Dr.Thakur,
1.The Princely States did not have so much of overheads as of now. There was
a Dewan assisted by the District/ Regional heads and matters were decided
without throwing chairs and mikes at one another. Crime was minimal as the
punishments were publicly executed. Decisions were prompt and there was no
corruption. People respected the Royal decisions which were sacrosanct.
There were no Politicians and bureaucrats to funnel the money out to Swiss
Banks. The King was accessible to public complaints in an open house and there
were no 20 year long litigations or imprisonment of undertrials.
2. If there were 365 States, they were ruled in this manner within the income
generated from the State besides paying bulk amounts to the British, but still
peaceful. No World bank loans or write off of farmer/industry loans.
3. Nowadays right from Corporators or Panchayat members to Central Ministers,
they demand red beaconed car at Govt. expense besides travel by air many times
in Business Class. Criminals who would have been executed for a single crime in
Princely States are now the Ministers and MP-s devouring public money.
And you want their number to increase in multiples and destroy the economy?
There should be a separate airline exclusively to shuttle the Politicians to
elhi and other Centres!
You had one Travancore State at the time of Independence contributing to 65%
of foreign exchange earnings and 80% of hard currency of the Country. All this
money was required to prop up States like Bihar where Sindri Fertiliser,
Chittaranjan Locomotive, Heavy Machine tools all requiring foreign exchange for
procuring capital goods!! All these was destroyed by Politicians in 60 years of
Democratic rule.
Multiplicity of States will drain the exchequer of the vital finances towards
avoidable overheads and more idlers would enter Politics to harvest public
funds without doing any work.
British ruled Madras, Bombay or Bengal were not Bimaru States!!
Dr Dhanakar Thakur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jharkhand Forum | Jharkhand.org.in/forum
It is not a matter of your preference already the Country has many states at
the present maybe of three or four districts while there is U.P. which may be
equal to Pakistan or say 4 or 5 countries only bigger than in size and
population?
are you able to abolish Chief Ministers,and expenses on meetings even now the
Politicians and bureaucracy?
You know how many princely states were- 365 ? and the area ruled bythem are
more developed than you talked for British ruled provinces which have mainly
BIMARU states?
Smaller states does not mean disintegration of the Country and worry for the
CMs or PM.
Any state is made on some critera and others if left would agitate and should
agitate democratically.
Dr. Dhanakar Thakur
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 S kumar wrote :
>So, you would prefer the Country to be divided to hundreds of States, of the
>present three or four districts forming a State, as the Divisional
>Commissioner used to control in U.P. and other Northern States?
>
> A plethora of Chief Ministers, hundreds of them streamlining to Delhi with
> their problems and holidaying abroad, thousands of guest houses in Delhi to
> accommodate them..all leading to over 60% of the exchequer only for meeting
> the expenses of Politicians and bureaucracy?
>
> When British were ruling the Country efficiently with direct control over
> Madras, Bombay, Bengal and some others, leaving other Princely States to be
> autonomous to a certain extent, there were no problems about the
> developmentlocal interests?
>
> It is sheer hypocrisy to favour disintegration of the Country to Smaller
> States which would be unmanageable ultimately from Delhi, with hundreds of
> Chief Ministers pulling in different directions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>anoop kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Jharkhand Network | Jharkhand.org.in/network
>
>
>
>
> Dear S. Kumar
>
> Why to even divide the country into Five Zones... it wud be far better to
> make it one administrative unit to be ruled by some dictator (militay or
> otherwise). That will make all the citizens of the country truly indian !!!
>
> regards
>
> anoop
>
>
> On 6/22/08, S kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. The biggest
> blunder committed by Nehru was the Linguistic Division of the States under
> Sardar KM Panikkar's Commission, after the fasting to death of Potti
> Sriramulu and Andhra separated from Madras State.
>
> 2. People started thinking as linguitic entities as Tamilians and Bengalis
> rather than Indians and the fissiparious tendencies started.
>
> 3. The Politicians found a new way out to create more opportunities for them
> by creating more States wChief Minister downwards and bureaucrats/ Governors
> proliferating eating into the exchequer.
>
> 4. The demands for separation and division of States would be endless. This
> started mainly after the division of Assam to smaller States and now many
> others have started agitating.
>
> 5.This is a very unhealthy trend for the Country as a whole, though
> Politicians encourage such a splitting creating more opportunities for them
> to hold important postions CM downwards.
>
> 6. The Country would do well with the whole Country divided to five zones
> with smaller States ruled by administrators. But who will bell the cat?
>
>
>Jharkhand News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jharkhand.News
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gorkhaland triggers fresh debate over smaller states
>
> The resurgence of a movement for a separate state of Gorkhaland carved out
> of West Bengal has revived the debate within political parties on smaller
> states. In the absence of unanimity, each political party has worked out its
> own logic for supporting or resisting demands for smaller or not-so-small
> states.
>
> The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) favours splitting up states, barring a few,
> for better governance while the Congress party prefers not to have a fixed
> position on the issue.
>
> The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) is against smaller states per
> se. The Communist Party of India (CPI), however, is all for them but not in
> the case of every state.
>
> At the end, for political parties, it is a matter of political expediency,
> says political analyst G.V.L. Narasimha Rao.
>
> The BJP actively campaigned for the new state of Jharkhand because it led
> to, as was widely known, curbing the influence of the Rashtriya Janata Dal
> (RJD) of Lalu Prasad who held sway in Bihar.
>
> "The BJP supported the Jharkhand movement to expand their political
> influence. But the BJP would resist any move to split up Gujarat where it is
> so powerful," Rao told IANS.
>
> Senior Congress leader M. Veerappa Moily added: "There is no point
> recklessly dividing states for political expediency. The Congress does not
> have an ideological stand on the issue."
>
> But for all practical purposes, the Congress is against the creation of any
> more smaller states though many within its own ranks are supporting the
> separation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh state.
>
> "Reckless division of states will have a cascading effect and states may
> eventually end up being divided along caste lines," Moily warned.
>
> The only ground for slicing up states, according to Moily, could be
> administrative convenience. But there is no consensus on how big or small a
> state should be for administrative convenience.
>
> The CPI-M is fighting the Gorkhaland movement tooth and nail. Splitting West
> Bengal would mean the party losing an area of its present influence and
> administrative jurisdiction.
>
> CPI-M leaders, however, couch their opposition to Gorkhaland in a different
> language.
>
> "Creating smaller states on the issue of development would mean undermining
> linguistic considerations. Similarly, new states formed on the basis of
> ethnic considerations would mean undermining the economic and administrative
> viability," said CPI-M central committee member Nilotpal Basu.
>
> Clearly, political India has no single mind on whether smaller states are
> good for the country.
>
> The Gorkhaland movement in the 1980s turned violent amid charges by the
> Marxists that the Congress was secretly backing the Gorkhas so as to
> undermine the CPI-M in West Bengal. Its advocates say they are not satisfied
> with the limited autonomy granted to them.
>
> A separate Gorkhaland would be made up mainly of the hilly parts of northern
> West Bengal, close to Nepal. Its capital would be Darjeeling, a tourist
> paradise.
>
> The campaign for Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh had the strong backing of the
> tribals, who felt they were not getting their due from the plainspeople.
>
> Those clamouring for Uttarakhand also mainly a hilly region and home to
> many tourist and Hindu pilgrimage centres wanted to get out of the clutches
> of the mammoth Uttar Pradesh.
>
> In 2000, all three states Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were
> carved respectively out of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.
>
> That success only emboldened the feelings of those who say they too need
> separate states.
>
> Both the central and Maharashtra governments are contending with the demand
> for a separate state of Vidarbha, constituting the eastern region of
> Maharashtra with Nagpur as the capital. "The BJP supports Vidarbha because it
> is strong in this part of Maharashtra," said analyst Rao.
>
> Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Mayawati has indicated that Uttar Pradesh,
> India's most populous state of which she is chief minister, could be broken
> into three states Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh.
>
> At one time, PMK chief S. Ramadoss had called for a separate state in
> northern Tamil Nadu where his Vanniar community is numerically strong. The
> DMK and the AIADMK do not want Tamil Nadu to be broken up.
>
> Demands have also been made to separate the Jammu region from Jammu and
> Kashmir and Coorg from Karnataka.
>
> Between 1947 and 1950, the princely states that existed during the British
> Raj were politically integrated into the Indian union. Most were merged with
> existing provinces.
>
> In 1956, the states reorganisation commission appointed by then prime
> minister Jawaharlal Nehru reorganised the boundaries of Indian states along
> linguistic lines following mass protests in many parts of India.
>
> After toying with the idea of a second states reorganisation commission, the
> ruling Congress has junked it. According to Moily, none of the partners of
> the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) are for it.
>
> But that does not mean the demand for new states will go away. If Telangana
> comes up, it would be made up of 10 Andhra Pradesh districts. It is a good
> case in point.
>
> Last month, the movement for a separate state of Telangana suffered a
> setback when the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) lost out to the Congress and
> the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), both of which are not for a break-up of Andhra
> Pradesh, in by-elections to four Lok Sabha and 18 assembly seats.
>
> The TRS MPs and MLAs had forced these elections after quitting their seats
> to protest the Congress' dithering over a separate Telangana. But despite the
> electoral drubbing, the TRS has vowed not to give up the demand. And many in
> the Congress and the TDP agree with TRS.
>
>
> thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/gorkhaland-triggers-fresh-debate-over-smaller-states_10061785.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> News TV Blog Photo Music Video Live Chat
> Directory Testimonials Forum Contact
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>INSIGHT: YOUNG VOICES is an English bimonthly Dalit youth magazine. One of our
>prime objectives has been to create a platform for Dalit students and youth to
>share their views and to interact with scholars, academicians, activists and
>organizations working on the issues related with the Dalit community.
>
>Towards this, our study circle organizes meetings on any particular issue
>every month. We encourage young Dalit students/ researchers/ activists to
>share their work with us during the meetings of Study Circle.
>
>
>
>
Jharkhand Forum | Jharkhand.org.in/forum
