THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

GURGAON
NATIONAL ECONOMIC PLANNING

A REPORT

ON

India should divide into large states for better government

and development
(Motion)
Submitted to:

Mr. ANKIT GARAI

Submitted by: THE ICONS
SAIKAT BISWAS
GAURAV SAVARWAL
GAURAV GUPTA
LALIT KUMAR
MANOJ SIGAH
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this as an opportunity to thank with bottom of my hear all those without whom the journey

of doing my project would not have been as pleasant as it has been to me. Working on my

project was a constant learning experience with all sweat and tear which was its due but not

without being richly stimulating experience of life time.

I am very thankful to Prof. Pankaj Upadayay for giving me their valuable advice and guidance

towards fulfillment of the project

For any project to be a success, it is very important to get the right guidance and support which I

got from my Mentor- Mr. Anoop Singh Bhopari I express my gratitude to my Mentor guide

for inspiring me throughout the project.

I want to express my deep gratitude to our institution IIPM ,GURGAON, for giving me the

opportunity to undertake this project and enhance my knowledge.

Finally I would like to convey my heartiest thanks to all my well wishers for their blessing and

co-operation throughout my study. They boosted me up every day to work with a new and high

spirit.
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4
Research Methodology................................................................................................................................8
Tabulation...................................................................................................................................................8
Data view.....................................................................................................................................................9
History of India before independence.....................................................................................................9
Spilt of the India aft er independence ti ll present and how these splitti ng of states are
aff ected...............................................................................................................................................15
Suggestion which of all the states should be divided into larger state..................................................19
Prove of the point with the live example “why these states should be divide into large for better
governance and development...............................................................................................................21
Conclusion of above four and the current status of India.....................................................................25
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................32
Introduction

At the time of independence, in 1947, India chose to be a federal state, with significant power to the state
governments in response to the diversity in socio-economic conditions across the country. Over the last
60 years, the number of states and their boundaries has changed frequently and India now has 35 states
and union territories, with strident demands for more still coming in .

Now India has 35 states and union territories, but according to the population of the India
,number of states should be around [Link] we see the current scenario of the India, It is the seventh-
largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and
the most populous democracy in the world.

States and territories of India are doing well but instead of this many of states are large in its size
and according to its population and some part of these states are not doing well .their progress is
like nothing. As this report also saying that India should also divided into smaller states for its
better governance and its better development. India also proves this point that after splitting up
into smaller states its growth increases. For proving this the best example is of three states which
were divided in the year 2000,

1. Of the six new states formed out of the three older states, five have grown at a rate greater than the
national average – MP being the only exception.

2. All the smaller states (Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh) growth rates increased by a range of
4 to 6 percentage points post reorganization, far higher than the 2 percentage point for India as a whole.

3. UP and Bihar have also had significant increases in growth rates (about 3 and 3.7 percentage points
respectively).

1993-94 to 2001-02 to Percent Point

2000 -01 2008 -09 Change post re-
organization
India 6.2% 8.1% + 2.0%
Up 3.9% 5.8% +1.9%
Uttarakand 3.1% 9% +5.9%
Up+ uttarakand 3.8% 6.1% +2.2%
Mp 5.1% 4.7% -o.4%
Chhattisgarh 1.6% 7.9% +6.3%
Mp + chattisgarh 4.1% 5.6% +1.5%
Bihar 4.8% 8.5% +3.7%
Jharkhand 4.6% 8.7% +4.1%
 Bihar + Jharkhand 4.8% 8.6% +3.8%

From the limited data that is available, therefore we can postulate that when states break up, the
smaller regions have the capability to work on their strengths and correct their weaknesses in a
more efficient and cohesive manner towards higher growth. At the same time smaller states may
also be more susceptible to other forces that can cause systemic disruptions.

We find that among all the cases studied, there is no evidence to suggest that breaking a state
into smaller states has a directly harmful impact on the economy. The exception being the
possibility of MP. We pursue the matter further by studying the experiences of the districts that
form the border between Chhattisgarh and the new MP in the next section.

Giving the example of his own state, the CM said that the growth rate of Uttarakhand was at 2.9
per cent at the time of its inception, but now it is growing at 9.31 per cent and the state stands at
third place in country in terms of growth.

The per capita income of the state has risen from 14,000 per person to 42,000 per person which
is higher than the national average, he added.

Now the india is growing at 8%. Its contribution into world economy after 1991 are:

India’s contribution to the world economy

Since 1990 India has emerged as one of the wealthiest economies in the developing world;
during this period, the economy has grown constantly, but with a few major setbacks. This has
been accompanied by increases in life expectancy, literacy rates and food security.

Government Intervention

 Major improvements in educational standards across India.

 In the late 80’s the government led by Rajiv Gandhi eased restrictions on capacity
expansion for incumbents, removed price controls and reduced corporate taxes. While
this increased the rate of growth, it also led to high fiscal deficits and a worsening current
account.

Public Receipts

 The tax reforms, initiated in 1991:

(a) Reducing the rates of individual and corporate income taxes, excises, customs and
making it more progressive

(b) Reducing exemptions and concessions .

 (c) Simplification of laws and procedures.

(d) Introduction of PAN to track monetary transactions.

 Tax receipts of Centre & State amount to approximately 18% of national GDP.

 limited resources of Government affect its ability to pay fair wages to public servants.
This may well be the cause of endemic corruption at all levels of government.

Physical Infrastructure

 India's low spending on power, construction, transportation, telecommunications and real

estate, at $31 billion or 6% of GDP in 2002 had prevented India from sustaining higher
growth rates.

 India holds 2nd position in the world in roadways' construction, more than twice that of
China.

Agriculture Sector

 Agriculture & allied sectors like forestry logging and fishing accounted for 16.6% of the
GDP in 2007.

 2nd largest world-wide in farm output.

Industry

 India is 14th in the world in Factory Output.

 Account for 27.6% of the GDP and employ 17% of the total workforce.

According to Forbes Global2000 ranking for 2008, Five leading companies are:

World Rank Company Market valve(billion $)

193 Reliance Industry 89.29

198 ONGC 54.11
219 SBI 33.29
303 Indian Oil Corporation 16.36
374 ICICI Bank 29.85

Service Sector
  India is 15th in service output.

 It provides employment to 23% of work force, and it is growing fast, growth rate 7.5% in
1991–2000 up from 4.5% in 1951–80.

 Contribution of IT to GDP increased to 4.8 % in 2005-06 and is projected to increase to

7% of GDP in 2008.

India’s balance of payment

Research Methodology

Research problems :- In search about the whole world and India to get the deep knowledge
and proper statistics.

Data source: - Primary data and secondary data.

