Post partition of 1947, eight decades down the road, no major international politician or head of state has ever officially called for India’s disintegration. Predictions of fragmentation have surfaced periodically in journalism, intelligence analyses, and activists’ rhetoric. Around the partition, some British commentators did predict that India would eventually break apart, while during the Cold War, certain Western strategists and intelligence analysts described India as a “fragile federation” that might collapse under internal pressures. During the 1960s-70s, China labelled India as an “unnatural construct” destined to fragment, but it was more of a political messaging than a policy statement. After the Soviet and Yugoslav dissolutions, some Western academics used “Balkanization” analogies to discuss India’s diversity, yet none advocated partition. Günther Fehlinger who has very recently proposed “ExIndia” stands out as the first explicit public call, by a Western activist for India’s total breakup.
Mr Gunther Fehlinger is an Austrian activist and economist. His recent claim to fame is his series of messages and a colour-coded map which he tweeted on his X account on 5 September 2025, calling for “dismantling” of India into what he termed “ExIndia,”. The reaction in New Delhi was as expected and his account was promptly blocked. A social media firestorm erupted around this incendiary claim.
Günther Fehlinger, who has very recently proposed “ExIndia” stands out as the first explicit public call, by a Western activist for India’s total breakup.
The “Balkanization” template, shares the map, dividing India into roughly twenty or more entities; detaching the Sikh-majority region as “Khalistan,” transferring Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan, giving the northeast to various autonomous formations, and assigning north eastern areas to Bangladesh and Nepal or to freestanding units. The concept’s headline is not administrative devolution but dissolution, recommending a post-India rearrangement modelled on how Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Fehlinger’s call to dismantle India came from his conviction that New Delhi has turned into a strategic obstacle to the Western camp rather than a partner. In his view, India betrayed the ideals of the “Free World” by openly doing business with Russia, buying its oil, and refusing to condemn Moscow’s war in Ukraine. He considers India, an immoral coward. To him, India’s alliance with BRICS and its cooperation with China strengthen anti-Western blocs that challenge NATO and the trans-Atlantic order, which he champions himself. Fehlinger also points to Hindu nationalist politics and rising curbs on dissent as proof that India is no longer a liberal democracy but a hard-right state drifting closer to Moscow and Beijing, arguing that only by breaking India into smaller friendlier states, can the West “restore democracy” and limit Russian-Chinese influence, a claim born less from reasoned geopolitics than from his figment of own thought.
History however has manifested time and again that ideas once dismissed as madness, often end up reshaping nations. Time elapsed however had varied. Empires like the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian, collapsed after ignoring early nationalist movements, while Lenin’s self-determination theory broke both the Tsarist and Soviet empires. Iqbal’s vision of Pakistan, mocked as a fantasy, became reality in 1947. The supposedly indestructible USSR and Yugoslavia disintegrated, and even South Sudan and Czechoslovakia emerged from ideas once thought, but not bought. Time and again, history proves that when grievance, identity, and resolve align, even the most ridiculed visions can redraw the world’s map.
However, Fehlinger’s proposal is fraught with political, legal, and ethical flaws that make it impossible for the world to treat it seriously. It seems to be a personal outburst magnified by social media. It violates the UN Charter’s principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty, inviting dangerous precedents for foreign interference in sovereign states. With no framework for governance or peacekeeping, it can trigger wars, refugee flows, and nuclear instability across South Asia. The proposal also highlights ignorance of regional complexities, forcing diverse ethnic and religious groups into arbitrary borders. Economically, it can wreck one of the world’s largest markets, disrupt global supply chains, and harm Western interests contradicting Fehlinger’s own pro-Western rhetoric.
Given the fault lines, it becomes obvious why there is no official reaction from Pakistan to Fehlinger’s proposal. But a part of it certainly resonates with its take on India being a regional bully. Farcical, frivolous or even far-fetched, Fehlinger’s proposal can be, but it has certainly brought to the table two interesting facts. One, the claim that India poses a threat to the “Free World,” a stance Pakistan has consistently maintained; and two, that for the first time, a Western voice has publicly gone as far as suggesting India’s fragmentation. Even India’s staunchest critics may reject the proposal’s feasibility, but they can endorse its core argument, that India’s current path endangers global peace. The BJP government, inspired by the RSS’s Nazi-style ideology, has modelled itself on modern Israel, where religious nationalism drives policy. Despite vast differences in scale and size, India and Israel share a common mindset, both using faith as political weaponry, suppressing minorities, and relying on Western alliances for protection. Together they represent two states pursuing dominance through religious hegemony, one vast in size, and the other small but equally uncompromising in creed.
Fehlinger’s “ExIndia” controversy as of now, only reopens a window of opportunity for us to again shift global focus onto Kashmir, asserting that India’s claims of unity actually mask internal divisions. Pakistan can bring India’s human rights issues back into the spotlight at international fora. Instead, of even considering a focus on Fehlinger’s proposal of ExIndia, promoting rights-based advocacy for restoration of Occupied Kashmir’s past status and restoration of the Indus Water Treaty, is a more viable option. This can also prevent Pakistan from exposing its own instabilities like insurgency in Baluchistan and KPK to open international debate. South Asia also cannot afford further territorial divisions making a much-needed consensus on important issues, more elusive to achieve. Major global powers are also likely to uphold principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty, rejecting forced disintegration. Thus, Pakistan should remain focused on highlighting how unresolved disputes and marginalised communities contribute to regional instability, steering the debate towards justice and inclusivity.
The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at zulfiqar.shirazi @gmail.com