Tip | Wikipedia: States and union territories – India

The Administrative divisions of India are Indian subnational administrative units; they compose a nested hierarchy of country subdivisions. Indian states and territories frequently use different local titles for the same level of subdivision (e.g., the mandals of Andhra Pradesh correspond to tehsils of Uttar Pradesh and other Hindi-speaking states and taluka of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu).

The smaller subdivisions (villages and blocks) exist only in rural areas. In urban areas Urban Local Bodies exist instead of these rural subdivisions.

In the context of the Indian Constitution, local government bodies are the subject of the State List and are thereby governed by State Statutes, or in the case of Union Territories, by the Union Parliament. Federal recognition of local government was substantively expressed in the 74th Constitution Amendment Act of 1992. […]

Main article: States and territories of India

India is composed of 28 states and 7 union territories (including a national capital territory). The union territories are governed by administrators, appointed by the President of India. Two of the territories (Delhi and Puducherry) have been given partial statehood, with elected legislatures and executive councils of ministers, but limited powers.

Source: Administrative divisions of India – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Address : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India
Date Visited: Mon Sep 23 2013 15:15:09 GMT+0200 (CEST)

Within a context of overall backwardness lie substantial variations in the level of development of the different states of India. Six out of 28 states (Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and West Bengal) account for a little more than 50 per cent of the GDP generated by all of them together. Per capita gross state domestic product in 2010 varied from a third of the national average in the state of Bihar to more than one-and-a-half times the national average in the case of Maharashtra and Haryana.

In a country as large as India, regional variations are inevitable. Variations in geographical terrain that affect agricultural productivity, differences in climatic conditions and differentials in the availability of crucial raw materials, among other factors, affect a state’s performance relative to that of others. But what stands out from an even impressionistic examination of differentials in economic performance suggest that these kinds of “initial conditions” are not the prime determinants of regional inequalities. States rich in mineral resources such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand and Orissa are among the more backward, and the performance of the North-eastern states cannot be explained by their geographical weaknesses alone.

What seems to be crucial here is the evolution of economic policy over a long period of time, especially since the colonial period. The impact of colonialism came first through the operations of the British East India Company and then through the workings of the imperial government. The impact of colonialism was not only regionally concentrated, with its full force visible in the Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras, but indeed very different across even these regions. […]

Source: The sources of economic diversity – The Hindu
Address : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Chandrasekhar/the-sources-of-economic-diversity/article2095734.ece
Date Visited: Mon Sep 23 2013 15:26:17 GMT+0200 (CEST)

[Bold typeface added above for emphasis]


Related posts





About website administrator

Secretary of the foundation
This entry was posted in Colonial policies, Democracy, Figures, census and other statistics, Government of India, History, Press snippets, Quotes, Tips. Bookmark the permalink.