How come India flourished while Pakistan failed inspite of grotesque corruption in both countries?

[Savak]

Some people claim that corruption, criminal activities and money laundering among politicians and bureaucrats is significantly much higher in India in comparison to Pakistan.

But the key question is how come corruption failed to stop India from growing economically but has in comparison been the major reason for preventing Pakistan from realizing its true economic potential?

Is the truth that the assertion that corruption being the number 1 stumbling block to economic growth and prosperity in Pakistan a false statement? Or is the truth that perhaps corruption in India is not as high in comparison to Pakistan?

Or is the truth the level of hard work, ambition, entrepreneurial and industrial drive among the Indian people is far greater in comparison to Pakistani busines owners who are just content with whatever they can make and are unwilling to work hard, spend the money necessary to further innovate and make more extra money in business?

I would love people to debate and brain storm on this topic

 

[Musakhel]

India has more innovation and diversity of industries, all we have is textiles and agriculture.

 

[slipcatch]

India invested in education.

investing in youth and education will take about 30 years to produce results.

 

[Stewie]

India has more innovation and diversity of industries, all we have is textiles and agriculture.

That’s a falsehood. Innovation and diversity is not given or inherited, its developed and harvested. Our corruption was at a much higher level than India’s. I don’t think we fully comprehend the level of corruption our country has been subjected to since the days of ZAB. It absolutely eclipses anything India has. Not just in terms of financial corruption but in terms of the loss of residual benefits the nation was supposed to reap. We have stifled all forms of development and progress thanks to corruption throughout the system, democratic leaders as well as military dictators.

 

[Technics 1210]

1.3 BILLION reasons.

Without its population, it would not have attracted foreign investment.

 

[slipcatch]

watch this video and it will answer, why?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MLLCFPzVsYI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

Education , and democracy .

 

[Mian]

In before the arrival of corrupt but competent brigade

In one line the answer is quality Education and Industrialization.

In Pakistan ZAB is seen as some kind of democratic hero but the truth is he was a ziddi civil dictator he destroyed our industries, institutions and bureaucracy. All these 3 things were flourishing under Ayub another dictator but with uniform.

 

[Tiger96]

No interference from the Fawj in running the country.

 

[Mkumar825]

Main reason - Pakistan army have more power than civilian government.

 

[PakLFC]

Coz we were taken over by Mullah culture after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Up to that point we were doing very well.

 

[ElRaja]

positive drivers for India's progress:

1. surprised no one mentioned land reforms
2. greater secularism and scientific education
3. leveraging entrepreneurial communities (banias are still more than 50% of indias billionaires i think)
4. per capita lower defense spending
5. natural geographical barrier to its historically largest threat (China)
6. promotion of English as a national language

 

[Extra_Cover]

There is no clear cut answer to your question. Many variables have had impacts on both countries over the years.

1. War on terror - From early 2000s onwards Pakistan was engaged in America's so called war on terror. This not only had a negative impact on Pakistan's image globally but also created many civil issues within Pakistan which never let the country flourish.

2. Military vs education - A large reason for India's growth has been consistent democracy in their country. When there is democracy the politicians are challenged and are required to make decisions in interests of the country. One such decision on education was made by India whereby a large chunk of their population was educated, and we all know education helps immensely in shaping a person's life. Pakistan on other hand had turbulent political times with powers changing hands way too often resulting in no development plans for the country taking place.

3. Population - India is almost a tenth of Pakistan's population. This helps in a lot of stuff such as promotions, representations, etc. With a large population there are many more voices to be heard and hence an represent the interests of a country better.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Religion & Military

Pakistan is behind because of the above 2 mentioned.

Genetically, Indians and Ex Indians are identical, so the potential is virtually same. However Pakistanis have their head buried in their religion and the military controls the entire economy, decides who gets elected, who doesn't, if the military don't like you they will just throw you out....


The amount of damage done by General Zia Ul Hag is incredible, how it is now determining Pakistan's fate....

'Pakistan which was created in the name of Islam will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of [an] Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country'. Zia ul Hag

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

A few reasons:

1 - The biggest reason is that Nehru lived for like 15 years after independence while Jinnah died after 1. India was therefore able to establish a stable democratic system, while Pakistan kept on going back and forth between democracy and dictatorship.

2 - The Northwest of the subcontinent was the least developed part of the British Raj. The Brits came to Bengal first, and it was 100 years later they came in to the northwest. So the rest of the subcontinent had a longer history of colonialism, which was actually good for the people of the subcontinent.

3 - The ethnic groups of Pakistan and India are not the same. Same way Germany and Greece and European countries, but Germans and Greeks aren't the same people, and have a huge difference in their culture, so do the people of the subcontinent.

4 - the socialism that Bhutto introduced in the 70's destroyed the economy of Pakistan. Countries thrive on Capitalism, and are destroyed by socialism.

5 - Creation of proxy groups by the establishment. This backfired big time, and Pakistan suffered a lot in the last 10 years. They have been defeated now, and the country is recovering but it set back Pakistan like 20 years.

 

[WebGuru]

4 - the socialism that Bhutto introduced in the 70's destroyed the economy of Pakistan. Countries thrive on Capitalism, and are destroyed by socialism.

I fail to understand why Zullfi Bhutto is regarded as some kind of messiah in our political history the damage he done is second to none (Zia ul Haq being second) but somehow our desi liberals were able to turn the villain into a hero most of them were his fan- boys and if you go through their writings and tweets they are still following Bhuttoism waiting for another messiah to come out of this clan.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I fail to understand why Zullfi Bhutto is regarded as some kind of messiah in our political history the damage he done is second to none (Zia ul Haq being second) but somehow our desi liberals were able to turn the villain into a hero most of them were his fan- boys and if you go through their writings and tweets they are still following Bhuttoism waiting for another messiah to come out of this clan.

