The Instigator
Theunkown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jay-D
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka should unite

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jay-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,488 times Debate No: 45025
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Theunkown

Pro

Pro (the instigator) will argue that the countries listed should unite while Con (the contender) will argue that the countries should remain separate.
This is assuming that the governments of the listed countries CAN come to an agreement for the union.
Now for my opening statement:

Legacy of Colonialism
The countries listed are all part of a former British colony (or princely states/protectorates) called British India. When the colony gained independence, the British divided the countries along religious lines. This has caused tremendous conflict in regions such as Kashmir. The separation of these countries only keeps alive the legacy of colonization and there is no reason why they should still be divided among religious lines (there are Muslims in India who live as peacefully as Hindus or any other religion there so why is there a separate Muslim country?)

Culture
All these countries are ethnically and culturally very similar, so there will be no cultural conflicts. Even what is now India has many cultures yet they all live side by side with no problem.

United we are strong, divided we fall
Pakistan every day suffers from terrorist activities from Islamists and drone strikes from the US which both kill a lot of civilians.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, with Nepal not being much better off.
Sri Lanka (at least the north) is torn apart by civil war.
India, the closest thing in the present day to a united south Asia, is doing well. It is the second fastest growing economy in the world and has the world's third largest and disputably one of the strongest army in the world (not China or US level but strong enough).
If all the countries unite then certainly all of the problems listed above will be minimized.
The strong united army will deal with the terrorists and can assert their objection over the US drone strikes far more strongly, even to the extent of shooting down such drones.
The economy of India can benefit other 'countries' in the union.

To summarize
- Having the countries being separate keeps alive the legacy of colonialism
- The cultures are very similar so the people can live saluting to the same flag without much of a problem
- The proposed union will be much stronger economically and militarily which will mean increased standard of living will be higher (since fear of terrorism would be lower and the economy will be better)
Jay-D

Con

Challenge accepted.
I shall be taking the side of Con for this debate.

Pro's resolution is that ALL FIVE countries, namely India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, must be united into one nation.
Hence, in order to win, I have to prove that the union of the countries shall be detrimental in an overall sense, and hence the countries should remain separate.

I shall now proceed to refute my opponent's arguments.
(Note: text in underlined italics refers to direct quote(s) from Pro)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


there are Muslims in India who live as peacefully as Hindus or any other religion...

The above statement is NOT accurate. India has a bloody history of violence against, or instigated by, Muslims.
Examples:

- 1983 Nellie massacre

A six-hour massacre that took place in Assam. Estimates of the death toll are as high as 5000.
The reason: growing resentment against largely muslim immigrants from Bangladesh.
http://www.hindu.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- 1992-93 Bombay riots

Hindu-Muslim riots, that were followed by the 1993 Bombay blasts. These riots occurred due to the demolition of the Babri Mosque by Hindu nationalists. Official death toll is around 900.
http://kractivist.wordpress.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

- 2002 Gujarat riots

A passenger train was set on fire by a crowd of Muslims. What followed was another Hindu-Muslim conflict. Death toll estimates are over 1000.
http://en.wikipedia.org...;


--------------------------------------


...so why is there a separate Muslim country?


For good reason. If these riots and massacres in the past are an indication of anything, it is that there is still hate brewing between the loyalist Hindu and Muslim factions, and that the existence of Muslims in India is definitely not peaceful.

The Muslim League demanded independence from India because they felt that Muslims can never live freely in a nation that literally calls itself "Hindustan", which means land of the Hindus.


---------------------------------------


...India has many cultures yet they all live side by side with no problem.

Once again, my opponent is wrong. To state that there is "no problem" between the people of many cultures in India is highly ignorant.

Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India need no introduction. Apart from this, there have been conflicts between Muslims & Christians, Hindus & Christians, Muslims & Sikhs, Hindus & Sikhs, and even Muslims & Buddhists.

http://www.e-ir.info...
http://www.culturalsurvival.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cultural boycotts are still commonplace in many states in India. Though India puts up a front of being the most secular nation in the world, there is sizeable tension between cultural and ethnic groups.


---------------------------------------


India, the closest thing in the present day to a united south Asia, is doing well.

I'm afraid Pro does not know India's current economic and political situation well enough. The country's current government is little more than a sham, being mired in multiple corruption scams.
The resentment among people has gone so far that common men are forming political parties to seize control of the nation.

