Reunification of South Asia?

[Acsicurezza]

No.

Definitely not.

no.

Impractical. Also "Reunification."?
They were never united except under British rule.
Jamal was right, Indian unity is an artificial unity, preserved by British Bayonets.

God no.

Horrible, horrible idea.

Lol.

No.

My views are somewhere in the range of "Bloody fuck, hells to the no. You cray cray" to laughing my ass off at the silliness of the mere suggestion.

So yes?

[Ashmoria]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

because the british had it that way?

im not advocating it but it would make more sense to break up south asia into the kingdoms that existed before the Europeans invaded.

[Mirage]

Well, if the countries want to, they should. But i don't see that happening considering the current situation.

[The Whispers]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

because the british had it that way?

im not advocating it but it would make more sense to break up south asia into the kingdoms that existed before the Europeans invaded.

The Indian state itself actually undid this. Hyderabad was separate for quite a while after the unification of most of India, for example.

[Samuraikoku]

India and Pakistan together?

From what I gather, not a good idea at all.

[Greater Murrika]

Impractical. Also "Reunification."?
They were never united except under British rule.
Jamal was right, Indian unity is an artificial unity, preserved by British Bayonets.

Wrong.

They were united under Gandhi, then some fool assassinated him and they were like "Fuck this shit!" and broke up.

[Ganos Lao]

I have a great idea! Let's get the Koreas back together! Oh, and also, we should totes bring Northern Ireland and Ireland back together!

Don't forget we can also solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue if - get this - we have Armenia and Azerbaijan become one country! Then they can both own the land!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Ganos Lao]

Impractical. Also "Reunification."?
They were never united except under British rule.
Jamal was right, Indian unity is an artificial unity, preserved by British Bayonets.

Wrong.

They were united under Gandhi, then some fool assassinated him and they were like "Fuck this shit!" and broke up.

They weren't united under Gandhi. Gandhi was assassinated after the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi felt guilty the rest of his life over it, wishing he could've preserved Indian unity, but the Hindu extremist who assassinated him believed Gandhi sold out the Hindus and was helping the Muslims.

[The Whispers]

India and Pakistan together?

From what I gather, not a good idea at all.

I don't know how or why it came to be that everyone has forgotten about the Pakistan Civil War. But I can tell you now that the people who'd be least interested in getting back together with (West) Pakistan are probably the Bangladeshis, since the war killed between hundreds of thousands and millions of people, and displaced tens of millions.

And that was only about forty years back.

[Greater Murrika]

Wrong.

They were united under Gandhi, then some fool assassinated him and they were like "Fuck this shit!" and broke up.

They weren't united under Gandhi. Gandhi was assassinated after the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi felt guilty the rest of his life over it, wishing he could've preserved Indian unity, but the Hindu extremist who assassinated him believed Gandhi sold out the Hindus and was helping the Muslims.

Really? Huh.

Nevermind then.

[Ganos Lao]

They weren't united under Gandhi. Gandhi was assassinated after the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi felt guilty the rest of his life over it, wishing he could've preserved Indian unity, but the Hindu extremist who assassinated him believed Gandhi sold out the Hindus and was helping the Muslims.

Really? Huh.

Nevermind then.

"My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God."

That pretty much sums up the Mahatma's view.

[Bothara]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

Shouldn't be done, just would make things worse.

[The Whispers]

"My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God."

That pretty much sums up the Mahatma's view.

But then he would say that.

[Beskie]

HELL NO!

[Alimprad]

Should they?
NO
Would they?
NO

[Mkuki]

They were never 'unified' by anything except British imperialism in the first place.

And the Mughals, Delhi (at least under Tughluq), and the Mauryans. The Guptas and Marathas came fairly close too. Most of the subcontinent is also socially united in a sense by Hinduism - which makes the fact that the only empires to virtually conquer the whole subcontinent in the last 2000 years were Christian (British) and Muslim (Mughals, Delhi) quite ironic. Otherwise, I do take your point that the Indian subcontinent being united is not exactly the norm.

I don't think any of those lasted longer than two hundred years.

[Greed and Death]

Do they want to unite? Or do you propose making them, somehow?

Her Majesty Queen of England could maybe make it happen.

[Sassinia]

India and Pakistan? NO.

India and Bangladesh? Maybe.

Bengali person speaking here.

[Dakran]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

Source? Religious tensions would not disappear. Cultural tensions would not disappear.

Ultimately, NO.

[Cameroi]

i don't know about the "re" part, but south east asian nations have many interests in common.

[Uubengalas]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

the contrary rather, I fear - it would reopen the wars of both 1947 and 1970

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Why stop at reuniting nations and continents?

We should reunite all matter in the universe! I mean, at one point everything was located at a single point, right? So it must follow that that is the natural state in which things should exist.

Further, what good have individual molocules and things like hydrogen done for us? They use hydrogen in for fusion, and fusion is bad!

Universal unification, now!

[Disserbia]

No.

^

[The Archregimancy]

Should the nations of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh be reunited into one nation? This would eliminate many of the tensions between the countries but place a huge stress on the government. Opinions?

because the british had it that way?

im not advocating it but it would make more sense to break up south asia into the kingdoms that existed before the Europeans invaded.

That doesn't really work.

At what point before the Europeans 'invaded'?

Because if you restore India to what it looked like in 1605 it would look like the red bit in the following map, and if you restored it to what it looked like in 1707, it would look like the red and blue bits combined.

In other words, all of India except the far southern tip, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and a good part of Afghanistan combined into a single empire.

If, by "kingdoms that existed before the Europeans invaded", you mean the various princely states that were part of British India, then these only come into being in the 18th and 19th centuries through the chaos caused by the conflict between the Mughals, Maharathas, and the British Empire; they were, to a certain extent an artificial creation caused by the British exploitation of Mughal decline and Maharatha expansion. It's telling that the official title of almost all the Muslim princes was 'nawab' - precisely the same title they'd had as governors of Mughal provinces.

Very few Indian kingdoms had a very long history or anything resembling set borders; what marks out Indian history from the moment the subcontinent enters the permanent historical record is the transience and fluidity of Indian states, whether large or small. Even where a recognisable state managed to last for more than a couple of centuries - as in the 300 year history of the Vijayanagara Empire in southern India - its borders were exceptionally fluid; where a dynasty has a recognisable multi-century history - as in the Pandyas, also of southern India - it rarely has a European-style continuity of either statehood or even territory.

Conceptualising pre-modern India as consisting of 'kingdoms' on the European model with set borders and definable history is deeply unhelpful, and advocating "breaking up south asia into the kingdoms that existed before the Europeans invaded" shows a woeful lack of understanding of Indian history.

That said, the premise of the OP is clearly ridiculous; the three nations simply aren't going to unite under current political circumstances, nor would it solve much given the religious tensions involved.

[Oceasia]

They should, but they wouldn't