Should India Be Divided Larger States For Better Governence: .Saravanan .Bala .Hari
Should India Be Divided Larger States For Better Governence: .Saravanan .Bala .Hari
S.SARAVANAN
S.BALA
S.HARI
YES OF COURSE
Small states
A reality of India
in 1950
• Haryana
• Himachal Pradesh
• Meghalaya
• Manipur
• Tripura
• Sikkim
1975 - 2000
• Mizoram
• Arunachal Pradesh
2000
• Chhattisgarh
• Uttarakhand
• Jharkhand
The need for the hour is having a
SMALL STATE
FACTS ABOUT OUR INDIAN STATES
Uttar Pradesh
• Population of more than 167 billion
• Bigger than Germany + France, Russia, Pakistan,
China, America, Brazil and Indonesia.
TAMILNADU
Bihar
• Population of more than 82 million.
• Bigger than Mexico
Maharashtra
• Population of more than 92.1 million.
• Maharashtra has ten million more than
Germany.
West Bengal
• Population of more than 80 million.
• Bigger than the Philippines
If the big states means progress then
why India has not made progress like
America, Germany, France ,Hong Kong or England.
America, Hong Kong both were ruled by
STATES
• India can be developed faster because each and every
state government is responsible for the development of
the state.
• The benefits of the government polices can be
implemented very easily.
• With smaller area of states, administration will definitely
be better and each area will be properly represented.
• Controlling power will be more powerful
ECONOMIC
• PER CAPITA INCOME: Rs 49,038 in 2008 (third highest in the
country)
• INDUSTRIES: One of the most industrialised states in India,
Haryana is home to Maruti, Hero Honda and other big
industries ranging from cars to IT.
Its agricultural output is also increased.
6 5.0 5.0
4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7
3.9
4 3.2 3.0
2.1 2.1
2
0
Jharkhand Bihar Chhattisgarh Madhya Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh India
Pradesh
Source: Central Statistical Organization;Note 1986-87 to 1992-93
1993-94 to 1999-00
2000-01 to 2006-07
Demand for separate States