Thoughts about Bifurcation of States in India
Bifurcation of a large state causes significant change in its economic pattern.
Common arguments in support of bifurcation are:
Scope for a better, decentralized and participatory development process. Citizens’ hopes and desires are more effectively reflected in the policies of new state. Local residents enjoy exclusive control over resources available in the new state. Compact size of the state enables easier administration.
Although these justifications are not incorrect, a fundamental question still remains as: Limited economic base is going to limit developmental capabilities of the new state, isn’t it?
Therefore, these smaller states with limited economic capabilities remain dependent upon the Central Government for financial aid. So, the new state achieves political autonomy at the cost of economic autonomy. Is it really worth?
What if the process of bifurcation is going to limit the financial capabilities of new state? How will the newborn state generate revenue to achieve desired development? Isn’t that contradictory to the claim of ‘bifurcating larger states into multiple smaller states with the intention of achieving swift and balanced model of development’?
Flexible and rich revenue generating sources are centrally controlled by the Central Government and the smaller states keep expecting to receive financial aid for their own development. Does this comply with the federal structure of Indian states?
(Reference: Article by Mr. Abhay Tilak, Maharashtra Times, 20th November 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment