The critique of South Asian Regions

There is no denying the fact that, among the countries of South Asian Regions, India has to change its present dominant attitude in the region. It have to prove by its attitude that it has no hegemonic desire in the smaller South Asian countries. Moreover, all the members must move closer to each other in terms of positive interaction; all should learn from each others experience and should avoid, as far as possible, a confliction course. But first India should prove that it has really wants to help its smaller neighbours. Taking note of the fact that the countries of the region are widely dissimilar in respect of resource endowment, level of economic development, per capita incomes, and living standards, co-operative efforts must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards for the smaller and economically weaker partners. If India and Pakistan can ask for favoured treatment from Western countries, then they have to extend such type of favour towards their weaker partners. If India and Pakistan (larger and economically stronger in South Asia) takes greater responsibility, the smaller and the less fortunate ones will not feel deprive of the benefits of co-operation.

The countries have some commonality which can be helpful for greater co-operation among them. Their common heritage and culture, common economic problem and common administrative system can help them to work together. It is encouraging that two main contender of power in South Asia, India and Pakistan, have already started their bilateral negotiation. Although there exists lot of suspicion, but some are hopeful that in the changed international order both of the country perhaps realised that their past conflict caused great damage to their economy without doing any help to  their common people. It is also encouraging that India lastly has agreed indirectly to include Kashmir issue in their bilateral negotiation. If they really able to solve their bilateral problem, then some diversity among the South Asian countries will be solved easily. Although the desire for democratic government is a common attitude of South Asian people, which can be helpful for effective regional integration. But evidence from all the countries of South Asia suggests that the democratic process is still far from secure. Movement by the people have been instrumental in toppling authoritarian regimes and forcing popular elections, but thereafter the masses appear to have been marginalized. Despite the transition to democracy, the class composition of the leadership has remained very much the same.

In view of the above light, it is significant that the cream of the crop that was connected with totalitarian regimes is too high-flying in the new government. So the changeover to democracy was not an absolute trounce of the leaders of totalitarian government. The real reassign of power is the outcome of intercession sandwiched between old and the new privileged. An additional predicament is that intelligibility and responsibility is lacking within South Asian parliamentary government. A different setback is that in South Asia state unmoving leftovers the benefactor of wherewithal. Those funds are remains at the removal of state to keep alive the power of declaration class. The state is still a foremost source of capital to the modern sector through the public development investment institutions and public sector banks. There is little confirmation of any transform in the background of government somewhere in the region. They have to ponder over about the constitution of state. Having an important effect to the regional integration will require a essential reshuffle of the economy bedded on reciprocated advantage for all the countries. Cream of the crop resistance is a predicament to reorganization the economy and massive political will is essential for such huge amount of task. For this reasons, fashionable hold up needs to be enhanced.