Would India have been a first world country if the Kashmir Conflict didn't exist?

[SecondSlip]

Let's suppose that Kashmir was given to Pakistan by the British in 1947, do you believe that India would have been a first world country today in 2019?

In my opinion, I don't know if we would have become a first world country but we definitely would be in a much better state than we are currently. All the money that we had to spend in Kashmir for the past 70+ years would have been used for our own development instead. Our poverty rate would have been much lower currently if we didn't have this Kashmir conflict going on which eats a big chunk of our funds.  

I am not really an expert on this Kashmir issue but I really felt like asking this question here since I know some of you guys are very knowledgeable on this matter. 

Would love to here thoughts from the following @Gollum @Alam_dar @Muloghonto 

Edited March 31, 2019 by SecondSlip

[MechEng]

A utopian one you mean? Not possible anywhere. Even first world countries like America has some serious problems which I'm glad that they do not exist in India as of now.

Edited March 31, 2019 by MechEng

[Deleted_User_1]

No. First you have to solve poverty and illiteracy that comes with it. Kashmir is irrelevent to this. 

[surajmal]

Post a total population transfer? yes. Kashmir resolution by itself solves nothing. Total population transfer would have served the same purpose that Mao tried with cultural revolution in china - bring a broken civilization and its people on a common platform ( after a period of mourning) commemorating the end of a dark chapter of Bharatiya history. 

 

Tribes/Cultures/nations need scapegoats - somebody to blame - to move past hard times. Its just human nature. Particularly important where grievances are genuine since human beings will invent scapegoats even if none exist. 

But if real ones exist that prevent the society from coming together to form a cohesive unit, it is the only way. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by surajmal

[Temujin Khaghan]

First requirement for being a first world country is that atleast 80 percent of the people should be of one religion, one language - basically a nation state without any hurdles and barriers for social mobility and discrimination. Further, it should be a democratic set up unlike the Soviet Union or China.

 

If you look at Scandinavian countries, USA, Europe, Canada, south east nations, Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada - these requirements are met. 

 

Even if you force-feed Hindi down our southie throats and cut off Kashmir so that we are officially a 80 percent hindi-hindu nation, the problem of caste discrimination will still exist.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

First requirement for being a first world country is that atleast 80 percent of the people should be of one religion, one language - basically a nation state without any hurdles and barriers for social mobility and discrimination. Further, it should be a democratic set up unlike the Soviet Union or China.

These are not requirements. 

2 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

If you look at Scandinavian countries, USA, Europe, Canada, south east nations, Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada - these requirements are met. 

Correlation is not causation. 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, SecondSlip said:

Let's suppose that Kashmir was given to Pakistan by the British in 1947, do you believe that India would have been a first world country today in 2019?

In my opinion, I don't know if we would have become a first world country but we definitely would be in a much better state than we are currently. All the money that we had to spend in Kashmir for the past 70+ years would have been used for our own development instead. Our poverty rate would have been much lower currently if we didn't have this Kashmir conflict going on which eats a big chunk of our funds.  

I am not really an expert on this Kashmir issue but I really felt like asking this question here since I know some of you guys are very knowledgeable on this matter. 

Would love to here thoughts from the following @Gollum @Alam_dar @Muloghonto 

Short answer: No.

In fact, I'd argue that Kashmir problem has helped India in terms of having a disproportionately stonger military than its economic power entails along with keeping the south united with the north via common enemy factor.

Given Nehruvian policies till the early 90s and the 'hindu rate of growth', first nation statushood is near on impossible with or without Kashmir 

[Vilander]

no chance. India was never competitive world wide prior to 1991, after gupta empire in north (5th) and Chola in south (11th) India was never first world. If economic policies remain on track, and if people work hard then in 30 years india will become a middle income country.

[Clarke]

Would our economic policies not be leftist ? Would our rate of growth not be sub par ? Would our population not grow as fast ? Would the country work it's fingers to the bone like South Korea ? Would the govt consist of best & brightest like Singapore ? Would the masses have pride & not throw filth around ? 

