A South Asian "EU" - supranationalism in the subcontinent

[Ironduke]

Given the instability on a regional and internal level in the nations of South Asia, a thought sprung to my mind regarding a framework for a workable supranational organization in South Asia.

A few things immediately come to mind

• if it were a coalition of currently existing states, India would be the dominant actor, something Pakistan and the smaller regional states would fear
• however, India would fear the "hijacking" of radical Islamist elements from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and its own Islamic population on this organization, thus destroying its genuine, open democratic institutions

Models

• the United Kingdom - devolution to Scotland, Wales, northern Ireland, and now probably England in the coming years
• Belgium - a multi-tiered devolution to Flanders and Wallonia, as well as the French, Dutch, and German speaking communities
• Germany - devolved powers to the several Lander (states)
• The European Union is this process in the reverse of the above (centralization of 27+ states that then act as decentralized, devolved actors

The Solution?

• the individual states and provinces of India and Pakistan are effectively the equivalent of a European nation-states linguistically, culturally, ethnically, in every way except in governance
• devolve power from Islamabad to the Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP, Pakistani Kashmir, etc.
• devolve power from New Delhi to the 28 states and territories, including Indian Kashmir
• the devolution process in India encourages Pakistan to follow the same trend, and vice versa (race to the "bottom")
• after political power has sufficiently devolved, and New Delhi and Islamabad have become less centralized centers of power and the regional/state/provincial capitals have taken on a strong role, the stage is set for a genuine, workable supranational framework on the level of the European Union
• a re-consolidation of political power happens on a region-wide, supranational level

After-Thoughts

• Kashmir could consolidate within this functioning supranational framework
• Bengalis could consolidate and cooperate on a cultural, ethnic, and linguistic level, as has happened with the Hungarians of Romania and Slovakia
• Nepal and Bhutan would be easy-ins, as they already meet the "requirements" (they are nation-states)
• The Tamils and Sinhalese of Sri Lanka could effectively set aside their disputes, and the Tamils of northern Sri Lanka/Tamil Nadu would be able to cooperate more effectively without being a threat to either India or Sri Lanka
• such a method and organization would be effective competition to China politically, economically, and culturally in Asia
• such a move would weaken the threat of Wahhabi/Jihadi elements in South Asia
• internal nationalist pressures in the subcontinent would be satisfied/undercut within a workable, fair framework
• there would be less disaffection among various political/ethnic/religious elements in the subcontinent, as they would all be given a fair deal

So, the theory is devolution followed by reconsolidation in the same framework of the European Union that acknowledges the history of an at-times united subcontinent (the various Rajs)

 

[klklkl]

I have already talked of the concept of Bharat Tantra in south Asia........The term nation state is a atheist concept which has failed miserably in Europe and today world......The idea that a Nation or Country can remain successful in Democracy, Communism or dictatorship is a failed model case.

 

[Ironduke]

I have already talked of the concept of Bharat Tantra in south Asia........The term nation state is a atheist concept which has failed miserably in Europe and today world......The idea that a Nation or Country can remain successful in Democracy, Communism or dictatorship is a failed model case.

Can you clarify your positions for me?

I'm unfamiliar with the term "Bharat Tantra".

Could you also present your ideas regarding what you feel is the proper form of governance in the subcontinent (and the wider world?)

The idea I'm proposing is an inclusive, pluralistic model.

I may be going off an a tangent:

I believe Islam has a role to play in the governance of majority Muslim states. The nation-states of Europe have Christian Democratic parties that are very successful (Germany and several other countries retain the medieval tithe (9%) which is used to fund hospitals, weddings, nursing homes, funerals, and a multitude of other services that are taken for granted by the people of these stated, but almost universally used.

I do not see any reason my Muslim Democratic parties cannot exist. There is some fear that they are a trojan horse for radical Islamist elements, but I think it is a fear that is based on a subjective blowing out of proportion by Western thinkers and policy makers.

To me, religion is like a hammer - you can use a hammer to build a house where everybody is welcome, or you can use it to build a house where everybody is welcome.

The criticisms of the role of Islam in governance of Islamic nations is hypocritical - they most often come from the same people who advocate a role for Christianity in Western nations. To advocate one's own religion at home in governance and social institutions, and deny that role of religion abroad is a dangerous hypocrisy.

However, I believe if Islam is to play a role in governance, it must at least be tolerant and positive to the broader population. One attracts more flies with honey than vinegar. Allow Islamic democratic parties to flourish (the ideas of Shura - consultation) from the Quran, institute Zakat on an official basis, and use Zakat to fund hospitals, weddings, social institutions, nursing homes, and funeral homes.

Exiling Islamic principles in states where they are ingrained into the population's practices and wishes encourages radicalism and is a dangerous policy.

The Muslim Democratic practices can co-exist and thrive within such a framework, as Christian Democratic principles do in Europe.

The United States is rather unique in separation of church and state - however, religion plays a larger role in governance than it does in nation-states such as Germany where is it officially allowed. The United States is in a rather unique position, however - it is the most religiously diverse nation in the world. In Scandinavia, it is simple: Lutherans (with growing religious minorities). Move to Germany, it's a little more complicated (Catholics and Lutherans). Move to England: largely Anglican and Catholic. France, Spain, Italy: Catholic. Netherlands: Reformed Calvinist and Catholic. Belgium: Catholic.

Europe is more of a model for Islamic countries with regards to the role of religion in governance (which is often unrealized/dismissed by outside analysts, but is in actuality hugely important). The religious divisions in the Islamic world are much more simple than those in the United States, and are more in line with regards to the level of complication as they are in Europe.

 

[LaBong]

Republic of India already is an union of states with Govt of India being responsible for Foreign Relation and Defence. States can even have their own laws if it's accepted in parliament.

Honestly I think KP(NWFP) and Baluchistan have nothing to do with India and it will be too much overhead for any centralized govt to control those regions. Even during Raj, they had marginal control over those regions.

India should co-operate more with BD and hopefully an EU based economic tie is on the cards.

 

[newdelhinsa]

As far as India is concerned then One should start from history of Europe and India before floating such fantastical Idea; living in United states.

India had been a united entity (not to the likes of racist historians) many time before (each time for a very significant long time). Indianness in Indians is not something recently groomed into them but very intrinsic from the times immemorable.

To further affirm my claim i can suggest people to learn the recent history of Independence of India. Indians fought their independence not as individual states but as a nation.

However India was divided into two separate nations further; not because of different ethnicity issues but difference of opinion among leaders while working out how power between states & centres and minority or majority be divided.

Leaders of India delivered what they opted, visioned and promised after independence, something similar to what you are describing, which is as following.

Govt. in Centre has bailed out every states many times to help them economically and to serve its bigger agenda of its socialist reforms. The other example i can mention is, desperate Punjab's state loan was completely remitted which she took from centre fighting terrorism.

India states are better represented with least interference from Govt. in centre.

Most of the national Parties are now not national parties any more but making alliance with regional parties.

India has divided many big states for better management during the course of time.

Bigger nations are better self sustaining.
What happened to many small European states during GFC is well known to everyone.

As far as India being bully to neighbours is concerned then nobody is going to divide its states on such fictional fear mongering.

India's stability is in protecting its borders from militarily encroaching neighbours, not in dissolving each state and make them more vulnerable, especially when resources and wealth is so much scattered and population is very high in numbers.

Unity of India is acting like a deterrence in military terms, same can be said about other nations as well, thus it is bringing stability. As far as model of European union is concerned then its too young to be tested as model on South Asian states. Why Turkey being a decent moderate democratic nation was kicked out from EU bursts the bubble that EU model is something 'the ultimate answer'. Heck! they failed before being tested as a robust model to be Implicated upon far more diverse South Asians states than what Turkey could have been to homogeneous White Christian Europe.

India has better served the stability of South Asia (not to the like of Pakistan only) as a united country, given its record of respecting LOC, LAC, border with Burma, respecting long border with Bangladesh after its independence, helping SL fighting LTTE and helping democracy in Maldives.

