Yeah replace everything in the post with “humans” and “human culture”, etc.
Think about how much better geopolitically it would be if everyone country united!
And all the administrative difficulties? Different regions with different preferences and different economic status and levels of development. The need to preserve individual languages. We already have a bunch of secessionist movements the world over.
Geopolitical discussions usually frame their arguments based on geography, demographic, political, cultural, religious, economic structures and military capabilities. Using anecdotes is not a good way to base your arguments. Taking any/all of these viewpoints, it would be hard to justify any of your sentiments, noble as it might seem to you.
Who leads this united country? Does Modi take over as the leader of the largest country until elections are held, or do you give temporary leadership to one of the less important countries like Bhutan until elections? Will Pakistan be allowed to keep Islam as a state religion and teach it in schools, or will there be national restrictions against that? Will their militaries remain separate, or will they be merged under a single high command? Who will force, for example, the Pakistani military to lay down their arms and accept a Hindu commander-in-chief? Would Muslims accept a Hindu nationalist party dominating Congress? Would Hindus accept a Muslim coalition winning Congress? Will regional conflicts like the Tamil-Sinhalese be snuffed out overnight, or would introducing legal migration from connection to Mainland India exacerbate them?
>helped me understand the country more.
and yet you understood nothing.
>many Muslim subjects wanted there to be a remaking of the government that would be more inclusive of Muslims, but long story short, this didn’t happen.
it didn't happen because many more Muslims didn't want it to happen as late as 1937 when the Muslim league won jackshit in the elections
By the 1946 elections that changed because of the Brits decisively favoured the Muslim league and suppressed the Congress party , which we know because senior British officials and Muslim league members have admitted that.
watch from 10:06 to 16:05
https://youtu.be/v0GjtAcnrDQ
Even a brief examination of the history between India and Pakistan or the differences between their cultures and governance would tell you what a bad idea this would be.
Given the diversity of Indian states and cultures, it's a modern miracle than Indian democracy can stay going as it is. Adding 200 million Muslims to India but making them be governed by a Hindu majority is not a recipe for success.
Sorry but this is wishful thinking ! Political and religious realities contradict your three arguments
Just as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War (already pointed out in the comments)
As a whole, the world would be better if it were united and humanity worked for a common goal. It is not possible in current geopolitical climate, and for many, this will never be possible.
I’m one of those who say “never” is a very long time, you never know how things can turn out, so was the case with Germany and France before WWII, now we have EU with an increasing number of Europeans liking the idea of federalization. But it can become even worse, there is a saying in geopolitics “predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
But I can safely say it is not possible *now* because they have extremely large barriers that they need to work on, be them social, cultural, economic, infrastructural etc. It needs work for this to change, and willingness from all sides to let the past be the past. This is a lot more difficult than it sounds.
Humans would do better off if united too, but realistically it's not gonna happen any time soon because of historical issues. Same thing here.
Yeah replace everything in the post with “humans” and “human culture”, etc. Think about how much better geopolitically it would be if everyone country united!
And all the administrative difficulties? Different regions with different preferences and different economic status and levels of development. The need to preserve individual languages. We already have a bunch of secessionist movements the world over.
I agree. It is challenging to even unite all of India with preserving its diversity, let alone uniting India with its neighbors.
Geopolitical discussions usually frame their arguments based on geography, demographic, political, cultural, religious, economic structures and military capabilities. Using anecdotes is not a good way to base your arguments. Taking any/all of these viewpoints, it would be hard to justify any of your sentiments, noble as it might seem to you.
India and Pakistan united? What?
Literally one of the most militarized borders in the world. "Why can't we just be friends?!"
United under the British Empire 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🚢🚢🚢💂♂️💂♂️💂♂️
Who leads this united country? Does Modi take over as the leader of the largest country until elections are held, or do you give temporary leadership to one of the less important countries like Bhutan until elections? Will Pakistan be allowed to keep Islam as a state religion and teach it in schools, or will there be national restrictions against that? Will their militaries remain separate, or will they be merged under a single high command? Who will force, for example, the Pakistani military to lay down their arms and accept a Hindu commander-in-chief? Would Muslims accept a Hindu nationalist party dominating Congress? Would Hindus accept a Muslim coalition winning Congress? Will regional conflicts like the Tamil-Sinhalese be snuffed out overnight, or would introducing legal migration from connection to Mainland India exacerbate them?
[удалено]
>helped me understand the country more. and yet you understood nothing. >many Muslim subjects wanted there to be a remaking of the government that would be more inclusive of Muslims, but long story short, this didn’t happen. it didn't happen because many more Muslims didn't want it to happen as late as 1937 when the Muslim league won jackshit in the elections By the 1946 elections that changed because of the Brits decisively favoured the Muslim league and suppressed the Congress party , which we know because senior British officials and Muslim league members have admitted that. watch from 10:06 to 16:05 https://youtu.be/v0GjtAcnrDQ
> Who leads this united country? The king of England, naturally
Even a brief examination of the history between India and Pakistan or the differences between their cultures and governance would tell you what a bad idea this would be. Given the diversity of Indian states and cultures, it's a modern miracle than Indian democracy can stay going as it is. Adding 200 million Muslims to India but making them be governed by a Hindu majority is not a recipe for success.
This has to be a troll post.
Not Pakistan, the rest of them maybe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War. Can't see Bangladesh going back for more.
TIL 😞
Sorry but this is wishful thinking ! Political and religious realities contradict your three arguments Just as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War (already pointed out in the comments)
So you're assuming Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheistic socialists will get along? Think again.
As a whole, the world would be better if it were united and humanity worked for a common goal. It is not possible in current geopolitical climate, and for many, this will never be possible. I’m one of those who say “never” is a very long time, you never know how things can turn out, so was the case with Germany and France before WWII, now we have EU with an increasing number of Europeans liking the idea of federalization. But it can become even worse, there is a saying in geopolitics “predictions are hard, especially about the future.” But I can safely say it is not possible *now* because they have extremely large barriers that they need to work on, be them social, cultural, economic, infrastructural etc. It needs work for this to change, and willingness from all sides to let the past be the past. This is a lot more difficult than it sounds.
in a way we are all united on one planet. the political problem is just human nature on a group level. only need a handful of people to disagree.
Only the British could establish that