
A Memorandum to the  Government of India (1955) - jangid
http://indiapolicy.org/debate/Notes/friedman.htm
======
TheMagicHorsey
Excellent advice. If only it had been heeded then.

So many decades lost.

~~~
protomyth
I'm a way outsider and not as studied as I would like on India, but my
question is "why hasn't India broken up further?".

~~~
argumentum
There's no "natural" reason why the subcontinent should be united or divided,
rather the governing states that exist at any point in time are a function of
history. Like Europe, India has at times been divided and other times united
as a single polity (first under asoka ~300bc, then akbar ~1500ad and finally
the Raj ~1850ad until independence).

If by "further" you refer to 1947 division of the subcontinent then it has in
fact broken up again, in 1971 when East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

There is great value in being united of course, which is also the original
intention behind the EU. When constituent states disagree or want to split up,
like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh did recently, they can do it through a
constitutional process rather than a war. Being a larger state also provides
greater opportunities for its citizens.

As time has passed, the part called "India" today has faced a few separatist
movements, but has held together primarily by creating a more successful
shared narrative so it means something to be "Indian" in addition to being a
Punjabi or Gujurati or Muslim, Hindu or Jain. This is likely to continue.

~~~
protomyth
I was thinking of the contrast that serious separatist movements have gotten
no traction since the Civil War in the US, but India has had two of them and
wondering if a third was a thought.

~~~
argumentum
Which two are you referring to? The first separatist movement of course was
the demand for Pakistan prior to independence. Then there was the demand for
Bangladesh in East Pakistan. Both of these were successful.

Within today's India, there was first Tamil separatism, then Sikh, Kashmir and
then a few small eastern tribal groups. They have each waxed and waned over
the years for different reasons. Ultimately it is the duty of the Indian state
to preserve & strengthen the Union while ensuring that its value for each
constituent outweighs any ethnic or religious separatist sentiments.

The US is unique in being formed basically from scratch, and growing from
there, rather than as a merger of historical nation/states.

~~~
protomyth
I was referring to what you referenced. In a lot of ways the US was just
another part of England, but the revolution really started as people wanting
their rights as English citizens and went separatists from there. We then got
waves to different regions as immigrants (e.g. the North Dakota and Minnesota
immigration maps are pretty interesting for an example).

It just seemed like our Civil War shutdown the separatists and India
separatists had some success, so I was wondering if there is a likely further
break or not.

------
rvn1045
Friedman had not won the Nobel prize during the time of this writing. Only
later did he gain prominence and influence the economic policy making of
several countries.

~~~
hga
Well, he helped invent income tax withholding in WWII....

------
argumentum
This article converted me to classical liberalism when I first read it a
decade ago.

~~~
jangid
In the Indian context, till India achieves what it is capable of, this article
will remain a guiding principle; and it will remain relevant.

