Should India be broken up into its constituent states?

Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by Known_Unknown, Dec 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    It's ironic that this thread should be posted in the "Internal Security" section, but nonetheless, this topic is relevant to both internal and external security of the country. Before all you Indian nationalists jump on me to accuse me of being a closet paki or something else, let me elaborate on why I think splitting India up into its constituent states would be a good idea.

    I'm not proposing that India be totally broken up into 29 countries. What I'm suggesting is a confederation of countries, somewhere in-between the EU and Warsaw Pact models. There are many advantages (and some disadvantages) to this model, but overall, there are more positives.

    1. As most of us "nationalists" know, Indian politicians are pussies, and only concerned with the politics of dividing the country on the basis of religion, caste, language, class etc to cling on to power. They have zero strategic vision and if this continues, India will be the biggest "baby" in the world, the world's largest democracy pathetically dependent on foreign arms, foreign aid and foreign investment. We need to get rid of "coalition politics" and exterminate policy paralysis, and the best way to do this would be to minimize the complications of managing a country with 30 language-based states and a multitude of regional parties. Dividing the country into 29 or 30 states instead will result in strong and stable "state" governments which will find it much easier to manage a population of 50-150 million rather than of 1 billion+. In addition, they will be free to pursue their own economic and military policies as follows.

    2. The constituent states of the Indian Federation should have their own militaries, and have a defensive pact with each other. In case any one state gets attacked by a foreign power, all states will equally retaliate. However, every state should also have the freedom to launch offensive action against a state outside the Indian federation without needing the federation's approval. This means that Tamil Nadu is free to launch naval expeditions against Sri Lanka, WB and Assam are free to annex Nepal and Bhutan and the Rajputs are free to reclaim Western India (aka Pukistan).

    3. Once so divided, the Indian Federation would be MUCH easier to manage, with each state taking care of its internal finances, security, communication etc like an independent country. This will result in faster growth, and the combined economy of the Indian Federation should soon easily exceed China and soon rival the EU.

    4. The Indian Federation will have a common non-debt based currency, centralized military training academies and space research centers, semi-open borders (work permits required to move inter-state, but no passports needed).

    5. No state can leave the Indian Federation until at least 2/3rd's of the constituent states of the federation agree. New states (conquered territories) can join the federation also with a 2/3'rds vote in favour. Ignoring these rules and declaring independence by any state will automatically result in its invasion by all the other states.

    For thousands of years India has functioned as a confederation of states. It worked very well for us for most of history until the British managed to outgun and outsmart the Indian nawabs and maharajahs. However, for most of history India was never a unitary state. The past 6 decades of common education and a shared national experience have prepared Indians to take the next step-to create a strong, nationalist Indian federation committed to territorial expansion and hegemony in South Asia and beyond. :mad2:
     
  2.  
  3. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Would be awesome.

    Kerala and TN would be indulging in full scale warfare right now if that had been the case :lol:

    BTW who would be the overseer..in the sense..UAE has the King of Abu Dhabi as its President..In the United States of India who would be the PM ?
     
  4. Tolaha

    Tolaha Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    If India is broken up as you say... and each state has a military of its own... then there is a far bigger risk of these armies fighting one another than with others!

    Looking at how emotional we tend to get with some of our discussions here at DFI when it comes to certain linguistic/regionalistic topics, don't you think this is a very strong possibility?

    Added later: I did not see Karthik's post when I posted mine... so no plagiarism intended!
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  5. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    678
    Location:
    delhi
    what India is right now just because of its sheer size and nothing divine or extra-ordinary.
    if you take that away, im sorry India wont be left with anything.

    inter-state disputes are everywhere, some leads to better system to tackle menace in future( provided the states have more things in common that different) and sometimes it leads to birth of new nations( if the nationality was enforced earlier)
    in case of India, mainland is united because of past, religion and race. and north east by the virtue of only available option.

    Instead one can work out for making state and district govt have more power and resources to work better.
    in my point of few since i started studying India as a subject, hierarchy is inverted, instead of powerful regional govt having more rights and resources to tackle diverse range of social sectors like education, sanitation, employment, forest, agriculture, industries and infra( intra-state). while central govt takes care of fields of national interests like defence, interstate infra and intel sharing, foreign relations and over all monitoring of nation as a whole.
    railways and finance to be under central govt only.

    here its a fish market. modi can go to china, pm also wants to go, standing of a nation is shaken by itself, tussle between everyone over issues which have national significance.

    separate nations dont guarantee progress. even same religion, race, language dont guarantee harmony- korea?
     
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    First thought seeing the thread was to hit the lock button.
    I will keep it till there is nothing ugly.

    No India is good as it is right now. That you gave the British example KU is the answer to your question even now. Independent small states will have their own interests to look after. In fighting will mean scope for modern east India company.

    Modern INDIA is the only thing "good" the Brits did though unintentionally.
     
    Tshering22 likes this.
  7. Tianshan

    Tianshan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    249
    unity is strength.
     
  8. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Each state having it's own independent military is a recipe for disaster
     
  9. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,529
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    To demolish modern India because of old resentments against the British would be absurd, IMHO.
     
  10. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    India is a federal state with unitary bias period
     
  11. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    WTF? Worst possible idea I have heard in a long time.

    The union exists for a reason. Every constituent of the union is benefited by being within the union, more than being independent of the union. For centuries, Indians have fought amongst each other - small princely states in a constant state of war. We would have screwed up each other in our wars and infighting, were it not for the union of India.

    This thread is bullshit. :bs:
     
    Tshering22 likes this.
  12. JBH22

    JBH22 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    ajtr has a new avatar or what?
     
  13. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    I am all for decentralization of governance, devolution of powers and economy, etc. But one needs to know where to draw the line!!
     
  14. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    I think you didn understand my post or I fail to understand yours.

    A united India is the best thing that ever happened to this part of the world.
     
    Tshering22 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page