What's new

Does the world really need 195 countries?

Bhaijaan

Bhaijaan

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Runs
68,710
Post of the Week
1
I had this in my mind long time ago but recently I watched this video by a famous vlogger Simon Wilson that made me think of it again.

He was touring Chisinao, capital of Maldova.

Back in the days the Soviets ruled itt wasn't a city in ruin as it is today being independent from USSR since 1991. Many old locals wish things were like back in the day.

It's a case study of course.

There are needs to create countries sometimes but too many governments really do ruin things.

195 nations, it's little bit ridiculous.
 
Most of the countries out of 195 countries were formed in the last century. Last century was probably the most eventful century in recent human history.
 
I think if all the countries merged into 4 or 5 giant countries, who'll want to lead them? It'll start a world civil war on ethnic grounds.
 
What’s the obsession with Indians and having few countries. Is it to justify their own huge country which is actually a continent? And on top of that they believe that their country actually consists of even more lands adding over 350 million people to it?
 
Countries should be based on race or religion. Intermixing pollutes the demography and compromises the ideals of the nation.
 
On the contrary, I think there should be more countries. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are always easier to administer.

Let's take India, Pakistan and China for example.

1. Balochistan, Kashmir and Khyber Phaktunwa can be independent.
2. India can be split into North and South india. Both will be among the top 10 GDPs in the world.
3. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia can all be independent.

Just imagine how many conflicts could be resolved!
 
Last edited:
gani999 said:
On the contrary, I think there should be more countries. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are always easier to administer.

Let's take India, Pakistan and China for example.

1. Balochistan, Kashmir and Khyber Phaktunwa can be independent.
2. India can be split into North and South india. Both will be among the top 10 GDPs in the world.
3. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia can all be independent.

Just imagine how many conflicts could be resolved!
Click to expand...

This North and South Indian thing is incorrect Maha,NE India,East India they don't care about North-South nonsense.

India during 1947 should had been divided based on regions, now nothing can be done.
 
Slog said:
What’s the obsession with Indians and having few countries. Is it to justify their own huge country which is actually a continent? And on top of that they believe that their country actually consists of even more lands adding over 350 million people to it?
Click to expand...

Bhaijaan's trolling shouldn't be viewed as obsession of Indians.
 
gani999 said:
On the contrary, I think there should be more countries. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are always easier to administer.

Let's take India, Pakistan and China for example.

1. Balochistan, Kashmir and Khyber Phaktunwa can be independent.
2. India can be split into North and South india. Both will be among the top 10 GDPs in the world.
3. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia can all be independent.

Just imagine how many conflicts could be resolved!
Click to expand...

What you really want probably is more autonomy.

Most first world nations provide greater autonomy to provinces. It's a good model to emulate.
 
gani999 said:
On the contrary, I think there should be more countries. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are always easier to administer.

Let's take India, Pakistan and China for example.

1. Balochistan, Kashmir and Khyber Phaktunwa can be independent.
2. India can be split into North and South india. Both will be among the top 10 GDPs in the world.
3. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia can all be independent.

Just imagine how many conflicts could be resolved!
Click to expand...

Well you mentioned China there, out of those countries I would say it is currently the most successful, and it is a huge land mass.

In fact the country which seems to think it is the biggest threat is another continent in reality, USA which has more than 50 states. I wonder why they think China is more of a threat than Taiwan?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Well you mentioned China there, out of those countries I would say it is currently the most successful, and it is a huge land mass.

In fact the country which seems to think it is the biggest threat is another continent in reality, USA which has more than 50 states. I wonder why they think China is more of a threat than Taiwan?
Click to expand...

lmao US being 'another continent'
 
Dont worry Nagaland and Khalistan are coming infact the world needs more countries with even resources
 
Greenstorm said:
Ideally, all Muslim nations should gather under one flag.
Click to expand...

You don't need to have one flag, just a common cause. Like the UK and USA are premier part of world military organisations like NATO, and also intelligence sharing networks like the Five Eyes. Muslim nations have nothing which can compare as they are just at a much lower level.
 
In India, we have 28 states.

I always felt thag was bit too many too. Again, too .anh needless governments, too many people in power.

We don't need 28 states. Not the way country is being run right now
 
gani999 said:
On the contrary, I think there should be more countries. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are always easier to administer.

Let's take India, Pakistan and China for example.

1. Balochistan, Kashmir and Khyber Phaktunwa can be independent.
2. India can be split into North and South india. Both will be among the top 10 GDPs in the world.
3. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia can all be independent.

Just imagine how many conflicts could be resolved!
Click to expand...

Very flawed logic here.
You can split countries as many times as you want there will always be conflict.
Within provinces there are differences - take punjab in Pakistan for example, the north south divide is huge.
Even within Balochistan, KPK there will most definitely be differences - doesnt mean you resort to separate nations.
Look at successful countries like the US - it is extremely diverse yet a world superpower.
Same goes for many western countries.
In every country there will always be splits regardless of size and so it is no solution to splinter into even more countries - could be detrimental to economies etc.
 
positive of big countries -> open market, wealth flow, greater choice of residence for citizens and global political relevance
disadvantage -> marginalisation of minority groups (religious, ethic or political), bloated bureaucracies

if the advantages of the former outweigh the disadvantages of the latter then its good, unfortunately in recent history we have seen a massive shift towards bloated bureaucracies within supranational entities.

in an ideal world a country should be a military and economic commonwealth of federal states, with everything else left to constituent states.
 
