The states we have we can hardly handle, and here we are dreaming of SL joining Indian union. LOL

It would be interesting to see if this really happens, considering the legacy of the LTTE and anti-Tamil sentiment in SL.

@ Saurav

That’s what I meant. The only economic activity in Delhi is politics and it literally lives on the political rent from the rest of India. How else could it afford a 350 km long Metro system or an International Airport when Mumbai, the economic linchpin, doesn’t have such amenities.

Kejriwal (or Sheila Dikshit for that matter) did not have to exercise their economic brains at all. In Punjab, you will see this coming to the fore under AAP governance. Growing tax revenues is very very hard.

1. SL had higher per capita GDP and HDI than any large state in India.

2. In 1991 India narrowly averted a SL type situation

3. Gujarat not that good by South Indian standards. Kinda middling Tamil Nadu, Karnataka etc are going better.

4. Hindi speaking regions economic development is very important for keeping India together. It is sort of obvious to any objective observer that they are the most hegemonic culture in India (for both Hindus and Muslims).

‘The big unseen advantage of Kejriwal is that he is operating within a vast ocean of provincial tax money that will bankroll his “free public goods”.’

I doubt that Kejriwal is that innovative. His advantages in Delhi are unique, which many have forgotten now, was well run from Sheila Dixit times. Its like making Mumbai a state, and claiming its being run well, or the CM being innovative. The same schtick is run by TRS in Telangana which runs a state essentially with Hyderabad’s money while serving half of the people (after the division) .

I doubt that AAP can replicate its ‘innovation’ in Punjab even. A state which, by North standards, is industrialized with good per capita income.

I see the ignorance in Indian views abt Pakistan and vice versa, run both ways. But then this is what we will have when we have far less interaction b/w the 2 countries.

Agree with Ugra here. Gujjus , MH and S-Indian states can be what they are because of the heavy lifting of N-Indians. And for that they do pay ‘political rent’.

We bring the muscle and ‘structure’ to the Indian union.

@Vikram

You are missing the point. Gujjus are able to be Gujjus because of the rest of India. They have paid good political rent for the past two decades to the Union of India. In this aspect, Maharashtra and Karnataka are also exactly like Gujarat.

Sri Lanka’s HDI is way above India (Ranked 72 against 131), but this literally has ephemeral meaning for them. In the real world aspect, they cannot match up to the Union of India’s sandbox for political and economic innovation. This is the Indic aspect where tiny, small or medium sized political states don’t work.

“That’s assuming it isn’t invaded and occupied.”

Would have been very much on the cards from both North and South, Gujarat has rarely managed to stay independent.

>An independent Gujarat would be way richer and better governed than the rest of India.

That’s assuming it isn’t invaded and occupied.