Thank you Aiyar ji for such a wonderful article.

Atleast now the so called enlightned educated class opposing new states will realize that hard facts dictate new smaller states

Maoism is not so much a disease as it is a symptom. The kind of *progress* that India is following, which is highly inequitable, makes corruption inevitable. We cheer the growing number of billionaires, but look the other way when desperate debt-burdened farmers commit suicide. How many people have a real stake in this emerging capitalist-exploitative system? Very few.

Small states or large won't make a difference, except to the statistics, which are damned lies anyway.

Good research, But i regret that decision to make the states are made by politicians based on vote bank not the growth oriented.

A case for smaller states should be needing in-depth study of all pros and cons. Any hasty steps should be avoided.
Maoists have created serious problems for development of tribal areas, they are thriving on backwardness of area and corruption issues. Activities of Maoists must be controlled.
Agitational approach may not be encouraged for creation of new states but a commission may be deputed to undertake exhaustive study and present recommendations. A well considered solution should be found to solve this matter.

Yes,
we too feel our southern part of tamil nadu are left out in the developements of Chennai,
When chennai developes only neighbouring districts and people from other states like North/maharasra/andhra/Kerala get the benefit by moving in there.
The south tamils has to face the tough task of competeting with them and finding extreamly difficult task of making co-opeartion between tamils.Even a earlier settled from one south village don't guide and help a new incoming person.
The lack of unity cause the exteam difficulty and some times giving up the oppurtunity to others.
Particularly business are taken away from the tamils.

Excellent article with crystakl clear views that supports the reorganisation in favour of smaller states.But why you have not taken the growth data for the tinier states of the north east. I think the data will cast a different picture to clarify that smaller states are not the answer for faster growth.

My be some statistics provided by Mr.Aiyer might prove initially that smaller states are are making better economic progress than bigger states, but in the long run other things, being equal,as long as muscle and money power that is swaying the electrical system now is likely to prove very costly with ayrams and gayarams changing the Govt.,s at their whims and facny.Forther, it is not the political expediency that that has to be depended upon to create a new state but its economic viability is more important keeping in view even bigger states such as Maharastra or Tamilnadu are dependent on central grants/ assistance with out which they can not balance budgets.All said and done, unless the our politicians are prepared to shed certain portion of their selfishness and cultivate to work for the public good nothing can be achieved.

Hmm, your article makes a strong case for smaller states. Would you apply the same logic to smaller corporates and recommend their break up too.

I am someone who supports having smaller states. But, there are some problems in the arguments. First, using GDP growth rates to evaluate development is not correct in this context. You could have very high grown rates and still the majority not benefit. This is even more relevant in cases where the growth is driven by usage of Natural resources. Take a look at the middle east for example.
The other bit about Jharkhand. I would like Mr. Aiyer to get some facts correct. The part of Bihar that was taken out to form Jharkhand was not the most backward part. It had places like Jamshedpur, Ranchi and Dhanbad, some of the most advanced bits of Bihar. So the argument that this part started showing higher growths after making them separate state is not correct.

More states will mean more jobs ;if you divide a big state into 4 smaller ones then you will have 4 CM,4Commissioners of police,
and so on and you will increase the number of babus by a factor of four thus helping employment statitics.

all is well but what about there political stebility it was seen that these new states are politicaly unsteble
what you think about telengana and vidarbha

thank you very much sir for the use full data. this is simply awesome writing, after reading this article i have annexed myself in your fans list.
thank you again.

1.the gdp growth of new small states would have been based on a small base.from a base of 10 if you grow 1 unit , the growth will be 10% but consider a base of 100 and the growth has to be 10 units.
2.smaller states tend to be more vulnerable to the fancies of politicians.
3.Atleast after some time, small states will have to go for resource procurements from neighbouring ares.small states will make the issue of resource sharing a big problem.
4.admn machinery ,cost of maintaining the staff and their allowances will be an unproductive expenditure and it have a multiplier effect over time and place.