<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the division of JK to J, K and Ladakh as proposed by RSS sometime back. The K is forcefully glued because of J and Ladakh in many situations. By dividing you are removing the glue.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in fact the situation is exactly opposite. In Jammu, Sikh+Hindu are in majority and in Laddakh, Buddhists make a majority. However because of the population of the valley, J&K as a whole becomes a Muslim majority state.
Geographically, Laddakh + Leh + Jammu, are strategically important to militarily encircle and control the entire Kashmir valley, and separate it from Pakistan-controled areas.
Muslim majority from valley is ruling the entire state including control over Buddhist Ladakh, Hindu-Sikh Jammu, and very quickly islamizing the entire state. Do go through the important document regarding how tghis control has already purged the Balti-Bodhi language of Ladakh replacing by Urdu.
If you trifurcate the J&K, and make Ladakh and Jammu separate regions, which is what those people are demanding, then you allow for a LARGE area to be controled by Hindu, Sikh, Bauddha etc, empovering them in the process, besides limiting the "issue" to a smaller area: Kashmir Valley.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are some historical factors behind them. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you referring to what happened 4 decades back as 'historic facts', then those were blunders. We must go to even farther back in history to see how "states" were organized - say under Vijayanagaram, Chola-s, and even earlier as Janapada-s.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly think of southern Tamilnadu. If that becomes a state on its own there will be another state like Kerala with about 35% of EJised population in the mould of another 30% macualites. This small state will now provide political power to EJs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TN and KL are already providing whatever power they can to EJ. If anything that will change, it would be that these states will have much less political power and revenue base, to support such anti-national forces. Today, entire TN, KL (and AP) - thanks to the dispensations ruling thse states - are handed on a platter to EJs. If the states were smaller, you can be assured that at least some of them will be in pro-Hindu control, and those which will be pro-EJ, will be smaller and weaker.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What if when India is not doing good, this state conspires with LTTE and want a seperate Tamiz country? People get weird ideas at weird times. Why should we even allow such a situation?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, situation not any different today. Only if that state will be smaller (therefore less resourceful) than today, it will have less chance of doing anything of that sort.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->UP, Bihar, Maha etc, there will be a situation when you will not be able find a single leader with reasonable support around whom rest of the folks can rally around.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To this I partly agree. But road to central politics does not necessarily go through the state politics. There are many leaders in all parties at center who never been in state politics.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->See the Goa situation. There was never a term with one stable government. I don't need to talk about NE states. They don't even have sufficent acronyms to name their coalition formations that form on an yearly basis.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what has the size to do with instability in Goa? Instability remains in big Karnataka too. UP had not had plain simple majority in Vidhan Sabha for any single party between 1993 and 2007. Naturally, CMs had to spend large share of their bandwidth and attention in managing the partners rather than administering the state. Likewise Jharkhand, despite having continuousely rejected Lalu's rule, was still forced to have him (or his wife) as CM.
Small states can also have very good stability (in fact better than big states). Stability has got more to do with number of parties in a particular state rather than the size. States, even smaller, where there are 2 (or max 3) parties, the govts are stable. Look at Delhi, HP, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Puducherry, Chhattisgadh etc. In fact, larger the state with growing multi-party presence, like UP, MH, AP, KA - lesser the chance of a stable state govt.
Border Areas: Need speacial arrangements, and must be controled by the center. In fact if you did come across this news, there is presently a proposal made by Security Advisor to the govt: that soldiers, retiring soldiers, and ex-soldeirs should be settled in all the bordering districts of India, and these districts should be classified and managed separately.
in fact the situation is exactly opposite. In Jammu, Sikh+Hindu are in majority and in Laddakh, Buddhists make a majority. However because of the population of the valley, J&K as a whole becomes a Muslim majority state.
Geographically, Laddakh + Leh + Jammu, are strategically important to militarily encircle and control the entire Kashmir valley, and separate it from Pakistan-controled areas.
Muslim majority from valley is ruling the entire state including control over Buddhist Ladakh, Hindu-Sikh Jammu, and very quickly islamizing the entire state. Do go through the important document regarding how tghis control has already purged the Balti-Bodhi language of Ladakh replacing by Urdu.
If you trifurcate the J&K, and make Ladakh and Jammu separate regions, which is what those people are demanding, then you allow for a LARGE area to be controled by Hindu, Sikh, Bauddha etc, empovering them in the process, besides limiting the "issue" to a smaller area: Kashmir Valley.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are some historical factors behind them. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you referring to what happened 4 decades back as 'historic facts', then those were blunders. We must go to even farther back in history to see how "states" were organized - say under Vijayanagaram, Chola-s, and even earlier as Janapada-s.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly think of southern Tamilnadu. If that becomes a state on its own there will be another state like Kerala with about 35% of EJised population in the mould of another 30% macualites. This small state will now provide political power to EJs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TN and KL are already providing whatever power they can to EJ. If anything that will change, it would be that these states will have much less political power and revenue base, to support such anti-national forces. Today, entire TN, KL (and AP) - thanks to the dispensations ruling thse states - are handed on a platter to EJs. If the states were smaller, you can be assured that at least some of them will be in pro-Hindu control, and those which will be pro-EJ, will be smaller and weaker.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What if when India is not doing good, this state conspires with LTTE and want a seperate Tamiz country? People get weird ideas at weird times. Why should we even allow such a situation?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, situation not any different today. Only if that state will be smaller (therefore less resourceful) than today, it will have less chance of doing anything of that sort.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->UP, Bihar, Maha etc, there will be a situation when you will not be able find a single leader with reasonable support around whom rest of the folks can rally around.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To this I partly agree. But road to central politics does not necessarily go through the state politics. There are many leaders in all parties at center who never been in state politics.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->See the Goa situation. There was never a term with one stable government. I don't need to talk about NE states. They don't even have sufficent acronyms to name their coalition formations that form on an yearly basis.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what has the size to do with instability in Goa? Instability remains in big Karnataka too. UP had not had plain simple majority in Vidhan Sabha for any single party between 1993 and 2007. Naturally, CMs had to spend large share of their bandwidth and attention in managing the partners rather than administering the state. Likewise Jharkhand, despite having continuousely rejected Lalu's rule, was still forced to have him (or his wife) as CM.
Small states can also have very good stability (in fact better than big states). Stability has got more to do with number of parties in a particular state rather than the size. States, even smaller, where there are 2 (or max 3) parties, the govts are stable. Look at Delhi, HP, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Puducherry, Chhattisgadh etc. In fact, larger the state with growing multi-party presence, like UP, MH, AP, KA - lesser the chance of a stable state govt.
Border Areas: Need speacial arrangements, and must be controled by the center. In fact if you did come across this news, there is presently a proposal made by Security Advisor to the govt: that soldiers, retiring soldiers, and ex-soldeirs should be settled in all the bordering districts of India, and these districts should be classified and managed separately.