So, are we going to see a million mutinies now?

That is a term the writer V.S. Naipaul used to characterise the divisions in the India of the 1980s. But many of those separatist movements have been run into the ground by the governments or defeated by time. But the Congress Party’s sudden endorsement for Telengana to be carved out of Andhra Pradesh is bringing new energy to the long-held demands from far corners of the country – Gorkhaland in West Bengal, Bodoland in Assam. Why, we are even hearing calls to split Tamil Nadu, for whatever it is worth.

My Telugu-speaking colleague is deeply skeptical about the motivations of political parties in splitting Andhra Pradesh, but in the end endorses Telengana with a simple mantra: smaller is better.

Geographically, Andhra Pradesh is among the largest states in the country, behind only Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.  But it is not the size that is the problem. It is the diversity.  No ruler is seen as being fair to a community, caste, tribe or region, and hence the clamour for more representative democracy. The “unity in diversity” we read about in textbooks has been worn thin. Diversity, far from being a unifying force, is cause for disunity as people’s yearnings have grown. And the fact is, many Indian states still are too diverse to be ruled by one large government, no matter how benevolent it might be.

But what are the consequences of smaller states?

Economic theory apparently is mixed about the results, according to a recent editorial in Mint newspaper, but real experience suggests a positive outcome. Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh, each created in the 1990s, may not be model states but might be no worse off, when compared with many others across the country. On the positive side, governments are more inclusive and more representative, leading, over the long run surely, to better governance and end of separatism.

Smaller states might be the way to maintain the unity in our diversity.