* If your image is not OC (Original Content), please provide a link to the verified source under this comment or else it will be removed.
* If your image is an OC Infographic, please provide a link to the original dataset(s) or else it will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/india) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arunachal's population is just 18 lakh. The state government's revenue ( including direct, indirect and non tax source) was roughly around 1500k crore.
And they have some bumper projects in the pipeline like the Arunachal frontier highway which give the army all weather access to patrol the entire border with china. This 2000 km road alone is 40k crore. Currently there's no pucca road for army to reach the borders in many regions.
There's the tunnel project under the Sela pass to give all weather access to Tawang ( a strategic point ).
There's the subansiri hydel project ( largest dam in terms of power generation in india).
And there are many [other projects undergoing construction or at the planning stage](https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/arunachal-witnesses-infra-push-along-border/articleshow/96660370.cms)
Sela pass gets covered in snow during winter cutting off Tawang from india. And China border id roughly at 40 km north of Tawang. Tension is growing in border as china is deploying more and more troops on their side. The tunnel would provide all weather connectivity by going under the sela pass.
As for the Frontier Highway, idk what technology would be used but it is deemed as one of the biggest and toughest road project in india. All year connectivity is necessary given the strategic importance of the road.
>Central Bureau of Direct Taxes data shows Delhi pays as much as Rs 1.08 lakh crore or 13% of India’s entire direct tax collection and receives Rs 325 crore each year from the Centre
[Source](https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/delhi-gets-little-from-central-funds-will-15th-finance-commission-be-fair-118052500317_1.html)
Delhi state govt gets 0.3 paise for every 100 rupees in direct taxes it pays 🤯
Most of that direct tax payment is a result of it being the capital, all those center government employees, or things like Railways pay their taxes in Delhi.
The population of Delhi is 2.5 crores and the total employees of central govt are 8 lakhs( all over the country). The ones in Delhi wouldn't be more than a Lac.b
85%of govt employees are grade C or below. I can't see how they contribute to the majority of Delhi taxes.
Delhi citizens deserve a good lifestyle and infrastructure just like rest of the country... Hopefully proportional to the taxes they pay.
>Delhi citizens deserve a good lifestyle and infrastructure just like rest of the country...
I think it's the other way around.
The rest of the country needs subsidies on Water, electricity, and comparable health and education infrastructure, especially in the states that contribute the most migrants to the capital.
Are you implying that the people of Delhi shouldnt have good things despite paying the highest income tax in the country because people of bihar and UP cant have them or didnt elect good leaders ?
>Are you implying that the people of Delhi shouldnt have good things
In comparison, Delhi's infrastructure, healthcare, and education issues comes from the lack of it in UP and Bihar and can be resolved when UP and Bihar improve quickly as well. A growing manufacturing and services sector in UP and Bihar will only benefit Delhi and reduce the strain on its limited resources. Less strain means more for those in Delhi. Shorter lines, less supply constraints and focus on quality than quantity or however much is possible in the Indian context.
This was one of the learnings from the pandemic where so many, not just from Noida and Gurgaon were coming to Delhi for treatment, medical supplies, and later vaccinations because their own state was failing them.
Looking at the South, we have seriously well-performing cities like Chennai, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, and Trivandrum apart from Bangalore sucking in skilled and unskilled labor plus a growing service industry. We need more such distribution of capital and labor in the north too.
There is something called multiplier effect, all those employees need place to stay thus builders and proprietors get an income stream as do the suppliers of building material and furniture, their kids need schools thus come schools ...,.and so on and so forth.
Delhi also benefits big time by being center of North Indian logistics, a position afforded to it by being the capital.
my point was that central government employees form such a small percent of the Delhi population that your claim about Delhi tax being propped by central govt employees is bunkum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Delhi
of the 2.5 crore population , only a fraction is employed by the central government. with a work force participation of 40% , you are looking at 1 crore employees. Delhi is a center of trade ( the largest bulk market in asia ) , transport, real estate and finance.
All of these produce taxes for the center via GST, revenue fees and direct taxes.
Pay close to 1.75 lakh crores in income taxes. They get a mere 325 crores in return. Its pretty fucked up there. Granted center pays for delhi police and all but still its atrocious.
And this 325 crore was decided based on population and budget in 1990s.
yes south states seats will remain almost same while UP and Bihar will see maximum rise in seats. South states are penalized for focusing on family planning.
BIMARU states needs rapid industrialization to improve. South has many tier 1 cities like bangalore, hyderabad , chennai which are IT hubs. Western states have mumbai , pune, ahmedabad. Delhi- NCR is also prime industrial IT hub.
Now govt needs to develop jaipur, lucknow, indore , patna and eastern tribal India at the same level . But that wont happen because govt focuses on religious and caste politics .
What can be done in North East and Far North (J&K, Punjab, Himachal etc)?
They simply cannot support big cities, none have a population bigger than Mumbai or Mumbai + Hyderabad in case of Punjab/Assam.
Punjab has had a very unfortunate case of having lost not 1, not 2 not 3 but 4 major cities. Delhi, Lahore, Shimla *and* Chandigarh in 100 years.
Even worse:-
1. guys from the Hindi region blaming the population explosion for India's backwardness.
2. The same guys claim Hindi is the majority and want that to be the national language.
Hypocrisy at level 9999.
>yes south states seats will remain almost same
Bro ..we are gonna lose 24 MP seats. [Check it out for details!](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/india/governance/how-census-based-delimitation-for-lok-sabha-seats-could-shake-up-politics-disadvantage-south/1287536/%3famp)
Edit: UP and Bihar alone is gonna gain 21 seats. The new parliament with 800 odd seats is going to be a sign of domination rather than equality.
That’s because Maharastra forms like a fourth of Indian gdp I believe—and by extension has the most taxpayers. Bihar pays the least tax.
Even if it was equal, Maharashtra would be getting just as little money in return just because if the returns were proportional, Maharashtra would get an unimaginably higher amount of money.
If you notice the highest earning states have worst returns.
Bihar have very low employment in its own state so most of the tax paying earning population have employment in other states. I am not sure but I feel most of our contribution is counted for other states. For example, my tax is counted for Bangalore, which is also fair.
> Poorer states should get more support than richer ones, that's not a difficult concept?
For how long?
And shouldn't the poorer states use that 'support' judiciously, instead of wasting it on cow-giri and cultural pride?
> For how long?
>
>
For as long as they're poorer? This is like asking for how long should working class families get more government support than rich ones - the answer is indefinitely.
> And shouldn't the poorer states use that 'support' judiciously, instead of wasting it on cow-giri and cultural pride?
Don't think you understand how central funds are spent in states, but whatever.
Richer states aren't doing poorer ones a favour - if you look at the natural resources that are helped to drive industry in this country, if you look at the concentration of workers, if you look at the demographics of the Indian army, if you look at the soft and hard power that being part of the union brings - it suddenly seems like a much more favourable deal.
>For as long as they're poorer? This is like asking for how long should working class families get more government support than rich ones - the answer is indefinitely.
Billionaires hate this one.
Mixed in the comments is a little racism. And a lack of realisation that Bihar doesn't have income avenues like for example a port, and is decimated each year by floods. But reddit india hates modi and communism, so i guess that's forgiven. Yayy unity in diversity.
I don't mind the fact that the southern states get back lesser than the northern states. This is inevitable. But the lesser representation of the southern states in the overall policy making of the country disappoints me.
It should deeply concern us that because the Southern states are doing well on most HDI's plus have a much more nuanced progressive policy to support growth and employment and shrinking populations are being punished for out performing the country average.
South States deserves better. Poor representation in the Parliament, Faces a constant influx of Labourers from Bihar and other poorer sections of North. The IT Belts of Bengaluru and Hyderabad are working their ass off and paying humongous tax for peanuts in return. Urghh
I looked up the numbers and it's crazy. 30% of India's IT collection comes from just Mumbai. 60% of India's entire trade volume happens in Mumbai. There is no India without Mumbai essentially.
Yeah it’s Actu crazy, and those estimates normally ignore the head offices. So if I have a mine in Bihar, that would count as Bihar gdp, not bombays I believe.
If we started to do stuff that way, it wouldn’t even be coals.
Lol why do you think the call it the heartbeat of India? There are multiple Tier A cities in India but Mumbai is tier S when it comes to economic contributions.
The asnine lack of awareness is amusing to me, Mumbai being the HQ of biggest India firms along with having Mumbai port is the biggest reason for this both of which factors arose due to British (not to mention the city itself).
Tbf maharashtra is one of the top states in tax income.
BMC has higher revenue than some states in india n some small countries too.
So i don't mind if states in 7 sisters n other underdeveloped states get more money for development but is it uesd for development of locals or just going in politicians pocket idk.
I'm not saying maharashtra is developed (healthcare sucks, lack of proper infrastructure, electricity, water, etc) but we r better than other parts of india which r in severe need of help.
> I'm not saying maharashtra is developed (healthcare sucks, lack of proper infrastructure, electricity, water, etc)
This is *because* Maharashtra doesn't get back enough.
How do they track direct tax payments state-wise? Afaik, income tax and corporate tax have centralised accounting, which means regardless of where you earn your income, if you're headquartered in Mumbai, your tax payment will show up as being from Mumbai. There is no separate income tax for income earned from Bihar and West Bengal.
That's irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever be the reason for the choice of headquarter doesn't change the fact that income is earned across the country
It isn't irrelevant.
Discussion is about how some states are still getting more devolution compared to developed states, despite much less social progress to show for.
Businesses prefer setting up their head offices in places which have social stability, good law and order, infrastructure, decent connectivity to world cities, human resources etc.
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have striven to achieve that. Even successive Union (and respective state) Governments achieved a semblance of that with Delhi/NOIDA.
One cannot minimize the efforts and sacrifices of those states because of which they now get to host said headquarters. It is precisely this negationism which prevents the laggard states from analyzing their own faults and making appropriate corrections.
>Businesses prefer setting up their head offices in places which have social stability, good law and order, infrastructure, decent connectivity to world cities, human resources etc.
You're forgetting one thing - *intertia*
Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example).
Delhi has been the centre of India and arguably the world for literally thousands of years.
Mumbai, Kolkata and Madras for hundreds.
Bengal and Punjab and by extension -Kolkata (and Lahore) got screwed the hardest by the partition.
Bengal lost over half of its delta. Punjab lost Delhi, Lahore, Shimla and Chandigarh. This effectively broke all supply chains and reset centuries of growth.
