Is it Time for a United South Asia?

1) How old are you?
2) If you are above 28 years, what are you smoking?

I have nothing more to add after reading this ridiculous post.

Here is a suggestion - why don't you start a rock band? You will be an instant hit among the teens. You can start your show with the rendition of the John Lennon song - "Imagine".

Regards,

Yes, an akhand Bharat!! Sign me up dude. By the way, have you checked with the mullahs in Pakistan and B'desh, the Taliban in Afghanistan and other countries like Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, or will this Marxist akhand Bharat be forced down their throats by their Indian big brother?

I wonder how many generations will it take to accept partition, move on and live with that reality, instead of dreaming about some united utopia bringing peace about?

The kind of talent that Desicritics attracts is amazing. This great man is now talking of "GREAT SOUTH ASIA"
[EDITED]

Pakistan and its military establishment have been looking for a way out of having to fight the jihadi offspring they created. They've only been fighting them reluctantly because of US pressure. By staging this attack on India, now Pakistan can quickly argue that it needs to reinforce a tenser border with India, and so it can't spare any troops to fight the war on terror anymore. Both AlQaeda and Pakistan would mutually benefit from not having to fight each other anymore. There's certainly a possibility they've collaborated towards this goal.

The main point here is "leap of faith".
The economic advantages are too obvious.
There may be too many national borders allowing all the mischief and mayhem in South Asia.
As violent idealogies require violence for their existence, separatist and terrorist organisations in South Asia will find the ground slipped out of their feet with no separate countries with their national definitions and agendas to protect in the name of cross-border "moral" support.

@kaffir, this is not akhand bharat concept to nullify the partition of 1947 but a practical way to kill the terror idealogy hiding behind national pride as well as a way out of jammu and kashmir bear-hug.

@Chitrakut, things are always imagined before they become reality, starting from the establishment of a british colony in india, to the independence of colonies after WW2, the end of apartheid, the fall of berlin wall,the dalit emancipation, formation of the EU across nations which were blood thirsty for each other not even half a century ago, why even the election of the US President-elect Barack Obama was a imagination before it came into existence? On a black note, even terror idealogues imagine their worst attacks before it comes into fruition.

It's unfortunate that people are so eager and quick to shoot down ideas and suggestions and resort to personal attacks even without thinking or offering any logical criticism. However, given the tragic events of the past few days, it would be extremely difficult for people to think coolly and rationally.

Ganadeva, your idea is very admirable and I respect you for coming up with such thoughts even in this tense, poisonous atmosphere; however it is a bit too far fetched and utopian right now; there are too many people for whom this "leap of faith" is unthinkable.

Intolerance and hate have to be put aside first; and in most parts of the subcontinent this is rising gradually; primarily because of religion, socio-economic imbalance and lack of education.

You have to go back to the roots of partition in 1947 - a large section of Muslims could not think of peaceful co-existence with Hindus, hence they separated. This was more to do with the lack of political power the Muslims would have in a United India. They probably wanted a return to the Mughal days.

However, this divide has never been overcome by people on both sides. Also, since there is so much poverty and illiteracy in all South Asian countries, this provides fertile ground for religious intolerance, violence, regionalism and chauvinism to take root and grow.

I think, for this "South Asian Union" to be possible, we need a HIGHER CRITICAL MASS of rational, educated, economically well off people to be present in ALL South Asian countries, who realize the abject futility of blind faith, war, terrorism and violence; who consign history to the dustbin, and who look to the future, understand the fruits of peaceful co-existence and co-operation and move ahead with effective inter-dependence. (Climate change and global warming is something which may force South Asian countries to come together and co-operate)
The key therefore is WIDESPREAD EDUCATION and GOOD ECONOMY.

Or else, there is a second and more painful way of understanding this - the one that Europe had to go through from 1914 till 1945.. Maybe the South Asian region will go through a massive, terrible war with a lot of destruction and millions dying - only then the survivors will be racked with guilt and will realize the stupidity of violence and hate - and then will resolve to live peacefully and make the region rise like a Phoenix from the ashes..
Unfortunately most humans have a preference for hate, violence, death and destruction -- and maybe the second way will chillingly play out, given the "lack of faith" in so many people, some even on this Comments board..

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

Hi Ayan,

Thanks for the constructive discussion.

Would want to point out that among the Mughals there is a distinct non-Aurangzeb and a Aurangzeb phase. Without any doubt, he was one of the most violent rulers, who did not hesitate to assasinate his brothers and incarcerate his father in the rush for throne and power.

During the reign of Aurangzeb there was popular uprisings all over the place, notably the long festering one of the sikhs under their line of gurus in the north and arguably the most successful guerrilla war led and inspired by Chhatrapati Shivaji in the south. The net result of this constant war was a weakening of the economic, social and military structure leading to the gradual ingress of European colonial powers.

There were widespread Hindu and Muslim men-of-war irrespective of the religion of the particular ruler. This was true both for Aurangzeb and his opponents.

As late as the first war of independence in 1857, the Hindus and Muslims have fought shoulder to shoulder against the cunning moves of East India Company.

The sense of inferiority complex due to numbers was may be due to a lack of understanding of the way a democracy would function after the British left. This may have been a fear of leaders openly going by religious identities while the British were there.

However the split of Pakistan in recent history has disproved without doubt that numerical majority of religious followers does not isolate them from the same human fallacies that lead to political fightings and greed for power.

Also if the peace-loving people do not take the cudgels to end a politics linked to religion as a means of securing votes and hence an approximation of 1:1 for 1 vote for each person professing a particular faith, who will?

As it is the path of spiritual awakening is difficult in any religion, on top of that all these fights for political power and money will only lead to further death and destruction. Large number of security advancements will not help unless we confront the fear in our hearts and successfully overcome it.

things are always imagined before they become reality....

Quoted for truth.

