Srihari14
Banned
South Asia is one of the poorest regions in the world, however, it had many Opportunities to be off, as such, With a POD anytime after 1900, Is there a way to make South Asia Richer, Similar to East Asia
Richer South Asia
- Thread starter Srihari14
- Start date
No partition is a good way to start. Perhaps dominion status for India in early the 30s, Burma is broken off, and india adopts less socialism early on resulting in earlier industrialization. Afghanistan might be able to retain its liberal monarchy because of Indian influence and support, resulting in a better Afghanistan. Nepal and Bhutan would likely benefit from this as well.
Dolan
Banned
Actually I tend to get into the other way, united India is overrated, and so does the current 3 nations.
India should stay divided roughly around the Princely States, and thus being split into more several more manageable states. With the princes restored as head of states using british style parliementary democracy.
More manageable size would be improvement on governing efficiency, so the poverty rates would be down.
India should stay divided roughly around the Princely States, and thus being split into more several more manageable states. With the princes restored as head of states using british style parliementary democracy.
More manageable size would be improvement on governing efficiency, so the poverty rates would be down.
Srihari14
Banned
No way, that would cause wars between states all the time, it would look something like middle East now
Dolan
Banned
And economy-side-wise, Middle East was relatively prosperous when there's relatively few armed conflicts running. The problem is dictatorship.
As long as the Princely States stayed as Democratic States, the risk of war is actually rather low. War never really occurred between two democracies anyway.
Dividing India to multiple small nations seems never been beneficial to India. There would be just more wars and even worse economic management. Even three-nations model is not very workable when India and Pakistan occassionally are in war against each others. And when India had great empires things went quiet well. India prospered under Mauryas, Guptas and mostly quiet well under Mughals. Unified India seems quiet viable so long when Socialist have not too much of power.
Dolan
Banned
The same could be said for Yugoslavia, yet they are now relatively better being separated than united.
Srihari14
Banned
India has never been peaceful when divided, but has been an economic superpower when united
There are eight countries that are classified as being in South Asia. from a western point of view, most if not all have divisions based on religion. Some have large areas that are ungoverned and ungovernable, some have corrupt and inept governance. However, some are basically rich but have a largely impoverished population. It is difficult to see a way forward for the region. Possibly the best is for the west to stop trying to pull this part of the world in its's direction and withdraw all its influence. Left alone it is possible that the countries will develop their own standards, not based on western capitalism. It's not that I'm anti-capitalist, but it seems to me we make comparisons and measurement that will never work here.
Last edited:
Srihari14
Banned
I agree, religion is the biggest divider of South Asia, could India as a Whole be as strong economically as China ?
Anawrahta
Banned
What really held back south asia was weak institutional development. The region had some of the earliest universities and had significant scientific development rather early on, but foreign invasions from central asia demolished much of that earlier development.