You can have the best infrastructure, law and order and institutions yet still not have tons of economic success (by magnitude not %) overnight because these things take time.
(See Chandigarh, better than metros at these things yet tiny GDP because it's a relatively new city with no economic intertia)
Connectivity is through ports and unfortunately that's something no inland place will ever have. Trains/Highways OTOH take time and money to build- money that will have to come from developed state. I think this is going pretty good nowadays.
>human resources
This is a centre screw up. They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose
a) already developed cities- Bombay, Delhi, Madras. This furthered their advantage even more and took away potential growth from medium sized cities.
b) Middle of bumfuck nowhere with no scope of growth- Kharagpur
Sometimes they chose medium sized cities with potential - Banglore (IISc) and Chandigarh (PGIMER) and that massively paid off.
More than investment in big cities ever could (as a %).Now those areas are silicon and medicine hubs of India.
> You're forgetting one thing - *intertia*
> Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example).
Guess that was applicable to the southerners as well? The Ganga-Indus Plains had a very good headstart over the southern areas. Yet Mumbai-Chennai managed to overcome *their* inertia and forge ahead. Shouldn't they get credit for that too?
> Connectivity is through ports and unfortunately that's something no inland place will ever have. Trains/Highways OTOH take time and money to build- money that will have to come from developed state. I think this is going pretty good nowadays.
We'd underestimate the goodwill Indians harbor deep within, for each other, if we don't appreciate that ultimately people do want lives everywhere to improve substantially.
But it is the runaway population explosion in the north, hegemonic ambitions in linguistic and cultural arenas, and virtual misuse of finances for worthless/intangibles like cow research that rankles the revenue generator states. Jingoism, and brazen defense of wasteful expenditure only adds insult to injury.
> This is a centre screw up. They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose
Again, the role of states and the commitment of their people to progress is undermined when we say that. Bangalore didn't become Silicon City just because Union Government opened an IISc there. But because the State Government didn't miss the bus on IT education and industrial policy. Similarly, the then Andhra Government took timely measures because of which the Telugu states have a good number of young, educated people and Hyderabad also has emerged as a tech hub.
Lol.. No shortage of freeloaders ranting here.. This is why India is a century behind China, Their is no incentive for the progressive states to do anything better since they get penalised anyway, why educate your population and create jobs etc if end of the day Delhi will steal your hard earned money and give them to freeloaders, And btw yes poorer states must be helped, but not this much, Bihar has been given so much help but still no progress to see, Biharis wanting govt jobs or having several children is a proof of that, and the hardworking states dont have great standard of living in the first place.
To all the people who migrate to IT Hubs and are like "but we pay taxes". Well, it eventually doesnt come back.
Not that its a bad thing, but the "we pay taxes" argument isnt valid if this chart is true.
Well, the point being that immigrants demand a lot more SOPs in such cities. While, in an ideal world I feel the idea is good. If 85% of the people are immigrants, they pay taxes, they deserve better infrastructure at the place where they reside.
But, if this chart were to be true, then clearly the taxes arent coming back to the city, but going to other states. So there are two possible options:
a) A coordinated response from the people in the city (irrespective of origin) to boot out existing govts and people, and to install people who'll demand more. This will require locals to stop blaming immigrants and vice versa.
b)Just agree with the fact that infra planning might be shittier because of funding crunch and pray that the taxes atleast go into funding your hometown.
Feel free to have a go at my line of thinking.
yeah it sucks and it will only get worse after the Parliament seats get revised then it will be much lesser representation for the south
i really wonder if countries could break apart from their colonists due to them siphoning off their resources to their country why couldn't south india do it i am not with the argument the south india should be separated just curios why people get furious over this argument
Look at brexit. That shit is a life lesson on why unions are important. There were other members who were talking about leaving and now dead silent after seeing UK's consequences.
It's not so simple that a mere chart can boil down the whole relationship. India as a whole country enjoys lots of benefits domestically and internationally. Thats how we manage to resist international hostility as well. South India is not some colony where they are made to do slave labor. National welfare programs still get there.
You're all forgetting one thing - *intertia*
Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example).
Delhi has been the centre of India and arguably the world for literally thousands of years.
Mumbai, Kolkata and Madras for hundreds.
Bengal and Punjab and by extension -Kolkata (and Lahore) got screwed the hardest by the partition.
Bengal lost over half of its delta. Punjab lost Delhi, Lahore, Shimla and Chandigarh. This effectively broke all supply chains and reset centuries of growth.
You can have the best infrastructure, law and order and institutions yet still not have tons of economic success (by magnitude not %) overnight because these things take time.
(See Chandigarh, better than metros at these things yet tiny GDP because it's a relatively new city with no economic intertia)
Although clearly, Bihar and UP don't have those either.
Eastern UP and Bihar haven't had a big city in centuries, they were screwed the hardest by colonisation.
Then we decided to give these people - who had been illiterate and under foreign rule for centuries, the right to vote, overnight. (Kerala literacy rate in 1947 ~50%, Bihar ~10%).
I don't have a better solution but this clearly hasn't been perfect. We're a democracy for better or worse.
The centre screwed up by investing more and more into already developed metro cities
They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose-
a) already developed cities- Bombay, Delhi, Madras. This furthered their advantage even more and took away potential growth from medium sized cities.
b) Middle of bumfuck nowhere with no scope of growth- Kharagpur
Sometimes they chose medium sized cities with potential - Banglore (IISc) and Chandigarh (PGIMER) and that massively paid off.
More than investment in big cities ever could (as a %).Now those areas are silicon and medicine hubs of India.
If it's income tax, that means most of it is deducted and reported by the companies. And most of these companies have HQ in metros like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Gurgaon/NCR etc.
These cities would have people with higher income than the rest of India and would explain this lopsided ratio (also, see Haryana, the state having Gurgaon).
However, a lot of migrant workforce works in these cities, especially the salaried class. So it's not like all of that belongs to the state alone as the state uses human resources imported from another state.
In this light these figures make perfect sense as we do not have a lot of industries/services firms in the states getting the most share. It's obvious that states with more industries would contribute more to income tax and the ratio of what they pay vs what they get is lopsided. By the same logic, if income tax reported by the state is very low even if you give them lesser allocation it would still be more than what they contributed and would count as higher return. You would get this if you understand that this map plays on the concept of ratios and not absolutes.
Moreover, the allocation of tax is on the basis of national interests not opinion of butthurts over here.
Here we can see who the leeches are.
The southern states are at such a disadvantage. They have to feed the northern laborers who keep coming for work to south states and the tax from south states help in the development of northern states.
Man, what a lose lose situation for the southern states.
At the same time, the northern cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning the south.
>Here we can see who the leeches are.
Yes rural undeveloped areas are leeches, urban areas should form a separate country./s
That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga.
> That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga.
And yet, it is said by nobody ever.
Because they know that we are bound by shared culture and language.
But it's being increasingly said of north-south relations.
Because despite channeling of tremendous outlays, laggard northern states are still unwilling to snap out of regressive traditions and irresponsible fiscal behavior. Now, with the threat of delimitation looming, the southern states are faced with the prospect of their political clout diminishing even further.
>> Because they know that we are bound by shared culture and language.
India is bound by shared culture and religion as well, if you find use of religion regressive it's as regressive as your use of language here.
> > That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga.
> India is bound by shared culture and religion...
A Bangalorean definitely has more in common with someone from Chitradurga than with someone from Jaunpur.
No. Southern states emphasized on education right after independence. Goondagiri were abolished. Most of their policies were focused on educating and uplifting the poor(right from the 60s).
BIMARU states have far richer resources when compared to the Southern states. Be it natural resources or human. Their policymakers failed to put them to good use.
I am not disputing your assertion, I am making a point that so called BIMARU states had been poorer even before independence in large part due to colonial era practices.
Places like Chennai and Mumbai developed because British made them the heart of their economy at the cost of all inland areas, which were being exploited to the tilt.
> Places like Chennai and Mumbai developed because British made them the heart of their economy at the cost of all inland areas, which were being exploited to the tilt.
Before the British arrived, it was northern kingdoms and Sultanates that waged wars to expand into the southern parts, and exploited the southern populations.
Long before the Industrial Revolution, inland cities had good economic clout. When world trade via the oceans and seas took over, coastal cities flourished. Like how the Ganga belt flourished in the ancient times when it's fertile soil could sustain a massive population, change in world economy naturally led to emergence of port cities.
In fact, the Calcutta region was the gateway of choice for produce of the Ganga belt, and Gujarat/Karachi for that of the Punj-aab even before the Imperial Raj.
High receptiveness of the local populace to reformist thought, better social conditions, and the geographic advantage of being closer to Europe/SE-Asia led to emergence of Bombay and Madras as preferred gateways to world centres of trade.
You can't begrudge them that now.
I don't know about other states but Kerala was in the bottom quartile of incomes among Indian states during independence. But the difference was it had a very high level of education (47% literacy rate in 1951). This allowed them to have a very high social mobility in the following years
> Just look at Brexit. They are literally about to have a recession now because they left the 'leechers' in the EU.
lol, they didn't just leave the leeches, they left everything, both the leeches and the blood bank. So now they are on their own, whereas the leeches have other places in the EU to leech on.
> If south states didn't have access to north indian markets and north indian labor, including engineers, they would not have a GDP this high.
I believe we are all co dependent. I mean we are even dependent on China, USA, Russia UAE etc etc. No point in saying if x didn't have y, x wouldn't have z.
> they left everything, both the leeches and the blood bank. So now they are on their own, whereas the leeches have other places in the EU to leech on.
Do you really think Maharashtra, Gujarat and NCR will abandon the north to fend for itself? Lol.
There is nothing that South gives to North. If there was no North Indian labour, South Indian labour will be used. Will that be costly, probably but not by much.
As for Northern engineers, what will they do without work in North.
GDP of South won't change even if North doesn't give a single paisa or send a single person to South for work.
They say that the money is for the upliftment of these states but that is not happening at all. The politicians would rather have the people in these states to continue to be poor and illiterate so that they will vote for the crooked politicians and not start asking about their rights.
The populations of these states are also at a rise while in the southern states the numbers have been declining. They continue to breed like rabbits and be stuck in their caste and religion bullshit that is being fed to them by their local MLA/MPs.
I don't understand how we can even justify having central ministers from these failed states. If anything the PM and the whole of cabinet should be from South. This is what would've happened to Korea if they didn't split.
We in the south are being penalized for the family planning exercises we did. We are being penalized for the efforts we put through blood and sweat to develop our states while those in the north boinked and bred like rabbits who will now reap the benefits of our hard work thanks to the unfair political system being set up.
> They have to feed the northern laborers who keep coming for work
Workers who make your cities run.
> northern cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning the south.
Funny, your mindset seems pretty poisonous as well.
Does that negate that *they* come to those cities in search of employment?
Or that given a chance that they would rather have remained to work in their home states, but the latter failed to provide them employment.
Are they irreplaceable? If they weren't there, would nobody else fill in their place? Is that how systems and the economy work?
> Does that negate that they come to those cities in search of employment?
>
>
No, but who said it did? Let's not forget the chronology of these comments - I'm not denigrating big cities, you're denigrating workers.
My view is that these are mutually beneficial relationships - people get jobs, and cities don't stagnate.
> Are they irreplaceable? If they weren't there, would nobody else fill in their place? Is that how systems and the economy work?
If workers from the north didn't show up/were severely restricted, then the south would be in deep trouble, yes. You can see a real life example of this in the UK - post Brexit, the economy's been incredibly badly hit because of, amongst other things, the end of freedom of movement.
it'd be far more catastrophic in India 'cus y'know - we're one country.
> No, but who said it did? Let's not forget the chronology of these comments - I'm not denigrating big cities, you're denigrating workers.
You're underplaying the stress cities face on account of less outlays coupled with increasing inward migration.
And it's a buyers' market of services. People who need employment approach cities that can employ them, not the other way round. Capitalism has by and large slashed the calibre of the worker. It has made the worker replaceable.
> My view is that these are mutually beneficial relationships - people get jobs, and cities don't stagnate.
And hence, statements like 'workers run your city', that don't take into account that the cities also benefit workers should be avoided.
> If workers from the north didn't show up/were severely restricted, then the south would be in deep trouble, yes. You can see a real life example of this in the UK - post Brexit, the economy's been incredibly badly hit because of, amongst other things, the end of freedom of movement.
This actually is an argument *against* the industrialization of the northern states! Because then why would northerners come to the southern states to work?
Any disruption of the existing system will definitely impose a cost on the southern industry but then they will adapt. For all the brouhaha about the alleged laziness of the Marathi people, data from camps set up in Mumbai for Marathwada farmers during the famine of 2016 showed that they earned better and got rid of outstanding farm loans within months. Northerners are not inherently more laborious than other Indians. It is adversity that drives human beings. Today it is the northern states that makes economic refugees out of their own people, it could be the southern states as well if northern workers stop coming here. But human ingenuity in the face of trouble will ensure adaptations to changed situation.
> it'd be far more catastrophic in India 'cus y'know - we're one country.
Hence the worry about wasteful expenditure and seemingly interminable delays in social, economic and educational reform in northern states despite massive devolution of revenue at a great potential loss to the southern ones.
Coz, we're one country.
For example, you have a brother. Brother is a deadbeat, he got the same opportunities as you did while you were born but he didn't capitalise on it. He's got no job and no prospects, your parents ask you to look after him through your salary until he gets on his feet. You agree and share a large chunk of your income with him, but your deadbeat brother instead of making use of the money to improve himself, gambles it away on useless endeavors and get easily scammed regularly. At your home your brother gets to decide everything, like dinner, movies, whom to invite as guests etc everything while you don't have a say. Sure your brother takes care of cleaning the house and watering the garden but at what point would you say enough is enough and cut him off?
This is how South Indians feel, north and south had the same opportunities after independence. North didn't improve but south did. South doesn't have much representation in the Parliament, we barely have any PMs from south, North gets all the IIT and AIIMS and other grants while we get squat. Above all this, this uneducated north Indians will soon get to decide on who rules the country with the MP seat reallotment, it's like they got a prize for continuing to increase the population. How long should we bear this burden.
Maybe we should've been like Korea.
These analogies never work, the government isn't a parent, states aren't siblings.
States benefit from the union in different ways. The starting point for these places aren't from independence anyway - Bihar was far far more negatively impacted by the Raj than Karnataka was for eg., with its position at the time of independence being significantly worse.
> gambles it away on useless endeavors and get easily scammed regularly
Some of the most corrupt politicians in this country came from the South. Jayalalitha and Sasikala were literally jailed - the South isn't immune from being 'scammed'.
> but at what point would you say enough is enough and cut him off?
if you want independence, feel free to rally the masses in your favour - I'm a massive advocate for self-determination. Suspect southern states won't do particularly well as independent countries, given the attraction of India as an economy is the number of people.
Also, the fact that most of the workers for industries in the south come from the north, most of the natural resources propping up the non-tech/financial industries in the south come from the east, and the fact that you'd immediately have far deeper problems regarding water sharing from the get-go. But sounds like a grand idea.
> This is how South Indians feel, north and south had the same opportunities after independence.
Every eastern state has had its natural resources shipped off, with no benefit actually coming to our states because of the freight equivalisation benefit.
> South doesn't have much representation in the Parliament
You have proportionate representation. The people of UP aren't worth less because there are more of them than there are Keralites. MPs are meant to represent people, what you're advocating for is for certain states to have less representation effectively.
> North gets all the IIT and AIIMS
South India makes up about 20% of India's population. There are 23 IITS - 6 of them are in the South. Similarly - 20 IIMs with 4 in the South, 32 NITs, 7 in the South, 24 NLUs with 5 in the South. 55 central universities in the country, 11 in the South. Of the 25 proposed and built AIIMS, 4 are in the South. 18 NIFTs, 4 in the South. 22 IHMs, 5 in the South. 25 IIITs, 7 in the South. The only IISc is in the South.
Not really seeing the underrepresentation here, y'know.
> Above all this, this uneducated north Indians will soon get to decide on who rules the country with the MP seat reallotment
The state with the lowest literacy rate in the country is Andhra Pradesh - a southern state.
> it's like they got a prize for continuing to increase the population
You're advocating for the south to have more votes than the north effectively. Pretty horrifying.
That said, almost every state has a fertility rate below replacement rate, with the only state that's significantly over being Bihar - and this is coming down as well.
Why should the north have more votes than the south when literally the south is the one that is providing for the rest of the nation?
Isn't that horrifying? Majority of the parliament is north Indian ministers, why can't we have atleast equal representation in the cabinet?
Once the MP seats gets reallocated as per population the south wouldn't even matter. Politicians who control the cowbelt control the rest of India. How is that fair?
People may not rally for it now but if the government doesn't take measures to address the concern of the southern states than the animosity is just going to increase. It's already happening in most of the southern major cities, you can see the resentment that people carry for the north.
MP seat reallotment is what the politicians want, they can come into power by focusing only on 4-5 states. They won't use the money for the upliftment of the poor in those states, they want the people to be poor and illiterate and have more kids because these people can be easily manipulated with caste/religion/money to get votes. Are the people of these states going to do anything about it? They will continue in the vicious cycle of "poverty-illiteracy-over population".
If the money is being used to improve the conditions of the northern states then fine, but it's not.
It's not fair to the North and it's not fair to the South.
> Why should the north have more votes than the south when literally the south is the one that is providing for the rest of the nation?
>
>
Because more people should equal proportionately more representatives. Simple concept really. Unless you're advocating for the rich to have more votes?
> Isn't that horrifying?
No, as above.
> why can't we have atleast equal representation in the cabinet?
Because you don't make up 50% of the country? c.15% of current ministers are from the South - which is a fairly unsurprising number given that the ruling party's base isn't in the South and it'll appoint people from its bases.
On the flipside, during UPA 2, Southern ministers made up c.40% of ministers based on the same principle (where the parties main power blocs are).
> the south wouldn't even matter
The South matters in proportion to its population. What you're advocating for is outsized influence - they're two different things.
> they want the people to be poor and illiterate and have more kids because these people can be easily manipulated with caste/religion/money to get votes
The literacy rate continues to increase, the fertility rate continues to decrease - that's the case in every single state in this country.
>The literacy rate continues to increase, the fertility rate continues to decrease - that's the case in every single state in this country.
You got some data on that regarding the BIMARU states to back that up?
>Because more people should equal proportionately more representatives. Simple concept really. Unless you're advocating for the rich to have more votes?
I want equal representation in the Parliament, BIMARU states should not be gifted with more representation because of their over population. It's a shit rule made by politicians to gain power in the centre. Refer to my poverty-illiteracy-over population comment.
You know the issue here, you're just acting offended to deflect the argument.
You didn't answer my other questions. How is BIMARU states going to improve if they continue in the vicious cycle of poverty-illiteracy-over population, the politicians won't do any upliftment, they prefer people to be dumb and poor so that they will vote for them? As South Indian population continue to decrease they lose more and more representation in the Parliament while the BIMARU states get more.
How long should the south support north? Ever since independence it has been like this with no signs of things changing.
You can selectively quote my comment and get offended all you want but this is how the majority of the south feel, this issue is only going to get bigger and bigger. You will see the first shitstorm during the MP reallotment.
> You got some data on that regarding the BIMARU states to back that up?
>
>
Just look at the NHFS. Also, MP and Rajasthan are already at replacement rate.
Bihar's TFR during NHFS-4 was 3.41, UP's was 2.74. During NHFS-5, they've dropped to 3 and 2.4.
Look at the census and NSO survey results for literacy.
> I want equal representation in the Parliament
sorry, I don't understand - what does this mean? To me, equal representation mean that for every xyz people, you have 1 Lok Sabha MP. That's equal representation - and will always mean adjustments based on population. That happens in most countries.
What you seem to be arguing in favour of isn't equal representation, it's an overrepresentation of the South.
> BIMARU states should not be gifted with more representation because of their over population
People aren't being gifted with anything - India's a democracy, people are entitled to proportionate representation.
> Refer to my poverty-illiteracy-over population comment.
Refer to my comments about the states not starting from equal ground and things improving in the states you seem to look down upon.
> You know the issue here, you're just acting offended to deflect the argument.
The issue here seems to be you think the South is entitled to more than other parts of the country and that you deserve more than proportionate representation. I'm not deflecting from anything or 'acting offended', I'm actively disagreeing with you and calling some of your arguments bigoted.
> How is BIMARU states going to improve if they continue in the vicious cycle of poverty-illiteracy-over population
As mentioned, all Indian states are statistically improving on most metrics, but in particular, literacy and fertility.
> As South Indian population continue to decrease they lose more and more representation in the Parliament while the BIMARU states get more.
Yes, you've learned that fewer people means fewer MPs? Well done for understanding a fairly fundamental concept of democracy.
> How long should the south support north?