Research approach: - Search approach

Research methodology: - Exploratory method

Primary data : Interviews

Tabulation
After collecting all the information related to topic we filter the information according to the five
categories :

1. History of India before independence and about the USSR.

2. Spilt of the India after independence till present and how these splitting of states are
suffered.
3. Suggestion why the states should not be divided.
4. Prove of the point with the live example “why these states should be divide into larger
for better governance and development.
5. Conclusion of above four and the current status of India.

Every research related to the topic is done through the internet and by taking the personal
interview of people and after taking the suggestion from our professors.
Data view
As we already discussed above the five categories of division of our data so we frame our whole
data in the same manner. And the detailed of the collected data is taking from the following
topics or data.

History of India before independence

Pre – 1757 : India ruled by various warlords, clans and empires.

 Rich in “exotic” goods designed by Europeans

 Extensive world trade.
 In 1700 , it is estimated that the amount of world income controlled by india was early as
great as all of Europe.

1757 – 1947: colonial era

 The great wealth and natural resources entices Britain to colonize much of India.
 exploits the country’s resources.
 Britain makes some positive contributions to India, however. The develop roads, institute
standard currency, poverty rights, capital markets, transportation and communication
networks. They also emphasize education.

The All India Muslim League (AIML) was formed in Dhaka in 1906 by Muslims who were
suspicious of the Hindu-majority Indian National Congress. They complained that Muslim
members did not have the same rights as Hindu members. A number of different scenarios were
proposed at various times. Among the first to make the demand for a separate state was the
writer/philosopher Allama Iqbal, who, in his presidential address to the 1930 convention of the
Muslim League said that a separate nation for Muslims was essential in an otherwise Hindu-
dominated subcontinent.

The Sindh Assembly passed a resolution making it a demand in 1935. Iqbal, Jouhar and others
then worked hard to draft Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had till then worked for Hindu-Muslim
unity, to lead the movement for this new nation. By 1930, Jinnah had begun to despair of the fate
of minority communities in a united India and had begun to argue that mainstream parties such
as the Congress, of which he was once a member, were insensitive to Muslim interests.

The 1932 communal award which seemed to threaten the position of Muslims in Hindu-majority
provinces catalyzed the resurgence of the Muslim League, with Jinnah as its leader. However,
the League did not do well in the 1937 provincial elections, demonstrating the hold of the
conservative and local forces at the time.
1932–1942

In 1940, Jinnah made a statement at the Lahore conference that seemed to call for a separate
Muslim 'nation'. However, the document was ambiguous and opaque, and did not evoke a
Muslim nation in a territorial sense. This idea, though, was taken up by Muslims and particularly
Hindus in the next seven years, and given a more territorial element. All Muslim political parties
including the Khaksar Tehrik of Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of [Link] was
arrested on 19 March 1940.

Hindu organizations such as the Hindu Mahasabha, though against the division of the country,
were also insisting on the same chasm between Hindus and Muslims. In 1937 at the 19th session
of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmadabad, Veer Savarkar in his presidential address asserted.

“ India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the
contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims. ”
1942–1946
Viceroy Lord Mountbatten of Burma with a countdown calendar to the Transfer of Power in the
background

Until 1946, the definition of Pakistan as demanded by the League was so flexible that it could
have been interpreted as a sovereign nation Pakistan, or as a member of a confederated India.

Some historians believe Jinnah intended to use the threat of partition as a bargaining chip in
order to gain more independence for the Muslim dominated provinces in the west from the
Hindu dominated center.

Other historians claim that Jinnah's real vision was for a Pakistan that extended into Hindu-
majority areas of India, by demanding the inclusion of the East of Punjab and West of Bengal,
including Assam, a Hindu-majority country. Jinnah also fought hard for the annexation of
Kashmir, a Muslim majority state with Hindu ruler; and the accession of Hyderabad and
Junagadh, Hindu-majority states with Muslim rulers.

The British colonial administration did not directly rule all of "India". There were several
different political arrangements in existence: Provinces were ruled directly and the Princely
States with varying legal arrangements, like paramountcy.
History of USSR
860-1698

The House of Rurik.

The period of the Kievan Russian Empire, destroyed by the Mongol-Tatars,
and the rise of Moscovy to recentralize the demolished empire.

1698-1917

The House of Romanov.

Peter's Westernization of Russia culminated in the destruction of the autocracy by the Socialist
Revolution of 1917.

1917-1991

The Communist Party maintained the Empire as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The USSR fell in 1991 and dissolved into 15 nations.

1991-Present

With the disintegration of the USSR in December of 1991

Russia has set out on a new road to democracy and a market economy.

The Soviet Union arose from The October Revolution which overthrew the Russian Provisional
Government and gave the power to the Soviet party dominated by Bolsheviks. It was followed
by the Russian Civil War. The Soviet Union is traditionally considered to be the successor of the
Russian Empire. The last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, ruled until March 1917 and was executed
with his family the following year. From 1917 to 1922, the predecessor to the Soviet Union was
the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic which was an independent country as well as
other Soviet republics at the time. The Soviet Union was officially established in December 1922
as the union of the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian Soviet republics ruled by
Bolshevik parties.

After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States engaged in a Cold War. Each tried to
increase its worldwide influence. The Soviet Union extended its power over much of Eastern
Europe and even to Cuba. By the 1960s, it appeared that communism was permanently
established in these regions. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet Union’s Communist
leadership kept tight control over the Soviet people. The Soviet Union and the United States of
America were the two world superpowers that dominated the global agenda of economic policy,
foreign affairs, military operations, cultural exchange, scientific advancements including the
pioneering of space exploration, and sports.
The USA was a capitalist country and the USSR was a communist country so there was much
disagreement in policy, so mistrust grew between them. The USA feared communism, as it went
against their policy of competition in business, and freedom of speech. The USSR also
mistrusted the USA as they felt that the USA wanted to destroy them . These conflicting
ideologies were key in the decent into the cold war.

Background to the Cold War

Superpowers
 After ww2 the USA and the USSR emerged as the only two superpowers, this was due to
geographical size, population, and military power.
 They were easily the most powerful countries in the world.
 They had the capabilities for nuclear war.
 They had different ideologies and ended up leading opposing sets of countries against
each other.
 during the second world war the USA and the USSR were allies against Nazi Germany
however tensions between them were already rising.

Stalin’s distrust of the west

 The USSR suffered greatly in the war, losing 26 million soldiers in fighting. And he
believed that this was down to the west.
 He suspected that the west had been encouraging the Hitler in the 1930s to destroy the
USSR
 Brittan and France had turned down alliance in 1938
 The west had waited until 1938 when the Nazis invaded France, before they helped fight
off the Nazis.
 Stalin suspected that the west would have been happy if the USSR had destroyed
themselves in the fighting.
In February 1945 the war in europe was almost over, and there were peace talks held in Yalta to
decide how to divide Germany, and end the war.
The leaders were –
 UK – Churchill
 USA – Roosevelt
  USSR – Stalin
At Yalta relationships were reasonable and they had been able to reach many decisions, without
distrust and paranoia getting in the way.

Agreements
 Germany was to be divided into four zones, between Brittan, France, the USA, and the
USSR.

 Berlin was to be divided similarly, as is in the east of Germany, and was deemed too
important to be ruled by only one power.

 Stalin promised free elections in the eastern European countries that the soviet union had
enter to liberate them from the Nazis.

 The war still continued in Japan, and the USSR promised to declare war on them within
three months of Germanys defeat.

 The borders of Germany, and Poland would be rearranged

Disagreements
 The reparations which were to be paid. The USSR wanted them to be high, and to totally
cripple the economy, as their army had suffered greatly in the fighting, and many lives
had been lost. The USA disagreed, as they believed that this high sum would only anger
the Germans, as the treaty of Versailles had.

 There were also disagreements over Poland, as Stalin wanted to alter the elections, but
the USA persuaded him to allow free elections.

The borders of Poland were also caused disagreement, so were postponed until the next
conference.

Economic Profile of Russia

Russia, the largest country in the world has a market based economy which is ranked the twelfth
largest in the world. The rapid privatization of the Russian industry except for some fields like
the energy and the defense domain was witnessed in the 90's economic reforms. And the
economy in the country showed a shift from the state controlled one to a market based economy.
Due to this change of economic set up, the Russian economy faced a collapse and resulted in a
big financial crisis in the 1998. But the country stood up higher than ever after managing the
crisis very well and ten years after the crisis, Russia has reached the "unprecedented
macroeconomic stability" as quoted by the World Bank.
Different Economic Sector of Russia

The economy of Russia mainly depends on manufacturing industry, agriculture, services and
trade for its revenue.

Agriculture Sector Role in Russia Economy

About 10 percent of the labor force in the country is involved in agricultural field and the related
sectors which credit almost 5 percent of the total GDP for the country. The modern technologies
incorporated into agriculture brought about improvement in the field after the decline during the
1998 crisis and slowly russia transformed itself into a grain exporter from the grain importer
status which it carried until a few decades back. Livestock and grains are the main agricultural
products of the country and the northern region of the country is centered over livestock farming
while the southern region concentrates on food grain production.

Russian Industries & Russia Economy

About 32 percent of the Russian population is employed in the industrial sector which
contributes around 34.8 percent of the total GDP of the country. The defense industry which
accounts for about one fifth of the manufacturing jobs in Russia ranks second in conventional
arm exporting. The defense sector also employs more than 2.65 million people of the country.
Russia also has other manufacturing industries which are well developed, like the chemical
industries, automobile industries and the electronic industries. Steel, aluminum and nickel
industry are some of the important metal industries in Russia that also serve as a major source of
income. The oil and gas production and food processing industry also contributes generously
towards Russian GDP.

Russian Service Sectors: Role in Russian Economy

The service sector dominates the Russian economy contributing slightly more than 58 percent of
the total GDP with 45 million people working in this sector. The people employed in various
service industries of Russian are growing each year though those in Agriculture and
manufacturing sector are on a slight decline. Retail market, tourism and advertisement are some
of the major service industries in Russia which is also the pillar of the Russian Society.

Russian Trades, Natural Resources Contribution in Russian Economy

The presence of very rich deposits of natural resources in the country has helped a lot in the
economic improvement and in the trade related income of the country. More than three quarters
of the export from the country are from the country's processed or unprocessed natural resources
like oil, natural gas, petroleum, timber and coal. The country also exports steel and aluminum
and is ranked third in the world for it. Petroleum, petroleum products, food grains, chemicals and
defense arms are some of the other export goods of the country. The trade of the country was
slowed down greatly due to the world wide recession in the 2008 and the annual trade related
income of the country fell down to 259 billion US dollars in 2009 from 471.5 billion dollars the
previous year.

The major export partner of Russia is Netherlands which takes up more than 11 percent of the
russian commodities and provides a market for it. Italy and Germany comes next with Italy
purchasing slightly more of Russian commodities for their domestic use, as a raw material for
industry and for re-export purpose. Other export partners of Russia are Turkey, Ukraine and
Poland.
The main imported items of Russia are pharmaceuticals, automobiles, machineries, meat and
several other consumer products. The import into the country also fell down in the year 2009 by
a value of 95 billion US dollars when compared with the year 2008.

Current Russian Economy

The GDP (Purchase Power parity) of Russian has decreased and have reached 2.103 trillion US
dollars from the 2.298 US dollars in 2008, though it still enjoys the title of one of the largest
economy in terms of PPP. The GDP growth rate which was almost steady up to the year 2008
faced a sudden decrease of 8.5 % in 2009 and the per capita GDP of the country in the year was
estimated to be 15,100 dollars.

Almost 75.8 million people in the country make up its labor force with the main concentration on
the service sector. The unemployment rate and the population beneath the poverty line is
comparatively high in the country with about 11 million people without a proper source of
income and about 16 percent people in Russia still considered to be under the line of poverty.

Spilt of the India after independence till present and how these
splitting of states are benefited .

India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was
characterized by extensive regulation, protectionism, public ownership, pervasive corruption and
slow growth. Since 1991, continuing economic liberalization has moved the country toward a
market-based economy. A revival of economic reforms and better economic policy in first
decade of the 21st century accelerated India's economic growth rate. In recent years, Indian cities
have continued to liberalize business regulations.

There are positive outcome of the division like Punjab, Haryana, HP, Uttrakhand, Gujarat, where
they have grown faster than their parent state

Results in the annualized growth trends:

1. Of the six new states formed out of the three older states, five have grown at a rate greater than
the national average – MP being the only exception.

2. All the smaller states (Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh) growth rates increased by a
range of 4 to 6 percentage points post reorganization, far higher than the 2 percentage point for
India as a whole.

3. UP and Bihar have also had significant increases in growth rates (about 3 and 3.7 percentage
points respectively).

1993-94 to 2000 -01 2001-02 to 2008 -09 Percent Point Change

post re-organi- sation
India 6.2% 8.1% + 2.0%
Up 3.9% 5.8% +1.9%
Uttarakand 3.1% 9% +5.9%
Up+ Uttarakand 3.8% 6.1% +2.2%
Mp 5.1% 4.7% -o.4%
Chhattisgarh 1.6% 7.9% +6.3%
Mp + Chhattisgarh 4.1% 5.6% +1.5%
Bihar 4.8% 8.5% +3.7%
Jharkhand 4.6% 8.7% +4.1%
Bihar + Jharkhand 4.8% 8.6% +3.8%

From the limited data that is available, therefore we can postulate that when states break up, the
smaller regions have the capability to work on their strengths and correct their weaknesses in a
more efficient and cohesive manner towards higher growth. At the same time smaller states may
also be more susceptible to other forces that can cause systemic disruptions.

