What's new

‘Chinese contractors enter innocuously but then turn stern’

Homo Sapiens

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 3, 2015
9,207
-3
21,699
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
The government is constructing the Dhaka-Ashulia elevated expressway at a cost of around Tk 175.53 billion.

A six lane elevated highway costs around Rs. 100 crores per km. Plus land acquisition costs. I understand the Dwarka Expressway (Delhi Gurgaon area) which is under construction in India would have a total cost of Rs. 9000 crores for a 30 km stretch which works out to around Rs. 300 crores/km. Not sure of Dhaka Ashulia distance or land costs involved. As an additional data point, the Bogibeel Bridge on Brahmaputra has a length of 5 km and cost around Rs 6000 crores. It has a double gauge railway and a three lane road on it.
India build road infrastructure with it's own money, own materials, own expertise while Bangladesh will build this elevated expressway with Chinese money, mostly Chinese expertise and materials. So costs is bound to be higher in case of Bangladesh.

This is 24 km elevated expressway but costs also includes 10.83km of ramps, two 1.95km long flyovers, 14.28km of four-lane roads and 18km of drains on both sides of the expressway.

Dhaka has one of the most expensive land price in the world and govt. has policy to compensate 3 times the land price. Due to higher density, a lot of people need to relocate. So land acquisition cost is very high.

Govt. imposes a hefty import duty of all the imported construction materials which increases costs of any infrastructure project in Bangladesh by 25%.

Last but not least the rampant corruption among both Bangladeshi and Chinese officials involved in any such projects.
 

SoulSpokesman

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 1, 2016
2,682
-15
2,388
Country
India
Location
India
@Homo Sapiens

Thanks that was very helpful.

Last but not least the rampant corruption among both Bangladeshi and Chinese officials

I hope you do realise that Indian officials and netas are not lily white, either?

Regards
 
May 13, 2022
2,145
0
1,534
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
The government is constructing the Dhaka-Ashulia elevated expressway at a cost of around Tk 175.53 billion.

A six lane elevated highway costs around Rs. 100 crores per km. Plus land acquisition costs. I understand the Dwarka Expressway (Delhi Gurgaon area) which is under construction in India would have a total cost of Rs. 9000 crores for a 30 km stretch which works out to around Rs. 300 crores/km. Not sure of Dhaka Ashulia distance or land costs involved. As an additional data point, the Bogibeel Bridge on Brahmaputra has a length of 5 km and cost around Rs 6000 crores. It has a double gauge railway and a three lane road on it.

Perhaps some of our learned Maulanas here can shed some light @UKBengali @Nergal @bluesky @BananaRepublicUK

Regards

Reported this user for using the term “maulana” to denigrate us.

It’s typical sangi playbook for othering Muslims.

Pls don’t respond to this trash.

Before your small brain calls others enemies of the country, I ask you to read the first paragraph of a book on the National Economic Development and tell me where it is written that foreign loans should be used to do this kind of project.

Tell me which country in this world ever economically developed by borrowing money and employing foreign contractors when its own population is around 180 million?

Whichever country tried to do so, failed. Examples are Latin American countries, and now Pakistan, SL, and BD. Every project must be built with a country's own resources, engineers and technologies, and materials.

Do not spit in the sky. It comes right down to your BAL face.

Every single country has developed either through loans or exploitation.

West developed largely through colonial exploitation.

Japan and Korea were massively funded by US government as a hedge against communism.

Europe was given a trillion dollar loan in 1948 under the Marshall plan.

Books need to be put in context. But your Dhakaya rota learning holds you back.

@UKBengali
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
American railway expansion relied heavily on European and British finance, British being the former colonial masters.
Until a country is able to develop domestic capacities, it makes sense to look outwards for suitable investment, even if in short term it proves costly, but in the long term it should pay off. The caveat being that the investment has to be managed effectively, issues such a corruption are affairs that need to be resolved domestically, and not allow that to halt any investment at all.

population in 1850
America 23 million
UK 18 million

American had no qualms about inviting investment from a country smaller then themselves.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/2113694
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3111573
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
15,613
-2
16,963
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
American had no qualms about inviting investment from a country smaller then themselves.
Inexperienced America with vast agriculture, timber, minerals, and silk exports to Europe had the capacity to pay back the loan money. Meanwhile, American companies learned how to build railroads. And in the next phase, there was no European involvement as the local American companies had built up their capacity with their gaining experience from the European companies and engineers.

How about BD? The same Britishers built about 3000 km of the railroad before they left BD in 1947. About 200 km of that road was removed/ dismantled during the next 30 or 40 years and not a single meter of new railroad was built by the talented local BD people.

Only India is different. It has been building its own railway lines, locomotives, and coaches whereas BD people did nothing and can do nothing.

So, please do not make a parallel between America and BD, or Japan and BD. Only the first 10 km (Tokyo- Yokohama) of a railroad was completed by a British company on Oct. 14, 1872, and within the next 30 years, Japanese engineers designed and built more than 30,000 long railroads.

Japan paid in cash for the first railroad, stations, coaches, and locomotives. But, the govt introduced a system whereby a Japanese company's engineers learned how to design and how to build.

Can you see the difference between BD and other countries' approaches?

America and Japan are/ were administered by patriotic people and BD is run by a bunch of thieves with no patriotism supported by hooligans many of whom have infested this forum.
 

Black_cats

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 31, 2010
8,966
-6
13,640
Inexperienced America with vast agriculture, timber, minerals, and silk exports to Europe had the capacity to pay back the loan money. Meanwhile, American companies learned how to build railroads. And in the next phase, there was no European involvement as the local American companies had built up their capacity with their gaining experience from the European companies and engineers.

How about BD? The same Britishers built about 3000 km of the railroad before they left BD in 1947. About 200 km of that road was removed/ dismantled during the next 30 or 40 years and not a single meter of new railroad was built by the talented local BD people.

Only India is different. It has been building its own railway lines, locomotives, and coaches whereas BD people did nothing and can do nothing.

So, please do not make a parallel between America and BD, or Japan and BD. Only the first 10 km (Tokyo- Yokohama) of a railroad was completed by a British company on Oct. 14, 1872, and within the next 30 years, Japanese engineers designed and built more than 30,000 long railroads.

Japan paid in cash for the first railroad, stations, coaches, and locomotives. But, the govt introduced a system whereby a Japanese company's engineers learned how to design and how to build.

Can you see the difference between BD and other countries' approaches?

America and Japan are/ were administered by patriotic people and BD is run by a bunch of thieves with no patriotism supported by hooligans many of whom have infested this forum.

Why you are providing wrong information intentionally? East Bengal (East Pakistan) inherited 2606.59 km of railway line, which was named as the Eastern Bengal Railway (EBR).

Now total length is 3,600 kilometres where meter gauge is 2025 kilometers and broad gauge is 1575 kilometers.

So how no new lines are added or upgraded in Bangladesh? When you say any nonsense please back it up with source.
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Inexperienced America with vast agriculture, timber, minerals, and silk exports to Europe had the capacity to pay back the loan money. Meanwhile, American companies learned how to build railroads. And in the next phase, there was no European involvement as the local American companies had built up their capacity with their gaining experience from the European companies and engineers.

How about BD? The same Britishers built about 3000 km of the railroad before they left BD in 1947. About 200 km of that road was removed/ dismantled during the next 30 or 40 years and not a single meter of new railroad was built by the talented local BD people.

Only India is different. It has been building its own railway lines, locomotives, and coaches whereas BD people did nothing and can do nothing.

So, please do not make a parallel between America and BD, or Japan and BD. Only the first 10 km (Tokyo- Yokohama) of a railroad was completed by a British company on Oct. 14, 1872, and within the next 30 years, Japanese engineers designed and built more than 30,000 long railroads.

Japan paid in cash for the first railroad, stations, coaches, and locomotives. But, the govt introduced a system whereby a Japanese company's engineers learned how to design and how to build.

Can you see the difference between BD and other countries' approaches?

America and Japan are/ were administered by patriotic people and BD is run by a bunch of thieves with no patriotism supported by hooligans many of whom have infested this forum.

Beautiful reply, and I agree wholeheartedly, but I will add a different prospective to analysing the same situations.

Japan I think cannot be compared with another country, they as a nation, from top to bottom decided to adopt a new approach, there was opposition, as there always is, but their mind was set, and to my knowledge no nation on earth has taken such a drastic decision and followed through. For that reason I will not even try to compare anything Japan has achieved in it's early history of modernisation.

Regarding America, you are right, but no situation is a exact replica of another, and they were more then willing and they did acquire investment from wherever they could, including their former colonial masters. The objections I have read in this thread largely were based on the corruption narrative, or the Chinese approach to business, or which projects should be completed first, and whether it's better to wait till you develop domestic capacities and build yourself.
American enterprise was led by the private sector, but also financed by the federal government, so the kind of corruption cannot be compared to the projects in Bangladesh, which in this case is government led. Chinese finance is no different to any other finance, it may be around 1% higher in charges, depending on the project. I do not know what is being charged in Bangladesh, but to me it seems that it's better to have an operational project now then wait another 10 years, possibly more for western finance that may well be just as expensive, or longer if waiting to build domestic capacities. Do you start now and build your capabilities, or do you wait to build certain capacities and then start , waiting seems pointless. Ultimately it is about management, if they are able to operationalise this project successfully, it will payoff handsomely, in so many ways, but that in my view is a risk worth taking. As you have mentioned, no line has been built for last many decades, so it's better now then never, at least it's a start.

India is a better comparison but still not relevant. We forget the advantages India has enjoyed since the day it was created in 1947. It already had a mature industrial base, fully operational steel industry, many institutions of higher education, a mature civil service, it was near the top ten economies of the world right from 1947. We gained independence together, with Bangladesh gaining it's own independent identity in 1971, but it doesn't mean we had the same capacities as India. India has done better because it had a far better start. It should not be forgotten.
British India had a advance ship building industry in early 19th century,
it had multiple ordnance factories in late 19th century,
it's first steel plant became operational around 1900,
it had various quality institutions of higher education,
it's nuclear authority was created in 1945,
when you start listing what they gained in 1947, it is shocking how badly they have done.

I think comparisons are good, but when comparing, it is better to look at the whole picture, it clarifies lot of the general misunderstood narratives.

It's your country so I'm sure you know about things that I'm unaware, and you must have your fears and the prejudices that come with life. But, looking in from the outside, and having seen similar problems in Pakistan, to me it seems it's better to keep moving then thinking too much. Criticising the management, administration or corruption is better then criticising not having that bridge, railway or road.
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
15,613
-2
16,963
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
Beautiful reply, and I agree wholeheartedly, but I will add a different prospective to analysing the same situations.

Japan I think cannot be compared with another country, they as a nation, from top to bottom decided to adopt a new approach, there was opposition, as there always is, but their mind was set, and to my knowledge no nation on earth has taken such a drastic decision and followed through. For that reason I will not even try to compare anything Japan has achieved in it's early history of modernisation.

Regarding America, you are right, but no situation is a exact replica of another, and they were more then willing and they did acquire investment from wherever they could, including their former colonial masters. The objections I have read in this thread largely were based on the corruption narrative, or the Chinese approach to business, or which projects should be completed first, and whether it's better to wait till you develop domestic capacities and build yourself.
American enterprise was led by the private sector, but also financed by the federal government, so the kind of corruption cannot be compared to the projects in Bangladesh, which in this case is government led. Chinese finance is no different to any other finance, it may be around 1% higher in charges, depending on the project. I do not know what is being charged in Bangladesh, but to me it seems that it's better to have an operational project now then wait another 10 years, possibly more for western finance that may well be just as expensive, or longer if waiting to build domestic capacities. Do you start now and build your capabilities, or do you wait to build certain capacities and then start , waiting seems pointless. Ultimately it is about management, if they are able to operationalise this project successfully, it will payoff handsomely, in so many ways, but that in my view is a risk worth taking. As you have mentioned, no line has been built for last many decades, so it's better now then never, at least it's a start.

India is a better comparison but still not relevant. We forget the advantages India has enjoyed since the day it was created in 1947. It already had a mature industrial base, fully operational steel industry, many institutions of higher education, a mature civil service, it was near the top ten economies of the world right from 1947. We gained independence together, with Bangladesh gaining it's own independent identity in 1971, but it doesn't mean we had the same capacities as India. India has done better because it had a far better start. It should not be forgotten.
British India had a advance ship building industry in early 19th century,
it had multiple ordnance factories in late 19th century,
it's first steel plant became operational around 1900,
it had various quality institutions of higher education,
it's nuclear authority was created in 1945,
when you start listing what they gained in 1947, it is shocking how badly they have done.

I think comparisons are good, but when comparing, it is better to look at the whole picture, it clarifies lot of the general misunderstood narratives.

It's your country so I'm sure you know about things that I'm unaware, and you must have your fears and the prejudices that come with life. But, looking in from the outside, and having seen similar problems in Pakistan, to me it seems it's better to keep moving then thinking too much. Criticising the management, administration or corruption is better then criticising not having that bridge, railway or road.
The last time I omitted the name of Pakistan because Pakistanis do not like criticism of their country by a BD man. But, Pakistan has been making all those mistakes that have caused it to go almost bankrupt.

It is the same with BD as a part of Pakistan or after separation. Both countries depend on foreign loans and do not build up capacities inside the country.

By the way, if India cannot be compared, why do you compare BD with the American example? Since 1947 BD people did not build a single meter of railroads by themselves. Indian or Chinese companies did all.

I would say we should follow the Indian example of building railroads, manufacturing railway lines, signaling equipment, building bridges, and manufacturing the components needed for a bridge.

It is a lame excuse to say India had this and that in 1947, so it can do this and that. The more we depend upon others the less we develop and the more we sink deep in loans. Not a good option.

Foreign loans are a kind of alcohol that makes a country intoxicated for a few years and then everything goes away. Think of Latin American countries and now SL, Pakistan, or BD.
 

SoulSpokesman

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 1, 2016
2,682
-15
2,388
Country
India
Location
India
@peagle

India has done better because it had a far better start.

May I qualify it by saying "India has done only marginally better whereas it had a far better start". the wonder is not that India has done marginally better, but that India hasn't left Pak and BD far behind. The main culprit for that is our Nation's founding Uncle aka Chacha 420, his crooked clan and his faux socialism.

Regards
 

langda khan

BANNED
Nov 7, 2022
891
-6
620
Country
India
Location
India
@peagle

India has done better because it had a far better start.

May I qualify it by saying "India has done marginally better because it had a far better start". the wonder is not that India has done marginally better, but that India hasn't left Pak and BD far behind. The main culprit for that is our Nation's founding Uncle aka Chacha 420, his crooked clan and his faux socialism.

Regards

Totally agree. Never mind the small detail that you are talking to a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi and not two Pakistanis because of his daughter.
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
@peagle

India has done better because it had a far better start.

May I qualify it by saying "India has done only marginally better whereas it had a far better start". the wonder is not that India has done marginally better, but that India hasn't left Pak and BD far behind. The main culprit for that is our Nation's founding Uncle aka Chacha 420, his crooked clan and his faux socialism.

Regards

Well you've just said the same thing, worded differently. In essence I agree because it is the same as what I had said, but you are free to follow your reasonings, I only counter reasoning if it deviates too much from the conclusion.

However, I will add one thing, it is because of the Chacha 420 that you have a country, that Chacha 420 gave India the unity that exits now.

India has no historical basis, except as a loose region, the fact Chacha 420 lived on for 17 years, supported by many national leaders, and backed by the national organisation of the Congress party is the India that exist today. Otherwise, the Tamil south was pretty much ready to say goodbye, they only changed their mind when the war with China started. It can be argued that China inadvertently saved India. But this is not related to the topic and I have deviated, for which I apologise, just that the link was too strong to ignore.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
13,833
132
17,572
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Pakistan got great deals from China, other financial bodies wouldn't even lend money to Pakistan. Also we got complete packages :finance and completed on time projects. With Westerners they would take years to complete feasibility studies and charge huge extortionate amounts and mess it up with leverages of one form or another.

You seem to have a warped view of Western work ethics. They seldom invest in Pakistan due to environment that is not conducive to foreign investment in line with international best practices because projects are seldom awarded on merit and there are concerns about mismanagement, prevalence of corruption, and legal uncertainties. The Reko Dik fiasco is a stark reminder of this problem.

Many of the Chinese projects could not be completed on schedule either due to similar reasons and associated costs ballooned. Some of the contracts were awarded to companies lacking in expertise because Pakistani leaders and project managers are more interested in kickbacks than awarding contracts on merit. Nandipur power project and Metro Orange Train are notable examples.


There is more but you get the gist.

Another Dhakaya “expert”.

They can talk but cannot build anything 🤣🤣🤣

This idiot says OECD contractors don’t pay bribes 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Does this idiot not know of criminal cases against the likes of BP, Shell, Exon, Glencore et al for bribes and exploitation in Africa and South America.

IMF and world bank have been exploiting Africa for decades. Giving loans to service interests to western banks.

By the end of 1990 - most African countries were spending more than 50% of their foreign currency earnings on servicing debt.

It was a scandal that was only partially mitigated when a new generation of African rulers threatened to ban western companies in favour of Chinese companies.

Gadaffi was at the forefront of this rebellion and that’s why he was taken out by U.K. and France.

West just takes out foreign leaders that do not serve their interests.

Obviously, it’s now Hasina’s turn!!!

For general knowledge sake:




Foreign exploitation notwithstanding, lack of planning, corruption, mismanagement, and political interference are at the root of numerous problems in Africa.

But there are success stories as well.
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I apologise for a quotation based reply, which is a personal pet peeve of mine, but you have raised so many divergent points, which need to be answered in a pointed manner.

The last time I omitted the name of Pakistan because Pakistanis do not like criticism of their country by a BD man. But, Pakistan has been making all those mistakes that have caused it to go almost bankrupt.
I have no problems with discussing any issues, none, provided a sound reasoning is provided, and a person is receptive to an open reply, all and everything is acceptable. Imagine the worse thing in your mind, and you can discuss it with me, it really is that simple.

Pakistan has made many mistakes, but none of those are solely the cause of Pakistan's troubles, it's is an extremely simple and sorry to say an ignorant understanding of Pakistan's realities. Not just by yourself, it's a widely held viewpoint, but it is a gross misunderstanding, because that viewpoint ignores core realties.

No major country in the world has faced the same troubles as Pakistan, which it has since independence, but let's stick with the Pakistan that exists today.
Since the 1970's, Pakistan has constantly felt the blowback of the Afghan wars, the Sunni/Shia troubles that resulted from the Saudi/Iran rivalry of the 1980s, the constant spread of terrorism by India, these things were going to have an effect, and they did. I read Bangladeshi officials crying about merely a million refugees, that have arrived only a few years ago. Pakistan has hosted 3-5 million Afghans for over 40 years and counting, plus it has 500,000 Rohingya since the 1980's, around a million Bangladeshi have settled since the 1970's, Pakistan took in refugees from other parts of the world, but no crying. They've gotten on with it.

Pakistan also faced American sanctions form 1965-82, then again from 1990-2002, and global sanctions from 1997-2002, much of the foreign aid it received was linked to mutual co-operation, so the aid was based on mutual benefits. Foreign embassies used to operate out of UAE, how do people forget all this? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
How was all this not going to have a negative effect? It was, and it did.
No other country has faced such situations, and certainly not Bangladesh.
Those are realities, to ignore them is just peddling in lies.


By the way, if India cannot be compared, why do you compare BD with the American example? Since 1947 BD people did not build a single meter of railroads by themselves. Indian or Chinese companies did all.
When did I say India cannot be compared? Please read again, now you're putting words in my mouth.
I tried to answer your questions, but to be frankly honest none of them were relevant, to say so would in my opinion have been rude. So I provided justified answers, which you have not countered, only raised new one's, which isn't right, you should answer my statements or close the discussion, not continue to raise new points.
I gave proper reasonings for each of the countries you had mentioned, please read again.

I would say we should follow the Indian example of building railroads, manufacturing railway lines, signaling equipment, building bridges, and manufacturing the components needed for a bridge.
You have ignored reality and gone into a fantasy world, sorry I don't mean to be rude, but I cannot describe it any other way.
India was able to do all those things because it had capabilities that it inherited from the British. It's because those industrial capabilities exited that India was able to do all those things you mentioned. It was given massive help, even after 1947.
Pakistan asked, but America refused to help build a steel plant, in the end Pakistan had to turn to the so called other camp, the Soviets, who were cash starved and were ready help Pakistan build one. Pakistan was a treaty ally and had close relations with America, but still they were unwilling to help build a steel plant. Anything you do has to be based on ground realities.
You cannot wish we should do this, or that, but ignore ground realties, that's just feeding fantasies.
Pakistan had asked American to help build a port in Gwadar and Ormara, another coastal town, it was refused. So before passing judging, please look at ground realities with earnest honesty, and not present an empty wish list.

India exploded an atomic bomb in 1974, by using illegal plutonium form a Canadian reactor. America was due to supply heavy water for use in that reactor, America did not stop, it supplied that heavy water within that year, despite those illegal actions by India.
But, it sanctioned Pakistan.
Realties, not fantasies.
I doubt much help has been available to Bangladesh either in the previous decades, other then simple aid. If China or anyone else is willing to help, I see no reason to refuse, but it's your country, I'm just providing a perspective.

It is a lame excuse to say India had this and that in 1947, so it can do this and that. The more we depend upon others the less we develop and the more we sink deep in loans. Not a good option.
How is that a lame excuse?
So for you fantasies are facts, but facts are fiction, with respect, are you feeling ok?

How can anyone ignore ground realities but create a wish list, failing which continue to condemn something that does not exist, it simply does not make sense.

No nation on earth has developed independently, they have all developed with the help and co-operation of other nations. You do not get to decide what help and co-operation you get, but you make the best of which options are available, and try to move forward. It really is that simple.

Foreign loans are a kind of alcohol that makes a country intoxicated for a few years and then everything goes away. Think of Latin American countries and now SL, Pakistan, or BD.

I'm sorry but that's an ignorant viewpoint.
Foreign loans are very effective at helping to resolve domestic issues. It is how you use them that's messed up. It points to internal weaknesses, just because a country has weak internal structures does not mean the source is wrong.
If a doctor says to take your medicine 3 times a day for a month, but you feel better after few days, and you start taking the medicine once a day, selling the rest for your benefit, that's your fault, you cannot blame the doctor.

Every nation on earth is corrupt, especially developing nations, it's a fact of life, you deal with it and move on, not cry about when actual development is taking place. Corruption is going to take place no matter what, but with railways, bridges and road, at least they are there, they cannot be taken away. Once built they will exist for the next 50 or 100 years, maybe better leaders will come and utilised more effectively.

However, I do agree that mindless and endless development is a wrong approach, a single project here and there is hardly endless development.
 

SoulSpokesman

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 1, 2016
2,682
-15
2,388
Country
India
Location
India
@peagle

Thanks for your posts in this thread. They have been of exceptional quality, highly informative and . devoid of any rancour.

There is one question about Pak economy intend to ask, which I shall address in a separate thread hopefully over the weekend. With your kind permission I will tag you and seek your views as well.

Regards
 

Turingsage

BANNED
Sep 28, 2014
2,308
-23
3,612
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
Pakistan asked, but America refused to help build a steel plant, in the end Pakistan had to turn to the so called other camp, the Soviets, who were cash starved and were ready help Pakistan build one. Pakistan was a treaty ally and had close relations with America, but still they were unwilling to help build a steel plant. Anything you do has to be based on ground realities.

Pakistan received $67 billion of FREE money over 40 years from the USA. In todays money that is worth $210 billion plus subsidised and latest weapons being a member of CENTO and SEATO.
The Russians build one of the largest steel plant in Pakistan. What has happened to it ?
It barely runs and the Pakistani's have been trying to sell it off for many years.
Pakistan has received massive aid from the Arabs as well as most of the West.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom