I must side with some of the concerns from the comment section, that I am confused with your stance on this topic. I can, however, go both ways on this topic. I accept and would hope that your next set of arguments paints a better picture as to your stance.
From what I can tell, you seem to suggest that every region should not have the right to independent statehood (I'll say Sovereignty) on the grounds that it could cause them to have to go to war, that they have no guarantee of a proper government system afterwards, and that their unity or sense of nationalism might be damaged in some way.
Please correct me if these are not the points you were trying to convey. Ill gladly listen to whatever further arguments you may want to add and will make my rebuttals in round 2.
Sorry, i couldn't convey my view clearly, but I was in a hurry. Sovereignty is a part of nearly every democratic country, but what I mean to say is partitioning of states (like the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh division) could have also been dealt in better ways. Let"s focus on the Andhra-Telangana issue. If the government of India or the ruling party of Andhra had looked into the matter and tried to bring the state together and worked with the people of Telangana, the partition wouldn't have been necessary. We can always work through our problems if we have the will and we do our best. If given this right, people can also divide a state into many for different religions, chaste and for other different reasons. Enmity between states (like the Kaveri Dispute between Karnataka and Tamilnadu) can also take place which as I said above is why the unity of India (in this case) would be at stake.