Hmm, check the last link to Nitin Pai. Great topic... can't wait to comment post 8am final. =)

It's just an accident of history that India even exists in the form it does today. The BRITISH created it and 'bequeathed' it to us (minus Pakistan/Bangladesh). These borders are artificial.

Not only were its borders were colonial and therefore arbitrary, being an ideologically pluralist state it couldn’t claim or trade away disputed borderlands going by the nature of the populations settled there.

What if the 'population settled there' no longer wants in? The 'population settled' in a particular region IS the region. They define it. Does Gujarat (for example) belong primarily to the Gujarati people or to the Union of India? Why sacrifice the aspirations of the people of Gujarat (for example) in terms of their dreams for their homeland and their culture, just because that may happen to conflict with the notion of India held by the Indian Government? India may be an ideologically pluralist state...but many of the groups within it found themselves part of India almost by default (this applies especially to the northeastern states). They should be given a choice. NO STATE will ever leave India if it remains advantageous (economically, politically, culturally) to stay within it. The Indian Gov't. should work to make that a reality. India should be made up of willing states, not captives. But whatever decisions are to be made, have to be made democratically and peacefully. And of course Pakistan should not be a party to that process in anyway. And of course I am talking purely in political terms here...culturally there is no disputing the strong links and historical connections that bind the different regions. I have no problem with the borders of the nation-state of India, and I'd hate to see Kashmir or Punjab or the Northeast secede...BUT I want them to stay willingly.

It's just an accident of history that India even exists in the form it does today. The BRITISH created it and 'bequeathed' it to us (minus Pakistan/Bangladesh). These borders are artificial.

Yet in defense of these artificial british-bequeathed borders India has fought a number of wars and remains at odds with China and Pakistan on territorial issues. Do the mongoloid north-eastern states or the Andaman Islands really belong to India? Similarly, do Baluchistan and the NWFP really belong to punjabi-dominated Pakistan?

Guys, can we stop using the word "mongoloid"? It's hard for me not to see it as an insult.

How about "Burmese" for Assam/Meghalaya/Nagaland?

Interesting read.

I would argue that Self determination isn't necessarily a basic right of the people. If Kashmir was allowed to secede solely on the basis of a local plebiscite, then it would be disenfranchising every other person in the country because such an act would have reverberations that extend beyond the boundaries of Kashmir. In fighting for Kashmir, the Indian Government is not only protecting the unity of the country, but also the right of the people. I would bet that popular opinion in the rest of India is tilted towards protecting every last bit of territory at whatever the cost.

The American Example:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. it began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Texas v. White http://www.sagehistory.net/reconstruction/docs/TexasvWhite.htm

This is not a new view. Some Pakistani writers, such as Shireen Maraji(?) from The News, claim that if and when India lets Kashmir secede then the rest of India will disintegrate based on this principle. Such writers think that if India is reduced to smaller states Pakistan can play much bigger strategic role in the affairs of South Asia than its current role. Using this reasoning they justify the cost of maintaining and supporting the terrorism in Kashmir (and possibly Punjab).

Not only were its borders were colonial and therefore arbitrary

The BRITISH created it and 'bequeathed' it to us (minus Pakistan/Bangladesh). These borders are artificial.

All borders are arbitrary. Kesavan is asking an old question: what makes these borders--and indeed the regimes within these borders--legitimate. But it seems identity politics has led us full circle, back to a state of nature where loyalties are defined by accidents of birth.

But classic liberalism, the ideology to which modern India is most indebted, taught us these boundries were purely manmade and that society had to be reconstructed on a common humanity based on man's free consent. States that did not recognize these natural right were themselves illegitimate. It is upon this basis that the US defends it's own arbitrary borders, and should be the basis upon which india defends hers.

India should be made up of willing states, not captives. But whatever decisions are to be made, have to be made democratically and peacefully.

Similar argument was made by the Southern states before and during the American civil war. Alas the Unionists and Lincoln thought otherwise.

India should be made up of willing states, not captives.

Similar argument was made by the Southern states before and during the American civil war. Alas the Unionists and Lincoln thought otherwise.

I agree with Circus. Just replace "states" with "individuals" and you get a sense of what I mean, in both examples.

About willing states not captives: as a desi liberal who thinks pluralism is a cardinal democratic virtue (I'd like to say pluralist but that sounds vaguely polygamous) I'm ambivalent about the idea of self determination. Amitabh puts the self-determinist case clearly:

The 'population settled' in a particular region IS the region. They define it. Does Gujarat (for example) belong primarily to the Gujarati people or to the Union of India? Why sacrifice the aspirations of the people of Gujarat (for example) in terms of their dreams for their homeland and their culture, just because that may happen to conflict with the notion of India held by the Indian Government?

It's useful that Amitabh chooses Gujarat as an example because poses the problem in an extreme way. What do you do with a movement for self-determination that's systematically majoritarian as nearly all such movements are? How does a pluralist state or, for that matter, an individual, deal with a People that wants to secede to create yet another 'etnic' nation state? I can see that this line of argument can be used by, say, the Indian state as an alibi for brutalizing any secessionist dissent, but there is, nevertheless, a problem here. Would Amitabh want to see a Tamil Eelam run by Prabhakaran or a Naga state committed to purging its territory of Kukis? Or an independent Gujarat (since he used it to illustrate his point) run by Narendra Modi as a fervently Hindutva-vadi state, or a Khalistan where Sikhs can be truly themselves? Pakistan is the outstanding example of ethno-religious self-determination in the sub-continent. I think it's a cautionary tale.

It is perhaps conceptually easy for India to define itself as secular and pluralistic, and bound by sacrosanct borders. For Pakistan the task was trickier. On the one hand it was defined in ethnic/religious terms (the Muslims of India deemed to constitute a nation); on the other hand it ended with very clear (if disjointed, or 'moth-eaten') borders, and a need to defend and maintain said borders, while at the same time disenfranchise those members of the Indian Muslim 'nation' who found themselves on the other side of the border. Jinnah seems to have had a hard time; immediately after partition, he emphasized that 'those of our brethren who are minorities in Hindustan may rest assured that we shall never neglect or forget them', while less than a month later, as the enormity and reality of Partition sunk in, he was advising his 'Muslim brethren in India' to 'give unflinching loyalty to the State in which they happen to be'. (Quotes from JINNAH, MA. Speeches as Governor-General of Pakistan, 1947-48)

But if Partition was a horror -- and a much under-emphasized one, perhaps owing to culpability on both sides -- clear and unchageable borders today are crucial. Neither India nor Pakistan are today defined with ideological purity. Most Indian Muslims are outside of Pakistan, and India is not a state for all (pre-Partition) Indians. Thanggod. As one BJP politician put it, with precise, chilling logic, 'for those who think that Pakistan is not complete without Kashmir, let them remember that India is not complete without Pakistan'. The current borders may not make sense, but far better to work with them than put everything up for grabs.