There is no need to be get carried away by animosity between India and Pakistan. India knows its role very well. Since 1971 not even a single Indian solider has invaded Pakistan. Pakistan is happy with its nukes and vows to use it for its defence only. K.Sunderji categorically recognised nuclear Pakistan as a stabilizing factor to Indo-Pak relations.

As far as terrorism is concerned then India has shown much restraint any European or USA herself might not have shown on any given day. Apart from rhetoric both nations shouted at each other after 26/11, GoI has trusted words of democratic elected GoP.

As far as other South Asian nations are concerned then SL is improving faster than thought and has cordial relationship with all nations. Bangladesh is a thriving economy and reforming very fast. Burma is on the way to democracy (Thanks to least interference of China and India but their continuous diplomatic pressure). Whatever is happening in Nepal is her internal matter and it does not carry any potential to disrupt peace and harmony of South Asia.

How about dividing USA, so that it may not remain a hyper power to save the world from the scares of cold war, any other war which has made this world insecure more than ever before and hypocrisy as a democracy saviour when openly supporting dictators all over the globe including Muslim nations now undergoing democratic revolutions which your website is trying to support.

How about dissolving all Australian states into separate countries so that they can manage floods better next time and do fare flood taxation.

 

[KS]

I have nothing much to say other than a one-liner :

A perfect recipe for chaos. Things will be better the way they are.

 

[Ironduke]

As far as India is concerned then One should start from history of Europe and India before floating such fantastical Idea; living in United states.

India had been a united entity (not to the likes of racist historians) many time before (each time for a very significant long time). Indianness in Indians is not something recently groomed into them but very intrinsic from the times immemorable.

To further affirm my claim i can suggest people to learn the recent history of Independence of India. Indians fought their independence not as individual states but as a nation.

However India was divided into two separate nations further; not because of different ethnicity issues but difference of opinion among leaders while working out how power between states & centres and minority or majority be divided.

newdelhinsa,

Pakistan has rejected the concept of "Indianness". Most Pakistanis have accepted a radically separate identity since 1947. Until that time, they viewed themselves as Indians as well - more or less, the proper ruling class. Pakistan is, to some degree or another, in my opinion, was conceptualized as an alternate India identifying with the Muslim ruling class of ages past.

How does one get Pakistan to get back into the fold on a supranational, retaining full independence, autonomy, and control of their own internal affairs, while cooperating with India on both a nation-to-nation level, as well as cooperating on a province-state and state-province level with the individual states of India?

Can India and Pakistan devolve and seek to mutually cooperate on such a basis?

I see advantages to Pakistan: provide support for Muslim populations within India that are marginalized in the current political framework, in the model of Hungarian support for the Hungarian minority of Romania and Slovakia

I see advantages to India: neutralize the threat of terrorism carried out by extremist Islamic elements (Al-Qaeda sympathizers), and decrease restiveness among their own Muslim population

Advantages to both: massively decrease arms spending both ways, invest the saved defense spending into infrastructure, economy, agriculture, and broadening social and economic institutions to create a larger middle class and promote industry and the information-age services sector

Also, effectively compete with China on an economic basis and get on a China-style bandwagon with regards to economic renewal and growth, and export products and services worldwide, to an exponential degree greater than is currently happening now.

 

[Spring Onion]

And reviving this legacy of the Raj will be good for?

Whom it is going to be utilised to counter ? China?

And the last question is which Block these loosely knitted states going to side with at the level of strategic interests or war/s over these interests? who will support them in case the NON-Asian similar Unions are aka EU or for that matter even US supported set ups like NATO if going to attack any of these?

 

[MyPakistan1947]

No, Thank You. indians can't be trusted.

 

[ajtr]

I think Ireland type devolution can be another solution to kashmir.

 

[Spring Onion]

newdelhinsa,

Pakistan has rejected the concept of "Indianness". Most Pakistanis have accepted a radically separate identity since 1947. Until that time, they viewed themselves as Indians as well - more or less, the proper ruling class. Pakistan is, to some degree or another, in my opinion, was conceptualized as an alternate India identifying with the Muslim ruling class of ages past.

How does one get Pakistan to get back into the fold on a supranational, c, while cooperating with India on both a nation-to-nation level, as well as cooperating on a province-state and state-province level with the individual states of India?

Can India and Pakistan devolve and seek to mutually cooperate on such a basis?

I see advantages to Pakistan: provide support for Muslim populations within India that are marginalized in the current political framework, in the model of Hungarian support for the Hungarian minority of Romania and Slovakia

I see advantages to India: neutralize the threat of terrorism carried out by extremist Islamic elements (Al-Qaeda sympathizers), and decrease restiveness among their own Muslim population

Advantages to both: massively decrease arms spending both ways, invest the saved defense spending into infrastructure, economy, agriculture, and broadening social and economic institutions to create a larger middle class and promote industry and the information-age services sector

Also, effectively compete with China on an economic basis and get on a China-style bandwagon with regards to economic renewal and growth, and export products and services worldwide, to an exponential degree greater than is currently happening now.

Theoretically ideal picture but the question WILL the current world "powers" specially US will support such an Idea?

(Though we Pakistanis arent going to think over it. its absolutely not possible to be allied to India in a manner where we have full control over of our internal affairs)

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Indians have come too far from viewing each and everything from a religious angle, where as for majority Pakistanis, its religion first and nation later. this basic thinking will be the cause of disputes if things go as proposed up here.

 

[Paan Singh]

even we solve all disputes in south asia,it will be difficult to do so.

 

[Ironduke]

And reviving this legacy of the Raj will be good for?

Whom it is going to be utilised to counter ? China?

And the last question is which Block these loosely knitted states going to side with at the level of strategic interests or war/s over these interests? who will support them in case the NON-Asian similar Unions are aka EU or for that matter even US supported set ups like NATO if going to attack any of these?

Honestly - utilizing the term "revival the legacy of the Raj": is just a cliche. It is a counter that is based on the most superficial actualities. What I'm discussing isn't the "revival of the legacy of the Raj" - it's a reminder to be mindful of your own history and look forward to the future. Muslims and Hindus once lived in peace in the subcontinent, and there is no reason they cannot put aside there differences, as the Germans and French have, the US North and South have, and so on.

It's not used to "counter" China - it can be used to replicate the success of China, because the current framework does not allow India, Pakistan, and the rest of the subcontinent to effectively compete in the world market as they should be able to.

China is currently an ally of Pakistan - there is a saying by the Colonel on the WAB (his words, not mine) China will fight India to the last Pakistani.

To be able to rise and become a fully modern, integrated part of the world economy, a different framework is needed.

Don't think of it in terms of overused cliches - think of it in a different framework.

There are extreme advantages in such an approach, as I and no doubt countless others proposed - think of the reintegration with the Muslim populations of India and Bangladesh (both equal or exceeding slightly the population of Pakistan).

So basically, by swallowing one's pride - you can effectively triple Pakistan, in a positive-sum arrangement with the states of and nation of India.

Like it or not - the differences between Pakistan and China are extreme. The differences between Pakistan and India are based upon religious differences that are historically-based, but at the core, you are more or less the same.

Sometimes it takes an outside onlooker to make the correct observation. Look at the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks, for example. They view themselves as separate nations - they are the same people, influenced by the Catholic Hapsburgs, Orthodox Byzantines, and Islamic Ottomans, respectively.

India has its policy, Pakistan has its policy. However, there is a third way that is to the mutual benefit of both.

 

[Patriot]

The same idea was floated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah Founder of Pakistan but it was rejected by Congress of India and thus Muhammad Ali Jinnah changed his stance and asked for separate homeland i.e Pakistan.Look it up - He wanted India to be a country where federal government does not have much power over provinces internal affairs.

# The form of the future constitution should be federal with the residuary powers vested in the provinces.
# A uniform measure of autonomy shall be granted to all provinces.
# All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority in any province to a minority or even equality.

# No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the State's contribution of the Indian Federation.

Fourteen Points of Jinnah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia