Are Small and Homogeneous States More Prosperous?

[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. "

How bout we do greater Pakistan empire. Problem solved.

 

[Nyayadhikari]

How bout we do greater Pakistan empire. Problem solved.

View attachment 778066

Why have you spared Kerala ? Don't you want their emancipation too? They must be so disappointed.

 

[CatSultan]

Why have you spared Kerala ? Don't you want their emancipation too? They must be so disappointed.

They can stay independent so that we don't appear to op

70-80%- He was an immigrant

Yeah but it was the American Free market, skilled labor force and infastructure that allowed him to succeed. America runs on immigrants. It takes the smart people of other countries and they create job opportunities for everyone else.

 

[KaiserX]

A better question could be can a diverse society be made homogenous over time?

Short answer is yes... infact every homogenous society at one point was different before be unified. A perfect modern example is ISRAEL. If Israel stays the way it is today within the next 100 years it will become homogeneous. Hebrew was practically an extinct language 100 years ago yet today its the lingua franca of Israel taught to ethnic groups ranging from russians to ethiopians (in ISRAEL).

Also it depends on how you define your nation... Pakistan is not defined by ethnicity as most modern nation-states, its defined by being an ISLAMIC republic. Can Pakistans many different ethnicities become homogenous over time? YES, if continued effort is made to make URDU a singular language then in 50 years every child from balochistan to kashmir will speak urdu by age 3. It depends on your mindset.

Even today tell me which Baloch, pathan, sindhi, kashmiri, punjabi (within PAKISTAN) cannot communicate in or read in urdu??? extremely rarely to find even in remote villages.

Very different from India were even south indians or bengalis will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE IN HINDI.

This is perhaps the most stupid thread I have seen in a while... the simplest route is to bow the western/european concept of nation-state that they came up after thousands of years of killing eachother in europe and now want to preach to the rest of the world...the hardest route is to use your willpower as Israel, China, and America have done (diverse societies that become homogenous through idea/language)

 

[KaiserX]

How bout we do greater Pakistan empire. Problem solved.

View attachment 778066

No thanks Id rather not deal with the burden of 1.5 billion Gangedeshis. I am fine with Kashmir and punjab. Let them dwell in peace in the rest for all I care.

 

[CatSultan]

No thanks Id rather not deal with the burden of 1.5 billion Gangedeshis. I am fine with Kashmir and punjab. Let them dwell in peace in the rest for all I care.

they will be colonies. Can't come to the mainland without a Visa

 

[magra]

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.

Difference is that Kashmir chose to accede to India (signed the paper) and BD did not. If BD wants to merge into India, we may consider.

 

[KaiserX]

Difference is that Kashmir chose to accede to India (signed the paper) and BD did not. If BD wants to merge into India, we may consider.

Kashmir did not choose to accede to India. Its British implanted Maharaj did. Once you understand the difference you are 90% there beta

 

[magra]

Kashmir did not choose to accede to India. Its British implanted Maharaj did. Once you understand the difference you are 90% there beta

That was the route for accession by all princely states as per the independence act.

 

[KaiserX]

That was the route for accession by all princely states as per the independence act.

Then why a different standard for hyderabad?

 

[magra]

Then why a different standard for hyderabad?

Hyderabad was not contiguous to Pakistan so cannot merge with Pak.
Hyderabad's population wanted merger with India.

In case of Kashmir, its regime acceded to India. Its population led by Sheikh Abdullah was also supportive of the move.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

That is backward. In fact, US became much greater when European diversity came. Before that, it was largely a rural country with a small economy. The strength of US was the liberty it upheld, which allowed people from different background to strive with the best of their ability. Then people work together to better their lives. They naturally downplayed their differences or at least try to push them aside. After all, a dollar from a black is as good as a dollar from a white. That is why US is called melting pot. It doesn't focus on racial/cultural differences, like multi-culturalism does. It melts everyone into the same mentality, so called American dream.

Of course, there are many American politicians that do the opposite, especially those Democrats. They want to play the racial and cultural cards to trick people to give them power. They are the champion of institutionalized racism both in the time of slavery and now.

It was the vision of the Founding Fathers represented in the great Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of America that made it happen which in turn was based on the values of Western enlightenment thinkers founded on the belief in God and the rights of people. At the foundation though they didn't consider blacks as human and women weren't equal.

 

[Silverblaze]

Kashmir did not choose to accede to India. Its British implanted Maharaj did. Once you understand the difference you are 90% there beta

Why do you even bother to engage with hindutvadis on Kashmir. They know they have no claim on it especially after asking for partition of Punjab and Bengal. If hindus of Punjab and Bengal didnt want to live in muslim Pakistan why should the Kashmiri muslman being contiguous to Pakistan live with hindu majority india?

Their so called leader/poodle sheikh abdullah had zero seats in the legislature and muslim conference that had 15 out 21 muslim seats acceded to Pakistan along with the socialist party of kashmir.

If they talk of legal accession - they must handover junagadh and munavdar to Pakistan, it would be nice to have a missile base there, pointed straight to their central/south hinterland.

Our mistake was that our leadership was clueless on Kashmir from day one and should have exchanged it for Hyderabad and Junagadh, but it does not change the fact that india is occupying Kashmir.. simple.

 

[nang2]

At the foundation though they didn't consider blacks as human and women weren't equal.

Maybe some of them, not all of them. Otherwise, we cannot explain why the Quakers were the champion against slavery. As of women not being equal, it is a common mistake from reading bible literally.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Maybe some of them, not all of them. Otherwise, we cannot explain why the Quakers were the champion against slavery. As of women not being equal, it is a common mistake from reading bible literally.

I was not talking about individuals and Quakers. The founding fathers and the mainstream position in American society were for slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves and he was one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 which states that all men are created equal. They meant all white men. American women didn't get the right to vote till just 100 years ago.