Should India be broken up into its constituent states?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
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:
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
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 ?
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
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).
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!
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
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?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
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.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Each state having it's own independent military is a recipe for disaster
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
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.
To demolish modern India because of old resentments against the British would be absurd, IMHO.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
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:
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
I am all for decentralization of governance, devolution of powers and economy, etc. But one needs to know where to draw the line!!
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
To demolish modern India because of old resentments against the British would be absurd, IMHO.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top