There are two types

1 - Some I think its more that they are liberal, and since PPP is a liberal party they will support them, than any love for Bhutto. This group started to support PML N towards the end of the term since it seemed that they might be moving towards a more liberal direction. These people could also support Imran Khan and PTI if they perceive him taking Pakistan towards a more liberal direction.

2 - Second are the leeches who have jobs in PIA, Steel Mill, etc. So they need to support PPP to ensure that the gravy train continues. And to this day in Sindh the name Bhutto gets PPP votes.

 

[WebGuru]

There are two types

1 - Some I think its more that they are liberal, and since PPP is a liberal party they will support them, than any love for Bhutto. This group started to support PML N towards the end of the term since it seemed that they might be moving towards a more liberal direction. These people could also support Imran Khan and PTI if they perceive him taking Pakistan towards a more liberal direction.

2 - Second are the leeches who have jobs in PIA, Steel Mill, etc. So they need to support PPP to ensure that the gravy train continues. And to this day in Sindh the name Bhutto gets PPP votes.

Kinda agree with your post but most of them are plastic liberals they switch sides based on their liking avoiding facts and ground realities for example they blame Army alone for 71 ignoring the whole fact it was the power hungry bhutto who rejected Mujeeb's mandate. Army/Establishment was responsible but it was Bhutto sitting ob establishment lap who accelerated the events.

 

[Madplayer]

India progressed?

 

[last_knight]

I fail to understand why Zullfi Bhutto is regarded as some kind of messiah in our political history the damage he done is second to none (Zia ul Haq being second) but somehow our desi liberals were able to turn the villain into a hero most of them were his fan- boys and if you go through their writings and tweets they are still following Bhuttoism waiting for another messiah to come out of this clan.

He cashed in the then-prevalent sentiments. Those who were persistently deserted by PML had long been looking for an alternative. For them it arrived in ZAB.
He was a good planner but his over confidence and lack of honesty irked echelons of power.

For next 10 years, this circle ( long-awaited alternative--> cashing in on prevalent sentiments--> getting over confident--> trying unneeded adventures--> downfall) repeated for ZH.

Every 10 years we look for alternatives.
Stability will arrive only when we find an honest leader. A nation can forgive an outright thief of a leader, but will never forgive a cheat and dishonest leader.

Bhutto votes in Sindh are not due to Bhuttoism. In recent past it has been due to lack of an alternative. Same Bhuttoism succumbed to PTI in Punjab. Sindhis are more deprived, no reason why won't Bhuttoism of Sindh succumb to an alternative.

 

[CCAD]

1.3 BILLION reasons.

Without its population, it would not have attracted foreign investment.

Of course nothing else
Pakistan’s population isn’t too shabby either.

 

[Fineline]

Kinda agree with your post but most of them are plastic liberals they switch sides based on their liking avoiding facts and ground realities for example they blame Army alone for 71 ignoring the whole fact it was the power hungry bhutto who rejected Mujeeb's mandate. Army/Establishment was responsible but it was Bhutto sitting ob establishment lap who accelerated the events.

I wonder why the so called "Power Hungry Bhutto" didn't flee or make a deal when he was on the verge of being hanged?Couldn't he have easily waited for Zia Ul Haq's Martial Law to cease and take his chances again considering the fact that his daughter won the subsequent elections?ZAB had his faults but calling him worse than the impostor Zia who is arguably the most cruel and power aching person to have governed Pakistan is startling.By only putting Bhutto somehow in spotlight,the misdeeds of establishment which have played a significant role in hampering Pakistan's progress can't be brushed under the carpet.

 

[Fineline]

Religion & Military

Pakistan is behind because of the above 2 mentioned.

Genetically, Indians and Ex Indians are identical, so the potential is virtually same. However Pakistanis have their head buried in their religion and the military controls the entire economy, decides who gets elected, who doesn't, if the military don't like you they will just throw you out....


The amount of damage done by General Zia Ul Hag is incredible, how it is now determining Pakistan's fate....

'Pakistan which was created in the name of Islam will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of [an] Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country'. Zia ul Hag

Zia ul Haq was known for his hypocrisy and slavery.He implemented Islam upon everyone except himself.He is alleged to have even polished Bhutto's shoes just to appease him.Later,when his lords and masters in America wanted Bhutto removed,he submitted to their commands and imposed martial law but little did he know that his same lords and masters will get him killed in a plane crash when they no longer require his services!

 

[WebGuru]

I wonder why the so called "Power Hungry Bhutto" didn't flee or make a deal when he was on the verge of being hanged?Couldn't he have easily waited for Zia Ul Haq's Martial Law to cease and take his chances again considering the fact that his daughter won the subsequent elections?ZAB had his faults but calling him worse than the impostor Zia who is arguably the most cruel and power aching person to have governed Pakistan is startling.By only putting Bhutto somehow in spotlight,the misdeeds of establishment which have played a significant role in hampering Pakistan's progress can't be brushed under the carpet.

He was convicted in qasuri's father murder case and it was a well known fact even back thn that Bhutto assisnated his opponents. I am not giving establishment a clean chit or zia but the way some people try to make Zulfi shown as some kind of hero and only zia and estab as villains makes me laugh. For Zulfi everything was power be it serving Ayub as his cabinet member thn opposing Ayub and acting as anti establishment only to sit back again on establishment lap after Ayub was removed and Yahya was on driving seat to give Zulfi what he wanted instead of Mujeeb.

 

[Fineline]

He was convicted in qasuri's father murder case and it was a well known fact even back thn that Bhutto assisnated his opponents. I am not giving establishment a clean chit or zia but the way some people try to make Zulfi shown as some kind of hero and only zia and estab as villains makes me laugh. For Zulfi everything was power be it serving Ayub as his cabinet member thn opposing Ayub and acting as anti establishment only to sit back again on establishment lap after Ayub was removed and Yahya was on driving seat to give Zulfi what he wanted instead of Mujeeb.

The conviction of Bhutto in Qasuri murder case is termed as a "Judicial murder" for your knowledge.Morever,If Bhutto did get people assassinated why wasn't he accused and hanged of an actual murder carried upon his command?Why all this drama of involving him in a suspicious murder case? Alright!If we go by your logic of using establishment to gain power,isn't that how every prime Minister of Pakistan has got a chance to rule which includes our current Prime Minister IK?Certainly no leader or party in Pakistan can ever form a government without the approval of establishment which doesn't necessarily make them power hungry if they are sincere.

 

[Mamoon]

It is a result of Pakistan’s misplaced priorities as well as military interference. Corruption is rampant in India as well, and both countries have plenty of sociocultural issues, but they have focused on building competencies and their military is not power hungry and have not interfered in civilian matters.

Pakistan will continue to remain in the dumps as long it continues to address the core issues that have hampered the economic growth, and corruption is not the biggest issue.

PTI’s government is failing on this front as well. They will talk about corruption 24/7, but yet they fail to understand that for example, appointing a duffer like Fawad Chaudhry as Minister of Science and Technology will not bring any tabdeeli.

Even if he doesn’t do a rupee of corruption, he has zero competency for this extremely important ministry.

The only way Pakistan can replicate India’s economic growth is by focusing on building competencies and acknowledging that corruption cannot be eliminated but if the system is competent, it will be able to absorb its impact to a great extent.

In addition, the real powers of the COAS should be curbed and he should be subservient to the PM and the President as per the constitution.

Furthermore, NAB should be abolished. It is far from an impartial organization that is nothing more than a political tool to drive fake accountability, and the fact that the NAB Chief himself finds himself in hot water at the moment because of his scandal is poetic justice.

Unless and until Pakistan takes these measures, we will not see any growth and development. People are free to delude themselves into thinking that eradicating corruption will solve everything, but they are only setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

[Mian]

PTI’s government is failing on this front as well. They will talk about corruption 24/7, but yet they fail to understand that for example, appointing a duffer like Fawad Chaudhry as Minister of Science and Technology will not bring any tabdeeli.

Mamoon you are so predictable in a debate like this you still find a way to bash PTI in your post

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

I wonder why the so called "Power Hungry Bhutto" didn't flee or make a deal when he was on the verge of being hanged?Couldn't he have easily waited for Zia Ul Haq's Martial Law to cease and take his chances again considering the fact that his daughter won the subsequent elections?ZAB had his faults but calling him worse than the impostor Zia who is arguably the most cruel and power aching person to have governed Pakistan is startling.By only putting Bhutto somehow in spotlight,the misdeeds of establishment which have played a significant role in hampering Pakistan's progress can't be brushed under the carpet.

He didn't flee bcz it was not in his hand. Zia refused every foreign deal to released bhutto.

If bhutto would have been democratic then he never favored his daddy (ayub) against Fatima jinnah. He was the biggest hypocrite & racist pm in the history of Pakistan. He made so much hoo-ha for poor people in public that common man starts thinking that he is the only messiah for them but on contrary bhutto was the man who made the feudalism stronger. He opened the gate for these zardari, mazari, laghari to rule on country & since then the country is declining.

 

[Hasan]

India = secular and investment in education.

 

[Slog]

India’s only doing well for 15 years or so

For most of existence, Pakistan’s indicators have been better

 

[King-Misbah]

Those saying that because Pakistan did not have democratic setup etc. Pakistan had a democratic setup for the past 11 years and we had the two most corrupt and incomeptent parties in power. They destroyed the economy and the social fabrics of the society. Democracy was not the reason; may be lack of good leadership can be stated to be an issue.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

India’s only doing well for 15 years or so

For most of existence, Pakistan’s indicators have been better

Actually this, Pakistan is not that behind what some peoples think. A good 10-12 years can bring Pakistan on level or may be ahead but again reaching at india's level is not a milestone.

 

[Fahdi]

Bhutto and then Zia. One after the other. Bhutto destroyed our institutions and Zia damaged the social fabric of society and left behind armed militant groups. What's worse is that those 2 decades left behind two royal families who think ruling over Pakistan is their birth right and eat out of this country as if it's their personal property.

 

[Mian]

Glad to see Pakistanis finally realizing ZaB wasn't a hero he actually started ourdestruction process. The only credit i can give him is starting the nukes program that's it.

 

[King-Misbah]

Glad to see Pakistanis finally realizing ZaB wasn't a hero he actually started ourdestruction process. The only credit i can give him is starting the nukes program that's it.

I realised the evil he was when he called Bengali people: "soor ka bachay" in a YouTube video.

 

[WebGuru]

I realised the evil he was when he called Bengali people: "soor ka bachay" in a YouTube video.

And thn his family and followers talk about manners and language.

Not sure if this is legit but there was this letter released a couple of years which ZAB sent to General Iskandar Mirza calling him better thn Jinnah but one thing is for sure Bhutto had this habit of trying to please dictators be it Mirza, Ayub or Yahya

 

[Fineline]

He didn't flee bcz it was not in his hand. Zia refused every foreign deal to released bhutto.

If bhutto would have been democratic then he never favored his daddy (ayub) against Fatima jinnah. He was the biggest hypocrite & racist pm in the history of Pakistan. He made so much hoo-ha for poor people in public that common man starts thinking that he is the only messiah for them but on contrary bhutto was the man who made the feudalism stronger. He opened the gate for these zardari, mazari, laghari to rule on country & since then the country is declining.

