Chinese think tank suggests division of India

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I have been to Singapore.

Nothing that scary as being chucked into jail or given the death penalty (unless you are carrying drug, because then you are done for!) or getting whipped.

Very friendly people.

 

[Joe Shearer]

you cant blame they as they are always in their own world of dreams..

I never heard any state is unhappy for not having foreign policy rights
certain amount of economical autonomy should be nice for states like Maharashtra..
states like Maharashtra contribute 14% in GDP but funding coming in from central government is very less than that..
but we never blame central government for that cause whatever a state earns is for the whole country and states which are economically backward should get more help from central government..problem is with corruption the money given by central government is not used how it should be...
and china as far as i know is not free from corruption either...so keep dreaming chinese "THINK TANKs"

Yes, this discussion comes up internally from time to time. Please consider the following:

Rates of growth are different and have not been uniform in different states at different times. There was a time when West Bengal was an industrial powerhouse; you may or may not be aware of the equalised freight policy, which made steel and coal available throughout India at uniform prices, an average of the total cost of shipment to different points of the country. This was a huge penalty on those areas close to the steel and coal production as it made them pay for shipment to distant parts. It was conversely a huge subsidy to the distant parts, that practically got half its transport costs paid for by others. So, too, today's growth for Maharashtra depends on a number of factors, which might or might not exist for long. That is why it is preferable to keep a central authority to plan and to allocate resources that come to the centre as taxes. This allows for the upliftment of backward areas by putting in investment, and for increasing the contribution of advanced areas to such developmental expenses.

Second, if Mumbai makes the same demand to Maharashtra as you think Maharashtra ought to make to the rest of India, what would the reaction of Maharashtra be?

Third, please consider that the Indian bureaucracy has known for the past twenty years or more that one part of India is surging ahead of the others. What if they were to seek economic autonomy and ask that their earnings be applied to their own sphere of work? Where would Maharashtra be (Maharashtra and Mumbai are not part of that bloc)?

There are excellent reasons why we are structured the way we are and any changes need to be debated in full in depth before being undertaken.

 

[Joe Shearer]

LOL I was joking.

But if you want to be serious, then China has already kicked India's butt in 1962.

And it is India, that is filled with armed insurgencies (Kashmiri/Maoists/NE India), not China. In fact, China currently has no active armed insurgencies at all.

Please can we not start this again?

 

[CardSharp]

Hey, CardSharp!

What's a nice guy like you doing in a thread like this?

Just passing through of course.

Yes, this discussion comes up internally from time to time. Please consider the following:

Rates of growth are different and have not been uniform in different states at different times. There was a time when West Bengal was an industrial powerhouse; you may or may not be aware of the equalised freight policy, which made steel and coal available throughout India at uniform prices, an average of the total cost of shipment to different points of the country. This was a huge penalty on those areas close to the steel and coal production as it made them pay for shipment to distant parts. It was conversely a huge subsidy to the distant parts, that practically got half its transport costs paid for by others. So, too, today's growth for Maharashtra depends on a number of factors, which might or might not exist for long. That is why it is preferable to keep a central authority to plan and to allocate resources that come to the centre as taxes. This allows for the upliftment of backward areas by putting in investment, and for increasing the contribution of advanced areas to such developmental expenses.

Second, if Mumbai makes the same demand to Maharashtra as you think Maharashtra ought to make to the rest of India, what would the reaction of Maharashtra be?

Third, please consider that the Indian bureaucracy has known for the past twenty years or more that one part of India is surging ahead of the others. What if they were to seek economic autonomy and ask that their earnings be applied to their own sphere of work? Where would Maharashtra be (Maharashtra and Mumbai are not part of that bloc)?

There are excellent reasons why we are structured the way we are and any changes need to be debated in full in depth before being undertaken.

This reminds me of federal politics here in Canada. Everybody wants but no one is willing to give. A maritime province here called Newfoundland had its Cod-industry collapse in the 90's from overfishing, the provincial economy was devastated and had to be subsidized by the federal government for years at great cost to the surplus provinces. But recently they've discovered about 1.3 billion barrels of oil off shore, and as soon as they were flush again, they started fighting tooth and nail to keep the revenues in Newfoundland. Coming up with a slogan saying Newfoundlanders (read: us poor folks) should not pay more taxes per-capita than Ontarians (you rich folks) and premier of the province ordered all Canadian flags be taken down from provincial buildings (basically threatened to secede).

It looks like this is a tricky problem wherever you are.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@CardSharp

How nice to read your posts. I missed them.

Regarding the politics of Canada vs. the politics of India, Canada happens to be one of the very, very few states that satisfy the traits of consociationalism. Effectively, it is constituted of independent states that have voluntarily joined together in a union, yet retain their sovereignty to the extent that they retain their right of secession (this is a free-wheeling definition; do NOT show this to a professor of political science, unless you want to see interesting physiognomic effects). For a Canadian province to threaten to secede is technically feasible.

As you may have noticed about Indians (all South Asians from the sub-continent, actually), we are a deceitful lot compared to you clean, transparent, honest and upright Chinese. India gives away a lot of rights to the constituent states, but these are artificial entities with no existence of their own except as given to them by the Indian Constitution. Tomorrow, it is open to the Indian State to recall a fresh Constituent Assembly, prepare a new Constitution and redo itself as a unitary state, and none of the provinces technically can protest once the Constituent Assembly has formed the new charter and once it has been endorsed by Parliament. On a technical aside, amending the Constitution is possible, but it cannot be changed beyond a degree, because the Supreme Court has ruled that it has a basic shape, and that it has basic intentions which cannot be amended out by any parliament.

So for us it is a tricky problem to the extent that we make it a tricky problem and moan and groan and whine. The minute we decide to do our administration and our constitution making out of a gun-barrel, like very powerful nations in our neighbourhood have been known to do, these will stop. The question within India, which we keep debating, and shall keep debating in perpetuity BECAUSE it is a touchstone of our continued humanity, is whether or not such a step will be ethical. As of now, the consensus is that it is not.

 

[CardSharp]

@CardSharp

How nice to read your posts. I missed them.

Couldn't stay away

Regarding the politics of Canada vs. the politics of India, Canada happens to be one of the very, very few states that satisfy the traits of consociationalism. Effectively, it is constituted of independent states that have voluntarily joined together in a union, yet retain their sovereignty to the extent that they retain their right of secession (this is a free-wheeling definition; do NOT show this to a professor of political science, unless you want to see interesting physiognomic effects). For a Canadian province to threaten to secede is technically feasible.

Just to show you learn something new everyday. I had to look up the difference between a unitary state and an non-unitary state.

India gives away a lot of rights to the constituent states, but these are artificial entities with no existence of their own except as given to them by the Indian Constitution. Tomorrow, it is open to the Indian State to recall a fresh Constituent Assembly, prepare a new Constitution and redo itself as a unitary state, and none of the provinces technically can protest once the Constituent Assembly has formed the new charter and once it has been endorsed by Parliament. On a technical aside, amending the Constitution is possible, but it cannot be changed beyond a degree, because the Supreme Court has ruled that it has a basic shape, and that it has basic intentions which cannot be amended out by any parliament.

If I understand correctly these states once having been artificially defined, thus have take on a life of their own, becoming self-interesting and activated organisms?

and if they were really artificially drawn, it would account for the complicated nature of state politics. A myriad of ethnic and quasi religious enclaves/vote banks for politicians to appeal to. Probably why a professor studying India once exclaimed that the politics of each Indian state can easily form the bulk of a PhD thesis.

The minute we decide to do our administration and our constitution making out of a gun-barrel, like very powerful nations in our neighbourhood have been known to do, these will stop.

Would this be triggered by circumstance or by a mass mobilizing leader?

 

[praveen]

Cardsharp I suggest you to dwell in an indian forum or lurk in one if you want to get a vague idea of what's happening in India.Indian states are mainly divided on linguistic basis and we cannot call them as artificial state.India by definition practices Quasi-Federalism and that is very much needed in a country like india.Defence.pk will not help you get an idea of what ticks India

 

[@nline]

If this is true then this is very good news for India and her neighbors. Indians love democracy and what is more democratic than to have a dozen free Indian states? Each Indian state can choose their own path of development in their free democratic environments.

Well said!!!

 

[CardSharp]

Cardsharp I suggest you to dwell in an indian forum or lurk in one if you want to get a vague idea of what's happening in India.Indian states are mainly divided on linguistic basis and we cannot call them as artificial state.India by definition practices Quasi-Federalism and that is very much needed in a country like india.Defence.pk will not help you get an idea of what ticks India

I tried bharat rakshak but felt like I wondered into a home for mentally handicapped angry people.

My question is with regards to voting dynamics and how various factors affect this. I'm not saying that the states were not drawn up as naturally as possible, but certainly ethnic (and even linguistic borders) are not easily defined.

 

[praveen]

I tried bharat rakshak but felt like I wondered into a home for mentally handicapped angry people.

My question is with regards to voting dynamics and how various factors affect this. I'm not saying that the states were not drawn up as naturally as possible, but certainly ethnic (and even linguistic borders) are not easily defined.

Cardsharp wrt to B-R I disagree with a lot of their opinions agree with a lot what they say but you cannot call them mentally handicapped some of them have a truly diabolical mind and intellect ,go for D F I.

Cardsharp India is no monolith India is a huge mosaic and using a broad brush will give out extremely wrong opinons with respect to India.Voters in the South and West mainly go wrt to the development agenda.In North India dynamics are extremely different,caste and development are playing a major role nowadays and one thing is certain the upper sections have lost the mantle of power to the lower sections
completely.Development imo sustainable development is what the people are asking for and a strong vocal media at the local level with an even vocal civil society are helping in Southern India,Western India and now the trend even started in Bihar with Nitish Kumar's adminstration.

India's major problem is central India ,Bengal and Manipur.Central India can be solved and is solvable but Bengal is going from the frying pan into the fire from now

With respect to Caste as much as caste was used as an tool by the upper caste for repressio ,it is also being used to mobilize ,gather and form a bloc to get their greivances corrected and for upward mobility

Regarding linguistic boundaries they always overlap and Indians were already integrated into a single entity in 1947 and imo they will be even more.

Gandhi and Ambedkar gave freedom from an eternal cycle of destruction and putrefaction for the Indian people as a whole

**Voting also depends on the CV of the candidate fielded and his personal integrity

 

[Dharmachakra]

If this is true then this is very good news for India and her neighbors. Indians love democracy and what is more democratic than to have a dozen free Indian states? Each Indian state can choose their own path of development in their free democratic environments.

It looks like outsiders are much more concerned bout India and its states than compared to the Indians itself.

Indian used to be ruled by different rulers under different regions thousands of years ago.
An outsider simply cant understand the demographics of India let alone his ranting about dividing it.
When India used to be called as Bharatvarsha, it was totally under control of Bharata and then passed onto his later generations. Then again gained total control either by direct ruling of alliances by Dhuryodhana.After entering Kaliyuga it was once again united by chandragupta.Later passed onto his grandson Ashoka. After Ashoka took budhism the whole empire started seeing numerous kings. And it was once again United by Brits.

what everyone fails to understand is, the linguistically whole subcontinent is same initially so do the culture for thousands of years. Everyone communicated in sanskrit. Later many regional languages got derived from sanskrit yet the culture remained the same. Hence the change of rulers and spreading of empires didnt effected the natives. Untill muslim invaders entered the region with a whole new culture and language.Then christianity and yet another language.But the native languages remained dominant and so is their culture. TO put everything in one sentence, India as a whole is united under religion maily Hinduism.
No one can divide a nation like India where religion still is a major bonding thing. Well, one can see a new state coming up every other year one the basis of just linguistics,but not state has appeared on the basis of religion other than pakistan that moved out.

Only the local Indians know how strong thier cultural and religious bonding is.When all the citizens themself are loyal to thier country, there is no question of splitting out. those days of monarchy are gone so are the days of divide and rule.
Each and every state knows that, they are worth nothing without the umbrella of India as a nation. No one even contemplates to part out from India.

If my memory serves me right, there was a national survey sometime around 2002 or 2003 , when asked more than 96% of the whole population said that, they cant even imagine an India which is divided into different nations on the basis of linguistics or caste or religion. They all love to stay united as a nation.

When we Indians understand what a nation is and its values are, we need not to worry about some unorthodox fool spewing venom infront of media just for the sake of getting some publicity or some gov printed green notes.

Getting away(splitting ) is much easier than staying united. And we fought together and stayed united. People who ran away from mainland like monkeys will never understand this.

 

[Ghoster]

How about chinese mind their own business and leave us alone.

We know what is best for us.

 

[Malik Usman]

Indian think tank decide to leave Pakistan with the Good Taliban: This will result in an implosion and Pakistan will be in the history books as an idea.
Now does such nonsense require comments or suggestions ?

That need suggestion..............that leave the tailiban's at there own and don't provide them money and weapons to destablize Pakistan.

 

[Eric89]

That need suggestion..............that leave the tailiban's at there own and don't provide them money and weapons to destablize Pakistan.

Malik Usman, do you know history? if not then let me remind you that Taliban gained Diplomatic Recognition from Pakistan during its rule in Afghanistan. That means, Pakistan SUPPORTED them. Taliban had its consulate in Karachi. Do you need more explanations now?

 

[Joe Shearer]

@CardSharp

Your usually devilishly incisive points. Let me try to answer them, with a caveat: the best person I know on these subjects is a Pakistani youngster, Yasser Latif Hamdani. He is unusually well-informed and educated about these niceties, and is an extraordinary brain. All the jingos and militarist riff-raff hate him of course, which is in a sense a great compliment; he is disliked by all the right rabble.

India gives away a lot of rights to the constituent states, but these are artificial entities with no existence of their own except as given to them by the Indian Constitution. Tomorrow, it is open to the Indian State to recall a fresh Constituent Assembly, prepare a new Constitution and redo itself as a unitary state, and none of the provinces technically can protest once the Constituent Assembly has formed the new charter and once it has been endorsed by Parliament. On a technical aside, amending the Constitution is possible, but it cannot be changed beyond a degree, because the Supreme Court has ruled that it has a basic shape, and that it has basic intentions which cannot be amended out by any parliament.

If I understand correctly these states once having been artificially defined, thus have take on a life of their own, becoming self-interesting and activated organisms?

That is not my understanding. Several states have been re-organised; a quick summary follows. The great work of consolidation was undertaken by a team consisting of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a civil servant called V. P. Menon, who wrote up the process in a tome called "The Re-organisation of the Indian States". Sardar Patel (Sardar is an honorific found on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, which approximately connotes a tribal or rural leader of some stature; by courtesy, it extends to all Sikhs - Patel was not a Sikh - who are typically Sardar Ajit Singh Majithia. On some other occasion, I will explain how to parse that name) was reputed to be a very strong leader, the strong fundamental on whose strength Nehru found the freedom to waft around the globe faffing on subjects that caught his fancy, including his patronising, condescending behaviour towards Mao Zedong and Zhu Enlai. Patel welded the vast number of Indian princely states that opted for India (the majority out of 562) into informal, temporary groupings, for instance, PEPSU, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, which included the major state of Patiala and some other smaller tracts besides. The map of India from 47 to 56 was quite curious; like a map of gerrymandered political constituencies.

In 1956, there was a re-organisation and states were structured by language. The big concessions were the carving out Andhra Pradesh, which a Bangladeshi chucklehead habitually confuses with Arunachal Pradesh, from Madras, making Andhra Pradesh the repository of Telugu as well the successor state of the princely Hyderabad, and making Madras a Tamil province; and the carving out of Gujarat from Bombay, leaving Maharashtra to promote the Maratha language.

In later years, at no concerted point of time, really, some small configurations were promoted to full-fledged states, and several states were separated out. For instance, Uttaranchal out of the hilly bits of Uttar Pradesh; Bihar being split into two, Bihar and the largely forested Jharkhand (scrubland); Madhya Pradesh had Chhatisgarh carved out. Notably, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh represent the forests with forest-dwelling tribals with major grievances against the regular settlers who come in and rip them off.

Now, can they take on a life of their own from that point onwards? No, as you saw in the case of the linguistic re-organisation, these states can be carved up with or without their consent. All three that I mentioned before, UP, Bihar, MP were states formed in 56, more or less.

and if they were really artificially drawn, it would account for the complicated nature of state politics. A myriad of ethnic and quasi religious enclaves/vote banks for politicians to appeal to. Probably why a professor studying India once exclaimed that the politics of each Indian state can easily form the bulk of a PhD thesis.

More or less true.