The US has one-fourth of our population but 50 states . why can't India have more than 100 states ????
Answers
Answer:
California is the fourth state with at least 100,000 known cases . ... had the coronavirus have died in the United States, according to a New York Times tally
Explanation:
Having more number of states is not necessarily good for better governance. Sometimes, having bigger states may even be better, as it may mean less interference from politicians in local administration at district levels.
Of course, I am not passing a value judgment. It all depends on individuals running the administration and various other factors. More than the size of the states (or number of states), it is the individuals who run the states who matter more for the purposes of development. Of course, there are other reasons too.
We have smaller states which may be completely mismanaged. On the other hand, we may have some bigger states which are better managed or more developed. It all depends of various factors and size of the state is not the conclusive or the only criterion.
Governance is 10% policy and 90% implementation. It is well known that implementation is done at the local levels. A major reason for poor implementation in India is nexus of neta-babu-dada (politicians – bureaucrats – criminals) and unnecessary political interference at every level of administration. In a bigger state, the CM and other ministers will have comparatively less time for interference at local levels as compared to a smaller state.
Well, before I forget, let me also point out that USA may have less population than India, but it has much more area than India. USA is almost 3 times larger than India.
In last few decades, we have seen some new smaller states emerging in India by bifurcation of some bigger states. For example, we now have Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Telangana.
I don’t want to go into detailed statistics, but the fact remains that there has hardly been any remarkable change in the development indices of these new states. There may be some small changes here and there. But, my feeling is that there is hardly any big change noticed after creation of these smaller states.
In fact, it may have meant some newer problems, too. For example, in the case of Telangana.
With more states, you may need more ministers, more bureaucracy, more buildings, more duplication, more expenditure, etc., too.
One main reason for failure of India to develop like some other countries (which started their journey almost at the same time) is a lot of dirty politics, political interference in day-to-day administration.
Now, it is a common knowledge that the smaller the state, more will be political interference. In a smaller state, the CM will personally know most of the officers in districts. He will hand-pick everyone, even at the lower levels, instead of giving freedom to other functionaries.
On the other hand, in a bigger state, the CM (and other ministers) may not have much time to deal directly with so many local issues, which may sometimes be a blessing in disguise since that may mean less political interference.
In the absence of solid data to prove that smaller states are always better for good governance and that it makes a huge difference in development, it may not be advisable to create so many smaller states unnecessarily.
Of course, it can be seen on case-to-case basis. What I mean to say that where it is proven that a state is suffering due to its unwieldy character, it can be considered for bifurcation into smaller states. But, that should not be a blind general policy.
I am not against smaller states. But, we should not create smaller states blindly.
One size fits all, should not be the only criterion while deciding about the number of states in India.