Union of 100 states: Why India must have many small states. It will make for a better economy and better politics

·         There are too many big states – by area, Rajasthan, UP, MP, Bihar, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Odisha, and even Bengal are all too big to be administered with efficiency

·         There is enough evidence to suggest that smaller states mostly tend to do better. E.g: If UP were a separate country, it would be the fourth largest by population. But its per capita GDP is closer to Kenya’s.

·         Local needs and demands are taken into account

·         Linguistic and cultural homogeneity makes governance easier.

·         Facilitates decentralization and decision-making are devolved into smaller regions.

·         Good governance requires lesser government and quicker government, which is possible in smaller states.

·         Smaller states do not necessarily mean better governance. For instance, larger states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have progressed better economically than smaller states.

·         The creation of smaller states does not per se result in democratic decentralization. Rather, it can cause a concentration of power in the hands of a few.

·         It requires huge funds as seen in the establishment of Amravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh.

·         Smaller states respond better and faster is a myth. For instance, the Uttarakhand floods showed the inadequacy of a small state in responding.

·         It can result in the hegemony of dominant castes or religions.