Future of Pakistan Bangladesh relations

[patman]

CPEC will all but ensure that Pakistan becomes a developed nation. It will however take at least 30 years. It's not a matter of if but when!

The irony when China itself isn't yet a developed countries , a country that's going to get spare scraps from China thinks its going to become the west lol

 

[Samurai_assassin]

He didn't blame Pakistan. He said Jamaat has ISI and Pakistan connection. Which is in fact true. And he suspected Jamaat is behind this. This statement doesn't qualify as "BD blaming Pak" unless you forcefully want to believe so.

Can you elaborate as to how the ISI has a connection with Jammat of BD? If so, does ISI even have any influence over them? You said yourself Pak has very little influence in BD to change any mind. Just a typical boogeyman to scare the poor folks of BD 'ISI' the exact same Indian narrative. BD folks are more likely to be gunned by Indian BSF guards who have a habit of regularly target practising on innocent BD farmers. The real influence in BD is RAW.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

So you now admit that BD had a handicap in that it started in 1971 compared to 1947?



Middle income. So much better than either
Pakistan or India achieved with 70 years
of independence.

Look neither Pakistan or India will ever be able
to develop as fast as a unitary state like BD and
so comparison is futile.

Pakistan needs to use it's relationship with China for maximum gain. Just CPEC by itself wont even transform Pakistan into a middle-income country.
You need to focus on education, law and order and sound economic policies in order to grow at rates of 8-9% a year, to be able to make progress towards becoming a middle-income country in the next generation. Developed status is too far away to dream of right now.

I could also argue that Pakistan has had a severe obstacle in that we have had to contend with an enemy 7x bigger than us that has abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege. Not to mention the fact that the American have been trying to destabilize Pakistan since 2001. bangladesh would not be able to survive these odds.

CPEC was only initiated less than a year ago but has already done things for Pakistan's infrastrucrure that were deemed impossible less than 2 years ago. Your analysis of Pakistan seems like indian fairy tales as to why Pakistan can NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance.

With all due respect, Pakistan unlike bangladesh also has many powerful global supporters whose interest are served by having a powerful Pakistani state. Ever wondered who bankrolled our nuclear weapons program which has now given Pakistan the ability to produce H-bombs?:

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...nuclear-weapons-time-for-pakistan-to-rever/12

Be it sport, economics etc, let bangladesh 1st achieve something on the global stage then come and talk. Otherwise you sound like the indian fantasists who claim india is a superpower.

The irony when China itself isn't yet a developed countries , a country that's going to get spare scraps from China thinks its going to become the west lol

Because india is a developed superpower...........

 

[Samurai_assassin]

So you now admit that BD had a handicap in that it started in 1971 compared to 1947?



Middle income. So much better than either
Pakistan or India achieved with 70 years
of independence.

Look neither Pakistan or India will ever be able
to develop as fast as a unitary state like BD and
so comparison is futile.

Pakistan needs to use it's relationship with China for maximum gain. Just CPEC by itself wont even transform Pakistan into a middle-income country.
You need to focus on education, law and order and sound economic policies in order to grow at rates of 8-9% a year, to be able to make progress towards becoming a middle-income country in the next generation. Developed status is too far away to dream of right now.

Major difference is Pakistan has A never ending war ravaged neighbour as Afghanistan. 1979 to present day the conflict continues. The on the other border Pak has a hostile enemy as India. That mixed in with corrupt politics have taken the country back many decades. If BD was in this present situation as Pak is in BD would cease to exist or atleast it would be like Yemen.

I'd like to know which language they speak with you as the vast majority of Brit Pakas originate from either Azad Kashmir or northern Punjab. So it's either potwari or Punjabi. However most speak English as their first language.

 

[UKBengali]

Major difference is Pakistan has A never ending war ravaged neighbour as Afghanistan. 1979 to present day the conflict continues. The on the other border Pak has a hostile enemy as India. That mixed in with corrupt politics have taken the country back many decades. If BD was in this present situation as Pak is in BD would cease to exist or atleast it would be like Yemen.

BD helped build the Pakistan military between 1947-1971 to stave off India. Without BD, Pakistan would not have even dared challenge India over Kashmir.

No BD would not cease to exist as it is a unitary state and we are not Arabs that kill each other on a whim.

I have no idea about language but most are Kashmiris and so whatever language is spoken by them I presume.

 

[patman]

Because india is a developed superpower...........

I see no answer , k keep dreaming

 

[Nilgiri]

So you now admit that BD had a handicap in that it started in 1971 compared to 1947?

Whole region did. India and both wings of Pakistan did not really get much realised social development till well into the 80s (from the fruition of the generational policies set post independence by their political elites...and setting up the momentum and inertia to continue it).

Sorry but it needs a massive study with massive quality data (all unbiased) to say otherwise (i.e compare the two hypothetical routes of BD/East Pak). This simply does not exist for the region for time period in concern.

Bangladesh was able to take matters into its own hands though (post 71) and has done an appreciable job I will say that, compared to Pakistan and even India in many matters. The other two have done so likewise in other areas.

The more time we give, the more resolution we will get (and also helps to back-predict, world bank, UN corrects itself over time for that very reason)....because simply the data was quite bad pre-80s in South Asia (and most of developing world tbh). Its the main reason why HDI is rarely back dated to before 1980...I think 1975 is the most I have seen.

 

[Samurai_assassin]

BD helped build the Pakistan military between 1947-1971 to stave off India. Without BD, Pakistan would not have even dared challenge India over Kashmir.

No BD would not cease to exist as it is a unitary state and we are not Arabs that kill each other on a whim.

I have no idea about language but most are Kashmiris and so whatever language is spoken by them I presume.

Pak challenged India as the people of Jammu wanted to join Pak yet the Hindu ruler declined and decided he wanted to be apart of India. Pak sent its armed Pathan Tribesmen who massively contributed to the efforts of securing Azad Kashmir so the efforts go to the people of Pakistan. If any war erupts on your borders you will also be dragged into the conflict it's inevitable. U.K. Kashmiris speak Potwari or sometimes
Referred to as Pahari. A distant dialect of Punjabi. Like touraelf, I don't understand them as I am a Punjabi and Urdu speaker. My response would be the same to use the English language to communicate.

 

[UKBengali]

Whole region did. India and both wings of Pakistan did not really get much realised social development till well into the 80s (from the fruition of the generational policies set post independence by their political elites...and setting up the momentum and inertia to continue it).

Sorry but it needs a massive study with massive quality data (all unbiased) to say otherwise (i.e compare the two hypothetical routes of BD/East Pak). This simply does not exist for the region for time period in concern.

Bangladesh was able to take matters into its own hands though (post 71) and has done an appreciable job I will say that, compared to Pakistan and even India in many matters. The other two have done so likewise in other areas.

The more time we give, the more resolution we will get (and also helps to back-predict, world bank, UN corrects itself over time for that very reason)....because simply the data was quite bad pre-80s in South Asia (and most of developing world tbh). Its the main reason why HDI is rarely back dated to before 1980...I think 1975 is the most I have seen.

So BD would not have done any better if it's valuable Jute exports in the 1950s and early 1960s had been spent in developing BD rather than the mainly West Pakistani army, and infrastructure that nearly wholly benefited present Pakistan? Not rocket science to figure out BD was held back by Pakistan.

Both Pakistan and India have had terrible economy policies since independence, with India at least doing a lot better since 1991 and that was only due to the complete failure of the old system. Coupled with both countries trying to hold disparate ethnicities together, both are still 3rd world after 70 years of independence now.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I see no answer , k keep dreaming

We did with regards to becoming a nuclear weapons state and look where that got us. The dream came true.......lol......

Hence will continue dreaming.........

 

[patman]

We did with regards to becoming a nuclear weapons state and look where that got us. The dream came true.......lol......

Hence will continue dreaming.........

Like supa pawa north Korea

 

[Nilgiri]

So BD would not have done any better if it's valuable Jute exports in the 1950s and early 1960s had been spent in developing BD rather than the mainly West Pakistani army, and infrastructure that nearly wholly benefited present Pakistan? Not rocket science to figure out BD was held back by Pakistan.

Firstly, that requires you to have a magnitude level of better institutional quality than you did under East Pakistan as well (more than the poor tax/fiscal imprint that was realised especially back then...and only slowly improves to this day) Thats quite a stretch of an argument to make.

Secondly , that institutional quality of yours (as seen in the corruption perception index) is much worse and still not improving (and worse than India and Pakistan)....so I doubt it suddenly would have been so great off the bat in the 50s - 70s. This capacity did not start suddenly in 1971, we all inherited it from the British Raj and the real impetus to improving it in region only really started in post cold war time, well past 1971.

Thirdly, being part of Pakistan was your decision, you (or at least those in position to make and influence that decision) thus inherit how it turned out for you in the end. If you feel you were held back, well then you shouldn't have pushed for such a concept of Pakistan in the first place.

Plus @DESERT FIGHTER and others have presented their side on how much the fiscal diversion actually was regarding the two wings of Pakistan. He can post that here again and discuss that. Essentially it came to showing the effective diversion rate accounting for the small imprint the fiscal structure of the govt had in the first place was not enough to discount 50s - 70s BD as null and void under some kind of total extractive monopoly (which say really existed only under the British at various periods).