We find that among all the cases studied, there is no evidence to suggest that breaking a state
into smaller states has a directly harmful impact on the economy. The exception being the
possibility of MP. We pursue the matter further by studying the experiences of the districts that
form the border between Chhattisgarh and the new MP in the next section.

Giving the example of his own state, the CM said that the growth rate of Uttarakhand was at 2.9
per cent at the time of its inception, but now it is growing at 9.31 per cent and the state stands at
third place in country in terms of growth.

The per capita income of the state has risen from 14,000 per person to 42,000 per person which
is higher than the national average, he added

People of Haryana, which was carved out of Punjab , 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, spending large amounts of money in an
attempt to get justice.

People in western UP see for themselves how their neighbors in Haryana and Uttarakhand 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

Chhattisgarh, the 26th state of the Indian Union came into existence on November 1,2000.
Cultivable land area is 58.81 lakh ha & forest land area is 60.76 lakh ha with more than 2.07
crore population. About 80 percent of the population in the state is engaged in agriculture and 43
percent of the entire arable land is under cultivation. Paddy is the principal crop and the central
plains of Chhattisgarh are known as rice bowl of central India. Other major crops are coarse
grains, wheat, maize, groundnut, pulses and oilseeds.

Youth interests towards agriculture in Chhattisgarh

As Chhattisgarh is developing in the area of Banking, Services, Industries and Business sector,
there is also an area of agriculture where youth should take interests and they should find
opportunities in it. There are number of opportunities in agriculture by which youngsters can find
a better way for their career. A survey has been made to find youth interests towards the
agriculture in Chhattisgarh by taking 50 people randomly from several parts of Chhattisgarh like
Raipur, Bilaspur, Durg, Dhamtari, Champa and [Link] who were selected for the survey
regarding same are from different categories of jobs available in Chhattisgarh including
agriculture.
 1947 the year when it all started as soon as India got independence we were divided into 2
separate countries..The native states and agencies became effectively independent. Some of them
were allowed to decide whether to accede to (merge with) India or Pakistan. The process was
essentially complete when the new Constitution took effect, less than 2 1/2 years later. On this
date, Bengal split into West Bengal (India) and East Pakistan; Punjab split into East Punjab
(India) and West Punjab (Pakistan) , Jammu and Kashmir state became part of India by the
signing of the Instrument of Accession and so did many [Link] also ceded its loges from
Bombay, madras and Orissa..

 1948: Native states merged to form seven unions: Greater Rajasthan, Madhya Bharat , Patiala
and East Punjab States Union, Saurashtra , Travancore-Cochin, United Deccan State, and
Vindhya Pradesh.
In the year 1948 and 1949 the seven unions started to break into various states…
.
 1950: Name of United Provinces changed to Uttar Pradesh.
 1950: The Constitution took effect. The divisions of India were classified as follows: nine
Part A states, formerly governors' provinces; eight Part B states, formerly native states or groups
of states; ten Part C states, formerly chief commissioners' provinces; and two Part D territories.
Name of East Punjab state changed to Punjab (India). Greater Rajasthan union became Rajasthan
state.

 1950: Sikkim became an Indian protectorate.

 1951: Territory in Assam around Dewangiri ceded to Bhutan.

.
 1953: Andhra Part A state split from Madras.

 1956: France ceded Pondicherry to India as a union territory.

 1956: Status of Tripura changed from centrally administered area to union territory.

 1956: States Reorganization Act took effect. The distinction among Part A, B, and C states
was abolished. States were reorganized largely on linguistic lines. Andhra Pradesh state formed
by merging Andhra with part of Hyderabad. Bombay state formed by merging Kutch, Saurashtra
union, and part of former Bombay state. Status of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh changed from
states to union territories. Kerala state formed by merging most of Travancore-Cochin union and
part of Madras. Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands union territory split from Madras.
Madhya Pradesh state formed by merging Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh union, all of Madhya
Bharat union but one exclave, most of former Madhya Pradesh, and an exclave of Rajasthan.
Madras state lost large areas to other states, but gained part of Travancore-Cochin union. Mysore
state formed by merging Coorg and former Mysore states and parts of Bombay, Hyderabad, and
Madras states. Punjab state formed by merging Patiala and East Punjab States Union and former
Punjab. Rajasthan state gained Ajmer state and small parts of Bombay and Madhya Bharat
union, and lost an exclave to Madhya Pradesh. 8,177 sq. km. transferred from Bihar state to West
Bengal.

 1960: Madras state ceded 573 sq. km. of territory to Andhra Pradesh in exchange for another
territory of 1,062 sq. km. Bombay state split into Gujarat and Maharashtra by the Bombay
Reorganization Act. Maharashtra also incorporated part of Madhya Pradesh and all that remained
of Hyderabad state.
 1961: Dadra and Nagar Haveli, formerly a Portuguese colony and independent since 1954-07,
merged with India as a union territory.

 1966: By the Punjab Reorganization Act, Punjab state split into a smaller Punjab state, a new
Haryana state and Chandigarh union territory, and a section which merged with Himachal
Pradesh. Chandigarh, formerly capital of Punjab, became joint capital of Punjab and Haryana
states and its own union territory.

 1971: Status of Himachal Pradesh changed from union territory to state.

 1972: Arunachal Pradesh union territory, Meghalaya state, and Mizoram union territory split
from Assam; capital of Assam moved from Shillong to Dispur. Before the split, Arunachal
Pradesh had been the North East Frontier Agency, and Mizoram had been the Lushai Hills
district.

 1972: Status of Manipur and Tripura changed from union territories to states.

 1972: A new line of control between India and Pakistan in the area of Jammu and Kashmir
took effect.

 1992: Official name of Delhi union territory changed to National Capital Territory.

 1999: Assembly of West Bengal resolved to change the name of the state to Bangla, but this
change doesn't take effect until passed by Indian Parliament.

 2000: Chhattisgarh state split from Madhya Pradesh (former FIPS code IN15), as provided by
the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Bill, which passed on 2000-07-31. Chhattisgarh comprises
sixteen districts of Madhya Pradesh: Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Dhamtari, Durg, Janjgir,
Jashpur, Kanker, Kawardha, Korba, Koriya, Mahasamund, Raigarh, Raipur, Rajnandgaon, and
Surguja.

 2000: Uttaranchal state split from Uttar Pradesh (former FIPS code IN27), as provided by the
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill, which passed on 2000-08-01. Uttaranchal comprises thirteen
districts of Uttar Pradesh: Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehradun, Haridwar,
Nainital, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Rudra Prayag, Tehri Garhwal, Udham Singh Nagar, and
Uttarkashi.

