General Knowledge - Indian Politics - Discussion

Nagaland attained statehood in dec 1, 1963 inaugurated by the then India president, S. Radhakrishnan and now after 50 years of statehood why the question arising that it cannot be termed as state?

Nagaland is a state. Why does it not fit in the definition of a state?

This is new to me. Please someone explain.

Article 3 of the Constitution of India pertains to the formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or even names of existing states. It reads that the Parliament of India, by law, can: Parliament may by law- (a) Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b) Increase the area of any State; (c) Diminish the area of any State; (d) Alter the boundaries of any State; (e) Alter the name of any State: However, this can be done only on the recommendation of the President.

Here state means country which is used in political science.

Nagaland is a state. Why does it not fit in the definition of a state?

As per the definition of the word 'state' any of the sate of India cannot be termed as State as they lack sovereignty.

Sovereignty means : Supreme power or authority

What the mean of sovereignty.

It is not right. In 1963, the state of nagaland was created by taking the areas of naga hills and tuensang areas out of the state assam. It is our 16 th state.