India is an artificial country. When was ever united before British rule?
Even in the times of Asoka and Mughals, there was no centralization of power and all the provinces had full autonomy.
Europe is less diverse than India. Yet Europe never United as a single country.
Can you prove to me that India is a natural country not just a geographical expression?
Btw all mainstrean political parties are the same. Changing governments don't matter. They work for only North Indians, Gujaratis, Marwadis, Jains, Brahmans and Banias.
A party like DMK from South is never going to be accepted in North India or Gujarat.
So why the rest of so called Indians should be loyal towards such country
It does not matter what the origins of the present day Indian state are. When Indians were fighting for freedom from the British, they were not fighting as Tamils, Bengalis or Gujaratis, nor were they asking for separate states. Hence when the British left, there were no secessionist tendencies, barring few princely states that we all know about. The heartburn that you refer to in southern states is a more recent phenomenon, where people are getting tired of the fact that the Hindi heartland dominates the political discourse at national level. But even this is not entirely correct. You as an English speaker probably follow only English language media and that is the impression you get. End of the day all states have their own governments run by their own people, and people watch news in their own language, read newspapers in their own language. We think that a vast majority of Indians are watching Aaj Tak and India TV and thinking of cows all the time, whereas the opposite is true. People in non Hindi states watch their own channels, which does not pander to cow belt politics. I cannot imagine anyone sitting in Mandya or Thirunelveli or Ongole or Yavatmal watching Hindi news. The reach of their content is overstated.
Now there is no point in thinking of India as different countries. If that were to happen, and the resulting countries were to erect their own barriers on trade and movement of people, it would be a race to the bottom. There are efficiencies we benefit from as a country and it will be disastrous to squander them. Europe may not be one country but they did reach a consensus on the European Union and the Schengen Area. Africans have been wanting a similar African union for a long time, but their leaders are as petty as ours. Moreover, most Europeans countries were colonisers and were not colonised themselves, and therefore have maintained the status quo about their geographical boundaries. In the case of India we maintained the status quo in 1947. So effectively it is status quo in both Europe and India.
I agree that certain states are not pulling their own weight and that is problematic. But the solution is not to jettison them. A lot of problems in India are due to poor management / incompetence and not because of India being an artificial state. There is nothing that links the two.
I agree that DMK is not going to be accepted in the north. But then DMK is a self confessed party of Dravidians, specifically Tamils. They will not be accepted in Kerala or AP either. For that matter, no one is going to vote for Mamta in Karnataka or Uddhav Thackrey in Orissa. That is the nature of regional politics. If they want to be accepted at national level, they need to have a national agenda. BJP and Congress were never regional parties so they have a headstart. Let DMK start talking about national issues. Maybe they will get there. But it will not happen overnight. It takes a very long time in politics to achieve anything. AAP was an aberration. The question is, do they even want it? Or are they content being kings of their respective dominions? Big fish in a small pond? KCR has been trying to stitch together a coalition of regional parties. It is admirable. But will other parties support him? No, because every party supremo will want the PM post for themselves. Is anyone willing to make the sacrifice and let KCR (just giving an example) be the PM candidate?
There are Brahmins and baniyas in every state, every party. And I don't mean it as a caste, but as a concept. You think Dravidian parties are very egalitarian? South has the biggest problem of personality cults, perhaps with the exception of Kerala. The leaders may not be Brahmin or bania by caste, but behave like them. They hold vast amounts of wealth and are quick to use their power against the weak when challenged. There is really not much distinction between mainstream and regional parties when it comes to the haves and have nots.
Finally, I know that many people from the south and west of India grudge the freebies that are doled out to the north. The latest bogey is infrastructure projects. This is also misguided. All infra projects these days are concessions, meaning they earn for themselves and have to be profitable by themselves. That is why they charge user fee or tolls. Nobody in Tamil Nadu is paying toll for the 'bhaiyya' driving his car on the Yamuna expressway. Where the north needs to catch up is employment and social reform. Till the time it cannot, they must adapt to the ways of their adoptive lands and I am completely with the regional folks on this.
