112750 Moreover the population and area of India is much larger than the combined area of all countries under EU. On the other hand there is the example of USSR breaking up into 14 smaller countries. Ruble was the currency of a unified USSR, but now the newly formed countries have come out with their own currencies while still accepting Ruble. This system as working fine as well. In fact success of any unified currency depends largely upon the sincerity and integrity of member states. In the case of EU the member countries don’t have a history of fierce rivalry or enmity like between Israel and Palestine (or other gulf countries), India and Pakistan or the cold war between US and USSR. So far each member has displayed maturity and commitment towards the unification move, recognizing the potential of unity for all. Moreover these are early days and initial hiccups are bound to crop up. To think that there should’ve been multiple currencies only because there have been such an arrangement in past means we’re not taking lessons from history. Think about the multiplicity of efforts and resources that are required to maintain two types of currencies simultaneously. Under such circumstances, if all 12 member countries use their own currency together with EMU, at times the chauvinistic feeling also crop up which may bring up the thought of putting one’s country’s currency over that of the unified currency (which in totality means nobody’s currency).