The number of separate state movements in India

[Areesh]

so what r u claiming,u r still a colony of India

I am talking about Bangladesh you dumbas*. Looks like I said something which is far above your comprehension level.

 

[eric_cartman]

But GoI did good by splitting Bihar into Bihar and Jharkhand IMO!

It was very difficult and to make progress in BiMaRU(Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and UttarPradesh) states.

 

[Asian.Century]

Active ones:

• Dravida Nadu.
• Insurgency in Northeast India. Assam separatist movements. Insurgency in Meghalaya. Insurgency in Manipur. Ethnic conflict in Nagaland.
• Kashmir conflict.
• Khalistan movement.
• Naxalite–Maoist insurgency.

In detail States who wants separation from India:

By separatist movements, I guess you are referring to the movements that demand secession from India, and creation of a separate country. If so, as of now, the separatist movements that can be considered to be “active” are as follows :

1. Separatist movement in Kashmir , demanding independence of Kashmir from India and Indian government. It is the most active separatist movement in India, which is supported by Pakistan and various terrorist groups.
2. Separatist movement in Assam , where United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) demands a separate nation for the Assamese. ULFA is a designated terrorist group and Indian Army is fighting the insurgents more or less on a regular basis, just like in Kashmir albeit little less. There is another insurgent group in Assam called MULTA (Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam) which demands a separate country for Muslims of Assam. Apart from these, there are a few other small separatist groups as well, which operate in Assam
3. Separatist movement in Nagaland , where NSCN demands separate country for Nagas. However, with recent peace accords, it seems the separatist movement has almost ended, though the groups continue to press for certain other demands.

Apart from the separatist movements that have been discussed above, there is Khalistani separatist movement which is completely dormant and almost non-existent in India…. though the members of Khalistani separatist movements still secretly operate from Canada, UK and Australia but have a very limited influence. It seeks secession of Punjab from India and create a separate country for Sikhs. As of now, Khalistani movement is dead but intelligence agencies are always on their toes so that it does not revive.

There is also a separatist movement in Tripura, led by National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), which seeks secession from India and an independent nation called Tripuri. However, this movement does not enjoy enough support from people and is not a major threat to the country or people of the region.

PS - I have deliberately not put the name of Tamil separatist movement, as the movement is not fiercely secessionist in nature and lacks support from the Tamils. The fraction of Tamils involved in the movement is basically so less that it can be ignored for all practical purpose to be perceived as any threat.

 

[TMA]

Active ones:

• Dravida Nadu.
• Insurgency in Northeast India. Assam separatist movements. Insurgency in Meghalaya. Insurgency in Manipur. Ethnic conflict in Nagaland.
• Kashmir conflict.
• Khalistan movement.
• Naxalite–Maoist insurgency.

In detail States who wants separation from India:

By separatist movements, I guess you are referring to the movements that demand secession from India, and creation of a separate country. If so, as of now, the separatist movements that can be considered to be “active” are as follows :

1. Separatist movement in Kashmir , demanding independence of Kashmir from India and Indian government. It is the most active separatist movement in India, which is supported by Pakistan and various terrorist groups.
2. Separatist movement in Assam , where United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) demands a separate nation for the Assamese. ULFA is a designated terrorist group and Indian Army is fighting the insurgents more or less on a regular basis, just like in Kashmir albeit little less. There is another insurgent group in Assam called MULTA (Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam) which demands a separate country for Muslims of Assam. Apart from these, there are a few other small separatist groups as well, which operate in Assam
3. Separatist movement in Nagaland , where NSCN demands separate country for Nagas. However, with recent peace accords, it seems the separatist movement has almost ended, though the groups continue to press for certain other demands.

Apart from the separatist movements that have been discussed above, there is Khalistani separatist movement which is completely dormant and almost non-existent in India…. though the members of Khalistani separatist movements still secretly operate from Canada, UK and Australia but have a very limited influence. It seeks secession of Punjab from India and create a separate country for Sikhs. As of now, Khalistani movement is dead but intelligence agencies are always on their toes so that it does not revive.

