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

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 massacreA 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 riotsHindu-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 riotsA 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 worldIt 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 betterThe 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.