The current borders may not make sense, but far better to work with them than put everything up for grabs.

sirs,

please keep in mind that though the particular borders may be an artifact of the machinations of the british gentlemen who ruled over the raj of yore, the gestalt concept of india, from the himalaya down through aryavarta and to the south toward the salty seas of ceylon, have existed since time immemorial. outside the bounds of mother india dwelt the mleccha, that is known. the folk of the brown lands we were, are, and shall always be, marked by our skins as the sons of the black and red soils of mother india. as for those on the margins of the cultural hearth of india, whether it be the pashtuns or the nagas, these are academic matters. one might argue that the mughals, whose histories are so inextricably tied with the ways and generations of brown folk have rendered to us the dominion over the lands of the pashtun, for through sword and cannon did they rule as lords over khandahar and the cities of afghanistan. just as the men of the plains of the pashtuns were players along the rivers of aryavarta, from the indus to the brahmaputra, so the pillars of the great cakravartin ashoka extends deep into the lands of what were once the kalash pagans who submitted only reluctantly to the power of the great alexander and swear fealty to the god of the arabs.

i wish you gentlemen a good day!

India's right to Kashmir was helped maintained by the machinations of the Punjab Boundary Commission led by that wily Cyril Radcliff who awarded India enough Tehsils in Gurdaspur to keep a then contiguous land link to Kashmir.
Historical claims notwithstanding, one has to wonder about the sanity of the Pakistani leaders who would rather bankrupt their nation than to give up on a pipe dream. Over the years, I have been amazed by the ignorance of some Pakistanis about ground realities in pre-terrorism Kashmir. For example most Pakistanis have no idea that before terrorism started in the valley, Kashmir was not the West Bank and non-Kashmiri Indians couldnt even purchase property in the Valley and that there was no population displacement (expelling) or replacement (settlements)

inshallah!
aum....
the lord our god is one

Excellent points by Amitabh in post #2.

I would argue that Self determination isn't necessarily a basic right of the people.

That's basically the definition of an empire, not a democractic nation.

If the majority of people residing in a certain territory wish to secede then that is their right -- even if it's to their own detriment, ie. the new autonomous territory turns out to be not viable for some reason (politically/economically/militarily/culturally) and collapses.

If the majority of people residing in a certain territory wish to secede then that is their right

Addendum:

If one genuinely believes that their reasons for wishing to secede are misguided then one should of course engage in extensive efforts to convince them why they would be better off remaining a part of the existing union/state, in terms of positive incentives (ie. not just the threat of force if they attempt to secede). But if all of that ultimately fails then it's not right to force them to remain a part of the existing political/territorial state -- they have to sink or swim with the results of their decisions, for better or for worse, and take responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

Otherwise you could also use the analogy that the British Empire itself was a single, inviolable unit and that no group of people within it had the basic human right to self-determination, especially considering the potential political and economic ramifications to the rest of the Empire (which did indeed happen, as we all know).

From India's point of view, you look at its neighbors . . . and its a mess. Anarchy on the North-South axis (Nepal and Sri Lanka). East and West you have an Islamic Regime and a sorta Islamic Regime, both of which are encroaching Indian territory. Then look at Myanmar, another brutal regime. Afghanistan, technically, I believe borders India, we all know how well that is going. Red China.

Aside from going for the record of having the most failed states as neighbors, what benefit could India as a state possibly derive giving up on maintaining the status quo?

I fear . . . the marginal economic, political impact of keeping, for example, the Northeast, is very little, but the impact of adding what would be ANOTHER failed, irritating neighboring state does not interest me at all. This would not be a "happily ever after everyone gets along" situation. Same with J and K. Better to draw the line early than have to make continual concessions

Aside from going for the record of having the most failed states as neighbors

India itself is a failed state. The biggest one of all. A nation that cant feed half its children cannot be considered a successful state.

they have to sink or swim with the results of their decisions, for better or for worse, and take responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

The trouble I have with this is that it ignores and downplays the effect a secession would have elsewhere. It would not just be a question of those who 'choose' to secede either sinking or swimming. The re-drawing of boundaries in the sub-continent would involve raging nationalisms, violence and all the other ailments of partition. I think it's disingenuous to ignore that.

The re-drawing of boundaries in the sub-continent would involve raging nationalisms, violence and all the other ailments of partition.

By that logic, should the British government have used force to prevent the secession of the Indian subcontinent from the British Empire, considering that it played a significant part in precipitating the collapse of their rule over the rest of their global territories ?

Taking it further back, what about the American War of Independence ? Were the British justified in trying to hold onto their American dominions via the force of arms, thereby disregarding the wishes of Americans to secede from British rule ? Who had the moral high ground in this situation -- the Brits or the Americans ?

By that logic

I understand that by that logic, anyone who expresses the view that any such secession would be bloody, violent and involve the sundering of lives and people, and contextualises the discussion within this reality is directly analogous to a colonial oppressor. It is a neat rhetorical trick to pull but it overruns itself, and is not applicable to me, or many other people (for example see Mukul's post above). Seccession within the sub-continent would be violent and involve all of the issues that partition in 1947 engendered. To ignore this is, I believe, disingenuous.

India itself is a failed state. The biggest one of all. A nation that cant feed half its children cannot be considered a successful state.

By your logic (cannot feed half the population), 90% of the nations in the world are failed states - China and Russia included. What do you suggest we do with all these failed states?

I read Nitin and Mukul Kesavan's comments on Qalandar's blog and they put the finger on what is important IMO. The problem is with the way the Indian establishment has tried to foster a national identity. One, the idea that India was a new kind of nation not based on a single dominant identity has not been sold well enough by the leadership over the years, who have focused on the sovereignty angle instead. Secondly, Nitin's point that federalism should be strengthened. The idea of India is too important not to be preserved, but it is unfortunate that it has to be done through the barrel of a gun.

I agree there are genuine grievances among people who are involved in secessionist movements, but it is naive to think they would all be better off or enjoy more freedoms than they do within the somewhat oppressive state that India still is. Personally, I find the leaderships of secessionst movements (as they stand currently) to be morally bankrupt and driven by identity politics or ideology, not welfare of the people they claim to represent.

Increase in prosperity levels across the board and more individual economic and political freedoms is likely to take the wind out of the sails of most secessionist movements.

By your logic (cannot feed half the population), 90% of the nations in the world are failed states - China and Russia included. What do you suggest we do with all these failed states?

Who told you that China and Russia cant feed half their children?

That dubious distinction unfortunately belongs only to India and a couple other nations in Africa.

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/assets/YouthInstitute/05proceedings/NiagaraDistrictHighSchool.pdf

India is home to the greatest population of severely malnourished children in the world. Four
hundred million children suffer daily, which is a greater problem than in Sub-Saharan Africa........more than half of all children under the age of four
are malnourished, 30 percent of newborns are significantly underweight, and 60 percent of women are
anemic.......The population of
India has increased from a billion people by 16 million annually escalating the severity of
malnourishment and poverty......The enfant mortality rate is 90 per 1000 and malnourishment is a factor that
attributes to almost half of all childhood deaths. Underweight children is the greatest problem found with
54% of the population under four years old followed by stunted growth in 52% of the population and 17%
who are wasted. Anemia affects 74% of children under the age of three and more than 90 % of adolescent
girls and 50% of women.

Red Snapper,

anyone who expresses the view that any such secession would be bloody, violent and involve the sundering of lives and people, and contextualises the discussion within this reality is directly analogous to a colonial oppressor. It is a neat rhetorical trick to pull

False extrapolation and conjecture. No "rhetorical tricks" are being pulled here.

is not applicable to me, or many other people

No such allegations have been made, either implictly or explicitly.

Seccession within the sub-continent would be violent and involve all of the issues that partition in 1947 engendered.

Correct.

To ignore this is, I believe, disingenuous.

It is not being "ignored"; however, to assert that it is better to forcibly impose unity on various groups in order to prevent violence-ridden consequences ignores the fact that a) using force to exert territorial control over people who do not want to be under the paramount control of a central authority or to be a part of a wider geo-political entity, and b) using force to impose "unity" on groups which (rightly or wrongly) do not want to co-exist, are both immoral courses of action to take, and are both inherently imperialistic in nature rather than democratic in the true sense of the term. To ignore that is disingenuous.

Perhaps you should just openly state that you believe the imposition of imperial rule over disparate peoples against the latter's will to be unjustifiable even if the removal of this rule and the dissolution of the united political entity would result in bloodshed, but you believe that the imposition of centralised rule over disparate peoples in India against the will of certain groups therein is indeed justifiable, and that you are prepared to use the theoretical outcome of bloodshed to be an acceptable rationale to justify opposing any seccessionist movements.

jaisingh: India is an empire? I thought flawed democracy. Like all democracies.....shouldn't the focus be on better governing within the democratic process, first, before throwing the whole thing over? Weird.

So anyone, anywhere, should always have the right to secede? I hereby secede from the US and create the Republic of MD-stan! Do I still have to pay my federal taxes? What's that? Black helicopters hovering?

MD,

jaisingh: India is an empire?

No, but theoretically it becomes one if one or more of its various regions are forced to remain a part of the union against the wishes of the majority of the particular region's inhabitants.

The same applies to any nation-state in the world; I'm not just talking specifically about India here. (Ditto for my previous posts on this thread).

Doordarshan,
You really need to check your sources before posting these doom and gloom predictions. That number of 400 million malnourished children stood out to me. Here's something from a World Bank study:

Approximately 60 million children are underweight in India. Given its impact on health, education and productivity, persistent undernutrition is a major obstacle to human development and economic growth in the country, especially among the poor and the vulnerable, where the prevalence of malnutrition is highest.

Where is the remaining 340 million people?

400 million children suffer daily?? What kind of suffering are we talking about here?? These blanket statements lead me to believe that the website is posting a very biased one-sided article. I'm sure you can find a lot of these doom and gloom stats online where they take numbers and spin them to make a point.

Besides why is India a failed state? What was that percentage before independence - much worse I suspect. So if we improved that number post-independence, it should be termed a success, minor success but still a success.

The World Bank study

Trying to post link again
World bank study

Majority rule is the be all and end all, eh, jai? Thank God this is a Republic.

It is not being "ignored"; however, to assert that it is better to forcibly impose unity on various groups in order to prevent violence-ridden consequences ignores the fact that a) using force to exert territorial control over people who do not want to be under the paramount control of a central authority or to be a part of a wider geo-political entity, and b) using force to impose "unity" on groups which (rightly or wrongly) do not want to co-exist, are both immoral courses of action to take, and are both inherently imperialistic in nature rather than democratic in the true sense of the term. To ignore that is disingenuous.

What constitutes a Group

Ethincity, Language, Geography, Religion, Caste, sub caste, Hobbies, food habits ..

What if Coorgis from Karnataka do not want to be part of India?

This is an earnest question. Not having a back ground in social sciences, I have always wondered about groups are defined and the rights they should have

MD,

Majority rule is the be all and end all, eh, jai? Thank God this is a Republic.

Read my comments again. I think you'll find that I'm actually stating the opposite to "majority rule is the be all and end all". Otherwise I'd be arguing that a region in a particular country should not be allowed to secede if the inhabitants of the rest of the country (and/or the central government) oppose such an action.

I don't think you can make a good argument for holding unwilling provinces together on liberal, moral grounds. The only way it works is if you're willing to look at it on realist grounds.

Britain let go of India because it was becoming too costly to hold on to it. The money they were earning from the colony was declining, India was not essential to the quality of life of most Britons after WWII, and the independence movement was cutting into its economic and military importance even more (by design). INC forced Britain to make the following choice: become involved in a costly, long-term colonial war against an awakened population (and remember, the British had experienced hundreds of years of this situation in Ireland and had to know it would not be a quick struggle), or just let the place go. The British chose the latter.

Conversely, the US had compelling economic, military, and internal political interests to hold on to the South. So they fought the Civil War and violated Dixie's "right to self-determination". And its "right" to keep people enslaved (part of satisfying those internal political interests).

You can put a moral gloss on either of these situations, but what really happened was the state with the most economic and military power (Britain in the first example, the Union in the second) asked itself if unity was worth the cost to maintain it.

So -- does India have a compelling state interest to hold on to J/K and the NE provinces? Would the cost of their seceding (in lives, in rupees, in international relations, in economic strength, in internal politics) be greater than the cost of keeping them? It seems clear that it would.

