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

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 deathsHow 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.