Smruti Pattanaik replies: South Asia cannot be called independent geo-strategic zone. Countries of the region have different security and strategic outlook. These are governed by geographical location of each of the countries of the region and state of their economic health impinges on the way that these countries look at various strategic issues. Source of their threat perceptions are not confined to its geo-strategic space of South Asia, it is rather transnational. South Asia also does not act as a coherent geographical entity. For that matter no region can be called an independent geo-strategic zone.

Politically and strategically it cannot be called as an independent geo-strategic zone. Countries of South Asia do not share a common strategic and security vision. There are two important countries i.e. US and China are deeply involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chinese close defence tie with Pakistan is also aimed at India. Most of the countries have different perceptions on the role of US and China in this region.

In a globalizing world, independent geo-strategic zone are neither possible nor viable. Interests of the countries are overlapping and they have to pursue an overarching policy that takes into consideration dynamics of international politics.

G C K Rai replies:
1. Dittmer, Lowell (ed) & Yu, George T (ed): China, the developing world, and the new global dynamic. Boulder. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2010.

2. Ramesh, Jairam: Making sense of Chindia. [reflections on China and India] New Delhi. India Research Press, 2005.

3. Dittmer, Lowell (ed.): South Asia's nuclear security dilemma. [India, Pakistan, and China] Armonk. M. E. Sharpe, 2005.

4. Acharya, Amitav & Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS): Seeking security in The Dragon's shadow. [China and Southeast Asia in the emerging Asian order] Singapore. Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), 2003.

5. Singhai Institute for International Studies: China and Asia's security. Singapore. Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2005.

6. Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research: Balance of power in South Asia. Abu Dhabi. Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, 2000.

7. Leong, Ho Khai (ed.) & Ku, Samuel C Y (ed.): China and Southeast Asia. [global changes and regional challenges] Singapore. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005.

8. Keller, William W (ed) & Rawski, Thomas G (ed): China's rise and the balance of influence in Asia. Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007.

9. Goh, Evelyn (ed) & Simon, Sheldon W (ed): China, the United States and Southeast Asia. [contending perspectives on politics security and economics] London. Routledge, 2008.

10. Beller-Hann, Ildiko (ed), Cesaro, M Cristina (ed), Harris, Rachel (ed) & Finley, Joanne Smith (ed): Situating the uyghurs between China and Central Asia. Hampshire. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007.

11. Sengupta, Anita: Russia, China and multilateralism in Central Asia. Delhi. Shipra, 2005.

12. Sutter, Robert G: China's rise in Asia. [promises and perils] Lanham. Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

Nitya Nanda (Fellow, TERI) replies: The question presumes that the level of economic integration in South Asia is very low compared to other regions of the world. This may appear so if one looks at the intra-regional trade in South Asia which is very often considered an indicator of regional integration. But this may not be the right indicator to measure the level of economic integration in South Asia due to its extremely skewed size distribution in the region as well as due to the fact that most countries do not share border with each other. In fact the level of trade integration of Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is reasonably high with India. Indian investment is also quite high in these countries except Bangladesh. Thus even higher level of integration can happen only if there is better relationship between India and Pakistan. This will strengthen economic ties not only between India and Pakistan but also between India and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan and Nepal. There can also be sectoral cooperation, particularly in the fields of energy, telecom, transport, information technology and education. Economic integration also requires greater movement of people. As of now people can move freely betwen India and Nepal and India and Bhutan. Indians also get visa on arrival in Sri Lanka. India can also offer similar facility to Sri Lankans. Making movement of people between India and Bangladesh easier should not be too difficult. Overall, I would argue that the level of economic integration is not as low as is often made out to be. But the the key to furthur economic integration lies in the domain of politics, particularly in India Pakistan relationship.