I first read of the idea of a united "Pak-India" in a science fiction novel written in 1951 - Ballroom of the Skies by John D. MacDonald when reversing the then recent partition of the Sub-Continent might have been imaginable - and the idea has always bounced around in my head.

Of course, MacDonald's fictional "Pak-India" had all the imperial arrogance that the United States and Britain had in 1951, and the author's comment within the story, "Indians always seem to imagine that if they scream at you loud enough you will comprehend them," was a nasty reversal of the British attitude I had read about in India....

I suspect that many Indians and many Pakistanis would like to see their countries re-united again, and that Ganadeva Bandyopadhyay's idea is far more resonant in the minds of millions living in the Sub-Continent than might appear immediately.

Ruvy

There is something called Stockholm Syndrome. This article is a variant of the Stockholm Syndrome.....

Stockholm syndrome is not true for this article because there is no sympathy for terrorists but an attempt to eliminate their hiding places in the grey areas of national definitions.

kaffir:

""I wonder how many generations will it take to accept partition, move on and live with that reality, instead of dreaming about some united utopia bringing peace about?""

to be human is to be utopian ie. to imagine, conceptualize something befor actually setting abuot to do it. I am sure when you wrote your comment, you did not actually write it first and thought about it later. no, it was the other way around. same with almost every human action we take. partition was also imagined as a utopia before it became an unfortunate reality or dystopia. utopia is a basic human condition.

Good article, but I don't think that the time is ripe for a common SAARC country. Pakistan was created because the Muslims of this subcontinent wanted a country of their own. After partition, Pakistan has become even more Islamic. Even Bangladesh shows more signs of Islamic fundamentalism. Secular India is a lot less secular than it used to be. To have a common SAARC country, we need large agnotic/atheist populations in all the SAARC countries. Also, the elites of the smaller countries must not feel that they will be de-elitised. For example, if Sri Lanka joins this SAARC nation, will Sri Lanka be swamped with Indian goods? If yes, you can be sure that the power elites in Sri Lanka will scuttle any move towards unifying this region.

@vinod joseph: "...power elites in Sri Lanka will scuttle any move towards unifying this region..."

The nail has been hit on the head. the borders are drawn according to where the selfish interests of the power elites reach a neutral point. this will be defined in numbers of religious followers for some case or in terms of ethnicity and language for some others.

The primary advantage still remains the elimination of any single national definition having grey areas which restrict advantages to majority of the people.

Besides as poor people, we may be paying a heavy cost already in terms of separate embassies and consulates, separate military and political setups and all the paraphernalia that goes with it.

If there is a theory doing greater good to poor peoples than just a few power elites why not try for it?

Pfft, Ruvy, why don't you work on "United Israel-Palestine with Jerusalem as a Common Capital"

Uhh, let us know how that works out for you. :P
You can call it Oslo-II if you like.
Or even NevilleChamberlain-II, if that floats your boat.

After all the pizzerias are bombed out from under you, then you can start a kosher takeout delivery service, since everyone will be too afraid to venture outdoors.

Good luck with building your Castles in the Sky.
I hear there's a Promised Land waiting up in those fluffy clouds.
Glad to see you're committed to getting everyone there faster.

Pfft, Ruvy, why don't you work on "United Israel-Palestine with Jerusalem as a Common Capital"

Uhh, let us know how that works out for you. :P
You can call it Oslo-II if you like.
Or even NevilleChamberlain-II, if that floats your boat.

After all the pizzerias are bombed out from under you, then you can start a kosher takeout delivery service, since everyone will be too afraid to venture outdoors.

Good luck with building your Castles in the Sky.
I hear there's a Promised Land waiting up in those fluffy clouds.
Glad to see you're committed to getting everyone there faster and more efficiently. :P

commonsense, your generic answer to a specific comment I made does not wash with me. I like to live in the present and with the reality, instead of a utopian vision that's rooted in guilt or sadness of 1947.

If conditions on the ground are ripe, maybe a South Asian federation will happen, maybe not. To me, that's not a pre-condition for peace or prosperity. Feel free to quote the other part of my comment (which you didn't) and respond to it. :-)

@kaffir: the mullahs and other elements mentioned in a previous post live in the grey areas of national definitions doing outwardly normal activities in their nations and inspiring cowardly acts of outright violence in others. The myopically anticipated ability to use such elements to reduce threat perceptions prevents their unravelling.
"...conditions on the ground are ripe..." somewhere implies that the power elites see a greater benefit to themselves and for their immediate people rather than immediately take the risk of a leap of faith.

Secondly as mentioned in another post, realities are dynamic and subject to whether we have the courage to take lessons from history.

@Sanjay-one benefit of the neville chamberlain approach and all such apparently failed approaches is the way that would not work , in a way similar to the quote from a famous scientist to use the large number of failures as a stepping stone to the miniscule probability of success.

But fact remains, unless someone tried to use imagination and the determination to go through "those" failed efforts nobody knows what "success" holds out in the future. It is in this respect that history offers us a powerful way to know such failed approaches and devise ideas to innovate. What else would be the difference between living individuals and individuals gloriously encased in photo frames? It is the ability to "do" things.

utopian fantasizing is an escapist vice. There are lots of things that are part of the human condition - like the desire to have one's cake and eat it too.
But ultimately reason and realism are supposed to overcome escapist fantasizing. Reality and laws of nature bend for no man.

The ill-named "commonsense" may try to romanticize utopian dreaming, but it's always pragmatism which wins the day. That's real common sense, not what I'm hearing here.

Sanjay:

""The ill-named "commonsense" may try to romanticize utopian dreaming...""

that's pretty ill-mannered of you...my parents were pretty healthy when they named me. go figure!

Sanjay,

It's been a long long time since anyone called me a leftwing deluded peacenik. Considering some of the other things I've been called here, it's almost a pleasure to read.

At the moment the South Asian Union proposed above does not appear possible. But do consider this. Events can move with the speed of an eyeblink.

