From aangirfan.com

“Reportedly, the CIA wants to break up India.

In February of 2000, Indian intelligence officials detained 11 members of what they thought was an Al Qaeda hijacking conspiracy.

It was then discovered that these 11 ‘Muslim preachers’ were all Israeli nationals … India’s leading weekly magazine, The Week, reported ( Aborted Mission Investigation: Did Mossad attempt to infiltrate … ):

Map of a broken up india

On 28 March 2010, The Milli Gazette had an article by historian Amaresh Misra entitled “Headley Saga: 2008 Mumbai attack was a joint IB-CIA-Mossad-RSS project”

The SIM cards used by the ten 26/11 ‘terrorists’ were purchased by someone working for the IB (India’s Intelligence Bureau).

It is possible that the IB is heavily infiltrated by CIA and Mossad.

Rakesh Maria is the police chief responsible for investigating the Mumbai attacks of 2008.

He is said to have pro-Israeli links.

Who paid David Headley’s credit card bills? (Who paid David Coleman Headley’s credit card bill?)

The Bills were paid in the USA and Canada.”

Comment (Links to be added):

Someone might ask why a libertarian should care if the Indian state, a multiethnic state, were broken up. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

For someone who cares for how things actually play out on the ground, the only answer would be, it depends. That holds true for every state.

For instance, I did not support the break-up of the Soviet state, surely a multi-ethnic empire by any definition, because it was apparent that the break-up was not a peaceful decision of the interested parties, with all rights considered, but rather the result of intense foreign subversive activity.

The result was quite predictable – tremendous suffering, the wholesale looting of assets by financial predators and cronies of the state, and vast criminality, which still has the country by its hair. Not to mention the problem of nuclear warheads on the loose.

I would be in favor of greater and greater decentralization, with a loose retention of the central government and the geographical boundaries of the old state, for the simple reason that those boundaries are natural ones, and make for better defense.

The idea is not to impose theory on the world. The idea is to increase real liberty for real people. Civil war, something tells me, does not do that.

So I will leave seductive and dangerous notions of insurgence and revolution to others. Peace is not the daughter of justice. She is the sister.

This is why I am adamantly opposed to those who support literal secession. Theoretically, it sounds libertarian. In practice, as India is constituted today, it would contribute to violence. Peace through strength is the motto of this realist.

I, like many traditionalist libertarians, thus, support the nation state in as much as it is a bulwark against the predations of the international financial order.

Just as ignorance and weakness signal to the predator a possible target, dissension and civil strife invite imperialists and corporate looters.

Actually, the power-elites, contrary to what some libertarian anarchists think, are promoting the break-up of nation states into regional trading blocks, because the administration of a world economic order would be much easier that way. Defining the states by regional economic zones makes defense difficult and the subjugation of some parts by the global powers much easier.

The Afro-Dalit movement, from this viewpoint, is simply an ideological penetration of the country that serves to draw away a large and prosperous part of India, to westernize and Christianize it, and then position it as a counterforce to the surrounding Hindu and Muslim populations.

Notice how truncated the northern part of India has become in the map. The entire Kashmir area in the North, long coveted by the West for its strategic position, is outside the boundaries of the new state.

Historically, when the state has receded from its natural physical boundaries, it has diminished even further, shrinking to just around the capital of Delhi.

As author/philanthropist/entrepreneur Rajiv Malhotra points out, while fringe activists in the West claim to be deconstructing their own countries, the truth is quite different. Federal power here is immense and there is little or no terrorism or infiltration compared to the enormous foreign activity in and around India.

Thus, Indian activists, drawn by the money and status of the foreign activist circuit, are misled by various gate-keepers to think their deconstruction of their own countries is equivalent to what American and European activists are doing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Activism here is firmly under the control of the intelligence services, and the boundaries of discourse are ruthlessly maintained by the policing system known as political correctness, as well as by endless secret surveillance, whereby anyone who strays into genuinely subversive truth is immediately branded an anti-Semite or some such thing and sentenced to the cybergulag of irrelevance and obscurity.

This is made possible by the fact that, unknown to such brainwashed and servile activists, the entire web is the domain of thousands, if not tens of thousands of intelligence analysts, spies, instigators, sayanim, and ordinary snitches, who make sure that the apparent decentralized nature of the web is actually covertly controlled in a totalitarian mind-control system. That system encompasses everything from the corporate media giants to Hollywood, from academia to policy think-tanks, from the prestigious awards to the big publishing houses, from NGOs to social media.

And beyond all that of course, the very technology of control is firmly in the hands of closely interlocked mega corporations like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet giants, all of whom are part of the extra-governmental government, the supragovernment, of the spy agencies, as well as partnered with finance capitalism itself, centered in the US around the Federal reserve system (but more and more around the IMF and BIS), which controls the money supply, and thus the whole capital market and the life-blood of corporations.

The Balkanized India in the map above might seem like a good libertarian goal only if one were completely naive, ignorant of the context and history, or ill-intentioned. Indian history has been one long recitation of imperial expansion and contraction, interstate intrigue and betrayal, and foreign invasion, making trade difficult and dangerous, and forceful secession the last thing needed.

Now, in libertarian anarchy small states can join together for their defense, of course. And this is especially so if the individual states are constituted as republics and linked in a federated structure. But that is already the case in India, where the states are quite divergent and differentiated in structure, population, and functioning.

Those who make arguments for secession and balkanization thus betray their ignorance of contemporary India and her history.

Some ideologues even claim that there was never an India until the British came along and that the unity of the country is a recent creation. This is Eurocentric fiction, generated by the academic left, beholden to the globalists, as anyone who knows Indian history will be aware. The subcontinent has been unified, more or less, many times, before the British.

The Moghul emperors Aurangzeb and Akbar were just two who brought nearly the whole of India under their rule. Aurangzeb was no doubt a murderous despot, but my point is not to endorse empire but to say that anyone who suggests there was no entity called India until the British came along has been brainwashed by colonial fantasists.

Before the Muslims, there were also Mauryas who united the whole subcontinent. And, even between these eras and before them, there is plenty of evidence to show that the subcontinent had a history of its own and was seen as a separate region from the rest of Asia, divided from it by the definite physical boundaries of the Himalayas and the Hindukush.

But most importantly, the objection to the break-up of the nation states, which some libertarians consider preferable, is that it can and will end up playing into the hands of the economic elites, who have been planning for it a long while.