Both Pakistan and India have had terrible economy policies since independence, with India at least doing a lot better since 1991 and that was only due to the complete failure of the old system. Coupled with both countries trying to hold disparate ethnicities together, both are still 3rd world after 70 years of independence now.

and doing a lot better than Bangladesh....especially where it matters: institutional capacity. Because that's what determines the capacity of a country's govt to address its problems going forward. Also a major reason why BD will never diversify its economy properly...political corruption always prefers as few industries as possible.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Firstly, that requires you to have a magnitude level of better institutional quality than you did under East Pakistan as well (more than the poor tax/fiscal imprint that was realised especially back then...and only slowly improves to this day) Thats quite a stretch of an argument to make.

Secondly , that institutional quality of yours (as seen in the corruption perception index) is much worse and still not improving (and worse than India and Pakistan)....so I doubt it suddenly would have been so great off the bat in the 50s - 70s. This capacity did not start suddenly in 1971, we all inherited it from the British Raj and the real impetus to improving it in region only really started in post cold war time, well past 1971.

Thirdly, being part of Pakistan was your decision, you (or at least those in position to make and influence that decision) thus inherit how it turned out for you in the end. If you feel you were held back, well then you shouldn't have pushed for such a concept of Pakistan in the first place.

Plus @DESERT FIGHTER and others have presented their side on how much the fiscal diversion actually was regarding the two wings of Pakistan. He can post that here again and discuss that. Essentially it came to showing the effective diversion rate accounting for the small imprint the fiscal structure of the govt had in the first place was not enough to discount 50s - 70s BD as null and void under some kind of total extractive monopoly (which say really existed only under the British at various periods).



and doing a lot better than Bangladesh....especially where it matters: institutional capacity. Because that's what determines the capacity of a country's govt to address its problems going forward. Also a major reason why BD will never diversify its economy properly...political corruption always prefers as few industries as possible.

World bank;

As if jute ain't jute but gold.

East Pakistan was flooded and wrecked most of the times.. be it floods or cyclones...

Firstly, that requires you to have a magnitude level of better institutional quality than you did under East Pakistan as well (more than the poor tax/fiscal imprint that was realised especially back then...and only slowly improves to this day) Thats quite a stretch of an argument to make.

Secondly , that institutional quality of yours (as seen in the corruption perception index) is much worse and still not improving (and worse than India and Pakistan)....so I doubt it suddenly would have been so great off the bat in the 50s - 70s. This capacity did not start suddenly in 1971, we all inherited it from the British Raj and the real impetus to improving it in region only really started in post cold war time, well past 1971.

Thirdly, being part of Pakistan was your decision, you (or at least those in position to make and influence that decision) thus inherit how it turned out for you in the end. If you feel you were held back, well then you shouldn't have pushed for such a concept of Pakistan in the first place.

Plus @DESERT FIGHTER and others have presented their side on how much the fiscal diversion actually was regarding the two wings of Pakistan. He can post that here again and discuss that. Essentially it came to showing the effective diversion rate accounting for the small imprint the fiscal structure of the govt had in the first place was not enough to discount 50s - 70s BD as null and void under some kind of total extractive monopoly (which say really existed only under the British at various periods).



and doing a lot better than Bangladesh....especially where it matters: institutional capacity. Because that's what determines the capacity of a country's govt to address its problems going forward. Also a major reason why BD will never diversify its economy properly...political corruption always prefers as few industries as possible.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttos nationalisation policy pushed us atleast a decade back... destroyed our economy and industries..

As for Pak & India :

From 1995

 

[Nilgiri]

Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttos nationalisation policy pushed us atleast a decade back... destroyed our economy and industries..

Yup in our case it was Mrs. Gandhi....any small momentum we inherited vanished....and gone for like 20 years.

But BD nationalists feel they are super special people lol that would somehow break the mold of post-British Raj economic fabian policies and terrible institutional development (i.e to change from net extractor to provider). Latter still incomplete by long shot in India and Pakistan....but BD is truly stuck in some well it seems....and they gonna blame 1971 for that too?....cpl entire generations have come and gone since.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Yup in our case it was Mrs. Gandhi....any small momentum we inherited vanished....and gone for like 20 years.

But BD nationalists feel they are super special people lol that would somehow break the mold of post-British Raj economic fabian policies and terrible institutional development (i.e to change from net extractor to provider). Latter still incomplete by long shot in India and Pakistan....but BD is truly stuck in some well it seems....and they gonna blame 1971 for that too?....cpl entire generations have come and gone since.

India however started with a good industry thanks to British.


I mean you have 18-19 ordinance factories alone?

Pak & East Pak had 1 non functional mill and only 1 university.

The situation was so fuked up, people used didn't have paper in govt offices.