After partition: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh

[Khajur]

Zia actually focused more on development of miltery and defence but reduced our national debt to level of 7 Bill USD.During Nawaz and Benazir eleven years again debt raised to 40 bill USD ,Mussaraf regime added 4 more billion .

WOT cost Pakistan 20 Bill USD , which actually break back bone of our economy and from 2007 Pakistan again listed in fail state.

We should stop US support in WOT which is further dragging PAKISTAN towards poverty and inflation.

Pardon me,but most pakistani analysts i read consider Zia era as a dark age for pakistan.They also say it gave rise to strong fundamentalism in pakistani society.

Do u think fundamentalism is good for pakistani society??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

one shouldn't give too much importance to self motivational stories like "Jinnah and his operating out of makeshift offices" that appear school books,should they?

As i said it always had a better'chance'for several reasons i thought u alreay knew.And u had good growth in the sixties and later due to those attributes combined with correct policies and favourable international situations.

what happened after that??

But why pakistan stared defaulting on WB loans??

U may or may not agree,pakistans economic failures lies not Afghanistan war,but in the policies of its aftermath...creating Talibani monster in the name of strategic deepth and engaging in proxy wars with india and speanding limited resources on military objectives like kargil,siachen and huge sum of money in bulinding its nuclear and missile arsenal to match india.

And i'm just quoting international institution of repute when i club pakistan with certain nations'.Now again u may not agree or their opinions may not be exactly accurate.But their impression certainly carries lot of weight which inturn can futher impede investments in pakistan.As always onus like on pakistan like any other country how u showcase ur country in front of the world.

More nonsense and distortions - if you believe they are 'self motivational stories from text books', then show me how?

And what 'advantages'? It is fact that West Pakistan had a fraction, if any, of the industrial infrastructure and infrastructure and development period, compared to East Pakistan and India. Jinnah's government having to work out of makeshift offices is an excellent example of that paucity of development.

Everything that has been accomplished in Pakistan has been accomplished due to the hard work and ingenuity of Pakistanis, despite stop and go policies, political instability and wars. Despite all that, and starting off at a disadvantage compared to India, Pakistan is still comparable in per capita numbers to India, so if there is any need to point fingers at a nation for not taking advantage of the head start it had, then that is India.

As far as the cost of Kargil and Siachen goes, the former was too limited duration a conflict to impact Pakistan's economy, and conducted with extremely limited resources (small arms and some artillery was essentially all that Pakistan put into it). India's response was the overwhelmingly larger and expensive one - thousands of soldiers, aircraft, helicopters etc.

As far as Siachen goes, Pakistan was not the one to invade Siachen in violation of the Simla agreement - India was. Pakistan cannot be expected to sit by and allow India to usurp territory - by your logic, no country should defend its territory for fear of 'economic impact'. That is the reality of defending against aggression - there is a cost to it.

Pakistan spent almost nothing on the Taliban - the majority of the funds came from the Saudis, and similarly the insurgency in Kashmir was largely financed through charitable donations for these groups, or money pumped in from the Gulf. So the economic impact of that too woudl be negligible.

As far as developing Pakistan's nuclear and missile program - Pakistan did not have to start everything from scratch - it obtained a lot of technology transfers through AQ Khan's network, which reduced the R&D costs, and therefore overall costs, significantly.

None of the above can be used as a significant reason for stop and go economic growth experienced by Pakistan - the answer primarily lies in the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Jihad, the millions of refugees that poured into Pakistan and the subsequent civil war in which Pakistan had to choose between the lesser of two evils (at the time) which ended up being a poor decision in the long run.

Finally, on your whole 'failed state index', like I said, Pakistan is generations ahead in terms of industrialization, economy, development, infrastructure, institutions and a political system - so explain to me how Pakistan is a failed state like Somalia and Afghanistan.

Don't hide behind the index - use your brains and explain to me how you justify your conclusion.

 

[Khajur]

More nonsense and distortions - if you believe they are 'self motivational stories from text books', then show me how?

And what 'advantages'? It is fact that West Pakistan had a fraction, if any, of the industrial infrastructure and infrastructure and development period, compared to East Pakistan and India. Jinnah's government having to work out of makeshift offices is an excellent example of that paucity of development.

Everything that has been accomplished in Pakistan has been accomplished due to the hard work and ingenuity of Pakistanis, despite stop and go policies, political instability and wars. Despite all that, and starting off at a disadvantage compared to India, Pakistan is still comparable in per capita numbers to India, so if there is any need to point fingers at a nation for not taking advantage of the head start it had, then that is India.

As far as the cost of Kargil and Siachen goes, the former was too limited duration a conflict to impact Pakistan's economy, and conducted with extremely limited resources (small arms and some artillery was essentially all that Pakistan put into it). India's response was the overwhelmingly larger and expensive one - thousands of soldiers, aircraft, helicopters etc.

As far as Siachen goes, Pakistan was not the one to invade Siachen in violation of the Simla agreement - India was. Pakistan cannot be expected to sit by and allow India to usurp territory - by your logic, no country should defend its territory for fear of 'economic impact'. That is the reality of defending against aggression - there is a cost to it.

Pakistan spent almost nothing on the Taliban - the majority of the funds came from the Saudis, and similarly the insurgency in Kashmir was largely financed through charitable donations for these groups, or money pumped in from the Gulf. So the economic impact of that too woudl be negligible.

As far as developing Pakistan's nuclear and missile program - Pakistan did not have to start everything from scratch - it obtained a lot of technology transfers through AQ Khan's network, which reduced the R&D costs, and therefore overall costs, significantly.

None of the above can be used as a significant reason for stop and go economic growth experienced by Pakistan - the answer primarily lies in the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Jihad, the millions of refugees that poured into Pakistan and the subsequent civil war in which Pakistan had to choose between the lesser of two evils (at the time) which ended up being a poor decision in the long run.

Finally, on your whole 'failed state index', like I said, Pakistan is generations ahead in terms of industrialization, economy, development, infrastructure, institutions and a political system - so explain to me how Pakistan is a failed state like Somalia and Afghanistan.

Don't hide behind the index - use your brains and explain to me how you justify your conclusion.

U look like someone who would heap most of the blame for the miseries of pakistan on the head of the poor Afghan refugees.why?

I mean how many milion Afghan refugees are there in pakistan,10 or20??

We received seven million Bengali refugees at the onset of 71 war alone.few million Banladeshi immigrants enter india every yr.

Anyway,I dont think Afghan refugees created frankenstein monster called Taliban,its the ISI who recruited,trained and armed the Taliban.The friendly one still gets all the ISI needs to this day.
As TTP became self inflicted cancer,who would u blame??

Afgan refugee or American war on terror??

I would blame the policies of pakistni leadership who pursued hardcore islamic agenda without anticipating its repercussion on the society at large.

Tell me which cities in world you find fund raising and recruitment offices for fighting jehad in different parts of the world like those founfd in pakistan untill they were closed few yrs ago??


Pakistan isnt oil rich Iran who can afford a huge army with contiuned spending on nuclear/missile arsenal and still have enough money left for economic development.

U guys are lucky to have USA around to bail u out all the times.

Now didnt get my point when i quoted some international survey which clubbed pakistan with some failed nation.

I would never say pakistan is a failed state with my knowledge of pakistan.
But doesnt matter what i or you think of pakistan.

What counts more is how pakistan is showcased in international media give to the world and what impression think tanks feed through such academic surveys.

Tell me who would believe u when u ask them to use their brains when Brish PM says majority of all plans of terror strikes on British soil rise out of pakistan or senior american official give the impression that pakistan is on brink of collapse or cast doubts on issue of safety of ur nukes??

Unfortunately what they say get echoed on the ground with each terror related incidences that occur every other week in ur cities.

 

[Joshi]

2009 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

Now that is just a flame - I challenge you to show me how Somalia and Afghanistan compare to Pakistan in terms of economy, stability, development and functioning governments.

Economic Decline Index:-
Pakistan- 6.4
Somalia- 9.5
Afghanistan- 8.3

There is no denying the fact that Pakistan is in deep Economic mess. The President of a country without any reason do not ask donations worth 60% of his country's GDP( Mr. Zardari asking for 100 billion dollars in aid)
President Zardari calls for $100bn grant from world community - GEO.tv

Now one will say that Pakistan has been fighting an insurgency in it's tribal areas so the economy dwindled, etc, etc..

Its agreeable.
But then comparison with India is not agreeable. Why? Because Pakistan has only been fighting an insurgency for 4-5 years in only one area, whereas India has been fighting insurgency in Kashmir for over 20 years, against Maoists in many states from many years, and against the North-east militants for decades. Despite that Indian President never asked for 660 billion dollars(60% of Indian GDP) from anyone.

So no comparison here.

External Intervention:-
Pakistan- 9.5
Somalia- 9.8
Afghanistan- 10.0

Most Pakistanis claim that CIA, RAW and Mossad have deep network inside Pakistan. Unconfirmed claims suggest Media & Press Control by External Agencies as well. A Successful state does not have and does not allow such level of external intervention at any cost.

Preparing for war on Pakistan | Pakistan Daily
Wicked CIA-RAW-Mossad axis against Islamabad: Pak media - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

so explain to me how Pakistan is a failed state like Somalia and Afghanistan.

Well Somalia is ranked 1, but Pakistan is ranked 10, so Pakistan fares better than Somalia, not equivalent to Somalia. And one can see the indices given there, and they seem quite correct to me.

People who made this are no kids. Either ,
i)they possess high acumen to make such conclusions,
ii)or by intent they want to demarginalize, demon-ize Pakistan in front of the world.
Choice is one's own to make of these two.

There was no 'chance', West Pakistan started of the poorest and least developed of the three current nations - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Any link please. I didn't find any.

In my opinion Bangladesh or East Pakistan was poorest, and continue to be.

The growth in the sixties and later was entirely due to the correct policies followed at the time and hard work by Pakistanis, not some 'chance', and the advantage was frittered away by subsequent poor policies, economic and political.

Despite all that stop and go economic development, and the slowdown post 2007, Pakistan is still largely at the same level as India in terms of per capita indicators, as I mentioned earlier. Once the scourge of terrorism is banished, I see Pakistan rapidly progressing once again -now we need to get that poverty rate down from 17% to under 10%!

This is a good article related to all you said.
Transcript of Dr. Kaiser Bengali’s Lecture – Making sense of Pakistan and its Economy | Teeth Maestro

And what 'advantages'? It is fact that West Pakistan had a fraction, if any, of the industrial infrastructure and infrastructure and development period, compared to East Pakistan and India.

It is a self-satisfying statement. There was no Industrial Infrastructure in India in 1947. Nearly 90% of population was rural agriculture fed. India still lags way behind in Industrial Infrastructure. At the time of independence the only something in the name of Industries in India were some Textile Mills in Bombay and some Jute Mills in West Bengal.

India's bicycle industry, scooter industry, car industry, truck manufacturing industry, all were initiated after independence.

Pakistan also had opportunities to make its OWN bicycles, cars, bikes, trucks. Policies or no Policies, hard working Pakistanis should have over-taken those "Policy Red-Tapes".

Everything that has been accomplished in Pakistan has been accomplished due to the hard work and ingenuity of Pakistanis, despite stop and go policies, political instability and wars

Let me give you an example. India was in License Raj till 1991, which means that nothing can be manufactured until a businessman gets a 'license from a bureaucrat', which made it almost impossible to do business in India.
But hard working Indian Businessmen fought against this medieval practice of business, to overcome Policies, Bureaucrats, Politicians, System, Political Instability, Insurgency and Wars.
That's what Hard Working people do. They overcome the hurdles in their path. Indian businessmen were able to convert the atmosphere inside the county in favour of doing business which thus led to Continuous Economic Growth.

My point is that, it makes a conflicting statement to say that, Pakistani businessmen are hard-working but their growth have been stopped by non-helping Policies. My point is nothing can stop hard-working businessmen. Not even their own Government. And in Pakistan's case, many businessmen are in Politics, so I don;t see the point raised.

. Despite all that, and starting off at a disadvantage compared to India, Pakistan is still comparable in per capita numbers to India,

What disadvantage?

India's Per Capita GDP was lower than West Pakistan's at the time of independence, till the start of this decade, when India overtook Paksitan.

