as forces favouring a larger number of smaller states gather momentum (1)

8/6/2019 As Forces Favouring a Larger Number of Smaller States Gather Momentum (1)

1/42

As forces favouring a larger number of smaller states gather momentum, the

question of whether they indeed perform better needs to be answered empirically.

At the time of independence, in 1947, India chose to be a federal state, with

significant power to the state governments in response to the diversity in socio-

economic conditions across the country. Over the last 60 years, the number ofstates and their boundaries has changed frequently and India now has 35 states and

union territories, with strident demands for more still coming in. smaller states

have access to lesser human capital and civil society institutions and therefore

might be susceptible to the problem of poorer institutions and susceptible to take-

over by non- desirable forces. At the time of independence, India had more than

500 states, most of which were extremely small, unviable to function as

independent economic entities. By 1950, these states were organised into 28 units,

by merging tiny states into larger entities. For instance, in 1948, 30 princely statesoccupying a combined territory of 27,000 sq km came together to form Himachal

Pradesh. States were multi-lingual, raising severe administrative and social issues.

The initial demarcation of state boundaries was therefore contested, with demands

for reorganisation on linguistic grounds. First, consider the criteria of major cases

of state reorganisation. Post independence, the organization of states between the

period 1947 and 1950 occurred under Sardar Patel. At the time hundreds of small

princely states were very rapidly integrated into 28 units. The objective, at the

time, was to ensure rapid integration of otherwise diverse states into the Indian

Union. It was well recognized that this was not a long term solution and a more

sustainable solution was essential. This resulted in the formation of the State

Reorganisation Commission in 1953, which gave its well known language based

states recommendations in 1956.There was intense debate and though the State

Reorganisation Commission set up in 1953 accepted the rationale of language as a

basis of state composition, it also went into the criterion of size and resources in

different regions while forming the states.

Ambedkar clarified, one language one state should be the rule, but people with thesame language can divide themselves into many states this promotes more

uniform balance of power within the country, satisfies social needs and most

importantly, creates units that can be administered with ease, leading to better

growth performance for the nation.


2/42

Andhra was the first state to be delineated on a purely linguistic basis in 1953

when the 16 northern Telugu speaking districts were separated from Tamil-

speaking parts of Madras State. With the formation of the State Reorganisation

Commission the same year, the question arose whether to merge Telangana, the

Telugu speaking districts of Hyderabad state, with this state of Andhra to form anew state on purely linguistic grounds. Interestingly, the Commission merged the

two entities giving the following reasoning on economic, and not linguistic,

grounds: The advantages of a larger Andhra State were that it would bring into

existence a State of about 32 million population, with a considerable hinterland,

with large water and power resources, adequate mineral wealth and valuable raw

materials. The vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra would

be resolved by the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, which lay in

Hyderabad state. River resources would be better managed, as the development ofthe Krishna and Godavari rivers would be brought under unified control.

Telangana usually had sizeable food supply deficit during drought years, while

Andhra normally had surplus. Similarly, the existing State of Andhra had no coal,

but would be able to get its supplies from Singareni in Telangana. Human capital

was greater in Andhra state, while Telangana was revenue rich; there was therefore

complementarity of resources.

y Maharashtra is the largest economy of India, accounting for more than 14.04per cent of the India's economy.

y Andaman & Nicobar Islands (A&N) is the smallest economy of India,accounting for just half of a per cent of the India's economy.

y Uttar Pradesh (UP) getting highest income from the Agriculture sector withincome of INR 100,971.5 Crore ($25.16 Billion).

y Maharashtra getting highest income from the Services sector with income ofINR 378,654.6 Crore ($81.51 Billion).

y Maharashtra getting highest income from the Industrial sector.y West Bengal (WB) has the largest fishing industry in India with income of

INR 9,754.5 Crore ($2.43 Billion).y Chhattisgarh has the largest Mining industry in India with income of INR

10,568.3 Crore ($2.27 Billion).y Maharashtra has the largest Banking & Financial Services industry in India

with income of INR 65,192.8 Crore ($16.24 Billion)y Chandigarh has the highest Per-Capita income of INR 119,240 ($2,566).y Bihar has the lowest Per-Capita income of INR 13,663 ($293).


3/42

y Uttar Pradesh (UP) is the largest economy of North India and second largesteconomy of India.

y Maharashtra is the largest economy of West India.y Andhra Pradesh (AP) is the largest economy of South India and third largest

economy of India.y Assam is the largest economy of North-East India.y West Bengal (WB) is the largest economy of East India.y Bihar's economy has grown at the highest pace, registered a growth rate of

24.33 per cent.y Mizoram's economy has grown at a lowest pace, registered a growth rate of

7.37 per cent.

All the "facts" mentioned above are taken from the VMW DataCenter for the

Financial Year 2008-09. Crore is Ten Million.

Telangana agitation is the only such movement in India that involves a capital city

located in the region that is fighting for separation from the main State. Thisclearly reflects on the lack of governance and civic administration in this area asthe benefits of having a State capital in the hinterland have not trickled down to

other areas in that region.

Smaller States still need a good and vibrant administration to be recipes forsuccess. Chhattisgarh is a fine example of how an effective administration couldturn around a State in all aspects of development. The development that hashappened in the Chhattisgarh region from Independence till 2000 has in fact beenless than the development that has taken place from the time a new State was

created in 2000 till now. The first Telangana Chief Minister would have done agreat service to the infant State

There is negative outcome has also seen as in case of Jharkhand, where the pastCM ahs done the biggest scam in the country and state has become more poor,Chattisgadh have also been facing the problem of Naxals after separation.


4/42

The separation of the state is not a problem for our country, but the issue is if it isseparated then it has to be run by a able leader and the politicians must not takemileage out of the feelings of the people. The people of India are now smartenough to understand that. The formation of the state are also going to disturb a lot,now it is on the government and the committee for the assessment of formation ofnew states to take a decision in the favour of the people of the nation.

The politician are adopting divide and rule policy they want there own benefit ifthe states are divided then they can make their own government and can make

bundles of money for their SWISS BANK account.. No one can fight alone the warcan be win by the troops with a guidance of sharp mind..

It is not size of the state that matters..it is leadership/management that will decide

the efficiency.

There are states in USA, which are much bigger than the biggest Indian states.

They do not feel any need for down sizing. The carving out of Jharkhand fromBihar did not help anybody. Only that, we had 2 Bihars in stead on 1 Bihar. So, thetheory of Small states for better governance doesnot hold good. Creating states costa big expenditure for maintaining separate Administration, Law Enformementmachinery and judiciary etc. This additional cost overweigh an advantage ofgovernmance, if there is any. Creating small states, without a sound logic promotesthe feeling of separatism. When Home Minister announced that, Telangana statewill be created, in frenzy of activities, some Temangana enthusiasts announced,that Andhra people will have to work in Hyderabad with work permits. This was aglimpse of separatist feeling among people. This is a very dangerous trend. Andtalks of small states, invariably promotes these separatist feelings.

y Dividing india into not the solution of the problem.Because it createshatered and bifurcation between people of 2 states.

y More over dividing on the basis of caste and religion is creating moreissues like minor ,major population with in newly created state

y Even if we divide on the basis of problem We can resolve that perticularproblem but that state again left in total growth.

y The resources of the india become property of that state


5/42

Jharkhand has 24 districts, 211 blocks and 32, 620 villages out of which only45% are electrified while only 8,484 are connected by roads. Jharkhand isthe leading producer of mineral wealth in the country, endowed as it is withvast variety of minerals like iron ore, coal, copper ore, mica, bauxite,graphite, limestone, and uranium. Jharkhand is also known for its vast forestresources. are electrified while only 8,484 are connected by roads. Jharkhandis the leading producer of mineral wealth in the country, endowed as it is

with vast variety of minerals like iron ore, coal, copper ore, mica, bauxite,graphite, limestone, and uranium. Jharkhand is also known for its vast forestresources. In last 61 years only 45% is electrified.

Money is not reaching to the poor the real cause is our system, without

change in the system and laws we will never make progress, SC has

recommend many changes but no state is ready to implement them, when

small states will be there, there will be more chief ministers in India, and

there, we may get one honest chief minister who can implement those

reforms like police reform.

Progress is equal to honest IAS, IPS officers + honest chief minister

Then state may be small or big it does not matter.

When every one is corrupt, small state matters lot, if you will see and study

u will realize that it is easy to expose corruption in small state not in a big

state.

Eg. Koda, what happened to the big state corruption you know it, chara or

bofors became real chara.

http://realityviews.blogspot.com/2009/12/india-creation-of-small-states-

need-of.html

Ajit Singh, January 20, 2010

Bihar has progressed coz of an honest CM and not by getting divided. You

blame politicians for being dishonest and you seem to be supporting theirview to create new states! Do you really think that they want new states to

bring about progress? They just want to make vote banks for themselves so

that they can be in power at the centre and divert funds to their states and

again do corruption!


6/42

Language problem is just a political gimmick. Like the demand for new

states.. do u think that the masses care if the language is hindi or something

else or where the states boundary ends? They just want the basic necessities

of life, thats it. Politicians rouse emotions by talking on these subjects just

to get their vote banks!

If CMs want to work they can do it not matter what the size.

The logic that people can ask questions is idealistic. When was the last time

the ministers listened to the masses??? If u say that people will question,

then if bigger the state, more is the population so more should be the

questions, Does it happen? Or does it happen even in the smaller states??

Get realistic not idealistic!!

Just the area is shortened, the powers of the CMs remain the same. Answer

this: would u be more powerful if u are allowed to rule a small village or a

big dictrict?

I think a village. Coz small the area, more powerful you can be, u can keep

people in fear. Coz they know they dont have any option as less will be the

candidates. It is easy to manipulate at small scale that to do it at a large

scale. Eg: the traffic police can take bribe any time and go scott free, but the

DIG cant take bribes at the same frequency(I am not talking about the

size of the bribe). So who misuses the power most?

By making new states you are not changing the system, infact you are

multiplying the system!

We have been waiting for the ONE HONEST CM since ages, none have

arrived?

Police is the tool of the incumbent CM to rule. So why will they reform it?

You want to divide by expecting an HONEST CM when the history shows

exactly the opposite.

I am not against hoping for the good. Its just that we must put are hopes in

some other direction where there is a ray of hope!


7/42

All we are doing by dividing states is giving birth to more politicians..if weare lucky; they will be good..or we are not better or worse off at this moment

too..

British left India long time ago and what they left was one thing among others> thepolicy of divide and rule. The politicians of today are no less of rulers than theBritish empire.

The root cause of the demands for new states, and rise in Maoism in thetribal belt is same, and that's just not lack of development but also not

protecting the basic rights.

Look at Uttaranchal. Did the common Uttaranchali really reap any benefitfrom the new found Statehood? On the contrary, places like Dehradun arechoked for the want of better infrastructure, land grabbing netas,

proliferation of criminals and soaring prices. Things that were unimaginablebefore the transition into a separate state

The less geographically divided our Country will be, the more will be theresources that can be channelized into these States for developments.

Another startling aspect of China development lies in channelizing the FIVEYEAR plan resources towards a particular ZONE of the Country, rather than

distributing to all the STATES. This concerted application of funds can see atangible progress and can be controlled by OMBUDSMAN designated tooversee such huge NATIONAL spending. If we can't use our GOD givenexcellent brains, let us at least try to emulate the manner how our 'giant'neigbour CHINA is accomplishing its NATIONAL tasks for the growth ofthe Country as a Whole.

It is sad to hear about more states. During British Period whole India was

administered under 4 Administrative Blocks ( Bombay, Madras, Calcuttaand Delhi) it was working very nice, after indepedence we made a bigmistake by dividing the whole country on the basis of Language - with thiswe divided our own people - to fight for Language, Water, border, etc., -Further politicians divided people under Minorities, Hindus, - SC/ST, etc.,

plenty of divisions for personnel benefits.


8/42

At this time when a large numbers of poor and labor are migrating inthousand in numbers daily from poor state to big city for earning money, allmajor city and metro are overloaded and have extra burden and have lessnatural resource to support them.This leads to regional and natural unbalance in one country. Yes it is truethat in some states some regions are still very poor and not looked andsupported by their state government in right way. But creating new small

state will not serve and purpose.As per my opinion there should be proper immigration process among states,

just like two countries, so that one city or state will not bear load of anotherstate people. Government should increase and fix accountability of stategovernment towards their citizen and manpower resource and should helpthem to build infrastructure to support business and increasing livingstandard of their citizen.

The main reason for the demand of these division of states is lack ofdevelopment in certain parts of the state. The State governments should

ensure that the developments should not be restricted to the capital cities orthe main cities. The decentralisation of power through District Councils andthe local authorities like municipalities and panchayats can solve this

problem upto certain extent. As someone pointed out rightly, thedevelopment in Maharashtra is limited to it's main cities like Mumbai, Pune,

Nagpur etc. There is a huge dispartiy amongst the citizens living in thesecities and the rural areas. This is really a division through classes in thesociety. Once the political leaderships make a serious attempt to look intothis and plan for the developmental plans for the whole state equally spreadthroughout the different areas the demands for additional states will stop.

People do not want states, but want to have a say in determining their owndestiny. The capital is so distant from their communities and apathy of the

politicians there is so rampant, that people do not trust them at all. This is thesingle most important failure of Indian Democracy. The power has not beendevolved to the local communities. Sometimes we forget what power really

is - it's the money that could be spent by the community for their ownbenefit. State collects tax, but the tax money never shows a day to thecommunity which needs it most. Panchayeti Raj (not the kind where patirules through the proxy of patni) with real devolution of power in terms ofspending money is the answer to the problem of balkanization. The fact is,the devolution of power does not have limit - but then people themselves are


9/42

the best director of their own destiny, not the government at the center of thestate.

It is always better to have a focused few (stop at current no of 30 states) , rather

than divergent & disastrous many.You can keep on adding more states a reason for inefficiencies in delivering isgood governance .It is true in most of cases " small is beautiful" , but it is not applicable for India ,divergent view points with own self-interest groupsWill only impede the growth of India.

Just take example of the education reforms that Mr Kapil sibal is talking about , hehas to get a consent of 30 Chief ministers to roll it across India

In spite the benefits many of state govt don't want to give away the control (its

welcome to see Gujarat welcoming it )What would happen if there 50 states , it going to be impractical

We have been talking about VAT for the last 10 years , we cannot implement bcussome of states don't subscribe to it .Combine all this with potent a mix of caste politics , it can only be recipe fordisaster ..

