1. They are built with support from the people
2. They have a strong administrative machinery to provide stability and deliver public services
3. They have the managerial ability to shape and implement change.

1. The Strong support of the people is essential. Mere election by a majority is not sufficient as History shows,
2. To builders of strong states have bound people around a shared identity: ethnic, racial, or religious; Aryan, Han Chinese, Japanese, Muslim, Catholic Christian. The peoples’ identity is not formed by legal constitutions.
3. The Strong leaders who unite people around their shared identity are even given liberty by the people to change constitutional structures because they trust their leaders do it for the sake of citizens. Thus, dictators emerge loved by the people.

Issues of Indian state: –

• The manufacturers of the Indian state have a troublesome issue; it is difficult to join Indians around a common ethnic or strict character.
• The variety among India’s races and religions, there are settled in rank divisions even inside the Hindu religion of the lion’s share.
• In the event that Indians should be joined to help a solid state, it should be around a cutting edge, comprehensive thought of India, as the Constitution envisioned.
• The current decision administration, while attempting to constrain a majoritarian personality, is separating Indians and debilitating the state. 

 Role of the Administration:

• The job that proficient common administrations have played in the arrangement of solid states, in Han China, the Ottoman Empire, France, and Japan. India acquired the ‘iron casing’ of common administrations from Britain.
• It was intended to furnish dependability and consistence with rules: it was not prepared to shape change, the necessity for organizations of a decent formative state.
• Indeed, even the Prime Minister has griped that officials appear to be not to really focus on the nation’s advancement however much business people do.
• Concurrent administration of both changes and steadiness is fundamental for the advancement of good states and social orders.
• The Unmanaged change can cause confusion, while too little change digs in the set-up framework.
• This was the substance of the ‘incredible discussion’ in the eighteenth century.
• The extraordinary discussion, about steadiness versus change for great administration, advanced into new contentions in the twentieth century: private enterprise versus communism; and markets versus governments.
• Before the finish of the twentieth century, private enterprise and markets were situated in the public creative mind as the central players of financial development, and communists and governments as retarders of progress.
• The Capitalists accepted the job of ‘abundance makers’, consigning governments to the job of ‘redistributors.
• A well-known trademark that abundance should be made before it tends to be reallocated prompts the end that there ought to be less government when nations are poor, and more opportunity for huge, private, abundance makers.
• With the rationale that administrations are dull, even open administrations, for example, wellbeing and training are given over to private undertakings.

The economical angle: –

• It’s said that privatization of government fits with ‘endeavors of financial analysts to expand their model of sane, utility-amplifying conduct into the political domain and to consider legislative issues to be simply an augmentation of financial aspects’.
• The philosophy of private is acceptable and public is awful necessitates that local officials should think like private area chiefs focused on developing the pie and not think like communists worried about the state of individuals who are trusting that abundance will stream down to them.
• To help local officials, specialists from the private area are brought inside government to help the state run more like a business organization.

The Concerns: –

1. a) Ethical, moral consequences:

1. The purposes of a private enterprise to making money and the state are different purposes like political, social economic justice.
2.  Private sector managers move from one competitor to another, like professional mercenaries, serving the interests of owners of corporations wherever in the world they may be.
3. Whereas public servants, whose mission is to build their nations and states, are expected to devote their lives to the care of citizens in their own countries.

1. b) GDP cannot be the scorecard:

1. The pandemic has revealed the chronic inability of the Indian state to take care of its poorest citizens. The scorecard for the nation cannot be its GDP. 
2. The Economic justice, environmental sustainability, and improvement of the dignity of all citizens must be measured too, and these must improve much faster.
3. The present ‘top up the top’ model of India’s economic growth, with hopes of trickle down, is not delivering these.

 Way forward:

1. The doctrine of Separation of Power refers to the model of governance where the executive, legislative and judicial powers are not concentrated in one body for “a good nation with strong state” all organ work with accountability and responsibility. 
2. India must build a strong and good state. This requires: political leaders who can unite all Indians into one India, whatever their religion, race, or caste; cadres of good public managers to build and run services for all citizens equitably;
3. Also requires, the business leaders who are not just wealth creators for themselves (distributing some of it in philanthropy), but creators of opportunities, very soon, for millions of Indians to earn and create wealth for themselves too.
4. The Political leaders, administrators, and business leaders must work together, with a shared vision, to build an Indian state that is good for all citizens, especially the poorest. Time is running out.

1. Private corporations are not states designed for citizens. CEOs are not elected by employees, and they have the authority to hire and fire workers.
2. The state must perform primarily for its poorest citizens for economic growth to be equitable and sustainable, and not for investors in corporations.
3. The Leaders of states must ensure that all citizens have opportunities to work and earn. They must also ensure that all citizens, even those who cannot afford it, have good health and education.

Question

“The Indian states are not in strong and good positions to care for its poorer citizens”. Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.