The nature of citizenship offered by India is universal and sub-nationalism was in background when India adopted new constitution and emerged as a nation state decades ago. The nationalism was fueled by the then freedom fighters and decision makers at the national and state level politics. What ever may be their party affiliation the concern for nation for the priority, the states were not developed to have become an independent economic strength. The national priorities were together and distributed across the nation with clear mandate to provide boost to economy- including agriculture and industry dedicated to the nation. The national goals are set by the then leaders and obidiantly being followed till the rise of new India post 1991.
The decentralisation of power with centre leaving the development turf to the state, and state governments joining the free market economy to take charge of their development. It was so good to feel the new power of the state, but it also added downfall of the centre both economically and politically. As a nation state the control of centre is limited and state's are running for the money. But till this time all states were not ready for the freedom it has taken almost a decade for the poor states to rise from the ashes.
The states like UP, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has increasingly being now prepared to join the league of developed states like Tamilnadu, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana etc. Much needs to be done in order to be attractive for the outsiders, instead the growth in these states would arrest the mass exodus of population to the developed state. In more cases, the developed state might loose some shine due to initial labour shocks.
The politics of nation is also allude the centre-state relationships with little over 10 states, leaders have no ambition to join national politics, its marred with difficulties, its now very tough to be raise a national party. Except, Congress and BJP to an extent has been successful in holding the turf, but badly challenged in their respective party ruled states.
Development policies of centre is more advisory then authentic show of nationalistic flavour, and states often do not offer centre favourable ground, central agencies across states find it difficult to work with state governments. Railways is best example to show the politics of decentralisation and hurdles both sets of government puts to one another.
A state leaders no matter how good they are in administrator or being popular in public finds very difficult to find acceptence at the national level. Its difficult to find national leaders acceptable at the state politics, take case of communist leaders (central and states) they are different roles and destinations.
Party politics for long has used the state has ground to work as national leaders, the nation logic has been used to promote the party ideologies, but in practice the state's across the nation had become laboratories of such ideologies such as Gujarat, Kerala, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Tamil Nadu. Most of the these ideologies ruled by different parties find it difficult to be adopted at the national level.
May be time has also come to review and research on the subject.
The decentralisation of power with centre leaving the development turf to the state, and state governments joining the free market economy to take charge of their development. It was so good to feel the new power of the state, but it also added downfall of the centre both economically and politically. As a nation state the control of centre is limited and state's are running for the money. But till this time all states were not ready for the freedom it has taken almost a decade for the poor states to rise from the ashes.
The states like UP, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has increasingly being now prepared to join the league of developed states like Tamilnadu, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana etc. Much needs to be done in order to be attractive for the outsiders, instead the growth in these states would arrest the mass exodus of population to the developed state. In more cases, the developed state might loose some shine due to initial labour shocks.
The politics of nation is also allude the centre-state relationships with little over 10 states, leaders have no ambition to join national politics, its marred with difficulties, its now very tough to be raise a national party. Except, Congress and BJP to an extent has been successful in holding the turf, but badly challenged in their respective party ruled states.
Development policies of centre is more advisory then authentic show of nationalistic flavour, and states often do not offer centre favourable ground, central agencies across states find it difficult to work with state governments. Railways is best example to show the politics of decentralisation and hurdles both sets of government puts to one another.
A state leaders no matter how good they are in administrator or being popular in public finds very difficult to find acceptence at the national level. Its difficult to find national leaders acceptable at the state politics, take case of communist leaders (central and states) they are different roles and destinations.
Party politics for long has used the state has ground to work as national leaders, the nation logic has been used to promote the party ideologies, but in practice the state's across the nation had become laboratories of such ideologies such as Gujarat, Kerala, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Tamil Nadu. Most of the these ideologies ruled by different parties find it difficult to be adopted at the national level.
May be time has also come to review and research on the subject.
