• Small family, happy family

    The elected people can't manage and control india as it is very big with different languages and cultures. The benefits of the government is not reaching the every individual.If it is small country, government can take care of every individual in health,education and other benefits by implementing good schemes that reaches every person.

  • Smaller State the only key for better development

    Its a well known fact that creation of smaller state in India had experiences the betterment of Indian economy.The growth of GDP, better governance and development. Therefore, creation of smaller states is the immediate needs for the development of Indian democracy. Its a must for the Indian Government to appoint the secondh reorganisation of states in India.

  • Small states are better in administration and regional diffrences are not an issue

    Regional issues such as a, person belonging to another sect may not be in confrontation with a person the resident of the same state but different province and prejudices will decrease and more people of the same small state and same province will have a say in their state affiars

  • Smaller states implies easier governance

    Smaller states are better in terms of administration and governance.
    In larger states, the regions away from capital and big cities remain neglected
    Division should not be because "we are a particular community, and we want separate state"
    The process of division must be carefully carried out, the sustainability and growth potential must be identified before hand

  • Smaller states are better

    Smaller states are better, as india is become a far more populous nation now, than it once was after independence. Creating smaller states will give more representation to the common man, bring down corruption and former states such as Coorg which was a state before 1954 should be given statehood to ensure a better future in that particular region of India.

  • Indian IS an Empire

    India is an empire, there are too many cultures (languages and ethnicities) within. If it doesn't break up, the dominant culture will keep oppressing the smaller ones. Hindus have been suppressing other religions for 60 years in India. European colonialism was bad, some say. But colonialism is exactly what you have now. No democracy can flourish in a situation such as this.

  • To ensure proper governance

    Smaller states are better in terms of administration and governance.
    In larger states, the regions away from capital and big cities remain neglected
    Division should not be because "we are a particular community, and we want separate state"
    The process of division must be carefully carried out, the sustainability and growth potential must be identified before hand.

  • Yes i agree

    Division of power is the basic spirit of democracy so it will work. It has been proved by earlier formation of new states. It had proved to make people access to basic facility that is food shelter and cloth,and is also helping in reduction of poverty. It had made people happier.

  • It will eliminate poverty, bring hope to hundreds of millions of Indians and Indians will see once again that their life is worth living

    India should be split up into smaller states because the country is very poor. The absolute number of poor people in India over the last two decades may have increased due to the higher population rate. Now, leftists need to stop blaming population as a vice, and see it as a resource. Julian Simon has done excellent work on why a large population is a good thing which increases wealth in a country. The problem is the lack of sound institutions. It takes a HUGE amount of time for my income tax money to go to the central government and, then return back to me in the form of services provided, such as hospitals and defense. Wouldn't it be more efficient and quicker if it simply went to the state government. Now, as the opposition mentioned, that would create conflicts. But conflicts are also a good thing, it brings purpose to the legitimacy of the state. If the government in Delhi is not adding any value to your business, why does it have legitimacy in you affairs? The amount of power exerted by the central government is too excessive compared to the diverse set of cultures it is administering (or shall I say 'policing'?). Conflict bring about competition. Much like international tax competition, where countries attract MNCs with lower taxes for setting up shop their, in India, if we had a Bengal country competing with a Marata (Maharashtra), each would compete for business, each would make attempts to reduce their corruption as much as possible and bring about transparency. Each would respect property rights. Each would draw simple and understandable laws against murder and theft. Each would go for sound economic policy which would bring about the most amount of wealth. The problem with the opposition is that they are essentially Benevolent Zookeepers. They want the people of their own country to remain poor just to preserve their 'way of life' that has primarily yielded poverty. They ignore the fact that the hopes and aspirations of these country people's kids would be that of a modern India where there is running electricity, water and aplenty food. They don't expect their kids to lead their 'way of life'. They never had, they were merely forced due to the prevalent circumstances. The fact remains there are always two ways to die: either by poverty/hunger or by fighting wars. Now, the risk of war can be severely diminished if each of these countries engaged in free trade with one another. This would produce interdependence, thus promoting harmony. It seems to me that the opposition merely wants human zoos rather than mature, independent adults governing their own lives and living it as they please.

  • Attention if you are "yes"

    Excuse me separatist, it must be easy to type such harsh things about a country from the back of a computer hiding in anonymity. Fortunately such questions aren't new and people have long questioned our territorial integrity. Here is the perfect answer for the pin pricks. If you know anything about India you will know that Hindus constitute and have always constituted the majority in the Indian subcontinent. So one opinionated person (whose knowledge i doubt) suggested that Hindus have been dominating the other religions in the 70 years (almost) that India has been independent. If they really wanted to be the dominating type they could have erased the vast abundance of other religions in the course of over 20000 it has been present.
    And now those who say that administration is the reason India should fall apart, that is the most thought provoking answer i faced. Because in several parts of India the administration is insufficient or corrupt. Still dear reader, isn't this our "tryst with destiny", if we simply say lets break down because we donot have proper leaders, do your duty! You (if you are) are a citizen of a democratic India who can decide and shape the course of its future. Elect better people if you are unsatisfied and try and make reforms you think are necessary. Administration didnt just fall from the sky, it had to be formed and if it is inadequate form a new one.
    Now the Economists here who think India should be divided up because it is very poor, mind your tongue. First of all there are countries with gdp faaaaarrrr less than India. They donot show any inclination to crumble. If you think im just building pillars of sand consider this, Russia is the worlds largest country and has lower gdp than India but no one even thought of its division in the back of their minds.
    You might have been reffering to India's per capita income to be less and nevertheless if you think that giving nation status to states is going to cure that.... It wont because it would just heighten competition between states and make the poor poorer.

  • Small but no too small

    Bihar was divided from Jharkhand in 2001. Now center wants to carve out two more states Mithilia and Purvanchal from Bihar. We can't afford to make Bihar this small, because being too small hinder its development. Therefore, let us first deicide the right size of the smaller state. And, let make sure that each new state has equal and appropriate size. This will ensure that after division each state will have equal opportunity to grow and better govern itself. Let us make sure to be just to each new state by not making parent state way to small while new state way too big. We must not give new state undue advantage over parent state just to seduce separation. Let make sure that the purpose of this division is not politically motivated, but really is for the benefit of the people inhibiting the state.

  • India has Freedom to Choose

    If India wants to reorganize into smaller states, they certainly have a right to do so. They are an autonomous nation committing no crime, however. Therefore, it is entirely the choice of the population and government of that country what size they want their states to be. It is no one else's business.

  • Do not Destroy India's Beauty.

    If we divide Kerala into half, you think of its shape? Kerala has its own beauty in her shape. India should be like itself. We should not divide the crown of India, Jammu, the Gods own country, Kerala, the Seven beautiful sister - Assam, AP, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland and Manipur. Let India always be like this.

    JAI HIND!!

  • Diversity is too inextricably linked

    The idea of a modern nation state derives from the idea that its people all have a common identity like a religion or culture. The English inhabit England and the French inhabit France, each one having a multitude of cultural stereotypes. Those countries are used to being a homogeneous society governing the same land for hundreds of years. With India however the diversity and multiculturalism is so connected in Indian culture that the idea of separate sovereign nation states wouldn't be viable as all Indian states have such a diverse mix of Indians. To create a nation state based on the idea of culture or language in such a diverse society would cause hatred of the outsiders who the natives felt didn't belong in that state. For example, when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned in 1947 it caused millions of people to move because the partition was based on religion; Muslim and Hindu. Another example of tension after partitioning would be after world war I, Woodrow Wilson had the ambition of self-determination for the states of Europe; The Serbs, the Croats, the Slovenes and many more were all given their own nation. The trouble was that for hundreds of years all the ethnic groups of the Ottoman and Austrian empires had settled freely in each area and no Croatian or Slovenian state was homogeneous and the idea of each culture having its own nation led to xenophobia of different cultures in one nation which caused a war in the Balkans and still leads to tension there today. India is used to be being a huge state, whether it was the Mughals, the British or themselves, the thing they have in common is their incredible diversity.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.