Should the South India (TM,AP,K, & Ker states) break away from the rest of India and be a seperate country.?

Show all answers

delta

a very stupid and unpatriotic question. It looks like u r not an Indian.

pat4everyone

Let me give you an Idea. How about giving away Tamilnadu to Srilanka? Then LTTE and TN can legally fight for Tamil cause? Arunachal, Laddakh & Assam to China? Mizoram & Nagaland to Myanmar? Kashmir, Punjab, Rajsthan & Gujrat to Pakistan? West Bengal & Tripura to Bangladesh?

This would resolve a lot of problems. Isn't it?

Sorry, I missed 1 more point. So Adding it here. Kandahar of Afganistan was actually "Gandhar"(Read in Mahabharat), and entire area before that. So first let us ask them to return it to India and based on the success of that plan, we may go ahead with the plan of separating South India.

* the asker missed to see "India" in "South India". So if separated, would it be just "South"?

Mungalla Rama Krishna

will you like a seperation of organs from your body if your answer is not then the same answer will be for the above too- dont be or think foolish

Ramesh M

for example There is a huge difference inTamil nadu itself. People speak, eat, and also attitude differently in chennai, coimbatore Madurai and also in many places. Would you say we can break accordingly.
We have many religions also and they also speak, eat and also have different attitude - what do we do with them.
Please think in terms of uniting and not dividing (breaking)
Jai Hind

mariolla oneill

This is the best question I've come accross in a very long time.Nice to know someone's got a very creative mind.
I would'nt want the south of India to be divided into 4 more countrie's it would send me round the bend,cause I am born in Karnatake, I live in Goa and when I fly out of Kerela to the United Kingdom-I will have to do through 3 passport controll's and that is not a nice thing getting off a 11 hour flight.
Please stay out of the globel planing movement cause you are not thinking of the hard time's we would have parting away with part's of our beautiful country.
good luck.got anymore nice question's.bring them on.I'm made up to know you have a wide thinking.

Laxmipyare

No, South India cannot be separated from India. Such ideas are very dangerous.

Reni

No it shouldnt. Even though it is different in many ways its moral culture is the same in many ways. South india is a part of india . It has been 4 many years and it shouldnt be separated. United we stand, divided we fall.

Jobin

Very Narrow minded....

How do you feel if, one fine morning your father and mother says that you are not their son?

leader_of_cool

I really liked Pat4everyone's answer. Well said!

cool dude

no, not at all. if this happens then india's economy, gdp, etc. will go down a lot. by the way there is a quote UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

dhruvatu

Paddy

My friend would taking the whole of South India and forming a new nation resolve the conflict in you !!
South India is again divided into different states, that have diverse cultures, Gods, festivals, languages, traditions, cuisines ..........Then you'll think of dividing the South further into smaller nations.
Variety is the Spice of Life. If everything is the same it would be so, so monotonous. India is known for its diversities. That is what makes India. What you are thinking of is to take away the soul of India from her.
Differences are there in every walk of life. We must learn to accept and appreciate them.

Dr. DeLight

I suggest that India breaks away from the continent and floats off into the sea. Actually I love India very much it is just the people who have taken this country over the last 50,000 years that need to go.
Role that up and smoke it!!!

popeech

ITs not ur fault! Thats what United India is all about!
Wish you as bright a future as that of Pakistan!!!!!

Mahesh R

No.

~AN INDIAN~

r u an Indian,lets say that they will be separated but first 1 state should separated from India tat is jammu kashmir if u gone to us or UK then they prefer Indians from north,west and east(only west Bengal)and they won`t prefer south at all bcoz that is the only zone which developing in all the fields in India.people think it`s a joke by the last decade south India got some respect tat is some progress.in the early 2000`s like 2001&2they would southindian people only as tamilians bcoz they r well developed then other states in south.now slowly andhra is replacing it may be inthe future andhra wil be no.1 in India who knows.

Anil K

It is not a bad idea. Historically, till the British came to India and that too from around 1857 onwards, South India was always separate from the rest of India. Indeed, no outside conqueror except for the British ever ruled deep south India, ie present day Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
So the idea of the Indian-ness of South Indian people is a concoted one of historically recent origin.
Further, in todays development parlance, south indian states are generally far ahead of north indian states in most spheres. This gives a feeling that the south of India is a different country from the rest.
Having said the above, it would not be economically very wise to split away from the rest of India. The whole of India provides a huge market for South India and it can only benefit south Indians to cater to this market.
However, politically, it may satisfy many south Indians latent nationalism and keeping this in mind a feasible middle solution must be found.
The best solution would probably be a strict federation of nations, whereby each nation would have its own powers for everything except defence, external affairs and monetary regulation. (We must remember that the concept of Indian states is based on langauge, not nationality. Therefore we have in AP, the same language - Telugu being used by different nations such as Andharas, Telenganas, etc. Thus each state may have many nationalities within it like Karnataka, where Kodagus, Coorgis, Tulus, Mangaloreans, etc live in addition to Kannadigas.) Thus each nation would have its own flag, its own national anthem and song, its own sports teams, its own national bird, animal, paraphernalia, etc, but would be economically intergrated much like the way the European Union is moving towards.
This would satisfy each nation or state politically (putting their national destiny in their own hands) while leaving the economic benefits of size and scale available to all. Thus we would have a Tata group of the current size, but operating as separate multinational entity in each state or nation. Relaince would be an Indian company situated in Gujarat and/or Mahrashtra, but would be able to operate in all states or nations of India. At the same time, we would be able to avoid fissiparious tendencies due to the imposition of Hindi, the monopoly of Government jobs to North Indians, the spending of the national budget concentrated in the west and north, etc.
In fact, this process of decentralisation should be carried on and extended to its logical and practical conclusion, such that every basic civic body such as a municipality, panchayat, ward, or other local area has all the powers related to its destiny, but progessively hands over power in certain areas to higher authorities that would be more practical ... culminating in a situation where defence, external affairs an monetary regulation is left to the federated government.
For eg. local roads and public cleaning could be left to local bodies, primary education could be left to authorities at a district level, agro-economy issues could be left to a aggregation of local bodies that directly connect to the agro-economy in question, etc. .... in short .... democracy decentralised to its most practical extent.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: