IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2. Even worse, looking at the split away states such as Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand, they're all now currently better run than their parent states.
I don't think it has much to do with minority oppression. If anything, these states have been run through minority favored govts for a long time. SP favored the Muslims, BSP favored lower castes, Lalu favored the OBCs, and Nitish a combination of them all.
> IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2
Whole heartedly agreed, 50 million is near the upper bound of how many people can be sanely governed by a single entity.
I didn't say that the corrupt culture has much to do with the oppression of minorities. By that factor, Gujarat should have been doing severely poorly. But oppressing minorities seems to be something all of these states tend to want to do some time or the other. That's just something that's bad for business and economic growth, but still doesn't explain why these states are uniformly corrupt, even worse so than poorer states like Sikkim or Odisha.
Holy sh*t, you're supposed to reserve the rabid mask off racism for private spaces.
UP and Bihar were run by local minoritarian govts, mostly allied with the national minoritarian party. They ran criminal govts for decades, because India has a system with a 'weak center' and any fair but targeted retaliation would be seen as targeting specific communities.
The reality of things is that you can't run an underdeveloped heterogenous society like a homogenous rich country in the west.