What's new

Why is the southern part of South Asia more developed than the northern part of South Asia

@A Town :

It is true that the main reason that BD is backyard is because of its late start.

Look at Vietnam and how it is so far backyards compared to South Korea and Taiwan. They had decades extra to develop while Vietnam was at war with France and then US.

If you look at the progress that BD is making now, only Sri Lanka can match that in South Asia.
 
we have a pretty decent airport..bus stops and recently built elevated roads..even villages have good paved roads...rarely will you find potholes on highways..lots of cars on roads..what else
 
There is little difference in actuality.

Two major factors account for the difference:

1. Some of the Northern Indian states are very populous and backyards but not all.

2. BD would be right up there with Sri Lanka if it went indepedent at a similar time to rest of South Asia.

South Asia, bar Sri Lanka, is extremely backyard and let's not pretend some parts are much better than others.


many time i also think about .....didn't get answer

see even with in city .....south is posh than north

example...south Delhi....south Bombay.....in Jakarta also posh area is south Jakarta
 
Southern India and Sri Lanka are more developed than Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India and
Bangladesh in terms of Human development, literacy rate and GDP. But this was not always the case.
From the 4th century BC to the 6th century CE parts of northern India was more developed than southern
India as northern India produced the greatest Dynasties of ancient India like the Maurya Empire and
Gupta Empire. Under Mauryan and Gupta rule northern India was the center of South Asian civilization.
But from the 7th century onwards the northern part of South Asia started to decline and the southern part
of South Asia started to flourish. During the early medieval period southern India became the center of
South Asian civilization and science. Indian mathematics flourished in southern India during the medieval
period and the greatest mathematicians of medieval South Asia were from southern India like Bhaskara II
and Madhava. During the medieval period the greatest Dynasties of South Asia were established in
southern india like the Rashtrakuta Empire, Chola Empire, Western Chalukya Empire, Vijayanagar Empire
and Maratha Empire. The Mughal rule reestablished the glory of northern India for a short period of time
but even the Mughals were defeated and conquered by a power from the south the Maratha Empire.
How can the northern part of South Asia regain its past glory and is there any hope for countries like
Afghanistan and Bangladesh?

Why the **** will you combine them? Also Sri Lanka is way way ahead of South India. And South India at best is comparable to Punjab. 3rd rate central african like states UP and Bihar in North doesn't mean every Northern South Asian area is not developed.
 
@A Town :

It is true that the main reason that BD is backyard is because of its late start.

Look at Vietnam and how it is so far backyards compared to South Korea and Taiwan. They had decades extra to develop while Vietnam was at war with France and then US.

If you look at the progress that BD is making now, only Sri Lanka can match that in South Asia.
I think you mean "backward", not "backyard"
The difference between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is population. If they had a similar population then there would probably be a similarity but you are much larger in a smaller area.
Can you seriously tell me that in 24 years Bangladesh would be where Sri Lanka is now?:lol:
 
During ancient and medieval times also Southern India was much ahead as far as arts and science was concerned ... If you are going to compare on the geographical size of dynasties alone, Northern India was ahead for some time..

This difference mainly it is due to political stability... North of South Asia never had that political stability that the south enjoyed throughout the recorded history...
During ancient and medieval times also Southern India was much ahead as far as arts and science was concerned ... If you are going to compare on the geographical size of dynasties alone, Northern India was ahead for some time..

This difference mainly it is due to political stability... North of South Asia never had that political stability that the south enjoyed throughout the recorded history...
Its true that southern India was ahead during medieval period(7th - 16th century) and in the 18th century under
the rule of the Maratha Empire and Mysore kingdom but that wasn't the case during ancient period(4th century BC-
6th century CE)
 
Why the **** will you combine them? Also Sri Lanka is way way ahead of South India. And South India at best is comparable to Punjab. 3rd rate central african like states UP and Bihar in North doesn't mean every Northern South Asian area is not developed.
Afghanistan and Bangladesh are even less developed than UP. Only Gujarat has a high development.
 
I think you mean "backward", not "backyard"
The difference between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is population. If they had a similar population then there would probably be a similarity but you are much larger in a smaller area.
Can you seriously tell me that in 24 years Bangladesh would be where Sri Lanka is now?:lol:

Dude, BD growth is a healthy 6-7% a year these days.

You need to take into account the 2 Decades of very slow growth that BD had after independence. If it was not for the war, and the split was more amicable in 1971, then this would not have happened.

Sri Lanka could have been at around Thailand or even Malaysian level of living standards if it was not the 25 year civil war.

An independent BD from 1947 would now be light years ahead of both Pakistan and India.
 
Afghanistan and Bangladesh are even less developed than UP. Only Gujarat has a high development.

Afghanistan is war torn country, unfair to compare. While BD has 2x gdp per capita then UP.
 
Dude, BD growth is a healthy 6-7% a year these days.

You need to take into account the 2 Decades of very slow growth that BD had after independence. If it was not for the war, and the split was more amicable in 1971, then this would not have happened.

Sri Lanka could have been at around Thailand or even Malaysian level of living standards if it was not the 25 year civil war.

An independent BD from 1947 would now be light years ahead of both Pakistan and India.
What a brainfart lmao, all your assumptions are based on pure speculation. Anyways it's not even on topic, if you want to discuss it then start another thread.
 
someone take a trip of india at night on plane.. Punjab is all lit up while these will darker places unless you reach big cities like delhi. and I have experienced this myself sitting on plane..

india.jpg


india at night from space... Punjab is all lit .. like a big city..rest is dark or lit up where there is city
 
What a brainfart lmao, all your assumptions are based on pure speculation. Anyways it's not even on topic, if you want to discuss it then start another thread.


Dude you cannot argue with my example of Vietnam as to why it is so backward now.

Have fun with delusions that some parts of India are not impoverished after nearly 7 decades of independence.:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom