Why is India doing so much better than Pakistan?

[Gambit]

The Big Question: Sixty years after partition, why is India doing so much better than Pakistan? By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent Published: 14 August 2007 Why are we asking this now? Pakistan celebrates the 60th anniversary of its independence from Britain today (14 August) while India marks the occasion precisely 24 hours later. For much of the long campaign for independence - led by Mahatma Gandhi - the campaigners' demand was for the creation of a single independent nation in which the rights of Hindus and Muslims would be protected. The campaign for an independent Pakistan grew during the 1930s and 1940s, under the direction of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All India Muslim League and the man who served as Pakistan's first Governor General. In the years since Partition India has proudly and robustly championed its occasionally chaotic democracy while Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators for more than half its history (1958-71, 1977-88, 1999-present). Now, at the age of 60, India's image is that of a resurgent, confident regional power racing to compete with China and the West. Meanwhile, Pakistan's image - at least in the West - is as a broken, backward country that provides a safe haven for extremists. How correct are these perceptions? In recent years India has certainly been making rapid economic progress. Its economy is now the 10th biggest in the world and a new middle class of up to 200 million has been created. The economy is currently growing at about 9 per cent a year. Pakistan's is also growing. One government minister said recently it was the third fastest-growing economy is Asia. Over the next four years it is expected to grow at about 6 per cent. The UN Human Development Index - which measures a series of economic and lifestyle indicators - ranks Pakistan 134th out of 177 and India 126th. In India and Pakistan, life expectancy is 63.6 and 63.4 years respectively, the adult literacy rates are 61 per cent and 49 per cent and the GDP figures are $3,139 and $2,225. However, the Gini Co-efficient, which measures a country's economic equality, suggests there is a slightly greater disparity between the rich and the poor in India than in Pakistan. And what about politics? India never misses an opportunity to remind people that it is the world's largest democracy. There is a broad swath of mainstream political opinion represented. The left has a long history in India, particularly in places such as Bengal. Meanwhile 60 years after independence, Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who first seized power in a coup in 1999, is desperately seeking to hold on to his position ahead of elections, technically scheduled to take place before the end of the year. Of the many difficulties he faces is the increased threat from extremists, largely situated in the country's north-west where Islamabad's ability to exert influence - and also perhaps its desire to exert influence - is greatly reduced. In the aftermath of the Lal Masjid operation this summer which saw more than 100 people killed, there has been a backlash against police and troops. The US - which has been a crucial backer of General Musharraf both politically and financially - has grown increasingly unhappy with his record at confronting extremists. The public of Pakistan appear poorly served by their leaders and yet there appear few genuine alternatives to the roster currently seeking popular support - a roll-call which includes former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who both intend to return to Pakistan from exile to contest the election. Are Pakistan's military dictators to blame for all its problems? India's economic transformation dates to a series of reforms that were introduced in 1991 when the government removed many restrictions and opened up the country to foreign capital. Tariffs were reduced and financial markets were opened. One of the architects of the reforms was the current Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. Pakistan's attractiveness to foreign investors, meanwhile, remains hobbled by the country's political uncertainty. At the weekend, General Musharraf claimed that the development of both Pakistan and Afghanistan was being held back by a "a small minority that preaches hate, violence and backwardness". Yet a number of commentators have pointed out that Pakistan's military leaders have paid little attention to developing the country's economy and have spend vast amounts of the nation's revenues on its military budget. Even when civilian leaders have been in power, the Pakistan military - a major owner of business, land and logistical operations - has retained crucial power. Is there another side to all of this? Yes. For all the confidence of its politicians and wealthy elite, India is a country that still faces huge problems. It remains riven by the caste system, especially in the rural areas, and the majority lives in abject poverty. A report published last week suggested that 77 per cent of Indians were living on 20 rupees (25p) a day. "For most of them, conditions of work are utterly deplorable and livelihood options extremely few," said the report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector. And while India's middle class is frenziedly buying up consumer goods that for a long time were unavailable, the country's infrastructure remains utterly inadequate; roads are congested, ports and airports have insufficient logistical capacity and even the biggest cities are routinely struck by electricity cuts and water shortages. Many believe that India's head-long pursuit of consumerism is not the correct path for the country to take and that too many people are not being included in the country's progress. How do Pakistanis react to the portrayal of their country versus that of India? Since Partition the relationship between the two countries has been deeply competitive. There have been three full wars fought between them and several other conflicts, most recently in 1999 when Pakistani troops and fighters entered the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir. The fighting threatened to escalate. There was huge worldwide concern because by that time, both India and Pakistan were nuclear powers. India carried out five nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan responded in kind just days later. An earlier war in 1971 coincided with the eastern part of the country's own conflict with West Pakistan - a conflict that would result in East Pakistan securing its own independence as Bangladesh. India supported the separatists in their efforts. Anecdotally, one finds that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis resent the portrayal of their country as a terrorist haven and go out of their way to show friendliness and hospitality to a visitor. They are also unfailingly inquisitive about the situation in India and whether the image of India's economic transformation is genuine. Is India successful because of its own efforts? Yes... * Politicians took crucial decisions that helped transform the country's economy * Indian politicians have proudly protected the country's democratic tradition * India has insisted that foreign companies must work with Indian firms, thereby helping turn Indian companies into international players No... * India's large internal market has made it a hugely attractive option for foreign corporations * India's large number of English speakers has helped it develop itself in industries such as the service sector * India has not been entirely successful. There are still huge challenges facing the country http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2861707.ece

