r2i forum

Here are some facts -

1. There has been no one united country in the indian subcontinent in the known and verifiable history of past 1000 yrs before 1947.

2. The individual kingdoms have always had their own culture, language, and to a great extent script. (Hence the formation of current states).

3. The british acquired independent kingdoms one by one and later lumped them up only for administrative purpose.

Based on these facts, here is what I feel -

1. I don't see why separatists such as Bodo, Nagas, Assom, should be persecuted. When I put myself in their shoes, I feel that why the hell should I be ruled by some idiot from UP/Bihar. I don't have any say in this whole India thing. Same thing with Khalistan. (OK, discount for the moment that Pakistan promoted the terrorism). From a strict logical view, sikhs were already a separate country but now they are lumped with everybody else. One can easily argue that their richness is being given away to BiMaRU state!!! Oil from NE is being used by other states but NE is still poor. Still politicians from BiMaRu states are ruling the whole country.

2. Karnataka-TN, Maharashtra - Karnatake, HP-Haryana-Punjab, NE states, AP-Telangana, Bihar-Jharkhan, MP-CG. -- All these places have (or had) problems primarily because people from one section (you can say people from one original kingdom) were in power and they did not really care about people of other section (i.e people of other kingdom) who were now part of the same modern state. If you are splitting states (Bih-Jhar, MP-CG, UP-Ut, AP-Tel), you are actually accepting this point. Then what's wrong if somebody doesn't want to be with India itself.

Hey, I was an independent country before british rule and I want to be indepenent after they are gone!!! I mean, I find it very genuine that people from some states still feel subjugate because they never really got freedom. Earlier british rule them, now it is even worse...some unknown corrupt politician from some other state is ruling them in the name of India. My wealth is being taken away and I am getting what???

I think that all these states should actually be independent countries just like European countries. They can cooperate in spheres where it benefits such as common currency etc. but they should be completely independent politically.

Under the name of freedom of movement whole cultures are being destroyed. Native people are marginalized. Why should Bodos allow others to come to their states and suck up all their wealth??? Just because they are not as "business savvy" as may be Marwaris doesn't mean they shouldn't keep their wealth!!!

This concept of India is foreign concept. There was no India. It is one of the lofty and idealist goals of previous era politicians. They created a frankenstein, really.

hanu;8144Here are some facts -

1. There has been no one united country in the indian subcontinent in the known and verifiable history of past 1000 yrs before 1947.

Seems like you got it all wrong. For 1000 years India stayed under rules of Forigners. Mougals and the British so during that time it was not under rule of one King.

Before that from the time of Indus Valley Civilization - Sindhu Valley Culture or at the time of Mahabhrat India was a country. You are right It was not India but Bharat.

I will write reply later to go in more detail for your post, now may be following snippet from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauryan_empire may help your thought process.

The Maurya Empire, ruled by the Mauryan dynasty, was the largest and most powerful political and military empire of ancient India.

Originating from the kingdom of Magadha in the Indo-Gangetic plains of modern Bihar and Bengal, and with its capital city of Pataliputra (near modern Patna), the Empire was founded in 322 BCE by Chandragupta Maurya, who had overthrown the Nanda Dynasty and begun expanding his power across central and western India. The Empire stretched to the north along the natural boundaries of the Himalayas, and to the east stretching into what is now Assam. To the west, it reached beyond modern Pakistan and included Baluchistan in Persia and significant portions of what is now Afghanistan, including the modern Herat and Kandahar provinces. The Empire was expanded into India's central and southern regions by Emperor Bindusara, but it excluded a small portion of unexplored tribal and forested regions near Kalinga.

Following the conquest of Kalinga in a major war, Ashoka the Great ended the military expansion of the empire.


------- end snippet


And from that time onwards there was no single ruler because state of socity was so mature that people live Hindu drama guided spiritual life. To provide administration and rule of law small local ruler came up and that resulted in becoming slave under foreign rules.

And those foreign rules did exactly what you want to be done now, divided people on one or other basis. Divided country in to small and small pieces.

It is amazing to see people like you even in todays world completely ignore the lessons to be learned by invasion of Tibbat by China. And want to divide India in small parts so that very soon there is only big Chine and big Pakistan left.

-swadesh

Hanu,

I disagree with you for the most part. I will post more later. The cultures across India are not different, they are just close variants that evolved with time and distance and no modern mode of transport available. There is much commonality between a Bihari, a Maharashtrian, a Tamilian than say when contrasted between and Indian and a Londoner. So, no, I do not buy the different culture argument.

On the distribution of riches and persecution also, I have comments, but will find time to post more tomorrow.

History is ever changing. Nations/countries cannot/should not be formed on claims of history (sorry Israel, but you did, and more power to you!).

India adopted a new boundary in 1947 for a larger good. The new boundary was the result of the will of a majority as well as certain exigencies.

India should not add or allow secession - unless it is under the will of the majority (Goa) or due to certain unmitigated exigencies (PoK/Aksai Chin).

So, Bodos, Khalistanis, etc. can get their own countries - if the majority wishes it or if they can wrest it out and India lets it go in the interest of a larger good.

