Friday, December 11, 2009


  • tags: no_tag

    • Why smaller states alone? Why not smaller countries? If Ajit Singh wants a separate state because people have to travel 700 kms to the state capital, then why not separate countries for people living thousands of kilometers from Delhi? Who will decide how far is too far? What about the distance of Novosibirsk from Moscow? Or Lhasa from Beijing? Similarly, if it difficult to govern big states, should it it not, by the same logic, be easier to govern smaller countries? How many countries should India be further cut into? And, pray, how much better are the much smaller and much more homogeneous countries of the sub-continent being governed? Is Pakistan an example to follow of a religion-based creation? Is Bangladesh proof that a country with one predominant religion, culture and language is better governed? What about Nepal? Why is no one talking about the scorching success story of China and its huge provinces?
    • Look at the irony. European nations, which were at each others' throats for centuries, are dismantling borders and converting a continent into their common, secular home. Yes, it took countless small wars and two world wars for them to wake up from their follies that needlessly killed perhaps hundreds of millions of them.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.