India Pakistan Comparison 2010

[Skeptic]

Anyway you look at it, over $30 billion is too much money to buy expensive toys for Indian military when one out every two Indian children is malnourished, one of our of every three illiterate adults in the wold is an Indian, two-thirds of Indians defecate in the open, and India ranks near the bottom on achieving the MDG goals. It's serious issue with priorities. It's callous to condemn Indian's children to permanent brain damage from lack of food.

The country is an “economic powerhouse but a nutritional weakling”, said the report by the British-based Institute of Development Studies (IDS), which incorporated papers by more than 20 India analysts. It said that despite India’s recent economic boom, at least 46 per cent of children up to the age of 3 still suffer from malnutrition, making the country home to a third of the world’s malnourished children. The UN defines malnutrition as a state in which an individual can no longer maintain natural bodily capacities such as growth, pregnancy, lactation, learning abilities, physical work and resisting and recovering from disease.

In 2001, India committed to the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving its number of hungry by 2015. China has already met its target. India, though, will not meet its goal until 2043, based on its current rate of progress, the IDS report concluded.

Pakistan at 45 ranks well ahead of India at 62, and Pakistan is included in the medium performing countries. PHI is a new composite indicator – the Poverty and Hunger Index (PHI) – developed to measure countries’ performance towards achieving MDG1 on halving poverty and hunger by 2015. The PHI combines all five official MDG1 indicators, including a) the proportion of population living on less than US$ 1/day, b) poverty gap ratio, c) share of the poorest quintile in national income or consumption, d) prevalence of underweight in children under five years of age, and d) the proportion of population undernourished.


“It’s the contrast between India’s fantastic economic growth and its persistent malnutrition which is so shocking,” Lawrence Haddad, director of the IDS, told The Times. He said that an average of 6,000 children died every day in India; 2,000-3,000 of them from malnutrition.

Haq's Musings: Is India a Nutritional Weakling?

Haq's Musings: Indian Arms Build Up Prelude to South Asian Arms Race

Seems like you will not quit ranting unless I stoop downto your level and bring out several other rankings which will show Pakistan in poor light. I have no interest in a mud slinging contest, coz to beat you in that I'll need to dirty myself. I would rather not do that.

Check the HDI rankings - we are both pathetic.

You have still diverted from the point being made - when there is a defenite threat - from terrorism, external nations and internal issues, any country will focus on sorting those along with poverty alleviation. Why do you have to look at 30 Billion dollars, why not 1.1 billion people. What does it cost us - less than 29 dollar per head per year - A good investment I'd say. Calculate Pakistani (45 dollars) and Chinese figures (54 dollars as per official declaration) accordingly and then return here once you have something concrete.

 

[Nemesis]

Comparing Naxalites to Taliban are we? Seriously?

Hmm, okay Mr Haq, please tell us how the Naxals are comparable/worse then the Taliban. Tell us ideologically how the naxal domination of India is more dangerous than the domination of TTP in Pakistan. But be warned, no useless rhetoric and no cherry picking statistics. Use your scholarly mind to pen a proper post. A half a decent explanation may perhaps stop you from being the butt of ridicule.

 

[Hulk]

Anyway you look at it, over $30 billion is too much money to buy expensive toys for Indian military when one out every two Indian children is malnourished, one of our of every three illiterate adults in the wold is an Indian, two-thirds of Indians defecate in the open, and India ranks near the bottom on achieving the MDG goals. It's serious issue with priorities. It's callous to condemn Indian's children to permanent brain damage from lack of food.

The country is an “economic powerhouse but a nutritional weakling”, said the report by the British-based Institute of Development Studies (IDS), which incorporated papers by more than 20 India analysts. It said that despite India’s recent economic boom, at least 46 per cent of children up to the age of 3 still suffer from malnutrition, making the country home to a third of the world’s malnourished children. The UN defines malnutrition as a state in which an individual can no longer maintain natural bodily capacities such as growth, pregnancy, lactation, learning abilities, physical work and resisting and recovering from disease.

In 2001, India committed to the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving its number of hungry by 2015. China has already met its target. India, though, will not meet its goal until 2043, based on its current rate of progress, the IDS report concluded.

Pakistan at 45 ranks well ahead of India at 62, and Pakistan is included in the medium performing countries. PHI is a new composite indicator – the Poverty and Hunger Index (PHI) – developed to measure countries’ performance towards achieving MDG1 on halving poverty and hunger by 2015. The PHI combines all five official MDG1 indicators, including a) the proportion of population living on less than US$ 1/day, b) poverty gap ratio, c) share of the poorest quintile in national income or consumption, d) prevalence of underweight in children under five years of age, and d) the proportion of population undernourished.


“It’s the contrast between India’s fantastic economic growth and its persistent malnutrition which is so shocking,” Lawrence Haddad, director of the IDS, told The Times. He said that an average of 6,000 children died every day in India; 2,000-3,000 of them from malnutrition.

Haq's Musings: Is India a Nutritional Weakling?

Haq's Musings: Indian Arms Build Up Prelude to South Asian Arms Race

Ahh just shows that you have no idea about India, people like you just try to create an image about things by just reading without having any idea of what ground situation is.

one out every two Indian children is

Really, you might be kidding.

I have no idea how these poverty figures are calculated, since I know the ground situation and I know it is not that bad as the reports make it to look like. I though a bit about it and here are my observations.

The report might be including only official figures, like if a waiter is working in a hotel earning 1000 Rs his income might be quoted as 1000 only. What might not be taken into consideration that he gets 3000 Rs as tip, making his income to be Rs 4000 actually.

 

[karan.1970]

Karan, I don't believe in creative accounting. I can only use figures that are in the public domain and generally accepted. You may question their veracity, but the overall point is made. India is also afflicted by terror of various varieties so the self-righteous statement that caused me to point all of this out stands discredited.

Also, while you question some of the specific numbers etc. you didn't comment on the US National Center for Counter Terrorism's #2 Terror ranking for India, behind Iraq. I don't want to get into a finger pointing match here... just saying that while you may question one or two stats, it is hard to ignore the entire body of evidence.

Thank you for visiting the blog and for your positive comments. Appreciate it.

The key distinction between terror in Pak vs Terror in India is the role of external terrorists. While India suffers both from this type of terror traditionally supported by Pakistan and internal insurgency of NE and Maoists, Pakistan does not have to face the 1st threat at all. As a matter of fact the TTP that Pakistan is fighting is its own militia army that it created against USSR 1st and then India. Pakistan is today in riding a tiger situation where it is forced to chose between the terrorists that it nurtured for so long (which are hitting it back mercilessly now) and the strong arm persuation of the US to act against these groups. And that makes all the difference. Its not about how many people are getting killed in which country that makes it a dangerous place, but the socio economic conditions and political strategies of the country that do that.

Incidently your data is not correct/dated. Please refer to the 2008 report from the same NCCT that you refered to below (page 27) for a more updated figure.. Unfortunately, Pakistan now has the dubious distinction of being the 2nd most dangerous place after Iraq (ahead of Afg, Somalia and India) in terms of number of deaths. Also it has the maximum number of terror related hostage situations/kidnappings ahead of Afg and Iraq..

http://wits.nctc.gov/ReportPDF.do?f=crt2008nctcannexfinal.pdf

 

[karan.1970]

Comparing Naxalites to Taliban are we? Seriously?

Hmm, okay Mr Haq, please tell us how the Naxals are comparable/worse then the Taliban. Tell us ideologically how the naxal domination of India is more dangerous than the domination of TTP in Pakistan. But be warned, no useless rhetoric and no cherry picking statistics. Use your scholarly mind to pen a proper post. A half a decent explanation may perhaps stop you from being the butt of ridicule.

Friend.. Please see your signature.. You shouldnt be replying.. should you??

 

[karan.1970]

Karan, I don't believe in creative accounting. I can only use figures that are in the public domain and generally accepted.

I realize that creative accounting with deaths was not a good statement.. Apologies..

 

[TechLahore]

India is spending more on defence when it has poor population as well was Riaz's quote. That was aimed at Riaz.

As for the terrorist situation in Pakistan:
Terrorism killed more than 12,000 in Pakistan last year, report says+

So if you include security forces, Its 3X India. Hope that answers the FACTS.

Actually, no, it doesn't even come close to addressing the facts, other than for those who might suffer from myopia and extreme bias.

The 12,000 number you are referencing is the highest estimate in the worst year for Pakistan. Even in the composition of this number close to 8,000 are militants - many thousands of which are foreign (Uzbek, Afghan, Chechen and others) nationals killed in deliberate government campaigns in FATA.

Your "3X" assertion is ridiculous because if you were to exclude militants from both Indian and Pakistani numbers, the comparison is essentially in the same ballpark, i.e. as far as victims go. It is also ridiculous because you took what I highlighted as the most unfair comparison between India and Pakistan, then proceeded to build your case on it.

Considering the worst year Pakistan has had, taking the highest estimate of casualties in that year, and then comparing it to the low end of estimates in one of the better years India has had in the recent past is disingenuous to justify the assertion that India is significantly better off in terms of violence/terror than Pakistan.

I will remind you that over a period of time, there is no comparison between the victims of violence in India and Pakistan. In the last two decades, the numbers of the Indian side of the LOC alone average 5,000/year if you take the higher estimates and over 3,250/year if you take the lower range - somewhere between 65,000-100,000 dead... just in Kashmir.

Now add Naxalite insurgency numbers - over 1100 incidents just in 2009 - averages for sporadic flareups such as Ayodhya, larger multi-thousand death catastrophes like Gujarat, then Mumbai and Samjhota express type incidents etc. and you end up with a more complete picture over a reasonable period of time.

I will remind you once again what the original point was. I was responding to a self-righteous assertion about India being so much safer that even though Pakistanis enjoyed better hygenic conditions than India, Pakistanis were worried about losing their lives in incidents of terror while Indians, by implication, are somehow completely free of all care and worry, living in a peaceful country. In terms of the losses of ordinary citizens, there is not a big difference in one of the best years India has had, and one of the worst Pakistan has ever had. And over a long period of time, there is just no comparison. India has fared far worse, as the National Counter Terrorism report indicates.

But what is in the past is in the past. I am hopeful the Pakistan Army action against foreign militants and their agents will transform the security dynamic in the country rapidly. So far, this seems to be the case...

 

[TechLahore]

The key distinction between terror in Pak vs Terror in India is the role of external terrorists. While India suffers both from this type of terror traditionally supported by Pakistan and internal insurgency of NE and Maoists, Pakistan does not have to face the 1st threat at all. As a matter of fact the TTP that Pakistan is fighting is its own militia army that it created against USSR 1st and then India.

I must disagree. While you may think that Pakistan is fighting its "own militia army", you must allow for the majority opinion in Pakistan and the officially expressed views of the Pakistan Army and Government that are all on record as saying that the menace we are fighting is funded and armed by external players.

I am not asking you to agree with me, just as I don't agree with you on this point. But you cannot be convincing with a line of reasoning that employs your opinion as conclusive evidence in support of your own argument.

Incidently your data is not correct/dated. Please refer to the 2008 report from the same NCCT that you refered to below (page 27) for a more updated figure.. Unfortunately, Pakistan now has the dubious distinction of being the 2nd most dangerous place after Iraq (ahead of Afg, Somalia and India) in terms of number of deaths. Also it has the maximum number of terror related hostage situations/kidnappings ahead of Afg and Iraq..

http://wits.nctc.gov/ReportPDF.do?f=crt2008nctcannexfinal.pdf

The data I shared is absolutely correct. I was referring to the 2008 report and you are pointing to the 2009 report.

So we are swapping this distinction between the two of us, like a hot potato, one year to the next. This just makes my point. India and Pakistan's security situations are far more alike than they are different. And considering that 2009 was the worst year for Pakistan, I didn't understand the commentary by some of our Indian friends earlier in this thread attempting to show one as black and the other as white.

 

[TechLahore]

I realize that creative accounting with deaths was not a good statement.. Apologies..

No worries. Understand you didn't mean it that way...

 

[karan.1970]

I must disagree. While you may think that Pakistan is fighting its "own militia army", you must allow for the majority opinion in Pakistan and the officially expressed views of the Pakistan Army and Government that are all on record as saying that the menace we are fighting is funded and armed by external players.

I am not asking you to agree with me, just as I don't agree with you on this point. But you cannot be convincing with a line of reasoning that employs your opinion as conclusive evidence in support of your own argument.



The data I shared is absolutely correct. I was referring to the 2008 report and you are pointing to the 2009 report.

So we are swapping this distinction between the two of us, like a hot potato, one year to the next. This just makes my point. India and Pakistan's security situations are far more alike than they are different. And considering that 2009 was the worst year for Pakistan, I didn't understand the commentary by some of our Indian friends earlier in this thread attempting to show one as black and the other as white.

The data is of 2008 Jan to Dec though published in 2009 April. While I agree with your concept that security situation in India is no rose garder either, but in 2007 also the number of terror deaths in Pakistan exceeded those in India.. Attaching the same report for the year 2007 below
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2007nctcannexfinal.pdf

Also I agree that Kashmir and NWFP terrorism is what you and I will never be able to agree on because had it been so simple, our govts would have already agreed and moved on from this mess.. However that was not sole basis of my arguement. The reality of the matter is that these folks are there where they are and have been around since the time USA used Pakistan as its tip of the spear to tackle USSR in Afg. We may find reasons now about India supporting them with money etc (which I believe is all cr ap but since we have agreed to disagree there, I will leave it aside for the moment), but atleast India did not create them. Right or wrong its a state policy of past some decades (USSR in afg and Kashmir) which is coming back to haunt the innocent citizens of Pakistan today..

