Mani Shankar Aiyar (“Are smaller states better governed?”, December 15) has got it completely correct — the debate has to be about empowerment at the grassroots level and not about the size of the state. Of course, a smaller state is easier to manage, just as a smaller company is easier to manage. But if you want a state, or a company, to do well, the real issue is whether people down the line are empowered or not.
It is a good idea to approach the topic from the point of view of corporate India. How many firms in the Sensex are small-scale firms? None. Reliance Industries Limited tops the list, and yet the company is so big. The reason why it is doing so well despite being so big is the processes that have been put in place — indeed, the concept of economies of scale happens only when processes have been put in place.
In the case of states, this process of empowerment can happen only if the panchayati raj institutions are given enough powers as well as money to take certain decisions. Till this happens, even smaller states will continue to be badly governed. Jharkhand is a smaller state but, as we have seen from the antics of its former chief minister, it continues to be badly governed. Human development indices in Jharkhand haven’t improved either, despite it being a smaller state.
Ajit Singh is right when he says the citizens of Harit Pradesh, if and when it does come into being, will have to travel much shorter distances to vent their grievances. But how will this help if the grievances are not going to be addressed anyway? If genuine decentralisation takes place, for 99 per cent of the work a citzen has, just going to the district headquarters is good enough. We must not get distracted by the small-versus-big debate, and should stay focused on genuine grassroots democracy.
Sujit Sharma, New Delhi