[__rito__]

My distant cousing, a Bengali, named, say, Rama Dass, also grew up in Tamil Nadu. His name was Tamilized to D. Rama or Rama D.- even though Dass was a family surname.

> States in India are basically different countries, and the existing state borders for most states don't make sense.

No. Huge oversimplification there. It's not definitely like oblasts of Russian Federation. Although they are not close like OR and ID.

[alephnerd]

> No. Huge oversimplification there

I mean culturally and administratively.

Heck, in my ancestral state, non-natives cannot purchase land.

> It's not definitely like oblasts of Russian Federation

It absolutely is.

Heck, my ancestral state (HP) is a merger of 3 entirely distinct ethnic communities (Lower Himachalis who are the same community as in Jammu division, Upper Himachalis who are closer to Garwhalis and Kumaounis in Uttarakhand, and Changtang Tibetans in Lahaul/Spiti/Kinnaur who should be merged with Ladakh) with no rhyme or reason because it was a bunch of Himalayan hill states that where conquered by the Sikhs, Nepalis, and later British in the 19th century and merged into Punjab, and this has caused political deadlock.

This is a common situation all over India. There's no reason that Purvanchal is lumped with Awadh, that Rayalseema is lumped with Kosta Andhra, or Barak Valley is lumped with Assam.

My Pahari family has no traditional culture in common with a Gujarati from Saurashtra or a Bihari from Bhojpur.

These ethnic (and linguistic) differences do impact internal mobility outside of Tier 1 cities.

India has been very successful thanks to it's diversity, but most states still hold colonial era borders which exacerbate regional inequalities by giving regional interests an ethnic or even religious tinge (eg. Seemanchal and Bihar).

[__rito__]

You took an extreme example (HP). But only a handful states in India have that restriction where outsiders are not allowed to buy land.

There are many all-India services and people are transferred all across India. Many work in different states than those of their home state. Same Constitution, same legal framework. Same religion.

I think if you go deeper you will notice the unifying characteristics rather than superficial differences among states of India.

And while I differ with you on Indian states being very far aways from different Russian states in terms of similarity/differences, I definitely agree with your opinion that Indian state borders don't make much sense.

[alephnerd]

> You took an extreme example

True! It was a rhetorical point, but similar examples abound in the Tier 3/4 cities and small towns that represent the majority of India.

You're still at the mercy of the DC's office and the associated State PSC to let the transaction go through, and local bias will abound. And in these kinds of places, if you get into a land dispute, the entire apparatus will rally behind the local even if they are in the wrong, because the local can leverage their local family/social network.

> Same Constitution, same legal framework

Absolutely, yet dependent on state PSC to implement. And local customary laws can often take precedence over central rules and regulations due to Article 13(1).

> There are many all-India services and people are transferred all across India. Many work in different states than those of their home state

There are, yet at the end of the day, Home Bias remains, as IAS officers posted outside their home state are significantly less likely to climb up the ladder and tend to get hamstrung [0].

Anecdotally, in the early 2000s, my ancestral district got an ethnic Tamil DC/ADC, but they were completely frozen out by the local panchayat, MLAs, and MP because they were viewed as an "Outsider", and the man was quietly transferred within 2 years and an ethnic Punjabi officer was brought it (still an "outsider" but viewed as "closer").

> Same religion

At a broad level Hinduism sounds unifying, but in action, the regional variations are massive.

It doesn't matter as much to sharyi/city folk, but local deities and practices vary massively and what one regions treats as "Hindu" can appear entirely alien to another region.

Tamil society doesn't bat an eye at cousin marriage while that would be grounds for a honor killing in HP/PB/HR. Meanwhile, in my region we revere a number of Muslim mystics like Lakhdata and in some cases even practice Muharram (Hussaini Brahmin), but to a Hindu from Gujarat or Karnataka, that would appear Muslim.

> I think if you go deeper you will notice the unifying characteristics

There absolutely are unifying characteristics, but I think these are much more prominent in Tier 1/1.5/2 cities which are melting pots.

Most Indian urbanization is being driven by Tier 3/4 cities which tend to be much more insular.

-----------

Big picture, I think differences are significant when outside the Tier 1/2 cities, but this is part of the power of Indian federalism.

The loosely coupled nature of Indian federalism allows regional ethnic identity to continue to exist with a unified "Indian" identity and act as an outlet to ethnic insurgency.

This is how ethnic insurgents in NE India were able to merge into the BJP in the 2010s, and regionalist and linguistic parties such as Shiv Sena, DMK, TDP, TMC, etc are able to create loose political alliances and coalitions with "national parties".

Also, this imo is a major reason why BJP has been so dominant over the past decade - they are able to co-opt localist movements into the state branch of their party.

The INC used to be able to do this, but these local leaders split off to create their own parties by the 1990s.

[0] - https://www.nber.org/papers/w25389

[leosanchez]

> that Rayalseema is lumped with Kosta Andhra,

They share a common language ?

[alephnerd]

Sure (though imo, even the difference between dialect and language can be significant - try listening to Bundelkhandi as a Hindi speaker, you won't understand it even though Bundelkhandi is counted as "Hindi" largely for political reasons), but entirely different caste structure and political social structure historically speaking.

Coastal Andhra had been under direct British rule since 1823 and before that largely under the Northern Circars, but Rayalseema was a frontier land between Mysore, the British, the Hyderabad Sultanate, and plenty of local kings and factions.

All over India, the British administration largely just co-opted the preexisting administration and governance, which wasn't professionalized until the early 20th Century. This meant that functionaries of the pre-existing states were co-opted into local administration.

Ofc, in princely states the difference was even more significant.

But my argument is that it makes sense for Rayalseema to be split off from Coastal Andhra, as the administrative history is distinct, and even the history is distinct.