7 ms·

I always see comments about how huge and ungovernable India is because of its diversity... doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation

I always see comments about how huge and ungovernable India is because of its diversity... doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation-states then? I read somewhere that there are districts in India with more people than the entire population of Norway!

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation-states Given India's geography, these nation-states would likely find equilibrium in a permanent state of war. Given India's history, this hypothesis has basis.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  You could have, and in fact would have, said the same of Europe before 1945.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's a model to emulate.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Whether it makes sense to break India down is a politically fraught question. I think most people would agree that its current extreme size is an artifact of the decolonization process; for most of India's history, even during British dominion, the subcontinent had hundreds of independent sovereigns.
ashleshbiradar 7y ago
we have a federal structure on paper, and autonomy is ensured to various regions where it is necessary, but with the current far right government with its "one nation" policy and hindutva, i see India having a difficult time in the future.
- ra7 7y ago
  > with the current far right government with its "one nation" policy This is just false. Every government since independence has fought tooth and nail to keep Union of India united a.k.a "one nation" policy. They have, regardless of political orientation, largely made the same moves wrt Kashmir, Naxalism, insurgencies in eastern India etc. Remember who started the unification process in 1947? The current government, right wing and divisive as they may be, isn't doing anything drastically different than any other government in the past. Seems like this is just a cheap shot against a government you don't like.
  - ashleshbiradar 7y ago
    Look, I wasn't mature enough to have an opinion when the governments of "past" were in. That said, i am a citizen of India, I can criticize my "Current" government and try to hold them accountable. If you want to engage in whataboutism, refrain from having a conversation. I am talking about the things I see, may it be the one elections thing, or the NIA, or electoral bonds, or removing special status of a region without consulting the general public of the region, all of that is nothing but signs of centralization and abuse of power to me.
    - ra7 7y ago
      It's not whataboutism; it's correcting an inaccurate statement you made that a so-called "one nation" policy is adopted by the current government. The country was founded on the "one nation" principle (hence it's called Union of India) and it's not something Modi invented. It's always been there. By all means criticize your government, but I suggest you also acquaint yourself with history.
- sremani 7y ago
  You need research a bit about Indira Gandhi and consolidation of Power, oh by the way Communist Party of India was lovingly called Communist Party of Indira. Modi is a shallow imitation of Indira Gandhi in his attempt to centralize powers. The "Far Right" is to news papery editorial opinion written by 20 year olds.
nradov 7y ago
That would never work due to external threats. If northern India became a separate nation state it would be vulnerable to invasion from China or Pakistan due to lack of strategic depth and limited resources.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  If you broke India down, and with it the Hindu vs Muslim farce, there would be no reason for antagonism with Pakistan.
  - redisman 7y ago
    Wouldn't you just get a proxy buffer state like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria? Doesn't sound like an improvement to the status quo.
    - throwaway123x2 7y ago
      None of those states make sense because they were built by colonialists drawing lines on a map without regard for native concerns. If Indians themselves sat down to divide India along actual ethno-cultural-linguistic lines we'd end up with better results. I'm not saying it's likely or even possible... just that if it were to happen, they might themselves be happier and more prosperous. I don't know what that would look like because I don't know India that well, but I do know that the guys at work from Tamil Nadu are very different from the guys from Northern India. It's not a Texas vs California difference, it's a "we don't even have the same mother tongue" difference.
      - HNTA2020 7y ago
        >it's a "we don't even have the same mother tongue" difference. What is wrong with that? Belgium and the Netherlands are successful peaceful multilingual countries.
  - nradov 7y ago
    There are no clear internal dividing lines, everyone is mixed together. And there is plenty of antagonism between nation states even without significant religious differences; for example see the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Breaking India into India and Pakistan didn't work really well.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  The people I know from Pakistan are plenty happy with it, given the anti-Muslim sentiment in the Indian government these days. India itself is a relatively thriving nation, for all its faults. I don't think partition was a failure.
  - ra7 7y ago
    Over 1.5 million deaths, families separated, 4 wars fought and countless other small conflicts, extreme animosity towards each other to this day, all of which can be traced back to the wounds of partition. I don't know how you can say partition was not a failure.
    - throwaway123x2 7y ago
      Touche - you are right, the human cost was immense. In that sense, partition was a failure. I guess I meant my comment in the sense of how satisfied people are right now with the status quo.
  - threwa55467 7y ago
    Oh please! The Muslim population voted in large part to create a religious state cut off from the Indian civilization. These people largely consider themselves (much like the Anglo-Saxons, Christians, West...) as having done India a favor by destroying its grand old self, and continue in this 'noble' goal of 'civilizing the natives' by constantly waging genocide against the natives (even inside India). Little wonder, the subcontinental Muslims are extremely violent, and are almost single handedly responsible for most medieval forms of barbarism that Islamism breeds. Disliking such a community, which identifies India's natives as its mortal enemies is only natural. Would you fault native Americans for doing the same ? No ? Why? Beaucause they've lost, that's why. Europeans and Islamists aren't too different from each other... Little wonder they've historically been allies in the war with India.
wolco 7y ago
They do have a breakdown into governable regions, together the regions form India. Norway has 5 million people. New York, LA, Toronto, etc has more people. Total population isn't a great reason.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  Diversity sure is. I imagine the culture in Mumbai is very different from Chennai... whereas LA and NYC are way more similar. Of course, I do not know for sure, please feel free to correct me.
  - inapis 7y ago
    The culture maybe different but people generally get along fine. There might be bullying here and there but I have yet to meet an Indian who believes that breaking up the country will fix their problems. Culture wars fade away because people have realized that cultural mixing has generally been a net benefit. And I’m speaking about this from experience. I have friends and regularly interact with people from majority of the states and none have expressed a desire to break away from the union. The closest people come to is to have more and smaller states. Some states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan are still too large for efficient administration.
  - SJetKaran 7y ago
    It always is a fight between having larger (and federal) countries/regions, and having smaller states. There needs to be a balance. Even with Norway, aren't you in EEA and Schengen? In any case, the geographical boundaries of my state in India changed thrice within a span of ~70 years. And that happened peacefully. I can't imagine that happening without wars if the individual states are nation states.
smdz 7y ago
No. 1. States have some level of independence in India, and that is quite messy to handle. It would be a bigger mess if it were nation-states. Think EU. 2. People won't accept - it may have been a possibility 20 years back. They have seen the consequences of allowing to create first version Pakistan. And if they were forced to chose sides - the smaller nations would be at war and civil war. And the ungovernable part comes from the mediocrity and complexity mindset. That is more prevalent in the government. The newer generation is different and we might see sudden improvements to India overall after the next 15-20 years, as the older folks fade away
leetcrew 7y ago
who would get to keep the nukes?
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  Great question... I don't know. The USSR did figure something out, so there's that.
  - nradov 7y ago
    How well did giving up the USSR nukes work for Ukraine?
sremani 7y ago
Who gets to decide this ? The colonial experience basically pointed to this flaw -- that India has to be at military and economic level be a Union. Will India in future fragment, possibly. But the history from 323 BC till today is the same -- fragmented states and weaker prince seeking bargain with foreign force. India is imperfect will remain choatic -- top down design of making something out of it will make Syria and Holocaust look like picnic. Be careful what you wish for.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong on this... but from what I recall the Indian subcontinent was never a Union except as a British territory. Even the Mughals never managed to conquer all of southern India.
  - olnrao 7y ago
    There are multiple assumptions I see here. First: Country as a concept is relatively new. There were Empires and/or Kingdoms. India as a country is created by British, but that's just about word. India as a big empire existed under many kings. Ashoka Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka Maurya Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire Note that edicts mentioned in the above wikis were found outside modern India as a current country. Second: It's not just the size that matters always, it's about unifying culture. In India, some kings worked in cooperative manner and did not enter wars. For example, in Southern India history, Hari Hara Bukka Raaya (of Karnataka region) did not face trouble with Tiruvankur Empire in cooperative model. At the same time, we had a continuous war between Cholas and Pandyas. As recently as 800 years ago, Adi Shankara established four mutts in four corners of India. It would not have been possible if people/kingdoms were not united. Just to give you another perspective, how easy it is to transfer the culture, rituals for generations in entire sub continent if it were not united in minds. Most unfortunate issue with India is, history is convoluted on both sides. Extreme hinduists expanded original Mahabharatha to double its size, British sympathizers have masked the co-opearative India. I also keep hearing that it's because of British that we have industry concept. India was the one of the best ship building industry, one of the best clothing industry before British or Europe even can imagine. Please read Indian history by non-British and their company. Another unfortunate thing about history is, Cholas and Pandyas empires are not covered much. They spread outside subcontinent, not saying it's great, but it's just the history to be knonwn.
chimeracoder 7y ago
> doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation-states then? The last three partitions of India led to three of the largest genocides of the 20th century, so I'm not sure that would be a great idea. > I read somewhere that there are districts in India with more people than the entire population of Norway! New York City has nearly twice the population of Norway. Not the metro area - the city itself. European cities and countries are small by global standards; it doesn't make sense to use them as a point of reference.
econcon 7y ago
If it happens it will solve the visa issues for many tech workers. Then they'll be able to better compete for visa with other Europeans nations.
sbmthakur 7y ago
Most of the country is very much governable. Breaking down countries doesn't always work. Most of the African countries are smaller than India and you still have issues.
known 7y ago
It's pending since 1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation-states Given India's geography, these nation-states would likely find equilibrium in a permanent state of war. Given India's history, this hypothesis has basis.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
You could have, and in fact would have, said the same of Europe before 1945.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's a model to emulate.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Whether it makes sense to break India down is a politically fraught question. I think most people would agree that its current extreme size is an artifact of the decolonization process; for most of India's history, even during British dominion, the subcontinent had hundreds of independent sovereigns.

ashleshbiradar 7y ago

we have a federal structure on paper, and autonomy is ensured to various regions where it is necessary, but with the current far right government with its "one nation" policy and hindutva, i see India having a difficult time in the future.

ra7 7y ago
> with the current far right government with its "one nation" policy This is just false. Every government since independence has fought tooth and nail to keep Union of India united a.k.a "one nation" policy. They have, regardless of political orientation, largely made the same moves wrt Kashmir, Naxalism, insurgencies in eastern India etc. Remember who started the unification process in 1947? The current government, right wing and divisive as they may be, isn't doing anything drastically different than any other government in the past. Seems like this is just a cheap shot against a government you don't like.
- ashleshbiradar 7y ago
  Look, I wasn't mature enough to have an opinion when the governments of "past" were in. That said, i am a citizen of India, I can criticize my "Current" government and try to hold them accountable. If you want to engage in whataboutism, refrain from having a conversation. I am talking about the things I see, may it be the one elections thing, or the NIA, or electoral bonds, or removing special status of a region without consulting the general public of the region, all of that is nothing but signs of centralization and abuse of power to me.
  - ra7 7y ago
    It's not whataboutism; it's correcting an inaccurate statement you made that a so-called "one nation" policy is adopted by the current government. The country was founded on the "one nation" principle (hence it's called Union of India) and it's not something Modi invented. It's always been there. By all means criticize your government, but I suggest you also acquaint yourself with history.
sremani 7y ago
You need research a bit about Indira Gandhi and consolidation of Power, oh by the way Communist Party of India was lovingly called Communist Party of Indira. Modi is a shallow imitation of Indira Gandhi in his attempt to centralize powers. The "Far Right" is to news papery editorial opinion written by 20 year olds.

nradov 7y ago

That would never work due to external threats. If northern India became a separate nation state it would be vulnerable to invasion from China or Pakistan due to lack of strategic depth and limited resources.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
If you broke India down, and with it the Hindu vs Muslim farce, there would be no reason for antagonism with Pakistan.
- redisman 7y ago
  Wouldn't you just get a proxy buffer state like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria? Doesn't sound like an improvement to the status quo.
  - throwaway123x2 7y ago
    None of those states make sense because they were built by colonialists drawing lines on a map without regard for native concerns. If Indians themselves sat down to divide India along actual ethno-cultural-linguistic lines we'd end up with better results. I'm not saying it's likely or even possible... just that if it were to happen, they might themselves be happier and more prosperous. I don't know what that would look like because I don't know India that well, but I do know that the guys at work from Tamil Nadu are very different from the guys from Northern India. It's not a Texas vs California difference, it's a "we don't even have the same mother tongue" difference.
    - HNTA2020 7y ago
      >it's a "we don't even have the same mother tongue" difference. What is wrong with that? Belgium and the Netherlands are successful peaceful multilingual countries.
- nradov 7y ago
  There are no clear internal dividing lines, everyone is mixed together. And there is plenty of antagonism between nation states even without significant religious differences; for example see the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

Breaking India into India and Pakistan didn't work really well.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
The people I know from Pakistan are plenty happy with it, given the anti-Muslim sentiment in the Indian government these days. India itself is a relatively thriving nation, for all its faults. I don't think partition was a failure.
- ra7 7y ago
  Over 1.5 million deaths, families separated, 4 wars fought and countless other small conflicts, extreme animosity towards each other to this day, all of which can be traced back to the wounds of partition. I don't know how you can say partition was not a failure.
  - throwaway123x2 7y ago
    Touche - you are right, the human cost was immense. In that sense, partition was a failure. I guess I meant my comment in the sense of how satisfied people are right now with the status quo.
- threwa55467 7y ago
  Oh please! The Muslim population voted in large part to create a religious state cut off from the Indian civilization. These people largely consider themselves (much like the Anglo-Saxons, Christians, West...) as having done India a favor by destroying its grand old self, and continue in this 'noble' goal of 'civilizing the natives' by constantly waging genocide against the natives (even inside India). Little wonder, the subcontinental Muslims are extremely violent, and are almost single handedly responsible for most medieval forms of barbarism that Islamism breeds. Disliking such a community, which identifies India's natives as its mortal enemies is only natural. Would you fault native Americans for doing the same ? No ? Why? Beaucause they've lost, that's why. Europeans and Islamists aren't too different from each other... Little wonder they've historically been allies in the war with India.