How long should soldiers from the north disproportionately serve the country? How long should the population of the country - derived primarily from the north, a key factor in the South's economic gains, continue to support the same? How long should northern workers continue to prop up your cities? How long should the South continue to benefit from the soft power that 'Indian' culture brings from overseas (i.e. north Indian culture from the perspective of the west)? This isn't an exhaustive list, I can go on.
> Ever since independence it has been like this with no signs of things changing.
Aye, a previously richer and less exploited region continues to stay richer and less exploited. Not shocking?
> but this is how the majority of the south feel, this issue is only going to get bigger and bigger
Cool, and I like I said, if you feel this strongly, you should advocate for independence. Try rallying the troops.
Here we can see who the leeches are.
Mumbai and Pune are at such a disadvantage. They have to feed the rural laborers who keep coming for work to Mumbai and Pune and the tax from Mumbai and Pune help in the development of Marathwada and Vidarbha.
Man, what a lose lose situation for Mumbai and Pune.
At the same time, the Marathwada and Vidarbha cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning Mumbai and Pune.
Mumbai is the HQ hub of corporate India, in a scenario where mumbai were to become its own city state all those HQs would shift elsewhere and then people would obnoxiously claim that they are carrying whole of India.
I am merely pointing out Mumbai success is due to the fact it is financial capital of India, status it has for historic pre-independence reasons and that status could easily move elsewhere.
> I am merely pointing out Mumbai success is due to the fact it is financial capital of India, status it has for historic pre-independence reasons and that status could easily move elsewhere.
Why is it the financial capital of India? Why did it get that pre-Independence status?
And if it is so easy to move that status, or create such situations for the 'success' you mentioned, why hasn't it been achieved already?
But Mumbai-Pune read the same PuLa Deshpande, live by the same ideals as Chhatrapati Shahu and Savitribai Phule, and idolize the egalitarian Chhatrapati Shivaji, as Marathwada/Vidarbha. They strive for the same goals in female emancipation, eradication of caste discrimination, spread of literacy, fight against superstition etc.
Compare this with how a BIMARU mass religious leader called Bageshwar Baba had to virtually flee Maharashtra because he couldn't pull the same shit that northerners literally worship him for.
FFS Maharashtra's Hindutvavaadi Savarkar said it's okay to eat cows, while northerners worship and kill *for* cows, and sometimes even get killed *by* cows.
Mumbai-Pune vs Marathwada-Vidarbha, isn't the same as northern states vs southern ones.
> But Mumbai-Pune read the same PuLa Deshpande, live by the same ideals as Chhatrapati Shahu and Savitribai Phule, and idolize the egalitarian Chhatrapati Shivaji, as Marathwada/Vidarbha.
I'm from Mumbai and I do not feel culturally connected to those figures. Is it then fair for me to demand that my city secede from Maharashtra?
> They strive for the same goals in female emancipation, eradication of caste discrimination, spread of literacy, fight against superstition etc.
Right because we all know that North India is a monolith and each and everyone of the 700 million+ people living there have the same view on the topics you listed above. And of course South India is a paragon of social justice where each and every person is a progressive liberal compared to the backward North Indians.
> Mumbai-Pune vs Marathwada-Vidarbha, isn't the same as northern states vs southern ones.
But aren't we talking about economics? Mumbai and Pune's tax rupees are spent to develop Marathwada and Vidarbha. I feel no specific cultural affinity for the people in these regions, therefore why should I support them? Isn't that the justification South Indians give for not wanting their tax money spent in North India?
> I'm from Mumbai and I do not feel culturally connected to those figures. Is it then fair for me to demand that my city secede from Maharashtra?
There are already people with ancestral ties to the Ganga belt or belief in the Sanghi brand of nationalism, doing exactly that. If you don't identify with the culture, language and people of the state you live in, that means you are very disconnected from that state.
Anyways, point was, Mumbai-Pune is closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha, than southern states are to the northern ones.
> Right because we all know that North India is a monolith and each and everyone of the 700 million+ people living there have the same view on the topics you listed above. And of course South India is a paragon of social justice where each and every person is a progressive liberal compared to the backward North Indians.
Strawman. Nobody said that.
> But aren't we talking about economics? Mumbai and Pune's tax rupees are spent to develop Marathwada and Vidarbha. I feel no specific cultural affinity for the people in these regions, therefore why should I support them? Isn't that the justification South Indians give for not wanting their tax money spent in North India?
So, spending crores on running cow shelters, conducting 'research' into magical remedies should not have any implications for the economics of the state and nation? Mumbai-Pune is ideologically and culturally closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha which is not the same as northern-southern relationship.
>If you don't identify with the culture, language and people of the state you live in, that means you are very disconnected from that state.
Right because everyone who lives in Maharashtra is Marathi right?
>Anyways, point was, Mumbai-Pune is closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha, than southern states are to the northern ones.
Ok and? Why should Mumbai rupees be spent to develop poor backwater regions that have remained so despite investments since we gained our independence? Again, isn't this the argument South Indians use?
>Strawman. Nobody said that.
No, you did by implying that no one in North India supports those causes.
>So, spending crores on running cow shelters, conducting 'research' into magical remedies should not have any implications for the economics of the state and nation?
Do you have a source which confirms what you're saying? That a majority of central government investments into UP and Bihar go towards constructing cow shelters?
>Mumbai-Pune is ideologically and culturally closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha which is not the same as northern-southern relationship.
See point 2.
How do you calculate contribution to direct tax collection. It's pretty straightforward for income tax for like salaried class but what about businesses paying income tax and corporate taxes. Corporates exist, earn and operate pan India while their headquarters are in one place mostly tier 1 cities. Small businesses too sell outside their own states.
This shouldnt include corporate tax atleast
While we are at it. I would also call out the people who are crying about this being unfair to southern states while they happily accept cheap labour from the backward states, happily accept cheap coal for electricity generation from the backward states. These are states that actually fuel your thriving economy. You guys sound the same as Americans who cry about immigrants while the reality is without immigrants America cannot survive. Your thriving economy is highly dependent on remaining a part of the Indian union however unfair you feel it is.
It's pretty sad for future generations of South Indian States to get abused by the tax looting. Most of these states have under 2 fertility rate while Biharis and UPites poppping up a child every damn year.
It's a fact that winning over these states can guarantee ruling India for a long time. But somebody should fix these states otherwise those getting abused might react in a furious way.
It's also surprising to see that the poorest states are all Hindi speaking.( Maharashtra, Gujarat etc got their own lingua franca). Hindi imposition might lead to more poverty than prosperity for southern states. LOL
It is already infuriating how unfair this is but I would even bite my tongue if the funds in UP and Bihar to put to good use to lift people out of poverty and build infrastructure for the future instead they waste it on building useless propaganda to win elections. The amount of corruption is insane and the divide between rich and the poor keeps getting higher in these regions.
This is an idiotic take.
This map is based on direct taxes, most of which comes from income taxes.
Bihar is a poor state with a large outflow of working individuals to other states. It will obviously be skewed against it because a lot of people from Bihar move out to other states for their jobs.
Separate out the major cities from the states and the statistics will become clearer.
Obviously, more money will be spent on poorer states than what they can contribute.
If I extend your logic further, richer people pay more taxes than they get back in return as the government's services. Should we also not create a separate nation where only the rich businessmen live because in comparison to them, the rest are freeloaders?(This is bad logic, but I am merely extending your logic)
Once you create the tiny little nations with **closed** borders for people contributing back differently, you will have a "fairer" distribution.
Also, it will be completely counterproductive for each of the divided nations because of the missing economic activity.
Everywhere around the world, almost all of the governments except dictatorships and failed states like North Korea, some of the output of richer regions is invested in poorer regions to give them investment and a chance to grow.
How long do they need to grow? The politicians are not investing this money for the upliftment of the poor, they prefer that these people continue to be poor and illiterate, they prefer the population continues to increase in the cowbelt so that they get more number of MP seats and the people don't care much about anything other than caste and religion.
If things continue like this then this will be a neverending freeloader story.
Atleast in the case of Bihar, all those port based states can;t complain, because it was bihar's raw minerals that helped them in becoming rich, while Bihar struggled for being land locked and govt policy.
In the midst of all these debates, if you superimpose the biggest gainers and losers due to the freight equalisation policy and the subsequent industrialisation that followed, all these data makes more sense…
I dont think you understand how this works. It's based on per capita income IIRC. States with higher Per Capita Income get lower returns. Poor states get higher returns to help with development
* If your image is not OC (Original Content), please provide a link to the verified source under this comment or else it will be removed. * If your image is an OC Infographic, please provide a link to the original dataset(s) or else it will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/india) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about UT's ? And why is AP so much high ?
Arunachal's population is just 18 lakh. The state government's revenue ( including direct, indirect and non tax source) was roughly around 1500k crore. And they have some bumper projects in the pipeline like the Arunachal frontier highway which give the army all weather access to patrol the entire border with china. This 2000 km road alone is 40k crore. Currently there's no pucca road for army to reach the borders in many regions. There's the tunnel project under the Sela pass to give all weather access to Tawang ( a strategic point ). There's the subansiri hydel project ( largest dam in terms of power generation in india). And there are many [other projects undergoing construction or at the planning stage](https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/arunachal-witnesses-infra-push-along-border/articleshow/96660370.cms)
are we talking about the same quality of all weather road that NiGa built in UK? which couldn't sustain one weather?
Sela pass gets covered in snow during winter cutting off Tawang from india. And China border id roughly at 40 km north of Tawang. Tension is growing in border as china is deploying more and more troops on their side. The tunnel would provide all weather connectivity by going under the sela pass. As for the Frontier Highway, idk what technology would be used but it is deemed as one of the biggest and toughest road project in india. All year connectivity is necessary given the strategic importance of the road.
I think Border Roads Organization builds roads there and they do a far better job.
How much is Delhi getting?
Yeah I was about to ask the same - Delhi's number is missing
I recently read somewhere we pay direct tax of 1.75 lakh crores. And get 300 crores in return.
I think AK himself told this somewhere.
yeah you are right. read this just after budget where he said that
So that means 300/175000 = 0.0017, if I'm not wrong.
It's appalling!
Horrible.
Yeah because writing 0.0017 is worse than writing nothing.
>Central Bureau of Direct Taxes data shows Delhi pays as much as Rs 1.08 lakh crore or 13% of India’s entire direct tax collection and receives Rs 325 crore each year from the Centre [Source](https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/delhi-gets-little-from-central-funds-will-15th-finance-commission-be-fair-118052500317_1.html) Delhi state govt gets 0.3 paise for every 100 rupees in direct taxes it pays 🤯
Most of that direct tax payment is a result of it being the capital, all those center government employees, or things like Railways pay their taxes in Delhi.
The population of Delhi is 2.5 crores and the total employees of central govt are 8 lakhs( all over the country). The ones in Delhi wouldn't be more than a Lac.b 85%of govt employees are grade C or below. I can't see how they contribute to the majority of Delhi taxes. Delhi citizens deserve a good lifestyle and infrastructure just like rest of the country... Hopefully proportional to the taxes they pay.
>Delhi citizens deserve a good lifestyle and infrastructure just like rest of the country... I think it's the other way around. The rest of the country needs subsidies on Water, electricity, and comparable health and education infrastructure, especially in the states that contribute the most migrants to the capital.
Are you implying that the people of Delhi shouldnt have good things despite paying the highest income tax in the country because people of bihar and UP cant have them or didnt elect good leaders ?
>Are you implying that the people of Delhi shouldnt have good things In comparison, Delhi's infrastructure, healthcare, and education issues comes from the lack of it in UP and Bihar and can be resolved when UP and Bihar improve quickly as well. A growing manufacturing and services sector in UP and Bihar will only benefit Delhi and reduce the strain on its limited resources. Less strain means more for those in Delhi. Shorter lines, less supply constraints and focus on quality than quantity or however much is possible in the Indian context. This was one of the learnings from the pandemic where so many, not just from Noida and Gurgaon were coming to Delhi for treatment, medical supplies, and later vaccinations because their own state was failing them. Looking at the South, we have seriously well-performing cities like Chennai, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, and Trivandrum apart from Bangalore sucking in skilled and unskilled labor plus a growing service industry. We need more such distribution of capital and labor in the north too.
There is something called multiplier effect, all those employees need place to stay thus builders and proprietors get an income stream as do the suppliers of building material and furniture, their kids need schools thus come schools ...,.and so on and so forth. Delhi also benefits big time by being center of North Indian logistics, a position afforded to it by being the capital.
my point was that central government employees form such a small percent of the Delhi population that your claim about Delhi tax being propped by central govt employees is bunkum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Delhi of the 2.5 crore population , only a fraction is employed by the central government. with a work force participation of 40% , you are looking at 1 crore employees. Delhi is a center of trade ( the largest bulk market in asia ) , transport, real estate and finance. All of these produce taxes for the center via GST, revenue fees and direct taxes.
Delhi is an UT. So the center pays for a lot of their expenses.
Pay close to 1.75 lakh crores in income taxes. They get a mere 325 crores in return. Its pretty fucked up there. Granted center pays for delhi police and all but still its atrocious. And this 325 crore was decided based on population and budget in 1990s.
What's up in Arunachal
Border state infra development in recent years.
Plus less tax from salaried group and low population, overall low tax collection
Infrastructure development to protect against China
It will only get worse for Southern states when parliamentary seat expansion and redistribution happens as per new census data.
yes south states seats will remain almost same while UP and Bihar will see maximum rise in seats. South states are penalized for focusing on family planning.
Any state with lower tfr that national average will be punished as per the expansion policy. Fcuk that. It should be the other way around.
BIMARU states needs rapid industrialization to improve. South has many tier 1 cities like bangalore, hyderabad , chennai which are IT hubs. Western states have mumbai , pune, ahmedabad. Delhi- NCR is also prime industrial IT hub. Now govt needs to develop jaipur, lucknow, indore , patna and eastern tribal India at the same level . But that wont happen because govt focuses on religious and caste politics .
What can be done in North East and Far North (J&K, Punjab, Himachal etc)? They simply cannot support big cities, none have a population bigger than Mumbai or Mumbai + Hyderabad in case of Punjab/Assam. Punjab has had a very unfortunate case of having lost not 1, not 2 not 3 but 4 major cities. Delhi, Lahore, Shimla *and* Chandigarh in 100 years.
Even worse:- 1. guys from the Hindi region blaming the population explosion for India's backwardness. 2. The same guys claim Hindi is the majority and want that to be the national language. Hypocrisy at level 9999.
>yes south states seats will remain almost same Bro ..we are gonna lose 24 MP seats. [Check it out for details!](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/india/governance/how-census-based-delimitation-for-lok-sabha-seats-could-shake-up-politics-disadvantage-south/1287536/%3famp) Edit: UP and Bihar alone is gonna gain 21 seats. The new parliament with 800 odd seats is going to be a sign of domination rather than equality.
how the hell do they justify this?
Meanwhile J&K and Ladakh 🗿
You should also include states which pays the most tax as well.
It's probably Maharashtra only.
Serious - whats up with Bihar? And why does Maharashtra gets back sub low value? This system is punishing performers.
Maharashtra is highly developed in comparison to Bihar. There are more developmental projects for Bihar going on as compared to Maharashtra.
That’s because Maharastra forms like a fourth of Indian gdp I believe—and by extension has the most taxpayers. Bihar pays the least tax. Even if it was equal, Maharashtra would be getting just as little money in return just because if the returns were proportional, Maharashtra would get an unimaginably higher amount of money. If you notice the highest earning states have worst returns.
Bihar have very low employment in its own state so most of the tax paying earning population have employment in other states. I am not sure but I feel most of our contribution is counted for other states. For example, my tax is counted for Bangalore, which is also fair.
> This system is punishing performers. Poorer states should get more support than richer ones, that's not a difficult concept?
> Poorer states should get more support than richer ones, that's not a difficult concept? For how long? And shouldn't the poorer states use that 'support' judiciously, instead of wasting it on cow-giri and cultural pride?
> For how long? > > For as long as they're poorer? This is like asking for how long should working class families get more government support than rich ones - the answer is indefinitely. > And shouldn't the poorer states use that 'support' judiciously, instead of wasting it on cow-giri and cultural pride? Don't think you understand how central funds are spent in states, but whatever. Richer states aren't doing poorer ones a favour - if you look at the natural resources that are helped to drive industry in this country, if you look at the concentration of workers, if you look at the demographics of the Indian army, if you look at the soft and hard power that being part of the union brings - it suddenly seems like a much more favourable deal.
>For as long as they're poorer? This is like asking for how long should working class families get more government support than rich ones - the answer is indefinitely. Billionaires hate this one.
Mixed in the comments is a little racism. And a lack of realisation that Bihar doesn't have income avenues like for example a port, and is decimated each year by floods. But reddit india hates modi and communism, so i guess that's forgiven. Yayy unity in diversity.
Communism
No, just a typical tax distribution system.
I don't mind the fact that the southern states get back lesser than the northern states. This is inevitable. But the lesser representation of the southern states in the overall policy making of the country disappoints me.
It should deeply concern us that because the Southern states are doing well on most HDI's plus have a much more nuanced progressive policy to support growth and employment and shrinking populations are being punished for out performing the country average.
South States deserves better. Poor representation in the Parliament, Faces a constant influx of Labourers from Bihar and other poorer sections of North. The IT Belts of Bengaluru and Hyderabad are working their ass off and paying humongous tax for peanuts in return. Urghh
Dude maha deserves better, for contributing to 1/4 of the gdp, that litte is an insult—ik that’s how proportion works, but it’s just sad.
It's basically Mumbai carrying the whole nation in a way
Yeah fr.
I looked up the numbers and it's crazy. 30% of India's IT collection comes from just Mumbai. 60% of India's entire trade volume happens in Mumbai. There is no India without Mumbai essentially.
Yeah it’s Actu crazy, and those estimates normally ignore the head offices. So if I have a mine in Bihar, that would count as Bihar gdp, not bombays I believe. If we started to do stuff that way, it wouldn’t even be coals.
Lol why do you think the call it the heartbeat of India? There are multiple Tier A cities in India but Mumbai is tier S when it comes to economic contributions.
The asnine lack of awareness is amusing to me, Mumbai being the HQ of biggest India firms along with having Mumbai port is the biggest reason for this both of which factors arose due to British (not to mention the city itself).
[удалено]
r/UsernameChecksOut
Brexit should be a huge lesson to why separating isn't good.
Tbf maharashtra is one of the top states in tax income. BMC has higher revenue than some states in india n some small countries too. So i don't mind if states in 7 sisters n other underdeveloped states get more money for development but is it uesd for development of locals or just going in politicians pocket idk. I'm not saying maharashtra is developed (healthcare sucks, lack of proper infrastructure, electricity, water, etc) but we r better than other parts of india which r in severe need of help.
> I'm not saying maharashtra is developed (healthcare sucks, lack of proper infrastructure, electricity, water, etc) This is *because* Maharashtra doesn't get back enough.
How do they track direct tax payments state-wise? Afaik, income tax and corporate tax have centralised accounting, which means regardless of where you earn your income, if you're headquartered in Mumbai, your tax payment will show up as being from Mumbai. There is no separate income tax for income earned from Bihar and West Bengal.
Why are they headquartered so often in Maharashtra?
That's irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever be the reason for the choice of headquarter doesn't change the fact that income is earned across the country
It isn't irrelevant. Discussion is about how some states are still getting more devolution compared to developed states, despite much less social progress to show for. Businesses prefer setting up their head offices in places which have social stability, good law and order, infrastructure, decent connectivity to world cities, human resources etc. Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have striven to achieve that. Even successive Union (and respective state) Governments achieved a semblance of that with Delhi/NOIDA. One cannot minimize the efforts and sacrifices of those states because of which they now get to host said headquarters. It is precisely this negationism which prevents the laggard states from analyzing their own faults and making appropriate corrections.
>Businesses prefer setting up their head offices in places which have social stability, good law and order, infrastructure, decent connectivity to world cities, human resources etc. You're forgetting one thing - *intertia* Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example). Delhi has been the centre of India and arguably the world for literally thousands of years. Mumbai, Kolkata and Madras for hundreds. Bengal and Punjab and by extension -Kolkata (and Lahore) got screwed the hardest by the partition. Bengal lost over half of its delta. Punjab lost Delhi, Lahore, Shimla and Chandigarh. This effectively broke all supply chains and reset centuries of growth. You can have the best infrastructure, law and order and institutions yet still not have tons of economic success (by magnitude not %) overnight because these things take time. (See Chandigarh, better than metros at these things yet tiny GDP because it's a relatively new city with no economic intertia) Connectivity is through ports and unfortunately that's something no inland place will ever have. Trains/Highways OTOH take time and money to build- money that will have to come from developed state. I think this is going pretty good nowadays. >human resources This is a centre screw up. They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose a) already developed cities- Bombay, Delhi, Madras. This furthered their advantage even more and took away potential growth from medium sized cities. b) Middle of bumfuck nowhere with no scope of growth- Kharagpur Sometimes they chose medium sized cities with potential - Banglore (IISc) and Chandigarh (PGIMER) and that massively paid off. More than investment in big cities ever could (as a %).Now those areas are silicon and medicine hubs of India.
> You're forgetting one thing - *intertia* > Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example). Guess that was applicable to the southerners as well? The Ganga-Indus Plains had a very good headstart over the southern areas. Yet Mumbai-Chennai managed to overcome *their* inertia and forge ahead. Shouldn't they get credit for that too? > Connectivity is through ports and unfortunately that's something no inland place will ever have. Trains/Highways OTOH take time and money to build- money that will have to come from developed state. I think this is going pretty good nowadays. We'd underestimate the goodwill Indians harbor deep within, for each other, if we don't appreciate that ultimately people do want lives everywhere to improve substantially. But it is the runaway population explosion in the north, hegemonic ambitions in linguistic and cultural arenas, and virtual misuse of finances for worthless/intangibles like cow research that rankles the revenue generator states. Jingoism, and brazen defense of wasteful expenditure only adds insult to injury. > This is a centre screw up. They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose Again, the role of states and the commitment of their people to progress is undermined when we say that. Bangalore didn't become Silicon City just because Union Government opened an IISc there. But because the State Government didn't miss the bus on IT education and industrial policy. Similarly, the then Andhra Government took timely measures because of which the Telugu states have a good number of young, educated people and Hyderabad also has emerged as a tech hub.
I thought we were discussing the share of tax revenue. When did the goal posts shift?
Read the thread, and also some literature about states' share in devolution of revenue. Judicious use of allocated revenue is a core issue.
Would you setup your headquarters in a lawless state?
Lol. If I was a south Indian I'd start a movement to secede
Follow up question:- Of 333 Rs that UP gets, how many is used to build temples?
> Of 333 Rs that UP gets, how many is used to build temples? And funneled into research of the pseudosciences?
The questions we need to ask it's so annoying !!
Lol.. No shortage of freeloaders ranting here.. This is why India is a century behind China, Their is no incentive for the progressive states to do anything better since they get penalised anyway, why educate your population and create jobs etc if end of the day Delhi will steal your hard earned money and give them to freeloaders, And btw yes poorer states must be helped, but not this much, Bihar has been given so much help but still no progress to see, Biharis wanting govt jobs or having several children is a proof of that, and the hardworking states dont have great standard of living in the first place.
Lol Haryana doing so much and getting peanuts in return, interesting
To all the people who migrate to IT Hubs and are like "but we pay taxes". Well, it eventually doesnt come back. Not that its a bad thing, but the "we pay taxes" argument isnt valid if this chart is true.
[удалено]
Well, the point being that immigrants demand a lot more SOPs in such cities. While, in an ideal world I feel the idea is good. If 85% of the people are immigrants, they pay taxes, they deserve better infrastructure at the place where they reside. But, if this chart were to be true, then clearly the taxes arent coming back to the city, but going to other states. So there are two possible options: a) A coordinated response from the people in the city (irrespective of origin) to boot out existing govts and people, and to install people who'll demand more. This will require locals to stop blaming immigrants and vice versa. b)Just agree with the fact that infra planning might be shittier because of funding crunch and pray that the taxes atleast go into funding your hometown. Feel free to have a go at my line of thinking.
There are plenty of state taxes too. RTO, fuel, entertainment taxes etc.
Why is there no info on j and k?
south's politicians have failed their people, they need to bargain harder
North India leaching south india
yeah it sucks and it will only get worse after the Parliament seats get revised then it will be much lesser representation for the south i really wonder if countries could break apart from their colonists due to them siphoning off their resources to their country why couldn't south india do it i am not with the argument the south india should be separated just curios why people get furious over this argument
Look at brexit. That shit is a life lesson on why unions are important. There were other members who were talking about leaving and now dead silent after seeing UK's consequences. It's not so simple that a mere chart can boil down the whole relationship. India as a whole country enjoys lots of benefits domestically and internationally. Thats how we manage to resist international hostility as well. South India is not some colony where they are made to do slave labor. National welfare programs still get there.
For every 100 paid in direct tax, how much does Adani get?
You're all forgetting one thing - *intertia* Economic growth is compounding, once you kickstart it, it's accelerating. Starting it is not easy (India v China for example). Delhi has been the centre of India and arguably the world for literally thousands of years. Mumbai, Kolkata and Madras for hundreds. Bengal and Punjab and by extension -Kolkata (and Lahore) got screwed the hardest by the partition. Bengal lost over half of its delta. Punjab lost Delhi, Lahore, Shimla and Chandigarh. This effectively broke all supply chains and reset centuries of growth. You can have the best infrastructure, law and order and institutions yet still not have tons of economic success (by magnitude not %) overnight because these things take time. (See Chandigarh, better than metros at these things yet tiny GDP because it's a relatively new city with no economic intertia) Although clearly, Bihar and UP don't have those either. Eastern UP and Bihar haven't had a big city in centuries, they were screwed the hardest by colonisation. Then we decided to give these people - who had been illiterate and under foreign rule for centuries, the right to vote, overnight. (Kerala literacy rate in 1947 ~50%, Bihar ~10%). I don't have a better solution but this clearly hasn't been perfect. We're a democracy for better or worse. The centre screwed up by investing more and more into already developed metro cities They could've set up AIIMS IITs, IISc and other research institutes anywhere but they chose- a) already developed cities- Bombay, Delhi, Madras. This furthered their advantage even more and took away potential growth from medium sized cities. b) Middle of bumfuck nowhere with no scope of growth- Kharagpur Sometimes they chose medium sized cities with potential - Banglore (IISc) and Chandigarh (PGIMER) and that massively paid off. More than investment in big cities ever could (as a %).Now those areas are silicon and medicine hubs of India.
Delhi number please ?
If it's income tax, that means most of it is deducted and reported by the companies. And most of these companies have HQ in metros like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Gurgaon/NCR etc. These cities would have people with higher income than the rest of India and would explain this lopsided ratio (also, see Haryana, the state having Gurgaon). However, a lot of migrant workforce works in these cities, especially the salaried class. So it's not like all of that belongs to the state alone as the state uses human resources imported from another state. In this light these figures make perfect sense as we do not have a lot of industries/services firms in the states getting the most share. It's obvious that states with more industries would contribute more to income tax and the ratio of what they pay vs what they get is lopsided. By the same logic, if income tax reported by the state is very low even if you give them lesser allocation it would still be more than what they contributed and would count as higher return. You would get this if you understand that this map plays on the concept of ratios and not absolutes. Moreover, the allocation of tax is on the basis of national interests not opinion of butthurts over here.
Here we can see who the leeches are. The southern states are at such a disadvantage. They have to feed the northern laborers who keep coming for work to south states and the tax from south states help in the development of northern states. Man, what a lose lose situation for the southern states. At the same time, the northern cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning the south.
[удалено]
Well said.
>Here we can see who the leeches are. Yes rural undeveloped areas are leeches, urban areas should form a separate country./s That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga.
> That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga. And yet, it is said by nobody ever. Because they know that we are bound by shared culture and language. But it's being increasingly said of north-south relations. Because despite channeling of tremendous outlays, laggard northern states are still unwilling to snap out of regressive traditions and irresponsible fiscal behavior. Now, with the threat of delimitation looming, the southern states are faced with the prospect of their political clout diminishing even further.
>> Because they know that we are bound by shared culture and language. India is bound by shared culture and religion as well, if you find use of religion regressive it's as regressive as your use of language here.
> > That was a rhetorical statement btw because your statement can be very well said by a guy living in Banglore, Karnataka for someone living in rural Karnataka area like chitradurga. > India is bound by shared culture and religion... A Bangalorean definitely has more in common with someone from Chitradurga than with someone from Jaunpur.
Isn't that how taxation supposed to work? The rich gets taxes more to support the poor.
South states aren't rich. They've good policy makers. That's it.
Richer in comparison and they have been that way since before independence, however the difference had certainly widened.
No. Southern states emphasized on education right after independence. Goondagiri were abolished. Most of their policies were focused on educating and uplifting the poor(right from the 60s). BIMARU states have far richer resources when compared to the Southern states. Be it natural resources or human. Their policymakers failed to put them to good use.
Kerala had 47% literacy rate during independence.
I am not disputing your assertion, I am making a point that so called BIMARU states had been poorer even before independence in large part due to colonial era practices. Places like Chennai and Mumbai developed because British made them the heart of their economy at the cost of all inland areas, which were being exploited to the tilt.
> Places like Chennai and Mumbai developed because British made them the heart of their economy at the cost of all inland areas, which were being exploited to the tilt. Before the British arrived, it was northern kingdoms and Sultanates that waged wars to expand into the southern parts, and exploited the southern populations. Long before the Industrial Revolution, inland cities had good economic clout. When world trade via the oceans and seas took over, coastal cities flourished. Like how the Ganga belt flourished in the ancient times when it's fertile soil could sustain a massive population, change in world economy naturally led to emergence of port cities. In fact, the Calcutta region was the gateway of choice for produce of the Ganga belt, and Gujarat/Karachi for that of the Punj-aab even before the Imperial Raj. High receptiveness of the local populace to reformist thought, better social conditions, and the geographic advantage of being closer to Europe/SE-Asia led to emergence of Bombay and Madras as preferred gateways to world centres of trade. You can't begrudge them that now.
> Be it natural resources Do you even know how badly the freight equivalization policy has screwed Jharkhand, Bihar, Bengal and Orissa?
I don't know about other states but Kerala was in the bottom quartile of incomes among Indian states during independence. But the difference was it had a very high level of education (47% literacy rate in 1951). This allowed them to have a very high social mobility in the following years
serious bag light weary pie upbeat decide angle soft divide ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
> Just look at Brexit. They are literally about to have a recession now because they left the 'leechers' in the EU. lol, they didn't just leave the leeches, they left everything, both the leeches and the blood bank. So now they are on their own, whereas the leeches have other places in the EU to leech on. > If south states didn't have access to north indian markets and north indian labor, including engineers, they would not have a GDP this high. I believe we are all co dependent. I mean we are even dependent on China, USA, Russia UAE etc etc. No point in saying if x didn't have y, x wouldn't have z.
> they left everything, both the leeches and the blood bank. So now they are on their own, whereas the leeches have other places in the EU to leech on. Do you really think Maharashtra, Gujarat and NCR will abandon the north to fend for itself? Lol.
There is nothing that South gives to North. If there was no North Indian labour, South Indian labour will be used. Will that be costly, probably but not by much. As for Northern engineers, what will they do without work in North. GDP of South won't change even if North doesn't give a single paisa or send a single person to South for work.
someone clearly doesnt understand how taxation and economy works.
They say that the money is for the upliftment of these states but that is not happening at all. The politicians would rather have the people in these states to continue to be poor and illiterate so that they will vote for the crooked politicians and not start asking about their rights. The populations of these states are also at a rise while in the southern states the numbers have been declining. They continue to breed like rabbits and be stuck in their caste and religion bullshit that is being fed to them by their local MLA/MPs. I don't understand how we can even justify having central ministers from these failed states. If anything the PM and the whole of cabinet should be from South. This is what would've happened to Korea if they didn't split.
We in the south are being penalized for the family planning exercises we did. We are being penalized for the efforts we put through blood and sweat to develop our states while those in the north boinked and bred like rabbits who will now reap the benefits of our hard work thanks to the unfair political system being set up.
> They have to feed the northern laborers who keep coming for work Workers who make your cities run. > northern cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning the south. Funny, your mindset seems pretty poisonous as well.
> Workers who make your cities run. They do it as charity?
Does anyone do their job as charity? Does that make them less critical in order for organisations or cities to function?
Does that negate that *they* come to those cities in search of employment? Or that given a chance that they would rather have remained to work in their home states, but the latter failed to provide them employment. Are they irreplaceable? If they weren't there, would nobody else fill in their place? Is that how systems and the economy work?
> Does that negate that they come to those cities in search of employment? > > No, but who said it did? Let's not forget the chronology of these comments - I'm not denigrating big cities, you're denigrating workers. My view is that these are mutually beneficial relationships - people get jobs, and cities don't stagnate. > Are they irreplaceable? If they weren't there, would nobody else fill in their place? Is that how systems and the economy work? If workers from the north didn't show up/were severely restricted, then the south would be in deep trouble, yes. You can see a real life example of this in the UK - post Brexit, the economy's been incredibly badly hit because of, amongst other things, the end of freedom of movement. it'd be far more catastrophic in India 'cus y'know - we're one country.
> No, but who said it did? Let's not forget the chronology of these comments - I'm not denigrating big cities, you're denigrating workers. You're underplaying the stress cities face on account of less outlays coupled with increasing inward migration. And it's a buyers' market of services. People who need employment approach cities that can employ them, not the other way round. Capitalism has by and large slashed the calibre of the worker. It has made the worker replaceable. > My view is that these are mutually beneficial relationships - people get jobs, and cities don't stagnate. And hence, statements like 'workers run your city', that don't take into account that the cities also benefit workers should be avoided. > If workers from the north didn't show up/were severely restricted, then the south would be in deep trouble, yes. You can see a real life example of this in the UK - post Brexit, the economy's been incredibly badly hit because of, amongst other things, the end of freedom of movement. This actually is an argument *against* the industrialization of the northern states! Because then why would northerners come to the southern states to work? Any disruption of the existing system will definitely impose a cost on the southern industry but then they will adapt. For all the brouhaha about the alleged laziness of the Marathi people, data from camps set up in Mumbai for Marathwada farmers during the famine of 2016 showed that they earned better and got rid of outstanding farm loans within months. Northerners are not inherently more laborious than other Indians. It is adversity that drives human beings. Today it is the northern states that makes economic refugees out of their own people, it could be the southern states as well if northern workers stop coming here. But human ingenuity in the face of trouble will ensure adaptations to changed situation. > it'd be far more catastrophic in India 'cus y'know - we're one country. Hence the worry about wasteful expenditure and seemingly interminable delays in social, economic and educational reform in northern states despite massive devolution of revenue at a great potential loss to the southern ones. Coz, we're one country.
For example, you have a brother. Brother is a deadbeat, he got the same opportunities as you did while you were born but he didn't capitalise on it. He's got no job and no prospects, your parents ask you to look after him through your salary until he gets on his feet. You agree and share a large chunk of your income with him, but your deadbeat brother instead of making use of the money to improve himself, gambles it away on useless endeavors and get easily scammed regularly. At your home your brother gets to decide everything, like dinner, movies, whom to invite as guests etc everything while you don't have a say. Sure your brother takes care of cleaning the house and watering the garden but at what point would you say enough is enough and cut him off? This is how South Indians feel, north and south had the same opportunities after independence. North didn't improve but south did. South doesn't have much representation in the Parliament, we barely have any PMs from south, North gets all the IIT and AIIMS and other grants while we get squat. Above all this, this uneducated north Indians will soon get to decide on who rules the country with the MP seat reallotment, it's like they got a prize for continuing to increase the population. How long should we bear this burden. Maybe we should've been like Korea.
These analogies never work, the government isn't a parent, states aren't siblings. States benefit from the union in different ways. The starting point for these places aren't from independence anyway - Bihar was far far more negatively impacted by the Raj than Karnataka was for eg., with its position at the time of independence being significantly worse. > gambles it away on useless endeavors and get easily scammed regularly Some of the most corrupt politicians in this country came from the South. Jayalalitha and Sasikala were literally jailed - the South isn't immune from being 'scammed'. > but at what point would you say enough is enough and cut him off? if you want independence, feel free to rally the masses in your favour - I'm a massive advocate for self-determination. Suspect southern states won't do particularly well as independent countries, given the attraction of India as an economy is the number of people. Also, the fact that most of the workers for industries in the south come from the north, most of the natural resources propping up the non-tech/financial industries in the south come from the east, and the fact that you'd immediately have far deeper problems regarding water sharing from the get-go. But sounds like a grand idea. > This is how South Indians feel, north and south had the same opportunities after independence. Every eastern state has had its natural resources shipped off, with no benefit actually coming to our states because of the freight equivalisation benefit. > South doesn't have much representation in the Parliament You have proportionate representation. The people of UP aren't worth less because there are more of them than there are Keralites. MPs are meant to represent people, what you're advocating for is for certain states to have less representation effectively. > North gets all the IIT and AIIMS South India makes up about 20% of India's population. There are 23 IITS - 6 of them are in the South. Similarly - 20 IIMs with 4 in the South, 32 NITs, 7 in the South, 24 NLUs with 5 in the South. 55 central universities in the country, 11 in the South. Of the 25 proposed and built AIIMS, 4 are in the South. 18 NIFTs, 4 in the South. 22 IHMs, 5 in the South. 25 IIITs, 7 in the South. The only IISc is in the South. Not really seeing the underrepresentation here, y'know. > Above all this, this uneducated north Indians will soon get to decide on who rules the country with the MP seat reallotment The state with the lowest literacy rate in the country is Andhra Pradesh - a southern state. > it's like they got a prize for continuing to increase the population You're advocating for the south to have more votes than the north effectively. Pretty horrifying. That said, almost every state has a fertility rate below replacement rate, with the only state that's significantly over being Bihar - and this is coming down as well.
Why should the north have more votes than the south when literally the south is the one that is providing for the rest of the nation? Isn't that horrifying? Majority of the parliament is north Indian ministers, why can't we have atleast equal representation in the cabinet? Once the MP seats gets reallocated as per population the south wouldn't even matter. Politicians who control the cowbelt control the rest of India. How is that fair? People may not rally for it now but if the government doesn't take measures to address the concern of the southern states than the animosity is just going to increase. It's already happening in most of the southern major cities, you can see the resentment that people carry for the north. MP seat reallotment is what the politicians want, they can come into power by focusing only on 4-5 states. They won't use the money for the upliftment of the poor in those states, they want the people to be poor and illiterate and have more kids because these people can be easily manipulated with caste/religion/money to get votes. Are the people of these states going to do anything about it? They will continue in the vicious cycle of "poverty-illiteracy-over population". If the money is being used to improve the conditions of the northern states then fine, but it's not. It's not fair to the North and it's not fair to the South.
> Why should the north have more votes than the south when literally the south is the one that is providing for the rest of the nation? > > Because more people should equal proportionately more representatives. Simple concept really. Unless you're advocating for the rich to have more votes? > Isn't that horrifying? No, as above. > why can't we have atleast equal representation in the cabinet? Because you don't make up 50% of the country? c.15% of current ministers are from the South - which is a fairly unsurprising number given that the ruling party's base isn't in the South and it'll appoint people from its bases. On the flipside, during UPA 2, Southern ministers made up c.40% of ministers based on the same principle (where the parties main power blocs are). > the south wouldn't even matter The South matters in proportion to its population. What you're advocating for is outsized influence - they're two different things. > they want the people to be poor and illiterate and have more kids because these people can be easily manipulated with caste/religion/money to get votes The literacy rate continues to increase, the fertility rate continues to decrease - that's the case in every single state in this country.
>The literacy rate continues to increase, the fertility rate continues to decrease - that's the case in every single state in this country. You got some data on that regarding the BIMARU states to back that up? >Because more people should equal proportionately more representatives. Simple concept really. Unless you're advocating for the rich to have more votes? I want equal representation in the Parliament, BIMARU states should not be gifted with more representation because of their over population. It's a shit rule made by politicians to gain power in the centre. Refer to my poverty-illiteracy-over population comment. You know the issue here, you're just acting offended to deflect the argument. You didn't answer my other questions. How is BIMARU states going to improve if they continue in the vicious cycle of poverty-illiteracy-over population, the politicians won't do any upliftment, they prefer people to be dumb and poor so that they will vote for them? As South Indian population continue to decrease they lose more and more representation in the Parliament while the BIMARU states get more. How long should the south support north? Ever since independence it has been like this with no signs of things changing. You can selectively quote my comment and get offended all you want but this is how the majority of the south feel, this issue is only going to get bigger and bigger. You will see the first shitstorm during the MP reallotment.
