The event was as unique as the rankings. The India Today Conclave of Chief Ministers on the State of the States marked many firsts. It was an event where the rankings of 19 major states across eight parameters were presented and debated. An event where chief ministers sat among the select audience eagerly awaiting their state's ranking. An event where chief ministers were quizzed on their performance by Union ministers, former finance minister, members of Parliament, Planning Commission members and a probing group of economists and industrialists.

UNITED COLOURS OF INDIA: (from left) Naidu, Laloo, Rabri Devi, Tourism Minister Jagmohan, Advani, Parrikar, Bhujbal, Kunhalikutty, Modi, Urban Development Minister Ananth Kumar and Minister for Highways B.C. Khanduri at the India Today Chief Ministers' Conclave

Sure, ranking states isn't new. Business chambers have rated states on investment attractiveness. The Planning Commission and credit rating agencies have ranked states on financial performance. Research organisations have ranked states on social parameters. But the India Today ranking is none of these and broader-a ranking that simply tells what were India's best and worst states to live and work in, in 2001 and in 1991 ("India's Best and Worst States", May 19). As Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie defined in his inaugural speech, the rankings "aren't the first, but are surely the most comprehensive".

With his trademark mix of trenchant critique and cautionary testimonial, Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani gave the conclave just the start it needed. He said the real achievements of reformist India were those of the states. "The Centre's conduct," Advani explained, "with all the states has been completely even-handed. Our style of governance is highly consultative ... We have completely de-politicised and de-ideologised Centre-state relations."

Moving to the India Today performance ratings, Advani made a telling intervention. "Economic reforms are no doubt a critical part of the reforms agenda," he said. "But our experience over the past 10-12 years of liberalisation has taught us that reforms in governance, administration, judiciary and education are no less important." In stating that, he conveyed the central idea behind the rankings.

THE BEST: Parrikar receives one of the five awards for Goa, the most bagged by any one state, from Advani

THE MOST IMPROVED: Naidu receives award for Andhra Pradesh being the most improved state in the 1990s

Though the Congress party asked its chief ministers to keep away from the conclave, despite 11 of the 19 awards for performance in different categories going to the states ruled by the Congress, it didn't rob the event of variety or experience. The substance of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, the style of Bihar's supreme leader and Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Laloo Prasad Yadav, the shyness-peppered simplicity of Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar and the rather serious-minded presence of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi enriched the debate. Maharashtra's restive Deputy Chief Minister Chhagan Bhujbal and Kerala's Industry Minister P.K. Kunhalikutty brought in perspectives from India's most industrialised and most peaceful states.

The final rankings surprised many-and expectedly so. Many big states that are also economic powerhouses couldn't at once accept tiny states like Goa, Delhi or even Himachal Pradesh being ahead of them. "If we go by this logic of small being beautiful we will have a thousand states. Some might even suggest a smaller nation," retorted Bhujbal.

A beaming Parrikar, who walked away with five awards, including the best state in overall performance, put things in perspective. He said a government in a smaller state-if it wanted to-could deliver results faster than that of a big state. That found an echo in Bhujbal who said, "Size does matter but that is no excuse for poor governance." Being small isn't all hunky dory. Parriker counted political instability as the biggest drawback of a small state (Goa had 11 chief ministers in the past 10 years).

Modi made some instructive interventions. He admitted that governments of smaller states have an advantage in communicating effectively with the people. "In small states not only is the government able to convey and carry out its plans, but getting feedback from people is also easier and faster," he said. He made a case for taking into account peculiar characteristics of each state in ratings, such as geographical terrain. Former finance minister P. Chidambaram sealed the debate on the size of states by saying that the real issue was of governance and smaller states with manageable size and population were invariably better governed.

Laloo, who attended the conclave with his wife and Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi, was furious at his state being ranked last-the worst. He first stormed out of the conclave with Rabri amidst high drama, but returned to make a characteristically satirical but emotional speech on what he called the historical conspiracy to keep Bihar from developing (see his column, "Delhi's Stepchild").

'PEOPLEISM' OVER POPULISM: Naidu (right) and Kunhalikutty were clear that the quality of life in a state was correlated to the performance of the government	LET 100 STATES BLOOM: Chidambaram made the case for smaller and more manageable states
IN DEFENCE OF BIHAR: Laloo blamed Bihar's poor performance on the Central Government's conspiracy	SIZE DOES MATTER: But not as much as the quality of governance. That was the unequivocal message from Parrikar (extreme left), Bhujbal and Modi

Naidu was at his most convincing while speaking on the price of populism. Making a case for moving away from populism to "peopleism", the Andhra Pradesh chief minister delved in some detail on the two big successes of his government-reduction in the cost of governance and a drastic cut in the rate of population growth in his state.

Leaders cutting across party lines attended the conclave. Congress MPs Margaret Alva, Pawan Bansal, Satyavrat Chaturvedi and Saifuddin Soz participated despite the party's apparent boycott. Samajwadi Party MP Amar Singh, BJP's Balbir Punj, Sangeeta Singh Deo and Dina Nath Tripathi, BSP's Rashid Alvi and Shiv Sena's Sanjay Nirupam posed questions. So did Planning Commission members N.K. Singh, Sompal and K. Venkatasubramanian.

Perhaps the most productive outcome of the conclave was the infusion of a spirit of competition among chief ministers. Naidu promised to take the rankings "very seriously" and use them to benchmark his state's performance. He also declared a similar ranking exercise for districts in Andhra Pradesh. Modi's principal secretary asked for the parameters and the methodology used to rank states. Even Laloo, though justifiably miffed at his state's ranking, chided his bureaucrats for the poor performance of Bihar as soon as he returned to Patna. But the real message came from Naidu when he said, "For the first time in India's history, somebody is evaluating the states' performance. Of course, many of us are unhappy at having done poorly. I am too. But all those who stand for good governance should join together for an improved performance next year." That's cooperating to compete.