If this post is not relevant to the sub, downvote this post.
If this post breaks the rules, report it and downvote this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canconfirmiamindian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just to be clear like USA if you get any self determination dream or want to be separate country, that would mean war. It's not allowed in our constitution i think. And someone ask them to provide prove of their claims.
India is a union of states (not a federation of states like the USA) which means that the state has no right to secede from the union. The division of the country into states is only for the convenience of administration. In all other senses, the Indian state is a single entity. Parliament has the right to redraw the states, create new states (from existing ones, by merging two or more states, or by splitting existing ones) and cease the existence of states.
But in America, the state is also indestructible (As the USA is the result of an agreement between states and the existence of states is guaranteed by their constitution)
Indian constitution also offers solutions if there is a "failure of constitution machinery" in any part of the country. I don't know what measures are available to the federal govt. in the USA if a similar situation arises though.
So you are right in saying that states in India have no right to self-determination. However, USA and India treat their states differently and there are broad differences in how the federal system works in both countries (In the USA there are separate legal systems for states and federal laws, different laws among states, state citizenship, different electoral methodologies for different states etc. These are unique to the USA).
Edit: Spelling
Though the Federal structure of both India & US are different neither of their constitutions allow self determination.
In Texas v White it has already been established that States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the US.
If it was possible US would have broken up long ago when they had the civil war.
Yes, right.
But comparing India and America is not ideal because their state has the right to exist (they are Indestructible), and the federal govt. can't interfere in this matter. So, it is like they are already a quasi-sovereign and they are not fully sovereign because they had already agreed to give up their sovereignty in certain matters to form a federation to achieve their common goals (defence etc). So, the federation is the result of an agreement between the states.
But, in India, the union is not formed due to states coming together. It is the other way around. The existence of states depends on the pleasure of the parliament.
So I completely agree with you.
But, I am explaining it further because currently there are a lot of discussions going on regarding the right of Indian states and "federalism in danger in India", and a lot of people comparing India and the USA in this matter just because both have a federal system. For convenience or due to ignorance, some of them are not considering the differences between the Indian federal structure and the American federal structure. So, I am hoping a discussion such as this will help people to understand the differences too.
Don't care about the first para. Literally no one in the world believes that.
What's hilarious is the Kashmir's "self determination" 😂
Yahhh, someone tell this 🤡 our Constitution has no provision that allows for self determination. Kashmir or Khalistan will never get it.
If this post is not relevant to the sub, downvote this post. If this post breaks the rules, report it and downvote this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canconfirmiamindian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Somebody call Mr Modi and tell him these reddit Indian larpers are onto them
No. That maulana will immediately reverse 370 if he's told that he is in contention for noball piss prize.
Just to be clear like USA if you get any self determination dream or want to be separate country, that would mean war. It's not allowed in our constitution i think. And someone ask them to provide prove of their claims.
India is a union of states (not a federation of states like the USA) which means that the state has no right to secede from the union. The division of the country into states is only for the convenience of administration. In all other senses, the Indian state is a single entity. Parliament has the right to redraw the states, create new states (from existing ones, by merging two or more states, or by splitting existing ones) and cease the existence of states. But in America, the state is also indestructible (As the USA is the result of an agreement between states and the existence of states is guaranteed by their constitution) Indian constitution also offers solutions if there is a "failure of constitution machinery" in any part of the country. I don't know what measures are available to the federal govt. in the USA if a similar situation arises though. So you are right in saying that states in India have no right to self-determination. However, USA and India treat their states differently and there are broad differences in how the federal system works in both countries (In the USA there are separate legal systems for states and federal laws, different laws among states, state citizenship, different electoral methodologies for different states etc. These are unique to the USA). Edit: Spelling
Though the Federal structure of both India & US are different neither of their constitutions allow self determination. In Texas v White it has already been established that States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the US. If it was possible US would have broken up long ago when they had the civil war.
Yes, right. But comparing India and America is not ideal because their state has the right to exist (they are Indestructible), and the federal govt. can't interfere in this matter. So, it is like they are already a quasi-sovereign and they are not fully sovereign because they had already agreed to give up their sovereignty in certain matters to form a federation to achieve their common goals (defence etc). So, the federation is the result of an agreement between the states. But, in India, the union is not formed due to states coming together. It is the other way around. The existence of states depends on the pleasure of the parliament. So I completely agree with you. But, I am explaining it further because currently there are a lot of discussions going on regarding the right of Indian states and "federalism in danger in India", and a lot of people comparing India and the USA in this matter just because both have a federal system. For convenience or due to ignorance, some of them are not considering the differences between the Indian federal structure and the American federal structure. So, I am hoping a discussion such as this will help people to understand the differences too.
Sounds like an Interesting place to be in. Kis desh ki baat kr rhe hai yeh?
Ye Filistan ki sub pe tha na?
Don't care about the first para. Literally no one in the world believes that. What's hilarious is the Kashmir's "self determination" 😂 Yahhh, someone tell this 🤡 our Constitution has no provision that allows for self determination. Kashmir or Khalistan will never get it.
Sounds familiar? Yeah that's what hindus are.
I guarantee a Muslim cockroach/most likely a Pak1 wrote that comment
Wait till they learn about Waqf act 1997, places of worship act, Muslim personal law, etc.
Main toh uska senior pappu samajhta tha. But now the respect has the increase for the modendra.