Pakistan can quite suddenly fall apart.

In such an eventuality, India could allow the various states to the northwest to duke it out - or it could attempt to move in herself at the appropriate time, taking over the states she desired.

If India does nothing, someone else will move in and establish themselves as a power to be reckoned with.

Karachi could make a nice port for someone on the Indian Ocean, you know. A large country stretching over 10 or 11 time zones for example....

The question I see, Sanjay, is what happens if and when the Pakistani Hen drops her Egg Basket and keels over. Which Fox will be smart enough to seize it?

You are too wedded to an eternal Pakistan - and perhaps to an eternal Inida too. Americans made the deadly mistake of assuming the USSR would exist forever. Suddenly, quite suddenly in fact, it collapsed. It has taken a number of years for the Russian remnant to reassert herself as a viable and on-going concern, and the United States was slow in taking advantage of Russian weakness and did not act to attempt to make that weakness more permanent.

And now we see the results.

Nothing lasts forever, Sanjay. Not Rome, not America, not the USSR, not the Mughals, not the Chinese Empire, not Israel (certainly not the corrupt State that exists now!), and pardon me for saying this, not India either. Only the Eternal lasts forever.

So, even though I got my idea from a Ballroom of the Skies, I'm laying out a more practical approach here. From what I read of the consensus here of Desis, in the eventuality of the collapse of the Pakistani state, India will have to be pushed to take advantage to create a larger entity, and this delay will make it all the more bloody. But it is not for me to go into the specific issues.

As for Israel, I strongly suggest that you read this excellent essay in the magazine Nativ by Howard Grief, an attorney who lives here. He has written an entire book on the matter, and if you wish to see British perfidy detailed and documented page by page, buy his book of the same name at Amazon.com (the American site).

Chandra,

There is something called Stockholm Syndrome. This article is a variant of the Stockholm Syndrome.

That is your anger speaking, an anger and rage that is understandable considering what happened last week in your home city. I know how that rage feels too, all too well. But the bitch of it all is that no matter how angry one gets, one needs to look beyond today's desire for vengeance to tomorrow's solution of the problem.

In doing that, there are the "in the box" solutions that get bandied about so much in the mass media, and even on blog-sites; and then there is the "out of the box" solution presented in this article. As the situation stands at the moment, this idea is impossible to achieve. But as I pointed out to Sanjay, the macro reality can change in an eyeblink.

I managed to get hold of one of my colleagues in Mumbai last night (isn't the internet wonderful?!) and we had an interesting dicussion. The firm is up and running and I saw first hand some of that "never say die" Mumbaikar spirit I've read about here. It's truly inspiring and humbling as well.

My best wishes to all of you Mumbaikars reading this, and to all of those whose hearts are in Mumbai.

@Ruvy:"...the macro reality can change in an eyeblink..."

A political readiness to experiment positive and beneficial ideas is always challenging.

Who knows we may have a new father/mother of a new, bigger and more prosperous nation unshackled by the present-day borders reinforced by suspicions since colonial times?

The Partition of a populous country like pre- 1947 India on the basis of religion has to rank among the craziest, most insane plan that human beings have ever dreamed up. One million people carrying bag and baggage to cross a stupid, imagainary line on the earth's surface? One half going one way and the other half the other? leaving behind their land, houses, families!leaving their roots, their familiar places! On the basis of their personal belief about God? Crazy!

It makes me furious even to think of it. How could any idiot think it was a feasible, or a sensible solution? The harm it did to God knows how many people and families; the villages it destroyed, the crazy logistics and arrangements that were necessary to carry out such an insane plan,which were just not provided, the inevitable anger, rage, violence and bloodbath that would and did surround such a traumatic forced eviction....is it any wonder that partition is the great black hole of our two countries? No one likes to talk about that insane period, very little has been written about it and very few of the people who experienced it have actually experienced catharsis of their emotional content of that horrible period.

That is why I agree that we aren't ready for it. People react violently to the idea on both sides.

Still ( sigh), I can't help but feel that GB's suggestion of a united south Asia would be the perfect solution to all this stupid fratricide that is going on; a fratricide that we are so, so tired and weary over.


NB: As long as it is secular, strictly, with religion having NO place in government/ public life. NO religion column on any forms , and while we are about it, no caste, either. Wouldn't it be lovely? Sigh - I've been sighing a lot lately.

Religion needs to be confined to the seekers of spirituality and God and not misused by the seekers of political power in the name of religion.

Off-topic to present article and an out-of-box suggestion, it is quite possible that a bloody world war II may have given a heady and insensitive mood to the winning side that only bloody solutions were the best ones?

This Bimaru idea will remain a non-starter for number of reasons

1)It was Jehadi extremism that made Akhand Baharat Varsha fail. It is the same Jehadism that has made not-so-Akhand Bharat Varsha fail too. So out of frustration, some of you want to try to unite the Indian sub-continent. But until jehadism is neutralized, any notion of anything 'United' will fail too. And if Jehadism can be neutralized, than why would even Pakistan has to fail and why would it want to be part of united continent?

2) If Jehadism is a problem, you would want to remove it and isolate it from nation-state of India. Why would India merge with it? If India can not contain Jehadi terror even when it has isolated it in the form of Pakistan, why would it be able to contain when it is part and parcel of India? That is like giving a proverbial ladder to the monkey. They do not have to cross the sea illegally. They can simply walk right up to their targets and merge back into civilian sea.

