New Delhi:
The Telangana announcement has triggered the inevitable. The recent bandh in Darjeeling was an example of how it's reigniting similar demands of separate states from across the country.
The demands cut across party lines. The Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati has said that the Centre should divide India's largest state Uttar Pradesh into four smaller ones. The Nationalist Congress Party's Praful Patel echoed the same sentiment for Vidarbha.
So is all this just political posturing or are smaller states really better? There seems to be no clear answers.
According to the Planning Commission data, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, all born in 2000, have done well for themselves, often outstripping their parent states.
On the other hand, the National Sample Survey Organisation data released last week puts both Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in the list of worst performers when it came to poverty levels and per capita expenditure.
There is no 'one size fits all' approach. Many argue that separation on the basis of regions being ignored often cannot arrest the political instability that follows.
Defending creation of smaller states, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna said, "It doesn't get badly managed. We are prospering. "
For many small states, it is a question of better administration. Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Dr Raman Singh said, "Today our state GDP is higher than the national average. In ten years, see how we have maintained growth and increased per capita income."
Senior journalist Arati Jerath says, "I think economically and administratively, the experience of smaller states has been that they have certainly done better than when they were part of larger states."
While the Centre has clarified that it is not taking up any other statehood demand at the moment, voices across the political spectrum have already started saying it's time to have a relook at the re-organisation of Indian states.