Honnasiri's Catch

Growing up, if more than two of us wanted to do some thing and we're divided, we just take what the majority of the group wants, determined by the easiest form of voice vote, and do that... and the semi-teasing in-your-face statement we make to someone who wanted otherwise is, "majority wins". When we said it then, and as we look back at it now, it was a cute memory of growing up. Unfortunately, all cute memories from when we were were growing up become stale and corny if we use them in the exact same way in responsible, adult situations, like nation, for example.  India is a parliamentary democracy, though mass voter sentiment is that of a presidential democratic process. A good contemporary example of this when everyone is "voting for Modi" when Modi himself is contesting from one constituency, and not all 543. Every BJP supporter in 540 constituencies doesn't have the privilege of Modi being their constituency's BJP candidate - as

We've established that a country is to its citizens what the home is to the family . *Any* rule and principle applied there also applies to your relationship with country - however complicated. Any idea about it that defeats this idea is eccentric to start with. That being established, let's move on to the next core truth about states and nations. Any country in the modern era - unless you're a tribe that fought off the influence of the modern world - is an intentional economic concept. If they're successful at it, they end up happy and sufficient. If they aren't, and they make that colossal mistake, they are doomed. The key is in their economics. If they can balance their needs and strengths to be a happy, sufficient society, they got it right. If they did that with head-over-heels ideas about cultural, historical, political and social identity issues, they failed to prioritize sensibly. Identity at the cost of balanced economics, even the most basic, is a slippe