What's new

Why is the southern part of South Asia more developed than the northern part of South Asia

What were U guys doing those 24 years? Sleeping to be born?
Get real and stop your stories......

Dude, you Indians like to agree that Pakistan was exploiting Bangladesh, and hence the separation in 1971. Facts are clear about how a disproportionate share of development spending was used in Pakistan and hence causing economic damage to Bangladesh.

As it does not suit your argument, now you will not agree with this.
 
Srilanka is nowhere close to South India.



UP guys run India.

BD is not even the little toe of BD.

You put UP guys in Assam,then no BD pole vaulter ll dare to cross.



ya but the reality is different,.



Big difference,so what?

Sri Lanka is behind South India? Since when? And Pak reality is $300 billion GDP and $1600 per capita by this june. BD have 2x per capita then UP.

UP and Bihar combined have 300 million population, they will have some participation in goverment because Indian system works on caste system and on population % basis not actual capability.
 
Pakistan have higher per capita then whole India, don't come up with BS figures

Even with all the underdeveloped BIMARU states, India`s GDP per capita is at 1,414 USD while Pakistan`s is at 1,295 USD. The PPP difference is even higher....

And your so called "BS figures" are from the IMF....
 
Even with all the underdeveloped BIMARU states, India`s GDP per capita is at 1,414 USD while Pakistan`s is at 1,295 USD. The PPP difference is even higher....

And your so called "BS figures" are from the IMF....

Bihar per capita 450$, UP $600. Whole India $1250 and Pakistan $1450 as of last year, this june with updated figure Pak will reach $1600.

PPP is doesn't matter because no one update the prices regularly. Only Nominal GDP matters not fictional.
 
Dude, BD growth is a healthy 6-7% a year these days.

You need to take into account the 2 Decades of very slow growth that BD had after independence. If it was not for the war, and the split was more amicable in 1971, then this would not have happened.

Sri Lanka could have been at around Thailand or even Malaysian level of living standards if it was not the 25 year civil war.

An independent BD from 1947 would now be light years ahead of both Pakistan and India.
True, but same can be said of India. From 1947 up to the 90s, India had very slow growth due to the socialist policies of Nehru. But when India liberalized it's economy in 1991, India began to grow. So had India liberalized it's economy in 1947, today India would have been a developed country.
 
Huh? Learn to speak comprehensible English butt boy.

Mr. Inferior , why are so annoyed I just stated the fact , hast du das nicht verstanden , soll ich wiederholen
 
And what is the fact?

Haha, Mr. Inferior wants discussion with me, no I do not give indians any time , I will talk to them on my own terms. I am not among those who respect indians , I am the other side of pakistan that is full of self-pride
 
Because there is pakistan in the northern part
 
Haha, Mr. Inferior wants discussion with me, no I do not give indians any time , I will talk to them on my own terms. I am not among those who respect indians , I am the other side of pakistan that is full of self-pride
Well... that's a brain fart.
I don't respect you either. :)
 
Well... that's a brain fart.
I don't respect you either. :)

Who wants respect from inferiors in the world, no one really

Because there is pakistan in the northern part

Inferiors want to equate with pakistan at any cost, china is also in the so-called "north" why not bother to invoke china, why so much fettish about pakistan
 
Back
Top Bottom