Should existing linguistic states be split for the creation of smaller states?What effect Will it have on Federalism. Some say that smaller states will help progress, others argue that smaller states will weaken the linguistic states and strengthen the Centre. Since Linguistic states are the basis of Indian Federalism should such states be bifurcated? Whether it is Andhra Pradesh, Maharshtra or West Bengal there is one thing in common. Demands for smaller states out of the existing states .Demands that are opposed by the dominant political forces and the much of the population of these states. Aspirant states of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BJP: Smaller states must for development - Andhra News Smaller states only after consensus: Jitendra Singh 2011/12/7 14:56:10 Union Minister of State for Home Jitendra Singh on Wednesday stated that unanimous opinion was needed for the formation of new states. The Minister made these comments while responding to a question over the formation of smaller states in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. Jitendra Singh said that the new states could be formed only with consensus. He also referred to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawathi passing resolution in the assembly over the division of state into four parts. Stating that the new states would pose severe implications on the integrity of the nation , he said, the government would announce decision on new states only after studying all relevant aspects. (INN) Andhra News : Smaller states only after consensus: Jitendra Singh
http://www.wowandhra.com/news/BJP:-Smaller-states-must-for-development---27549.html No scope to divide Bihar further: Nitish 2011/11/21 14:44:11 (IANS) After supporting Mayawati's plan to split Uttar Pradesh into four, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar declared Monday that there was no scope to divide Bihar further. Nitish Kumar said that Bihar's size was ideal and there was no need to break it up any more. "After Bihar's bifurcation 11 years ago, leading to the creation of Jharkhand, there is no scope to divide the state any more," Nitish Kumar told the media here. He was asked about the demand for a separate state of Mithila, to be carved out of Bihar. Nitish Kumar admitted that he had always supported the idea of smaller states. "Smaller states are good for governance and development." Without taking names, the chief minister said there were several large states in India that could be bifurcated.National News : No scope to divide Bihar further: Nitish
[h=2]BJP: Smaller states must for development - Andhra News BJP: Smaller states must for development[/h] Bharatiya Janata Party national general secretary Jagat Prakash Nadda on Friday stated that the overall development of Andhra Pradesh would be possible with the bifurcation of State only. Talking to media persons after participating in a conference, Jagat Prakash Nadda said that the BJP would conduct meetings at the national, State, district and gram panchayat level to stressing the importance of formation of smaller states for development. “The smaller states will pave the way for good governance and faster development with transparent administration,†he said.
If we start dividing states based on Language and ethnic, It will never stop. In Bihar itself, There are 5 languages - Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili. Angika, Bajjika (All are different dialect of Hindi only but there are some differences). Do we need 5 ?? because once Maithili will come in picture, Next will follow. It's chain reaction !! IMHO, We only need to divide U.P. in 3-4 parts (Since it's very big states, Every 6th Indian live in U.P.). May be Telegana and Vidarbha [I am not sure] Jammu, Leh and Kashmir Valley should be 3 Union territory administrated by Centre. Rest are just political thoughts for Political mileage.
Special Article [h=2]Special Article[/h] [FONT=georgia,palatino]The scene in UP Will There Be A BSP-BJP Alliance Again? [/FONT] [FONT=georgia,palatino]By Amulya Ganguli IS Mayawati losing ground in UP ? Had she been as confident as before, it is unlikely that she would have suddenly taken the unusual step of suggesting a division of the state into four parts. Since chief ministers rarely take the initiative to break up their own states, her action points to a measure of uncertainty about her prospects. [/FONT][FONT=georgia,palatino]For the present, the BJP has opposed UP’s division, but, in the process, it has exposed its double standards since it supports the idea of carving out Telangana from Andhra Pradesh and of Darjeeling from West Bengal. Its decision on UP has also brought to the fore its difference with the party’s ally, Nitish Kumar, who is behind Mayawati on this issue.[/FONT][FONT=georgia,palatino] [/FONT]
We dont need more states, we need more mp's because constituency of single mp is too large. Theoretically a mp couldn't possibly meet all the people in his constituency and work at the same time...its impossible.
Sorry it has been frozen for reasons of unequal population growth in various states.There is another thread regarding seat-ratio and the number of Lok sabha MPs per state.
I am firstly against the concept of this "regionalist federalism" which many weaklings portray as some sort of thin thread by which unity of the nation is hanging. In fact it is the opposite. This desire to keep splitting is what gives rise to regionalistic and then separatist tendencies of those who lust for power at any cost. The one thing Nehru should have done if he were a true Indian was to divide provinces for solely administration and not linguistically. This might have needed some dictatorial force in those days but it would have brought excellent results. Instead, he resorted to this federalist nonsense which in turn became a noose around the neck. I am against splitting of UP or any other state any further. China has twice the bigger size states than entire UP+Uttarakhand combined and is still managed well. If force is needed, use it. But no more splitting.
Tshering, would you agree to Sikkim being merged with West Bengal or Bihar for no reason? Would you support the abolition of Sikkim state govt and allow legislators from Bengal of Bihar to have an upper hand in the hypothetical administrative province?
No more splitting states. We have seen what a mess it creates. We already have a big mess and we are having to keep the status quo between Nagaland and Manipur for fear of offending any one side. Look at the map: What's up with Tulu Nadu, Kodagu, Bodoland and Gorkhaland? These are district sized (or two district sized) regions with too much nationalism, and pretty much nothing else. I keep hearing people claim they are from Mangalore. Funny. Why not say Karnataka? How many people understand what Mangalore is? Kodagu? Never heard about it till now. Gorkhaland? Not bugding on that. Let that district be merged with Sikkim because Darjeeling has historically been a Tibetan (Lepcha et al.) dominated district and the Gorkhas and the non-Gorkha Nepalis are settlers. And Bodoland? Not happening. Stay in Assam. We cannot keep dividing the country like this. We do not live in Utopia and dividing as per this map will leave a long strip of land which is meaningless, especially w.r.t. Assam and Madhya Pradesh.
Do you agree UP needs to be divided ? Because if one criteria for not giving Tulu nadu, Kodagu etc are size then there needs to be an upper ceiling for it too. Fricking 200 Million people at the hands of some of the worst politicians in the country ? Now that is a facepalm.
Federalism is what keeps India united. A central govt with concentrated powers will destroy India in no time. Trust me, a Bihari would no way brook the interference of a Keralite in his local affairs (in the scenario you mentioned) and the same is true vice-versa. Haven't you seen what happened to Pakistan ? It's amazing that some people are still not understanding it. The states that you seem to mention are Xinjiang AR, Tibetan AR,Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia AR where most of the land is uninhabited/barren and the population density is very small. Look at the eastern and south-eastern region where the population is concentrated. Tell me one state the size of UP+Uttaranchal combined.
Let's look other way , Turkey (783,562 km2) nearly 3 times smaller than India (3,287,263 km2) , is diveded in 81 states ( the 81 administrative provinces ) .
Administrative provinces have nothing to do with national integration. That is just pure bullshit. If any people did not like to be in India, then they would continue to do so irrespective of they being in divided or undivided states.
Telangana should be created, as there are plenty of socioeconomic reasons for statehood which are elaborated on a separate thread on this forum. Most of the other 'aspirant states' seem ridiculous to me, except maybe UP.
in terms of population, the largest province in china is guangdong. it also happens to be the richest province. guangdong = 104 million people area = 178,000 km2 utter pradesh = 200 million people area = 243,000 km2
GD can be compared with Maharashtra..not with UP. And I was talking about size in terms of population and size, not just population.
