Thread by @shrikanth_krish

On the topic of "nation state" formation, I find liberal opinion very confusing

The idea of ethnic / lingual identity driving nation state formation is a liberal idea (emerging out of the post Westphalian order)

OTOH, liberals also champion cosmopolitanism (which is closer to "Empire" model than the post-Westphalian model

The Roman Empire was cosmopolitan. So is the Empire of America today - holding together within it numerous ethnicities / languages over a continent sized land

One can argue India too is an "Empire" in one sense - held together by ideas / notions of Dharma and plurality of belief as opposed to ethnic / lingual identity

So if you favor cosmopolitanism you should favor "Empire" models like USA, Akhand Bharat, British Empire of yore

On the other hand, if you favor smaller more homogenous nation states and the rhetoric of self-determination then you favor the post Westphalian order that is antithetical to cosmopolitanism

Here nations tend to be small. Narrow. Xenophobic

The liberal opinion on Kashmir (where the opinion favors self-determination and cultural isolation) is basically a vote for ethno-nationalism

Or worse a curious combo of ethnic and religious parochialism which is what Kashmiriyat boils down to

But liberals also like "cosmopolitanism", diversity etc

That should then favor large strong states. How about a continent sized India stretching from Peshawar to Andaman?

I don't get the liberal opinion here at all

Very confusing

If you like diversity, heterogeneity, large states, free movement of ideas and people, please vote for "Empire"

Else please vote for ethno-centric conception of nationalism
(which is not as inclusive as you'd like)