 2000: Jharkhand state split from Bihar (former FIPS code IN04), as provided by the Bihar
Reorganization Bill, which passed on 2000-08-02. Jharkhand comprises eighteen districts of
Bihar: Bokaro, Chatra, Deoghar, Dhanbad, Dumka, East Singbhum, Garhwa, Giridih, Godda,
Gumla, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Lohardaga, Pakur, Palamau, Ranchi, Sahibganj, and West
Singbhum. Ranchi, formerly the summer capital of Bihar, became the capital of Jharkhand.

 2001: Name of the capital of West Bengal changed from Calcutta to Kolkata.
 2006: Name of Pondicherry union territory changed to Puducherry.
 2007: Name of Uttaranchal state changed to Uttarakhand.

This is the Indian history of how a country was divided into various states and territory…since
1947

Suggestion which of all the states should not be divided. WHY?

Now just 2 prove the point that large states are not better governed we just take through a quick
run of the history of some big states of India when compared to smaller ones .By comparing
these 2 differently sized states on the basis of…. crime rate which implies that how safe is it to
live in a that society. Secondly on the basis of poverty rate as it is said that to know the condition
of the state just look the poor side of the state and lastly on the basis of literacy rate as only the
educated people makes a state a wealthy one.

Maharashtra As per the 2001 census, Maharashtra has a population of 96,752,247 inhabitants
making it the second most populous state in India, and the second most populous country
subdivision in existence, and third ever after the Russian SFSR of the former Soviet Union. The
Marathi-speaking population of Maharashtra numbers 62,481,681 according to the 2001 census.
This is a reflection of the cosmopolitan nature of the state. Only eleven countries of the world
have a population greater than Maharashtra. Its density is 322.5 inhabitants per square kilometer.
Its growth rate between 1991–2001 was pegged at 22.57%.

Crime rate in Maharashtra has been increasing “During 2005-08, Maharashtra registered 7,
80,765 cases under the Indian Penal Code which is the highest number in the country

Poverty rate 30.7%

Literacy rate 77.6%

Uttar Pradesh….. Often referred to as U.P.A state located in the northern part of India.
With a population of over 190 million people, it is India's most populous state, as well as the
world's most populous sub-national entity. Were it a nation in its own right, Uttar Pradesh would
be the world's sixth most populous country.

Crime rate 12.1% of total violent crimes in India

Poverty 31.15

Literacy rate 61.6% 

Rajasthan is the largest state of the India by area. Punjab to the north. Rajasthan covers an area
of 132,150 sq mi or 342,239 km². The proportion of the state's total area to the total area of the country
is 10.41 per cent. With a population of 56,473,122 (8th)

Poverty rate 15.28%

Literacy rate 68%

Now let’s talk about smaller states….

Punjab…
After the partition of India in 1947, the Punjab province of British India was divided between
India and Pakistan. The Indian Punjab was divided in 1966 with the formation of the new states
of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well as the current state of Punjab. With the area of 50362
km².punjab is d biggest exporter of wheat.

Literacy rate 74%

Crime rate 6.3% of India violent cases

Kerala…
Kerala is a state in the south-western part of India. It was created on 1 November 1956, with the
passing of the States Reorganization Act bringing together the areas where Malayalam was the
dominant language. The state has an area of 38,863 km2 (15,005 sq mi) being 1 of d smallest
state of India.

GSDP growth (9.2% in 2004–2005 and 7.4% in 2003–2004)

Literacy rate 94.59%

Poverty rate 9.4% as 2000-01

Now as we can see from the above comparison that as the smaller states have better literacy rate
then compared to the bigger states and are easy to be controlled in terms of law and order….

Prove of the point with the live example “why these states should be divide
into larger for better governance and development”.

Creation of small states on the basis of administration may be considered necessary for the sake
of faster growth, smooth administration and quickest execution of policy framed by the
government and also the best monitoring of the plan and policy executed at the ground level. But
what is the guarantee that small states will function properly and there will be all round
development. There are still many states like Goa, Arunachal Pradesh,Sikkim, Mizorem,
Jharkhand, Chattishgarh etc where no sign of development or growth is visible because entire
energy is lost in change of government. State government is too small to be stable. There are
many tiny political parties and groups which have got no actual party manifesto or plan to do
work. There is more dirty politics and tug of war for power (and the money they earn through
power) among politicians of various colour and group. Democracy is meant for people but in fact
Government in these smaller states is for political party leaders, by the leaders and of the leaders.
So far as the smooth functioning and monitoring of policies and real development is concerned,
we have for this purpose already in place a reliable set up called as District administration. To
monitor three or four districts there is office of commissioner and then comes state
administration. Similar structures are already built up by our constitution makers and forefathers
for police department as also for judiciary to ensure quality functioning.

But if head of the states fail to do their duty, fail to monitor the progress of every district and
indulge in cheap party politics to serve their vested interest, there is no question of development
taking place. Smaller political parties may be dominated by local musclemen or local goodas and
they may also come to power. If member in cabinet is too small, person like Madhu Koda can
manage the cabinet as per their whims and fancies, play with government fund and become
owner of property worth Rs4000/ crores in two years of regime.

And when ultimately such rulers fail to please the general mass and start facing the movement of
common men in revolt they have a tendency to blame the centre. If politics of caste and
community, policy of reservation, policy of temples and masjid fail, ruling political party in the
state is habituated to blame the government posted at the centre. UP government headed by
Mayawati is now advocating for breaking of UP states just to deviate the minds of common men
from her failures and to trap the Congress Party in a different trap. She has forgotten that
Congress party has already submitted proposal in state assembly for carving out two smaller
states out of [Link] has been advocating policy of smaller states based on not local ambitions
but on local issues and comforts.

There should not arise any demand for small state if each district works honestly for the
development and execute the policy framed by state and central government on their respective
subjects enlisted in the constitution. Unfortunately district administration is not allowed to
function properly, seriously and honestly by dirty politicians of our country in general and of
smaller states in particular. Politicians in general have more faith in cheap agenda to earn cheap
popularity. They have an inclination towards making money and accumulating wealth for their
future generation and have a common tendency to become richest person in shortest period.

This is why it can be rightly said that it is immaterial whether states are small or large. As long
as people are corrupt one cannot dream of [Link] have in the recent past created small
state like Jharkhand carved out of Bihar and seen and experienced the pathetic position of
Jharkhand in the hands of Koda and all his predecessors. We have seen how UP and Bihar
governments in their states have created many new districts apparently for real development and
strict monitoring but really for deviating the minds of local people from real issues of non-
development and for sharing of ill-earned money .

As such solution of all problems lies in quality of people and not size of the state or district.
After all India is one and should remain as one and every one is duty bound to maintain federal
structure of the country. It will be dishonesty on the part of any politicians who play with the
sentiments and indulge in cheap politics on such sensitive issues as happened in Teleagana.