There is also a separatist movement in Tripura, led by National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), which seeks secession from India and an independent nation called Tripuri. However, this movement does not enjoy enough support from people and is not a major threat to the country or people of the region.

PS - I have deliberately not put the name of Tamil separatist movement, as the movement is not fiercely secessionist in nature and lacks support from the Tamils. The fraction of Tamils involved in the movement is basically so less that it can be ignored for all practical purpose to be perceived as any threat.

I would not consider the Kashmir in the separatist movement section as this is disputed territory between Bharat and Pakistan. I don't think the other movements are disputed between two states. But I could be wrong.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Active ones:

• Dravida Nadu.
• Insurgency in Northeast India. Assam separatist movements. Insurgency in Meghalaya. Insurgency in Manipur. Ethnic conflict in Nagaland.
• Kashmir conflict.
• Khalistan movement.
• Naxalite–Maoist insurgency.

In detail States who wants separation from India:

By separatist movements, I guess you are referring to the movements that demand secession from India, and creation of a separate country. If so, as of now, the separatist movements that can be considered to be “active” are as follows :

1. Separatist movement in Kashmir , demanding independence of Kashmir from India and Indian government. It is the most active separatist movement in India, which is supported by Pakistan and various terrorist groups.
2. Separatist movement in Assam , where United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) demands a separate nation for the Assamese. ULFA is a designated terrorist group and Indian Army is fighting the insurgents more or less on a regular basis, just like in Kashmir albeit little less. There is another insurgent group in Assam called MULTA (Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam) which demands a separate country for Muslims of Assam. Apart from these, there are a few other small separatist groups as well, which operate in Assam
3. Separatist movement in Nagaland , where NSCN demands separate country for Nagas. However, with recent peace accords, it seems the separatist movement has almost ended, though the groups continue to press for certain other demands.

Apart from the separatist movements that have been discussed above, there is Khalistani separatist movement which is completely dormant and almost non-existent in India…. though the members of Khalistani separatist movements still secretly operate from Canada, UK and Australia but have a very limited influence. It seeks secession of Punjab from India and create a separate country for Sikhs. As of now, Khalistani movement is dead but intelligence agencies are always on their toes so that it does not revive.

There is also a separatist movement in Tripura, led by National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), which seeks secession from India and an independent nation called Tripuri. However, this movement does not enjoy enough support from people and is not a major threat to the country or people of the region.

PS - I have deliberately not put the name of Tamil separatist movement, as the movement is not fiercely secessionist in nature and lacks support from the Tamils. The fraction of Tamils involved in the movement is basically so less that it can be ignored for all practical purpose to be perceived as any threat.

Great list. There are several currently inactive separatist movements as well in Hyderabad, Western Gujurat, Lakshadweep islands, and parts of Assam, Bihar, UP with Muslim majorities.

Unfortunately Partition was very sloppy and left several unresolved conflicts in India. Mostly the blame rests on Indian Muslim leaders and misguided religious scholars.

For now Indian Muslims are absorbing pain and accepting Hindu oppression by the BJP, but this won’t last long.

 

[kinsr]

Active ones:

• Dravida Nadu.
• Insurgency in Northeast India. Assam separatist movements. Insurgency in Meghalaya. Insurgency in Manipur. Ethnic conflict in Nagaland.
• Kashmir conflict.
• Khalistan movement.
• Naxalite–Maoist insurgency.