Bhutto had every chance to run for his life but he was not a coward.The amount of foreign and internal support that he had is something no Pakistani leader has ever had.As far as Pakistan's decline is concerned,it all started when Pakistan chose to thoroughly side with the American block disregarding the Russians in the early 1950's.Indians on the other hand did the right thing by staying unaligned.So in my opinion,a single individual can't be blamed for the current state of Pakistan be it Bhutto,Zia,Ayub or Musharaf.Each of the aforementioned people have contributed to Pakistan's progress and ruination both in one way or the other with some causing a lot more damage like Zia!

 

[Fineline]

I realised the evil he was when he called Bengali people: "soor ka bachay" in a YouTube video.

Well that doesn't come to close to the evil that could be revealed by the Hamudur commission report concerning the events that took place in Bangladesh in 1971 if it ever gets revealed.

 

[Nostalgic]

And thn his family and followers talk about manners and language.

Not sure if this is legit but there was this letter released a couple of years which ZAB sent to General Iskandar Mirza calling him better thn Jinnah but one thing is for sure Bhutto had this habit of trying to please dictators be it Mirza, Ayub or Yahya

The letter is most likely genuine, and was probably sent after Bhutto had successfully convinced Mirza to appoint the former to the UN. Q. U. Shahab, then working at the presidency, relates a story from that time: Bhutto was perusing the presidential library when Mirza walked in and announced that Bhutto was being sent to the UN. Once Mirza had left, Bhutto turned to Shahab and revealed that his eventual aim was being Foreign Minister, and this UN posting was a mere rung on that ladder.

Bhutto did eventually make FM: Stanley Wolpert, in his “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan,” records other such missives Bhutto sent Ayub, praising Ayub’s “revolution,” and they make for cringeworthy reading.

Speaking of the book, it is one every student of Pakistani politics should read. It will leave you more confused than ever before about Bhutto, which is exactly as it should be. You will also learn the difference between being Bonapartist, and being Bonapartic: Bhutto made it a point to differentiate between the two inclinations.

 

[WebGuru]

The letter is most likely genuine, and was probably sent after Bhutto had successfully convinced Mirza to appoint the former to the UN. Q. U. Shahab, then working at the presidency, relates a story from that time: Bhutto was perusing the presidential library when Mirza walked in and announced that Bhutto was being sent to the UN. Once Mirza had left, Bhutto turned to Shahab and revealed that his eventual aim was being Foreign Minister, and this UN posting was a mere rung on that ladder.

Bhutto did eventually make FM: Stanley Wolpert, in his “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan,” records other such missives Bhutto sent Ayub, praising Ayub’s “revolution,” and they make for cringeworthy reading.

Speaking of the book, it is one every student of Pakistani politics should read. It will leave you more confused than ever before about Bhutto, which is exactly as it should be. You will also learn the difference between being Bonapartist, and being Bonapartic: Bhutto made it a point to differentiate between the two inclinations.

Mirza being better thn Jinnah and Ayub a revolutionary? I would like to see if there are any gems by ZAB about Yahya as well

Interestingly someone else recommended me this book as well I guess it's time to read it.

 

[KB]

The letter is most likely genuine, and was probably sent after Bhutto had successfully convinced Mirza to appoint the former to the UN.

The connection between the Bhutto and Mirza families was longstanding and dated back prior to partition when a member of both families served in the Bombay Government. The relationship was cemented further by winter trips by Iskander Mirza to Larkana to the Bhutto hunting preserves. It was in 1957 that Mirza helped Bhutto become a member of the Pakistan delegation to the UN, when Bhutto was only 29.

Stanley Wolpert, in his “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan,” records other such missives Bhutto sent Ayub, praising Ayub’s “revolution,” and they make for cringeworthy reading.

Speaking of the book, it is one every student of Pakistani politics should read. It will leave you more confused than ever before about Bhutto, which is exactly as it should be. You will also learn the difference between being Bonapartist, and being Bonapartic: Bhutto made it a point to differentiate between the two inclinations.

It has been a while since I read Wolpert's book. From memory, Wolpert stressed the two different worlds that shaped Bhutto. We have on the one hand, a man that is clearly intellectually sharp, educated in England and the Unites States, who became a barrister in law at Lincoln’s inn, and who was able to act as a publicist for Pakistan to the larger world in an impressive manner well before becoming the country’s leader. Yet, on the other hand, ultimately he seemed unable to transcend his Sindhi landlord roots, and the values of revenge and honour, ruling in an often arbitrary, bullying and cruel manner.

In the end though, Wolpert's work, whilst certainly useful, focussed rather too much on suggestive psychological analysis and ignored more detailed political analysis which would have provided vital context in understanding Bhutto more fully.

 

[Nostalgic]

The connection between the Bhutto and Mirza families was longstanding and dated back prior to partition when a member of both families served in the Bombay Government. The relationship was cemented further by winter trips by Iskander Mirza to Larkana to the Bhutto hunting preserves. It was in 1957 that Mirza helped Bhutto become a member of the Pakistan delegation to the UN, when Bhutto was only 29.

It has been a while since I read Wolpert's book. From memory, Wolpert stressed the two different worlds that shaped Bhutto. We have on the one hand, a man that is clearly intellectually sharp, educated in England and the Unites States, who became a barrister in law at Lincoln’s inn, and who was able to act as a publicist for Pakistan to the larger world in an impressive manner well before becoming the country’s leader. Yet, on the other hand, ultimately he seemed unable to transcend his Sindhi landlord roots, and the values of revenge and honour, ruling in an often arbitrary, bullying and cruel manner.

In the end though, Wolpert's work, whilst certainly useful, focussed rather too much on suggestive psychological analysis and ignored more detailed political analysis which would have provided vital context in understanding Bhutto more fully.

Thanks, I read it back in 1998, so it’s been a while since I read it too. I remember the book highlighting the dichotomy between the progressive and the feudal within Bhutto that you mention.

Speaking of Mirza, he wasn’t completely useless to Pakistan: supporters and detractors alike mention his work in securing the erstwhile NWFP for Pakistan, harnessing his knowledge of the British -era civil service dark arts. Do you think it amounted to much and what role did it play in the referendum, if any?

The suggestive psychological analysis extends a bit to him too. It is insinuated that his tumultuous time at the helm is explained by the fact that he is descended from Mir Jafar, the manipulative character blamed for Siraj-ud-Daula’s eventual capitulation to the British, and that the apple never falls far from the tree.

Speaking of books to better understand Pakistani politics, have you read Alistair Lamb’s “Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy?” It made quite the wave when it was first published in 1990, and reviews suggest Lamb proves the Maharaja’s instrument of accession was signed after the Indian troops had invaded, not the other way round. I’ve never been able to get my hands on it, but it looks like Amazon has it now. I was curious if you had read it and if so, what you thought of it.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Where are we flourishing? 1% of the population may be flourishing, middle class may be better off but millions are struggling to meet their ends. Pakistan may be doing badly but so are we, it is like two bald men fighting over a comb. Stop the bragging and learn from countries like China, South Korea or even Malaysia, Indonesia who were like us 50 years back. India and Pakistan both are headaches for the planet, world will be a better place without these 2 good for nothing countries.

 

[KB]

Thanks, I read it back in 1998, so it’s been a while since I read it too. I remember the book highlighting the dichotomy between the progressive and the feudal within Bhutto that you mention.

Speaking of Mirza, he wasn’t completely useless to Pakistan: supporters and detractors alike mention his work in securing the erstwhile NWFP for Pakistan, harnessing his knowledge of the British -era civil service dark arts. Do you think it amounted to much and what role did it play in the referendum, if any?

The suggestive psychological analysis extends a bit to him too. It is insinuated that his tumultuous time at the helm is explained by the fact that he is descended from Mir Jafar, the manipulative character blamed for Siraj-ud-Daula’s eventual capitulation to the British, and that the apple never falls far from the tree.

Speaking of books to better understand Pakistani politics, have you read Alistair Lamb’s “Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy?” It made quite the wave when it was first published in 1990, and reviews suggest Lamb proves the Maharaja’s instrument of accession was signed after the Indian troops had invaded, not the other way round. I’ve never been able to get my hands on it, but it looks like Amazon has it now. I was curious if you had read it and if so, what you thought of it.

Iskander Mirza - he may have played some role in the referendum outcome, but I am now aware of any evidence that it was especially crucial in the eventual outcome. More important seemed to be the support of the religious leaders. That said, of course even well before the referendum, Mirza seemed to favour the ML. There is some suggestive evidence that Mirza used his position as deputy commissioner of Mardan district to lean on some Khans to oppose the Congress in 1937 and that he is likely to have played a part in the formation of the Muslim League branch in Mardan. But in the factionalised world of Frontier politics it was never straightforward - it was said in 1943 that Mirza (now deputy commissioner of Peshawar) tried to prevent the formation of a Muslim League ministry in Frontier as he opposed Aurangzeb Khan. What is clear is that even though government servants were meant to be neutral, he clearly was not.

Alastair Lamb - along with Victoria Schofield, Lamb - who specialised in diplomatic history - is a good guide to Kashmir. Although not a thrilling read, it is clearly a carefully researched account. And yes, he certainly provided persuasive evidence to suggest that Indian troops were actually sent before the instrument of accession was signed, which was then subsequently backdated. He was perhaps the first to also point out that troops from Patiala were already present in Srinagar before the main Indian force arrived.

 

[Nostalgic]

Iskander Mirza - he may have played some role in the referendum outcome, but I am now aware of any evidence that it was especially crucial in the eventual outcome. More important seemed to be the support of the religious leaders. That said, of course even well before the referendum, Mirza seemed to favour the ML. There is some suggestive evidence that Mirza used his position as deputy commissioner of Mardan district to lean on some Khans to oppose the Congress in 1937 and that he is likely to have played a part in the formation of the Muslim League branch in Mardan. But in the factionalised world of Frontier politics it was never straightforward - it was said in 1943 that Mirza (now deputy commissioner of Peshawar) tried to prevent the formation of a Muslim League ministry in Frontier as he opposed Aurangzeb Khan. What is clear is that even though government servants were meant to be neutral, he clearly was not.

Alastair Lamb - along with Victoria Schofield, Lamb - who specialised in diplomatic history - is a good guide to Kashmir. Although not a thrilling read, it is clearly a carefully researched account. And yes, he certainly provided persuasive evidence to suggest that Indian troops were actually sent before the instrument of accession was signed, which was then subsequently backdated. He was perhaps the first to also point out that troops from Patiala were already present in Srinagar before the main Indian force arrived.

I suppose the ICS at partition time was heavily politicized. One has read accounts of blatant favoritism occurring to benefit the Congress as well.

I have to confess to not having heard of Victoria Schofield. I’ll add her to the list, but I just ordered Alistair Lamb. It cost a pretty penny for a used paperback, but I’m sure I’ll emerge on the other side much better informed.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Truth is bitter

 

[gazza619]

India has flourished is an overstatement of an extreme kind.

 

[The_Odd_One]

The sole reason we see this difference today is due to the political stability in India in the last 30 years.

While Pakistani politicians and establishment were busy playing musical chairs with the power, their Indian counterparts were focusing on availing the opportunities present at global level.

A lot of credit for India's success today should go to them dominating the IT industry. From 1990 onwards, the market was wide open to be taken. There was a huge demand of skilled IT workers which India fulfilled. If you speak to anyone in IT, they will tell you about the number of opportunities available at that time and how ridiculously easy it was to grow in that field.