Another thing that we may want to remember while co relating Terror related fatalities with the security situation is the localization and Population denominator base in the 2 countries. But lets not.. I am really finding this line of analysis a little too morbid in terms of analyzing the trend of number of deaths in the 2 countries. If ok with you lets leave that out of future discussion??

 

[TechLahore]

e localization and Population denominator base in the 2 countries. But lets not.. I am really finding this line of analysis a little too morbid in terms of analyzing the trend of number of deaths in the 2 countries. If ok with you lets leave that out of future discussion??

Thank you. We agree that rose gardens of peace do not bloom on either side of the border and both of us need need to do a lot more.

And we also agree that this distasteful topic has gone on too long. Let us put it out of its misery.

 

[RiazHaq]

Comparing Naxalites to Taliban are we? Seriously?

Hmm, okay Mr Haq, please tell us how the Naxals are comparable/worse then the Taliban. Tell us ideologically how the naxal domination of India is more dangerous than the domination of TTP in Pakistan. But be warned, no useless rhetoric and no cherry picking statistics. Use your scholarly mind to pen a proper post. A half a decent explanation may perhaps stop you from being the butt of ridicule.

The Maoists are more similar than they are different from the Taliban. Maoists control more territory in India than the Taliban in Pakistan. Maoists are more in number than the Taliban. Both are ideologically driven. In Swat, the Taliban targeted the landed elite, in the same way that Maoists go after landowners and corporation taking away tribal lands from the poor.

The only difference is that Maoists have so far restricted themselves to the rural areas, and have essentially spared the urban middle class and city elite. But the Taliban did essentially the same until recently.

There has been a surge in Maoist violence in India in recent months - the rebels have kidnapped and killed policemen, held up an express train, attacked police stations, and blown up railway lines and communication links in affected states. They have even beheaded some government officials Taliban style.

The Maoist insurgency started in 1967 and has spread to cover a third of India's districts, forming a so-called "red corridor" in mainly central areas.

The rebels have a presence in more than 223 of India's 600-odd districts across 20 states, according to the government.

There have been more than 1,400 cases related to violence by Maoists between January and August 2009, according to official records. Nearly 600 civilians have died over that period.

India’s rapid economic growth has made it an emerging global power but also deepened stark inequalities in society. Maoists accuse the government of trying to push tribal groups off their land to gain access to raw materials and have sabotaged roads, bridges and even an energy pipeline, according to the NY Times.

The intensity of Naxalites' hatred for the Indian ruling elite can be gauged by the fact that their leader Ganapathi, a former schoolteacher, denounced Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P Chidambaran as "terrorists." In a recent interview at his secret jungle hideout with the weekly magazine Open, he said "the people will rise up like a tornado under our party's leadership to wipe out the reactionary blood-sucking vampires ruling our country." At another point, the 59-year old Ganapathi declared: "Those (government) sharks want to loot the wealth and drive the tribal people of the region to further impoverishment."

The Maoists were once dismissed as a ragtag band of outdated ideologues, but the Indian government is now preparing to deploy nearly 100,000 strong force for a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign to hunt down the guerrillas in some of the country’s most rugged, isolated terrain.

By threatening to unleash a violent revolution if the Indian government went ahead with its planned large-scale offensive against his insurgent forces, Maoists leader Ganapathi has made the intentions of the rebels obvious. Already, his men, and even some women fighters, have carried out acts that are now normally associated with the Taliban. They have kidnapped and beheaded government officials, blown up electricity and telephone towers, destroyed roads and railway tracks, killed political opponents and attacked police stations and other official installations. The offensive against the Naxalites will certainly weaken and deprive them of some of their bases and hideouts, but the issue cannot be resolved by the use of force alone. Many members of the Indian intelligentsia sympathize with the cause of the Maoists and objective analysts see it as an economic issue and one concerning social justice. The Indian ruling elite needs to deal with the root-cause of the insurgency instead of applying force through the state apparatus to decimate the rebels.

Haq's Musings: India Deploys 100,000 Troops Against Maoists Revolt

 

[RiazHaq]

Ahh just shows that you have no idea about India, people like you just try to create an image about things by just reading without having any idea of what ground situation is.

Really, you might be kidding.

I have no idea how these poverty figures are calculated, since I know the ground situation and I know it is not that bad as the reports make it to look like. I though a bit about it and here are my observations.

The report might be including only official figures, like if a waiter is working in a hotel earning 1000 Rs his income might be quoted as 1000 only. What might not be taken into consideration that he gets 3000 Rs as tip, making his income to be Rs 4000 actually.

