Pushing For Kongu Nadu — BJP Backers Needle Ruling DMK With Separate State Question !!!

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Ppl will have to get used to ideas of new states and countries if viable and there is  demand for it … Borders change … Nothing is permanent 

 

Statement: TN should be a country

Response 1: Akhand Bharat … Blah blah … How can ppl break India?

 

Response 2: Would the ppl of the state be better off? If yes, go ahead and do what works best for the local ppl

 

 

 

Forget Akhand, at least Indians should hold on to what’s left for us on 1947. If they want a separate country. migrate to Lemuria or Kumari Kandam. Leave India for Indians. We should not encourage neo-nationalism in the name of liberalism and progressiveness.  Read what happened in the country of East Timor which separated from West Timor province of Indonesia. This was mainly religious in separation also it is a land rich in oil and gas natural resources. So. People should be wary of separatists and not becomes used to new national borders. 

[coffee_rules]

8 minutes ago, velu said:

 

 

i think only vokkaliga gowdas are related to gounders .. 

i attended two/three vokkaliga gowda marriages and the wedding tradition/rituals are more or less same .. 

 

 

Ok. There are kuruba gowdas as well, but in general, most Gowdas are Vokkaligas. Their weddings are lavish. 

[zen]

9 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Forget Akhand, at least Indians should hold on to what’s left for us on 1947. If they want a separate country. migrate to Lemuria or Kumari Kandam. Leave India for Indians. We should not encourage neo-nationalism in the name of liberalism and progressiveness.  Read what happened in the country of East Timor which separated from West Timor province of Indonesia. This was mainly religious in separation also it is a land rich in oil and gas natural resources. So. People should be wary of separatists and not becomes used to new national borders. 

Decisions depend upon cost benefit analysis and the vision the ppl have for their region 

 

If there is a case where benefits outweigh costs and you have a vision for a better future go ahead and form a country 

Earlier there used to be a concept where brides were told things like - “Beti apne ghar se doli se jatti hai aur apne patti se ghar se arthi se”. Now divorce is acceptable 

 

We cannot be stuck in old ways of thinking … In this case, the decision would be of ppl of TN (not some guy in Kanpur who has zero connection with TN and vice versa)

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by zen

[coffee_rules]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

Decisions depend upon cost benefit analysis and the vision the ppl have for their region 

 

If there is a case where benefits outweigh costs and you have a vision for a better future go ahead and form a country 

Earlier there used to be a concept where brides were told things like - “Beti apne ghar se doli se jatti hai aur apne patti se ghar se arthi se”. Now divorce is acceptable 

 

We cannot be stuck in old ways of thinking … In this case, the decision would be of ppl of TN (not some guy in Kanpur who has zero connection with TN and vice versa)

 

Constitution and sedition laws are not old ways, it is cast in stone for a couple of 100 years, separate state is all ok, we should draw a line for a separate country. There is no everlasting peace in carving new countries. Partition in 1947 is a big lesson like Holocaust. Don’t repeat historical mistakes 

[zen]

49 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Constitution and sedition laws are not old ways, it is cast in stone for a couple of 100 years, separate state is all ok, we should draw a line for a separate country. There is no everlasting peace in carving new countries. Partition in 1947 is a big lesson like Holocaust. Don’t repeat historical mistakes 

 

As I said, the decision should depend upon benefits v costs, along w/ vision the people have for their future ... If there is a benefit, along w/ vision alignments, with staying with India (or a state per context), continue to do so. If not, have a separate country (or a state per context) ... I would support a decision made based on a proper analysis! ... I would not consider anything as permanent as things including borders change with time 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by zen

[coffee_rules]

43 minutes ago, zen said:

 

As I said, the decision should depend upon benefits v costs, along w/ vision the people have for their future ... If there is a benefit, along w/ vision alignments, with staying with India (or a state per context), continue to do so. If not, have a separate country (or a state per context) ... I would support a decision made based on a proper analysis! ... I would not consider anything as permanent as things including borders change with time 

 

Are you practical? Decision with populace needs a referendum.  Recent such divisions in Scotland and Quebec have been thwarted. Czech and Slovakia in the 90s was the only bloodless split.  Do you have any precedent in the west to base your views?if you are talking of utopia or idealism, that is different. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by coffee_rules

[zen]

27 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Are you practical? Decision with populace needs a referendum.  Recent such divisions in Scotland and Quebec have been thwarted. Czech and Slovakia in the 90s was the only bloodless split.  Do you have any precedent in the west to base your views?if you are talking of utopia or idealism, that is different. 