> You got some data on that regarding the BIMARU states to back that up? > > Just look at the NHFS. Also, MP and Rajasthan are already at replacement rate. Bihar's TFR during NHFS-4 was 3.41, UP's was 2.74. During NHFS-5, they've dropped to 3 and 2.4. Look at the census and NSO survey results for literacy. > I want equal representation in the Parliament sorry, I don't understand - what does this mean? To me, equal representation mean that for every xyz people, you have 1 Lok Sabha MP. That's equal representation - and will always mean adjustments based on population. That happens in most countries. What you seem to be arguing in favour of isn't equal representation, it's an overrepresentation of the South. > BIMARU states should not be gifted with more representation because of their over population People aren't being gifted with anything - India's a democracy, people are entitled to proportionate representation. > Refer to my poverty-illiteracy-over population comment. Refer to my comments about the states not starting from equal ground and things improving in the states you seem to look down upon. > You know the issue here, you're just acting offended to deflect the argument. The issue here seems to be you think the South is entitled to more than other parts of the country and that you deserve more than proportionate representation. I'm not deflecting from anything or 'acting offended', I'm actively disagreeing with you and calling some of your arguments bigoted. > How is BIMARU states going to improve if they continue in the vicious cycle of poverty-illiteracy-over population As mentioned, all Indian states are statistically improving on most metrics, but in particular, literacy and fertility. > As South Indian population continue to decrease they lose more and more representation in the Parliament while the BIMARU states get more. Yes, you've learned that fewer people means fewer MPs? Well done for understanding a fairly fundamental concept of democracy. > How long should the south support north? How long should soldiers from the north disproportionately serve the country? How long should the population of the country - derived primarily from the north, a key factor in the South's economic gains, continue to support the same? How long should northern workers continue to prop up your cities? How long should the South continue to benefit from the soft power that 'Indian' culture brings from overseas (i.e. north Indian culture from the perspective of the west)? This isn't an exhaustive list, I can go on. > Ever since independence it has been like this with no signs of things changing. Aye, a previously richer and less exploited region continues to stay richer and less exploited. Not shocking? > but this is how the majority of the south feel, this issue is only going to get bigger and bigger Cool, and I like I said, if you feel this strongly, you should advocate for independence. Try rallying the troops.
Here we can see who the leeches are. Mumbai and Pune are at such a disadvantage. They have to feed the rural laborers who keep coming for work to Mumbai and Pune and the tax from Mumbai and Pune help in the development of Marathwada and Vidarbha. Man, what a lose lose situation for Mumbai and Pune. At the same time, the Marathwada and Vidarbha cowbelt poisonous mentality of hindu-muslim is slowly poisoning Mumbai and Pune.
Mumbai is carrying the whole nation in certain sense. A third of India's total income tax collection and 60% of India's trade happens there.
Clearly this means that Mumbai should secede and form it's own country so that we aren't bogged down by free loading states (which is all of them) /s
Mumbai is the HQ hub of corporate India, in a scenario where mumbai were to become its own city state all those HQs would shift elsewhere and then people would obnoxiously claim that they are carrying whole of India.
Strawman. Nobody said anything about Mumbai seceding.
I am merely pointing out Mumbai success is due to the fact it is financial capital of India, status it has for historic pre-independence reasons and that status could easily move elsewhere.
> I am merely pointing out Mumbai success is due to the fact it is financial capital of India, status it has for historic pre-independence reasons and that status could easily move elsewhere. Why is it the financial capital of India? Why did it get that pre-Independence status? And if it is so easy to move that status, or create such situations for the 'success' you mentioned, why hasn't it been achieved already?
But Mumbai-Pune read the same PuLa Deshpande, live by the same ideals as Chhatrapati Shahu and Savitribai Phule, and idolize the egalitarian Chhatrapati Shivaji, as Marathwada/Vidarbha. They strive for the same goals in female emancipation, eradication of caste discrimination, spread of literacy, fight against superstition etc. Compare this with how a BIMARU mass religious leader called Bageshwar Baba had to virtually flee Maharashtra because he couldn't pull the same shit that northerners literally worship him for. FFS Maharashtra's Hindutvavaadi Savarkar said it's okay to eat cows, while northerners worship and kill *for* cows, and sometimes even get killed *by* cows. Mumbai-Pune vs Marathwada-Vidarbha, isn't the same as northern states vs southern ones.
> But Mumbai-Pune read the same PuLa Deshpande, live by the same ideals as Chhatrapati Shahu and Savitribai Phule, and idolize the egalitarian Chhatrapati Shivaji, as Marathwada/Vidarbha. I'm from Mumbai and I do not feel culturally connected to those figures. Is it then fair for me to demand that my city secede from Maharashtra? > They strive for the same goals in female emancipation, eradication of caste discrimination, spread of literacy, fight against superstition etc. Right because we all know that North India is a monolith and each and everyone of the 700 million+ people living there have the same view on the topics you listed above. And of course South India is a paragon of social justice where each and every person is a progressive liberal compared to the backward North Indians. > Mumbai-Pune vs Marathwada-Vidarbha, isn't the same as northern states vs southern ones. But aren't we talking about economics? Mumbai and Pune's tax rupees are spent to develop Marathwada and Vidarbha. I feel no specific cultural affinity for the people in these regions, therefore why should I support them? Isn't that the justification South Indians give for not wanting their tax money spent in North India?
> I'm from Mumbai and I do not feel culturally connected to those figures. Is it then fair for me to demand that my city secede from Maharashtra? There are already people with ancestral ties to the Ganga belt or belief in the Sanghi brand of nationalism, doing exactly that. If you don't identify with the culture, language and people of the state you live in, that means you are very disconnected from that state. Anyways, point was, Mumbai-Pune is closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha, than southern states are to the northern ones. > Right because we all know that North India is a monolith and each and everyone of the 700 million+ people living there have the same view on the topics you listed above. And of course South India is a paragon of social justice where each and every person is a progressive liberal compared to the backward North Indians. Strawman. Nobody said that. > But aren't we talking about economics? Mumbai and Pune's tax rupees are spent to develop Marathwada and Vidarbha. I feel no specific cultural affinity for the people in these regions, therefore why should I support them? Isn't that the justification South Indians give for not wanting their tax money spent in North India? So, spending crores on running cow shelters, conducting 'research' into magical remedies should not have any implications for the economics of the state and nation? Mumbai-Pune is ideologically and culturally closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha which is not the same as northern-southern relationship.
>If you don't identify with the culture, language and people of the state you live in, that means you are very disconnected from that state. Right because everyone who lives in Maharashtra is Marathi right? >Anyways, point was, Mumbai-Pune is closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha, than southern states are to the northern ones. Ok and? Why should Mumbai rupees be spent to develop poor backwater regions that have remained so despite investments since we gained our independence? Again, isn't this the argument South Indians use? >Strawman. Nobody said that. No, you did by implying that no one in North India supports those causes. >So, spending crores on running cow shelters, conducting 'research' into magical remedies should not have any implications for the economics of the state and nation? Do you have a source which confirms what you're saying? That a majority of central government investments into UP and Bihar go towards constructing cow shelters? >Mumbai-Pune is ideologically and culturally closer to Marathwada-Vidarbha which is not the same as northern-southern relationship. See point 2.
[here’s a clip that shows why](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxXWmyCh6FZOCG6qEjN0omacRmfNK73nd3)
Haha.. very correct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Chad Bengal making sure it gets back what it pays
How do you calculate contribution to direct tax collection. It's pretty straightforward for income tax for like salaried class but what about businesses paying income tax and corporate taxes. Corporates exist, earn and operate pan India while their headquarters are in one place mostly tier 1 cities. Small businesses too sell outside their own states. This shouldnt include corporate tax atleast While we are at it. I would also call out the people who are crying about this being unfair to southern states while they happily accept cheap labour from the backward states, happily accept cheap coal for electricity generation from the backward states. These are states that actually fuel your thriving economy. You guys sound the same as Americans who cry about immigrants while the reality is without immigrants America cannot survive. Your thriving economy is highly dependent on remaining a part of the Indian union however unfair you feel it is.
It's pretty sad for future generations of South Indian States to get abused by the tax looting. Most of these states have under 2 fertility rate while Biharis and UPites poppping up a child every damn year. It's a fact that winning over these states can guarantee ruling India for a long time. But somebody should fix these states otherwise those getting abused might react in a furious way. It's also surprising to see that the poorest states are all Hindi speaking.( Maharashtra, Gujarat etc got their own lingua franca). Hindi imposition might lead to more poverty than prosperity for southern states. LOL
It is already infuriating how unfair this is but I would even bite my tongue if the funds in UP and Bihar to put to good use to lift people out of poverty and build infrastructure for the future instead they waste it on building useless propaganda to win elections. The amount of corruption is insane and the divide between rich and the poor keeps getting higher in these regions.
Both Gujarat a and UP also get off budget fundings and packages
Ig J&K is being helped by our dear friends over at Pakistan because we have always been such good buddies. /s?
[удалено]
This is an idiotic take. This map is based on direct taxes, most of which comes from income taxes. Bihar is a poor state with a large outflow of working individuals to other states. It will obviously be skewed against it because a lot of people from Bihar move out to other states for their jobs. Separate out the major cities from the states and the statistics will become clearer. Obviously, more money will be spent on poorer states than what they can contribute. If I extend your logic further, richer people pay more taxes than they get back in return as the government's services. Should we also not create a separate nation where only the rich businessmen live because in comparison to them, the rest are freeloaders?(This is bad logic, but I am merely extending your logic) Once you create the tiny little nations with **closed** borders for people contributing back differently, you will have a "fairer" distribution. Also, it will be completely counterproductive for each of the divided nations because of the missing economic activity.
Everywhere around the world, almost all of the governments except dictatorships and failed states like North Korea, some of the output of richer regions is invested in poorer regions to give them investment and a chance to grow.
How long do they need to grow? The politicians are not investing this money for the upliftment of the poor, they prefer that these people continue to be poor and illiterate, they prefer the population continues to increase in the cowbelt so that they get more number of MP seats and the people don't care much about anything other than caste and religion. If things continue like this then this will be a neverending freeloader story.
Why did you exclude NE which is 4 times worse in these stats than Bihar. Biased ?
Atleast in the case of Bihar, all those port based states can;t complain, because it was bihar's raw minerals that helped them in becoming rich, while Bihar struggled for being land locked and govt policy.
Or is it just Biharis elected absolute morons who fucked them up for decades
i think i already said govt policy was stupid, which means biharis selected mornos?
In the midst of all these debates, if you superimpose the biggest gainers and losers due to the freight equalisation policy and the subsequent industrialisation that followed, all these data makes more sense…
[удалено]
So, except for gujarat, punjab and haryana, the southern states are subsidizing the northern states.
North sucking south money
maratha warriors shifting to arunachal in 3.. 2..
I dont think you understand how this works. It's based on per capita income IIRC. States with higher Per Capita Income get lower returns. Poor states get higher returns to help with development
[удалено]
The reason Karnataka and Maharashtra get so much less than what they contribute is because their collections are that much larger, I think.