In detail States who wants separation from India:

By separatist movements, I guess you are referring to the movements that demand secession from India, and creation of a separate country. If so, as of now, the separatist movements that can be considered to be “active” are as follows :

1. Separatist movement in Kashmir , demanding independence of Kashmir from India and Indian government. It is the most active separatist movement in India, which is supported by Pakistan and various terrorist groups.
2. Separatist movement in Assam , where United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) demands a separate nation for the Assamese. ULFA is a designated terrorist group and Indian Army is fighting the insurgents more or less on a regular basis, just like in Kashmir albeit little less. There is another insurgent group in Assam called MULTA (Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam) which demands a separate country for Muslims of Assam. Apart from these, there are a few other small separatist groups as well, which operate in Assam
3. Separatist movement in Nagaland , where NSCN demands separate country for Nagas. However, with recent peace accords, it seems the separatist movement has almost ended, though the groups continue to press for certain other demands.

Apart from the separatist movements that have been discussed above, there is Khalistani separatist movement which is completely dormant and almost non-existent in India…. though the members of Khalistani separatist movements still secretly operate from Canada, UK and Australia but have a very limited influence. It seeks secession of Punjab from India and create a separate country for Sikhs. As of now, Khalistani movement is dead but intelligence agencies are always on their toes so that it does not revive.

There is also a separatist movement in Tripura, led by National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), which seeks secession from India and an independent nation called Tripuri. However, this movement does not enjoy enough support from people and is not a major threat to the country or people of the region.

PS - I have deliberately not put the name of Tamil separatist movement, as the movement is not fiercely secessionist in nature and lacks support from the Tamils. The fraction of Tamils involved in the movement is basically so less that it can be ignored for all practical purpose to be perceived as any threat.

Ahhh Man.... You are a real grave digger... You just dug up an 8 year old thread.

 

[Asian.Century]

Great list. There are several currently inactive separatist movements as well in Hyderabad, Western Gujurat, Lakshadweep islands, and parts of Assam, Bihar, UP with Muslim majorities.

Unfortunately Partition was very sloppy and left several unresolved conflicts in India. Mostly the blame rests on Indian Muslim leaders and misguided religious scholars.

For now Indian Muslims are absorbing pain and accepting Hindu oppression by the BJP, but this won’t last long.

Alot of it is hidden by Indian govt and security forces! If u look closely India will implode into pieces!

 

[xyxmt]

You talking about Balochistan?

its one vs. 23 competition lets see who gets it first

 

[Imad.Khan]

@Nilgiri Hey mate, need your help on this

1. I want to understand on what basis are states divided? i.e ethnicity or population.
2. Does each state have its own Parliament and if so how many legislators on average.
3. Are the state governments unitary? and if so how much powers do they actually hold? i.e can any laws passed by the state government be overruled by the Central govt.
4. Do the states also have local governments? i.e. District level or lower
5. Is the President's role just ceremonial?

 

[Nilgiri]

1. I want to understand on what basis are states divided? i.e ethnicity or population.

Largely its done by language. Exceptions I suppose are UP,MP,Rajasthan etc which all speak Hindi (or very close dialect). Sometimes the language connects to an ethnicity (depending how you define), sometimes not (i.e multi-ethnic group speaking same language...or same ethnic group speaking many languages across diff states).

2. Does each state have its own Parliament and if so how many legislators on average.

Yes each state has own state assembly. Some have one house, some have two.

Generally the larger the state, the more (total) legislators it will have. UP I believe has the most (given its largest population state) of more than 500. An average population state like Tamil Nadu has around half that. Small states like Sikkim can have a few dozen like 30, 40 etc.

3. Are the state governments unitary? and if so how much powers do they actually hold? i.e can any laws passed by the state government be overruled by the Central govt.

Yes there can be no conflict with the higher federal authority (essentially the constitution). Any potential conflicting legislation from a state has to be referred to supreme court I believe to ensure compliance....central govt cannot do this automatically (that would be an overreach since they are not a judicial body), they have to get the AG to refer it to supreme court if it does not get referred some other way (say by a citizen) in first place.

4. Do the states also have local governments? i.e. District level or lower

Yes there are district level government bodies and also sub-district (Taluk, mandal, tehsil etc, just a naming convention depending on state). Sometimes a metro/municipal area will expand into a number of them (past city proper district etc) so a bunch of them will be subsumed (or be equals) in authority to the metro authorities in various areas. They are administrative in function and have elections governing them as well (say for mayor, legislative councilors etc) where not covered by state legislature appointment.

These differ from voting district (constituency) which are done according to census to try have each as close to same population as possible (each 1 represents 1 seat in the lok sabha, i.e national popular lower house). Sikkim for example has just 1 voting district (in essence the whole state is 1 seat in lok sabha) but 4 administrative districts.

5. Is the President's role just ceremonial?

Mostly (and same goes for governors of the states, which are again appointed by the centre as their highest representative in the respective State)s. But the President is the head of state and does have certain significant powers from the constitution....and ranks in de jure authority higher than prime minister.

President is ( afew examples):

- the commander of the armed forces

- can refuse to sign a bill sent to him (effectively a veto, but very very rarely the case, normally it will be re-worded at most) if he feels it violates the constitution of India (this can be the only reason given he is bounded to act on advice of the PM always). The President has the final executive authority one can say.

- is the one that decides who to call to attempt to form govt after a national election (a governor does this for a state). President also appoints all the governors (and can dismiss them)...along with executive officers like AG, CAG, supreme court judges etc.

- Head of state means he has seniority and 1st precedence for visiting foreign leaders/dignitaries and also officially handles all ambassador appointments by other countries

 

[Imad.Khan]

Largely its done by language. Exceptions I suppose are UP,MP,Rajasthan etc which all speak Hindi (or very close dialect). Sometimes the language connects to an ethnicity (depending how you define), sometimes not (i.e multi-ethnic group speaking same language...or same ethnic group speaking many languages across diff states).



Yes each state has own state assembly. Some have one house, some have two.

Generally the larger the state, the more (total) legislators it will have. UP I believe has the most (given its largest population state) of more than 500. An average population state like Tamil Nadu has around half that. Small states like Sikkim can have a few dozen like 30, 40 etc.



Yes there can be no conflict with the higher federal authority (essentially the constitution). Any potential conflicting legislation from a state has to be referred to supreme court I believe to ensure compliance....central govt cannot do this automatically (that would be an overreach since they are not a judicial body), they have to get the AG to refer it to supreme court if it does not get referred some other way (say by a citizen) in first place.



Yes there are district level government bodies and also sub-district (Taluk, mandal, tehsil etc, just a naming convention depending on state). Sometimes a metro/municipal area will expand into a number of them (past city proper district etc) so a bunch of them will be subsumed (or be equals) in authority to the metro authorities in various areas. They are administrative in function and have elections governing them as well (say for mayor, legislative councilors etc) where not covered by state legislature appointment.

These differ from voting district (constituency) which are done according to census to try have each as close to same population as possible (each 1 represents 1 seat in the lok sabha, i.e national popular lower house). Sikkim for example has just 1 voting district (in essence the whole state is 1 seat in lok sabha) but 4 administrative districts.

Mostly (and same goes for governors of the states, which are again appointed by the centre as their highest representative in the respective State)s. But the President is the head of state and does have certain significant powers from the constitution....and ranks in de jure authority higher than prime minister.

President is ( afew examples):

- the commander of the armed forces

- can refuse to sign a bill sent to him (effectively a veto, but very very rarely the case, normally it will be re-worded at most) if he feels it violates the constitution of India (this can be the only reason given he is bounded to act on advice of the PM always). The President has the final executive authority one can say.

- is the one that decides who to call to attempt to form govt after a national election (a governor does this for a state). President also appoints all the governors (and can dismiss them)...along with executive officers like AG, CAG, supreme court judges etc.

- Head of state means he has seniority and 1st precedence for visiting foreign leaders/dignitaries and also officially handles all ambassador appointments by other countries

Awesome thanks for the info mate. So it seems both India and Pakistan have similar political structure.

In Pakistan if we want to make changes to the boundary of a province, the bill first needs to be passed by the provincial assembly then it needs to be passed with a 2/3rd majority in national assembly then by the Senate and then again by the provincial assembly by 2/3rd and then rectified by the President.

Is it similar to how its done in India?

 

[RPK]

Awesome thanks for the info mate. So it seems both India and Pakistan have similar political structure.

In Pakistan if we want to make changes to the boundary of a province, the bill first needs to be passed by the provincial assembly then it needs to be passed with a 2/3rd majority in national assembly then by the Senate and then again by the provincial assembly by 2/3rd and then rectified by the President.

Is it similar to how its done in India?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act,_1956


Article 3 of the Indian Constitution provides for the creation of a new state through a bill tabled in Parliament on the President's recommendation after consultations with the legislatures of the affected states.

 

[Nilgiri]

Awesome thanks for the info mate. So it seems both India and Pakistan have similar political structure.

In Pakistan if we want to make changes to the boundary of a province, the bill first needs to be passed by the provincial assembly then it needs to be passed with a 2/3rd majority in national assembly then by the Senate and then again by the provincial assembly by 2/3rd and then rectified by the President.

Is it similar to how its done in India?

Yah its similar, although I believe it will follow a normal bill passing requirement (referring to 5th and 7th amendments of Indian constitution specifically for new state formation/adjustment/re-naming etc):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India

i.e Normal bill passage = at least 2/3rds of both parliament houses are present (for their respective voting) and 50% of the vote is achieved in affirmative for each. The bill will be introduced in one house, voted and passed and then has to be passed in the other as well (and any amendment done in the latter, has to be revoted upon in the former etc). This is then signed by the president to become an official act.

I believe only money bill can be passed by needing only the lower house....on other end of scale, 2/3rds of vote in both houses are needed for changing/amending the constitution. So the States reorganisation process in 1955-1956 (which brought about the 5th + 7th amendment in first place) needed a 2/3rd vote in both houses.

But further use of those amendments (say in creating new states like seen in Chatisgarh, uttarkhand, jharkand and recently Telengana....or adjusting any boundaries) needs only 50% vote in both houses...given its just normal bill (i.e falls under existing constitution) rather than constitutional change bill/ impeachment process etc which are the highest level processes that need 2/3rds support of both houses.

 

[Imad.Khan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act,_1956


Article 3 of the Indian Constitution provides for the creation of a new state through a bill tabled in Parliament on the President's recommendation after consultations with the legislatures of the affected states.

Yah its similar, although I believe it will follow a normal bill passing requirement (referring to 5th and 7th amendments of Indian constitution specifically for new state formation/adjustment/re-naming etc):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India

i.e Normal bill passage = at least 2/3rds of both parliament houses are present (for their respective voting) and 50% of the vote is achieved in affirmative for each. The bill will be introduced in one house, voted and passed and then has to be passed in the other as well (and any amendment done in the latter, has to be revoted upon in the former etc). This is then signed by the president to become an official act.

I believe only money bill can be passed by needing only the lower house....on other end of scale, 2/3rds of vote in both houses are needed for changing/amending the constitution. So the States reorganisation process in 1955-1956 (which brought about the 5th + 7th amendment in first place) needed a 2/3rd vote in both houses.

But further use of those amendments (say in creating new states like seen in Chatisgarh, uttarkhand, jharkand and recently Telengana....or adjusting any boundaries) needs only 50% vote in both houses...given its just normal bill (i.e falls under existing constitution) rather than constitutional change bill/ impeachment process etc which are the highest level processes that need 2/3rds support of both houses.

Appreciate the info guys, thank you

 

[jetray]

Ahhh Man.... You are a real grave digger... You just dug up an 8 year old thread.

dont spoil their happiness we should let them bask in their false thinking. But only thing I am not able to under stand is that where did the idiots get the idea about dravida nadu or maoists fighting for separate country.