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

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.