The author perhaps a very limited sense of social sciences. His notion that Pakistan and India are of the same 'lot' is not entirely true and this goes through every sense of the word.
Ethnically, our diversity is much different from India. As an example India does not have the number of ethnic Pakthuns and Balochies that we have and taking Paksitan = Punjab + Sindh which has been historically been a part of South Asia is not correct.
Secondly, the demographics of developement in Pakistan were and still are very different: the number of urbanised people that Pakistan had was very low (with Lahore and Karachi being the only major cities in '47) where as India had about 15 or so major urban hubs and thus a vibrant 'middle class' that has been the true tipping point in the balance of power in social, economic and political terms. Pakistan's middle class rose in the late 70s and early 80s, thus, development in all terms would naturally be different.
Thirdly, the factors that both nations faced and the resources with which they could face it were again very different: Pakistan's founding party was voted completely out of power within the first decade of her inception. India enjoyed Congress leadership for a longer time. Pakistan's territory was divided, India had a united territory.
Lastly, Pakistan did not enjoy the fruits of British administrative hold which India did. Infrastructure wise, India got the better part of British legacy whereas Pakistan got the fringe regions which were underdeveloped for the most part and had to put in resources that it did not have in not just social/political development but also infrastructure.
So, the original premise is faulty.
I'll add one more factor if I may.
Many of the top business families have roots that go back 200 years or so.
for example Tata's family is not a product of 90s. It goes back decades if not centuries.
These families act as conglomerate by providing badly needed financing for rapid expansion, while keeping the group corruption free.
They also help train the next generation of business elite from within the family.
While many of the techies can start and run a 50 man company. you need a Tata or Ambani to run 50,000 man company. Because large companies are complex organisms and they need unique expertise.
Pakistan did get some of the memons and parsi families in 1947.
Pakistan developed some new families as well.
But all of these families for looted by the commies and socialists during the dark days of ZA bhutto.
Bhutto should be given credit for single handedly and permanently destroying the "long term business investment" in Pakistan.
Such business investments are mainly engineering and manufacturing.
Thus our BECO became forking PECO and then looted by the PPP Jiyalas.
As I said there comparing few rich people from India is huge stupidity
and it also does a disservice to both Pakistan AND India.
For Pakistan it reinforces that Indians are bunch of money hungry baniyas
And Indians get this false sense of my shtick is bigger than yours while ignoring abject poverty still prevalent in large parts of India.
Peace
