Ambedkar favoured smaller states; proposed division of Bihar, MP, UP

, the chief architect of , believed that large states posed serious challenges to governance and democratic accountability, while smaller states were more manageable and could ensure equitable development.

In his 1955 book Thoughts on Linguistic States, he strongly advocated the division of large provinces like Bihar and , saying that "the present provinces are too large and not administrable".

Ambedkar supported the creation of states on linguistic lines but was deeply concerned about the formation of excessively large units. "The idea of having bigger linguistic states is not a democratic idea at all. It is a clear departure from the fundamentals of democracy. It is an idea wholly incompatible with the idea of democracy,” he wrote.

He suggested that states should be divided not only for administrative efficiency but also to ensure that no region or group felt marginalised. "Bihar should be divided into two states. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh should be divided into northern and southern Madhya Pradesh," Ambedkar recommended.

While these proposals were not immediately acted upon, they gained relevance decades later. In 2000, Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar and from Madhya Pradesh.

Ambedkar also proposed the division of Uttar Pradesh into three states in the book.

He said each of these three states should have a population of around 2 crore, which he considered the standard size for effective administration. Ambedkar also suggested that the capitals for these proposed states could be Meerut, Cawnpore (now Kanpur) and Allahabad (now Prayagraj), respectively.

In 2011, the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati moved a proposal to split the state into four parts — Purvanchal (Eastern UP), Paschim Pradesh (Western UP), Bundelkhand, and Awadh (Central UP) — for better administration. However, the UPA government at the Centre did not back the proposal.

Ambedkar argued that smaller states would allow citizens more control over public spending and governance. "The bigger the state, the greater the demands for expenditure and the lesser the control over it by the people. In a small state, there is the advantage of responsibility and accountability," he said.

He cautioned against emotional arguments driving the reorganisation of states, noting that "the love of the language is becoming a positive disintegrating force".

According to him, state boundaries should be drawn keeping national unity and administrative practicality in mind.

Political scientists say Ambedkar's views continue to resonate in contemporary and decentralisation.