I read somewhere that there are districts in India with more people than the entire population of Norway!
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.
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.
What is wrong with that? Belgium and the Netherlands are successful peaceful multilingual countries.
Interesting. Your "solution" to the India-Pakistan conflict is to break up India. You also claim the antagonism is one-sided and coming from India.
What makes you think Pakistan will respect the sovereignty of an independent Jammu and Ladakh? What makes you think the Pakistan and Gujarat border will be peaceful?
And Pakistan has thrived on the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. It'll be counterintuitive for Pakistan to dream of seeing India broken up. The antagonism with Pakistan is deep rooted in the psyche of Indians and is something that will never die out. No matter how you divide and subdivide the country. The reason for that is behavior of Pakistan itself. Indians don't forget atrocities done over them so easily. If Pakistan wants improved relations with India or a hypothetical 36 mini-Indias it needs to get its house in order. That will never happen because of its love for housing Islamic Terrorists (like Osama bin Laden and other outfits).
And speaking of Pakistan, it has more to prove that it is a good neighbor than India does. We have good relations with all neighbours except Pakistan. The same can't be said for Pakistan. Pakistan's only ally in the region is China. The other two are Malaysia and Turkey. India is friendly with the World. We have no problems with anyone else. So no one will buy Pakistan's premise that it is somehow the afflicted one here. It is an immature nation that has ambitions way higher than what it is actually capable of.
What makes it worse for Pakistan is its track record of keeping allies. It backstabbed USA and recently backstabbed Malaysia and Turkey too. Wasn't it Imran Khan who wanted to create a separate Islamic block from OIC with Malaysia and Turkey? Then he skipped the first ever meeting of the new Islamic block backstabbing both Malaysia and Turkey in the process. Mahathir lost his chair too because of his hatred for India. Now Malaysia is trying hard to placate India which had always been friendly with it. All because it believed Pakistan. Malaysia ended up losing a trustworthy friend like India and did not gain a friend in Pakistan. The damage it did to Malaysia-India relations is massive. It negatively impacted Malaysian economy. India never forgets insults and atrocities committed on it. Malaysia was literally begging India to restart palm oil imports after Mahathir stepped down and a new Government came into place. Building allies is a hard task that only mature countries are capable of. You can't behave like immature kids in the International community. People see through lies and deceit and will never work with you again. All these factors weigh against Pakistan unfortunately. Pakistan literally destroyed its own image. India was just a catalyst for it. Nothing more.
The client states didn't even have to cease to exist once they lost actual control.
We helped Bhutan too during the Doklam crisis. India won't and will never invade. So these small countries feel safe. The only time India failed was when India couldn't stop the invasion of Tibet by China. Subsequently, we also lost a War with China when it occupied a portion of Ladakh (Aksai Chin). That loss made us realise the importance of being a nuclear power. So India strengthened only when we acquired nuclear capabilities. That has kept both Pakistan and China in check and ensured some form of stability for the smaller countries that share borders with India.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nepal-elections-maoists/t...
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
We could be United and stayed secular together, but secularism was not acceptable to the Muslim league.
And yes, creation of that theocratic state, the violence of partition, and the terrorism caused by that theocratic state is the reason most Hindus don't like Pakistan and have an inherent distrust of Muslims.
Btw, my understanding of causality is not agreement of the riots and the violence.
The riots and violence in India today is directly caused by the current government's policies. I know that before Modi, even my religious but western-educated Pakistani friends would point to India and say we should be like them. Not so any more. Something has changed in India in the last decade - blaming an event from three generations ago does Indians and their intelligence a disservice. It implies that they are not in control of their own destiny and are instead held hostage by a three-generation old event.
Good story you tell yourselves. Start a country based on religion, and then act surprised that it turned religious. This is your second prime minister "I do not agree that religion is a private affair of the individual nor do I agree that in an Islamic state every citizen has identical rights, no matter what his caste, creed or faith be ... — Governor-General Khawaja Nazimuddin, 1948–49, [33]"
> I know that before Modi, even my religious but western-educated Pakistani friends would point to India and say we should be like them. Not so any more.
I agree that india's going down a dark path and Pakistan should aim for better. Btw, India is still better than Pakistan for rights of its citizens.
> Something has changed in India in the last decade - blaming an event from three generations ago does Indians and their intelligence a disservice
Saying that they are well meaning and fooled by modi also does the same disservice. There is distrust of Muslims, even Indian ones. Why would there not be? They demanded a partition decades ago, and still hold on to communal Sharia laws.
Such historical events are not and should not be easily forgotten, do we forget the holocaust and not criticize white nationalism?
Add to the fact that Pakistan has constantly delved in terrorism. You said something changed in last decade, maybe because Pakistan committed the Bombay attack in 2008?
> blaming an event from three generations ago does Indians and their intelligence a disservice. It implies that they are not in control of their own destiny and are instead held hostage by a three-generation old event.
Great point. I have mixed feelings about this statement. We've had 4 wars with Pakistan, countless terrorist attacks, and Kashmir as a never ending problem for both nations. While that should ideally only route Indian ire towards Pakistan as a nation - the problem is that it also somehow festers mistrust towards Muslims in the country. The can of worms is somehow never really closed. The 3 generation old event continues to affect our lives.
It also doesn't help that Muslim society is fairly insular and conservative. They are seen with suspicion as being sympathetic to Pakistan. Example : Reports of celebration of Pakistan's victory over India in cricket matches (which is a very very sensitive issue if you are Indian). This isn't an attempt to blame Muslims in India, but it does contribute to a disconnect between the non Muslim and Muslim populations in India. Muslims are somehow seen as outsiders due to the historical animosity - invasion, conversions, creation of Pakistan etc. Some of the other minorities like Christians do not face such discrimination because they're seen as just being regular Indians.
I agree with you that it is downright stupid. BJP does not make it any easier to bring these communities closer either. Ultimately, it is intelligence v/s decades of animosity, emotions, propaganda, actions etc. I personally think the younger generation (millennials and younger) see through the charade and am optimistic about the future.
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.
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.
By all means criticize your government, but I suggest you also acquaint yourself with history.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Breaking down countries doesn't always work. Most of the African countries are smaller than India and you still have issues.