JUDIPOLISOCIO (Opinion): Creation of any new States in India

The State Reorganization Act of 1956 reorganised the boundaries of India's states along linguistic lines, and amended the Indian Constitution to replace the three types of states, known as Parts A, B, and C states, with a single type of state.
The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 was a major reform of the boundaries and governance of India's states and territories.
Although additional changes to India's state boundaries have been made since 1956, the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 remains the single most extensive change in state boundaries since the independence of India in 1947.

India as nation has 28 states till now and Telengana issue seems to be boiling forth and some believe rightly so. Even after being in Andra Pradesh that region has not seen any development and there are large no of farmer suicides too. Now there are demands for Vidharbh, Harit Pradesh , Telengana , Marwa Pradesh, Gurkhaland and many other. The need of hour is having a small state.
Some how one feels that Uttar Pradesh for one needs to be divided in order to have better governance , Harit pradesh that is the western Uttar pradesh is plagued by goon culture and it will be a great service if such states are carved out as more focused approach could be taken in dealing with the menace.
Though detractors have their own view they say that it would lead to partition of India and division of resources additionally they say that the 3 states such as uttrakhand , Jharkhand and chhattisgarh performance has not been such that other states could be brought in the same lines.
If the big states means 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.
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
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.
The problem is that the Centre does not have pre-determined norms for dealing with such demands, but it acts only when people get violent.
- Delhi didn’t notice what was wrong with sugarcane farmers till they came and made ruckus in the capital
Jharkahand in particular was a good example of a state saved from Bihar and same goes the case with Uttrakand and Chattisgarh.
- Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh were the most backward parts of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, which in turn were among the most backward states of India.
- Yet, after becoming separate states, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have emerged as industrial dynamos.
- Since 2001, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have moved up into the top 10 (industrial states), displacing Rajasthan and Punjab
- The phenomenal growth in these two states has seen the share of manufacturing in their GDP rise dramatically as they have attracted industrial projects.
- Looking at the share of income that originates in the manufacturing sector, these two states have shown higher levels than Maharashtra, Haryana and Tamil Nadu
- Being newer and smaller states, they responded more rapidly than their larger — and in some cases better endowed – neighbours
Every sensible economist will argue having a smaller state is much better than a larger state where the power is just for the civil servants and politicians but certainly who are born and brought up on the socialist ideals would never agree.
- After all it is the socialistic mindset through out the world which make the creation and sustenance of such large states.
- However these very socialist have failed to bring any economic changes for the betterment in the lives of people of the nation.
- One would certainly disagree with their ideology because talking is all good and being intellectual is all “fashionable” but food and cloth along with good life is the true need of a human being.