01-23-2008, 03:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me give couple of examples. Every year the 2 MPs from Meghalaya request the railway minister to allocte rail development to their state. One time an MP even cried. The rail ministry never cares a two hoot because the state is not important politically. Can they do the same to UP?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By dividing the country into smaller states no one single state will have effect on the policies of central government. The lobbying by states worked very well in the development of country. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree mupalla. Lobbying worked well for the interests of those states which had the lobbying power, and it worked precisely against smaller states like you mentioned. So small states failed not because they were small, but because there were other states that were large and having lobbying power. Not healthy for the country as a whole, because no matter what you do, for different reasons there are going to be small states around. But dividing larger ones, you are only making a level-playing field.
Also lobbying works only for those states where you have a regional party upon which the central govt depends for support. Remember Naidu's and Jayalalitha's lobbying with NDA govts. Today Mayawati is trying hard but not getting her "UP Package" from UPA govt even after lobbying for the last 7 months. This included relatively smaller things like the sanction and budget for a new International Airport at Noida. On the other hand, DMK with half the numbers, is keeping UPA on its toes about Sethusamudram. So lobbying is not working for UP, but working for TN.
Central decisions should be either free from state lobbying, or the competition field amongst the states should be made evenly leveled. For this we should have evenly sized states, which can only happen with the break up of larger states into smaller states.
===
Lobbying for state at the center is exactly what Rajya Sabha is kind of meant for. State as a unit elects these MPs of the upper house who do not represent a particular district or locality, but whole state in the parliament. Number of Rajya Sabha MPs from a state is according to its population, and minimum 1 for each state.
So if Lok Sabha MPs of a state are coming together to form lobbies, then I think something is not working correctly. LS MP's constituency is his/her district/locality and not his state. If they do form lobbies based upon the state (which they are doing) then it is absolutely unhealthy competition for the smaller states who do not have enough MPs in the parliament to respond. Such trend will only aggravate the unevenness of the investment.
===
Many larger states, like UP, have regions with diverse requirements. Because of political circumstances, some regions get continuousely under-represented within the state government. For example the Purvanchal and Bundelkhand regions of UP are under-represented in the consecutive state governments for the last few decades. As a result, they lack investment and infrastructure development, as compared to the rest of the state.
After Vir Bahadur Singh (early 80s) all the consecutive CMs of UP are from west UP (Mulayam, Kalyan, Mayavati, Rajnath). Despite been represented by PMs during these decades (VPS, Chandra, ABV, and super PM Sonia, quasi-PM RG), East UP remains much behind west UP in development.
This also has to do with the fact that the party in power at UP is always in opposition at center since 1991, with very brief periods of exceptions. So generally investment from center is low, and when it comes it goes to the West mostly.
A state can have uneven local development - not because of unevenness of natural resources - but because of under-representation in the administration and government. How would you ensure even representation without making smaller states?
Some states have even introduced so called "autonomous regions" (darjeeling hills area in WB, and Upper Assam Hills in Assam). This too - a state within a state - is not a natural apparatus and does not work for various reasons.
4) Regional Parties will eventually either get limited and restricted to smaller states they represnt, or evolve into larger parties with vision beyond their petty state. If Telangana is made a separate state, TDP's bargain will obviousely get smaller, and Telangana will go to TRS/BJP/Chiranjeevi's party etc. Smaller regional parties with less bargaining power (SAD, Ajit, Chautala, JMM) will be easier to deal with at center than large regional parties (comies, BSP, TDP). This will not only result in a stronger and more stable center but also have a larger role in better assimilation and integration.
===
a. State = something to be proud of? this is the situation today, but it must change. Let state be purely an administrative unit. Remove pride unit from power unit (except for national pride). It will be disasterous to continue to nourish pride at a large state level. One can very well be proud of language, culture, heritage, ancestory, or his village. But pride on "state" is artifically promoted and undermines national pride.
b. State represents a lingustic group? Where is a need to have one huge state for all the people of a language? Why can there not be multiple states representing a single language? whats wrong with that? State boundary based upon language itself is unnatural. Any sub-national pride bucket should be removed from holding power.
E.g. One can be proud on Tamil as one's language, but let there be no single "state" caliming to be standard-bearer of Tamizh. Let there be 3 Tamizh-"Nadu-s". Let a Tamizh youth of Kovai district be proud of his language Tamizh, his land Kongunadu, and his nation Bharat, and having no need to be pitted against the Kannada speaking nighbouring state (over Kaveri) as the issue is irrelevant to him. Today he is pitted in needless conflict only because of language. Such issues might become better defined and less politicized.
c. These states should be definitely considered for reorg:
UP, MH, JK, AP, WB
then: BR, MP, TN, KA, RJ, GJ
There should be about 40-50 states, each not having more than 20 Lok Sabha seats out of total 800 (reorganized) LS seats.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By dividing the country into smaller states no one single state will have effect on the policies of central government. The lobbying by states worked very well in the development of country. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree mupalla. Lobbying worked well for the interests of those states which had the lobbying power, and it worked precisely against smaller states like you mentioned. So small states failed not because they were small, but because there were other states that were large and having lobbying power. Not healthy for the country as a whole, because no matter what you do, for different reasons there are going to be small states around. But dividing larger ones, you are only making a level-playing field.
Also lobbying works only for those states where you have a regional party upon which the central govt depends for support. Remember Naidu's and Jayalalitha's lobbying with NDA govts. Today Mayawati is trying hard but not getting her "UP Package" from UPA govt even after lobbying for the last 7 months. This included relatively smaller things like the sanction and budget for a new International Airport at Noida. On the other hand, DMK with half the numbers, is keeping UPA on its toes about Sethusamudram. So lobbying is not working for UP, but working for TN.
Central decisions should be either free from state lobbying, or the competition field amongst the states should be made evenly leveled. For this we should have evenly sized states, which can only happen with the break up of larger states into smaller states.
===
Lobbying for state at the center is exactly what Rajya Sabha is kind of meant for. State as a unit elects these MPs of the upper house who do not represent a particular district or locality, but whole state in the parliament. Number of Rajya Sabha MPs from a state is according to its population, and minimum 1 for each state.
So if Lok Sabha MPs of a state are coming together to form lobbies, then I think something is not working correctly. LS MP's constituency is his/her district/locality and not his state. If they do form lobbies based upon the state (which they are doing) then it is absolutely unhealthy competition for the smaller states who do not have enough MPs in the parliament to respond. Such trend will only aggravate the unevenness of the investment.
===
Many larger states, like UP, have regions with diverse requirements. Because of political circumstances, some regions get continuousely under-represented within the state government. For example the Purvanchal and Bundelkhand regions of UP are under-represented in the consecutive state governments for the last few decades. As a result, they lack investment and infrastructure development, as compared to the rest of the state.
After Vir Bahadur Singh (early 80s) all the consecutive CMs of UP are from west UP (Mulayam, Kalyan, Mayavati, Rajnath). Despite been represented by PMs during these decades (VPS, Chandra, ABV, and super PM Sonia, quasi-PM RG), East UP remains much behind west UP in development.
This also has to do with the fact that the party in power at UP is always in opposition at center since 1991, with very brief periods of exceptions. So generally investment from center is low, and when it comes it goes to the West mostly.
A state can have uneven local development - not because of unevenness of natural resources - but because of under-representation in the administration and government. How would you ensure even representation without making smaller states?
Some states have even introduced so called "autonomous regions" (darjeeling hills area in WB, and Upper Assam Hills in Assam). This too - a state within a state - is not a natural apparatus and does not work for various reasons.
4) Regional Parties will eventually either get limited and restricted to smaller states they represnt, or evolve into larger parties with vision beyond their petty state. If Telangana is made a separate state, TDP's bargain will obviousely get smaller, and Telangana will go to TRS/BJP/Chiranjeevi's party etc. Smaller regional parties with less bargaining power (SAD, Ajit, Chautala, JMM) will be easier to deal with at center than large regional parties (comies, BSP, TDP). This will not only result in a stronger and more stable center but also have a larger role in better assimilation and integration.
===
a. State = something to be proud of? this is the situation today, but it must change. Let state be purely an administrative unit. Remove pride unit from power unit (except for national pride). It will be disasterous to continue to nourish pride at a large state level. One can very well be proud of language, culture, heritage, ancestory, or his village. But pride on "state" is artifically promoted and undermines national pride.
b. State represents a lingustic group? Where is a need to have one huge state for all the people of a language? Why can there not be multiple states representing a single language? whats wrong with that? State boundary based upon language itself is unnatural. Any sub-national pride bucket should be removed from holding power.
E.g. One can be proud on Tamil as one's language, but let there be no single "state" caliming to be standard-bearer of Tamizh. Let there be 3 Tamizh-"Nadu-s". Let a Tamizh youth of Kovai district be proud of his language Tamizh, his land Kongunadu, and his nation Bharat, and having no need to be pitted against the Kannada speaking nighbouring state (over Kaveri) as the issue is irrelevant to him. Today he is pitted in needless conflict only because of language. Such issues might become better defined and less politicized.
c. These states should be definitely considered for reorg:
UP, MH, JK, AP, WB
then: BR, MP, TN, KA, RJ, GJ
There should be about 40-50 states, each not having more than 20 Lok Sabha seats out of total 800 (reorganized) LS seats.