I gues the best way to go would be to have organisations like EU for each continent, to merge countries on one platform.
 
We need another country in between us and India. I hope Indian Punjab and Rajasthan band together and gain independence from India.
 
Unite north africa and the arab world, bring the ussr back, combine the bangla and pak army. Usa and European Union keep it the same.
 
In an ideal world....

USA and Canada should merge.

The whole of central America (Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama etc) should be merged with Mexico.

The whole of South America (barring Brazil) should be one country.

Whole of North Africa.....

Arab countries in the middle East should all be just Saudi Arabia.

Australia and New Zealand

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh :babar

I'm sure I'm missing some.
 
Syed1 said:
We need another country in between us and India. I hope Indian Punjab and Rajasthan band together and gain independence from India.
Click to expand...

Ideally, India should break into 3/4 countries atthe expense of many micro nations forming sizeable nations.

Like Petrodollars mentioned, the future needs to have more autonomy within bigger unions.

It's thought provoking
 
Actually close to 40-50 micro nations already are merely enjoying autonomy while still hugely influenced by a major nation nearby.

I guess actual decision making nations at global level aren't morr than 100
 
There are lessons to be learnt from Brexit, Greece issue etc of course.

The world does not need any more exploitation
 
freelance_cricketer said:
In India, we have 28 states.

I always felt thag was bit too many too. Again, too .anh needless governments, too many people in power.

We don't need 28 states. Not the way country is being run right now
Click to expand...

The states is not the issue, it is the people running the affairs is the issue I think. Even if you were to cut down the states, you would have the same breed of people in power and there would be more bad because those in power may not treat each region in their state equally.

People need justice.
 
Would love to see a Khalistan state because it's what most of my Punjabi friends in the UK want.

#justiceforsikhs
 
topspin said:
Would love to see a Khalistan state because it's what most of my Punjabi friends in the UK want.

#justiceforsikhs
Click to expand...

Khalistan is such a non issue even the police and government stopped reacting to minor gatherings and comments long time ago.

Actually over the years the overseas Sikh community and the Indian sikh community have evolved into two very separate kind of people. They even look different and cannot get along.

In a hypothetical scenario in which Khalistan is imposed on Indian Sikhs who do not want it, there will civil war among sikh factions.
 
What the world need is more free movement across nations instead of more or less nations. It would create economic boom all over the world with people being freely able to spend their money across the globe, which in turn will improve the spending power of those who are currently unable to attain that. At the very least, different regions can develop their own special zones where freedom of movement has very little limitations. Imagine the potential for Asia itself of the freedom of movement becomes a norm. But instead, we’ll carry on with our petty conflicts while rest the world moves on.
 
topspin said:
Would love to see a Khalistan state because it's what most of my Punjabi friends in the UK want.

#justiceforsikhs
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So you're ready to give up Lahore, Sialkot, Pindi, Faisalabad etc for your Punjabi friends in the UK. Because, the so called Khalistan includes large swathes of your own Punjab province.

https://images.app.goo.gl/z54Jdbw7JRHXxqsHA
 
Syed1 said:
We need another country in between us and India. I hope Indian Punjab and Rajasthan band together and gain independence from India.
Click to expand...

And why do you think that would be different than sharing the border with India lol. Rajputs and Jatts making up a country ,wonder which other country has majority of those.
 
I can't wait for UP to be cut into 4 more states, Maha should be cut into Vidarbha as well.
 
Syed1 said:
We need another country in between us and India. I hope Indian Punjab and Rajasthan band together and gain independence from India.
Click to expand...

Agreed, justice for sikhs. Would love to see a Khalistan state formed in my lifetime.
 
JaDed said:
And why do you think that would be different than sharing the border with India lol. Rajputs and Jatts making up a country ,wonder which other country has majority of those.
Click to expand...

Our issue with India is because of Kashmir otherwise relations would have been normal if not "idhar hum udhar tum" type. If India does not have a direct border with Kashmir then perhaps we will live normally. Unless ofcourse some hindutva extremist takes charge who wants Akhand Bharat nonsense.
 
Syed1 said:
Our issue with India is because of Kashmir otherwise relations would have been normal if not "idhar hum udhar tum" type. If India does not have a direct border with Kashmir then perhaps we will live normally. Unless ofcourse some hindutva extremist takes charge who wants Akhand Bharat nonsense.
Click to expand...

Kashmir isn't the reason of our issues, it is the victim of it.

India and Pakistan represent or used to represent two opposite ideologies. Now Pakistan is on jts oath to recovery while India is falling apart.

Nonetheless, we can never get along and it's ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The family issues - My father and sister
Replies
71
Views
2K
Dulex9
D
Savak
India on track to become the world's 3 biggest super-power
2
Replies
114
Views
4K
aboveandbeyond
A
big_gamer007
Suggestions for countries to move to
Replies
54
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
BouncerGuy
PSL 9 Review: “If you can't swing for the stands, are you really hitting sixes bro?”
Replies
33
Views
3K
aqibcric
A
MenInG
"Everybody tells me it's the classic World Cup campaign. And I hate that": Mickey Arthur
Replies
28
Views
2K
Swing
S
Back
Top