Are Small and Homogeneous States More Prosperous?

[Pappa Alpha]

If India had to gobble BD, then 1971 was the opportune time. Why would India try to take an unwilling population when we reap the benefits of good friendship with BD?

Then you would had created another Kashmir like situation and would had to dedicate tons of troops and resources there as well. Simply not possible.

 

[untitled]

We could have accelerated the process but the fault lines are clearly still there and even more prominent during the BJP rule

The fault lines have always been there but with BJP coming to power the upper castes and Brahmins have pretty much solidified there grip on power in India. There interests are the glue which holds India together. They are also the people which you are most likely to run into in the west and are the face of contemporary India. Without an external catalyst the lower castes are pretty much happy with the status quo

 

[magra]

Then you would had created another Kashmir like situation and would had to dedicate tons of troops and resources there as well. Simply not possible.

Yes, so why do you think such a situation wont happen in future. It is much better to be working as an ally of BD than to try to gobble BD.

 

[untitled]

If India had to gobble BD, then 1971 was the opportune time. Why would India try to take an unwilling population when we reap the benefits of good friendship with BD?

The disolving of Pakistan will give India another oppurtune time to gobble up Bangladesh. This time with an eager ruling party in power. Just because you gave up on the first opportunity, you will give up on the second too.

Afterall the Hindutva gang is already eyeing territory from Arabia to Indonesia and Bangladesh is India's backyard. For now a prosperous Bangladesh actually serves India well for propaganda purposes even if they happen to overtake India

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Yes, so why do you think such a situation wont happen in future. It is much better to be working as an ally of BD than to try to gobble BD.

you cannot gobble up BD while still holding Kashmir. That was my point. Comprehend! It's not because you chose to, it's because it's not realistically possible.

The fault lines have always been there but with BJP coming to power the upper castes and Brahmins have pretty much solidified there grip on power in India. There interests are the glue which holds India together. They are also the people which you are most likely to run into in the west and are the face of contemporary India. Without an external catalyst the lower castes are pretty much happy with the status quo

Disagreed. Fascism always leads to external and/or internal events that change the status quo. Fascism is not an equilibrium state for any country. The status quo always changes in such cases.

 

[untitled]

you cannot gobble up BD while still holding Kashmir. That was my point. Comprehend! It's not because you chose to, it's because it's not realistically possible.

It is now possible. With a carefully planned genocide in (Bangladesh and Kashmir) and the west looking the other way. And ofcourse Pakistan not being in the picture. Pakistan has to be dealt with first

 

[Pappa Alpha]

It is now possible. With a carefully planned genocide and the west looking the other way. And ofcourse Pakistan not being in the picture. Pakistan has to be dealt with first

*sigh* India has bigger problems than Pakistan now due to their outstanding foreign policy in the previous decade.

 

[untitled]

*sigh* India has bigger problems than Pakistan now due to their outstanding foreign policy in the previous decade.

So did most fascist states. And how did they all divert attention. Yes by attacking their neighbours

Disagreed. Fascism always leads to external and/or internal events that change the status quo. Fascism is not an equilibrium state for any country. The status quo always changes in such cases.

And we aren't the ones calling the shots in India's domestic affairs no matter how much they like to blame ISI. Any stupid move by them will be entirely their own doing will badly effect us (and the region)

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Fascism is not an equilibrium state for any country. The status quo always changes in such cases.

This is true. Fascism as a political ideology is not stable - based on hate and lies, more hate and lies, besides violence. Former Indian senior military officers pushed false news stories about Afghanistan to maintain an ideological position, while the ruling party persecutes those questioning the false narratives. This cannot be sustained indefinitely.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Everyone is an expert on Indian domestic politics except Indians. Throw some terms like Kahalistan and North East, claims like India is breaking up by 2025.

Unfortunately for you, such a balkanization is not possible for mainly two reason. One : Nationalism among the masses, that is irrespective of their States, the number of Nationalists outweigh the regionalists.
Second : Economic integration and interstate migration, Gujaratis are the most industrious they come to Mumbai or Bangalore and build their Unicorns and be successful. Employs South Indians and North East, while south India provides employment opportunities to the same North and North East Indians.