To me that's the only question that ultimately matters. You can come up with moral arguments for either side, but unless and until that cost-benefit equation changes, India is not going to give up its hold on these states.

Whoops, just to be clear, I'm using "INC" as a shorthand for the whole Subcontinental Independence Movement. Just a slip, sorry.

Neal
So -- does India have a compelling state interest to hold on to J/K and the NE provinces? Would the cost of their seceding (in lives, in rupees, in international relations, in economic strength, in internal politics) be greater than the cost of keeping them? It seems clear that it would.

To me that's the only question that ultimately matters. You can come up with moral arguments for either side, but unless and until that cost-benefit equation changes, India is not going to give up its hold on these states.

That is a very good assessment. You can also include strategic placements of these provinces in terms of military strengths. India needs J&K as a cushion from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even China to an extent and the NE provinces as a cushion from China and Burma.

This is a tough one...I find myself agreeing with many of the pro AND con positions regarding secession-related issues. I agree that the leaders of most secession movements have been crackpots and tyrants. I agree that any new partition would result in unimaginable violence. I also believe that no region should be FORCED to remain in India, but it can be a slippery slope...using my Gujarat example, what if Gujarat attained independence, but 10 years later Surat district wanted to declare independence from Gujarat? But in the future, as certain states in India do better and better, and other states (with huge populations) do worse and worse (or at least fail to keep up), and draconian central government policies transfer vast amounts of wealth from productive regions to net-minus regions (which is a form of colonialism masquerading as democracy), issues of secession may arise from quarters that are hard to imagine right now. Back in 1970 or so, the Akali Dal (I think) released the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Although considered scandalous in its day, I think it deserves another look...it was way ahead of its time, was NOT a secessionist document, and proposed a federal structure for India in which most economic, educational, and cultural decision-making powers would devolve to the states, and the central gov't would remain responsible for the 'biggies' like currency, defense, foreign policy, communications, etc. NO empire has lasted forever (this will apply to the USA one day too) and in the future, more and more, people will need to be sold on the idea of India in order to want to remain in India. For that, India needs to work well and be beneficial to the vast majority of its inhabitants.

You really need to check your sources before posting these doom and gloom predictions.

Yeah right Santosh, I should check with someone clueless and callous like you who claims that 90% of the world is as hungry as India! Get real pal. I'd rather check with someone with a heart and knowledge like Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. Read Sen's devastating critique and then tell us with a straight face that India hasnt failed its children:

http://www.littlemag.com/hunger/aks.html

"India has not, we must recognise unambiguously, done well in tackling the pervasive presence of persistent hunger. Not only are there persistent recurrences of severe hunger in particular regions (the fact that they don’t grow into full-fledged famines does not arrest their local brutality), but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even Sub-Saharan Africa.[2] Calculations of general undernourishment — what is sometimes called "protein-energy malnutrition" — is nearly twice as high in India as in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India. About half of all Indian children are, it appears, chronically undernourished, and more than half of all adult women suffer from anaemia. In maternal undernourishment as well as the incidence of underweight babies, and also in the frequency of cardiovascular diseases in later life (to which adults are particularly prone if nutritionally deprived in the womb), India’s record is among the very worst in the world."

"The health and nutritional adversity related to maternal undernutrition and low birth weight children is almost certainly a significant factor in explaining the terrible nutritional state of India."

" the proportion of pregnant women who suffer from anaemia — three quarters of all — is astoundingly higher in India than in the rest of the world."

"it is amazing to hear persistent repetition of the false belief that India has managed the challenge of hunger very well since independence. This is based on a profound confusion between famine prevention, which is a simple achievement, and the avoidance of endemic undernourishment and hunger, which is a much more complex task. India has done worse than nearly every country in the world in the latter respect."

"The counterintuitiveness -- not to mention the inequity -- of the history of this development is so gross that it is hard to explain it by the presumption of mere insensitivity -- it looks more and more like insanity. [...] What could explain the simultaneous presence of the worst undernourishment and the largest unused food stocks in the world (with the stocks being constantly augmented at extremely heavy cost)?"

Jai Singh

I said:

I understand that by that logic, anyone who expresses the view that any such secession would be bloody, violent and involve the sundering of lives and people, and contextualises the discussion within this reality is directly analogous to a colonial oppressor

Then you said:

Perhaps you should just openly state that you believe the imposition of imperial rule over disparate peoples against the latter's will to be unjustifiable even if the removal of this rule and the dissolution of the united political entity would result in bloodshed, but you believe that the imposition of centralised rule over disparate peoples in India against the will of certain groups therein is indeed justifiable, and that you are prepared to use the theoretical outcome of bloodshed to be an acceptable rationale to justify opposing any seccessionist movements.

Like I said, blunt rhetorical trick, but it does not apply to me, or my point, which is really quite a simple one.

The nationalist position is that the lands which constitute the Indian civilization have been progressively diminishing. As Chet Snicker points out Kandahar~Gandhara, indeed much of Afghanistan, was within the cultural and political ambit of the civilization at one time. Partition, of course, thrashed hopes of "akand bharat," which again, as Chet Snicker points out, is based on an ancient ideal, expressed, among other places, in the Vishnu Purana: "The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata; there dwell the descendants of Bharata." Bharat is of course the alternative name used for India in the Indian constitution. This ideal has been kept alive by, among others, Tamil kings who ventured north; the Mughals, and the secular state of India.

This is the anxiety at the heart of Indian opposition to any sort of secession; expressed implicitly in the actions of the Congress party and explicity by the oppostion BJP.

The Northeast in too fragmented into myriad ethnic and tribal groups. Secession there, imo, cannot pose an existential threat to India. Kashmir, otoh...

Jai Singh and Red Snapper, tussin na ladho, mundeyo! Aaram naal beh jao. Om Shanti shanti shanti. This is an important discussion here and I want to see it keep going. I want to learn as much as I can from various viewpoints so I can better formulate my own opinion on this.

Back in 1970 or so, the Akali Dal (I think) released the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Although considered scandalous in its day, I think it deserves another look...it was way ahead of its time, was NOT a secessionist document, and proposed a federal structure for India in which most economic, educational, and cultural decision-making powers would devolve to the states,

You know it's funny that you say that, because it's exactly what an uncle of mine who worked as a journalist in Delhi throught the 1980's said in a discussion about these issues a while back. How Indira Gandhi managed to turn that into the mess of 1980's Punjab is a casebook study of what can go wrong with the Indian Union. And a cautionary tale that should be studied at every echelon of Indian politcal life.

How about "Burmese" for Assam/Meghalaya/Nagaland?

I think the Khasis in Meghalaya are more closely related to the Khmer people of Cambodia/Vietnam, at least by language. The Khasis, Mizos, and Nagas are different ethnic groups, so finding a generic word to describe them all might not be accurate. Maybe "indigenous peoples of Northeast India"?

Don't worry Amitabh, there's no bad blood. This is shaping up to be a good thread, I've already enjoyed reading the contributions greatly. No need for polarisation.

I apologize to other for the hijack but I had to respond to the "failed state" comment.

Doordarshan,
Ok my 90% was a gross exaggeration like your 400 million.

I dunno, Amitabh, it doesn't seem like the secessionist movements in India are taking place in the most productive, wealthy regions. In fact, it looks like the exact opposite is occurring.

And actually, in the US the Old Confederacy, with its glorification of secession and fairly recent status as a sorta-autonomous state when it came to civil rights (from the 1870s to the 1960s), is the recipient of the kind of distribution you talk about. This is an interesting table that shows this difference. It's a ratio to dollars paid in tax vs. dollars received. The Northeast and Midwest (eg: the old Union) get about 90 cents back in services on every dollar they pay in tax. The South gets an average of $1.19 back for every dollar it pays the government. And it's even bigger in the Deep South (where secession and the Confederacy are still VERY MUCH celebrated). Alabama, Mississippi, W. Virginia, and Virginia get over $1.50 back for every dollar they send the government.

Now that's not the same level of disparity as in India, and of course the last REAL secession happened over a hundred years ago (although it continues to be celebrated there), but it's an interesting measure.

I tried to find a similar table for India but I couldn't. But it seems pretty obvious -- the poorer, more marginalized states need more services and send less money to the Federal coffers. Yet these are the states most likely to want to split off. Even in the case of India itself -- from a purely economic perspective it had to be drawing more from the UK than it was contributing. Yet it chose to split off.

India needs a much more decentralised and federal structure. Delhi has way too much power. Forget about Kashmir and NE, even Bombay and Bangalore do not like Delhi and BIMARU raj. We have got to move towards a system like the US, where states have more powers and the Centre has only defence, foregin affairs etc. The South and West needs breathing space to develop and not be constrained by the regressive cow belt and crazy leftists in Bengal.

Red Snapper,

Like I said, blunt rhetorical trick,

"Whatever."

but it does not apply to me, or my point, which is really quite a simple one.

Yes, which is the fact that you believe that "for the greater good" it is acceptable to forcibly hold regions within a greater geo-political union if there is a risk of bloodshed via secession. Your own words.

My own point is that it is unacceptable to hold regions within such unions against the wishes of the majority of the respective potentially-secessionist regions' inhabitants irrespective of the risk of bloodshed ensuing.

Quite a simple point on my part. It's not rocket science.

Okay Jai, I can't be bothered to get into a falsely polarised debate on this. I refute your caricature and extrapolations from my initial point and leave it at that. Peace.

The problem lies with the founding father of India who had a very socialistic outlook and followed the USSR model. What we're discovering is that Central rule is not working - it failed for the USSR also. Gradual autonomy (not the same as secession or freedom from the union) for states should definitely help this situation.

Neal,

So they fought the Civil War and violated Dixie's "right to self-determination". And its "right" to keep people enslaved (part of satisfying those internal political interests).

I'd actually oppose any kind of secessionist movement along those lines which would result in the human rights of some/all of the "new" state's citizens being diminished in that way. In fact, I'd even support armed intervention against a (hypothetical) neighbouring state for the sake of such enslaved inhabitants, if all other peaceful methods to resolve the situation had failed.

The confederacy tried to break away from the United States not the republic of America. All the states had entered into a contract to become the united states. Each state had to ratify the constitution.
Each and every state was within its rights to break away from the union if it saw fit. Lincoln was the one who expanded his federal powers to a near dictatorship to hold the confederacy at gunpoint to keep them from breaking away.

So I don't see the parallels between the confederacy and the kashmir/khalistan issue. I'd like someone to point out that part in the Indian constitution to me.

I think the Khasis in Meghalaya are more closely related to the Khmer people of Cambodia/Vietnam, at least by language. The Khasis, Mizos, and Nagas are different ethnic groups, so finding a generic word to describe them all might not be accurate. Maybe "indigenous peoples of Northeast India"?

maybe "red indians of Northeast India"? :)

Since India is a failed state that refuses to feed its hungry women and children despite having the resources to do so, some drastic actions are called for. Breaking it up into manageable pieces is one option.

the poorer, more marginalized states need more services and send less money to the Federal coffers. Yet these are the states most likely to want to split off. Even in the case of India itself -- from a purely economic perspective it had to be drawing more from the UK than it was contributing. Yet it chose to split off.

I don't think that's quite true...the poorest states (Bihar, U.P., West Bengal, Orrissa, M.P.,etc) have no desire to secede. In the current set-up, they form a demographic anchor and are well-positioned to take resources from other regions. The states that want/have wanted to secede now or in the past, had differing reasons for doing so. Kashmir is pure religious fanatacism, nothing more nothing less (ok, the Congress Party made it worse with rigged elections back in the 80s). Assam wanted out for cultural/linguistic/religious preservation in the face of massive Bengali Muslim influx. The Northeast wants out for religious, economic, and cultural reasons. Punjab is probably the most complex of all, where SO MANY factors came together at once...economic, educational, linguistic, religious, division of farmland, the backdrop of 1947, the consolidation of a Sikh majority for the first time in history, you name it). But again, it was a rich state that wanted out.

from a purely economic perspective it had to be drawing more from the UK than it was contributing. Yet it chose to split off.

Is that true? I thought the UK was drawing a lot more from India. What did India draw from the UK? Any money/resources spent on India during the Raj most likely came from India itself.

Punjab is probably the most complex of all, where SO MANY factors came together at once...economic, educational, linguistic, religious, division of farmland, the backdrop of 1947, the consolidation of a Sikh majority for the first time in history, you name it). But again, it was a rich state that wanted

Punjab is 40% Hindu. It is exceedingly unlikely that they would accede to Khalistan. Compare this to Kashmir, which is 95% Muslim.

Again India is *not* a failed state just because it fails to stand up to your socialist ideals.

Jai, if Kashmir was an island off the coast of south India and wanted to secede, that would be a different story. The fact that it borders Pakistan is what makes it more complicated. Also, i agree with Red Snapper. You comparing British rule over south Asia, with India and its states is disingenuous.

