Conclusion

TRULY THE BIGGER, THE BETTER! AND AS ALWAYS, WORKING TOGETHER IS SUCCESS and STRENGTH and STABILITY that arises from a good foundation and grows upwards! A States Reorganization Commission that is tasked to undertake, a once and for all, in a time bound manner, reorganization and also address all calls for division of States and Representation, is now needed. For planned development across each State, the UP example of Infrastructure, Tourism and Industrial development and its ONE DISTRICT ONE PRODUCT campaign shows the way.

Annexure

Extract from article refuting the argument about the advantages of Small States; – ‘Size doesn’t matter: small states not always better’ – by Srivatsa Krishna, IAS in TNN dated 17 th July 2011.

“What does the data say about smaller states? Are they truly superior? Let’s take some key metrics, which are telling and smash all doctrines, both for and against smaller states, to smithereens:

• Population below poverty line: 32 percent (Chhattisgarh) vs 14 percent (MP);
  25 percent (Uttarakhand) vs 14.40 percent (UP);
• Per capita generation of electricity (kwh): 861 (Chhattisgarh) vs 282 (MP);
• Percentage of rural electrification: 95 percent (Chhattisgarh) vs 96 percent (MP);
  31 percent (Jharkhand) vs 61 percent (Bihar);
• Gross irrigated/gross cropped area: 9.7 percent (Jharkhand) vs;
  61 percent (Bihar) 27 percent (Chhattisgarh) vs 32 percent (MP); 48 percent
  (Uttarakhand) vs 76 percent (UP);
• Per capita revenue receipts of the state: Rs. 5854 (Jharkhand) vs Rs. 4353
  (Bihar); Rs. 7791 (Chhattisgarh) vs Rs. 5613 (MP);
• Percentage of outstanding liabilities/ state GDP: 30 percent (Jharkhand) vs
  46 percent (Bihar); 20 percent (Chhattisgarh) vs 39 percent (MP); 40 percent
  (Uttarakhand) vs 50 percent (UP)
• Share of development expenditure/ total expenditure: 65 percent (Jharkhand)
  vs 68 percent (Bihar); 75 percent (Chhattisgarh) vs 62 percent(MP); 62
  percent (Uttarakhand) vs 60 percent (UP)

Not one of these indicators is so overwhelmingly tilted in favor of the small State so as to justify the destruction of public assets, and colossal losses to establishments and common people, running into crores every single day. The above data establishes that carving out a Telangana or a Gorkhaland will not automatically mean lesser transmission and distribution losses, and therefore, better electricity availability. A smaller state would not automatically improve attendance of school teachers and doctors in the villages. Nor would it automatically rein in the burgeoning fiscal deficit of State governments. Telangana has only proved it.

Whipping up primordial passions in the name of the people, so as to create smaller states to further the private interests and possible rent-seeking of political actors should be eschewed. Instead, the fundamentals of economic development, namely a strong, predictable policy framework, a conducive business environment for private sector investment, good law and order and justice system, strong institutional mechanisms, and robust human development must be courted and wooed. Small States are not an iron-clad guarantee for delivering any of these necessary and sufficient conditions for strong economic growth.

(Ofcourse, the figures have changed from 2011 to today, but this was the background for the calls for division of the States then and provides a better understanding of the validity or otherwise of such calls.

JAI BHARAT! – JAI HIND!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6