At present, India is NOT doing well.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...



...(India) has the world's third largest and disputably one of the strongest army in the world

It is true that India has a large army. But numbers don't mean strength. In all their wars, India has never once managed to win convincingly against Pakistan, whose numbers have always been far inferior to their own.

The Indian army does have capable generals and brave soldiers. But the ugly truth is that it isn't getting enough support from the government.
http://www.csmonitor.com...(page)/2


---------------------------------------


If all the countries unite then certainly all of the problems listed above will be minimized.

I find this statement false. My reasons are as follows:

- India, which clearly seems to be the leader in Pro's proposed union, has more than enough problems of its own.

- Pakistan, by uniting with India, brings the danger of many parts India themselves being a target of terrorist attacks. There is no guarantee of the attacks on Pakistan reducing, but the probability of India being attacked more often definitely increases.

- Accommodating the economically weaker countries of Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan is only going to put a larger strain on India's own economy, which, at present, is anything but stable.

- Many (although not all) Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh are well known to harbour hatred and ill-will against the Hindu population of India. The feeling is mutual among the Hindus as well. A union raises the possibility of communal violence.

- Sri Lanka hates the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and Tamil Nadu hates Sri Lanka. I know that Pro assumed all countries agreeing to the union, but it seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY at this point.



...fear of terrorism would be lower and the economy will be better


The fear of terrorism will definitely not be lower, as I stated earlier. As goes for the economy, it will only be better for the weaker nations, whereas India will suffer. Overall, the situation remains the same. The average standard of living will remain unchanged.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


What Pro is trying to propose can be compared to dumping sewage in a river. The sewage does become cleaner than, but the river gets polluted as well. It is nothing more than a process of dilution, which my opponent does not seem to have noticed.

I eagerly await Pro's response in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
Theunkown

Pro

Religious Violence:
I am aware of those riots that con has mentioned.
but that is a small minority in a region of almost 1.5 billion people. Even that minority is reducing. Religious violence has reduced (not eliminated but reduced) since the start of this century and is continuing to decline.

Even in one of the sources my opponent gave(http://www.e-ir.info...) it mentions this
"However, religious conflict in India has been quite restricted. Secular Indian national identity and the existence of mixed-religion organisations in civil society have proved to be very effective in overcoming communal tensions." A secular union in South Asia will prevent such problems as they did in India.

Political:
Yes I agree with my opponent that India's Government is very corrupt, but then again so are many other nations.
The Union that I have proposed is not a Utopia by a long shot. I merely argue that the Union will do better than the current nations independently. Besides Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh are far more corrupt than India.
http://www.transparency.org...

Military:
Con has stated "In all their wars, India has never once managed to win convincingly against Pakistan, whose numbers have always been far inferior to their own."
India has won a decisive victory against Pakistan in the war of 1971 in 14 days, Capturing East Pakistan (ok, with the help of rebels) and forming it into Bangladesh.
But even if India does not have the military of a global superpower, they certainly are strong enough to force the US to stop their drone strikes on the North West Frontier and to defeat the religious extremists who plague the region.
The only reason the terrorist groups in Pakistan are currently significant is because Indian troops cannot violate Pakistan's territorial integrity to attack them and the Pakistani army often works with the terrorist groups so they will obviously not attack them
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cfr.org...

Economy:
"Accommodating the economically weaker countries of Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan is only going to put a larger strain on India's own economy, which, at present, is anything but stable."
The economy is at present unstable because of the global financial crisis, which is why its growth rate was at about 5% in the fiscal year 2012/13. This figure is expected to rise in the 2013/14 fiscal year.
http://www.financialexpress.com...
"it [the economy of the proposed union] will only be better for the weaker nations, whereas India will suffer."
I agree with my opponent that nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh will benefit economically from the union and yes, India will suffer to some extent but not very much.
So overall, it is better for the proposed union to happen

By the way, one more thing
"Even what is now India has many cultures yet they all live side by side with no problem."- from my opening statement

"Once again, my opponent is wrong. To state that there is "no problem" between the people of many cultures in India is highly ignorant."- my opponent's counter
I detest that my opponent referred to me as ignorant, if I was ignorant I would not be debating about this topic. However a rephrasing of my initial statement is necessary - ' Even what is now India has many cultures yet they all live side by side usually with no problem (there are exceptions where communal violence has occurred). '
Jay-D

Con

After initially taking a stand bordering on a perfect fantasy, my opponent has now decided to compromise on a few details, and has, in the process, committed multiple fallacies. These are going to be the focus of my forthcoming rebuttals in this round.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Religious violence has reduced... since the start of this century and is continuing to decline.


