Complete solutions to all ten exercise questions printed at the end of NCERT Class 12
Political Science, Contemporary World Politics, Chapter 3 Contemporary South Asia.
The questions are reproduced in the English edition’s own wording and numbering, and each answer
is written the way it should be written in the exam. The questions the chapter asks in its margins and under its cartoons, and its class activity, are answered at the end.
The English and the Hindi editions of this chapter do not carry the same exercise. The
Hindi edition prints eleven questions; the English edition prints ten, and questions 3 and 4 ask
different things in the two books. These solutions answer the English edition.
1 Question 1
Q. Identify the country:
Answer:
| Clue | Country |
|---|---|
| a. The struggle among pro-monarchy, pro-democracy groups and extremists created an atmosphere of political instability | Nepal |
| b. A landlocked country with multi-party competition | Nepal |
| c. The first country to liberalise its economy in the South Asian region | Sri Lanka |
| d. In the conflict between the military and pro-democracy groups, the military has prevailed over democracy | Pakistan |
| e. Centrally located and shares borders with most of the South Asian countries | India |
| f. Earlier the island had the Sultan as the head of state. Now, it’s a republic | The Maldives |
| g. Small savings and credit cooperatives in the rural areas have helped in reducing poverty | Bangladesh |
| h. A landlocked country with a monarchy | Bhutan |
Why each answer. (a) and (b) are both Nepal: for years there was a triangular conflict
among the monarchist forces, the democrats and the Maoists, and Nepal is landlocked and today
runs multi-party competition. (c) Sri Lanka was “the first country in the region to liberalise
the economy”. (d) In Pakistan the army has repeatedly removed elected governments. (e) India is
“located centrally and is therefore the only country that borders the others”. (f) The Maldives
“was a Sultanate till 1968 when it was transformed into a republic with a presidential form of
government”. (g) The clue points to Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank, the rural small savings and credit
cooperative the chapter asks you to find out more about. (h) Bhutan, the Himalayan kingdom, “became a
constitutional monarchy in 2008”.
2 Question 2
Q. Which among the following statements about South Asia is wrong?
a) All the countries in South Asia are democratic.
b) Bangladesh and India have signed an agreement on river-water sharing.
c) SAFTA was signed at the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad.
d) The US and China play an influential role in South Asian politics.
Answer: (a) All the countries in South Asia are democratic.
This is the wrong statement. The chapter says clearly that “the various countries in South Asia
do not have the same kind of political systems”. Nepal was a constitutional monarchy till 2006 and
became a republic only in 2008, Bhutan became a constitutional monarchy in 2008, the Maldives was
a Sultanate till 1968, and Pakistan has passed through long spells of military rule.
The other three are correct. India and Bangladesh signed the Farakka Treaty in December 1996
for sharing the Ganga waters; SAFTA was signed at the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in January
2004; and the chapter says “China and the United States remain key players in South Asian
politics”.
3 Question 3
Q. What are some of the commonalities and differences between Bangladesh and Pakistan in
their democratic experiences?
Answer:
Commonalities.
1. Both countries have experienced both civilian and military rulers. Pakistan has been
taken over by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf; Bangladesh was ruled by
Ziaur Rahman and then by Lt Gen H. M. Ershad.
2. In both, an elected leader moved towards personal rule. Sheikh Mujib got the
constitution amended in 1975 to shift from the parliamentary to the presidential form and
abolished all parties except his own Awami League; in Pakistan, army rulers “have held some
elections to give their rule a democratic image”.
3. In both, political assassination and military takeover interrupted democracy: Sheikh
Mujib was assassinated in a military uprising in August 1975 and Ziaur Rahman was assassinated
later, while in Pakistan every elected government till 2008 was liable to be removed by the army.
4. In both, popular pro-democracy movements have been the force that restored democracy.
Students were in the forefront of the movement against Ershad; General Zia faced a pro-democracy
movement from 1982 onwards. The chapter’s timeline records “1988-91: Democracy restoration in
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal”.
Differences.
1. The outcome has been different. Bangladesh has remained a democracy in the post-Cold
War period: mass public protests made Ershad step down in 1990, elections were held in 1991, and
“since then representative democracy based on multi-party elections has been working in
Bangladesh”. Pakistan, by contrast, suffered a military coup in 1999 and returned to civilian
government only in 2008.
2. The reasons democracy is fragile are different. In Pakistan the chapter names the
social dominance of the military, the clergy and the landowning aristocracy, the conflict with
India that strengthens pro-military groups, and the lack of genuine international support for
democratic rule. Bangladesh’s difficulties came from the concentration of power in one leader and
one party after 1975 and from the military takeovers that followed, not from an external
rivalry.
3. Bangladesh began with a written commitment to democracy, drafting a constitution
declaring faith in secularism, democracy and socialism; Pakistan’s first constitution was followed
almost at once by Ayub Khan taking over the administration.
4 Question 4
Q. List three challenges to democracy in Nepal.
Answer:
1. The monarchy’s resistance. Throughout the period of constitutional monarchy the
political parties and the common people wanted a more open and responsive system of government,
but the king, with the help of the army, retained full control over the government and restricted
the expansion of democracy. Even after the new democratic constitution of 1990, the king abolished
the parliament and dismissed the government in 2002, ending even the limited democracy that
existed in Nepal.
2. The Maoist armed insurrection. During the nineties the Maoists of Nepal spread their
influence in many parts of the country. They believed in armed insurrection against the monarch
and the ruling elite, which led to a violent conflict between the Maoist guerrillas and the armed
forces of the king, and for some time to a triangular conflict among the monarchist forces, the
democrats and the Maoists.
3. Disagreement among the pro-democracy forces themselves. The Maoists wanted the new
constitution to include radical programmes of social and economic restructuring, and all the
parties in the Seven Party Alliance did not agree with this programme. Some sections in Nepal also
thought that a nominal monarchy was necessary for Nepal to retain its link with the past, and the
Maoists and some other political groups were deeply suspicious of the Indian government and its
role in the future of Nepal.
Even so, the chapter’s judgement is that “Nepal’s transition to democracy is almost complete”:
a constituent assembly drafted the constitution, the monarchy was abolished in 2008 and a new
constitution was adopted in 2015.
5 Question 5
Q. Name the principal players in the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. How do you assess the
prospects of the resolution of this conflict?
Answer:
The principal players.
1. The Sinhala community, the majority, whose interests dominated Sri Lankan politics
after independence. The Sinhala nationalists thought that Sri Lanka should not give “concessions”
to the Tamils because Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala people only.
2. The Tamils, a large number of whom had migrated from India to Sri Lanka and settled
there, and whose neglected concerns led to militant Tamil nationalism.
3. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which from 1983 onwards fought an armed
struggle with the army of Sri Lanka for a separate country, ‘Tamil Elam’. At one point of time
the northeastern part of Sri Lanka was controlled by the LTTE.
4. The government and army of Sri Lanka.
5. India, under pressure from the Tamil people in India, which signed an accord with Sri
Lanka in 1987 and sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force.
6. International actors, particularly the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and
Iceland, which tried to bring the warring groups back to negotiations.
The prospects. The armed phase of the conflict is over: the LTTE was vanquished in 2009,
so the demand for secession is no longer backed by an army. Two things favour a settlement. First,
Sri Lanka has maintained a democratic political system despite the ravages of internal conflict,
so Tamil grievances can be taken up through elections and institutions rather than arms. Second,
it has registered considerable economic growth and recorded high levels of human development,
which gives every community something to gain from peace.
What still has to be answered is the political question the war did not settle: whether the
Tamils will be given a fair share of power within a united Sri Lanka. The Indian experience is a
warning here, since the direct military involvement of 1987 was seen by the Sri Lankans as
interference and the IPKF pulled out in 1989 without attaining its objective. India now prefers a
policy of disengagement vis-a-vis Sri Lanka’s internal troubles. A resolution is therefore likely
only if it is negotiated from within, with outside actors helping the two sides talk rather than
taking sides.
6 Question 6
Q. Mention some of the recent agreements between India and Pakistan. Can we be sure that
the two countries are well on their way to a friendly relationship?
Answer:
The agreements and the steps towards peace.
1. The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, signed with the help of the World Bank, which “has
survived to this day in spite of various military conflicts in which the two countries have been
involved”. Negotiations continue on the remaining differences of interpretation, on the use of the
river waters and on the demarcation line in Sir Creek.
2. The Tashkent Agreement of 1966 and the Simla Agreement of July 1972, after the
1965 and 1971 wars.
3. The agreement of 1988 not to attack the nuclear installations and facilities of each
other.
4. The Lahore Peace Declaration: in February 1999 Prime Minister Vajpayee undertook a
bus journey to Lahore to sign it.
5. Confidence building measures to reduce the risk of war, summits between the leaders
to understand each other better and find solutions, and people-to-people efforts by social
activists and prominent personalities. A number of bus routes have been opened up between the two
countries, trade had increased and visas had been more easily granted.
Can we be sure? No, we cannot be sure. The chapter itself says that “in recent times,
the situation has changed”, and that “both the governments continue to be suspicious of each
other”. India blames Pakistan for helping Kashmiri militants with arms, training, money and
protection, and for aiding the pro-Khalistani militants between 1985 and 1995 through the ISI;
Pakistan blames India for fomenting trouble in Sindh and Balochistan. Kashmir remains unsettled
even after the decisive war of 1971, and the Siachen glacier and the arms race are still open
issues. The Agra Summit of July 2001 was unsuccessful, and the Kargil conflict of 1999 came only
months after the Lahore bus journey.
What can be said is that the relationship has become less dangerous rather than friendly: since
both states acquired nuclear weapons and missiles in the 1990s, “the possibility of a direct and
full-scale war has declined”. Peace is a series of efforts to manage tensions, not an achieved
friendship.
7 Question 7
Q. Mention two areas each of cooperation and disagreement between India and
Bangladesh.
Answer:
Two areas of cooperation.
1. Economic relations and trade. They have improved considerably in the last 20 years,
and Bangladesh is a part of India’s Look East policy, called the Act East policy since 2014, which
wants to link up with Southeast Asia via Myanmar.
2. Disaster management and environmental issues. On these the two states have cooperated
regularly. In 2015 they also exchanged certain enclaves, settling a part of the boundary question
they could not resolve for a long while.
Two areas of disagreement.
1. The sharing of river waters. The two governments have had differences over the
sharing of the Ganga and Brahmaputra river waters, and Bangladeshi governments have felt that the
Indian government behaves like a regional bully on this.
2. Illegal immigration and transit. The Indian government is unhappy with Bangladesh’s
denial of illegal immigration to India, its support for anti-Indian Islamic fundamentalist groups,
its refusal to allow Indian troops to move through its territory to northeastern India, and its
decision not to export natural gas to India or allow Myanmar to do so through Bangladeshi
territory. Bangladesh, in turn, accuses India of encouraging rebellion in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts, of trying to extract its natural gas and of being unfair in trade.
8 Question 8
Q. How are the external powers influencing bilateral relations in South Asia? Take any
one example to illustrate your point.
Answer:
No region exists in a vacuum. It is influenced by outside powers and events no matter how much
it may try to insulate itself from non-regional powers. China and the United States remain key
players in South Asian politics, and both of them work on the relations of the countries of the
region with one another, not only on their relations with the outside world.
The example: the United States and India-Pakistan relations. American involvement in
South Asia has rapidly increased after the Cold War. The US has had good relations with both India
and Pakistan since the end of the Cold War and increasingly works as a moderator in India-Pakistan
relations, so a bilateral quarrel between the two neighbours now has a third party standing
between them.
The same American presence has also worked in the opposite direction inside Pakistan. The
chapter says that the lack of genuine international support for democratic rule in Pakistan
further encouraged the military to continue its dominance: the United States and other Western
countries encouraged the military’s authoritarian rule in the past for their own reasons. Given
their fear of the threat of what they call ‘global Islamic terrorism’ and the apprehension that
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, the military
regime in Pakistan has been seen as the protector of Western interests in West Asia and South
Asia. So the same outside power that moderates the India-Pakistan quarrel has also helped keep in
place the kind of government in Pakistan that makes the quarrel harder to settle.
Why the US has this stake. Economic reforms and liberal economic policies in both
countries have greatly increased the depth of American participation in the region, and the large
South Asian diasporas in the US and the huge size of the population and markets of the region give
America an added stake in the future of regional security and peace.
China. China works the same way from the other side. Sino-Indian relations have improved
significantly in the last ten years, and economic ties have multiplied rapidly since 1991, but
China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan remains a major irritant in India’s relations with
both countries.
9 Question 9
Q. Write a short note on the role and the limitations of SAARC as a forum for
facilitating economic cooperation among the South Asian countries.
Answer:
The role. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a major
regional initiative by the South Asian states to evolve cooperation through multilateral means. It
began in 1985, when the South Asian leaders signed the SAARC Charter at the first summit in Dhaka
in December of that year. Its purpose is exactly the one the chapter sets out at the start of this
section: in spite of the many conflicts, the states of South Asia recognise the importance of
cooperation and friendly relationship among themselves.
Its most substantial economic achievement is SAFTA. SAARC members signed the South Asian
Free Trade agreement, which promised the formation of a free trade zone for the whole of South
Asia. The agreement was signed in 2004 at the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad and came into effect
on 1 January 2006, and it aims at lowering trade tariffs. The thinking behind it is that a new
chapter of peace and cooperation might evolve in South Asia if all the countries in the region
allow free trade across the borders, and India argues that there are real economic benefits for
all from SAFTA and that a region that trades more freely will be able to cooperate better on
political issues.
The limitations.
1. Political differences block economic work. “Unfortunately, due to persisting political
differences, SAARC has not had much success.” A forum in which the two largest members are
suspicious of each other cannot take decisions that bind everyone.
2. The smaller members distrust the largest. Some of the neighbours fear that SAFTA is a
way for India to ‘invade’ their markets and to influence their societies and politics through
commercial ventures and a commercial presence in their countries. The smaller countries already
fear that India wants to be a regionally-dominant power.
3. Bilateral agreements compete with the regional one. Some in India think that SAFTA is
not worth the trouble, since India already has bilateral agreements with Bhutan, Nepal and Sri
Lanka.
4. The unresolved bilateral disputes. Kashmir, river waters, illegal migration and
ethnic conflict are all carried into the forum, so meetings are consumed by disputes instead of
trade.
Suggestion. SAARC will work better if the members separate their bilateral quarrels from
the regional agenda, implement SAFTA fully so that the smaller economies can see the gains for
themselves, and widen cooperation into the areas where it has already worked in the region, such
as disaster management and environmental issues.
10 Question 10
Q. India’s neighbours often think that the Indian government tries to dominate and
interfere in the domestic affairs of the smaller countries of the region. Is this a correct
impression?
Answer:
Why the neighbours think so.
1. Bangladesh has felt that the Indian government behaves like a regional bully over the
sharing of river waters, that it encourages rebellion in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, that it tries
to extract its natural gas and that it is unfair in trade.
2. Nepal. Many leaders and citizens in Nepal think that the Indian government interferes
in its internal affairs, has designs on its river waters and hydro-electricity, and prevents
Nepal, a landlocked country, from getting easier access to the sea through Indian territory. The
Maoists and some other political groups were also deeply suspicious of the Indian government and
its role in the future of Nepal.
3. Sri Lanka. The presence of Indian troops after the 1987 accord was not liked much by
the Sri Lankans, who saw it as an attempt by India to interfere in the internal affairs of their
country.
4. The region as a whole. Some of the neighbours fear that SAFTA is a way for India to
‘invade’ their markets, and the smaller countries fear that India wants to be a regionally-dominant
power.
Why the impression is exaggerated.
1. India has helped its neighbours when asked. In November 1988, when some Tamil
mercenaries from Sri Lanka attacked the Maldives, the Indian air force and navy reacted quickly to
the Maldives’ request to help stop the invasion. India has contributed towards that island’s
economic development, tourism and fisheries; it is involved in big hydroelectric projects in
Bhutan and remains the Himalayan kingdom’s biggest source of development aid; and its help in
post-tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka brought the two countries closer.
2. India has stepped back where intervention failed. After the military intervention in
1987 the Indian government now prefers a policy of disengagement vis-a-vis Sri Lanka’s internal
troubles.
3. The relationship is generous in places. The treaty with Nepal allows the citizens of
the two countries to travel to and work in the other country without visas and passports, a
relationship that has very few parallels in the world.
4. India has its own grievances. The Indian government often feels exploited by its
neighbours. It does not like the political instability in these countries, fearing it can help
outside powers to gain influence in the region.
5. Not every conflict in the region involves India. Nepal and Bhutan have had
disagreements over the migration of ethnic Nepalese into Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar over the
Rohingyas, and Bangladesh and Nepal over the future of the Himalayan river waters.
Conclusion. The impression is understandable but not entirely correct. Given India’s
size and power, the smaller countries are bound to be suspicious of India’s intentions, and the
major conflicts and differences are between India and the others partly because of the geography
of the region, in which India is located centrally and is therefore the only country that borders
the others. Being a party to almost every dispute is not the same as trying to dominate. What the
situation calls for is accommodation on both sides: India being more sensitive to its neighbours’
needs, as it has tried to be with Bangladesh by identifying common threats, and the neighbours
recognising the help and the cooperation that India has in fact offered.
11 In-text Questions (asked within the chapter)
The chapter also asks questions in its margins and under its cartoons, and gives one class activity. They are not in the exercise list, but they test the same ideas, so an answer to each is given here in the order the book prints them.
In-text Q1. Identify some features common to all the South Asian countries but different from countries in West Asia or Southeast Asia.
Answer: The chapter gives the basis for the answer. Geography: the Himalayas in the north and the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal in the south, west and east give the region a natural insularity, which is largely responsible for the linguistic, social and cultural distinctiveness of the sub-continent. A shared past: most of the region was under British rule and gained independence between 1947 and 1948. Democracy as a shared aspiration: despite a mixed record, people in all these countries share the aspiration for democracy, and democracy is becoming an accepted norm in the entire region. Shared problems: pending border and water sharing disputes, insurgency, ethnic strife and resource sharing. The countries of West Asia or Southeast Asia do not share this particular geography, this colonial history, or India’s central position in the region.
In-text Q2. Is there a fixed definition of these regions? Who decides that?
Answer: No. The chapter itself shows how loose the definition is: ‘South Asia’ usually includes seven countries, but the boundaries are not as clear in the east and the west as in the north and the south, so Afghanistan and Myanmar are often included in discussions of the region, and Afghanistan joined SAARC in 2007. China is an important player but is not considered to be a part of the region. Such regions are defined by geography, by history and culture, by the purpose of whoever is drawing the line (scholars, governments, international organisations), and by the countries themselves when they decide whom to include in a regional organisation such as SAARC.
In-text Q3. (Cartoon on Pervez Musharraf) Read the equations carefully and write down the message of this cartoon.
Answer: The cartoon comments on the dual role of Pakistan’s ruler Pervez Musharraf as the President of the country and as the army General. The equations on the board say that Musharraf the President without the General adds up to 0, the General without the President to 1, and the General plus the President to 2, while Musharraf says he is ‘always good at calculation’. Its message is that his real power came from the army uniform, and that by keeping both posts he doubled his power. More broadly it shows that in Pakistan the army and the government became the same thing: Musharraf removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, got himself elected as President in 2001, and continued to rule as army chief, and the army rulers held some elections ‘to give their rule a democratic image’.
In-text Q4. If Germany can be reunited, why can’t the people of India and Pakistan at least travel more easily to each other’s country?
Answer: An open question. The chapter’s own answer is the depth of mutual suspicion: the conflict over Kashmir since 1947-48, the wars, the arms race and nuclear tests, and each government’s charge that the other foments violence on its territory. Even so, the chapter records steps in exactly this direction: a number of bus routes were opened between the two countries and visas were more easily granted for a time, though in recent times the situation has changed. Easier travel and people-to-people contact are among the confidence building measures that can reduce the risk of conflict.
In-text Q5. Let’s know more about Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank. Can we make use of the idea to reduce poverty in India?
Answer: The Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, founded by Muhammad Yunus, gives small loans to the rural poor, most of them women, without asking for security, and relies on small groups of borrowers who guarantee one another. It is the institution behind exercise question 1(g), ‘small savings and credit cooperatives in the rural areas have helped in reducing poverty’. Yes, India can use the idea, and already does: self-help groups of rural women and microfinance institutions lend small amounts for livestock, crafts and small shops, and help the poor build savings and escape moneylenders.
In-text Q6. Discussion on Kashmir sounds like a property dispute between the rulers of India and Pakistan! What do the Kashmiris feel about it?
Answer: The margin note makes the point that the voice of the people most affected is often left out of a dispute between two governments. The chapter describes the conflict mainly as one between the two states: Pakistan claimed that Kashmir belonged to it, the wars of 1947-48 and 1965 failed to settle it, and the Line of Control divides the region. The people of Kashmir have suffered most from the violence and militancy. Any lasting settlement has to take their aspirations and their security into account, not only the claims of the two governments.
In-text Q7. Why is it that every one of our neighbours has a problem with India? Is there something wrong with our foreign policy? Or is it just our size?
Answer: Mostly size and location, the chapter suggests, though policy matters too. India is located centrally and is therefore the only country that borders the others, so it is a party to nearly every dispute; and given its size and power, the smaller countries ‘are bound to be suspicious of India’s intentions’ and fear that India wants to be a regionally-dominant power. But there are policy issues as well: Bangladesh feels India behaves like a regional bully over river waters, Nepal feels India interferes in its internal affairs, and Sri Lanka saw the IPKF as interference. Not every quarrel in the region involves India: Nepal and Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Bangladesh and Nepal have had disputes of their own.
In-text Q8. If the chapter on US was called ‘US Hegemony’ why is this chapter not called ‘Indian Hegemony’?
Answer: Because India’s position is not hegemony in the sense in which the US exercises it: India is the largest and most central country of the region, but it is not able to dictate to its neighbours, several of which have resisted it successfully, and it often feels exploited by them. The chapter is about the whole region, its democracies, its conflicts and its attempts at cooperation such as SAARC and SAFTA, and not only about India’s power. The question also hints that the neighbours might describe India’s role more harshly than India does, which is the subject of exercise question 10.
In-text Q9. (Cartoon on regional cooperation) What does this cartoon tell you about the role of India and Pakistan in the process of regional cooperation in South Asia?
Answer: It suggests that the quarrel between India and Pakistan, the two largest members, holds back cooperation for the whole region. This matches the chapter’s verdict on SAARC: ‘due to persisting political differences, SAARC has not had much success’.
In-text Q10. (Two cartoons, one from India and one from Pakistan) The two cartoons interpret the role of two key players who are also interested in the region. Do you notice any commonality between their perspectives?
Answer: The two key players are China and the United States. In the Indian cartoon, Pakistan’s military ruler shouts at the Chinese President to stop talking ‘trade, commerce, economy’ with India and ‘stick to core issues’, while China goes on signing papers with India. In the Pakistani cartoon, the United States sits as the umpire in a tennis match between the leaders of India and Pakistan and has to decide in whose court the ball is. The commonality is that both see India-Pakistan relations being shaped by an outside power that each side hopes to win over. This matches the chapter: the US increasingly works as a moderator in India-Pakistan relations, while China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan remains a major irritant even as its economic ties with India multiply. The chapter’s own conclusion is that the future of the region will depend more on the people and the governments of the region than on any outside power.
In-text Q11. Every association seems to have emerged for trade! Is trade more important than people-to-people relations?
Answer: Trade is usually where cooperation begins because every country can see a gain from it, as with SAFTA, which aims at lowering trade tariffs, and the chapter records India’s view that a region that trades more freely will be able to cooperate better on political issues. But trade alone is not enough: the chapter notes that social activists and prominent personalities have collaborated to create an atmosphere of friendship among the people of India and Pakistan, and that bus routes and easier visas were part of the peace process. Lasting peace needs both, with people-to-people relations building the trust that trade agreements depend on.
Class activity (Steps). Divide the class into eight groups, one for each country of the region, give each a country profile with a note on the contentious issues among the South Asian countries, let each group pick an issue and find out what the governments involved have done and why they failed to resolve it, and let the groups represent their countries and negotiate.
How to do it: This is a role-play, so there is no single answer. The chapter supplies the issues: Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and the Indus waters between India and Pakistan; river waters, migration and transit between India and Bangladesh; access to the sea and the Maoist question between India and Nepal; the Tamil question between India and Sri Lanka; and region-wide issues such as SAFTA and terrorism. Record where the groups agree and disagree, and end by discussing why accommodating each other’s interests matters for peaceful coexistence.