Many points you make w.r.t exploitation of natural resources, under representation in the GoI etc. is true. GoI and the common man must be made aware of these and their grievances must be redressed.

Allowing secession will only open a whole new box of worms and it is not in the interest of the common good - India or the Bodos.

#2,

If you please read what I wrote (and you quoted) correctly, you will observe that I wrote 1000 yrs before 1947, which means 1000AD up to now. While you are writing about dynasties that existed before the time frame that I mentioned.

Even so, please look up the boundaries of the empires of various *verifiable* dynasties that you talk about. They were not same all the time. Political boundaries are ever changing. You can't just pick one instance in time and cling to that for eternity.

With due respect, Mahabarata and Ramayan are not verifiable. Like it or not, and most probably you will no, it cannot be quoted as an evidence for political boundaries.

[INDENT]And from that time onwards there was no single ruler because state of socity was so mature that people live Hindu drama guided spiritual life. To provide administration and rule of law small local ruler came up and that resulted in becoming slave under foreign rules.

[/INDENT]Before I comment on this, please specify a period that you are talking about. For example - 1000 BC to 0BC etc.

Since yours is an open comment, my reply is that for 1000s of yrs Hindu society was only as mature as to keep a majority of the people subjugated in the name of caste. So please be objective before you evaluate something.

Besides, if our society was so mature why did we lose out...why were we enslaved at all. Of course, there are reasons as you mentioned and it is precisely for those reasons which make our society not as mature as you claim to be.

[INDENT]
And those foreign rules did exactly what you want to be done now, divided people on one or other basis. Divided country in to small and small pieces.

[/INDENT]Not really. Before mughals came, Indian subcontinent was already a collection of several kingoms and dynasties ruling at the same point of time in different places.
[INDENT]
It is amazing to see people like you even in todays world completely ignore the lessons to be learned by invasion of Tibbat by China. And want to divide India in small parts so that very soon there is only big Chine and big Pakistan left.
[/INDENT]Looks like you are a senior member. Even so, please read the 500 post mega thread "How did India become secular" on old MSN Group site to understand "people like me".

BTW, Europe is also a bunch of tiny countries. So it's not like if you break up you will always lose.

If you go back in history for any country, that would be the case, it's only a matter of how far for which country.

One can easily argue that their richness is being given away to BiMaRU state!!! Oil from NE is being used by other states but NE is still poor. Still politicians from BiMaRu states are ruling the whole country.

Is that different in any country ? Every country has their developed and underdeveloped states. The developed states have to eke out for the benefit of the underdeveloped. Even if your state was a separate country then the districts would want to be different states and then they would want to be another country. Finally everyone will be their own country. If you want to give separatists their due then why stop at states.

I think that all these states should actually be independent countries just like European countries.

That's a very funny statement. Indian states should be like European countries. Why do European countries have states then ?

Under the name of freedom of movement whole cultures are being destroyed.

Cultures are ever evolving. Do you wear a lungi/Dhoti/turban and go to work in the USA ? Didn't you destroy your own culture in a way ? Why hold somebody responsible for that ?

This concept of India is foreign concept.

The concept of any other race in the USA except the Red Indian is a foreign concept too.

It is one of the lofty and idealist goals of previous era politicians.

I am ok with that, 1000 years ago or whenever every kingdom fought every other, I don't want to go back there. I am curious to know whether you are LIA or R2I.

If you are LIA, let me tell you, mind your own business, you don't live here, you have no real need to decide whether we should be separate or one. If you are R2I I'd like to know your state so that I can give you valid points on why you shouldn't be separated. One reason is that everyone doesn't need their own defence.

A little bit understanding of world history will tell you that breaking and consolidation is a part of the history of most countries. Nothing foreign about that concept

OB1.

1. I don't see why separatists such as Bodo, Nagas, Assom, should be persecuted. When I put myself in their shoes, I feel that why the hell should I be ruled by some idiot from UP/Bihar. I don't have any say in this whole India thing. Same thing with Khalistan. (OK, discount for the moment that Pakistan promoted the terrorism). From a strict logical view, sikhs were already a separate country but now they are lumped with everybody else. One can easily argue that their richness is being given away to BiMaRU state!!! Oil from NE is being used by other states but NE is still poor. Still politicians from BiMaRu states are ruling the whole country.

What about US where many of the mid west states and states like Louisiana are considered poor. If California was a separate country it would have been world's seventh largest economy. Does that mean CA should go it's own way? I don't think so.

Similarly as somone pointed out world always go through transformations - geographical, cultural etc. Also human life also evolves in terms of values, beliefs, religion etc. So for me modern India is just an evolved version of what used to be called 'Bharat'.

At times I also believe that states within India should be separate countries since the language divides most of them. Though the cultures are close, they are different enough to warrant separate countries.

Take the case of EU. Their cultures are close but different enough.

CA is not an example, since English unifies the US.

Lot of issues among states will be solved like the cauvery water sharing dispute, since each state will stand on its own as a country. They will forced to follow give-and-take to resolve disputes rather than running to the central grovernment and higher courts!