Are Small and Homogeneous States More Prosperous?

[Indus Pakistan]

His maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was an American-born Canadian,[10][11] and Musk has British and Pennsylvania Dutch [Ameerican] ancestry.[12][13]

 

[Maula Jatt]

99% Americans are immigrants or scions of immigrant.

Immigrants have their own culture at home which can help or not help

so its partly his cultural heritage too

His maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was an American-born Canadian,[10][11] and Musk has British and Pennsylvania Dutch [Ameerican] ancestry.[12][13]

wasn't he Saffer?

 

[Progressive1]

solution to south asia is balkanization of india into small states and these states living as vassal states of Pakistan and China, this will solve like 90% problems of south asia.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Just give power to union council. "All politics is eventually local".
Hence, devolution of power is needed, and not necessarily country. For instance, UP can b split into 10 provinces. Heck Afghanistan has 30-40, Italy has same amount of provinces.

Afghanistan is another example of a nonhomogeneous troubled state.

 

[EasyNow]

Small homogenous States will probably work great for Punjab, Sindh - I e States with strong natural resources, decent levels of education, high levels of remittances. One can see those states flourishing in every respect.

But for others like Balochistan and KPK. it'll be disastrous. They will likely descend into dictatorships or full feudal rule. They will also become vulnerable to annexation by stronger neighbours.

So there are 2 main problems I can see. Firstly useless, weak neighbours will pose a security threat to the more successful States.

And secondly, Pak society is not ready to let their former countrymen starve.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Small homogenous States will probably work great for Punjab, Sindh - I e States with strong natural resources, decent levels of education, high levels of remittances. One can see those states flourishing in every respect.

But for others like Balochistan and KPK. it'll be disastrous. They will likely descend into dictatorships or full feudal rule. They will also become vulnerable to annexation by stronger neighbours.

So there are 2 main problems I can see. Firstly useless, weak neighbours will pose a security threat to the more successful States.

And secondly, Pak society is not ready to let their former countrymen starve.

I would argue that Balochistan can become even more prosperous than Sindh due to its wealth of natural resources, strategic location and lower population (easier accountability). KPK also has fair amount of resources, good levels of remittances and is one of the few gateways to Central Asia.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

So, in my opinion the solution of the Kashmir issue is not splitting Kashmir into 2 or 3 parts (that will not solve the underlying problem) but rather splitting India and Pakistan into different parts.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Small homogenous States will probably work great for Punjab, Sindh - I e States with strong natural resources, decent levels of education, high levels of remittances. One can see those states flourishing in every respect.

But for others like Balochistan and KPK. it'll be disastrous. They will likely descend into dictatorships or full feudal rule. They will also become vulnerable to annexation by stronger neighbours.

So there are 2 main problems I can see. Firstly useless, weak neighbours will pose a security threat to the more successful States.

And secondly, Pak society is not ready to let their former countrymen starve.

Pakistani states are dependent on each other for their basic of economic needs, happened because its a-one river system so knowing history- they become dependent on each other, b-not a lot of natural barriers, that's why this river system converted on mass to the same religion as their interactions, cultures etc intermingled with each other so same religion spread - like look at the saints who were responsible for conversions- you can mostly trace them back to some province in Pakistan (talking about Pak case don't know about rest of the SC)

People think Islam became main religion because its right next to west asia, well partly true but reason it spread vertically and not horizontally was mainly because Indus is vertical not horizontal- suggesting the role river systems play in intermingling of societies

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

States should have more independent authority, translating into pride and support for their people. People should not and never have to run from their states to become refugees in another state. Independence in the Indian context is unrelated to two nation theory [the number of Muslims in the state]. We are ancient people. Most States in India even if they were independent and 100% Muslim would identify with India as inclusive part of their identity [Pakistan doesn't]. If Bihar was independent and 100% Muslim it would have Urdu and Hindi as official languages [as it does now], it would historically identify with the foundation of ancient India [on the Indus], and with ancient Indian empires on the Ganges including Ayodhya, Maurya, Nanda, Gupta, and with later Indian empires Delhi and Mughal.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

States should have more independent authority, translating into pride and support for their people. People should not and never have to run from their states to become refugees in another state. Independence in the Indian context is unrelated to two nation theory [the number of Muslims in the state]. We are ancient people. Most States in India even if they were independent and 100% Muslim would identify with India as inclusive part of their identity [Pakistan doesn't]. If Bihar was independent and 100% Muslim it would have Urdu and Hindi as official languages [as it does now], it would historically identify with the foundation of ancient India [on the Indus], and with ancient Indian empires on the Ganges including Ayodhya, Maurya, Nanda, Gupta, and with later Indian empires Delhi and Mughal.

Well, two nation theory and lack of multiple states in SA are interlinked. I don't think we would even be discussing it had India not existed as a Hindu majority state. It was put in place because of the foresight of Muslim leaders about the possible condition of Muslims in a Hindu ruled country. Also, as I mentioned in my original post, two nation theory and idea of multiple states in SA are not incompatible.

 

[Goenitz]

Afghanistan is another example of a nonhomogeneous troubled state.

I just highlighted AFG bcz of high number of provinces. The trouble is due to various reasons.

 

[nautilaceae]

Small and homogenous is easier to govern, but prosperity is not a given. Depends on many factors. Everyone would love to be a Kuwait or Qatar.

 

[doorstar]

Pretty much every small island country is poor

tell him the name of most diverse and the wealthiest nation on the planet

 

[CatSultan]

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. "

States with more Assabiyah are prosperous. Ibn Khaldun described as group feeling which can be Ethnocentrecism, Nationalism or Anything else. Ibn Khaldun said that the sahaba's assabiyah was based off of Islam and that is why they where powerful. When two groups go to war the one with greater Assabiyah will always win regardless of numbers or anything else. A country that is based on ethnicity is not good because every ethnicity will go away. Whereas wherever their are Muslims, Pakistan will always exist.

 

[doorstar]

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. "

that is what ajeet doval tells Blochis, Sindhis and Pukhtuns