A state is a sub-national entity, geopolitically sub-divided from a country for administrative efficiency. It is neither possible nor desirable to organise states on the basis of a single test of either language or culture. However, linguistic homogeneity was considered an important factor conducive to administrative convenience. Any new state created should be as far as possible self-supporting. It should be able to raise on its own initiative, at least a part of the resources needed for its development. It would not be wise to reorganise states conforming to economic regions. Nor can the principle of economic self-sufficiency within an administrative unit be regarded as a clear criterion. It would be desirable to avoid as far as possible wide disparities in resources between the various states. The units should be large enough to ensure administrative efficiency and co-ordination of fiscal development and welfare activities. No change should be made unless the advantages resulting from it in terms of the welfare of the people of each constituent state and the nation as a whole compensates for the heavy burden on administrative and financial resources of the country, which reorganisation must entail.
From establishing a firm state government & state affiliated adept educational institutes to the careful management of all the inevitable paperwork involved in assigning the population thus shifted a whole new identity in order to live in the country with their just rights. Formation of new states also wants extensive planning of railways and roadways, diversion of waterways and the ascertainment of equal distribution of natural resources including productive land & mineral ores amongst the pre-existing and developing states, thereby reasonably disturbing the ecology of the nation. And considering the long-standing inter-state conflicts over natural resources and the greater resource fragmentation resulting from increasing the number of states, it’s just pragmatic to not hinge on the possibility of peaceful, cordial inter-state sharing of resources. For an unexampled state to overcome this concomitant economic crunch and resource deficit, it might take more than a couple of years.
Increase in economic disparity between states will lead to further social polarisation of the rich and the poor. A thin layer of the population might prosper at the expense of millions of workers who might lose their jobs through restructuring, corporatisation and privatisation. Government subsidies and assistance will be greatly reduced, if not completely curtailed, from a vast number of the needy for quite a few years. This will be the foreground for cliques of aristocrats for vying to make “their” locality an attractive source of cheap labour for international investors. The upsurge of new political groups, and the consequent sharp competition between different regions, shall further exploit linguistic, ethnic, regional and caste differences for fashion loyalties on the basis of regional chauvinism and self-fulfilling communalisation.
What differences can lead to the demands for a new state, in the name of progress and prosperity? Different languages, and perhaps even the various dialects of a language? Financial conceit to promote economic inequality? Religion? Heralding a whole new political blame-game? Yet a better reason for ostracism – caste. And then perhaps the dissimilar strata of the same caste? Where does this division of states, more politely referred to as “re-organisation”, eventually lead us?
Are we aiming at changing the very definition of “country” into “some definite acres of land populated by a team of blood-relations with their own sappy cliché contentions, wherein each entity becomes a self-governed state”?
N.B.: This was written in 2013, and is most definitely not a standard opinion for every country in the world. Also, I stand to be corrected.