1. Smaller states particularly the southern states, perceive a reduction in their political clout. Especially since the caste divisions in the north have now made governments critically dependent on southern regional parties for survival.

2. Big Parties don’t want smaller parties and the alternative opinions that could be seriously discussed in the mainstream. I think a look at the representation in the local bodies especially villages will show that there is a large amount of political underbrush (independent and small party representation), growing at the feet of the big timber, and if this underbrush has to be heard it has to subordinate its message to that of a larger party, into which it must merge or with which it must align.

Both these reasons are good enough for real-politikers and Partycrats but not really “Democratic”.

An interesting article I once read suggested smaller states, not just the ones that we have seen formed over the last few years, but much smaller, something like 47 states. Maharashtra for instance would be divided in 5 states : Mumbai, Konkan, Marathwada, Desh and Vidharbha. The article was published in Seminar Magazine sometime in the 70s, and made a cogent case for the reorganisation of the states based on geo-resources rather than linguistics. Pipedream, but definitely more “Democratic”.