I have seen the abject poverty and hunger and desperation of the poor in India with my own eyes.

Denying the problem is itself a huge problem. Turning a blind eye to the suffering of the world's largest population of poor and hungry who live city slums and rural area is itself callousness in the extreme.

Haiti's recent disaster has brought the attention of the world to the suffering and poverty of the people there.

There are very few place where people are poorer or hungrier than Haiti, with the exception of Bangladesh and some states in India and Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to Bangladesh and the nations of sub Saharan Africa, the Indian states of Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh are worse off than Haiti, according to India's State Hunger Index (ISHI) survey report. Gujarat is often projected as a success story by the right-wing Indian media. The economy of Gujarat is sustaining an overall growth rate of eight percentage points, but the incidence of rural poverty declined at the annual rate of 0.23 per cent, which is the worst Human Development Index (HDI) improvement record among all Indian states. From 1996 to 2006, Gujarat slipped one rank each in education and health indices to eight and tenth positions, respectively, as compared to 20 other states. In improvement in Infant Mortality Rate, it ranked 13th. The state ranked 14th in Child Mortality Rate, 13th in TMR, 17th in stunted children and ninth in underweight children. What it says is that economic growth alone can not solve the problems of poverty and malnutrition in Gujarat, or India, or the rest of the world. Economic growth has to be accompanied with progressive policies to uplift the most vulnerable populations in society.

Haq's Musings: Is Haiti's Tragic Disaster Entirely Natural?

Haq's Musings: Grinding Poverty in Resurgent India

 

[Skeptic]

Actually, no, it doesn't even come close to addressing the facts, other than for those who might suffer from myopia and extreme bias.

The 12,000 number you are referencing is the highest estimate in the worst year for Pakistan. Even in the composition of this number close to 8,000 are militants - many thousands of which are foreign (Uzbek, Afghan, Chechen and others) nationals killed in deliberate government campaigns in FATA.

Your "3X" assertion is ridiculous because if you were to exclude militants from both Indian and Pakistani numbers, the comparison is essentially in the same ballpark, i.e. as far as victims go. It is also ridiculous because you took what I highlighted as the most unfair comparison between India and Pakistan, then proceeded to build your case on it.

Please see the source quoted by you for Indian casualities. The sum of of Civilian +SF causalities comes to 1200 only for Pakistan it is in excess of 3500.

If your assertion is that historically India has been a target of terrorism - you have my complete acceptance. Historically Pakistan has been accused by India for sponsoring terrorist activities in India and it has only been last year that the monster has bitten back.
Yeah Yeah I know your counter argument, but Keep in Mind the number of organization declared as terrorist organization in Pakistan includin LeT and JeM. They have had patronage from Pakistani authorities in past.

India has bean shouting hoarse on all international forum that it is a victim of terrorism. And anyways I guess you have misunderstood my point as 2 different threads were merged. Riaz made another thread on how India's defence spendings were unjustified, i was replying to that. I meant no offense to victims of terrorism in Pakistan. Time has arrived for us to join hands to eradicate these scums of earth.

Peace Rocks.

 

[Hutchroy]

Poor infrastructure hampering growth

ISLAMABAD - Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called upon the government to urgently focus on infrastructure development as the poor infrastructure is constrain economic activity and reducing the country’s growth potential.

Zahid Maqbool, President ICCI chairing a meeting of businessmen said that physical infrastructure in Pakistan is quite inadequate in comparison with world standards and this situation is holding back the country from better rapid economic growth.

He said according to the World Economic Forum Survey (2006-07) of 125 countries, Pakistan ranked 67th in basic infrastructure. Government should allocate more resources for infrastructure development to remove the chronic imbalance between demand and supply of infrastructure facilities, he added.

He said electricity and power infrastructure of the country has already come under major strain. He said lack of adequate energy resources is precluding industrial growth affecting all sectors of the economy. He said if these problems are not addressed urgently, the infrastructure sector in its totality would become a major bottleneck for continued growth and development of the country.

Businessmen said a World Bank study shows that Pakistan’s ageing and inadequate irrigation and water infrastructure deficit alone is estimated at Rs.4 trillion while the country needs to invest almost Rs.60b per year in new large dams and related infrastructure over the next five years. Similarly, the under performance of the transport infrastructure is costing the economy about Rs.300b per year while current power shortages of 1500-2000 MW will increase to 6,000 megawatts by the year 2010 and 30,700 megawatts by the year 2020.

This state of affairs demonstrates that the government requires heavy investment in physical infrastructure in order to improve delivery of social services and to enhance its domestic and global competitiveness.