Unity in separate Identity?: The Paradoxes of Regionalism

By Prof. Suhas Palshikar

On the occasion of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's 150th birth anniversary, celebrated as National Unity Day, on 31 October 2025, India State Stories officially launched its new series on Integration of India. The launch event had talks from two distinguished scholars Prof. Asha Sarangi (Center for Political Studies, JNU) and Prof. Suhas Palshikar (Chief Editor, Studies in Indian Politics). We present below an extract and brief overview of Prof. Palshikar's talk.

Prof. Palshikar notes, India’s federalism is not just a system of governance, it is a delicate and dynamic “holding operation.” Unlike federations born from voluntary union, India’s model was designed to hold together an extraordinarily diverse nation through shared rule, democratic negotiation, and constitutional accommodation. It is a framework where unity does not erase diversity, but is built through it.

Regions do not merely exist within India; they comprise it. One cannot imagine the nation without its regional identities - Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Assamese, and countless others. The Indian federal structure ensures that these identities are not adversaries to national unity, but complementary forces that, when balanced, strengthen democracy itself.

Historically, regional identities predate independence and were never suppressed. Instead, they were embraced within the constitutional fold. The transformation of the Dravida Nadu movement from separatist demand to democratic participation exemplifies how regional aspirations can be channeled into the political mainstream. At the heart of this lies a carefully crafted constitutional balance: states enjoy significant autonomy, yet remain woven into an interdependent system with the Centre. Parliament retains the power to create new states or alter boundaries, ensuring the federation remains flexible and responsive.

India’s nationalism is exceptional because it is not founded on religion, language, or ethnicity. It is rooted in inclusion, a shared national framework within which multiple identities can flourish. To be Tamil or Punjabi does not make one less Indian. This inclusive nationalism is the bedrock of India’s democratic experiment, sustained by political compromise and constitutional accommodation rather than suppression.

A defining strength of Indian democracy is its capacity to accommodate regionalism. Regional movements are treated not as threats, but as legitimate expressions of democratic politics. The state has consistently responded through dialogue and flexibility, whether by creating new states, granting special provisions under Article 371, or designing arrangements for autonomy. These accommodations have taken various forms: from demands for separation (such as early DMK or Mizoram) to calls for linguistic reorganization or special status.

Over decades, India has navigated regional challenges through negotiation. The Khalistan movement, the Assam agitation, and the Mizoram conflict all culminated in accords that transformed potential crises into political settlements. The integration of the Mizo National Front into the democratic mainstream shows that when regional aspirations are engaged politically, they can reinforce, not weaken, the national unity.

These political solutions demonstrate India’s ability to turn conflict into consensus. Constitutional flexibility has enabled tailored accommodations across states, proving that democracy can transform separatist impulses into legitimate participation. Unity in diversity is not merely a slogan; it is a lived constitutional reality.

Three Paradoxes of Regionalism

Prof. Palshikar outlines three central paradoxes that define India’s experience with regionalism:

1. The Statehood Paradox: Statehood is the primary political demand of regional movements, yet it does not guarantee development. Achieving statehood often fails to deliver the expected economic progress or social advancement, revealing a gap between political autonomy and tangible outcomes.

2. The Elite Benefit Paradox: Regionalism consistently benefits regional elites, such as the Maratha political class in Maharashtra or Lingayat elites in Karnataka. Yet it also addresses genuine concerns of ordinary people. While movements may serve elite interests, they simultaneously articulate popular aspirations, creating a complex interplay between empowerment and exploitation.

3. The Unity-Threat Paradox: Regionalism itself is not inherently threatening to national unity; rather, neglecting regional identity can become a threat. As Palshikar observes, regionalism “when kept quiet, is quite docile; but when kept hungry, is always wild.” Accommodation, not suppression, is key to maintaining national cohesion.

   
   

India and Pakistan: A Contrast in Nation-Building

India’s approach to regionalism stands in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s experience. Pakistan was founded on the premise that religion constitutes a nation. This framework subsumed regional identities under a singular religious identity. Whether one was Punjabi, Sindhi, or Baloch became secondary to being Muslim.

This privileging of religion created structural flaws. Pakistan’s failure with Bangladesh in 1971 stemmed from refusing to acknowledge that, despite religious commonality, other fault lines, especially language, mattered deeply. The imposition of Urdu by the Punjabi elite over Bengali speakers in East Pakistan exemplified this suppression.

India, by contrast, embraced inclusion without erasing regional identities. Through constitutional accommodation, political compromise, and democratic negotiation, India learned to balance national and regional aspirations. The lesson from Pakistan is clear: religion alone does not build a nation; inclusive nationalism does. While Pakistan continues to face regional unrest, India’s model treats diversity as a strength to be accommodated, not a problem to be suppressed.

Language: Encouragement vs. Enforcement

Language remains a sensitive domain where regional pride and national inclusivity sometimes clash. In Maharashtra, for instance, tensions have arisen over the insistence on Marathi, sometimes at the expense of other languages. Palshikar argues firmly against compulsion: Marathi should not be made compulsory, but should be encouraged through support for literature, academies, and cultural promotion.

Forced language policies create “barricaded areas” between states, such as Kannada being compulsory in Karnataka. These barricades undermining the federal spirit of accommodation. Such an approach ignores the realities of inter-state mobility, multilingual aspirations, and personal choice. Linguistic diversity is best promoted through encouragement, not enforcement. India’s success in linguistic reorganization was built on flexibility and respect, not imposition.

Conclusive thoughts

India’s federal journey shows that unity and regional identity are not contradictory, but interdependent. The constitutional framework, political pragmatism, and culture of accommodation have allowed India to navigate the paradoxes of regionalism without fracturing. Regional movements, when engaged through dialogue and democratic means, can strengthen, rather than weaken, the national fabric.

In the end, India’s experiment reaffirms that a nation can be united without being uniform. The balance between region and nation remains a continuous process, an operation that holds together not just a territory, but an idea: that in India, one can belong to a region and the nation, without ever having to choose between the two.