Balkanisation - questions not answers

How small can a nation be before it becomes unmanageable? And to what degree can any country be meaningfully "independent"? These questions and how they are answered over the next ten years will form the context for much in domestic and international politics over the next decade. These are themes I will revisit frequently in this blog so I thought I would kick off with some preliminary exploration of the matter.

I read with interest to day that there are discussions about the creation of another new State in that beguiling and incomprehensible wonder that is India, follow hot on the heels of announcement of the creation of the new State of Telangana not much more than a week ago.

I have never understood how India is governed or how its federal structure actually works. What exactly is decided in New Delhi and how and when those decisions filter out to the twenty eight (or is it twenty nine?) States and seven Union territories is somewhat obscure to me, for all my efforts to try to understand. What I do understand is that the division of the sub-continent into States is a process that has been tried and repeated endlessly and seldom, if ever, reaching a satisfactory conclusion. And how should this boundary drawing process work? (sorry to disappoint you but I'm incapable of answering that question)

Should our "administrative units" be defined by geogrpahical boundaries: rivers, seas, mountains and suchlike? And if so, what about the people who live in those mountain areas? Where do they belong? (Kashmir for example)

Should States be founded on racial or linguistic lines? This seems to be the approach currently in favour in India. But does it encourage the division of society on the basis of race or tribe? And does that propel nations along the road towards the kind of conflict that devastated Rwanda in 1994

Or should we look to divide along religious lines, as was the (broadly speaking) the case with the Partition of India in 1947? That spectacularly bloody episode has been the millstone around the neck of progress on the sub-continent ever since

Is there value in tradition? Because Scotland was once independent, politically, of England, should it be again? Even if it is democratically endorsed through a referendum it's unlikely to be huge majority in favour, so what will all the people in Scotland that don't want independence feel? and do? are their views less valid because they are (or may be) the minority?

(and then there are the Balkans themselves, of course...)

For all their failures and the immense challenges of securing consensus, politicians have looked to federal structures (such as the Federal Governments in the USA or India) and conferences and "treaty organisations" (like the United Nations or NATO) to provide fora through which the "big questions" should be tackled. Some appear to work well: the USA seems to function, internally at least, without dangerous internal conflict ; the EU has made a success of facilitating trade and building co-operative relationships. Some fail (Yugoslavia ; the USSR.. and many would say the UN too). And is it strong leadership at the centre that binds federations together? Failure of leadership in federations usually seems to precede their dissolution but doesn't seem to predict it.

So, back to the swirling of tea leaves... how do you think the map of nations will look at the close of 2019...

A greater India (absorbing some parts of its neighbours) or a more fragmented India (or both!)

A carve up of Afghanistan? The emergence of a Pashtunistan?

An Independent Scotland?

Kosovo and Montenegro making it on their own?

The EU finally taking on a role as a Federal government in Europe? or a slow redefintion as a trade and economic foum?

Western Sahara finally disappearing off the map?

The old USSR re-emerging as a federal bloc?

Who knows! Somebody tell me...