Would South Asians be better off with reunification?

Myanmar is more culturally linked to the countries to the east i.e. Cambodia, Laos etc.

Nepal and Bhutan are doing just fine on their own.

Can't imagine India wanting all the excess economic baggage either.

An interesting idea OP but one which will never occur.

Burma and Bhutan are Buddhist, one can't image them being in union willingly with something as oppressive as Islam.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are for all intensive purposes failed states in which parts are barely governable and terrorists roam free.

You'd also be giving India enormous power of them.

You could enact and promote with as much veracity the unification of the entirety of Europe, or even the world with your easily malleable reasons for. Not to mention historically these states were never unified as one entity, only three of the current states have themselves, a historical relation to their current status. India, Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives are artificial bodies. Corpulent too.

Funny, I thought that's what the E.U. is trying to do. Explain how my reasons are 'malleable'. They are actually grounded in history (pretty sure I know more about the history of the subcontinent than you), and ground realities. There are already movements to unite these countries based on a number of factors.

As modern nation states there were never united, but many of these regions were united under various empires (Gupta, Mughal, Maurya, Sikh). And were united longer than some western nations have even existed. I find it amusing that you find nations like Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh 'corpulent'. Lol. You'll have to explain that one.

In fact, I suspect you know very little about this part of the world and thus are hardly in a position to offer an informed opinion on it. I wonder why you even posted.

That isn't what the EU is trying to do. Give me one piece of legislature or solid evidence from parliment that it's the aim. Your reasons are "easily malleable" because you're advocating unification on grounds that can be molded in anyway as long as it seemingly fits your agenda of sub-continental unification.

Some of the nations were "united" under previous empires, yes. Though the indian continent has never been wholly unified, the Maurya empire, the largest pre-British Raj didn't occupy all of the southern Dravidian lands, and Hindustan was a concept of pre-Aryan origin. Not to mention the terminology of "unite" here is incredibly anachronistic. There weren't unifications, just despotism. Actually, most of the European states have existed in their present form, for longer than any of those states you ascertain. Burma which would be the most continuous, changed irrevocably in its stature, from the Pagan kingdom, to the Taungoo dynastic empire; not as long as most European states.

They're corpulent, inasmuch as I use it colloquially. Engulfing territory we gave to these states rather arbitrarily. Sri-Lanka as a unified concept is rather bemusing to say the least. Bhutan was a tributary state of varying people's, Bengali sultanates, Khamese Tibetan kingdoms. Bangladesh along with Pakistan is entirely fabricated out of sectarian idealism. And I'm pretty sure I know more than you.