India did nothing exceptionally hard. They invested in building world class institutions in India, they gave loans to students to study abroad. When these students went abroad to work or study further, they faced less competition. Due to strong English comprehension and speaking skills, language was not a barrier for them. People who joined corporates at that time are now high level executives. These executives hired their countrymen which further strengthened their hold on the industry.

The next step was to provide benefit to the corporates by outsourcing work. In most cases, it resulted in more than 70% cost cutting. Companies could hire 5 people off-shore compared to the cost of one worker on-shore. India gave an incentive to companies to open their offices in India. They were given land, tax breaks, security, etc to smoothly run their operations. India built a world class infrastructure including roads, trains, high-speed Internets, etc. to show that the country was ready to support this advancement. Today, Bangalore and Hyderabad are called tech cities. India's dominance in IT pumped a lot of money in Indian economy. People were earning much better than before. Remittance increased. People had more buying power and money to spend. Infrastructure improved further which attracted more foreign investment.

Now, let's compare this to what happened in Pakistan in the last 30 years. Prime ministers were not lasting more than 3 years. People were still debating on building a dam. Extremism was rising and Pakistanis were getting labeled terrorists. Children in many areas were not encouraged to go to school. Bomb blasts were common. The two countries were clearly traveling on different paths.

Pakistan had a good opportunity to catch-up with India during Musharraf's time and the country did comparatively better in his first 5 years. Musharraf became too greedy and his priorities changed. The same crooks returned and took the country backwards.

Pakistan missed the opportunity which was there to be taken. Had the leadership in Pakistan had a vision, things would have been quite different today. Only if Pakistan had an economist like Dr. Manmohan Singh rather than crooks like Dar, the country would have left India behind.

 

[KB]

I suppose the ICS at partition time was heavily politicized. One has read accounts of blatant favoritism occurring to benefit the Congress as well.

Yes, this is true and it was not just at the higher levels. This reminds me of the story from Punjab in the run-up to the crucial 1946 elections, when a lambardar was temporarily kidnapped and paraded as a Unionist Party supporter (the Unionists were the ML's main opposition in the Punjab). The story comes from historian Ian Talbot:

"The Samundri tehsildar called a meeting of all the lambardars, sufedposhes and zaildars of the tehsil on 3 January and warned them that they would be instantly dismissed and prosecuted, their grants confiscated and their supplies of canal water withheld if they opposed the Unionist Party. On the other hand, four squares of land and jagirs carrying recurring cash awards of several hundred rupees had been set apart for persons who did the ‘best work’ in the elections. The proceedings reached comic proportions when a lambardar who was a member of influential Baloch family and a zealous supporter of the Muslim League was lifted bodily into the car of the Baloch Unionist candidate, Raja Ali and driven at breakneck speed to the surrounding Baloch villages in an endeavour to hoodwink the voters into believing that he had switched his allegiance to the Unionist Party."

 

[Nostalgic]

Yes, this is true and it was not just at the higher levels. This reminds me of the story from Punjab in the run-up to the crucial 1946 elections, when a lambardar was temporarily kidnapped and paraded as a Unionist Party supporter (the Unionists were the ML's main opposition in the Punjab). The story comes from historian Ian Talbot:

"The Samundri tehsildar called a meeting of all the lambardars, sufedposhes and zaildars of the tehsil on 3 January and warned them that they would be instantly dismissed and prosecuted, their grants confiscated and their supplies of canal water withheld if they opposed the Unionist Party. On the other hand, four squares of land and jagirs carrying recurring cash awards of several hundred rupees had been set apart for persons who did the ‘best work’ in the elections. The proceedings reached comic proportions when a lambardar who was a member of influential Baloch family and a zealous supporter of the Muslim League was lifted bodily into the car of the Baloch Unionist candidate, Raja Ali and driven at breakneck speed to the surrounding Baloch villages in an endeavour to hoodwink the voters into believing that he had switched his allegiance to the Unionist Party."

Is a lambardar the same as a numberdar? These days a numberdar in Punjab is invariably the village Chaudhry, which probably gives his social superiority an additional official veneer.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Bhutto had every chance to run for his life but he was not a coward.The amount of foreign and internal support that he had is something no Pakistani leader has ever had.As far as Pakistan's decline is concerned,it all started when Pakistan chose to thoroughly side with the American block disregarding the Russians in the early 1950's.Indians on the other hand did the right thing by staying unaligned.So in my opinion,a single individual can't be blamed for the current state of Pakistan be it Bhutto,Zia,Ayub or Musharaf.Each of the aforementioned people have contributed to Pakistan's progress and ruination both in one way or the other with some causing a lot more damage like Zia!

I suggest you should read my comment again, there were some offers for bhutto but only from middle east & zia was the major barrier against those offers (as I said in my comment). And from west and America, indeed there would have been some sympathizers but no real deal was offered and that is why bhutto named America a white elephant in his last book 'if I am assassinated' which he wrote in the jail in his last days. He used this name for America only when he was completely realized that Americans are not gonna help him. As far as it is concerned to local support then listen nobody could have stand against army since 47 & that is why there was almost pin drop silence even in Garhi Khuda Bux shortly after the strangle.

One thing which I always maintained that bhutto shouldn't been strangled, not bcz he was innocent only bcz a new trend of political culture will be started and that is what we are witnessing. Ppp has nothing in bag in the name of development they only have picture of shaheeds and which they are utilizing to rule since 40 years. Same the case with Nawaz sharif & co, got should offer them a deal and kick the whole family+extended family out of the country for entire life otherwise incompetent, corrupt & opportunist like Maryam Nawaz will become leaders and will rule the country as one thing is sure that they will not gonna give a single penny which they have looted even if they have to give their all treasury to the lawyers to save themselves.

 

[Hasan]

Bhutto and then Zia. One after the other. Bhutto destroyed our institutions and Zia damaged the social fabric of society and left behind armed militant groups. What's worse is that those 2 decades left behind two royal families who think ruling over Pakistan is their birth right and eat out of this country as if it's their personal property.

