United Federation of Indian States

You have seen me complain about the bad effects of racism, but there are cases where it, or rather what is called nationalism, is of great use.

The nation-state is a strong form of rallying people together for a common cause of development. This feeling is essential for motivating several issues such as civic sense, importance of savings and investment in the home industry.

However this feeling of nationalism is strongly tied to the feeling of racism, and if mishandled, can spell trouble to the entire generation of people. We have seen examples of this throughout history – in Germany, Italy, Japan and currently in Israel.

As I speak today, we are moving slowly into a new age of inter-nation-states, from the old age of nation states. When I say that, I do not mean the United Nations, but the United States of America.

USA is one of the few nations which cannot claim to be a nation-state (as understood in the classical sense of the term). Its people are a mixed lot from several races, cultures and backgrounds. They have hardly anything in common, except for a zeal for development and a strong pride in being the citizens of the richest country in the world.

This phenomenon of transcending the classical borders of the nation-state is also being observed in Europe. The new Europe sans frontieres is bringing together the old nation-states of France, Germany, Italy, Spain (and Poland, Greece and soon the whole of Europe) into a common political fold. In unity, lies strength – the strength to combat the great economic powers such as the US or China.

But luckily, in India, we have been functioning as a unified-nation for a very long time. This should, indeed, be very surprising because India is very much like Europe – in both scale and variety. Two regions in India – say Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, have more differences in between them than the nations of USA and Canada. In spite of the seeming impossibility, functioning as a united nation has been good to India – atleast in the first 50 years.

But with its humongous differences, it is extremely hard to define India as a nation state. This is directly evident in the absence of national political parties.

With the momentum imparted from the freedom struggle, the Indian National Congress (INC) has managed to maintain a national existence till now. But with the current generation of Indians, fewer people associate the INC with the freedom struggle and it is consequently losing its identity.

The Left parties, however, have a philosophy which transends that of the nation-state, and thus qualify to being national parties (even though they do not have the numbers to support that claim)

The Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) which is India’s answer to the classical right wing party, however, desperately needs the feeling of nation-state for its existence. And it has chosen to build that sentiment from the wrong sources – the pseudo religion of Hinduism.

Hinduism is a particularly bad choice – not only because this definition alienates a vast minority of people, but also because it does not exist in the first place.

The way of life of the so-called Hindus from different parts of India is so vastly different, that they hardly identify with each other. These differences are more pronounced if we look at the geographic extreme points – for example,  the Kashmiri pandits and the Nambiyar brahmins of Kerala.

However, for all its faults, this feeling of nation-state has been essential for building a strong country (economically and technologically). This is where India stands to lose out to rivals such as China (or even Indonesia or Brazil) The latter countries find it far easier to convince rich ex-patriots to invest in the fledging home industry.

There is a solution to these problems – which is not only necessary but also inevitable.

This is the right moment in history when the central government of India has to relinquish control and provide more autonomy to the states.

In principle, this means transforming the Indian government to resemble that of the United States – a highly federal structure with the centre taking care of only defence and international affairs.

I argue that we move even further.

The following decentralizations are necessary :

• Each state organizing its own centers for research and excellence.
• Each state having its own tourism department with complete autonomy.
• Each state implementing its own tax policies.
• Each state sending its own athletes for competition in the international arena.
• Each state having its own policies on entertainment and censorship.
• Each state having its own policy on social subsidy and reservation.

The above points are essential, and will liberate several progressive regions of India from the shackles of harmful policies being followed at the centre. Moreover, as independent entitities, the competition between the states will be so intense that they will be forced to implement the correct choices (even if they go against populist sentiment)

But the biggest benifit of the new United Federation of Indian States will be that strong political parties emerge on the scene – which actually reflect the operating pressure groups. Strong leaders will emerge who the people actually connect with. A strong sense of nationalism developes when the people think that their culture is at stake if they lose out on the race for development.

India is mature for this decentralization :

• Indian people already have a very strong sense of identity as Indians.
• No state would try to break away from the Indian Union, because that will be against the tremendous advantages provided by the strong defence and economy.
• A strong democracy with periodic elections is already functional in India.
• No state will run into the problem of religious fundamentalism or military dictatorship – especially when the millitary is still under the command of the Union Government.
• Indian people already have several National Institutes – such as IITs, DRDO, NIN, CCMB etc – to provide coordination between the different regional research institutes.

Observe that none of the above would be true, had we done the same thing immediately after independence. Most probably, India would have degenerated into warring faction states, which is the case with Africa.

But this time in history – it is ripe and auspicious.

This process of decentralization would also reduce the regional discontent that we are facing in the North Eastern states and in Kashmir.

With the new form of government, people elect their representatives from amongst themselves. In such a scenario, the children of the Nehru family would not be the only option that would be left to a country of 1 billion people.

This change is not only necessary but also inevitable. The series of coalition governments that we witness in the centre are just a prelude to the major decentralization in power.

I welcome the day when this new India greets the world, and provides an example for other inter-nation-states (which are desperately needed in South America, Middle-East, North Africa and in Central Africa).