3)If Pakistan and India suffer from soft state, how would that problem go away in a united India? The reason India has a soft state is because neither hindus, moslems, secualrists, leftists are able to monopolize state and make it stronger in their own ideological image. That problem will remain in United Indian subcontinent too. Nobody would be in a position to control and dominate the state in a united sub-continent, creating even softer state and vaccume only to be filled by outside powers - global sharks would be more than happy to make Indian sub-continent their fiefdom and colony once again. As it is, America needs to turn its global capitalism into colonial capitalism in order to revive its capitalism and power. American revivalism depends on colonial enslavement of world. Previous colonialism unraveled with India, it must revive with India. And anglo-indian stooges are more than ready. They have lined up all the ducks. They can't wait to have colonialism back in Indian sub-continent, Indian-subcontinent that is without a strong state of its own, which is just a land and population mass of geography and demography, devoid of any pesky culture, religion, nation or state - they fondly call it a wealth of their common global masters and Indians merely coolies.

4)Lets see who will be winners and losers

Hindus - They already have no say even in present day India. In united India, they would have even less say. There will be even more non-hindus to neutralize them. They will feel more alienated and frustrated. It would radicalize and militarize Hindus on the same line as Jehadis.

Moslems - they like to live Islam and live among fellow moslems. They reject secularism and westernism and modernism and integration. Jehadism thrives among moslems because of their resentment for not being able to practice purer form of Islam while living among non-moslems in a secular state. United India will make them even more insecure religiously and more angry - and politically more powerful too as their numbers will grow exponentially, hence their political clout. In stead of weakening jehadism, it will essentially empower and embolden it.

Secularists - In India, they have lost their mendate and credibility. They badly need to revive it. In United India, there will be new moral imperative and urgency to manage Jehadis and hindus. United India can not remain viable without secular management of competing religious interests. They will be a big winner.

Western powers - As described in point(3), the vaccume of power and state in united Indian will be filled by the global players. USA is ready to move in, like it did in Iraq and Pakistan. America needs a theater to take on China and remaining Asia. America also need India to revive its capitalism.

Bengalis - They dig colonialism and anything that is not of India. They can't get enough of it. They romanticize golden era of British colonialism. I think they have made it their religion. As long as it is not Indian, it is fine with them. Their tryst with regressive Islam and bankrupt communism have not left them disillusioned even after partition of Bengal into Bangladesh. They want more.

My comment: "...conditions on the ground are ripe..."

Your comment:
somewhere implies that the power elites see a greater benefit to themselves and for their immediate people rather than immediately take the risk of a leap of faith.


Sorry Ganadeva, you lost me there. Are you presenting your case using some ideological framework or a specific political theory? If so, then I'll have to plead ignorance.

This blog itself (and the comments here) is an excellent example - there's so little agreement among us on so many issues. When I see some signs of kerty and commonsense at a minimum acknowledging that the other person's point is relevant/valid (let alone agreeing with those points), till then it's all talk. :-)

So I fail to see how an imposition of a united South Asia will lead to peace and prosperity, and solving of our differences and problems.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse, and that kind of utopian imagination in all likelihood won't lead us anywhere and is a distraction from here-and-now. I'd be more interested in the idea if there were people from Sri Lanka, Nepal, B'desh and Pakistan who spoke about the same idea in big numbers and similar passion, but as is the case with the term "South Asian" it's 99.9% Indians who blow that bugle.

@kerty:possibly a discussion on akhand bharat may overtake the present article just because of its popularity for different reasons across the radcliffe line, however some attempt at judicious logic as follows
1)It is doubtful how much of a true democracy was practiced in British India, except as a policy to control political opposition to colonial occupation, hence nobody knows whether akhand bharat varsha or jehadi political concepts were really more popular with a hungry, poor and illiterate people or any possible alternative favoring national development. The concepts of nationhood as understood today were still in a formative state as frequently used in an argument against Tibet.
There is also the frequent under-estimation of the uphill task performed by leaders like Vallabh-bhai Patel in bringing the hundreds of princely states into a single political structure. Without that we may have been a land of million mutinies divided by our common ethics and inability to learn from history.
Compared to that, the political situation is undoubtedly stable and less complicated now.

2) The very fact that mixing of religion with politics combined with compulsions of national definitions have given rise to jehadists is the very reason why any state needs to delink religion from governance. Remember that a common religion was not enough to save the original definition of Pakistan from getting split, all accusations of Indo-Bangla complicity notwithstanding.

3) The strongest nation in all history, namely the US has got a multi-cultural democracy and dealing with definitions of minority, slavery, etc. in a constructive and non-religious manner. The definitions of religious minority and majority have cause a slotting of people within the respective countries to express certain behaviour. It is basically a confusion of knowing what religion is. It is not a means of political power but for search on spiritual path which is a very individual matter.

3) The challenge is of developing a political definition which allows the political idealogies working at cross-purposes to co-exist for development of the peoples rather than for continuing in political power and history books. If greater good is in developing better and stronger political structures, why not try for it?

4)Hindus,Moslems- going by stereotypes will not help. People need to be educated enough to separate a weakling trying to go into power by emotional blackmail over religious faith and doing nothing for cleaning the drains or building roads. Also remember it is not enough to "live" in a particular religion but to make spiritual progress. Such a progress will not come if there is only an attempt to live in communities without developing the divine self on a individual basis irrespective of religious affiliation. Not only will every individual have to be "faith"ful but also be ready to take that "leap of faith".

Secularism is an essential part of any such progressive state so that the state is not colored by religion for making any decision. It does not make sense if there is no consideration for greater good of all humans.

Western Powers-they need all the benefit of doubt for whatever good or bad intention, but definitely colonialism is out of the window after the last colonies have got their independence.

Bengalis-Don't know how such generic statement can be applied for Bengalis/Bangalis...

@kaffir:"...I'd be more interested in the idea if there were people from Sri Lanka, Nepal, B'desh and Pakistan who spoke about the same idea in big numbers and similar passion..."

argument 1) Is the nationality implied from any of the comments made by people here.

argument 2) Assuming that it is proved most are Indians here, accept that India has one billion plus people. The sheer numbers will be reflected anywhere in the world on whatever forum. On another note, Nandan Nilekani's recent book does talk about demographic dividends, quite positive about young populations.

Ganadeva, bhante,

argument 1. Are there non-Indian South Asians writing on DC? If so, how many? What percentage?

argument 2. I haven't studied any fancy political theories, but to me, intuitively, it makes sense that if a solution is to involve other countries, citizens of those countries have to be at a minimum receptive to that idea. If you can show me such signs, I'd be happy to read them and reconsider my view.

BD #28

Your arguments are too abstract, too impractical, too far removed from ground realities, and you will have hard time selling it to even intellectuals, much less common folks. I wish I can argue their merit/demerit and viability, but that would be purely academic exercise of no value or consequences. So good luck

Oops. #31 meant to be addressed to GB, not BD.

Oops. #31 meant to be addressed to GB, not BD.

@kaffir:What is "bhante"?
argument 1:... thanks for trying to confine the debate among national loyalties, leads back into same pigeonholes.
argument 2:... with out-of-box ideas there is the biggest opposition of herd mentality plus most people would never want to needle an establishment.

@kerty:purely personal opinion for running away from discussion, no more comments.

Ganadeva,

"bhante" is a term of respect. I'm surprised you don't know its meaning.

As for your arguments 1 & 2, your above response is beyond my capacity of logic and basic understanding of how things and people work, so I'm going to pass. Good luck!

By the way, why united South Asia? Aim big and go for United World - ties in neatly with the 'world citizen' concept. Besides, any concept that works (at Asian level) should in theory be scalable. You also have the Michael Jackson song "We are the World" which can be the anthem/song of this united world. :-)

@kaffir: main idea is to bring up prosperity in South Asia. Although it looks difficult, this is a optimistic possibility if the idea is fleshed out with enough stakeholders so a failure becomes very costly.

United World is too big a concept for poor people like us. It is a good bet for super-powers or the wannabe ones, we are too much tied down in South Asian problems to go beyond.

@all:seem to get the idea of talking to intelligent nicknames who are half-convinced already....

Ganadeva:

Your statements:

#1 - main idea is to bring up prosperity in South Asia.

#2 - Although it looks difficult, this is a optimistic possibility if the idea is fleshed out with enough stakeholders so a failure becomes very costly.

#3 - United World is too big a concept for poor people like us.
============================
If we are poor, as you say in #3, how will we bring prosperity as you say in #1? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

You talk of stakeholders, yet provide no stakeholders from non-Indian South Asians in your proposal. What kind of proposal is this where the stakeholders belong to only one country, yet talk about the future of other countries?

Also, does your South Asia include Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, or is it only Pakistan and B'desh? If latter, what's the reasoning behind that selection and not the other three?

I'm also curious where exactly is this idea of South Asia originating from. Would you like to write a post on it? Thanks.

@kaffir:
"If we are poor, as you say in #3, how will we bring prosperity as you say in #1? Aren't you contradicting yourself?"
-->we are poor for a huge concept like united world but not so poor for a leap of faith to bring about a united south asia.

"Although it looks difficult, this is a optimistic possibility if the idea is fleshed out with enough stakeholders so a failure becomes very costly."
-->The article is big enough while giving the rough sketch of a possible "leap of faith". However some of the stakeholders can be the young generation that grows up with possibilities of travelling, doing business, learning across the subcontinent without suspicion and the paperwork,possible world class institutions that remind of the ancient universities of Taxila and Nalanda with students coming from all over the world,reduction in costs of military , intelligence forces and beauracracy so that additional funds can be channelled to education,healthcare,R&D,etc...

"Also, does your South Asia include Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, or is it only Pakistan and B'desh? If latter, what's the reasoning behind that selection and not the other three?"
--> Issues between the larger countries obviously come prominently because of larger peoples' benefit and interests involved. However, some benefits for others:
1)Nepal:access to ports and trade routes to people of a landlocked country, raise in economic and educational opportunities with harnessing of tourism, hydel power,etc.
2)Bhutan:similar to above, plus a relaxation of fear of being between two big countries largely suspicious of each other when the people become citizens of a larger country.
3)Sri Lanka: A possible greater autonomy to tamil opposition than is possible within framework of current political structures while still eliminating gradually the suspicion and bloodshed(need a really good effort from leaders for that)

"I'm also curious where exactly is this idea of South Asia originating from. Would you like to write a post on it? Thanks."
-->Most of it is already discussed in previous comments and in the article itself. Immediate inspiration is rise of terror activities in the region. Main advantage of above concept is it undercuts the insensitivity that can be bred into people due to the national borders across peoples in S.Asian region in the current times.

One more thought which could be mentioned in this context. Our leaders who fought against colonial power(s) and later tried their best to solve the issues facing them, are we doing enough to solve the present problems as a learning from their legacy than repeating the same deadlock situations?

Problemistan: What does the world do with Pakistan?
By Ashok Malik


Excerpts

"The end of nation-building
==========================
Between 2001 and 2008, the overriding American strategic goal for Pakistan has shifted from nation-building to containment. Terms like "failed state" and discussions about the collapse of Pakistan are taken far more seriously.

Released earlier this month, Work at Risk, the report of the United States Congressional Commission on WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, tells the story of a dystopia. "Over the past six years," it says, "the United States supported Pakistan with a mix of military, security, economic, and social aid, totalling $12 billion. Of that total, $8.9 billion (74 per cent) was devoted to security and military assistance, and only $3.1 billion (26 per cent) went to social and economic programmes."

"Festering economic and social ills in Pakistan have created a hospitable environment for radicalisation," it goes on, "and the trends indicate that the challenge is growing. Pakistan's population is projected to double to nearly 300 million people by 2050, making it the world's fifth most populous country. Over the next decade, food, water, and energy are likely to become scarcer."

Pakistan has the worst education indices outside Africa: "Pakistan's overall literacy rate hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. For women, the literacy rate is below 30 per cent -- and for women in the FATA, it is only three per cent."

The report focused on the combustible mix of endless recruits for jihad, terrorism and nuclear weapons. For months now, intelligence agencies have warned that the next terrorist attack on American soil is likely to originate from Pakistan. The year 2009 is of particular significance, as jihadists may want to "test" a new man in the White House.

The report urges that the United States work with regional and global actors -- from India to China to Russia -- to bring stability to Pakistan and its environs.

The question is: what if this necessitates a break-up of Pakistan? Are the means more important or the end? It is a question exercising American think-tanks -- and alarming the failing Pakistani state.


The rise of containment
=======================
In 2006, Ralph Peters, a former United States Army colonel and strategic affairs writer, wrote an essay called "Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look" in the Armed Forces Journal. A speculative though engaging exercise, it recommended the redrawing of boundaries, from Turkey to Pakistan -- "between the Bosporus and the Indus" -- to create ethnically homogeneous and stable nation-territories.

For instance, Peters recommended a Shia Arab state that would take territory from Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia and become an oil power. The Saudi royal family would be left with a rump. Mecca and Medina would become a Muslim Vatican, free of one nation's (or family's) control.

Iran would take over Herat and Farsi-speaking western Afghanistan (part of the historical Greater Khorasan) but would cede space, along with Pakistan, for a Free Balochistan. Iran, Iraq and Turkey would surrender land for Kurdistan. Afghanistan would gain the Pashtun areas in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier.

"The remaining 'natural' Pakistan," Peters wrote, "would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi." Essentially Pakistan would be contained to landlocked Punjab and dependent on Sindh for sea access.

Peters' essay is unlikely to become policy anytime soon. A Treaty of Versailles carving out the Middle East is not about to be signed. From Ankara to Riyadh, many political elites can veto the idea.

Yet, of all the countries mentioned as possible "losers" in Peters' map-making experiment, Pakistan is the most vulnerable. The state has all but disappeared. The Taliban rules the Northwest and has threatened to formally capture Peshawar. A strong Pashtun government in Kabul -- run by either the Taliban or Hamid Karzai -- could conceivably take away the Northwest Frontier.

Neither can covert Indian support for the Baloch insurgency be written off. After Mumbai, there may even be a strong case for it.

It is interesting that the reappearance of Peters' map in recent weeks has focused solely on its remedy for Pakistan, ignoring the rest of the Middle East. This has led to fears among Islamabad's military and political elite that the map is part of a secret American "design" to dismember Jinnah's nation. Following 26/11, does India want to help the process?"

Full article
http://www.dailypioneer.com/141606/Problemistan.html

some of the ways of colonial times, not directly relevant for the above context.
------
According to a book released on October 28th, 2007 named "Some Hidden Facts: Martyrdom of Shaheed Bhagat Singh", it carries the subtitle "Secrets unfurled by an Intelligence Bureau Agent of British-India", written by K.S.Kooner, the 'execution' of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev marked the execution of a conspiracy code-named "Operation Trojan Horse", which, in effect, facilitated the pacification of the British officers in general and the prospective in-laws of the late J P Saunders in particular.

Accordingly, Bhagat Singh and his associates did go through the formality of 'hanging' but only to the extent of breaking their necks; semi-conscious, they were taken to the Lahore Cantonment where the 'Death Squad', comprising Saunder's family, shot them to quench their thirst for revenge.

Since doing all this during day time could have invited a violent reaction from the people, the 'execution' was performed at night; for the same reason, the bullet-ridden bodies were neither sent for postmortem nor handed over to the relatives. Instead, most surreptitiously, these were taken in a lorry to a pre-fixed isolated place on a kutcha-road (6 miles away from Lahore, on the right bank of the Beas where it meets the Sutlej) and burnt to ashes. And, to put the people on the wrong track, some flesh and bones were half burnt and buried on the western bank of the Sutlej, near Hussainiwala. Two Indian agents were sent to Lahore to pose as volunteers and tell the Congress people that they had seen at Ganda Singh Wala a big burning pyre from a distance.

Believing the story, some people (including Bhagat's sister Bibi Amar Kaur) reached the 'hot' spot, dug up the flesh and half-burnt bones (plus one big broken but uncharred bone which they surmised must have been the arm of Bhagat Singh, the tallest of the three) that lay buried there, and took these back to Lahore where the half-burnt stuff was 'properly' cremated on the bank of the Ravi in the midst of sloganeering crowds, all in tears.

This was precisely what the 'Operation Trojan Horse' meant to achieve -- the British way of denying the martyrs the honour of a glorious farewell by the people.

Kaffir:

""When I see some signs of kerty and commonsense at a minimum acknowledging that the other person's point is relevant/valid (let alone agreeing with those points), till then it's all talk. :-)""

hey thanks for the compliment; however its positive connotations are immediately neutered by you stringing along "kerty" with "commonsense" in the same sentence. The two are antonyms.

Awesome idea. I think, I can add to it, ever so slightly. Lets re-create a world union.
I bet that wud be the right leap of faith to take - no? Why just South Asia - Make it United World. Or Just 3rd rock from the Sun!

Lets be ppl without borders. Yay! World Peace, prosperity. :)

world union is a good idea, but a south asian union can be a practical leap of faith before that.

There are already hollywood movies like star-wars series and james bond series espousing the united world concept in different perspectives.

Creating a united south asia solves many of the festering problems and saving valuable time and money for a poor region.

GB- kudos for yet another one of you 'dreamers" - reality is a manifestation of a dream. If sufficient number of us believe in this dream, then it will manifest! Let us pray that the nay-sayers numbers diminish and we WILL see this happen.

And for a lot of you who think this is a ridiculous idea- I do not think GB is suggesting a United India- rather a union of nations- sort of like the EU or the NAFTA (a euphemism- but hey, at least looks pretty on paper).

Actually the west will not like the SE Asian unity because it will make us too powerful economically speaking- despite our "poverty". However, we are not yet ready- structurally speaking- we do not have the critical mass of intelligent statesmen and educated citizens to make this a reality- but it will happen- it will come from being tired of chaos, from extreme poverty.

Countries like Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos rarely covered by the press or any of us, need to be in on this. Everything begins with a vision. We have been colonized too long to realize that we are scared of our own ideas! This is very doable if we just drop the "western" idea that we are unfit to handle a 'union" amongst our nations without western arbitrage.

This union of nations will not be about "indianizing" other nations- rather including everyone's unique needs in the charter and India does have a lot of experience however "tenuous" on dealing with diversity.

BB

"Everything begins with a vision. We have been colonized too long to realize that we are scared of our own ideas! This is very doable if we just drop the "western" idea that we are unfit to handle a 'union" amongst our nations without western arbitrage."

How would this union any different or better than becoming a common-wealth or a colony? Since none of the rats would be in a position to bell this cat on their own, you will need an external monkey to make it all happen, keep the union going, and keep the rats and cats at peace and not at each others' throats. So this common-wealth union can not come about or survive without western supremacy. BTW, west is also in a fix to revive its power and wealth. West needs to transition its struggling globalism to colonialism in order to maintain its prosperity and power. Once dice is rolled, its destiny is already pre-ordained. USA is already at the gates to play the monkey if Indians are ready.

Blokes, as they say, be careful what you wish for, since it might actually happen, and you might end up regretting it.

We cannot compare ourselves to the EU. We are surrounded by hostile neighbours some of which are teetering on the edge of anarchy and collapse. The last thing we need is all their problems becoming ours.

Also there are very fundamental differences between the cultures and religions of the different countries that make up the region. You cannot base these kinds of decisions on dreams of some Sufi poets (as several here are wont to do).

As an Indian, I just want us to focus on our own economy, welfare and security. There is no need to drag other basket case nations into this unnecessarily. Dreams of globalisation can be realised by future generations, if and when the time comes.

Studies have shown that more than half of well thought out corporate mergers fail primarily because of corporate cultural differences. To think that merging economies and politics of culturally disparate populations would be beneficial for everyone is being incredibly naive.

@Ledius: as rightly pointed out "more than half of well thought out corporate mergers fail primarily because of corporate cultural differences."

What is needed is a proper "fleshing out" of the concept, rubbing off some of the rough edges and creating new stakeholders from the present having a stronger reason to save money and improve human capital that fight on flimsy issues of religion, language, ethnicity which have little to do with improving quality of life and other "humanistic" parameters.

As for problems of other states becoming ours, some really big and expensive problems are getting eliminated, the festering J&K and Tamil Eelam issues, for example. Imagine the savings in military and emotional expenditure of entire communities which can be redirected to positive uses. There will always be newer problems to tackle but we will need leaders and visionaries with the determination to face them.

Some of the existing problems can be tackled head-on in any union as part of the beginning processes itself, one of them being the presently cross-border transits for terrorists with limited scope for law-enforcement agencies within current national definitions and borders. The agility of anti-social elements w.r.t the intra-regional law agencies is mainly because of the borders which seem non-existent for anti-socials.

@BangaloreGuy: on the blog for ur signature, there is some mention of hawala,etc.
doesn't somebody get the idea that dubai and other gulf commerce centres grow rich on the indirect India-Pakistan trade.
Also making a comparison for the sake of educational purpose with Sir Francis Drake, the hawala operations if imaginatively dealt with can become another sort of financial institution along with the increased taxes that come with it.

GB, don't you realize that the big problems came into existence in the first place because people of different cultural identities couldn't co-exist peacefully for too long. So, your argument of having eliminating these conflicts by having an united S Asia is highly circular, since it presupposes that these conflicts get resolved to begin with before we embark on the unification journey.

At the moment we should be more concerned about preventing India from disintegrating (Kashmir and the NE) more than trying to unite with other countries. We cannot afford to bite more than we can chew.

Point 1) It is not India that is expanding, such as akhand bharat but the Sout Asian region reinventing themselves. Whether it gets named as India is an open question.
Point 2)Kashmir gets solved automatically as there are no longer two different nations involved but a single national structure across S.Asia.
Point 3) One of the important points for neglect of NE is the breakdown of communication and trade linkages across the previously continuous eastern parts of British India. Remember Bengal was at the same position that Maharashtra occupies in present India in financial terms and the regions surrounding it were having tighter cultural and other links than the present.
Point 4) Check out this url http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/01/08/stories/2008010852640100.htm about the intention of Bangladesh to prevent development in its surrounding areas because of myths of national interest. With a South Asian entity, the differences across the current borders favoring a minor ruling elite gets abolished favoring majority of people.

GB

"What is needed is....creating new stakeholders from the present having a stronger reason to save money and improve human capital that fight on flimsy issues of religion, language, ethnicity which have little to do with improving quality of life and other "humanistic" parameters.

How do you create new stakeholders? And what do you do with old stake-holders? What makes you assume that old stakeholders would disappear? What makes you assume that people would yield their religion, language, ethnicity to 'flimsy' humanistic parameters? What makes you assume that people care or crave for your humanistic parameters? You are selling unification as some sort of a magic wand - we just wave it and everything falls into its place!

"some really big and expensive problems are getting eliminated, the festering J&K and Tamil Eelam issues, for example. Imagine the savings in military and emotional expenditure of entire communities which can be redirected to positive uses."

How do these festering separatist issues get solved? At the root of separatism within nation-state is insecurities faced by minorities - they do not want to be marginalized or integrated - they want to maintain their distinct identity, independence, autonomy, freedom. Creating a larger union does not solve this problem. In fact, you would have more ethnic and cultural groups who would feel marginalized and insecure - you would have many more separatist movements not less. You would have more militancy and terrorism as they would have to fight harder to get what they want from a larger union rallied against them. Those who do not want to fight back militantly, would develop isolationism, withdrawal and insulate themselves from mainstream - that is what Hindus did during Mogul and British raj - they withdrew into their local cells and fortified themselves into their own private communities and castes, never wanting to do anything with anything beyond. Unification is not going to solve any problems, but magnify them many-fold.

"Some of the existing problems can be tackled head-on in any union as part of the beginning processes itself, one of them being the presently cross-border transits for terrorists"

At least borders allow us to isolate the terrorists and seal the borders, however porous our borders and efforts may be. In a union, they do not even have to cross the borders. They can simply do their thing and merge back into civilian sea and use all constitutional freedoms and protections to their advantage. One reason why Kashmir insurgency has been hard to put down is because it is very much locally sponsored - if it were only externally sponsored, we would have put an end to it decades ago. Its hard to declare your own citizens as enemy combatants and declare war on them - and we can not simply treat them as civilians and terrorism as civilian law order problem - that is what is at the crux of India's inability to tackle terrorism with firm resolve.

@ kerty:
"...How do you create new stakeholders?..." This is a question for forward looking policies and politicians.

"...How do these festering separatist issues get solved?..." It is not the minorities per-se but the misinterpretation of numerical statistic based on religion. It depends on politicians to use the numbers to create secure pockets of "minority" for easy election or even of "majority" based on selfishly motivated and myopic perceptions. Without going beyond the definitions how would a phenomenon like Obama happen in this region. People falling back into the comfort zones and familiar rhetoric of "minority" and "majority" does not do anyone a favor in the long run.

"...that is what Hindus did during Mogul and British raj..." It is the open acceptance of religion as part of the state which had been a source of the problem. This is very clearly observed by the ultra-orthodox and openly religious approach taken by Aurangzeb which led to the zenith of the mughal territories while causing the internal fissures to come to the fore as an opposition to the misuse of religion for propagating military actions. The sometimes real and perceived threat of religious aggression by christian missionaries was one of the reasons for the 1857 war of independence.

"...They can simply do their thing and merge back into civilian sea and use all constitutional freedoms and protections to their advantage....."
This is the real crux, how to define the constitution of a national structure which prevents internal aggression by misuse of statistics, by dealing justly against vitriolic elements by giving priority to human rights of an individual/family as the basis of a progressive society rather than a community or some definition used for the census which is a very short-sighted way to make a quick route to political power.

GB

Since this is all hypothetical I wonder about what pakistanis think. Do you have any reason to believe that Pakistan will be interested in uniting with India? Are you aware of these kind of discussions on such blogs operated by Pakistanis? Such desire for unification has to be on both sides. Should'nt it?

I am sure you are aware that Pakistan at present is very unstable and some people are afraid that the country may even fall in the hands of extremists. Is'nt India leaving herself wide open for getting involved in a very messy situation full of extrimists and radicals? Frankly what is there for India? I just don't get it. Is it your desire to help your neighbour country?

GB

"People falling back into the comfort zones and familiar rhetoric of "minority" and "majority" does not do anyone a favor in the long run"

Yet, this is the only paradigm modern nation-state state-craft has to offer. Us vs them, minority vs majority, winners vs losers. I do not know how would you get around it.

"It is the open acceptance of religion as part of the state which had been a source of the problem."

In fact, it is open rejection of religion that remains the source of problem. The threat to religion does not have to be real. It is how religions perceive the threat that counts. You may not value religion, you may want to reject it, but what do you do with millions of people who do value religion, for whom, it is a central part of life and happiness? If you can not accommodate their religion in your world, they would prefer to live in their own world defined by their theology. These are not trivial issues.

"national structure which prevents internal aggression by misuse of statistics, by dealing justly against vitriolic elements by giving priority to human rights of an individual/family as the basis of a progressive society rather than a community or some definition used for the census which is a very short-sighted way to make a quick route to political power."

You assume that people want the same things as you do, or that they define things the same way as you do. People are not going to agree on what is human rights, human values, basis of society, community, what is progressive society, and what is short-sighted or vitriolic or internal aggression. People might view your progressive agenda as short-sighted, vitriolic and internal aggression against them.

@kerty:
"...Us vs them, minority vs majority, winners vs losers..."
What is the readers' opinion of the position taken by Abraham Lincoln preventing a split of the USA?

"...If you can not accommodate their religion in your world,..."
Religion is there but separate from nation definitions and administration as far as possible. It has been a popular way to hide political interests. Suggest a reading of zafarnama http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf.

Please also have a reading of the religious policy of Chhatrapati Shivaji from
a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji#Religion

"...You assume that people want the same things as you do, or that they define things the same way as you do..."
Please restrict the discussion to the concepts in the article and proofs for that than on personal basis. If there is no open mind and a brave will to understand positive ideas, there will be a infinite ways to hide behind.

@Morris:
"...Is'nt India leaving herself wide open for getting involved in a very messy situation full of extrimists and radicals? Frankly what is there for India? ..."

It helps to neutralise extremist viewpoints with no human vision beyond the immediate national borders. Also becomes easier to extricate anti-social and violent elements hiding on the fringes of ultra-nationalist concepts without the risk of war among conventional military forces. This is in addition to the economic and other benefits for the entire region.

GB

"It helps to neutralise extremist viewpoints with no human vision beyond the immediate national borders."

No No No I disagree. Neutralization, if any has to be done internally by Pakistanis themselves. Involvemnt by ousiders is a recipe for inviting hatred for India of all muslims around the world. Look what happened when the US got involved in Iraq. There is absolutely nothing for India by getting involved with Pakistan at this time. Secure your borders, increase youy vigilence and concentrate on improving intfrastructure and education. India is doing well as it is. Do not divert attention elsewhere.

All the benefits you discussed in your essay will do absolutely nothing for average indian. And if you think Pakistan will share or relinquish the contro of nuclear weapons, you dreaming. The only Islamic bomb in the world will not be compromised that easily.

You did not answer other questions I have raised. I bet they have no interest whatsoever in joining India if they have to compromise their bomb.