I hope sense prevails & our PM will not let this happen

the reason as to why these demands are coming up and how we can remedyour nation's disintegration even if we have more states than at present.Demand for newer and smaller states come up because of systematic andintentional suppression of people by our corrupt politicians (almost all mostof whom are dynastic families) who think that it is their birth right to be at

the helm of their respective parties for entire life even while preachingdemocracy. The Congress party which rules our nation continuously foralmost three decades since independence with thumping majority didvirtually nothing for uplifting the living standards of the people. Instead itdid everything to preserve the feudalism. Our founding fathers hadenvisioned three major steps that which the constituent assembly had setaside for successive elected Govts. to undertake. They are: Land Reform,Uniform Civil Code and then De-reservation on a phased manner. Congress

party deliberately failed on these issues, which in today's India even theCommunist parties are not talking about. The only way to stop our nation'sdisintegration is to uplift the living standards of the people, end dynastic and


10/42

feudal rule through the backdoor. We must limit the term of any person inany elected post to maximum two. Every politician must be asked to vacatethe party post after two terms so that young blood can come up and dynasticcontrol of our democracy can be ended. See the case of West Bengal evenafter 25 years successive rule by one party and one person. For honestleaders there are many ways to serve people than just politics. People mustlook at politics as a service to the nation rather than a career for themselves.

This way we will be able to put an end to the endless demand for newerstastes and the resultant fissiparous tendencies.

Reflects my deepest fears perfectly. God forbid if this sounds ominous... but if weforget that we are Indians before anything else, then its not too late before someone

plunders us again. One of the best scenes in the movies recently is from Chak De,when Shahrukh sets asides his entire team when they introduce themselves as so &

so from Punjab, so & so from Andhra etc until they all say so & so from India. Itbrought a lump to my throat. If only this introduction was compulsory for usIndians. maybe, like the americans we too will be proud to be an Indian

The smaller state does not guarantee better administration. Look at the northeast region. The poorest region in India.It is the process of properadministration system. It is better to have more districts and panchayats.Itwill help village level peoople to get the administrative help easily. Justexample, Orissa is halp of Andhra but it has around 30 districts, where areAndhra has 23 districts. I feel AP sould have around 40 - 50 districts. It will

help the local level to get government help easily. Second thing is have morereform in Panchayat and muncipality and city level elections. It should be

direct elections like Mayer who will be directly elected by people. Soaccountability will be there. Our british system is not working. Americansystem of direct election will give more power to people to cast their vote

properly.

ON THE face of it, democracy in India has won a small battle. People'saspirations have been met by the creation of the three new states -Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand. The people agitated for decadesagainst apathy and skewed development of the mother states - MadhyaPradesh (MP), Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, respectively. But statehoodmeans only half the battle won. As Chandi Prasad Bhatt, leader ofChipko Andolan, once said, "when you break a stone, all you get is more


11/42

stones," the unholy nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and businessinterests, a legacy of the earlier states, is still to be contended with.

All three states are blessed with great natural wealth, which the previouscallous governance had exploited to the hilt. This resplendence is theironly ally. Be it forests, minerals or the river systems, they have to use thenatural resources for generating revenue. But the catchword is

'judiciously' - a tightrope walk that not many have been able to do evenwith limited success in India. Here lies an opportunity to abandon theolder development model and adopt a new strategy.

The new leaders have begun with promises galore. For Uttaranchal chiefminister Nityanand Swami, "my priority is building roads" to reach themost inaccessible areas (almost always through deep forests). For

Babulal Marandi, his counterpart in Jharkhand, it is ensuring law andorder in his state, many parts of which are virtually controlled by half adozen ultra Leftist groups. And for Ajit Jogi, the chief minister ofChattisgarh, it is to tackle the drought, which has severely affected 45 outof the 90 tehsils in his state.

The people of the three states have never asked for much. The strugglefor statehood was strung around the battle for rights over "jal, jungle,

jamin" (water, forests and land) - the axis around which their liferevolves. The new states have to deliver on these three issues. But thesigns are ominous. Just before the birth of the states, ugly political scenesand horse-trading marred the occasion. In Chattisgarh, bitter politicalfights led to heckling of the MP chief minister, Digvijay Singh. InUttaranchal, it was an open fight over the chief minister's chair. And inJharkhand, members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) were put underhouse arrest. Here, too, there were closed-door meetings till the very endover the decision to name the state's chief executive officer. On the day,the state was born, president of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Sibu Sorencalled a bandh to make his desire to take the CM's post known.

Interestingly, in an interview with Down To Earth in 1992, he had said:"When Jharkhand comes, I do not want any position but will continue towork for the people. I will not make politics make a street dog out ofme." Indeed, public memory is short and politicians surely know when tosay what.

The resource base


12/42

After separation, the parent states have been literally left with nothing.Bihar, already a failed state, is likely to slip further. After losing itsindustrial heartland, which is compared to the mineral-rich Ruhr regionof Germany, all that Bihar is left with is the fertile, but flood-proneGangetic plains. Uttar Pradesh has been left with less than 5 per centforest cover now.

Development for the three states is essentially to be based on the naturalresources they have. The forest cover in the three states is better than thatin many other states. Uttaranchal has a forest cover of 43 per cent,Chattisgarh has 42 whereas Jharkhand has 25 per cent of the states' landarea (see graph: Little cover). Ministers and politicians harp about usingforests to generate revenue. In the rhetoric, the real picture is lost. Thecover may be greater than that in other states, but it is nebulously

surviving in two states and getting depleted in the other.

According to the Forest Survey of India's State of Forest Report, in anassessment published in 1999, Jharkhand had 2.2 million ha. In the 1997report, it had 2.6 million ha. This implies a loss of 4,800 ha of forestcover, of which 1,400 ha was dense forests. In the case of Uttaranchal

and Chattisgarh, though statistics show an overall gain in forest cover,the loss of dense forests has not stopped. Chattisgarh lost 30,300 ha ofdense forests, while gaining 56,100 ha of open forests. Utaranchal lost5,100 ha of dense forests and gained 6,800 ha of open forests (see graph:Open and shut case and Balding patches).

Being hill areas, under the forest policy of 1988, Uttaranchal andChattisgarh should strive to bring two-third of the geographical areaunder forest cover. For Jharkhand, it should be one-third of thegeographical area. The challenge is to achieve the required minimumthrough afforestation and regeneration activities and to make up theshortfall (for Uttaranchal 23 per cent and for Chattisgarh 24 per cent).Jharkhand faces the toughest challenge of not only making up the

shortfall, but also curbing further deforestation.

All this calls for proper leadership and a suitable management strategy.In Bihar, the government adopted joint forest management (JFM) way

back in 1990, but it still languishes with an average 17 JFM communityorganisations being formed every year. The reason being the benefit-sharing ratio: communities get a mere 33 per cent of the usufructs. The


13/42

state forest department's budgetary allocation for afforestation is evenmore dismal: a mere five per cent. Besides unplanned afforestation hasresulted in the alienation of the community that takes care of the

programme.

To turn low productive forests into 'money' trees, in the late 1970s, theBihar's State Forest Development Corporation started large-scale

exploitation of sal (Shorea robusta) and replaced it with teak (Tectonagrandis) plantations. In Uttaranchal, it is monoculture species like pine(Pinus roxburghii) that is replacing broad-leaf tree species such as oak(Quercus sp). People dependent on sal products protested and uprootedthe planted trees in 1978. The Bihar government ultimately stopped the

programme. Now it wants to spread JFM for both afforestation andreforestation, but there are no takers.

