7 comments:
-
BK Chowla,
December 20, 2009
- I don't think any decision should be taken in hurry.Some experts must join hands and subject must be made to open for public discussion.
-
Jashan83,
December 21, 2009
- I agree with Most of your points. Bigger states have been either
complete Mismanagement like UP, MP, Erstwire Bihar so some large parts
of them have been in complete tatters like AP (All except Hyd and 2 3
other cities), Mah (Vidarbha Region) and so on. Hope government realizes
this soon.
But one point you missed small is good but not too small like states of NE that loose economy of scales. So in my view lower limit is Punjab < Haryana....Higher Limit for a state shud be Guj, Jharkhand -
sm,
December 21, 2009
- Jashan83,
I mentioned about Punjab.The topic is regarding creation of small states in India, so i have not written how or big should be state in details.
but yes i agree state should not be too small.
thanks for comment. -
Pravesh,
January 10, 2010
- All right...
But is there some relation of division of states and politics...
I mean is there some practical intrest of political body???
as division of states dosnt serve some real positive for states like Jharkhand, Uttrakhand so is there any actual need for dividing states into smaller states..??? -
sm,
January 10, 2010
- Pravesh,
yes there is actual need,just tell me can we handle baby of elephant more correctly, or elephant.
Can we handle small criminal properly or taliban.
When state is small we can control our kings and law makers, if state is big we can not touch them because they are too big,more example if wrong is done by your boss or neighbour we can touch him what if the corruption is done by your company boss,which company is sperad all over.
This is one of the most important reason
Thanks for asking the question. -
Anonymous,
January 10, 2010
- The progress will not depend on states being big or small.Comparison should be made on the efficiency of the governing body but not on size of the state.if progress comes from the size India can be divided into small districts.Now in Indian style of govt. functioning the more no of states the more expenses ,more financial burden on the public to feed the politicians
-
Ajit Singh,
January 10, 2010
- hi i read ur views
its contradictiory u say that brits won coz we were divided and u reason that division again will strengthen the nation.. no logic..
jharkhabd, chattisgarh, uttarakhand.. how much have they progressed..
u say politicians cant hide in small states and a mass wealth.. look at koda..
the metaphor of army navy etc is absurd.. we are comparing states here, large or small they have a lot in common.. While army navy and airforce have are all together a diff entities.. do u c a single command in any country.. its not logical.. All the 3 have diff implementation of 1 goal ie protection of countyr,.. its like comparing an Aloo and a Mango..
infact the small states have small electorate.. so any politician has better chance in a small state.. see KCR.. he wants to be CM...so he is trying to get a smalle section of the society on his side!!
ur facts are ambiguous.. U have shown only population and size.. they are out of context!!
sorry!
tiwan, HK are ok...why dont u look at China, Brazil ,Russia.? plese show both sides..
villages already have panchayat raj!!
all this is just for political gains cant u see??
My views are...
Isn’t it strange that ‘Regionalism’ has suddenly started gaining more prominence lately?
Don’t you feel that regional parties have become more powerful in holding the UNION at ransom?
Why is this happening so often?
Answer: I believe that it is human nature to follow what others do (if they are successful in achieving what they want).
My reasoning:
The congress didn’t take any action against the MNS till the elections were over, why?
Because the MNS was nullifying the Sena and so the Congress was at profit without doing something outrageous.
As soon as the elections are over, Congress wakes up and acts (suspension of the MNS MLA’s from the legislature) portraying that they are against any violence. Where was the Congress when there was far bigger violence happening on the streets of Mumbai (thrashing of the poor and the helpless)? Where was the ‘action’ then? So an example was set that one could get away by talking Regionalism.
The issue of Telangana has a long history of over 40 years. But why has the regional party TRS become so aggressive in pursuing it lately even though it was formed in 2001?
please read the full blog on The Indian Sky!!
do post ur comments!!
http://adotk.blogspot.com/2009/12/mns-divides-nation.html -
sm,
January 11, 2010
- Anonymous,
i have mentioned in the post that progress depends on the leader it does not matter state is big or small.
But it matters when we think about corruption amount.
when 1 state is divided into 2 states it may happen that 1 state has corrupt leader and other has honest or less corrupt leader
when state is big that 1 corrupt leader will do very big corruption.
when that state is not big that corrupt leader will do the corruption but amount will be small, and there will be chance that the corruption will be exposed more quickly.
as funds are less they cannot easily fool the population.
when state is big, the cm becomes so big that no one is able to ask him, and for him it becomes easy to fool the part of state by saying that he is funding other state, the chances and opportunities increase for him to fool the population of state. -
sm,
January 11, 2010
- Ajit Singh,
1. My point is that before the Arrival of British People there was no India present.
India took birth after the arrival of British Rule.2nd is the Asia was ruled by Hindu Kings But that time there was no thought of India. Or one nation.
This is the concept of one nation, nation a family, a nation is one nation when someone attacks on one part, whole nation sends there sons and daughters to save the nation.
But before the arrival of British Rule this never happened in India, Muslim Arab came from outside fought with 1 Hindu King and that same time other king neighbors enjoyed there life without doing anything. So I that time we were divided. Now after the formation of India, we are dividing the power of chief Minister, we are not giving them freedom or Independence. We are just dividing the state into the small states.
No one is giving them Independence from India. Division among the state is different from the Independence of the state. First get the point clear that now after division of state, we are not dividing India. First be clear that we are not giving them Independence
This is just division of a state. I do not believe before arrival of British people there was India. There may be kings who were Hindu. I do not consider them Indian Kings.
2. Pakistan is a nation where one person becomes the head of all forces .there are other nations also. That is reason he becomes powerful than the prime minister of Pakistan. Also but I have to confirm that so I do not say, but I will mention it. The President of Pakistan serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The Chief of Army Staff (COAS), a General, is a four star commander and commands the Army. There is never more than one serving general at any given time in the Army. Only one officer have been conferred the rank of Field Marshal, a 5-star rank and the officer serves as the ceremonial chief.
3. Indian President is the rubber stamp; he is just for the name sake head of arm forces. There are 3 individual persons who are heads of each, army head, navy head, air force head, they report to the President of India and president of India indirectly reports to Prime Minister of India, President of India can not do anything without the permission of Prime Minister of India.
4. One head is one of the differences between India and Pakistan this is one of the reason Pakistan has seen Army Head ruling the Pakistan but in India this never happened as no Indian force head is as powerful as the Pakistan army Head.
5. China is not democratic nation so no comparison. About division of USSR you know it, and USSR was also not democratic nation.
6. Please read the History my one article so what MNS is doing you will know that is happening in India before the Independence . Below is the Link.
7. http://realityviews.blogspot.com/2009/11/india-independence-and-hindi-language.html
8. After reading this article you will know that what MNS is doing is nothing but copying what others have done before them in the past.
9. Please read the history of Indian language problem you will understand regionalism problem better.
10. Jharkhand was carved out of the southern part of Bihar on 15 November 2000. Jharkhand has 24 districts, 211 blocks and 32, 620 villages out of which only -
sm,
January 11, 2010
- Jharkhand has 24 districts, 211 blocks and 32, 620 villages out of
which only 45% are electrified while only 8,484 are connected by roads.
Jharkhand is the leading producer of mineral wealth in the country,
endowed as it is with vast variety of minerals like iron ore, coal,
copper ore, mica, bauxite, graphite, limestone, and uranium. Jharkhand
is also known for its vast forest resources. are electrified while only
8,484 are connected by roads. Jharkhand is the leading producer of
mineral wealth in the country, endowed as it is with vast variety of
minerals like iron ore, coal, copper ore, mica, bauxite, graphite,
limestone, and uranium. Jharkhand is also known for its vast forest
resources. In last 61 years only 45% is electrified.
11. How can we compare the newly formed state with the other states which are 61 years old. How can we compare the 10 year with 61 year.
12. Jharkhand has a population of 26.93 million,
13. Jharkhand's poverty rate, while still high by Indian standards, has declined by 2% per year between the periods of 1994-2002.
14. The literacy rate in Jharkhand is 59.6% (2007). As per the 2001 census conducted by Government of India the official literacy rate for the state was 54.13% (Male: 69.74%; Female: 39.38%) with 5 districts above the average literacy rate
15. Jharkhand has made primary education so accessible that 95% of children ages 6–11 are enrolled in school as opposed to 56% in 1993-94,
16. Its nominal per capita income (($314 in 2003/04) is low (only 55 percent of the all-India average), though not the lowest among the major Indian states. It is actually higher than the per capita income of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (UP)
17. Please read the both articles which I have written more carefully get facts more correctly and I will again read and write more.
18. http://realityviews.blogspot.com/2009/11/india-independence-and-hindi-language.html -
sm,
January 20, 2010
- India achieved record annual GDP growth, averaging 8.45%, in the five years, 2004-05 to 2008-09
Bihar averaged 11.03% growth annually. It was virtually India’s fastest growing state, on par with Gujarat (11.05%).
Uttrakhand (9.31%), Orissa (8.74%), Jharkhand (8.45%) and Chhattisgarh (7.35%), have all grown faster than the standard miracle benchmark of 7%.
Uttar Pradesh, a huge, poor state of almost 200 million people. The excellent news is that UP’s growth rate has risen impressively to 6.29% annually and Madhya Pradesh (4.89 %).
Uttrakhand and jharkhand have grown as fast as or faster than the all-India average of 8.49%.
Reported by times of India.
Now progress is of India is not reaching to poor people.
Only 30% Indians are enjoying this growth.
Creation of small state and language problem are different do not mix them
As u said about MNS, you should know that MNS is against the creation of small states.
About Pakistan please you see it what I said you are supporting that same.
American constitution started its progress in the year 1689 we started in the year 1948 or we can say 1935.
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787,
Your logic is totally wrong , as MNS is aganst creation of small states.
You should understand the logic is that more big state, more power to chief minister ,more chance to do corruption, when we are making small state it will cut the hands of chief minister ,this means his working area will be limited , and people can ask him questions.
We are not dividing India, we are just limiting, cutting the power of chief minister and his office.
Language parties , regional parties will find it more difficult to survive in the small state .
As progress will automatically become the norm not language, as people will understand the real cause why they are not making progress, and why only there political leader is making progress and money. -
sm,
January 20, 2010
- Money is not reaching to the poor the real cause is our system,
without change in the system and laws we will never make progress, SC
has recommend many changes but no state is ready to implement them, when
small states will be there, there will be more chief ministers in
India, and there, we may get one honest chief minister who can implement
those reforms like police reform.
Progress is equal to honest IAS, IPS officers + honest chief minister
Then state may be small or big it does not matter.
When every one is corrupt, small state matters lot, if you will see and study u will realize that it is easy to expose corruption in small state not in a big state.
Eg. Koda, what happened to the big state corruption you know it, chara or bofors became real chara.
http://realityviews.blogspot.com/2009/12/india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.html -
Ajit Singh,
January 20, 2010
- Bihar has progressed coz of an honest CM and not by getting divided.
You blame politicians for being dishonest and you seem to be supporting
their view to create new states! Do you really think that they want new
states to bring about progress? They just want to make vote banks for
themselves so that they can be in power at the centre and divert funds
to their states and again do corruption!
Language problem is just a political gimmick. Like the demand for new states.. do u think that the masses care if the language is hindi or something else or where the states boundary ends? They just want the basic necessities of life, that’s it. Politicians rouse emotions by talking on these subjects just to get their vote banks!
If CM’s want to work they can do it not matter what the size.
The logic that people can ask questions is idealistic. When was the last time the ministers listened to the masses??? If u say that people will question, then if bigger the state, more is the population so more should be the questions, Does it happen? Or does it happen even in the smaller states?? Get realistic not idealistic!!
Just the area is shortened, the powers of the CM’s remain the same. Answer this: would u be more powerful if u are allowed to rule a small village or a big dictrict?
I think a village. Coz small the area, more powerful you can be, u can keep people in fear. Coz they know they don’t have any option as less will be the candidates. It is easy to manipulate at small scale that to do it at a large scale. Eg: the traffic police can take bribe any time and go scott free, but the DIG cant take bribes at the “same frequency”(I am not talking about the “size of the bribe”). So who misuses the power most?
By making new states you are not changing the system, infact you are multiplying the system!
We have been waiting for the ONE HONEST CM since ages, none have arrived?
Police is the tool of the incumbent CM to rule. So why will they reform it?
You want to divide by expecting an HONEST CM when the history shows exactly the opposite.
I am not against hoping for the good. Its just that we must put are hopes in some other direction where there is a ray of hope!
Please don’t just blindly quote TIMES OF INDIA. Times is always known to have biased, Capitalist, and govt friendly views.
About MNS I want to say that where is the Chief now that the elections are over. The chief people demanding the new states will do the same once their political goal is achieved. We have to learn by looking at other fields (lateral thinking!).
Thanks!
Visit!
Nation Divided
http://adotk.blogspot.com/2009/12/mns-divides-nation.html -
sm,
January 24, 2010
- Ajit Singh
thanks
To show the progress i have written about the GDP rates which were given by the times of India, try to find the GDP on government websites and you wont find them eaisly .
so point is clear that small states make the progress.
Today our system is so corrupt that one honest cm can not change it.
It is better to divide the powers of chief minister who are becoming so rich and powerful that we are unable to reach them or there office.
and also we are so fearful that media also thinks thousand times before writing the truth about the politicians.
when powers will be limited, he will king of small state, so his money making capacity will be limited, and his criminal raj will be limited.
what is the reason we are moving to nuclear families ?
what is the reason we demand small class rooms ?
what is the reason we demand that in each class room there should not be more students ?
what is the reason educated Indians are moving to rule hum do hamara Ek,
Think on the point that when one language speaking state will be divided into two states, who will suffer, regional parties will suffer more.Regional parties are not supporting small states, Bjp is supporting small states,
mns and shivsena both oppose the small states,
Try to write a post on disadvantages of small states and you will get the picture .
Do not mix language and small state creation regarding language they are making us fools so just ignore it. -
Jashan83,
February 17, 2010
- Hi
Ajit and SM many thought provoking points. I believe small states are absolutely a need for the hour. Kindly note that once Uttarakhand, Jharkhand & Chhattisgarh were formed they have done much better than the national average consistently. Bihar which also came near a management zone (MP's or DM's between 5 to 25)they have done better than a combined state. UP which remains big still remains in a bad state. I have tried to analyze all these points in my blog
http://jashan-celebrating-life.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-india-needs-more-states.html
People interested in the topic can take out some time and read it. I have tried to analyze from both the sides. Comments are most welcome
Regards
Jashan
PS: My name is Jashan and not Jashan83 :) -
Neha,
March 07, 2010
- sm, my point here is not about the divided India which you have
emphasized on..I don't believe at all that small states will divide
India and make India weak..nor I believe that small states do not make
progress..
my point is simple - politicians are suggesting this division of states so that they get powers..they want their seat as a CM..for that, they create violation and hatred among people of the same nation..
we made a mistake while creating states - we divided them on the basis of language..we are doing the same thing again..telangana people wanted THEIR state..now comes Vidarbha..
and you are talking about more states communicating in same language - we are not spreading the same language across all the nations..Gujarat or Andra won't communicate in Marathi and vice versa..
all we are doing by dividing states is giving birth to more politicians..if we are lucky; they will be good..or we are not better or worse off at this moment too..
you know, I wrote one post on Language; where I just expressed my opinion about how we can at least try to solve the problem of language barrier in our own country where we misbehave with our country people only because they do not know the local language..you should see the comments I got there..instead of talking about solution, people made it an ego issue..tamil people started bashing north ones and vice versa..
Let's Communicate
I guess long enough comment already.. :)
but I quite appreciate your research and clarity of thought..I am fine with big/small - any kind of nations..my problem is corruption/personal benefits of politicians at the stake of people - that's all..
http://realityviews.blogspot.in/2009/12/india-creation-of-small-states-need-of.html
I guess there is no definite formula here.
As you said Punjab being a small state has progressed. Why not Jharkhand?
But yeah, thought provoking. Thanks