 

All of the above has nothing to do with Kashmir.

[Vilander]

4 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Would our economic policies not be leftist ? Would our rate of growth not be sub par ? Would our population not grow as fast ? Would the country work it's fingers to the bone like South Korea ? Would the govt consist of best & brightest like Singapore ? Would the masses have pride & not throw filth around ? 

 

All of the above has nothing to do with Kashmir.

that one thing is good enough. What ever you have and do not have, the amount of filth that scum population create and throw outside their homes.. India will never be anything till that happens.

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

These are not requirements. 

Correlation is not causation. 

What are the requirements for a first world country?

[Vilander]

500 AD

 

1050 AD

 

only time India was probably first world and in these parts.

[Clarke]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

no chance. India was never competitive world wide prior to 1991, after gupta empire in north (5th) and Chola in south (11th) India was never first world. If economic policies remain on track, and if people work hard then in 30 years india will become a middle income country.

We had high % share of world-wide gdp during Mughal era iirc 

[rkt.india]

With the amount of population we have, it is not possible.

[Alam_dar]

11 hours ago, SecondSlip said:

Let's suppose that Kashmir was given to Pakistan by the British in 1947, do you believe that India would have been a first world country today in 2019?

In my opinion, I don't know if we would have become a first world country but we definitely would be in a much better state than we are currently. All the money that we had to spend in Kashmir for the past 70+ years would have been used for our own development instead. Our poverty rate would have been much lower currently if we didn't have this Kashmir conflict going on which eats a big chunk of our funds.  

I am not really an expert on this Kashmir issue but I really felt like asking this question here since I know some of you guys are very knowledgeable on this matter. 

Would love to here thoughts from the following @Gollum @Alam_dar @Muloghonto 

I am afraid that I am basically non-political person. 

 

Making things simple, I am of opinion that we could not change the past, but we could surely change the future. India and Pakistan were on the path of resolving the Kashmir Issue through talks (during Musharraf era). This shows that it is indeed possible to come to any mutual conclusion which guarantees the interests of both nations. 

 

If possible in case of Kashmir, then I think that this should be the roadmap, just like the Indus water treaty stopped the wars between both of them and brought much needed peace, which provided chances for both to prosper. 

 

Kashmir needs India for tourism. Kashmiri people should also know it that they will never get enough tourists from Pakistani side. 

 

If India shines, and becomes a true Secular progressive country, then every one worships the rising sun. Arab countries want to have good relations with India and don't support Pakistan on Kashmir Issue, while India is more important. 

===

 

And other members mentioned that 80% of population should have the same religion or same language in order to become first world country. Perhaps correct, but still I think it is possible for India to become the first world country despite these problems. 

 

Firstly, I see that Chola empire didn't have the same language. 

 

Similarly, the modern European Union is showing that common language is absolutely not a problem in forming common laws and joining the people of different countries together. 

 

 

Secondly, the new religion of India is Secularism, which is admitted by all. Indian Muslims could be a problem to some extent, but still many moderate Indian Muslims will join the mainstream Indian politics if true Secular values are practised in India. 

 

Thirdly, whole India already has English as common language too. It should be seen as a BLESSING and not as a hurdle. It would not be wise to impose Hindi by force. But let the Bollywood play it's role in spreading of Hindi, just like many Bengladeshis and Afghanis are able to speak or at least understand Hindi. 

 

Even the future generations of North Indians will be speaking more English than Hindi in coming years. It is a natural human behaviour to adopt the more advanced culture and language. In India too, small languages and cultures will come to an end soon. 

 

===

 

All Indians trust in their Supreme Court. This is a very good sign. 

 

Efforts should be made to make Police too corruption and politics free. If people of India could also trust the police, then this thing will unite the Indian society very much. 

Justice is the most important thing for the uniting and progress of any society. 

 

These things may be little difficult, but still they are very much possible. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Ranvir]

India is a difficult country to run.

First of all there is no single language that can be understand by all of the population. 

Any long term plans to eradicate poverty, improve literacy and improve the life of the average citizen cannot be implemented because the government is always worried about the next election, furthermore the opposition parties will just give the poor masses policies that they want to hear even if they are bad for the country.

The leaders themselves are pretty weak, it's laughable how a small country like Pakistan is able to give such a headache to India. 

 

Democracy is the worst system for taking masses out of poverty and creating a decent country.

[Moochad]

 

2 hours ago, Clarke said:

We had high % share of world-wide gdp during Mughal era iirc 

We had high GDP share during Mughal era, but also before, pretty much entire history pre-British. Mughal era was actually the beginning of the decline of India as wealth was concentrated in the pockets of Mughals and their zamindars/chelas while the common people were looted. 

 

 

[Moochad]

I suggest the OP defines what he thinks is a so-called 1st world country before asking. Everyone will make up their own definition for what it is and then contort the requirements to fit that definition... 

The first result from google explains the history of the term

https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Quote

__ Definitions

  The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after World War II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia. 

If we go by definition, then it is becoming a democratic-industrial-capitalist country, in which case asking   leftists how to become a first-world country is a joke. they are anti-capitalist through and through.   Leftists still will go to the grave with perverted ideas like socialism as a basis of development, when never has it developed a country in the world. 

The 3 factors to fit the definition:

Democracy (check)

Capitalist (x)

Industrial(x)

 

like @clarke said, we still would have leftists ruining our economy, hence no industrialization or capitalism.  So no, the Kashmir issue has no effect on us being a so-called first world country. The monopoly of leftists in government has far more to do with the failure. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moochad

[Alam_dar]

22 minutes ago, Moochad said:

I suggest the OP defines what he thinks is a so-called 1st world country before asking. Everyone will make up their own definition for what it is and then contort the requirements to fit that definition... 

The first result from google explains the history of the term

https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

If we go by definition, then it is becoming a democratic-industrial-capitalist country, in which case asking leftists how to become a first-world country is a bit ironic, since leftists/communists are lulloos and anti-capitalist through and through. 

The 3 factors to fit the definition:

Democracy (check)

Capitalist (x)

Industrial(x)

Aligned with US(x)

 

like @clarke said, we still would have leftists ruining our economy, hence no industrialization or capitalism.  So no, the Kashmir issue has no effect on us being a so-called first world country. The monopoly of leftists in government has far more to do with the failure. 

I think that discussion is in open and wide meaning of first world country, which means developed country with low poverty. Like South Korea today, or even what China is today. 

 

Secondly, the whole basic structure of India is based upon Capitalism. I doubt that Indian economy has any basic communist element. The so called Leftists/Communists of India too at maximum practising the Social work within the boundaries of Capitalism, just like many Western European countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden etc.  who have the social programs for the poor citizens. 

 

That is why, I don't agree to this accusation that India is run by communism and leftists have any kind of monopoly over the government. In my opinion government at moment is fully run by BJP, and thus BJP is fully responsible for any black or any white at moment. 

[Alam_dar]

50 minutes ago, Moochad said:

We had high GDP share during Mughal era, but also before, pretty much entire history pre-British. Mughal era was actually the beginning of the decline of India as wealth was concentrated in the pockets of Mughals and their zamindars/chelas while the common people were looted. 

I doubt that other kings of earlier times were any different than Mughuls. 

Therefore, I think that Hindu Rajas were also the same. 

No one cared much about the normal people, and they were all basically more interested in their personal interests. 

I think British also looted India, but still did much more modern development work in India as compared to the Mughals or other Rajas/Maharajas. 

There may be some exceptions here and there, but in general I don't know any other person who felt the pain of "untouchables" and worked for their betterment, except of great Buddha. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Alam_dar