[King]

I guess it's not fair to compare India with Pakistan. I'm not sure how big Pakistan is but from the map I can say it cannot be any bigger than 20% of India's land mass. I would certainly reckon religious theme on which the country was made and the unrest in Afgan for decades have curtailed Pakistan's growth. I'm not sure how good the natural resources are but maybe their focus never was economy but wanted to run their country on religious lines that simply doesn't work in current era??? I could be mistaken but I would like someone to correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't say size really has to do with the growth. The likes of Singapore, NZ, Japan, Malaysia and the rest have done pretty well with whatever resources they have. I guess with Military rule mostly prevalent in Pakistan the funds may have ended up securing the border and arms as against putting together on infrastructure? Certainly the unrest in Afgan and ever threatening border struggle with India must really have had a hand with diverting funds more towards military than development projects. I guess it’s still not late and if Pakistan can focus on working towards peace things can start to look up. Unfortunately for this a regime change and a complete change in policy will be required. I’m not qualified enough to pass a judgment but it’s high time they curtail issues like the Red Mosque one they had recently at the bud. That simply doesn’t help the state or the ones that are involved in such a coup. It’ll lead to loss of life and property that is detrimental to the growth of nation. I don’t reckon India is completely successful either but the democracy, power of a big nation and spending on infrastructure has definitely helped. India has several global players and the infrastructure in India has certainly made a huge difference. I guess education is something that India can be proud of. It seems every other person in India holds a graduate degree. There seems to be a thrust from even the poor class to get their kids enrolled into decent academic centers (that’s what I’ve gathered from my visits). The TV and the print media have helped a lot of smaller towns understand the value of education I guess. It looks like everyone wants a piece of India these days. I know of lot of multinationals wanting to set up their businesses in India. I earnestly hope India continues on similar lines and in few decades well and truly India will have reached its true potential.

[beetle]

I have my own take on this... I think it is because of the people in the two countries. We were patient and had faith.We were willing to give each other a chance, to see it through the tough times....We have had good times and bad times since independence but we still have the patience and faith to see us through. They did not have the patience or faith in anyone but their own on the basis of religion ...and they bailed out.The people (muslims ) who had patience and faith stayed back .The ones who didn't, left . The same patience and faith has held us and pushed us on.We had the faith in democracy .....and inspite of the parade of corrupt (may be not all) politicians ...we had the patience and kept the faith in democracy to give it time .The faith of people was so strong that not for once has the armed forces even dared to think about messing with our democratic institutions ( I am sure they never even had the desire:P) The same lack of patience and faith has been the biggest problem with Pakistan.They were not willing to give the system a chance.Losing faith in the people they chose .Every country has a big share of scumbag politicians ...but you have to have faith.Some people might like to argue that the Military never gave them a chance.I don't believe that. The military just took advantage of the lack of patience and faith that people had with democracy.Very rarely are people ever satisfied with any elected govt..It is usually in the.3rd-4th year that people grow impatient and dissatisfied with the govt.But they carry on...waiting for election when they bring another govt till they get it right for a while.But the people in Pakistan gave up too soon....sometimes even welcoming the military rule(this is the impression I get from the visits to Pak MBs)over the corrpt politicians.The military took over knowing fully well that people have lost faith in their leaders. That is the difference.Patience and faith!

[beetle]

I agree with Ravi......we have not been completely sucessful. Infact, far from it.The economic disparity , the treatment of "The girl child " ,dowry deaths ......lack of education in some states...the internal disturbances.....far too many things that need a lot of work.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I have my own take on this... I think it is because of the people in the two countries. We were patient and had faith.We were willing to give each other a chance, to see it through the tough times....We have had good times and bad times since independence but we still have the patience and faith to see us through.

well said They did not have the patience or faith in anyone but their own on the basis of religion ...and they bailed out.The people (muslims ) who had patience and faith stayed back .The ones who didn't, left .

The same patience and faith has held us and pushed us on.We had the faith in democracy .....and inspite of the parade of corrupt (may be not all) politicians ...we had the patience and kept the faith in democracy to give it time .The faith of people was so strong that not for once has the armed forces even dared to think about messing with our democratic institutions ( I am sure they never even had the desire:P)

I concur but if u are watching ibnlive these days then watch out for Pinko historian ramchandra guha'a barb incidentaly on the basis of his talk with one birgadier( yes he calls himself historian and conjures up theories on the basis of one sample poll:-) ) he has concluded indian army actually wated to do a pakistan on indian democracy but India's size deterred them from this adventurism........ Classis case of low self-esteem macalay-putra theory based on virtually nothing..

The same lack of patience and faith has been the biggest problem with Pakistan.They were not willing to give the system a chance.Losing faith in the people they chose .Every country has a big share of scumbag politicians ...but you have to have faith.Some people might like to argue that the Military never gave them a chance.I don't believe that. The military just took advantage of the lack of patience and faith that people had with democracy.Very rarely are people ever satisfied with any elected govt..It is usually in the.3rd-4th year that people grow impatient and dissatisfied with the govt.But they carry on...waiting for election when they bring another govt till they get it right for a while.But the people in Pakistan gave up too soon....sometimes even welcoming the military rule(this is the impression I get from the visits to Pak MBs)over the corrpt politicians.The military took over knowing fully well that people have lost faith in their leaders. That is the difference.Patience and faith!

I will put the blame on education yes do look at their history books if u get some spare time.. I am not talking about painting India in negative light that eveyr adversary nation does but I am talking about naked hate-filled words like "kafirs are cowards, yes it;s not just hear-say from street of lahore it adorns their history books"

[beetle]

I do feel things would have been very different if they had persisted with democracy.If only they had shown resistance to the military.There is a lot of Anti -Mushy feeling but I don't know if it still translates to Anti Military .Now I think the Military has become far to strong and plays around with the country at will. Hope things change .The corrpt elected leaders are much better than corrupt Generals( most people with power eventually are...bas wardi mein gandagi saaf nahi dikhti) .Atleast you get to change them often so that they don't become bigger than the country.

[Bumper]

India is a superior economy because of its strong educational foundations. We were also lucky to have cashed in on, perhaps the two biggest booms that have happened in the US simultaneously -- the PC and the internet. IT boom has spurred on other industries as well (manufacturing, automobiles etc). India's competence and dominance in the IT world, has inturn helped showcase itself to be a safe haven for multi nationals and foreign investors. This proof point was especially important to change people's perceptions about India world wide (which till then was that India is a land of elephants, temples & arranged marriages). Now no country thinks twice about investing in India. Even the conservative European businesses have started outsourcing to India, which means more jobs, higher per-capita stats. Pakistan in the mean time was busy with plotting strategies to topple India, instead of looking after its own problems. The results are there to see. Today Pakistan is the most dreaded place for foreigners, atleast thats the perception they have created. Until Pakistan corrects this perception, they will continue to struggle for years to come. A good starting point would be to move away from religion, terrorism and Kashmir and start focussing the real issues facing them.

[beetle]

>>> I will put the blame on education yes do look at their history books if u get some spare time.. I am not talking about painting India in negative light that eveyr adversary nation does but I am talking about naked hate-filled words like "kafirs are cowards, yes it;s not just hear-say from street of lahore it adorns their history books" This kind of education can account for the anti India feelings.But it doesn't explain the lack of patience with the elected govt.I am sure they are not naive to believe that the generals are any less corrupt.

[Guest dada_rocks]

they never had any respect for democracy intrinsically in first place; my point is they are so busy hating India everything else takes back stage

[sandtest]

A Nation created on the principle of Seccession is not a recipe for stability. It would be interesting if we could do a rough tally of how many Muslims Pakistan has dispatched to Allah. I think Pakistan has killed more Muslims than all of US, China, Israel, India combined-- as ummah continues to accuse kuffar countries for Muslim killings. We should do a rough calculation of this using past record of Pukistan in genocides like --- (1) East Bengal (2) Gilgit - Baltistan (3) Afghanistan (4) Waziristan and Baluchistan taking into account the insurgencies in Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan, Baltistan, Waziristan, Sindh etc.

[Lurker]

The Big Question: Sixty years after partition, why is India doing so much better than Pakistan?

In one word - diversity. The sheer range of Indians ensures that overall we always would do much better. Before the Southern states boomed in IT we had Eastern states(Bihar/Orissa/West Bengal) helping India in its own way by producing over 75% of mineral resources and ensuring our industries were slowly but surely coming up. For every Sikh soldier that has serviced our Army so very well we also had Parsee entreprenuers who ensured we had atleast a few Indian companies that were as good if not better than the world. For every little voice of breaking away from India we had overwhelming voices to stay with India. We survived cos somewhere we all trsuted and beleived in each other. xxx

[beetle]

>>>>We survived cos somewhere we all trsuted and beleived in each other. so true.

[THX_1138]

we have had soem traditional enterpreneurs who laid the foundations of modern industry before 1947 such as the TATA, the Birla etc. Later we had some maverichs who overcame government bueracracy to establish themselves such as Wipro and Ambanis. Such large coorporation houses go a long way in strengthening and employing the middle class. It doesnt hurt that we have massive coal and iron ore resources. In the end, i would credit Nehruji for establishing various institutions of higher education, and then later, under Primi Minister Narasimha Rao, Dr. Manmohan Singh paved the way four the country's globalization. We do not particularly have a better work ethic than the Pakistanis or are any bit more patient and hard working. We are after all essentially the same people just on different sides of an artificial border. What we have however are better schools and better (much better) colleges. So if you want to be patriotic, dont enroll in the army, go get a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering.

[kumble_rocks]

we have had soem traditional enterpreneurs who laid the foundations of modern industry before 1947 such as the TATA, the Birla etc. Later we had some maverichs who overcame government bueracracy to establish themselves such as Wipro and Ambanis. Such large coorporation houses go a long way in strengthening and employing the middle class. It doesnt hurt that we have massive coal and iron ore resources. In the end, i would credit Nehruji for establishing various institutions of higher education, and then later, under Primi Minister Narasimha Rao, Dr. Manmohan Singh paved the way four the country's globalization. We do not particularly have a better work ethic than the Pakistanis or are any bit more patient and hard working. We are after all essentially the same people just on different sides of an artificial border. What we have however are better schools and better (much better) colleges. So if you want to be patriotic, dont enroll in the army, go get a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering.

Good Point ! Jawahar Lal Nehru. recognized that India needed schools of higher learning and autonomous research labs and the need to usher in scientific temperament. He was responsible directly or indirectly in setting up some of the premier institutes like IIT, IIM, AIIMS, DRDO and ISRO.I sincerely hope that posters here who routinely give him flak at least acknowledge and respect this aspect of Nehru also.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Every leader worth its salt cud tell that that is no rocket science in my book he stunted their development by state control those insitutes should have chartered their own course and spun off in many more institutes.. a country of billion then by now would have had 100 iits....

[veer]

why pakistan stayed back a little?? because of attitude of 'beating India' .... they need to look beyond India.. why India progressed so much?? because importance of education in our society.. , competition.. , sense of nationality.. , unity in diversity.. (just look at current Indian Cricket Team. ).... Having said that.. we still need to go far ahead.. poverty.. electricity and water for giant population.. child labor.. .. education.. are just few of many issues that we need to work on..

[chanakya]

Because we were and still are a Democracy. Terry Pratchett (The Truth):-

Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions

[feverpitch]

The rationale for the creation and existence of Pakistan as also it's cricket team has been solely negative: in other words, oppose India. Negativity is hard to hold on to for so many years without it biting back. Which is why both are in the doldrums now.

[Ram]

The rationale for the creation and existence of Pakistan as also it's cricket team has been solely negative: in other words' date=' oppose India. Negativity is hard to hold on to for so many years without it biting back. Which is why both are in the doldrums now.[/quote'] Skewed logic i would say. To call the cricket team of pakistan " Obsessed with Indian cricket team" is at best , wishful thinking. A Pakistani could accuse the same of the Indian cricket team too.

[feverpitch]

Skewed logic i would say. To call the cricket team of pakistan " Obsessed with Indian cricket team" is at best ' date=' wishful thinking. A Pakistani could accuse the same of the Indian cricket team too.[/quote'] I'm not talking of now. I'm referring to the Imran zamana, when cricket nationalism, and Friday Finals at Sharjah ruled the roost. The present era would fall under the 'doldrums' i refer to.