Again India is *not* a failed state just because it fails to stand up to your socialist ideals.

Truly callous arent you? Here's Amartya Sen again:

"The counterintuitiveness -- not to mention the inequity -- of the history of this development is so gross that it is hard to explain it by the presumption of mere insensitivity -- it looks more and more like insanity. [...] What could explain the simultaneous presence of the worst undernourishment and the largest unused food stocks in the world (with the stocks being constantly augmented at extremely heavy cost)?"

A state as criminally insane as this that allows 100s of millions to starve while spending large amounts of scarce money to keep unused food rotting in godowns is not a failed state???

Whats your definition of a failed state then?

Thanks amardeep for blogging about my post, and thanks to all on sepia for taking the time to read it.

I am somewhat disappointed to see this conversation veer into the usual "justified secession" versus "unjustified secession" area. I think that sort of thing misses the point: the mania about 50 + 1% justifying most things under the sun is a majoritarian mania, and as such it is not easily consistent with "progressive" concern about minority rights. To put it another, the classic Anglo-American liberal concern with self-determination-as-determined-by-majority vote is a mechanism for creating new majorities, not for offering any solutions to minority "problems." Thus Pakistan does not solve any Muslim minority "problem", but creates new minorities (most obviously Hindus and Sikhs, but over the course of history other categories become salient, such as Ahmedi Muslims, Shiites to an extent, etc.); not to mention that India retains large minorities.

The Khalistan movement partakes of the same philosophical problematic (indeed because the Sikh majority is slight it presents an even greater problem). It isn't at all clear to me why it is "just" to allow the Sikh majority to determine the fate of the Hindu minority; indeed operating from the presumption that few regional majorities are kicked around in "their" states, it would be truly democratic to worry about minorities, or especially disadvantaged groups such as Dalits, relevant castes, etc. This is of course one of the farcical "solutions" offered by the partition of 1947, namely that it offers majoritarian "protection" to (for e.g.) the Pashtun Muslim in the North Western Frontier Province, while doing little or nothing or worse for the Muslim in Meerut. [Aside: I note that as a practical matter, even leaving aside the justic -- or lack thereof -- of the notion, the pro-Khalistan could not, absent ethnic cleansing or disenfranchisement, EVER win a referendum in Punjab. 40% of the state is Hindu, and another 5% is Muslim; it is as safe as can be to believe that this 45% bloc would vote in favor of staying with India; which means that if roughly ONE out of every ELEVEN Sikhs voted to stay with India, the pro-Khalistan side woul lose the referendum, and we all know, based on the fact that the idea of Khalistan has never even attracted 50% support among Punjab's Sikhs, that the result of any referendum would be horrendously lopsided].

My point is that this mania, ultimately a modernist mania, merely serves as a replication mechanism of the "us vs. them" problem, and does not offer a stable solution (to the extent it is stable, it is, as I grimly joked on the Kesavan thread, the peace of the graveyard), and certainly not an ethical one.

Kashmir offers us a very recent example highlighting the problem: the majority there (not 95% Muslim as someone above noted; the Valley is 85% or more Muslim, but the state as a whole is likely three quarters Muslim and no more) had understandable and justified grievances against their own government and the Indian government. But the tragic and atrocious consequence was that a minority -- in this case Kashmiri pundits -- suffered and became "the targeted minority". On what ethical calculus can we say it's ok for them to just live with it but not for the "majority"? And how is majority/minority to be defined? Why is it ethical to compute such majorities/minorities at a provincial or regional level but not on any other level? These are not problems amenable to a political logic that turns on mere computation (in the context of 1947 I highlight some injutices resulting from computational issues at http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/partition-blues.html)

Qualander: See #34 :) Of course, you fleshed it out and put it more eloquently. "Tyranny of the majority" and all that.....

Re: comment 10: Mukul you have hit the nail on the head; it's the central problem here, and while I can't say I have any easy solutions, we ignore the problem at our own risk.

Thanks MD, just catching up on some of the comments (they add up quickly on sepia!), so apologies if I have simply rehashed points that have already been made...

Is that true? I thought the UK was drawing a lot more from India. What did India draw from the UK? Any money/resources spent on India during the Raj most likely came from India itself.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a quick answer with web research, so I'll have to rely on the "I read it somewhere" statement for now. So of course I may be wrong about that. Still, my point was (as you indicate in your post) self-determination isn't just about unequal redistribution of wealth.

What often gets left out of these discussions is: what is the reason for the secession and what will the seceded state be like? To address grievances? Past injustices? Create a 'homeland' for an ethnic group or create a new political system with which to govern? How can you know anything about a secessionist movement if you don't understand which y will replace previous x? And if Pakistan were governed differently, and India governed differently, would we even be having these discussions? Secessionist talk is often a proxy for, er, not so much failed states as failing states (of governance, etc). States loosely defined.....

MD: but secession is also the symptom of an unfortunate sort of identity politics, which sees as a state of "one's own" as the only way to "happiness", and the only legitimate way to be acknowledged as a "people." A state that is "of" oneself, is identical to oneself, is a dangerous delusion, a fascist one indeed (in that in the fascist states we have the purest expression of this worldview), and thus the creation of disadvantaged minorities is not just the unfortunate consequence of these movements, it is inevitable. For if "the state" is "mine", in my capacity as Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, whatever, it means that it is not another's as long as the other does not possess those characteristics (whatever the relevant ones are; in Pakistan, Muslim; under Moditva, Hindu). This view is not only inconsistent with pluralism, it is the very antithesis of pluralism.

Agree completely. There is dangerous fantasy in thinking you can only governed well by your 'own' kind, which is an oversimplification of your argument, I know. I prefer the individual to be the center, rather than being granted rights simply because I am a member of a particular group.

To play devil's advocate, though, how are historically disadvantaged minorities ever going to improve their living situations without group recognition?

It's worth remembering that one reason why movements to split are still popular despite their obvious likeliehood of massive bloodshed is that pluralism is a goal not a reality in most states. Majoritarian ethnic parties in India must receive some portion of this blame as well.

Neal: I certainly didn't mean to assign "blame" on group x or y here. My point is that "majoritarianism" and "secessionism" are flip sides of the same coin, and the latter shades into the former when the "right" majority is achieved. Ye sikka hi khota hai! :-)

Really excellent comments Qalandar (both here and on your blog).

Kashmir is pure religious fanatacism, nothing more nothing less (ok, the Congress Party made it worse with rigged elections back in the 80s)...Punjab is probably the most complex of all...