The statement is true, but not entirely. My opponent has failed to mention that the rate at which regional violence has been reducing is nothing close to what would be desired for his proposed union.

What reinforces my belief in this fact is the very recent Muzaffarnagar violence.
http://www.business-standard.com...


------------------------------------


Even in one of the sources my opponent gave... it mentions this

"However, religious conflict in India has been quite restricted. Secular Indian national identity and the existence of mixed-religion organisations in civil society have proved to be very effective in overcoming communal tensions."

Source in question: http://www.e-ir.info...

If you examine the link, then the very next statement tells us that the aforementioned restrictions are because the BJP (a largely Hindu-nationalist party) has a weak hold on Indian politics.


HOWEVER, on the most recent political scene, the BJP, led by Narendra Modi, is the front-runner to form the government. This severely dents any chances of Pro's proposed union.

Thus, Pro's statement is fallacious, since a key factor in his argument (BJP's weak influence in national politics) no longer holds true.


------------------------------------


Besides Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh are far more corrupt than India.

All the more reason to avoid such a union. I really don't see how or why Pro thinks that a union of corruption-free nations would, as a whole, have comparatively lesser corruption.

Besides, corruption itself is one of the reasons why the union won't fall through.
If the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats see that the union may (if, by any chance) affect their position and earnings, then they'll vehemently oppose it.


------------------------------------


India has won a decisive victory against Pakistan in the war of 1971 in 14 days....

Once again, there's a gaping hole in Pro's statement. It's this:

THE 1971 WAR WAS FOUGHT FOR THE LIBERATION OF BANGLADESH.
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Now, my question to Pro is: If India and Pakistan fought a war to form the independent country of Bangladesh, why on earth would India and Pakistan, ALONG WITH BANGLADESH, unite peacefully into one nation?

Also, Pro has conceded that India won with the help of rebels. This means that it was effectively two countries versus one. In my opinion, it's still not a great victory.


-------------------------------------


...they (India) certainly are strong enough to force the US to stop their drone strikes on the North West Frontier and to defeat the religious extremists who plague the region.

This hardly likely, because India aren't decisive enough to take a stand against the extremists who plague THEIR OWN LAND. Yes, I am talking about the Maoists.

http://www.satp.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;


I never said that India and it's army are incapable. Their sheer numbers are intimidating, and they hold great potential. But they're very indecisive, and ill-equipped for extreme situations.
If I may be so blunt, India's war council is a bit too soft.


--------------------------------------


...nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh will benefit economically from the union and yes, India will suffer to some extent but not very much.

I don't see the relevance or the logic behind this statement. If India is already not in a great position and is going to suffer more, then why would it agree to the union in the first place?

My opponent has backed up his argument by saying that India's growth rate is projected to improve.
What is to be taken into account here is NOT GROWTH RATE, BUT FISCAL DEFICIT.

After the proposed union takes place, India will have to spend thousands of crores of rupees (billions of US dollars) to stabilize the economies of the weaker constituent nations. This will, no doubt, worsen India's already troublesome fiscal deficit.
http://www.livemint.com...

Add to this the fiscal deficits of the other four nations, and the overall economic outlook definitely doesn't look good.


--------------------------------------


...if I was ignorant I would not be debating about this topic. However a rephrasing of my initial statement is necessary...

My opponent is slightly mistaken here. Debating the topic doesn't mean that one isn't ignorant. Pro wouldn't have debated this topic if he was "under-educated", and not if he was ignorant.

Besides, if Pro is not ignorant, then why did he rephrase his initial statement?

The answer is simple: because his initial statement indicated ignorance, and I pointed it out.
The fact that Pro acknowledged there being exceptions which he had not mentioned earlier shows that he was ignorant earlier.

I rest my case.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


I believe I have adequately refuted all my opponent's standing arguments. I ask that Pro bring some more arguments to the table in round 3, failing which I shall bring my own.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Theunkown

Pro

Religious Violence:

Compared to the thousand or more that died in the past riots that con has mentioned, the Muzaffarnagar violence resulted in only 63 deaths (not that they don't matter but compared to the thousands that died in previous riots this is not much), and this is at a time where the BJP is very prominent in Indian politics as my opponent mentioned. So the union will not have much of a problem in the long term. In any case Hindu-nationalist parties like the BJP will ultimately lose their power in the proposed union since minority religions like Islam will become larger, which is obviously not good for the BJP, and similar religious parties. My opponent might say that the BJP will prevent such a union from taking place, but I would like to remind him/her that in this debate it is assumed that the union takes place.
My opponent stated this - "Besides, corruption itself is one of the reasons why the union won't fall through."
Again, it is assumed that the union takes place.

Terrorists in India:
My opponent mentioned that India isn't "decisive enough to take a stand against the extremists who plague THEIR OWN LAND"
In the past there have been rebellions and insurgents too, like Khalistan rebels in Punjab. They were dealt with by the Indian army. Even the Maoist insurgency that my opponent mentioned has been on sharp decline since 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So this proves that India is capable of dealing with insurgencies and terrorism, the islamists are no different. So the proposed Union will be able to deal with the Islamists, the same way India dealt with these insurgents.

My opponent has requested that I state new arguments for this round, I shall gladly do so.
I will be focusing on Pakistan.

Pakistan and internal violence:
Pakistan has always considered India as its number one enemy. This presence of hostilities has always been the reason for Pakistan to be spending money for making larger armed forces, rather than spending it on development. Terrorists/Insurgents like Al Qaeda and the Baluchistani Insurgents wreck havoc on the country while the government is too concerned with politics with India. Pakistan's own allies, the US is drone striking Pakistani territories and killing civilians. The US became allied with Pakistan because India had close ties with USSR in the cold war era (and still continues close ties with Russia), if the US was not allied with Pakistan, the Pakistani government would never have allowed such drone strikes, thus the historical tension with India indirectly led to the US drone strikes. In the proposed Union, the Insurgents will be defeated as tensions cease to exist between India and Pakistan and the focus of the governments can be on the Insurgents. Also the US will not be allowed to use their drones since it is more likely that the union will have the political viewpoints of India (since it is larger and at the center) and not Pakistan. The US may stop themselves as they do not want to anger a much larger country.
http://www.dnaindia.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Threat of Nuclear War:
This is perhaps the biggest concern in the region. India and Pakistan, which together hold more than 14% or 1/7 of the worlds population, are nuclear armed. The two countries are engaging in an arms race (similar to the cold war but a smaller scale)
http://tribune.com.pk...
If the two countries EVER exchange nuclear weapons it could be catastrophic to the world, due to nuclear winter/famine and of course the radiation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The two countries have come very close to having a nuclear war
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
As stated in the article, the Pakistani PM refused to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons
Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the non proliferation treaty, so they don't plan to abandon Nuclear weapons anytime soon.
In the proposed Union there will be no such threats since the tensions between India and Pakistan don't exist since they are one and the same in the Union.

A summary of my points:
- Though there is religious violence now, casualties are far fewer than before, and they will continue to fall in the proposed Union since very religious parties like the BJP will lose power. Even if current level of religious violence continues in the union, it is not a high rate for a country of almost 1.5 BILLION people.
- India has proven itself to deal with insurgencies and continues to do so against the Naxalites. The same will be done to the Islamists in the proposed Union. Pakistan is not capable of doing the same as it is too distracted with politics with India.
- War, especially nuclear war can have a huge impact on the region and even the world, India and Pakistan are likely to keep bickering and even possibly exchanging nukes. A Union would put an end to all the international disputes between India and Pakistan.
Jay-D

Con

In this penultimate round, my opponent has come up with some new arguments as requested by me, and I am grateful for that. However, Pro has also made some insensitive assertions, and his stand continues to be quite unrealistic.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Compared to the thousand or more that died in the past riots that con has mentioned, the Muzaffarnagar violence resulted in only 63 deaths

How can Pro say such a thing? I know he said that they do matter, but in my opinion it is still extremely insensitive to say that just because the number of casualties is reducing, communal violence is reducing.

More than FIFTY THOUSAND people were rendered homeless. What does Pro have to say about them?

It is extremely saddening that Pro thinks communal riots are about death tolls alone.
Communal violence should not only be spoken in terms of how many people died. The death toll only serves to show the loss of life, and not of property.
The violence is either there, or not there. Right now, IT'S STILL THERE. The death toll can rise or fall depending on many factors, and NOT just people's sentiments as my opponent thinks.

Besides the death toll, there's also the figures of the number of people injured, those displaced, those arrested and those convicted. Unless my opponent takes these into account, I simply cannot take his thoughts on communal riots seriously.

---------------------------------------

My opponent might say that the BJP will prevent such a union... but I would like to remind him/her that in this debate it is assumed that the union takes place.
My opponent stated this - "Besides, corruption... the union won't fall through."
Again, it is assumed that the union takes place.

And it is a VERY SHAKY assumption, Mr. Pro. At the moment, it only looks like the union will fall through BECAUSE OF AN IMPULSIVE REACTION from the people and the government.

The situation is quite similar to the appointment of Pratibha Patil as the president of India. Everybody wanted a woman on the throne, and so they reacted on the impulse. Soon enough, everyone regretted it.
http://zeenews.india.com...

Therefore, based on current arguments, I believe everyone will end up regretting Pro's union, and it won't last long. Reasons:

- Sooner or later, when corruption reduces(provided we take Pro's word for it), the "netas" will realize their positions are in trouble, and propose to annul the union.

- Sooner or later, the Hindu-Muslim tension will boil over, and we'll have mayhem.

- Sooner or later, the Tamils and the Sinhalese will get fed up of living in the same country, and the LTTE will return with the next Prabhakaran.

--------------------------------------

So this proves that India is capable of dealing with insurgencies and terrorism, the islamists are no different. So the proposed Union will be able to deal with the Islamists, the same way India dealt with these insurgents.

If it is the same way India dealt with the insurgents, then I weep for the future of the union. For some reason, Pro thinks that India's efforts to quell insurgency are effective.

If India's methods really were that effective, the Maoists would never have reared their head above the ground. The Naxalites have been plaguing India for 46 YEARS (since 1967), and the government brought out their integrated action plan NO SOONER THAN 2009.
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

If THIS is what Pro calls effective, then very well. I'll believe that the union can deal with the Islamist faction. But I'm sure that it will be ANYTHING BUT IMMEDIATE.

---------------------------------------

Terrorists/Insurgents like Al Qaeda and the Baluchistani Insurgents wreck havoc on the country while the government is too concerned with politics with India.

I would like to remind Pro that Pakistan and India used to be one and the same. It is very obvious that the government would've thought of political tension with India before they demanded the partition.

If they were so concerned about the tension with India, why did they still push for the partition?

The answer is simple: THE PAKISTANIS WOULD RATHER SUFFER FROM VIOLENCE AND POLITICAL TURMOIL THAN UNITE WITH THE INDIANS.

----------------------------------------

The US may stop themselves as they do not want to anger a much larger country.

The expanse of a country never stopped the US from angering the USSR. That's all I have to say.

----------------------------------------

In the proposed Union there will be no such (nuclear) threats since the tensions between India and Pakistan don't exist since they are one and the same in the Union.

Once again, I would like to remind Pro of the pre-1947 scene. Even then, India and Pakistan were one and the same in a union. That didn't deter the Muslim League in the slightest.

Can't history repeat itself?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Con's remarks

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Though there is religious violence now, casualties are far fewer than before...

An extremely blunt and insensitive statement. It is appalling that Pro didn't take loss of property into account. Is the death of people the only standard against which my opponent measures violence?

Even if current level of religious violence continues in the union, it is not a high rate for a country of almost 1.5 BILLION people.

Another insensitive remark by Pro. Religious violence is bad, whether it is in a country of 1.5 billion people, or 1.5 million people. It is either there, or not there. It will still persist in the union, and that is bad enough.

----------------------------------------

India has proven itself to deal with insurgencies and continues to do so against the Naxalites.

India has proven itself to deal TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE with insurgencies.

HOW DOES PRO JUSTIFY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS KILLED IN THE 40 YEARS THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT TOOK TO COME UP WITH A VIABLE COURSE OF ACTION?

----------------------------------------

A Union would put an end to all the international disputes between India and Pakistan.

Most definitely not, as I showed earlier. A UNION WOULD TURN THE INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES INTO INTER-STATE DISPUTES, nothing more.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent has failed to even convincingly show how Pakistan and India can co-exist pecafully.
PRO HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE SUBJECT OF SRI LANKA AND BANGLADESH'S CO-OPERATION.

I await my opponent's closing statements in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
Theunkown

Pro

Note: My opponent has not rebutted the nuclear war argument, I would like him/her to do so in the final round of this debate. Otherwise I would like him/her to concede that the Union will prevent nuclear war. If I have not rebutted one of my opponent's arguments then please state it in the next round and I shall argue against it in the comments section.

Religious violence:
" it is still extremely insensitive to say that just because the number of casualties is reducing, communal violence is reducing."
My opponent speaks of homelessness and injuries in almost the same level as death.
With [really] hard work, and with a bit of government compensation, the homes can be re bought and injuries can be healed. But death can NEVER be healed, it is absolute. The families of the dead people would rather have lost their house and personal possessions than see their family member, in some cases BREAD WINNER, die.
Also is the 50,000 homeless is for which riot and when did it take place ? Kindly clarify in your end statement
Another point - the number of casualties is a huge indicator to the size of the riot. Less people died = less level of violence and/or less rioters = lowering communal violence.
Hence Religious violence will not be a problem in the Union.
Even if Religious violence is a problem, the Muslims can ALL move to one area and Hindus can ALL move to one area, Sikhs and any other religion can do the same. This cannot occur currently since it is unlikely that a Pakistani Hindu will gain citizenship in India likewise it is unlikely that an Indian Muslim will gain citizenship in Pakistan, due to current tensions (or perhaps there are Indian Muslims who are patriots who do not wish to leave India, the same could be true for Pakistani Hindus). In the Union, the International Borders between India and Pakistan ceases to exist, thus allowing free refugee movement. Also there is no National Identity of India or Pakistan so Patriots will move if they have to. Thus ending religious violence.

"Religious violence is bad, whether it is in a country of 1.5 billion people, or 1.5 million people. It is either there, or not there."
This is like saying that India and Brazil are the most unsafe countries on earth because they have the most number of murders (because of their high population).
No, they are not the most unsafe countries in the world, countries like Honduras and Syria are way more unsafe.
Hence my opponent's argument is invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

For Religious violence issues, my opponent seems to be appealing to emotion rather than ration. In a debate, only the sense of ration must be appealed to and I would ask him/her to refrain from making arguments emotional.

Tamil - Sinhalese
Con stated that "Sooner or later, the Tamils and the Sinhalese will get fed up of living in the same country, and the LTTE will return with the next Prabhakaran."
I disagree, the only reason why the Tamils rebelled is because the Sri Lankan government treated them as second class citizens. In the Union, this situation will not arise because:
1) In India this does not occur in the state of Tamil Nadu (and as con rightfully guessed, India is the leader of the Union)
2) Tamil Nadu has the 4th highest GDP among the states in India, obviously the Union government will not want trouble in this area
So the Sinhalese and Tamils will be treated fairly and they will not be fed up of living in the same country.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Insurgents:
My opponent stated that "If it [the way the Union would deal with insurgencies] is the same way India dealt with the insurgents, then I weep for the future of the union. For some reason, Pro thinks that India's efforts to quell insurgency are effective."

Well even if India is ineffective at dealing with insurgents, it is certainly better what Pakistan has done to deal with the insurgents where the insurgencies show no signs of reducing, or are only reducing because of US drone strikes which kill civilians in the process.
The union will deal with insurgents in Pakistan and anywhere else in the region better overall compared to how it is being dealt with now.

Tensions:
Con stated that "I would like to remind Pro that Pakistan and India used to be one and the same. It is very obvious that the government would've thought of political tension with India before they demanded the partition."
The tensions only arose because of the Kashmir dispute, not anything else.
Hence, POLITICAL TENSION BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN CAME AS A RESULT OF THE PARTITION.
When the partition is undone and the Union formed then the Kashmir problem won't exist.
Hence the "INTER-STATE DISPUTES" that con has mentioned will not occur.

Other countries in the Union:
con stated that "PRO HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE SUBJECT OF SRI LANKA AND BANGLADESH'S CO-OPERATION.
" Above I went through Sinhalese co-operations with the Tamils improving after the Union. Bangladesh on the other hand will see an increase in development as it merges with other nations in the Union. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world right now and the economy of the Union can be invested to improve Bangladesh's economy.
As for Bhutan and Nepal (which con has not mentioned) they are small countries, with not much industry. By joining the Union, proper government investments can be made to develop those countries. Though improving Bangladeshi, Nepali and Bhutanese economies will put a strain on India's economy, it is not a huge strain, and the Union can recover, with its overwhelmingly huge manpower(total population of the Union would be around 1.5 billion).
In the long term, the union is economically beneficial for the people of South Asia.

I believe I have done sufficiently rebutted my opponent's arguments, now for my closing statements:
The following are the best reasons why the Union should be established
-There will be no conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, allowing South Asia to focus on parleying with a rising superpower to the north east-China, rather than fighting wars and wars amongst themselves, weakening themselves.
-Insurgents will be dealt with better by the Union
-The union will do better economically than the independent countries right now. Since the economy of India can 'help' (to simplify things) the other countries in the union, in the LONG TERM.
-Religious conflict will end in the region since action can be taken on the extremists and a worst case scenario 'segregation' of Hindus and Muslims is also an option.
-NUCLEAR WAR between India and Pakistan is NOT A RISK in this union, I simply cannot emphasize this point enough. NUCLEAR WAR WILL NOT OCCUR IN THE UNION.
Hence, the Union will bring peace and prosperity to South Asia (at least to a better extent than how it is now). Overall, The Pros outweigh the cons of creating a south Asian Union and it should be formed.
Jay-D

Con

Pro wishes to continue arguing in the comments section. I would like to point out that this is inappropriate.
If my opponent wished to have the last word, he should've said so at the start itself, like other instigators who tell the contenders to leave their final round arguments blank, and not in round 4 as he's doing right now.


That being said, I shall now prove conclusively as to WHY THE UNION ISN'T BENEFICIAL.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Nuclear war

It's a mistake to think that the only way to prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is to unite the two countries.

Nuclear war is something extreme; the odds are low no matter where you go. Even North Korea and Iran would think thrice before acting.
Besides, both India and Pakistan are under influence of greater powers, such as the USA. To prevent a drastic step like nuclear mobilization, only the slightest influence is required.

I accept that the possibility of nuclear war is nearly zero in the union, but I HARDLY BELIEVE THAT ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ALREADY UNLIKELY EVENT IS REASON ENOUGH TO PUSH FOR SUCH A UNION.

-----------------------------------------

My opponent speaks of homelessness and injuries in almost the same level as death.

Rightly so. For most people, their household is their life, and the dexterity of their limbs is the source of their livelihood. What good is the life of a crippled man, deprived of his self-dependence?
Even for those who have temporary injuries, the trauma affects them for the rest of their lives.

I am sorry to say this, but this is another extremely appalling and insensitive remark from Pro. As my opponent tries to see his unrealistic dream realized, he continues to overlook the pain and hardships that afflict riot victims.

With hard work, and with a bit of government compensation, the homes can be re bought and injuries can be healed.

I have only two statements to make here:

1. The Indian government is notorious for denying/delaying compensation to those afflicted.
2. The government's money won't heal the mental trauma of the victims.

..in some cases BREAD WINNER, die

And in some cases, the bread winner is castrated, or his arms are cut off. The outcome is pretty much the same. I dont get why my opponent is being so blunt.

..50,000 homeless is for which riot..?

I speak of the VERY SAME Muzaffarnagar riots, for which the death toll was, in Pro's own words, "not much" compared to previous riots. The figure is mentioned in the source I provided earlier.


Less people died = less level of violence and/or less rioters = lowering communal violence.

By that logic, if the Mecca or the Vatican is destroyed when few people are around, would that mean the attack was not severe?

Pro continues to make more and more insensitive statements. I repeat myself: Pro's indication is that the loss of life is the only parameter by which the severity of violence should be measured, which is extremely wrong.

----------------------------------------

Tamil - Sinhalese

Pro has stated that Tamilians in Tamil Nadu don't hate the Sinhalese (Sri Lankans). This is NOT true.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

It's not just about fair treatment; hate between TN & SL has its roots in ancient India. LTTE leader Prabhakaran's 12-year old son was brutally murdered after Prabhakaran himself was captured and killed.


Contrary to Pro's conception, I'm not failing to appeal to ration; I am recalling outrageous incidents.

----------------------------------------

..it (India's efforts) is certainly better what Pakistan has done to deal with the insurgents..

Better, but certainly NOT ENOUGH. I've made it very clear that India took 40 YEARS to frame an action plan against the Maoists. The Islamist insurgents are just as dangerous, if not more.

Besides, Pro himself stated that the other nations in the union are more corrupt than India.
IF A CORRUPT INDIA'S EFFORTS ARE NOT ENOUGH, HOW WOULD AN EVEN MORE CORRUPT UNION'S EFFORTS BE ENOUGH?

It is true that the union will do a better job of dealing with the insurgents. But what good is it if it's still not enough?

----------------------------------------

The tensions (between India & Pakistan) only arose because of the Kashmir dispute, not anything else.

Once again, my opponent is WRONG. He fails to mention the Junagadh conflict, and more importantly, THE LIBERATION OF BANGLADESH.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Kashmir dispute is the biggest cause, but definitely not the ONLY cause of the sour relations between the two nations.

And hence, by extension of my earlier argument, the Inter-state disputes will very much be there.

----------------------------------------

Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world right now and the economy of the Union can be invested to improve Bangladesh's economy.

"Economy of the union"? WHERE would these investments would come from?
The answer is, as I've indicated before, NOWHERE.

It seems Pro completely ignored my argument about fiscal deficit. The union CANNOT afford to take any loans.

As for Bhutan and Nepal... proper government investments can be made to develop those countries.

If it were only that cheap. Pro argues it isn't a huge strain. He probably didn't even check my source. I extend my argument about fiscal deficit and reiterate my source for the same, once again.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


-Even if the Union is formed, the (Pakistani) muslims have no reason to discontinue their hate towards the Indians. It happened earlier when they WERE, in fact together, and Kashmir was NOT the only reason.

-Considering the time and effectiveness of Indian government in dealing with the Maoists, it can be safely established that THE EFFORTS OF THE UNION WILL IN NO WAY BE ENOUGH TO QUELL ISLAMIST INSURGENTS.

-The economy of India itself is under tremendous strain, with a huge fiscal deficit and a weakening rupee. There isn't much it can do to help FIVE other nations economically.
In any case, overwhelmingly huge manpower, which seems to be a pivotal factor in Pro's argument, DOES NOT GENERATE JOBS ON ITS OWN.

-There is a high risk of religious violence increasing, especially between Hindus & Muslims. Ahmedabad knows very well what happens when they're segregated, which Pro thinks is a viable solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-Pro's remarks about injuries and loss of property not being a considerable factor in communal violence are appalling and extremely insensitive. Non-fatal injuries can never be disregarded.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
In retrospect I would actually really fear a union. Especially with Pakistan.
Posted by NarutoUzamaki 3 years ago
NarutoUzamaki
This looks epic and a tough debate to debate with
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
@Theunkown
No, I know what you wish to do. You're new to the site, so you probably haven't seen how some people instigate a debate. Check out this guy's first argument:
http://www.debate.org...

When people wish there to be no loose ends, this is what they usually do; they make the contender leave the final round blank. Just thought you should know. Do this the next time onwards :-)
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
Con perhaps misunderstood my intentions when I said I should do a rebuttal of your arguments here.
Since I asked you to do a rebuttal of my argument that you have not responded to, I simply stated that if I have not responded to my opponent's arguments, I would like to do so here (it would be unfair if I get to skip my opponents arguments, but he has to rebut all of mine). My intention was not having the last word, it was just to tie up any lose ends.
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
I just noticed, but my opponent mentioned that there were five countries in question, but there are six.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
TheunkownJay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough debate to decide on, but what eventually swung the decision for me was Cons argument on the economics of a Union as well as the Fact that Con recognized that the players in the Union would not just be India and Pakistan. In contrast Pros arguments focused only on India, and as such lacked coherency for a Union, as the solution was always "India can solve anything". All other points are tied as I believe both debaters were respectful and cited similar sources etc.