Very well put!

 

[Pakpak]

I wonder why the so called "Power Hungry Bhutto" didn't flee or make a deal when he was on the verge of being hanged?Couldn't he have easily waited for Zia Ul Haq's Martial Law to cease and take his chances again considering the fact that his daughter won the subsequent elections?ZAB had his faults but calling him worse than the impostor Zia who is arguably the most cruel and power aching person to have governed Pakistan is startling.By only putting Bhutto somehow in spotlight,the misdeeds of establishment which have played a significant role in hampering Pakistan's progress can't be brushed under the carpet.

Zia was even the bigger criminal than Bhutto. Bhutto did try to make deals, Gaddafi even sent a plane to get him out but Zia was not interested at all. Saying that, Bhutto is the reason our economy got ruined.

 

[Fineline]

I suggest you should read my comment again, there were some offers for bhutto but only from middle east & zia was the major barrier against those offers (as I said in my comment). And from west and America, indeed there would have been some sympathizers but no real deal was offered and that is why bhutto named America a white elephant in his last book 'if I am assassinated' which he wrote in the jail in his last days. He used this name for America only when he was completely realized that Americans are not gonna help him. As far as it is concerned to local support then listen nobody could have stand against army since 47 & that is why there was almost pin drop silence even in Garhi Khuda Bux shortly after the strangle.

One thing which I always maintained that bhutto shouldn't been strangled, not bcz he was innocent only bcz a new trend of political culture will be started and that is what we are witnessing. Ppp has nothing in bag in the name of development they only have picture of shaheeds and which they are utilizing to rule since 40 years. Same the case with Nawaz sharif & co, got should offer them a deal and kick the whole family+extended family out of the country for entire life otherwise incompetent, corrupt & opportunist like Maryam Nawaz will become leaders and will rule the country as one thing is sure that they will not gonna give a single penny which they have looted even if they have to give their all treasury to the lawyers to save themselves.

Hmm interesting!Zia's ruthlessness was just on another level.He had probably forgotten that there exists a higher power(God) who wouldn't treat him with mercy when its his turn.

I agree with with what you have stated about PPP and PMLN.I shudder at the thought of losers like Billo and Maryam Nawaz somehow getting elected as Prime Minister in future.IK needs to ensure he doesn't let that materialize.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Pakistan must be a failed state if they think India is flourishing.

 

[Fineline]

Zia was even the bigger criminal than Bhutto. Bhutto did try to make deals, Gaddafi even sent a plane to get him out but Zia was not interested at all. Saying that, Bhutto is the reason our economy got ruined.

Yes nationalisation was just not suitable for a country like Pakistan.It was a huge blunder on his part but I don't think he had any ulterior motives behind that decision. Nevertheless,our economy suffered and all the people who emerged after him made things even worse except for maybe Musharaf.

 

[Mamoon]

India has flourished is an overstatement of an extreme kind.

Compared to Pakistan, it is a superpower.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Compared to Pakistan, it is a superpower.

Absolutely no, you overestimate us. Compared to Pakistan, China may be a superpower not India. India is comparable to Sub-Saharan African countries, because of the huge population it might give a wrong picture. Bangladesh is all set to leave India in the dust as far as per capita GDP is concerned. Many third world countries have better literacy levels, sanitation, poverty alleviation measures, health and nutrition indices, democratic credentials, pollution control, press freedom, less crime, more communal harmony. India is a joke, Pakistan is a joke as well, so yeah we will give you guys some company in the race to the bottom.

 

[Mamoon]

Absolutely no, you overestimate us. Compared to Pakistan, China may be a superpower not India. India is comparable to Sub-Saharan African countries, because of the huge population it might give a wrong picture. Bangladesh is all set to leave India in the dust as far as per capita GDP is concerned. Many third world countries have better literacy levels, sanitation, poverty alleviation measures, health and nutrition indices, democratic credentials, pollution control, press freedom, less crime, more communal harmony. India is a joke, Pakistan is a joke as well, so yeah we will give you guys some company in the race to the bottom.

China is far ahead of India, but Pakistan should not compare itself to China because of completely difficult cultures and socioeconomic problems.

Pakistan and India are very similar in multiple aspects because of their shared history. There are plenty of common problems like poverty, population boom, pollution, health issues, communal violence, corruption, abuse of power etc.

There are of course many cultural and social similarities that don’t require any elaboration. Up until the 80s and early 90s, Pakistan was actually ahead of India on many metrics, but they have now left us decades behind.

India’s industrial growth, education, healthcare etc. are far, far ahead of Pakistan now, and in spite of communal violence, it is a much more peaceful country which is why it enjoys a much better reputation globally, and the difference in tourism reflects that.

Most people in the West think of Pakistan as a terrorist country, rather than an exotic albeit backward country with a rich culture, which tends to be the general impression of India in the West.

Today, Pakistan lags behind India and will continue to do so forever because of its own mistakes and misplaced priorities. We can blame WOT and other external events as much as we want, but first and foremost, we are responsible for our own demise.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Compared to Pakistan, it is a superpower.

I'll believe India is a superpower when they have properly fixed electric cables, and streets which don't look like rubbish tips. At the moment it looks as bad or worse than Pakistan.

 

[Realromeo]

Education, FDI and IT. FDI is pretty much exploiting indian resources but it gets the poor out of poverty for the most part and allows them to save up money and give their children a better education, hoping they will be working in IT or something. The other two speaks for itself.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is that your superpower Mamoon?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

When India looks like this we can finally say it is flourishing. This is London, where the UK is supposedly finished as a superpower.

 

[slipcatch]

China is far ahead of India, but Pakistan should not compare itself to China because of completely difficult cultures and socioeconomic problems.

Pakistan and India are very similar in multiple aspects because of their shared history. There are plenty of common problems like poverty, population boom, pollution, health issues, communal violence, corruption, abuse of power etc.

There are of course many cultural and social similarities that don’t require any elaboration. Up until the 80s and early 90s, Pakistan was actually ahead of India on many metrics, but they have now left us decades behind.

India’s industrial growth, education, healthcare etc. are far, far ahead of Pakistan now, and in spite of communal violence, it is a much more peaceful country which is why it enjoys a much better reputation globally, and the difference in tourism reflects that.

Most people in the West think of Pakistan as a terrorist country, rather than an exotic albeit backward country with a rich culture, which tends to be the general impression of India in the West.

Today, Pakistan lags behind India and will continue to do so forever because of its own mistakes and misplaced priorities. We can blame WOT and other external events as much as we want, but first and foremost, we are responsible for our own demise.

LOL

Why don't you make sense when you try extremely hard?

 

[Mamoon]

I'll believe India is a superpower when they have properly fixed electric cables, and streets which don't look like rubbish tips. At the moment it looks as bad or worse than Pakistan.

India is a superpower compared to Pakistan, but obviously it is not a superpower in its true sense.

India have raced ahead of Pakistan in the last three decades because of the development of modern industries and conglomerates. They are also far ahead in terms of tourism and global perception.

For example, no Pakistani company is remotely comparable to Tata, Reliance, Cipla, Infosys etc. Economically, Pakistan is still living in the 60s and 70s, largely relying on non-tech, seasonal exports.

Yes Indian cities don’t look like London or Paris and probably never will because of the overpopulation, but that is only one measure of progress.

 

[Mamoon]

LOL

Why don't you make sense when you try extremely hard?

You are right. We are a country of saints and angels who have suffered because of bad neighbors and global politics that has been enforced on us. It has absolutely nothing to do with our own shortcomings and mistakes.

 

[slipcatch]

You are right. We are a country of saints and angels who have suffered because of bad neighbors and global politics that has been enforced on us. It has absolutely nothing to do with our own shortcomings and mistakes.

You took it personally.

But you know very well what I meant.

Like, I've said, when you try extremely hard, you tend to not make sense, your lengthy essay just become word salad.

 

[slipcatch]

India is a superpower compared to Pakistan, but obviously it is not a superpower in its true sense.

India have raced ahead of Pakistan in the last three decades because of the development of modern industries and conglomerates. They are also far ahead in terms of tourism and global perception.

For example, no Pakistani company is remotely comparable to Tata, Reliance, Cipla, Infosys etc. Economically, Pakistan is still living in the 60s and 70s, largely relying on non-tech, seasonal exports.

Yes Indian cities don’t look like London or Paris and probably never will because of the overpopulation, but that is only one measure of progress.

Another example of not making sense.

You support the leaders who would only play politics of "optics" and call them competent but here you say this.

Make up your mind.

 

[Savak]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

 

[Slog]

India is a superpower compared to Pakistan, but obviously it is not a superpower in its true sense.

India have raced ahead of Pakistan in the last three decades because of the development of modern industries and conglomerates. They are also far ahead in terms of tourism and global perception.

For example, no Pakistani company is remotely comparable to Tata, Reliance, Cipla, Infosys etc. Economically, Pakistan is still living in the 60s and 70s, largely relying on non-tech, seasonal exports.

Yes Indian cities don’t look like London or Paris and probably never will because of the overpopulation, but that is only one measure of progress.

Lol you’re either a superpower or you’re not. It’s not a relative scale.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India is a superpower compared to Pakistan, but obviously it is not a superpower in its true sense.

Yes it is obviously some special kind of superpower where the living conditions look worse than the country you are trying to compare it favourably with.

 

[Syed1]

To all the folks who think that India is flourishing India has more poor people than Pakistan has people........ let that sink in for a second.



Also developed countries are developed because they have a per capita income, which itself isn't the best metric since you can high per capita income but all that income concentrated in the top 10%. India's per capita income is roughly similar to Pak, while they have hundreds of billionaires which suggests that the division of wealth is alot more skewed in India than in Pak.

 

[Madplayer]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

)

 

[Syed1]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

) this is your best post on this forum

 

[Mian]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

That's what happens when you go overboard )

 

[ILcricket]

Emphasis on Education

 

[Mamoon]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

Except I didn’t call India a global superpower. However, compared to Pakistan, it clearly is. The Indian poster misinterpreted my statement like a few others.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes it is obviously some special kind of superpower where the living conditions look worse than the country you are trying to compare it favourably with.

Again, compared to Pakistan, India is a superpower. That doesn’t show how great India is but rather how much of a failed state Pakistan is.

You are fixated with living conditions but I am more concerned with their economic growth as well as forex reserves (top ten in the world).

India’s main exports are auto, pharma and IT, while we are still reliant on non-tech exports.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Absolutely no, you overestimate us. Compared to Pakistan, China may be a superpower not India. India is comparable to Sub-Saharan African countries, because of the huge population it might give a wrong picture. Bangladesh is all set to leave India in the dust as far as per capita GDP is concerned. Many third world countries have better literacy levels, sanitation, poverty alleviation measures, health and nutrition indices, democratic credentials, pollution control, press freedom, less crime, more communal harmony. India is a joke, Pakistan is a joke as well, so yeah we will give you guys some company in the race to the bottom.

Social indices are quite telling, they clearly show India and Pakistan are the worst in the subcontinent. India's GDP per capita rank is 142 while Pakistan is at 148, however the number of billionaires and millionaires in India are 15-20 times more than in Pakistan which indicates that the inequality levels are worse

 

[Technics 1210]

The sight when Mamoon calls India a super power, a fellow Indian tells him not to go overboard and he then argues with that Indian on why India is a super power.

To top it off he is blaming PTI, who have been in power for less than a year.