aspirations. Smaller
units are better
managed and the administrative and developmental efficiency will
increase and also the people participation will increase. This is
because decentralised institution work better than highly centralised
one. Local
leader will get a chance
to show their talent. new
states will need new
capital cities and hence new cities will be upgraded to the capital
cities and hence will have organic growth. Preserving
the cultural and
linguistic identity and hence culturla and linguistic diversity are
managed better. What
is "small" and where is
the end? Well, viability is the limit. The
argument that smaller
state doesn't solve the problem of backwardness because the cause for
lack of development is corruption is not valid. There is no
society in this world without some kind of corruption.
There will always be self-centered and corrupt people in any society.
However,
the problem here is that the local leaders are relegated to puppets by
powerful state politicians. While
European Union is
consolidating, we still see separatist movements in Balkans, which
looks like an odd thing. However, there is a very good
point, that is, each people want to be part of the European Union as an
independent state with their identity intact. It is same here in the
Indian Union. Nobody is interested in separating from the Indian Union.
However, for reasons like the preservation of cultural and linguistic
identity, better administration etc., the smaller states are advocated.
Nobody disputes the fact that the smaller states have a chance to do
well economically. Most of the large states/countries are among the
backward/underdeveloped states in the world. (Only glaring exception
being the United States, which is an entirely different kind of beast
that
cannot be dragged into this discussion at all. One main reason being it
is
a country of immigrants, while the discussion is around densely
populated
old civilizations that don't have incentives/reasons for immigration.
Nobody
from US or Europe wants to go to Medak looking for green pastures or
gold!). Smaller
state doesn't
guarantee success. However, compared to a part in a larger
state,
the smaller state fares better. And if it is not successfull no body
else than itself is thier to blame. Moreover for the smaller states the
funding are more directed towards the region than coming from larger
states, which many a times have varying degree of other priorities. Hence
to my view the sole
criteria for the new states formation should be taken on case by case
basis considering the following points.. 1)
population - each
state should have a basic minimum number like 20 million
population 2)
linguistic
differences,
3) cultural
diversity, 4)
economy, 5)
geography, and 6)
sustainability The
growing chorus for
splitting of bigger states in the wake of
Centre's decision on Telangana has once again thrown open the debate
whether smaller states are better.
Citing the example of the newer and smaller states, several
leaders and political experts said that their stories could be best
described as a "mixed bag" and there is no fool-proof evidence that
size is essentially linked to good governance and development.However,
they felt that if the demand is historic and there is a broad
popular consensus then there is "no harm" in carving out a new state.
Political thinker Achin Vanaik from
Delhi University said there can not be a generalisation on this issue
and case by case study is needed for such decisions.
"The creation of new states had a good case upto the 1960s,
when it led to development of backward region, for example Haryana and Himachal
Pradesh that were carved out
from Punjab have been examples that
vindicate the case of smaller states," Vanaik said.
"But", he said, "the splitting-up of Assam in seven smaller states in
the 1970s could not be termed as a successful experiment as most of
these states are dependent on budgetary allowances from the Centre and
are also grappling with insurgency." Argument
against smaller states Highly
expensive propotition
as whole new setups are required. Inter
state rivalary create
more bitter environment and hence society which is dangerous for the
Indian unity and Sovereignity. It
is the birthchild of only
certain politician to get themself in the limelight and ultimately in
power who are sidelined and defeated by people. |
r"We
are not opposed to smaller states.
However, new states should be
need-based, created for better and focused administration and not to
adjust some political parties who have failed to gain a foothold in the
bigger states," Ahmed said.
Mentioning the case of Jharkhand that was carved out of Bihar
in 2000 along with Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh which were created
after the bifurcation of UP and MP respectively, he said the experience
has not been good.
Agreeing with him, another political scientist Valerian Rodrigues from
JNU said, "It was a failed experiment".
"It's been nine years since mineral-rich Jharkhand split up
from Bihar, but the development aspirations of its people dashed due to
unbridled ambitions of the politicians," Rodrigues said.
But the political scientist favoured the creation of Telangana. "The
formation of new states should be based on four criteria --