wolco 7y ago

They do have a breakdown into governable regions, together the regions form India. Norway has 5 million people. New York, LA, Toronto, etc has more people. Total population isn't a great reason.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
Diversity sure is. I imagine the culture in Mumbai is very different from Chennai... whereas LA and NYC are way more similar. Of course, I do not know for sure, please feel free to correct me.
- inapis 7y ago
  The culture maybe different but people generally get along fine. There might be bullying here and there but I have yet to meet an Indian who believes that breaking up the country will fix their problems. Culture wars fade away because people have realized that cultural mixing has generally been a net benefit. And I’m speaking about this from experience. I have friends and regularly interact with people from majority of the states and none have expressed a desire to break away from the union. The closest people come to is to have more and smaller states. Some states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan are still too large for efficient administration.
- SJetKaran 7y ago
  It always is a fight between having larger (and federal) countries/regions, and having smaller states. There needs to be a balance. Even with Norway, aren't you in EEA and Schengen? In any case, the geographical boundaries of my state in India changed thrice within a span of ~70 years. And that happened peacefully. I can't imagine that happening without wars if the individual states are nation states.

smdz 7y ago

No. 1. States have some level of independence in India, and that is quite messy to handle. It would be a bigger mess if it were nation-states. Think EU. 2. People won't accept - it may have been a possibility 20 years back. They have seen the consequences of allowing to create first version Pakistan. And if they were forced to chose sides - the smaller nations would be at war and civil war. And the ungovernable part comes from the mediocrity and complexity mindset. That is more prevalent in the government. The newer generation is different and we might see sudden improvements to India overall after the next 15-20 years, as the older folks fade away

leetcrew 7y ago

who would get to keep the nukes?

throwaway123x2 7y ago
Great question... I don't know. The USSR did figure something out, so there's that.
- nradov 7y ago
  How well did giving up the USSR nukes work for Ukraine?

sremani 7y ago

Who gets to decide this ? The colonial experience basically pointed to this flaw -- that India has to be at military and economic level be a Union. Will India in future fragment, possibly. But the history from 323 BC till today is the same -- fragmented states and weaker prince seeking bargain with foreign force. India is imperfect will remain choatic -- top down design of making something out of it will make Syria and Holocaust look like picnic. Be careful what you wish for.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong on this... but from what I recall the Indian subcontinent was never a Union except as a British territory. Even the Mughals never managed to conquer all of southern India.
- olnrao 7y ago
  There are multiple assumptions I see here. First: Country as a concept is relatively new. There were Empires and/or Kingdoms. India as a country is created by British, but that's just about word. India as a big empire existed under many kings. Ashoka Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka Maurya Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire Note that edicts mentioned in the above wikis were found outside modern India as a current country. Second: It's not just the size that matters always, it's about unifying culture. In India, some kings worked in cooperative manner and did not enter wars. For example, in Southern India history, Hari Hara Bukka Raaya (of Karnataka region) did not face trouble with Tiruvankur Empire in cooperative model. At the same time, we had a continuous war between Cholas and Pandyas. As recently as 800 years ago, Adi Shankara established four mutts in four corners of India. It would not have been possible if people/kingdoms were not united. Just to give you another perspective, how easy it is to transfer the culture, rituals for generations in entire sub continent if it were not united in minds. Most unfortunate issue with India is, history is convoluted on both sides. Extreme hinduists expanded original Mahabharatha to double its size, British sympathizers have masked the co-opearative India. I also keep hearing that it's because of British that we have industry concept. India was the one of the best ship building industry, one of the best clothing industry before British or Europe even can imagine. Please read Indian history by non-British and their company. Another unfortunate thing about history is, Cholas and Pandyas empires are not covered much. They spread outside subcontinent, not saying it's great, but it's just the history to be knonwn.

chimeracoder 7y ago

> doesn't it make sense to break India down into more governable nation-states then? The last three partitions of India led to three of the largest genocides of the 20th century, so I'm not sure that would be a great idea. > I read somewhere that there are districts in India with more people than the entire population of Norway! New York City has nearly twice the population of Norway. Not the metro area - the city itself. European cities and countries are small by global standards; it doesn't make sense to use them as a point of reference.

econcon 7y ago

If it happens it will solve the visa issues for many tech workers. Then they'll be able to better compete for visa with other Europeans nations.

sbmthakur 7y ago

Most of the country is very much governable. Breaking down countries doesn't always work. Most of the African countries are smaller than India and you still have issues.

known 7y ago

It's pending since 1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award