India and South Asia: economic ... - Google Books

so if there is any need to point fingers at a nation for not taking advantage of the head start it had, then that is India.

India's literacy rate was nearly 15% in 1947. Today India produce more than 5000 PhD.s every year, more than there are in whole of Pakistan.
More than 8,00,000 car units are manufactured every year by India's Own car companies all of which started after Independence.
The list can go on and on.....

If you are saying that India has an 'advantage' of having Visionary People, then that's a different thing.

The whole point is that whole of South Asia was non-industrialized in 1947. But in 1991, India decided to break free from the shackles. And in the process India overtook Pakistan in terms of Per Capita Income. India has been Consistently growing over 6-7% for last 15 years, and by 6.7% even in amidst of Global Recession. This all happened when India was fighting war, or was making nuclear bomb, or is engaged in multiple insurgencies.

I have no doubt that Pakistan businessmen must be hardworking like the Indian ones. But if they want to make a mark then they have to overcome Policy Barriers.

India can be mired in multiple problems right now. But looking ahead there is a clear winner. Arguments can be made now, but most people believe that there will be no comparison in 10-15 years.

Yes, we know, no one has seen the future, but assumptions can be made taking "Past-to-Present" as the base.

 

[Joshi]

The major difference after partition between India and Pakistan was the type of leadership both countries had.
.
The only charismatic leader of Pakistan,M. Jinnah, soon died after partition. He left almost no credible leader to take forward his vision. The consequence? Pakistan was left in the hands of few feudal lords, who saw no one to challenge their takeover.

"To begin with, the Pakistan Muslim League, the party laying Pakistan's foundation 53 years ago, was almost wholly dominated by feudal lords such as the Zamindars, Jagirdars, Nawabs, Nawabzadas and Sardars, the sole exception being the Jinnahs. Pakistan's major political parties are feudal-oriented, and more than two-thirds of the National Assembly (Lower House) is composed of this class. Besides, most of the key executive posts in the provinces are held by them.

Through the 50s and the 60s the feudal families retained control over national affairs through the bureaucracy and the armed forces. Later on in 1972, they assumed direct power and retained it until the military regained power recently. Thus, any political observer can see that this oligarchy, albeit led by and composed of different men at different times, has been in power since Pakistan's inception.
"

"Almost half of Pakistan's Gross National Product and the bulk of its export earnings are derived primarily from the agricultural sector controlled by a few thousand feudal families."

PAKISTAN: Feudalism: root cause of Pakistan’s malaise - 25 March 2000

So in short the Power in Pakistan is in the hands of two type of people:-
1) Feudal Lords
2) Military Generals.

Here is the election coverage of Pakistan's last elections.
Feudal shadow over Pakistan elections
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Feudal shadow over Pakistan elections

------------------------------------------------------------------

The best and first major thing India did after Independence was to abolish Land-holdings. All the zamindaars were reduced to a penny's worth.

How did it happen?
It happened because Indian Ministers were not Feudal Lords. In contrast to Muslim League, Congress was mostly filled with Scholars and Lawyers. Leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Khan Mohammad Abbas Khan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Chakravarti Rajgopalachari, Jivatram Kripalani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, were all, but Feudal Lords.

Since then Political stability has been the root in India. The constitution of India adopted in 1950 is still the same, whereas the Pakistan's Constitution adopted in 1956 was suspended as soon as 1958. Military coup in 1958.
.
There are some other differences as well. India being so diverse was bound to have linguistic problems. But Indian Ministers at that time worked adroitly to provide hegemony of local language over Hindi in many states.
Contrary to that, despite having more Bangla population, Paksitani leaders tried to force Urdu upon them.
.
The thing is that there is only one advantage India had over Pakistan in 1948-now, and that is the presence of some visionary leaders which have taken India forward. No doubt there are crooks here as well. But it's not hard to find here, a diamond in coal, as well.
.
The root of India's success was laid by Pandit Nehru soon after independence by laying Engineering, Management and Science Institutions, by laying emphasis on industry, by joining Non-Aligned Movement for not becoming a superpower's pawn, 5-yearly plans(which were later started by Pakistan as well), and many more things.
.
"Winston Churchill speaking at the Albert Hall claimed that "to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins (who in his view dominated the Congress party) would be an act of cruel and wicked negligience". If the British left, "India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages"."