In the case of Uttaranchal, officials portray a vigorous programme of vanpanchayats saving the forests hand-in-hand with the forest department.By 1993, the hill districts of Uttaranchal had 4,804 van panchayatscovering more than 300,000 ha of land. JFM programmes, in one garb orthe other, have been promoted in the region since 1930s. But ground

reality is contrasting. Today, the revenue is divided in a 50:50 ratio - notsubstantial enough for the communities to take up regeneration andconservation. Despite funding from the World Bank, JFM has become afarce.

For Chattisgarh, as it inherits MP government's community-basedwatershed development and JFM programmes, the institutions are alreadythere but whether they would enjoy the same political patronage as underDigvijay Singh is still debated. Jogi says that the Rajiv Gandhi Missionsthat implements these programmes would continue but with a'Chattisgarh stamp'. However, he fails to explain what the 'Chattisgarhstamp' would look like.

Distribution of minor forest produce (MFP) is another crucial issue. Thelocal people do not have absolute rights over MFP, though it is crucialfor their food security. The state trade in them to earn revenue.Traditionally, the tribal people depend on forests for six months andanother six months on agriculture. But for states like Chattisgarh andJharkhand, which have negligible areas under irrigation and dependsolely on monsoon for agriculture, MFP could help in maintaining the


14/42

food cycle. Now with deforestation and soil degradation, the food cyclehas broken and this has led to large-scale migration in Chattisgarh andJharkhand. A survey of 100 villages done by the Ranchi-based GraminVikash Trust in Jharkhand shows that if the local community is givenaccess to the MFP, migration could come down substantially.

The reality is that local people living in the forest-rich areas have

traditionally protected them. This, till the government took over. One ofthe reasons for the strong presence of the ultra Leftist groups or

Naxalites, extremist outfits who claim to be fighting for the people'straditional rights, is communities' alienation from land and forests.Chattisgarh is under the shadow of gun-totting Naxalites. So far, only sixof the Chattisgarh's districts have been declared "Naxalite-affected" bythe government. But the movement is present in at least a dozen districts.

One of the reasons for their presence, say many experts is the faultyForest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, which curtails people's access tothe forests. "Abolish the forest department and hand over the forests tothe people," demands Soren. The new leadership recognises theimportance of giving back the forests to the community, but their

commitment is not strong. Marandi said resource management is hispriority, but within a fortnight widespread industrialisation found morefavour. When asked about the conflict that may arise out of mining inforest areas, one MLA in Uttaranchal, says, "We will mine mineral-richareas in the forest land by digging tunnels. No harm will come to theenvironment."

Jogi does not want tribal people to be mere "showpieces" but for thatdevelopment like mining cannot be stopped. In other words, mining isimportant for development to reach the tribal people. He is obviouslyunaware of the fact that it is not mining, but ecological restoration alonethat can help them. In any case, mining has never done wonders for thelocal people. Take Jharkhand, for instance. Mines employ a mere five per

cent of the local population, while displacing 30 per cent of them, besideseating away their forests. In an interview to Down To Earth, Jogi talkedabout allowing only Indian companies to mine. In the debate between theIndian and foreign companies, the local people are completely forgotten.In any case, are Indian mining companies any different from foreignones? The end result has always been depletion of resources andmarginalisation of the local people.


15/42

Water crisis

Water is another resource that is a problem amid plenty in all the threestates. Consider the fact that all the three states receive annual rainfall of1,326 mm (Jharkhand), 1,667 mm (Uttaranchal) and 1,338 mm(Chattisgarh). Each state gets more that what Punjab or Haryana get. Yet,irrigated land is less than 56 per cent in the case of Uttaranchal, a

disappointing 16.6 per cent in Chattisgarh and a shameful seven per centin Jharkhand.

In Jharkhand, according to the state agriculture department's statistics, 90per cent of the rain falls during July and September, 80 per cent of whichis lost in runoff. The high runoff also causes soil erosion. So the result isthat 50 per cent of the agricultural land of the state is unproductive and

almost all farmers sow only one crop. In Chattisgarh, according to aninter-department document, 1.136 million ha of land, most of it

belonging to marginal farmers, have been severely hit by the drought. InUttaranchal, despite its enormous water resources, 3,729 villages do nothave potable water supply. It is also besieged with the question of controlover its waters. Few days before statehood, it lost its revenue rights over

sanctioned hydel power projects to Uttar Pradesh. Ironically, all thesestates have the right topography for extensive watershed activities andhuge potential for water harvesting. But hardly any initiative is beingtaken in this direction.

In need of a balance

Like their predecessors, will the new leadership make every effort to usenatural resources to generate more revenue, degrading the environmentfurther? Or will they use them sustainably? Development plans will haveto promote natural resource-based enterprises in a way that poorcommunities benefit the most. This will call for innovative thinking andinstitution building from the bottom up. But it is the state leadership,from top to bottom, which will have to show intelligence and ingenuity in

dealing with the development challenge faced by these new states.

The distressing thing is that no development blueprints are ready yet, noris there any evidence of a changed mindset of the leaders. "One has tounderstand that the state was born only on November 1. We couldn'tformulate any action plan before that," says Jogi. Plans given voice bythe new governments sound just as hollow as those of the previous


16/42

regimes.

What has to be understood is that the days of excuses or tall claims arenow over. The new leadership has to find answers to the apprehensions

put forward by the birth of the new states. How will the new states bemanaged? Will the natural resources continue to get plundered? Will the

people ever get a change to participate in their own development? It is

time the people get their due. This one time, the governments need to domore than play their usual games.

Ill simply focus on one issue: Isnt the public dissatisfaction and discontentmentin states big or small really about (lack of) governance, and has nothing to do

with smaller or bigger states?

The test of a hypothesis that the size of a state is related to better governance is to

look at Indias experience.

In general India is MISERABLY GOVERNED. 2 out of 10 in terms of governance

(at best). It is possible that Gujarat and Maharashtra (big) may get 3 out of 10, Goa

and Delhi (small) may get 3 out of 10 as well. On the other hand Meghalaya

(small) will perhaps get 1 out of 10, along with Assam, Bihar, and UP (large).

Results (this is conceptual):

a) There is NO CORRELATION between the size of a state and the quality ofgovernance (in India or elsewhere in the world, imho I just thought about

Australia, for instance, and came to the same result).


17/42

b) ALL states in India are BADLY GOVERNED in comparison to world standards

and nothing will change by combining or splitting the states unless its fundamental

model changes.

What is needed, therefore, is a fundamental change in the way of governance. That

is what the Freedom Team of India (http://freedomteam.in/)is all about. We are

interested in getting the whole of India a 9 out of 10 on governance, wealth, and

peace. A quantum shift in Indias way of life. Not interested in debates about

irrelevant topics like the size of a state.

1)These type of agendas only serve the purpose of politicians and political parties.Why not to focus on getting rid of current mess created over the period of more

than 60 years. Basic issues like food, shelter, clothing, clean water to each every

single citizen needs to be addressed rather than to get tempted and lost in never

ending issues like creation of small states and further more states.Even if you

create small states, corruption will still remain the bane and will prove to be a

spoilsport in the so called development in small states. The need of the hour is

reforms to change the ever rotten national character and values.Get real and if you

care a bit about your country and if you have it in you- Reform it, as simple as that.

It could be argued that the smaller size of the state made it more difficult for the

state to garner enough resources and expertise to be able to put together a more

robust opposition to the various militant elements. Hence, like the Green

Revolution should not be treated as exogenous to the reorganisation of Punjab, the

persistence (if not the emergence) of militant elements, it can be argued, should not

be treated as independent of the states reorganisation in 1971. However, in later

sections we argue that the presence and persistence of militancy in larger states,

strongly indicates that greater size is not a good enough criteria to judge a statesability to counter militancy.


18/42

Demand for separate States

With the government appointing a committee for the assessment of the formationof new states, the other parts of the country have also been demanding the separate

small states. The first attempt was done by GJM i to declare the Darjileeng area as"Gorkhaland" with Capital Siliguri. For this, 21 young activists of GorkhaJanamukti Morcha(GJM) started indefinite fasting and processions in the district ofDarjeeling.

This movement of separation was follwed by Uttarpradesh where voices raised fordeclaration of 3 different states namely Poorvanchal, Harit Pradesh demanded byRLD and Bundelkhand demanded by BMM.The demand for separate VidarbhfromMaharashtra has been from long. There have been voices for the demand of

Saurashtra as a separate state in Gujarat. These demands have emerged as a result

of the government decision on Telengana.

Does Small States means better governance

The people are demanding for small states on the basis that the governance isbetter. The state gets better accessibility to funds and government schemes which

is not happening in large states. For instance, a person has to move to Lucknow ifhe is UP for the High Court, a small state will result in better accountability and

efficiency to run the state. We have seen separate states in past.

There are positive outcome of the division like Punjab, Haryana, HP, Uttrakhand,Gujarat, where they have grown faster than their parent state, whereas at the sametime there is negative outcome has also seen as in case of Jharkhand, where the

past CM ahs done the biggest scam in the country and state has become more poor,Chattisgadh have also been facing the problem of Naxals after separation.

The separation of the state is not a problem for our country, but the issue is if it isseparated then it has to be run by a able leader and the politicians must not takemileage out of the feelings of the people. The people of India are now smartenough to understand that. The formation of the state are also going to disturb a lot,


19/42

now it is on the government and the committee for the assessment of formation ofnew states to take a decision in the favour of the people of the nation.

Why should we oppose the creation of smaller state in India ?

Following are the reason oppose the creation of small states.

Creation of small state will divide India

Creation of small state will take the India to pre British era

Danger from China, china wants to divide India.

Small states in India are not making progress , Chattisgarh and Jharkhand

Small states Depend on Central Government

What is the guarantee that small states will make the progress?

Politicians want to become the chief Minister or for the political power.

Hatred Among state will increase

Election vote should be counted who is defeated

Like these I am sure there are many more reasons to oppose creation of small

states.

But I still I say and insist that Creation of small state is good for India.

Lets understand and know why creation of small states is good for India?

Before Arrival of British people in India, there was no India.There were small

kingdoms and big kingdoms.

Today when we say India, there is feeling, My India, in olden times there was no

such feeling, all those feelings were for there king or god. I will fight for my king,

my God.

Today our army when fights it fights for the India, not for Prime Minister of India.

If Prime Minister of India will try to sell the India I am sure our army will not

hesitate to arrest the Prime Minister or any other leader.Today nothing is superior than India , Olden times everything was king, if he

wanted to donate his kingdom to someone without asking anyone he donated that,

and foolish population of that state accepted that willingly as their all feelings were

for there king.

If you read the history carefully you will understand, and find that xyz warrior died


20/42

for his king, today when any army man dies he dies for his mother land, for our

India.

After the arrival of British People in India, they started the real formation of India,

Under there influence and rule, we got the feeling of oneness among us, one India.

In olden times, before the arrival of British, for the people of small states for whomthere king, there caste and religion was more important, everyone always obeyed

the family of king.

Remember the battle of Plessey, Robert Clive with the help of just 300 white

soldiers won the battle by giving bribe. And he won the battle by defeating more

than 50000 Indian soldiers. They surrendered because there army head said that I

surrender, today if in India one head says that he will surrender to small enemy ,

drop your weapons ,do you think Indian forces will drop the guns or they will

arrest that head and will fight for the nation.In that times when outsiders came fought with the small states, that time

neighboring states did not help that state, when Arab people looted the small

kingdoms and become the rulers of that state. Other kings kept enjoying there life

and kingdom, they did not thought about the safety of neighbor state.

Today if Pakistan attacks on Kargil, we hear the voice from every corner of India

that destroy enemy.After 26/11 we heard voices from every corner of India to

Punish Kasab,this never happend in old asian kingdoms.

So now I think you got the point that today when we create the small state, the

feeling of one India, oneness will not go. Creating small states will not take us

back to the pre British era, as before the arrival of India there was no India.

Smaller states a recipe for disaster

With the decline of the Mughal Empire, India broke into fragments. Many ex-

governors of the Mughal subahs declared independence and by the middle of the18th century there were a diverse set of rajas and nawabs who held sway over 600

principalities across the subcontinent. It was in this India that Robert Clive camefrom nowhere and defeated the forces of Nawab Sirajudaulah at the historic battleof Plassey in June 1757. This established British raj in the country that was to last190 long years. Noteworthy is the fact that Clive was able to emerge victoriouswith the help of a section of the Nawab's army who, not bound by feelings ofnationality, did not find it an act of treachery to let their nawab down. This was

repeated 100 years later in 1857 when the English were able to stave off the


21/42

challenge to their rule from Indian forces by using other sections of Indian forces.Again these Indian forces who supported the English thought nothing of betrayingtheir countrymen because the feeling of nationality that we have today was notexistent then.There were Marathas, Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Biharis and Jats butno Indians. In fact one of the unintended benefits of the Raj was the integration ofIndia which ultimately gave rise to an Indianness that was responsible forcatalysing our freedom struggle. It is this Indianness that we have fostered and

nurtured in independent India.

Now it is this Indianness, that gives a unity of purpose to this great nation which isbeing sought to be destroyed by the demand for small states. The home ministryhas made it public now that the demand for creation of 10 new states is lying

before the government. The demand is from diverse regions ranging fromSaurashtra in Gujarat to Telangana in Andhra Pradesh and from Vidarbha in

Maharashtra to Harit Pradesh in UP. Not that the home ministry is in any hurry tocreate these new states, but can you imagine what would happen if 10 new statesare added to the list of 30 already existing? Well, demand for 10 more states willcome to the fore. You don't believe me ? Allow your mind to go back a few years.There used to be Uttar Pradesh the largest state in India. Then Uttaranchal wascarved out of it. Now there is a demand to create Harit Pradesh out of Uttar

Pradesh. Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar, the same time as Uttaranchal. Nowthere is a demand for Mithilanchal, a new state to be created out of Bihar. This is anever ending spiral. Once Saurashtra is carved out of Gujarat, the Kutchis willdemand their own (there is already such a move by the erstwhile maharana ofKutch). In Andhra Pradesh, the talk of Telangana has caused disquiet inRayalaseema region which wants its own state. Muslims in Hyderabad region wanttheir own Urdu state.

At the end of it India may land up with 100 states which, though not as bad as 600principalities, will again give rise to fissiparous tendencies and weaken the unity ofIndia seriously and make it very very vulnerable. That this is not a mere

apprehension will become startlingly clear when we look at the anarchy prevailingin countries that border India - whether it is Pakistan, Nepal or Bangladesh.

While making a case against breaking up states, I do realize that the demand ofmany who want small states is genuine. The feeling of being discriminated is highin these areas because development has by passed these regions even 62 years

after Independence. In some places these demands are also born out of the desire to


22/42

preserve a unique culture. A good example of development bypassing it isTelangana which lies in the otherwise prosperous state of Andhra Pradesh. And the

best example of a desire to keep its culture intact is Coorg, where a demand for aseparate state has been made although it is just one single district in Karnataka.Again at some places, the desire for a separate state has been fuelled by the desireto break the hegemony of the higher castes in politics. Again Telangana is a goodexample where the desire for a separate state is a manifestation of the OBC desire

to play a dominant role in politics. But my point is that breaking up a state to fuelfaster development or to give OBCs a more prominent role is akin to touching yourmouth by bringing your hand around the face. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru describedIndia as a country with "unity in diversity.'" Let's keep a balance between this'unity' and ' diversity' and not allow the latter to dominate over the former.Otherwise a new-age Robert Clive would come knocking at our doors.

Indian should not divide larger state for better governance and development

The terms Larger and Smaller are relative terms and we cannot define them

separately or absolutely. In the case of division of states, we have different criteria

for defining large and small. We can take population or geographical area or

religion or caste or many other things. The very recent reason to divide the larger

states is given as for better governance and development.

Now the important point is to define a benchmark for division and relates it to

better governance and development. If we consider the geographical size of

Rajasthan , Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as large for better administration and

development then what we say about the state division of some other countries like

Canada that is 3 times larger than India and having only 13 territory division.

There are states in USA much larger than the largest Indian states. USA and China

both are 2.9 times bigger than India .USA has only 50 states and China has only 22 provinces. They do not feel any need for division. Dont they want better

governance and development? I dont think so. Again what will after division of

largest state, some other state will be the largest state, then when this series will

end? Allow your mind to go back a few years. There used to be Uttar Pradesh the

largest state in India. Then Uttaranchal was carved out of it. Now there is a demand


23/42

to create Harit Pradesh out of Uttar Pradesh. Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar,

the same time as Uttaranchal. Now there is a demand for Mithilanchal, a new state

to be created out of Bihar. This is really a never ending spiral. What If population

is taken as benchmark for formation of new states, as Ambedkar put two crores for

administration, what will we do when the population increased after some time?Do we continue to divide the states on the basis of population for better

governance? If not then division on the basis of population cannot be a criteria.

One important benchmark which mostly used in our country is religion. But

dividing the states will raise the same problem we are facing after division of

Greater India into India and Pakistan. Moreover dividing on the basis of caste and

religion is creating more issues like minor, major, reservation etc.

Can you imagine what would happen if 10 new states are added to the list of 30

already existing? Well, demand for 10 more states will come to the fore. At the end

of it India may land up with 100 states which, though not as bad as 600

principalities, will again give rise to fissiparous tendencies and weaken the unity of

India seriously and make it very vulnerable.

The very recent reason to divide the larger states is given as for better governance

and development.

If the smaller states are the guaranty for better governance and development then

what you say about North Eastern states like Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam

etc and about Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand?

There might be many other criteria for division of states into smaller one. But the

question is that the better governance and development is possible only after

division of states? We will try to find the answer on the basis of some facts:

According to the Central Statistical Organization, Bihar was the fastest growing

state with 11.03 per cent GDP during the period 2004-05 and 2008-09, again the

state's GDP growth in 2008-09 was the highest in the country with an astonishing11.44 per cent. The same state has negative growth rate during 2001-02 and 2003-

04 subsequently -4.73 and -5.09. The GDP of Gujarat, that is 7th

highest state of

India on geographical area, has significantly higher GDP during the decade. So

how can you define this? We clearly see that development is not based on smaller


24/42

or larger state but it is based on better governance and it can be achieved by better

planning and better management.

Literacy is a reasonably good indicator of development in a society. Spread anddiffusion of literacy is generally associated with essential trait of today'scivilization such as modernization, urbanization, industrialization, communicationand commerce.Here literacy data to be added.

Now I back to the drawbacks of division of states. When a new state is formed, a

large sum of money is invested to develop basic administrative infrastructure. We

have to spend lot of money for separate election and on many other administrative

works. When Chhattisgarh was separated from MP, Raipur has been made the

capital and MP had to spend almost 100 crore for all the renovation and

modification of the important official building. Similarly the basic infrastructure

has to be provided for Dehradun, the capital for Uttrakhand and Rnachi, the capital

for Jharkhand. All required personnel from top hierarchy to the lower rank

including IAS and IPS officers and state services personnel have to be develop for

the new states. In this case several corers have been invested to develop a small

part of the state that is only the capital. What if we spent these several crores on the

development of basic infrastructure like schools, health clinic, provision of clean

drinking water, roads etc for these states despite separating them and investing on

making administrative body only.

So here we see that lot of money has to be invested, when we divide the states,

only to create additional bureaucracy, more chief ministers and councils of

ministers and a large and fast growing public administration system.

Again I back to the point that whether large states are really lack of opportunities

for development?

We take the example of Telagana and Andhra Pradesh. Telangana usually had

sizeable food supply deficit during drought years, while Andhra normally had

surplus. Similarly, the existing State of Andhra had no coal, but would be able to

get its supplies from Singareni in Telangana. Human capital was greater in Andhra

state, while Telangana was revenue rich; there was therefore complementarity of


25/42

resources. It was true for Bihar and Jharkhand in the same way. When we divide

states we make the resources become property of that state and other state depends

on them for their requirement. It increases the differences amongst them.

At the same time division of states on any basis divides the people and integrity ofthe nation. In India we are already fighting on the name of Marathi, Bihari,

Assamis, on languages Hindi, Tamil, Marathi on region like North Indian South

Indian, the more division gives us the more option to fight with and loosen our

integrity.( Another aspect to be considered is the interstate disputes. Even after

fifty years of reorganization of states, many interstate disputes are still raging. The

issue of border districts between Karnataka and Maharashtra keeps becoming

violent every now and then. The issues of sharing river water is a big thorn in the

flesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh are always quarrelling among

themselves on contentious issue of Kavery and Krishna river. Punjab and

Rajasthan (Sutlej and Bias), Gujarat and Maharashtra (Narmada River) are at

loggerheads. Theres this issue raised by Raj Thakre about migrants from Bihar

into Mumbai. Even after sixty years of independence and fifty years of state

formation, we have not been able to put a uniform policy of centre state relations

as well as interstate relations. Hence formation of new state is inviting new and

more disputes keeping aside main aim of all round development.) As far as

national progress and integrity is concerned dividing states into smaller units does

not make any sense. If we neatly wish our country to progress then there arethousands of other alternatives then why to divide the land and people both.

Our politicians support the formation of smaller state for the reason that the

administrative body will better pay the attention of each part and utilize the funds

to develop the entire part of the state. They say that in case of larger state,

developed areas getting more developed and undeveloped region remain

undeveloped.

It might be a reason but the division is not the only solution. We can defrag theadministrative body and make the lowest level to be responsible for development.

In fact we have decentralized administrative and governing body for different

levels. We should make the lowest level, i.e. Panchayat of small villages, MLAs of

small town and city and MPs of districts, to be responsible for development of their

region and make the governing body effective to watch the development.


26/42

CONCLUSION :

After all the basic point behind the division is always given as development but I

oppose that the smaller area or smaller population or smaller eco-climatic region is

the guaranty of better development. Development of the state strongly depends onbetter governance and there is lot of alternatives than dividing a larger state into

smaller one.

I think again we are seeing the same situation of Divide and rule which we saw at

the time of before Independence by the Britishers. But the difference here is just

that it not the Britishers its the Politicians and the bureaucrats who are just

focusing on their monetary growth and are even ready to sacrifice the country for

their personal motives. A real Shame!

I know local public is always with the person who serves its people but people

itself know their good and bad. Political parties are not made by themselves they

are made by citizen of India by welfare of the country then why they don't look

into the direction they are supposed to. They are given rights to develop their area

to full and if anything wrong happens then control their local public with peace and

harmony. If one thinks their area is not taken into consideration then he has to raise

voice for its development but making another state and another government is just

sake of exploiting economical state of nation. We can do anything if we wish to do

avoiding riots. There are lots of Country in the world who does not have much

states and doing great to develop their nation. If we always wish to divide our

country into small states then a day will come once again we have to face riots in

all parts of country because of religion and cultural matters.

If person thinks area development then he has to raise his voice to develop area not

to divide area .Rather than dividing a states there could be all possibilities to help

backward regions by allotting funds, share the available resources between them,

better governance and administration is the need of the hour than dividing the

states, as this process divides the people not the state.

I urge to Public on India please beware of these culprits of nation and think with

your own understanding what is good and what is bad. At least we want to live in a

well developed and peaceful city which is only possible when we think only about


27/42

our nation to go in right direction by doing our work in a proper manner and

without corruption.

Stop this nonsense. No need for so many divisions, so many Netas to loot our

country... save this country.

Regional integration has been defined as an association ofstates based upon

location in a given geographical area, for the safeguarding or promotion of the

participants, an association whose terms are fixed by a treaty or other

arrangements. According to Hans van Ginkel, regional integration refers to the

process by which states within a particular region increase their level of interaction

with regard to economic, security, political, and also social and cultural issues.[2]

In

short, regional integration is the joining of individual states within a region into a

larger whole. The degree of integration depends upon the willingness and

commitment of independent sovereign states to share theirsovereignty.

Regional integration initiatives, according to Van Langenhove, should fulfil at

least eight important functions:

the strengthening oftrade integration in the region the creation of an appropriate enabling environment forprivate

sectordevelopment

the development ofinfrastructure programmes in support ofeconomicgrowth and regional integration

the development of strongpublic sectorinstitutions and good governance; the reduction ofsocial exclusion and the development of an inclusive civil

society

contribution to peace and security in the region the building ofenvironment programmes at the regional level the strengthening of the regions interaction with other regions of the worldExamples

See also:List of intergovernmental organizations

Arab League


28/42

African Union Latin American Integration Association Association of Southeast Asian Nations Caribbean Community East African Community Economic Community of West African States European Union Mercosur North American Free Trade Agreement Southern African Development Community Union of South American Nations Central American Integration System Shanghai Cooperation Organizaion

The territory of the EU consists of the combined territories of its 27 member states

with some exceptions, outlined below. The territory of the EU is not the same as

that ofEurope, as parts of the continent are outside the EU. The EU's member

states cover an area of 4,422,773 square kilometres (1,707,642 sq mi).

The economy of the European Union generates a GDP (nominal)of

over11,805.66 billion ($16,447.26 billion in 2009).or US $16.447 trillionandgdp per capita nominal is US $33,052 (nominal).

The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S.,

the USA, orAmerica) is a federalconstitutional republic comprisingfifty

states and a federal district. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and

with over 310 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest

country by total area, and the third largest both by land area andpopulation. It is

one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of

large-scale immigration from many countries.[6]

The U.S. economy is the world's


29/42

largest national economy, with an estimated 2009 GDP of $14.3 trillion (a quarter

ofnominal global GDP and a fifth of global GDP atpurchasing power parity).

GDP (nominal) 2009 estimate

- Total $14.256trillion

[3](1st)

- Per capita $46,381

Economic indicators

Unemployment

9.6% (September 2010)

[58]

GDP growth 2.5% (3Q 2010)[-2.6% (2009)]

[59]

CPI inflation 1.1% (September 2009 September

[60]

Area

- Total 9,826,675 km2

Population

-

2010 census 308,745,538[2]

(April)

-

Density 33.7/km2

87.4/sq mi


30/42

2010)

Poverty 14.3% (2009)[61]

Public debt $13.61trillion (October8, 2010)

[62]

Household networth

$54.2trillion (4Q

2009)

The basic literacy rate is approximately 99%.

China:

Gdp of china in 2009 is $4.985 trillion

Countries by total area

Rank CountryArea

(km2)

[a]

Area (sq

mi)

% of

TotalNotes

1 Russia17,098,24

26,601,668

11.5

%The largest country in the world.

2 Canada 9,984,670 3,855,100 6.7%The largest country in

the Western Hemisphere.

3 / 4

(dependin People's9,596,961

3,705,407

6.4%

-

The largest all-Asian country.

The smaller entry is the United


31/42

g on

definition

)

Republic

of China

9,640,011 3,722,029 6.5% Nations official figure

forMainland China, excluding

the Special Administrative

Regions ofHong

Kong and Macau;[2]Taiwan and

other islands of the Republic of

China;[2]

Aksai Chin, Trans-

Karakoram Tract, Arunachal

Pradesh, all disputed with India;

coastal and territorial waters.

The larger entry includes Aksai

Chin and Trans-Karakoram

Tract, which arecontrolled byPRC, but claimed by India. The

total area of China is listed as

9,572,900 km2(3,696,100 sq mi)

by the Encyclopdia

Britannica.[3]

See territorial

changes and land reclamations

of P.R. China

3 / 4

(dependin

g on

definition)

United

States9,629,091 3,717,813 6.5%

Includes

only states and incorporated

territories.

The United Nations official

figure includes coastal water

areas and the U.S. share of the

Great Lakes. The total area of

United States is listed as9,826,675 km

2(3,794,100 sq mi)

by the CIA World

Factbookwhich further includes

territorial waters.[4][5]

The total

area of the United States is listed


32/42

as 9,522,055 km2

(3,676,486

sq mi) by the Encyclopdia

Britannica.[6]

5 Brazil 8,514,877 3,287,612 5.7%

The largest country in South

America and the Southern

Hemisphere.

6 Australi

a7,692,024 2,969,907 5.2%

Includes the territories of

the Cocos (Keeling)

Islands (14 km2/5.4 sq mi)

and Christmas

Island(135 km2/52 sq mi).

[Note

3]Excludes the external

territories ofNorfolk

Island (36 km2/14

sq mi),Ashmore and Cartier

Islands (5 km2/1.9 sq mi), Coral

Sea Islands

Territory (0.91 km2

/0.35 sq mi),and Heard and McDonald

Islands (372 km2/144 sq mi).

Excludes the claim of

the Australian Antarctic

Territory (5,896,500 km2/2,276,

700 sq mi).

7 India

3,201,446

3,287,263

1,236,085

1,269,219

2.1%

-

2.3%

Smaller figure excludes Indian

Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh

which are claimed by Pakistan

and China respectively. Larger

figure includes 120,849


33/42

km2

(46,660 sq mi) of disputed

territories with Pakistan and

China.[7]

The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, is the most

populousstate in the world with over 1.3 billion people. Located inEast Asia,

China is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party of

China (CPC).[11]

The PRC exercises jurisdiction over 22provinces,

fiveautonomous regions, fourdirectly administered

municipalities (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing), and two highly

autonomous[12]

special administrative regions (SARs) Hong Kong and Macau. Its

capital city is Beijing.

Russia:

Area

-

Total 17,075,400 km2

(1st)6,592,800 sq mi

-

Water (%) 13[2]

(includingswamps)

Population

-

2010 estimate 141,927,297[3]

(9th)

-

2010 census 141,945,966[4]

-

Density 8.3/km2

(217th)21.5/sq mi

GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate


34/42

-

Total $2.109 trillion[5]

-

Per capita $14,919[5]


-


-

Per capita $8,693[

Canada:

Area

-

Total 9,984,670 km2

(2nd)3,854,085 sq mi

-

Water (%)

8.92(891,163 km

2/344,080 mi

2)

Population

-

2011 estimate 34,308,000[5]

(36th)

-

2006 census 31,241,030[6]

-

Density 3.41/km2

(228th)8.3/sq mi



35/42

-


-



-


-

Per capita $45,657


36/42

Canada is a federation composed of tenprovinces and three territories

Brazil:

Brazil as a Federal Republic.[12]

The Federation is formed by the union of

the Federal District, the 26 States, and the 5,564Municipalities

Area

- Total 8,514,877 km2

(5th)3,287,597 sq mi

-Water (%) 0.65


37/42

Population

- estimate 190,732,694[2]

(5th)

-Density 22/km2 (182nd)57/sq mi


- Total $2.013 trillion[3]

-Per capita $10,513[3]


- Total $1.574 trillion[3]

-Per capita $8,220[

Federative Republic of Brazil[7][8]

(Portuguese: Repblica Federativa do

Brasil, listen (helpinfo)), is the largest country in South America. It is the

world's fifth largest country, both by geographical area andby population.[9][10]

It is

the only Portuguese-speaking country in the Americas and thelargest lusophone country in the world.

Australia:

Australia has six statesNew South Wales, Queensland, South

Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australiaand two major mainland

territoriestheNorthern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT)

Area

-

Total 7,617,930 km2

(6th)2,941,299 sq mi

Population


38/42

-

2011 estimate 22,520,195[3]

(52nd)

-

2006 census 19,855,288[4]

-

Density 2.833/km2

(232nd)7.3/sq mi


-

Total $848.862 billion[5]

-



-

Total $994.246 billion[5]

-

Per capita $45,285

A prosperous developed country, Australia is the world's thirteenth largest

economy. Australia ranks highly in many international comparisons of national

performance such as human development, quality of life, health care, life

expectancy, public education, economic freedom and the protection of civil

liberties and political rights.

India:

India (/ndi/ ( listen)), officially the Republic of India (Hindi:

BhratGaarjya; see also official names of India), is a country

in SouthAsia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-

most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous

democracy in the world.India is a federalconstitutional republic with

aparliamentary democracy consisting of28 states and seven union territories.


39/42

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest economy by nominal GDP and

the fourth largest bypurchasing power parity. Since the introduction ofmarket-

based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing

major economies in the world;[20]

however, the country continues to face

severalpoverty, illiteracy, corruptionandpublic health related challenges. India isclassified as a newly industrialised country and is one of the

fourBRIC nations.[21][22]

It is the world's sixthde factonuclear weapons state and

has the third-largest standing armed force in the world, while its military

expenditure ranks tenth in the world.[23]

India is a regional powerin South Asia.

During the late 2000s, India's economic growth averaged 7.5% a year.[140]

Over the

past decade, hourly wage rates in India have more than doubled.[148]

According to a

2007 McKinsey Global Institute report, since 1985, India's robust economic

growth has shifted 431 million Indians out of poverty and by 2030, India's middle

class population will rise to more than 580 million people.[149]

India ranks 51th in

the Global Competitiveness Report and if diversified it ranked 16th in financial

market sophistication, 24th in banking sector, 27th in business sophistication and

30th in innovation; ahead of several advanced economies.[150]

Seven of the world's

top 15 technology outsourcing companies are based in India and the country is

viewed as the second most favourable outsourcing destination after the United

States.[151]

India's consumer market is currently the world's thirteenth largest and is

expected to become the fifth largest by 2030.[149]

India has the world's fastest

growing telecommunication industry, adding about 10 million subscribers during200809 period.

[152]The country has the world's second fastest growing automobile

industry, with domestic sales increasing by 26% during the 200910 period[153]

and

exports increasing by 36% during the 200809 period.[154]

Despite India's impressive economic growth over recent decades, it still contains

the largest concentration of poor people in the world.[155]

The percentage of people

living below the World Bank's international poverty line of $1.25 a day (PPP, in

nominal terms 21.6 a day in urban areas and 14.3 in rural areas in 2005)

decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005.[156]

Since 1991, inter-state economicinequality in India has consistently grown; the per capita net state domestic

product of India's richest states is about 3.2 times that of the poorest

states.[157]

Even though India has avoided famines in recent decades, half of

children are underweight[158]

and about 46% of Indian children under the age of

three suffer from malnutrition.


40/42

Area

-

3,287,240 km2(7th)

1,269,210 sq mi

-

Water (%) 9.56

Population

-

2011 estimate 1,190,631,000[10]

(2nd)

- 2001 census 1,028,610,328

[11]

-

Density 362.2/km2

(31st)938.1/sq mi


-


(4th)

-


(127th)


-


(11th)

-

Per capita

$1,124[

Literacy Rate in India

Literacy and level of education are basic


41/42

indicators of the level of development achieved by a society. Spread of literacy isgenerally associated with important traits of modern civilization such asmodernization, urbanization, industrialization, communication and commerce.Literacy forms an important input in overall development of individuals enablingthem to comprehend their social, political and cultural environment better andrespond to it appropriately. Higher levels of education and literacy lead to a greaterawareness and also contributes in improvement of economic and social conditions.

It acts as a catalyst for social upliftment enhancing the returns on investment madein almost every aspect of development effort, be it population control, health,hygiene, environmental degradation control, employment of weaker sections of thesociety.

Literacy is a reasonably good indicator of development in a society. Spread anddiffusion of literacy is generally associated with essential trait of today's

civilization such as modernization, urbanization, industrialization, communicationand commerce.

For the purpose of census, a person aged seven and above, who can both read andwrite with any understanding in any language, is treated as literate.

As per 2001 Census, the overall literacy rate of India is 65.38%.

Larger Smaller:

India has 2.2 % of the whole land mass which makes up the earth.. India is the 7th

largest country in the world. The largest country in the world, Russia, is 5.2 times

larger than India. Canada is 3.03 times bigger, China and USA are 2.9 times larger,

Brazil is 2.6 times larger and Australia is 2.4 times bigger than India and rest of all

countries are smaller than India.

No. of states growth rate% Country

Russia (-7.9) 15 independent nation

Canada 10 provinces + 3 territories

USA ( -2.6) 50


42/42

China ( 8.7 ) 22 provinces

Brazil (-0.2 ) 26+ 1 federal district

Australia (1) 8+6 external territories

India (7.4 ) 28+7 territories

as forces favouring a larger number of smaller states gather momentum (1)

Documents