Does India Need Smaller States?

Posted on August 19, 2011 in Specials

By Samarth Mahajan:

November 2000, three new states Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal were carved out of three of the biggest states in India, namely Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Focussing on the average growth rate from 2004 to 2008, amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged a growth of 9.31% annually, while Jharkhand and Chattisgarh have managed 8.45% and 7.35% respectively. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economy stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states.

By now it must be clear that this piece is in favour of having smaller states in India.

Free India had its first tryst with re-organisation of states in 1956 after the implementation of The States’ Reorganisation Act, which resulted in the formation of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh out of a single unified Punjab. In the subsequent ten years all these three states became the pioneers in making the Green Revolution successful and managed to show growth rates way better than that of the country as a whole.

As far as the new states are concerned some caveats are in order. The central government exempted industries in Uttarakhand from excise duty, a concession already applicable to other hill states. Many big industries rushed to Uttarakhand for the tax break, giving the state’s growth an artificial boost. Still, Uttarakhand easily outperformed Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir which already enjoyed the tax-exemption. Remember, Uttarakhand was once considered the poorest, most backward part of UP. After statehood, it has become a growth champion.

If this was the economic argument, the governance part of it is worth mentioning.

Uttar Pradesh is a classic example of how small states make better sense in a democracy. In a democracy, communication between the government and the public is very necessary. That is completely out of the question in a state the size of UP. While People of Haryana or Punjab, can go to the capital to air their grievances and return home by evening, whichever part of the state they are in. But if a citizen in western UP were to do the same, he has to travel over 600 km to Lucknow!

In addition to that it’s easier to distribute basic amenities in smaller states. Many surveys show that even though Kerala is smaller but still it is backward than other south Indian states. Progress is best defined by the Human Development Index. Amazingly Kerala has the best HDI among all the south Indian states. Even though the government may not be able to provide many factories or IT jobs but being smaller it was able to provide education, food to its people. Whereas the bigger states like AP, still have many regions where people die of Hunger or lack of shelter.

Well, in India’s case, statehood has generally been determined by political expediency, not logic. The whole Telangana issue is a very good example of that. If we take the successful example of USA, we see that dividing states on the basis of latitudes and longitudes is more logical!

My final and only plea would be that, even though small states are necessary for a mission like India 2020 to become a success, the reason for demand of new states should only be governance and not a cultural or linguistic one.


Youth Ki Awaaz

India's largest platform for young people to express themselves on critical issues - making best use of new media and online journalism.

Submit Your Story


You must be logged in to comment.

If you sign up with Google, Twitter or Facebook, we’ll automatically import your bio which you will be able to edit/change after logging in. Also, we’ll never post to Twitter or Facebook without your permission. We take privacy very seriously. For more info, please see Terms.

Shiv Rana

Yes, I agree witht he idea of smaller states in India. It will give better governance and faster redressal mechanism for the govt of any problem faced by AAM AADMI


On the other side, Uttarakhand grew because of tourism, Jharkhand grew because of iron mines(and coal mines) and Chattisgarh for its coal mines. Chattisgarh became self sufficient in power production and started selling electricity. Bigger states can survive as well. Take example of Rajasthan and Gujarat. They are considerably big states still they’ve enormous growth! So probably dividing may not be a good idea as well.


@Anonymous – You made a good point. But what I make out from the article is that smaller states ensure proper governance. While in a bigger state like Gujarat, the statistics show it’s an even bet if it will succeed or fail. So better go with smaller states divided according to globular lines.


“Uttarakhand has averaged a growth of 9.31% annually..” do u mean to say dividing it further more will increase the growth?? preposterous!!!.. if this is the case… please suggest the numbers states India must b divided into..

Division bahut ho gaya.. ab growth aur multiplication ki baat socho..
Jaago India jaago..

Samarth Mahajan

@Suma- I think you took it one extreme. What you are making out of the fact I mentioned is called “The Sorites’ Paradox”. The paradox goes as follows:

Consider a heap of sand from which grains are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:

1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand. (Premise 1)
A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2)
Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one less grain), eventually forces one to accept the conclusion that a heap may be composed of just one grain of sand.

On the face of it, there are some ways to avoid this conclusion. One may object to the first premise by denying 1,000,000 grains of sand makes a heap. But 1,000,000 is just an arbitrarily large number, and the argument will go through with any such number.

So what we really need to do is define a threshold and not declare each and every town as a state.

Similar Posts


Submit your story