If however there is consensus on formation of small states it should be well discussed, planned
and structured jointly by all dominant political groups. There should be one national policy
defining the area and population fit for efficient state. Lastly government should take its own
initiative from time to time say in ten years to make new states based on language or any national
issue of development. It is not good that the responsible authorities sleep on such demand for
decades and when the movement becomes violent and uncontrollable they succumb to pressure
and agree to even improper, unacceptable and unjustified demand. Such hasty decision may
ultimately result in rising of similar many more demands and ultimately prove to be fatal and
endanger the unity and integrity of the country.

Madhya Prasad Birla was one of the four Birla brothers who built the Birla Empire.
Priyamvada’s will have the Birla’s stumped. She had given away her wealth to her chartered
accountant, R.S. Lodha. That gift also included her share in Pilani Investments. This company
has often been described; innocuously it would seem, as an investment company. The reality is
that it was how the Birla Empire’s economic interests were aligned between family members.
Through a maze of cross-holdings that ran across companies in the MP, BK, and AV Birla
Group, wealth was kept within the family. It had never occurred to the family that this way of
apportioning wealth would have a downside. And then R.S. Lodha, an outsider to the family, was
suddenly pitch forked into Pilani Investments. The Birla’s swore to keep him out. It was only
later that they realised that this model of managing family wealth had outlived its purpose. It
took them five years to unravel the fabric of cross-holdings.

If the Birla episode was a wake-up call for other Indian business families, the Ambani family
feud got them to smell the coffee. “After that episode most Indian business families started
thinking very seriously about having a roadmap for one, accommodating family members inside
business and two, entry of sons and daughters into the business,” says Salil Bhandari, managing
partner, BGJC, a Delhi-based consulting firm. Indian business families are different from those
in the West. In India, most business families are part of the old joint family system. It takes
professionals working with these enterprises years before they figure out key decision makers
within the family. That’s how amorphous it can get. “It’s a reflection of society. There is a lot of
support mechanism — from the family, relatives; this network of people. Brothers fight here too,
but this broader system makes sure that trivial issues do not lead to a break up of relationships,”
says Kavil Ramachandran, Thomas Schmidheiny Chair Professor of Family Business and Wealth
Management, Indian School of Business.
Global research shows that most business families can’t keep their flock together for more than
three generations. Ramachandran says that for India, no clear data exists but there is anecdotal
evidence. The Birla’s split after three generations, the Ambanis in the second generation, and the
Bajaj’s in the third generation. The Jindals have divided the business empire operationally;
though the control of the company is centralised in the hands of Savitri Jindal.

No wonder then that Indian business families are eager to avoid a script-less family drama. They
would much rather plan for the involvement of members in advance. “There is value destruction
when the news of a split catches the markets by surprise,” says P.M. Kumar, a family advisor of
the Bangalore-based infrastructure company GMR, which has been in the news for putting
together a family constitution. Kumar is now member of the GMR group holding board.

When Anil Ambani made his impassionate plea about ownership issues at the Reliance AGM on
August 3, 2005, Reliance Industries stock fell from Rs. 760 to Rs. 710 before recovering
somewhat. Even the Sensex dropped 80 points that day on this development. This is a defensive
reason at the best. A more important factor is that most business groups are fighting a war for
talent. Family members can be valuable resources for the group to tap. “Indian business houses
are competing with MNCs for talent. Family members, if properly groomed, can be a source of
advantage in their understanding and also commitment to the business,” says John Ward,
Clinical Professor of Family Enterprise & Co-Director of the Center for Family Enterprises,
Kellogg School of Management. The second key reason is that the members of the next
generation know their place in the enterprise. This prevents nasty surprises — for family
members as well as investors.

Counter-intuitive as it may sound, Indian families are involving the younger members of the
family right at the start of the discussion. The younger lot is more educated and open to concepts.
The older generation is often caught in situations where respect means saying nothing. Even
when they see something they don’t agree with, they say nothing. So the next generation must be
involved. They are anyway the people who will have to execute the plan and must be convinced,
otherwise it won’t work. If the participants are not agreeable to the plan, then even if it’s a legal
document, nobody will act on it.

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, it would be as
big as Rajasthan. 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.
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.

In 2000 Bihar was divided into 2 states, Jharkhand and Bihar, by the then BJP-led union
government as mentioned in the BJP manifesto. There has been a demand for a separate state
Mithilanchal on linguistic and cultural grounds for many decades.

Bihar e-Governance Services & Technologies (Best) and the Government of Bihar have initiated
a unique program to establish a centre of excellence called Bihar Knowledge Centre, a finishing
school to equip students with the latest skills and customized short-term training programs at an
affordable cost. The centre aims to attract every youth of the state to hone up their technical,
professional and soft skills and prepare them for the present industry requirement/job market.

Bihar being a comparatively less literate state in India, with women's literacy being only 33.57%,
is striving to climb as the government has established various educational institutions. At the
time of independence, women's literacy in Bihar was 4.22%. It is a pleasant surprise to find that
in spite of the meager investment on education in Bihar, specially compared to other Indian
states, the students have done very well.

In the case of Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh, the annualised growth rates increased by about 6
percentage points in both these states in the post-reorganization years. In Jharkhand as well, there
was an improvement, about 4 percentage points, significant but not as large as the other cases.
One interesting point to note is that, unlike in the cases of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh,
Jharkhand was a very large part of the original Bihar, and its separation would have had a
significant impact not only on itself but also on the new smaller Bihar. The improved
performance of Bihar in recent years has been recognized as a consequence of better governance
levels of the new administration. Given that many institutions and administration were not
functioning as desired earlier, a smaller state, with a narrower ambit, would have made it easier
for the new administration. Bihar, therefore, also gives credence to the argument that smaller
states are easier to govern well.
Conclusion of above four and the current status of India
India is the world’s third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), with a
gross domestic product (GDP) of US $4.042 trillion. It is the twelfth largest economy in the
world when measured in exchange-rate terms, with a GDP of US $930.0 billion (2007). It is the
second fastest growing major economy in the world, with a GDP growth rate of 9.2% at the end
of the second quarter of 2006–2007. However, due to its huge population, it has a per capita
income of $3400 at PPP and $714 at nominal. The World Bank has placed it in the list of low-
income economy. India’s economy is diverse, depending on agriculture, handicrafts, textile,
manufacturing, and a multitude of services.

The two-thirds of the Indian workforce depend directly or indirectly on agriculture. However, the
service sector also plays an important role in India’s economy. India’s major industries include
textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum,
machinery and software.
According to the International Monetary Fund, India's nominal GDP stood at US$1.3 trillion,
which makes it the eleventh-largest economy in the world, corresponding to a per capita income
of US$1,000. If purchasing power parity (PPP) is taken into account, India's economy is the
fourth largest in the world at US$3.6 trillion. The country ranks 142th in nominal GDP per capita
and 127th in GDP per capita at PPP. With an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.8% for the
past two decades, India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
India is a major exporter of highly-skilled workers in software, and financial services, Due to
continuous economic expansion, India has made significant progress in reducing its federal fiscal
deficit. However, the massive growth of population is the fundamental social, economic, and
environmental problem
The Economy of India is the eleventh largest in the world by nominal GDP and the fourth largest
by purchasing power parity (PPP). The country's per capita GDP (PPP) is $3,176 (IMF, 127th) in
2009. Following strong economic reforms from the socialist inspired economy of a post-
independence Indian nation, the country began to develop a fast-paced economic growth, as free
market principles were initiated in 1990 for international competition and foreign investment.
Economists predict that by 2020, India will be among the leading economies of the world. India's
top five trade partners are UAE, China, USA, Saudi Arabia and Germany.
India has the world's second largest labour force, with 467 million people. In terms of output, the
agricultural sector accounts for 28% of GDP; the service and industrial sectors make up 54% and
18% respectively
According to a 2011 PwC report, in terms of PPP, India's GDP will overtake that of Japan in
2011 and by 2045, India's GDP will surpass that of the United States. Additionally, over the next
four decades, India's average annual economic growth rate is expected to stand at about 8% and
therefore, it has the potential to be the world's fastest growing major economy over the period to
2050. The report also highlighted some of the key factors behind India's high economic growth
rate — young and rapidly growing working age population; growth of manufacturing sector due
to strong engineering skills and rising levels of education; and sustained growth of consumer
market due to rapidly growing middle class population. However, the World Bank suggests that
for India to achieve its economic potential, it must continue to focus on public sector reform,
transport infrastructure, agricultural and rural development, removal of labor regulations,
education, energy security, and public health and nutrition.
India – Creation of Larger States – Need of the Hour for INDIA
Larger states means Better Administration – Better Government – Participation of common man
in the administration
Creation of Larger state is one of the answers to reduce corruption or At least corruption amount.
Know – Why we should support the creation of small states?

In India, when congress declared that a new state Telangana will be created from AP.
Everyone in India started to discuss about the creation of small state, is creation of small state is
good for India? Or is creation of small state is bad for India?

Many Indians opposed this creation of small states in India by giving many reasons.
Following are the few reasons why people oppose the creation of small states.

• Creation of Larger state will divide India

• Creation of Larher state will take the India to pre British era

• Danger from China, china wants to divide India.

• Larger states in India are not making progress, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand

• Larger states Depend on Central Government

• what is the guarantee that larger states will make the progress?

• Politicians want to become the chief Minister or for the political power.

• Hatred Among state will increase

• Election vote should be counted who is defeated

Like these I am sure there are many more reasons to oppose creation of small states.

But I still I say and insist that Creation of small state is good for India.
Let’s understand and know why creation of small states is good for India?

Before Arrival of British people in India, there was no India. There were small kingdoms and big
kingdoms.

Today when we say India, there is feeling, My India, in olden times there was no such feeling,
and all those feelings were for their king or god. I will fight for my king, my God.
Today our army when fights it fights for the India, not for Prime Minister of India.
If Prime Minister of India will try to sell the India I am sure our army will not hesitate to arrest
the Prime Minister or any other leader.

Today nothing is superior to India, Olden times everything was king, if he wanted to donate his
kingdom to someone without asking anyone he donated that, and foolish population of that state
accepted that willingly as their all feelings were for their king.

If you read the history carefully you will understand, and find that xyz warrior died for his king,
today when any army man dies he dies for his mother land, for our India.

After the arrival of British People in India, they started the real formation of India,
under their influence and rule; we got the feeling of oneness among us, one India.

In olden times, before the arrival of British, for the people of small states for whom there king,
there caste and religion was more important, everyone always obeyed the family of king.

Remember the battle of Plessey, Robert Clive with the help of just 300 white soldiers won the
battle by giving bribe. And he won the battle by defeating more than 50000 Indian soldiers. They
surrendered because there army head said that I surrender, today if in India one head says that he
will surrender to small enemy , drop your weapons ,do you think Indian forces will drop the guns
or they will arrest that head and will fight for the nation.

In that times when outsiders came fought with the small states, that time neighboring states did
not help that state, when Arab people looted the small kingdoms and become the rulers of that
state.

Other kings kept enjoying their life and kingdom, they did not think about the safety of neighbor
state.

Today if Pakistan attacks on Kargil, we hear the voice from every corner of India that destroy
enemy. After 26/11 we heard voices from every corner of India to Punish Kasab, this never
happened in old Asian kingdoms.

So now I think you got the point that today when we create the small state, the feeling of one
India, oneness will not go. Creating small states will not take us back to the pre British era, as
before the arrival of India there was no India.

Mere creation of small state will not destroy the feeling of one ness ; the feeling of Indian on the
contrary will increase this feeling and love towards India and will reduce the feeling of love
towards their language or state. For small states love for India will grow.

And also small state will be created from the big state so there will be 2 states or more states
which will speak same language. In this way we will solve the problem of language also.

On the contrary in the future when states will become rich, there is a possibility and chance that
these big states will make their police force very strong and will demand the independence from
India.

When we divided India on basis of language we made mistake, and today you may not agree
with me, but when States will make progress and will make money and other states will not
make money, these money making states will demand the independence and because of finance
and big nature of state, they will do this very easily by purchasing arms from china.

So remember big states will divide the India in future not the small states. A small state is the
only one solution which can keep us integrated as India.

As India is divided on the basis of language, in one state all same language speaking population
is staying which encourages more love for state than India the hatred is rising as few states are
making progress and others come to this state, this gives rise to hatred.

This is not gift of small state. And we do not see language problem in small states, if media will
stop giving importance to this problem automatically this language problem will go to dustbin,
Anyways after 25 or 30 years I am sure they will not find language problem takers... Today
power of knowledge is with Indian youth and no one can make them fool for a long time.

Few Facts about our Indian states –

1. Uttar Pradesh with population of more than 167 million is bigger than Germany + France or
Russia, Pakistan

2. China, America, Brazil and Indonesia are the only few nations who are bigger than Uttar
Pradesh.

3. TamilNadu (62.2 million) is bigger than Britain and Italy

4. Andhra Pradesh (76.4 million) is little bigger than Germany and Vietnam

5. Bihar is bigger than Mexico

6. Maharashtra with 92.1 million is bigger state than Germany. Maharashtra has ten million more
than Germany.

7. Bengal is bigger than the Philippines

if the big states mean progress then why India has not made progress like America, Germany,
France or Hong Kong or England.
America, Hong Kong both were ruled by England just like India.
Do small states suffer? Not if one views Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

This shows that there is no guarantee that big state will make progress or small state will make
progress.
Remember it does not matter state is small or state is big, most important thing is who is our law
maker and how honest he is with his job and nation.

If law maker, politician is not good then small or big it does not matter, he will do the corruption
and he will take the wrong decisions.

When law maker, politician is corrupt no one can save the nation.

But when law maker is good he can take the small state to such heights that the small nation can
rule the world.

Once England ruled the world and today we can see the progress made by the USA or Hong
Kong or Taiwan.

Our democracy works like this - one head of the state, then other elected members, run the state
with the help of IAS officers and bureaucrats.

When the state is big, those officers and elected politicians, law makers are not able to watch
carefully every project and how the money is utilized by everyone in every project.

Today budget of Government is becoming so big that common people find it difficult to
understand, and even studied accountants find it very difficult to understand and find out the
mistakes.

If common man does not understand the budget How he can participate and keep watch on the
politician to stop the frauds and mistakes done by politician

When state is small, if any government employee or law maker or politician will do the fraud,
immediately it will show the effect on the other projects as it will become very difficult for that
chief minister to bring new funds or hide his black deeds.

Just take the example of classroom of 100 students and classroom of 25 students, so in this case
which classroom will be easy to manage and give the results.

Today as our states are big, many times villagers from remote places even find it difficult to
reach the place of district court, forget about the High court of state.

When small state will be created it will give easy access to high court.

Small state means small government, small budget, and small departments, very less chance to
show fingers on each other by saying that, that department is not doing the work so file is
pending.

Small states will create competition among each other; this competition will be with the same
mother tongue speaking language population.
Because of big nature of states today indirectly the law maker, politician has become the king of
that particular area.

Because of this honest people will rarely get chance to rule the state or to get elected.
Small states will not give chance to politician or law maker to hide his failure or fool the people
by saying that this time we have given funds to west or north, as small state means the
population will know in real what is happening in every part of his state.

Big states does not benefit towards saving money ,but the nature of big states help to waste the
money as well as it gives unlimited scope to do corruption which benefits to the law maker or
politician.

In small state if any politician will amass wealth, the people of that state can easily notice that
and will know how he is earning and making the money, this will help to expose the wrong
contracts and his hidden property.

Even Indian constitution has article 3 which favors and talks about the creation of new state. It
states that -
. Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and
conditions as it thinks fit.
If party who support the creation of small state does not win the election this does not mean that
the people of that district do not want separate state. The election is held to choose leader, MP or
MLA and they do not vote for the creation of state. Even if when there is not 100% voting how
can it become the will of that district?

Our constitution of India does not have this provision, to get the peoples vote to decide regarding
the creation of small state. The ball is, power is with the parliament.

Again I will come to the point that Small states will divide India, one of the best parts of our
Constitution is that the duties between state and central government are divided.
Central government is in charge of our army, naval and air force.

The heads of these forces do not report to the chief minister, further more brilliant clause, is that
our forces do not have common one head of all the forces.

This means we got 3 heads, Army head, Naval Head and Air Force Head, and all these 3 heads
report to the Prime Minister and President.

We do not have one head of all these 3 forces, if there is one head then he will become so
powerful that he can with the help of few states can form the new nation, but as we do not have
one head, army forces will not obey the head of the naval force, each one has their own ranking.
So when you say that small states will divide India, think again now?

When there is no money, no big budget, no big police force, and no big coastal guards how can
small state will become Independent and will think about waging war against India.
USA is smaller than India but they got more than fifty states.

Remember big states are good for political parties and corrupt leaders or uneducated leaders.
Big states are good for the government servants.

Our complete Indian working system has become rotten and dirty and these corrupt people have
become so rich and powerful that honest common man will not be able to fight with them and
win

We will need another civil war to repair this corrupt system or to repair this corrupt Indian
system we need creation of small states which will help us to break this nexus, friendship of
government servants and businessmen and politicians and political parties.

Today in India we got different political parties, but do we see any difference between their
political visions.

Every party has only one vision, win the election, get the chair and make money.
Regarding our political situation in India I am not dreamer, No politician will make changes in
this system, a system which makes them as well as their future generations the king of India.

To change this we need civil war in India or reforms like creation of small states which will give
chance to common Indian to know and understand how the chief minister and his office is
working. Larger state will give chance to participate in the administration of government, we can
monitor them.

With Larger states there are unlimited benefits and with big states benefits is less and finally
everything depends on Good law maker.

When Larger state will get corrupt law maker or politician we can have satisfaction that the
corruption amount is not big which will be also in millions.

Let’s hope that in future States Reorganization Commission (SRC) will not give more
importance to language when dividing or creating new states. States should be created only after
consultation with scientists, engineers and taking consideration of geographic area and
advantages.

Bibliography
1. Times of India
2. The economics times
3. RBI
4. Altius directory – Russian economy 2010 article
5. Wikipedia
6. Analytique report of quarterly journal of the Bombay chamber of commerce and industry
trust for economic and management studies.
[Link]/.../ANALYTIQUE%20Jan-Mar%[Link]

7. Indicus analytics report.

8. Reference: [Link]
youth-interests?Pid=32423#ixzz1bsjvfb5g

9. Revised Statute from The UK Statute Law Database: Indian Independence Act 1947
(c.30) at [Link]
10. "In India, Muslims Find Fair Treatment". The New York Times. 6 February 1991.
Http://[Link]/1991/02/06/opinion/l-in-india-muslims-find-fair-treatment-
[Link].
11. "Films & Partition train of History". The Tribune. August 5, 2007.
Http://[Link]/2007/20070805/spectrum/[Link].

12. [Link]/~gaverche/paths/Hinduism/[Link] - Cached

13. 2010 The Indian Express Limited

14. [Link]/.../andhra-crisis-are-smaller-states-better-governed-a-debate. Htm –
15. [Link]/wiki/India –

16. [Link]/topic/[Link] - Cached - Similar

17. [Link]/reports/sereport/ser/std_povuttch.pdf

18. [Link]/wiki/Uttarakhand

19. d [Link]

20. “The Collapse of the Soviet Union”. 2 Dec. 2007.

[Link]/student/The_Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union.html

21. “Soviet Union”. 1 Dec. 2007. 2 Dec. 2007. <[Link]

22. “Collapse of Soviet Union, 1989-1991”. 29 Nov. 2007. <[Link]

23. Ted Hankin. “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?”. 29. Nov. 2007.
<[Link]
24. . Dimitri K. Simes. After the Collapse. NY, NY. 1999.

25. “The Gorbachev Reforms”. 2 Dec. 2007.

<[Link]

26. DNA Daily news & analysis.- State crime rate went up in 2008, convictions down.

27. BBEdit, and Roaster on a Macintosh , RussThai Consulting Co. Ltd.