2IIM - CAT Discussion Forum

Hi

With CAT 2010 results expected only in the month of February (thanks to phase 2 of the exam on Jan 30th and Jan 31st), it is highly likely that you will have very little time left to prepare for your GDs if you start after the results.

It is therefore, wise to start your prep for IIM's Group Discussions as soon as possible.

We will keep posting topics of relevance on this forum. Append what you think are appropriate points to discuss on the same.

The first topic is "Smaller States : A Bane or Boon?"

The question is not whether smaller states bane or boon. It is actually, good governance or bad governance.

Some large states such as Tamilnadu, Gujarat are better governed compared to smaller states such as Chattisgarh or Jharkand.

Hi Ag,

Agree with you that the question is about governance and not states' size per se. I think the critical issue is whether smaller states size does indeed help in taking issues more "local" and therefore help governance. I think with India's size and diversity, smaller states are the way to go. It is understandable that peripheral parts of large states feel ungoverned and uncared for. The best way to combat this would be to indeed have smaller governing units.

If there is someone who can give clarity on the powers that a state government has that a local body such as a district administration does not have, we can understand how having smaller states will help. If not why cant we just have districts as the nodal level of delivering governance and then have all of them reporting to the centre. That way one level intermediary will be eliminated.

A state government has a far broader canvas to operate from than a district administration. The state government has control over law and order, overall planning and, most importantly budget allocation under its purview. The district administration is the institution on which implementation of government plans rests under, whereas the state government is trusted with both planning and implementation.

The district administration can be compared to a merely administering role, whereas the state has the much broader planning role. For instance, if an education drive is announced, the state would decide the budgets, plan the resource allocation and set the targets. The district admin would take care of the more local issues of preparing the schools for the programs, training teachers etc.

Both roles are no doubt important, but the scope that state government has is much larger.

India has chosen to have the federal structure mainly due to two reasons - its large scale and immense diversity. In my view, both are critical reasons and there is merit in retaining this structure.

Before we get into a deep discussion on this, it is probably best to read some reports supporting both sides of this debate

The Hindu argues for an an undivided Andhra - http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/09/stor ... 910800.htm

And then prompthly burnishes its objective credentials with a rebuttal in a subsequent issue - http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article80961.ece

These two could go some way towards helping one get an idea of the core issue.

There are 28 states in India and approximately 600 districts.

i.e., we are looking at an average of 22 districts per state. It looks a colossal waste to have a complete layer of administration in the form of a state government machinery replicated 28 times so that a cluster of 22 can be supposedly administered properly.

Instead there could be a stronger and a bigger central government and then the district administration that administers effectively. At least one will not have problems such as cauvery water or people claiming Biharis cannot be allowed into another state. Possibility of a district fighting in such a manner is not high. Cauvery does not originate from one district or flow in just one or two districts. It will pass through at least 12 districts and with the central government being the authority on planning an allocation, fights that happen between Karnataka and Tamilnadu or Karnataka and Maharashtra over water will not happen.

Hi Raghav, such a solution appears obvious and intuitive, but I dont think it is feasible. Diverse entities need to be governed with more federal structures. Your Tamil Nadu and Karnataka might have n issues with Cauvery waters, but the moment you govern them centrally and attempt to solve water disputes centrally, they will start questioning the authority of someone sitting in Delhi trying to solve problems in South India. The central government in India gets authority only because it does not involve itself in every small matter. It restricts itself to the big issues - policy, budgetary allocation defence etc, and lets the states govern themselves. The moment this structure is gone, the states will start questioning the authority of the central guy.

The congress had this seemingly bright idea of developing the country into one single unit by imposinbg a common language. People in different parts of the country revolted (with Tamil Nadu leading the charge). The day some central government says that they will decide what is beign taught in the schools and who will rule where, the very notion of India might be at risk.

The best way of keeping India united is to be more federal, not more central.