People always think their own pet causes are the most complex of all. What's especially funny is how Khalistani-sympathizers see little similarity between themselves and "those crazy Muslim fundos" in Kashmir. Khalistan is as much or as little about religion (or more specificially, a certain kind of identity politics, as Qalandar so eloquently points out) as Kashmir - if it were more "complicated," more Punjabi Hindus would be on board.

Re: "how are historically disadvantaged minorities ever going to improve their living situations without group recognition?"

This assumes that replicating the model that GOT everyone into the mess in the first place is the best way out of it. It is not. I am sympathetic to historically disadvantaged minorities who might feel like they have no other choice, but that a choice is understandable does not make it the best one under the circumstances. And at a minimum those who are at one step or more removed should examine the nature of the choices held out. Whereas the "majority rules" frame of reference has reflexively been imbibed by all, and under the guise of progressive politics at that!

73: yeda nath raises a good point. Kashmir is at least as complex as Punjab, and perhpas more so given the much larger number of ETHNIC groups involved, AND the international relevance with multiple countries laying claim to different pieces of Kashmir. I don't see how the two present different analyses (I might add that Kashmiris are certainly nowhere near as represented in the Indian "mainstream" and levers of power as Sikhs are, one reason why the Khalistani has way more adherents in the "diaspora" than "back home").

I'm not suggesting that disadvantaged minorities should all be given states so that they can go ahead and disadvantage others. I was responding to MD's statement that:

I prefer the individual to be the center, rather than being granted rights simply because I am a member of a particular group.

When you've got historical situations where this was not the case, how do you move over to a paradigm of individuality? People are still going to treat each other as "just" a member of the relevant out-group, even if the government no longer discriminates on that basis.

To what extent is Modi Mania fueled by diaspora chauvinism?

Qalandar,

It isn't at all clear to me why it is "just" to allow the Sikh majority to determine the fate of the Hindu minority;

Unless the people making such decisions are democratically-supported Sikh leaders with the full backing of non-Sikh constituents, technically the notion of a region ruled-by-and-solely-for Sikhs is a violation of Sikh principles. Sikhs are supposed to live within the rest of society and hopefully be a positive influence from within -- not to forcibly impose their values, their rule, or their religion onto everyone else from the top-down. They're also not supposed to live in deliberately-created Sikh-dominated states separate from the rest of society -- unless their fundamental human rights, freedom of worship and freedom of action as per Khalsa ideals are being undermined by the ruling authorities of the wider country they may be residing in.

It's a different story if one is talking about a hypothetical previously-uninhabited region where Sikhs could settle and then live/govern according to their own values (or, for example, what happened during Guru Gobind Singh's time, or the subsequent Misl period); this obviously doesn't apply to "mixed community" areas currently within India with a large Sikh population. There is no mandate for forcible Sikh rule over regions & populations (yes, Maharajah Ranjit Singh's actions were in violation of the faith's tenets in this regard), and the concept of "ethnic cleansing" to achieve such aims is anathema to Sikh religious principles. And yes, the slaughters in 1947 were also a gross violation of these ideals.

Thanks Jai -- although my comments really said nothing and do not apply to any religious teachings or doctrines, but simply people identified or self-identifying as member of a certain group (thus "Muslim" or "Sikh")...

^^^I know, I was just responding to the comments referring to Khalistan -- the hypothetical concept of which (either located within India or somewhere outside it) is only justified under certain conditions, as per my previous post. And certainly not as some kind of "ethnically-cleansed" Sikh state.

Unfortunately, people claiming to represent -- and be a part of -- various religious groups (whether Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or anything else) and asserting actions in their group's name do not always think & act according to the teachings of the faith they claim to be affiliated to. *sighs and frowns wearily*

As an aside- the American Constitution is all the more awe-inspiring in light of its anticipation of problems caused by majoritarianism. The discussions about factions in the Federalist Papers (notwithstanding the argument that those discussions may have been more concerned with economic factions rather than religious/ethnic ones) remain sharply relevant today. India would be in a better position to address such problems if it was a republican democracy like the United States imo. On the other hand, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Nehru's approach to what must have felt like a very fragile union at birth, given the trauma of partition.

I'm sorry to come into this late, so apologies if I backtrack a bit.

The trouble I have with this is that it ignores and downplays the effect a secession would have elsewhere. It would not just be a question of those who 'choose' to secede either sinking or swimming. The re-drawing of boundaries in the sub-continent would involve raging nationalisms, violence and all the other ailments of partition. I think it's disingenuous to ignore that.

Kashmir is pure religious fanatacism, nothing more nothing less (ok, the Congress Party made it worse with rigged elections back in the 80s). Assam wanted out for cultural/linguistic/religious preservation in the face of massive Bengali Muslim influx.

but secession is also the symptom of an unfortunate sort of identity politics, which sees as a state of "one's own" as the only way to "happiness", and the only legitimate way to be acknowledged as a "people."

While I think it's interesting to look at how locality on the border and identity factor into conversations around whether or not self-determination is justified, I think Jai brings up a lot of really salient points. In my opinion, it is easy and reductionist to say "well X state is full of fanatics, and that's why they want to secede." I think we have to look closer at the idea of India, how the government operates, and the idea of a unified Indian identity. In many ways, India is a lot like what Europe would look like if people tried to draw borders around it - linguistically, culturally, economically, and politically diverse. I think we should ask ourselves, "Why do rich states want to leave? Why do poor states want to leave?"

Across the board, a good number Indian states at some point have seriously considered secession. I don't think this is just about local nationalism, I think it stems from a fear of the central government. Whether this is the government reallocating riparian rights, minimize/agitate language rights to break apart states, adopting strict economic disincentives, or meddling in local government (which we have seen happen in Punjab), I don't think people feel represented by the central government. Half the time I don't think they even feel represented by their state government. And in the process of building this "unified pluralist Indian identity" there are other conversations at stake, like what does that Indian identity look like? If minority groups (whether by caste, religion, language, etc.) felt that their rights were protected, that their national identities valued, that they had the same playing field in life, that they had a say in their government, and that they belonged and were welcome in India, I think it would be harder for local groups to play at identity politics to shoulder up support for more extreme measures. I also think this would address a lot of the feelings of disconnection between different regions within India.

Also, I think it's a really unique view to think that it is ok to militarize and terrorize a civilian population in a border standoff. Let's say a part of the U.S. wanted to join a neighboring country (really far-fetched, I know), but can you imagine how people would react if the U.S. government sent the Army to occupy that state and keep its population under martial law? It sounds horrific and anti-democratic, and that's mostly because it is.

Mukul Kesavan's dirty dishonesty reads like a typical tyrant's tract. That there was this endless cycle of military oppression and insurgency in J&K would come as news to the 400k Kashmiri Pandits who now languish in filth in Jammu and Delhi. They were hounded out of the Valley over a week in 1989 after decades of intimidation that sought to make the Valley "Pandit-free". Compare Mukul's strong language on this issue with his gentle description of the "repopulation" of Tibet. Ariel bombing, destruction of monasteries, extermination of the monks, destruction of the language and finally repopulating the area over four decades. Amardeep, it isn't a pretty thing. Don't be so blase about it.

Also, I think it's a really unique view to think that it is ok to militarize and terrorize a civilian population in a border standoff. Let's say a part of the U.S. wanted to join a neighboring country (really far-fetched, I know), but can you imagine how people would react if the U.S. government sent the Army to occupy that state and keep its population under martial law? It sounds horrific and anti-democratic, and that's mostly because it is.

Not far fetched at all. That's exactly what happened to Maryland during the Civil War. I guarantee that the people of the North thought declaring martial law in MD and forcibly preventing the state from seceding was the right thing to do.

Re: " I think it's a really unique view to think that it is ok to militarize and terrorize a civilian population in a border standoff."

Who is saying that it is? I don't think that's a fair reading of Kesavan's piece, and certainly not of my views either.

Re: "Let's say a part of the U.S. wanted to join a neighboring country (really far-fetched, I know), but can you imagine how people would react if the U.S. government sent the Army to occupy that state and keep its population under martial law? It sounds horrific and anti-democratic, and that's mostly because it is."

When the US and when most other countries have been TESTED (Spain vis-a-vis Catalonia, and the Basque region; the US during 1861-65) they have failed the test, and have resorted to brutal measures. No country "lets" its constituent units leave, that's just not what the animal known as the nation-state typically does.

I found your post very interesting, but the central problem as I see it remains: conceding that people feel alienated from their national, and even their state, governments, even if their secessionist agenda were implemented the whole cycle would begin again no? What reason do we have for believing that ULFA would do a better job of runing Assam? More pertinently (and this is really the heart of my point) what RIGHT does ULFA have to run Assam, just because ethnic group x is in a majority? What about the (given this is Assam) several dozen other ethnic groups in Assam, why should they be subordinated to the Assamese-speaking just because of the accident of demography.

To put it another way: the points you raise are salient and go a long way toward explaining WHY people might be attracted to this or that secessionist movement -- but it does not address the question of WHETHER a secessionist movement is a "good" (read: relatively ethical or just) solution, especially in multi-ethnic/multi-religious situations.

Re: "Across the board, a good number Indian states at some point have seriously considered secession. I don't think this is just about local nationalism..."

PS-- I'd add that we need to consider who "speaks for" the states you mention? In Kashmir, is it the Kashmiri Sunni from the Valley? The Gujjar Muslim? The Buddhist in Ladakh? The Pandit? The Sikh? Others? The "classic" secessionist movement pretends (just as much as standard narratives of nationalism) that all of these different Kashmiris would give us the same answer? That is almost certainly not true in Kashmir if opinion polls are any indication, and I don't see why I ought to be victimized just because there aren't enough of "those like me" around. That's my point, that by persisting with this sort of identity politics, would-be-seceders from India do not address anything that's heavy handed about the Indian state, but ensure that even if successful, we can look forward to MORE heavy-handed states. I don't find that a cause for rejoicing.

Qalandar,

You are nearly there but not yet. The stirrings for autonomy/secession in India are simply a matter of rebelling against an assumed dominant Hindu identity, a mirage out of whole sand - why this happens is a much bigger question and beyond the scope of this discussion. It is enough at this point to say that this entity - of the dominant Hindu identity or form - is a creation of the colonial project, in which not only the colonisers, but also Indians and their friends everywhere have played a part. All this talk about autonomy, and identity is a farce. More autonomy for J&K? A state where citizens from the rest of India cannot own property? A state that has its own constitution? And that joke of Kashmiriat? A Kashmiriat that is stamping out the Kashmiri language, 400k Kashmiri speakers, and trashing Abhinavagupta?

Conceding that people feel alienated from their national, and even their state, governments, even if their secessionist agenda were implemented the whole cycle would begin again no?

I'd add that we need to consider who "speaks for" the states you mention?

However, I do feel that people do feel disaffected, and perhaps the issue at hand is not nationalism or identity politics, but rather underlying factors (economic/political/cultural/social disaffection). I think people use the politics of identity to rally people, often in a way that is as unjust as the previous regime. But why are they capable of rallying people to begin with? It's because they are able to assign blame to groups for perceived "wrongs." In general, I think any form of nationalism runs the risk of devolving into what many of us would see as extreme nationalism. A great example of "extreme nationalism" is of course the infamous National Socialist (Nazi) Party. Both local and country-wide nationalism runs this risk.

My point is that this need not be an either/or situation. At present, I feel that the way secessionist movements are dealt with is as "secede" or "coerce into staying," the latter referring to the use of force - economic or military - to keep states from leaving. I'm just saying that maybe this is a simplistic and unuseful way to look at it. I would think that heightened militarization, etc., would make individuals disinclined to feel any great love for whoever was occupying their state, in addition to polarizing groups further. But aside from that, perhaps the government should focus on answering those other questions - why do groups want to leave? how do we contribute to this "problem"? why are perfectly "reasonable" people suddenly taken up with extreme groups? In my opinion, saying that people want to secede because they are fundamentalist crazies is like saying that Middle Eastern populations oppose U.S. foreign policy because they "hate our freedom." It's a non-answer that really appeals to political "quick fixes."

Will there always be people screaming on the sidelines? I think yes, but the difference is in how much they have to work with.

Not far fetched at all. That's exactly what happened to Maryland during the Civil War. I guarantee that the people of the North thought declaring martial law in MD and forcibly preventing the state from seceding was the right thing to do.

Since the US is unwilling to change a foreign policy goal because a majority of people in THAT country oppose (taking an example) its presence there, or is unwilling to vacate bases from Puerto Rico no matter what people there want, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that any state that wished to leave would be simply allowed to.

and just so I am clear: that's not because it's America, but because it's a nation state. NONE do -- if Quebec ever seceded from Canada, I'd have to say that'd be a first. The history of other nation states bears this experience out.