He also said “India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.”

Now one can only at this type of statement.

The moot point remains. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh started almost at the same level. West Pakistan was better in Per Capita Income, and Human Index in 1947. But now India is slightly better in these terms. And at this pace India will be far ahead in 15-20 years.

The change in India was brought by some people like Nehrus, Gandhis, many scientists, many businessmen, many scholars, who overcame assumed-barriers, to march ahead.

Pakistan too can do that, but for that it has to leave many dear things first. End of feudalism and military influence over economy can be a good start.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

U look like someone who would heap most of the blame for the miseries of pakistan on the head of the poor Afghan refugees.why?

Please show me where I 'heaped most of the blame on Afghan refugees'?

You are dissembling or just did not comprehend my post - please read it again and respond appropriately.

You have also not justified how you lump Pakistan in with Afghanistan and Somalia, given the objections I made earlier - what the media thinks or does not think is not justification.

I really see no point in addressing the rest of your post given how you distorted it from the get go.

 

[DarkStar]

Pardon me,but most pakistani analysts i read consider Zia era as a dark age for pakistan.They also say it gave rise to strong fundamentalism in pakistani society.

Do u think fundamentalism is good for pakistani society??

It wasn't the fundamentalism of Zia that made Pakistan progress or grow, but his liberal economic policies.

Bhutto's drive to nationalise each and every profit making enterprise in Pakistan almost destroyed the economy, slowed growth, investment, enteprise, education...the lot.

His government even nationalised good private schools,banks and ice cream factories!

It was only after his death, that Zia broke the socialist shackles that had held Pakistan back for nigh a decade.

This brought in a decade of rapid growth in Pakistan in the 80's, while Bharat was in the doldrums. How quick one is to forget the past.

Luckily, some of us Pakistanis haven't, and will use that knowledge to spur ourselves unto bigger and greater things in the future.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

2009 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy



Economic Decline Index:-
Pakistan- 6.4
Somalia- 9.5
Afghanistan- 8.3

There is no denying the fact that Pakistan is in deep Economic mess. The President of a country without any reason do not ask donations worth 60% of his country's GDP( Mr. Zardari asking for 100 billion dollars in aid)
President Zardari calls for $100bn grant from world community - GEO.tv

The economy has slowed down, no one is denying that, but while we had a little over 1% growth, and is targetting over 3% growth next year, and increased growth the year after that - the US and some European economies actually shrank, so what exactly does 'economic decline' show?

My point remains the same, in terms of economic size, economic development, industrialization, R&D, poverty levels etc. Afghanistan and Somalia are not even close to Pakistan.

Now one will say that Pakistan has been fighting an insurgency in it's tribal areas so the economy dwindled, etc, etc..

The impact was on multiple fronts, not just of fighting the insurgency - the impact was due to a spike in violence starting 2007 + political instability with the dismissal of the judiciary and the newly elected government (lack of confidence in the government drained the FE reserves) + the spike in global commodity prices + global economic slowdown + poor infrastructure related policies during Musharraf's tenure that resulted in the 3500+ MW electricity deficit we face this year which in turn had a huge impact on the economy in terms of industrial production.

Its agreeable.
But then comparison with India is not agreeable.

For the reasons above, the fact that India is far larger, and the fact that the insurgency in Kashmir was never as hostile or complex as the one in FATA. For example 36+ cops were killed in Assam yesterday - but given India's size that will not even register in terms of an impact on investor confidence or people living in Mumbai.

External Intervention:-
Pakistan- 9.5
Somalia- 9.8
Afghanistan- 10.0

Most Pakistanis claim that CIA, RAW and Mossad have deep network inside Pakistan. Unconfirmed claims suggest Media & Press Control by External Agencies as well. A Successful state does not have and does not allow such level of external intervention at any cost.

Preparing for war on Pakistan | Pakistan Daily
Wicked CIA-RAW-Mossad axis against Islamabad: Pak media - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

The comparison and points allocated make no sense - in both Somalia and Afghanistan you essentially had foreign militaries invade and fight a war against 'Islamic extremists' (Ethiopia in Somalia and NATO/US in Afghanistan). Pakistan never saw such a level of intervention, so allocating it a 9.5 vs the 9.8 and 10.0 to the other two makes no sense.

Well Somalia is ranked 1, but Pakistan is ranked 10, so Pakistan fares better than Somalia, not equivalent to Somalia. And one can see the indices given there, and they seem quite correct to me.

Actually no they don't and I have yet to see either you or KHaju address my challenge of explaining how Pakistan is even close to Somalia and Afghanistan, given the arguments made in my previous post - the 'index' is easily shown as flawed, as in the case of the 'foreign intervention'.

People who made this are no kids. Either ,
i)they possess high acumen to make such conclusions,
ii)or by intent they want to demarginalize, demon-ize Pakistan in front of the world.
Choice is one's own to make of these two.

They don't have to be kids to make a flawed index.

I am still waiting for either of you two to try and justify your argument, based on the objections I raised in my previous posts.

Any link please. I didn't find any.

In my opinion Bangladesh or East Pakistan was poorest, and continue to be.

Read some books on Pakistan post independence. East Pakistan started lagging behind later on - at partition EP had a better developed political system, greater literacy, more schools, more industry (jute ect.).

Pakistan lagged behind in all of this.

Read this on how the education infrastructure in WP lagged behind EP:
http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2004/assets/asadullah.pdf

This is a good article related to all you said.
Transcript of Dr. Kaiser Bengali’s Lecture – Making sense of Pakistan and its Economy | Teeth Maestro

How does this negate my points? Please post excerpts countering my specific points from the article. You could also post the per capita numbers to do so.

It is a self-satisfying statement. There was no Industrial Infrastructure in India in 1947. Nearly 90% of population was rural agriculture fed. India still lags way behind in Industrial Infrastructure. At the time of independence the only something in the name of Industries in India were some Textile Mills in Bombay and some Jute Mills in West Bengal.

India's bicycle industry, scooter industry, car industry, truck manufacturing industry, all were initiated after independence.

Pakistan also had opportunities to make its OWN bicycles, cars, bikes, trucks. Policies or no Policies, hard working Pakistanis should have over-taken those "Policy Red-Tapes".

You seem to be focusing on 'cars, buses and trucks' as a definition of industry. India, relative to Pakistan, had a far greater level of basic industry than West Pakistan. Pakistan had one sugar mill. My comparison is quite apt.

P.S: Us hardworking Pakistanis did get around the red tape and start manufacturing cars, tractors, bikes and truck.

And in Pakistan's case, many businessmen are in Politics, so I don;t see the point raised.

Pakistan's polity, with the recent exception of the Sharif brothers, is primarily feudal, not businessmen based. And even the Sharif brothers business fortunes rose with their rise to power.

What disadvantage?

India's Per Capita GDP was lower than West Pakistan's at the time of independence, till the start of this decade, when India overtook Paksitan.

India and South Asia: economic ... - Google Books

Did you read anything above? Disadvantages related to a lack of industrialization, literacy, resources etc. in West Pakistan compared to EP.

India's literacy rate was nearly 15% in 1947. Today India produce more than 5000 PhD.s every year, more than there are in whole of Pakistan.
More than 8,00,000 car units are manufactured every year by India's Own car companies all of which started after Independence.
The list can go on and on.....

Good for you - WP literacy rate was in the low teens in 1951, with some suggesting it was in the single digits at independence. EP on the other hand had a literacy rate in the twenties in 1951.

If you are saying that India has an 'advantage' of having Visionary People, then that's a different thing.

Bot countries have had visionary people.

The whole point is that whole of South Asia was non-industrialized in 1947. But in 1991, India decided to break free from the shackles. And in the process India overtook Pakistan in terms of Per Capita Income. India has been Consistently growing over 6-7% for last 15 years, and by 6.7% even in amidst of Global Recession. This all happened when India was fighting war, or was making nuclear bomb, or is engaged in multiple insurgencies.

Not true - you are distorting my point to suggest that I said India was very industrialized. What I said was that relative to West Pakistan, India had much higher levels of industrialization, literacy, resources and more developed institutions.

That point is still valid.

I have no doubt that Pakistan businessmen must be hardworking like the Indian ones. But if they want to make a mark then they have to overcome Policy Barriers.

And they will continue to do so, as they have show already, which is why Somalia and Afghanistan are not even close in terms of industrialization and economy to Pakistan.

At the same time, it is incorrect to argue that somehow businessmen can alone overcome all the issues. Compared to India, one of the issues that has hamstrung Pakistan is political stability, which goes to the issue of poor policies by the ruling elite.

India can be mired in multiple problems right now. But looking ahead there is a clear winner. Arguments can be made now, but most people believe that there will be no comparison in 10-15 years.

Yes, we know, no one has seen the future, but assumptions can be made taking "Past-to-Present" as the base.

The issue is not about 'looking ahead 15 years' to see a clear winner. The issue remains whether Pakistan will continue to improve its socio-economic indicators and the lot of its people. On that count the fact that its per capita indicators remain on par with India suggest that it has hung in there despite enormous challenges and disadvantages at partition and afterward.

The Scandinavian countries are not even close to the US in terms of industrial corporations etc. but they offer a quality of life to their citizens that is the best in the world, and they are therefore successful. That is Pakistan's objective, and not whether it has more billionaires than India or bigger corporations.

Sorry, but I have not seen anything so far that either justifies lumping Pakistan in with Somalia or Afghanistan, not counters the fact that Pakistan has achieved a tremendous amount despite starting off behind the curve.

 

[Gabbar]

For example 36+ cops were killed in Assam yesterday

Just to correct this point, they were killed in Chattisgarh not Assam. Assam had a blast and believe 2 soldiers were killed in that.

 

[Joshi]

P.S: Us hardworking Pakistanis did get around the red tape and start manufacturing cars, tractors, bikes and truck.

I meant by Pakistani companies.
The only car I have heard of from Pakistan is Adam Revo. A nice car, but unfortunately didn't come into mass production because of "un-favourable Government policies".

The Scandinavian countries are not even close to the US in terms of industrial corporations etc. but they offer a quality of life to their citizens that is the best in the world, and they are therefore successful. That is Pakistan's objective, and not whether it has more billionaires than India or bigger corporations.

.
Population of Finland is 1000th lesser than the US.
Pakistan is only 1/2 of US.
.
Tiny countries like Norway, Finland can survive without big corporations because of smaller population, but large populous countries like India and Pakistan need big corporations to generate mass employment. A corporation of a large country portrays the business ability of its citizens.
.
Its an excuse that Pakistan do not need big corporations of its own to improve the lives of its people.
.

Pakistan has achieved a tremendous amount despite starting off behind the curve.

All right what has Pakistan achieved?
.
Can you tell all of us what Pakistan has achieved except a Nuclear Bomb in comparison to Somalia and Afghanistan. May you tell us the name of the R&D organizations in Pakistan, and the research they have contributed to recognized world over.
.
This will help the case, than plainly saying that Pakistan is ahead in R&D stuff.

On that count the fact that its per capita indicators remain on par with India

It is good to be updated. In many indicators India is almost at same level as Pakistan, and in many Pakistan is nowhere near India.
Here have a kind look...
This is from the United Nations website...
Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Country Fact Sheets - India
Statistical update 2008/2009 - Country Fact Sheets - Pakistan
.
................................................................India................................Pakistan......
HDI Value..........................................0.619....................................0.562
Life Expectancy............................63.7.......................................64.9
Adult Literacy Rate......................................61.........................................54.2
Combined school enrolment.....................63.8.........................................39.3
GDP Per Capita(PPP).............................................3452.......................................2461
Human Poverty Index.......................31.3.........................................33.6
Children Underweight age..............47..........................................38
Female school Enrolment
as %age of males................................87.7.....................................78.3

.
India's data is from 2005, and Pakistan's from 2006(before the insurgency gathered steam in Pakistan)
.
Now I don's see any indicators in which Pakistan has been able to hold , at par with India.
.
So its proved now that Pakistan is not at par but, is behind India in most of HDI. Even Per capita GDP(PPP) as claimed before.
.

India had much higher levels of industrialization, literacy, resources and more developed institutions.

.
Not true. As I said, all the functioning institutions in India were started post-independence except 1-2 exceptions.
.
As I already said the only thing in name of industrialization in India in 1947 were some Jute mills in Bengal and Textile mills in Bombay.
All the industrial development in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi region, etc. took place after independence.
Literacy of India, WP and EP were almost same according to my knowledge. If you have some contrary credible proof, then kindly show it.
.

Read this on how the education infrastructure in WP lagged behind EP:
http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference.../asadullah.pdf

.
I am really shocked to read this. Really.
.
This is a comparison between EP and WP from 1947-1971. Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan till 1971, and the report say that it had no or little up-gradation in educational levels and infrastructure from 1947 to 1971, whereas in West Pakistan in the same period, educational levels increased dramatically. So this is primarily the mistake, not the superiority of West Paksitani Central Govt. This is nothing to boast of. A part of a county for 25 years lagged in education, in comparison to the other part, is no boasting for the other part, knowing the fact that the Central Govt was in that other part as well.
.
This shows the neglect of East Pakistan by the Central Govt. of Pakistan from 1947 to 1971 in Education front. So much so that a good level of education in one part of Pakistan in 1947 did not keep pace with the other part of Pakistan. And people will still say that it was India's conspiracy to break Pakistan in 1971.
.
Why was this neglect shown to East Pakistan, which led to de-gradation of educational levels there?
.

Sorry, but I have not seen anything so far that either justifies lumping Pakistan in with Somalia or Afghanistan,

.
And lastly I never said Pakistan is equivalent to Afghanistan and Somalia, and neither I am going to prove anything which I did not say. Also I said in my previous to previous post that Pakistan is some-what better than Somali and Afghanistan. You assumed that I was trying to do that. My point was the comparison between post-independence India and Pakistan.

 

[s90]

India has $260B reserves and alot of money but still power cuts in capital city same goes for water

 

[Gabbar]

^^ That's why there is N-deal with US to solve that power problem. You dont generate power with money, you need technology. India does not have huge coal reserves. Nuclear technology is theonly way for India.

 

[s90]

^^ That's why there is N-deal with US to solve that power problem. You dont generate power with money, you need technology. India does not have huge coal reserves. Nuclear technology is theonly way for India.

Then wait for 10 more yrs

Other than that i would like to add PK has largest WiMAX network in the whole world and cheapest broadband in the region,mobile phone penetration rate also more than India and China.

 

[Joshi]

India has $260B reserves and alot of money but still power cuts in capital city same goes for water

Forex reserves are not like pocket money which can be taken out and spent on anything needed.
.
Forex reserves act as a guarantee to the lender that the borrower will not default on the loan. India has to fund a huge fiscal deficit and huge Trade Gap as well. If a country has less amount of Forex Reserves, then the Interest paid for the loan is higher.
.
In short Forex Reserves is not hard cash meant to be spent at will, but is like a property, acting as a guarantee to the lender that its money is safe with you.
.
That is why high Forex is needed by India, as India also takes loans from World Bank, IMF, and ADB.

 

[s90]

All right what has Pakistan achieved?
.
Can you tell all of us what Pakistan has achieved except a Nuclear Bomb in comparison to Somalia and Afghanistan. May you tell us the name of the R&D organizations in Pakistan, and the research they have contributed to recognized world over.
.
This will help the case, than plainly saying that Pakistan is ahead in R&D stuff.

Some examples:-


1.Other than that i would like to add PK has largest WiMAX network in the whole world and cheapest broadband in the region,mobile phone penetration rate also more than India and China

2.The US is importing UAVs designed and built in Pakistan to protect America’s borders

3.Citations of Pakistani scientific publications are rising sharply

4.12.The world’s youngest Microsoft Certified Professional is a Pakistani and so if the world’s youngest Cisco CCNA professional

5.Pakistani students excelled in MIT’s global software talent competition

6.Over two dozen Pakistani scientists are working on the Large Hadron Collider; the grandest experiment in the history of Physics

7.Gartner(world’s leading information technology research and advisory company) released a report titled, “Analysis of Pakistan as an Offshore Service Location” which placed the country in the First Category destinations and also acknowledged that Pakistan’s labour costs were 30% lower than India’s, while Telecom costs were the lowest of any outsourcing destination.