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

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.