Authoritarian regimes have a history of breaking up, but democracies rarely do.

 

[arjunk]

Much like the EU is Germany bullying everyone else, this South Asian union would end up being Punjab or the Cow Belt bullying everyone else.

Besides, if you've seen the state of places like interior Sindh and Balochistan, they will be overrun with terrorism, poverty and crime like African countries.

You will also face the nightmare of dividing assets like 1947 (except literally 20 times worse). Most importantly, who would the 220+ nukes of South Asia go to? If it will be a denuclearised region then there will be 24/7 war and some empire might emerge, and if nukes are split evenly between every state not only would the international community go crazy and slap sanctions on each and every one of them, but there's also the possibility of some jaahil moron starting a nuclear war (prime suspects are a TLP fanatic launching nukes at Paris or Tel Aviv, or some dumb tribal elder blowing up a city of 1 million+ because his daughter ran away with a man from there).

South Asia is currently at its most peaceful state in history. Perhaps if some Muslim/Sikh regions gained independence from India or merged with Pakistan/Bangladesh it would be more peaceful. Currently the best solution for Pakistan is to divide/merge provinces further and give large cities greater autonomy.

 

[313ghazi]

Are small and ethnically homogenous states more prosperous as compared to large and diverse states? By prosperity, I mean lower crime rate, less internal tensions, more accountability of leaders and so on.

I have seen lot of people proposing solution of the Kashmir problem and thinking that peace can be achieved after its solution. In my opinion, the only lasting solution for South Asia is balkanization of India and possibly Pakistan into smaller states. This will allow local accountability of each region while denying the corrupt to use ethnic card. This will also eliminate or reduce the threat of spoilers and possibly an EU like organization can emerge.

Feel free to share your opinion on this.

Note that the two nation theory still holds in this case as well:

"That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute 'independent states' in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign. "

Yes, I know of some very large states which are epic fails.

America, Russia, Canada, China - all pathetic.

Multi-ethnic States cannot succeed either. Britain for example has Welsh, Celts, Normans, Saxons and it is a disgrace.

The Turks had this poor excuse of an empire covering only areas direct descendents of Ertugrul lived in.

Another example is Malaysia, loads of Malays and Chinese confusing each other. Singapore is also another failed project.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

America, Russia, Canada, China - all pathetic.

Multi-ethnic States cannot succeed either. Britain for example has Welsh, Celts, Normans, Saxons and it is a disgrace.

All of these countries were essentially homogeneous or had homogeneous authority during their rise.
Also empires usually have absolute authority, you cannot play ethnic cards with that authority and expect to carry on. That's one of the reasons empires collapse with time due to growing dissent in different parts of the empire.

Authoritarian regimes have a history of breaking up, but democracies rarely do.

Good point. India is heading towards (or has already reached some level of) authoritarianism and it is not just my opinion. Multiple articles on this available. Thanks for the indirect agreement.

 

[313ghazi]

All of these countries were essentially homogeneous or had homogeneous authority during their rise.
Also empires usually have absolute authority, you cannot play ethnic cards with that authority and expect to carry on. That's one of the reasons empires collapse with time due to growing dissent in different parts of the empire.


Good point. India is heading towards (or has already reached some level of) authoritarianism and it is not just my opinion. Multiple articles on this available. Thanks for the indirect agreement.

Would you argue the difference is authority not ethnicity or size?

 

[Maula Jatt]

Why are you getting on worked up and trying to coax India's balkanization. India is happy with being united. You get divided if you want.

lol I don't know why would I get so worked up?
me saying, not saying anything on this topic would have zero impact on anything...
A public forum so I was pointing out the issue don't know the issue here

Authoritarian regimes have a history of breaking up, but democracies rarely do.

All other things are kinda bs and can be argued against
but this is something I agree with (authoritarian regimes work great in homogenous populations- not so much with multi-ethnic ones)