 

Yes, it is practical. A proper analysis should point at the correct way, which can also be used for a referendum (if needed), where people can make a relatively more informed decision, which can be either a "Yes" or a "No" 

 

What is important is that people are allowed to consider these options, look at benefits v costs, and decide based on what they think is better - stay (like what Scotland, when UK was in EU, and Quebec did) or opt out (Czech-Slovakia) 

 

We do not know what the future holds. Pakistan could nuke India. China could occupy a large territory. India could destabilize due to is under or unemployed population. One of the last things that many may want is the "irresponsibly overpopulated" regions of India controlling India's politics over states/population which have been relatively more responsible on various parameters 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by zen

[coffee_rules]

24 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Yes, it is practical. A proper analysis should point at the correct way, which can also be used for a referendum (if needed), where people can make a relatively more informed decision, which can be either a "Yes" or a "No" 

 

What is important is that people are allowed to consider these options, look at benefits v costs, and decide based on what they think is better - stay (like what Scotland, when UK was in EU, and Quebec did) or opt out (Czech-Slovakia) 

 

We do not know what the future holds. Pakistan could nuke India. China could occupy a large territory. India could destabilize due to is under or unemployed population. One of the last things that many may want is the "irresponsibly overpopulated" regions of India controlling India's politics over states/population which have been relatively more responsible on various parameters 

 

 

 

You are assuming the level of education or maturity of the populace, can’t use the western liberal disconnected methods, here. We have a divided population over religion already and then other parameters like languages and ethnic identities like Punjab. Can’t afford nationalistic notions like Khalistan or Bodo. 

[zen]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

You are assuming the level of education or maturity of the populace, can’t use the western liberal disconnected methods, here. We have a divided population over religion already and then other parameters like languages and ethnic identities like Punjab. Can’t afford nationalistic notions like Khalistan or Bodo. 

As I said, a proper analysis would point at the correct way. The analysis can recommend either a “Yes” or a “No”, enabling people to take a relatively more informed decision in a referendum (if required) 

 

[coffee_rules]

 

[Real McCoy]

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Forget Akhand, at least Indians should hold on to what’s left for us on 1947. If they want a separate country. migrate to Lemuria or Kumari Kandam. Leave India for Indians. We should not encourage neo-nationalism in the name of liberalism and progressiveness.  Read what happened in the country of East Timor which separated from West Timor province of Indonesia. This was mainly religious in separation also it is a land rich in oil and gas natural resources. So. People should be wary of separatists and not becomes used to new national borders. 

Your idea of they vs us is clearly seen here. I don't recall anyone in this thread wanting a separate country nor did DMK or ADMK. @zen is a gujju living in NA and you are a kannadiga in NA. you are arguing about something none of us wanted. So you can take your meaningless discussion somewhere else. This is about bjp trying to split kongu nadu from TN which also will never happen

[G_B_]

17 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Your idea about splitting states doesn't make it easy to govern. Its just a tactic to get a party more seats. When Congress did it, BJP were like this is dirty politics. Now they are ok with it lol. This will only compound problems. We already have a water dispute with karnataka. if kongu nadu constructs another dam, the rest of tn will be screwed.

Your point about UK is not a good comparison. UK is a country with multiple nations. Many don't understand the difference between country and nation. I think you live in UK right? You should know that England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland are different nations within UK. There was a big deal made about Scotland voting for independence which didn't work out. So its not an artificial thing to have different assemblies because they are not part of the same nation.

In India, the country and nation is synonymous and states were divided based on language. If both Andhra and Telengana spake the same language, they should be together. The division is created to serve the parties' interests and not governance based. Delivery of services It was always the same jumla. BJP has finished 7 years of ruling. Still no services offered only asks us to be patient and hardworking. Congress said the same thing. BJP is just congress 2.0. It won't solve anything. "services" delivered will be the same. We don't want further hassles in conducting daily business with another state being carved out. You can do it in Maharashtra first and see how it goes.

 

 

For the nth time. Its not my idea. It has always been the thought in the administrative class. Below is an article before 2014.

 

Smaller states will ensure better governance: Experts

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-smaller-states-will-ensure-better-governance-experts-1322771

 

And what did Congress do? BJP created Jharkhand Uttarakhand and Chhatisgrah back in 2000. It has always been BJP policy to create smaller states. These were states in which the BJP already had votes and seats and continued to do so. 

 

Re the UK there might have been different nations but they were always controlled via Westminster. (or a central parliament). There were no regional assemblies.  A new political system was created 20 years ago for better delivery of services. 

 

Your point about same language also makes zero sense. Based on that in the north due to a common hindi language there will be a super state with about 500 million people. Is that really feasible?

 

Lastly, you need to answer why bigger districts in TN were split into smaller districts. To me the same principle on delivery of services applies. Its like the argument many Tamil nationalists I talk to make. They want full majority for either political entity (DMK or AIADMK) to govern TN. But want plurality to govern to the centre to reflect the "diversity" of India. The very fact TN itself is creating smaller more manageable districts suggests that even the state gov knows that localisation of services is better for admin.

[G_B_]

and yes.

 

BJP have not pushed for kongu nadu. Point me to an official party release which suggests the same. 

 

It should also be noted that the CG dont need the permission of the state assembly to reorganise the states. Their non binding views will be sought. But as long as they pass the bill with a simple majority in both houses it will stand. If the BJP do get the bill through both houses then DMK at best just like the NEET issue will be a mute spectator. 

[Real McCoy]

11 hours ago, G_B_ said:

 

 

For the nth time. Its not my idea. It has always been the thought in the administrative class. Below is an article before 2014.

