States are formed by the gathering of organized institutions under one roof on pieces of land whose borders have been determined; we can say briefly, while homeland, according to many people, is said to be formed by a Nation or a People through bloodshed, by fighting, or by being won or taken back through an absolute resistance.
Both of these definitions are the result of very crippled perspectives. According to these definitions, many countries in the world have been established peacefully through referendums, but according to people who look from this perspective, they are called statelets. In other words, war and blood have become a condition for people to live freely and in peace.
If you ask whether it is worse to remain without a homeland or without a state, I think both are much better than having a homeland acquired with blood and a state founded with war.
These days, the escape of people who do not want to be Taliban citizens is the clearest indicator of this situation. It can be understood from here that blood has not brought peace to anyone and will not bring it, just like this country, which the Turks founded on Kurdish Blood a thousand years ago, has never reached peace...