 

Smaller states will ensure better governance: Experts

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-smaller-states-will-ensure-better-governance-experts-1322771

 

And what did Congress do? BJP created Jharkhand Uttarakhand and Chhatisgrah back in 2000. It has always been BJP policy to create smaller states. These were states in which the BJP already had votes and seats and continued to do so. 

 

Re the UK there might have been different nations but they were always controlled via Westminster. (or a central parliament). There were no regional assemblies.  A new political system was created 20 years ago for better delivery of services. 

 

Your point about same language also makes zero sense. Based on that in the north due to a common hindi language there will be a super state with about 500 million people. Is that really feasible?

 

Lastly, you need to answer why bigger districts in TN were split into smaller districts. To me the same principle on delivery of services applies. Its like the argument many Tamil nationalists I talk to make. They want full majority for either political entity (DMK or AIADMK) to govern TN. But want plurality to govern to the centre to reflect the "diversity" of India. The very fact TN itself is creating smaller more manageable districts suggests that even the state gov knows that localisation of services is better for admin.

Who are these tamil nationalists I don't see any. Some party is not a nation just like BJP or congress is not India. Just because some "experts" think its good doesn't mean its the way to go. You keep telling me that there are services are being delivered. What I want to know is what these services are?

 

[Real McCoy]

11 hours ago, G_B_ said:

and yes.

 

BJP have not pushed for kongu nadu. Point me to an official party release which suggests the same. 

 

It should also be noted that the CG dont need the permission of the state assembly to reorganise the states. Their non binding views will be sought. But as long as they pass the bill with a simple majority in both houses it will stand. If the BJP do get the bill through both houses then DMK at best just like the NEET issue will be a mute spectator. 

Read OP and OP's take on it

[Real McCoy]

11 hours ago, G_B_ said:

 

 

For the nth time. Its not my idea. It has always been the thought in the administrative class. Below is an article before 2014.

 

Smaller states will ensure better governance: Experts

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-smaller-states-will-ensure-better-governance-experts-1322771

 

And what did Congress do? BJP created Jharkhand Uttarakhand and Chhatisgrah back in 2000. It has always been BJP policy to create smaller states. These were states in which the BJP already had votes and seats and continued to do so. 

 

Re the UK there might have been different nations but they were always controlled via Westminster. (or a central parliament). There were no regional assemblies.  A new political system was created 20 years ago for better delivery of services. 

 

Your point about same language also makes zero sense. Based on that in the north due to a common hindi language there will be a super state with about 500 million people. Is that really feasible?

 

Lastly, you need to answer why bigger districts in TN were split into smaller districts. To me the same principle on delivery of services applies. Its like the argument many Tamil nationalists I talk to make. They want full majority for either political entity (DMK or AIADMK) to govern TN. But want plurality to govern to the centre to reflect the "diversity" of India. The very fact TN itself is creating smaller more manageable districts suggests that even the state gov knows that localisation of services is better for admin.

You just said in the previous post that there are regional assemblies I know its controlled by England but the nations concept in UK is organic. Not in India where we are just one nation. Your post about Tamil nationalists is just an excuse for alienating Tamils like how coffee did with "they can live in Lemuria". And thank you for admitting the BJP policy of creating smaller states. That makes BJP not that different from Congress. Their only "service" they are delivering is to tighten their control over India just like how the Brits did. #kaaleAngrez

[coffee_rules]

14 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Your idea of they vs us is clearly seen here. I don't recall anyone in this thread wanting a separate country nor did DMK or ADMK. @zen is a gujju living in NA and you are a kannadiga in NA. you are arguing about something none of us wanted. So you can take your meaningless discussion somewhere else. This is about bjp trying to split kongu nadu from TN which also will never happen

 

Read who and what I am responding to. He thinks we should all be open for national borders to be fluid. "They" are the ones who are pushing the national borders, I am arguing that if they want a new nation, they might opt to move out, the nation will stay where we want. It applies to Khalistan, Bodos, or any other separatists. DMK MLAs are the ones saying they don't want to call India a nation and reject Jai Hind. They want to name it as a union of states. 

[Real McCoy]

8 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Read who and what I am responding to. He thinks we should all be open for national borders to be fluid. "They" are the ones who are pushing the national borders, I am arguing that if they want a new nation, they might opt to move out, the nation will stay where we want. It applies to Khalistan, Bodos, or any other separatists. DMK MLAs are the ones saying they don't want to call India a nation and reject Jai Hind. They want to name it as a union of states. 

I called out zen as well when he is calling for fluidity of national borders. seems you have missed that part. You took his assumption and ran with it by telling "them" to go to lemuria. Rejecting Jai Hind by DMK is a political stunt nothing else. I don't have a problem saying Jai Hind and the national anthem is sung everyday in schools here. The union of states thing is valid since there are people in North India who think you must speak in Hindi if you are a "true" Indian. even some states think similarly. 

[G_B_]

13 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Read OP and OP's take on it

 the OP is now the BJP central committee?

 

 

[Real McCoy]

1 hour ago, G_B_ said:

 the OP is now the BJP central committee?

 

 

you know what I meant