What's new

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

You are trying too hard. Take it easy, its just a banter. Most indians and Pakistanis look similar because we share same bloodlines. Both my parents and all grandparents were born in india and i am proud of my heritage. Its a different thing that race (and with it physique) does play a role in our society even within different tribes of the people in sub-continent. But..at the end of the day: we are what we are.

That's all fine, anyways isn't that obvious. Not sure why you are sharing it as some new discovery.

However the point is you don't have to wait for a guy who looks like Ambrose, a Hassan Ali if used efficiently can deliver by helping you win a tournament. If you have an Ambrose in your domestic cricket, if you use Hassan Ali it is called inefficiency and incompetence but if you don't have an Amrbose but can use guys like Hassan Ali effectively then that is called maximizing resources and deserves credit.

That's why I think it is a ridiculous argument in the context of the topic unless you are trying to give India the credit for maximising it's resources and criticizing Pakistan sport administration for not encouraging olympic level athletes.
 
That's all very noble. However it is misplaced in a thread that asks why India has done better than Pakistan, so not sure the need to create this equivalence that India has also underachieved and made some mistakes. I think every one acknowledges that and no one is delusional to those facts. However it is true that we have to learn from mistakes but it is also important to look at things that have been done right as well for some inspiration. They go hand in hand.

However it is a legitimate question, how come 2 countries with more or less the same overlapping cultures,traditions and languages for centuries and having more or less the same problems once separated by a man made border have taken such distinctly different paths.

What's the point? Whilst I don't agree with OP's question ('India' and 'flourished', rather insensitive towards millions of our countrymen) I don't mind but what followed was incessant gloating, mocking, point scoring by both parties.

We may have taken different paths but trends may change in the future. I don't think the path RSS, BJP, Modi, Shah, Yogi are steering us towards is desirable. May provide some cheap thrills for some but very harmful and dangerous in the medium/long run.
 
Last edited:
That's all fine, anyways isn't that obvious. Not sure why you are sharing it as some new discovery.

However the point is you don't have to wait for a guy who looks like Ambrose, a Hassan Ali if used efficiently can deliver by helping you win a tournament. If you have an Ambrose in your domestic cricket, if you use Hassan Ali it is called inefficiency and incompetence but if you don't have an Amrbose but can use guys like Hassan Ali effectively then that is called maximizing resources and deserves credit.

That's why I think it is a ridiculous argument in the context of the topic unless you are trying to give India the credit for maximising it's resources and criticizing Pakistan sport administration for not encouraging olympic level athletes.

To be frank. India has no real achievements in any sports other than cricket, which has a very limited sphere anyway + the dubiosity of money in the play. Go and check how many medals did india win in last olympics.

If you insist on comparing India with Pak, then despite being much much smaller in population than India. Pakistan’s sports achievements aren’t ent much different. Infact despite being marred with corruption and nepotism Pak still managed to produce a few odd stars like Jahangir Khan.
 
To be frank. India has no real achievements in any sports other than cricket, which has a very limited sphere anyway + the dubiosity of money in the play. Go and check how many medals did india win in last olympics.

If you insist on comparing India with Pak, then despite being much much smaller in population than India. Pakistan’s sports achievements aren’t ent much different. Infact despite being marred with corruption and nepotism Pak still managed to produce a few odd stars like Jahangir Khan.

India won 8 individual medals in the last 2 Olympics where as Pakistan’s life time medal tally is 10 probably all in hockey. Not even counting India’s achievements in hockey and other sports pre 2012.

Anyways india has definitely under achieved below its capacity no one denies that.

However point 1 you were gloating about physical superiority of Pakistanis

And point 2 this was a india vs Pakistan comparison thread.

I agree with you india should not be compared to Pakistan.

As far as standalone greats in specific sports, let’s not open that debate as I can give you a list of achievers in Chess, Billiards etc too who have accomplished on a world stage. That is not the topic here.

Let me throw back the question to you which I should have asked at the start, what exactly are you trying to say here in the context of the topic?
 
I'm curious what you mean by flourish? [MENTION=2501]Savak[/MENTION]

Why is India ahead of Pakistan in terms of education, economy, sports inspite of having the same corrupt civilian politicians?
 
India won 8 individual medals in the last 2 Olympics where as Pakistan’s life time medal tally is 10 probably all in hockey. Not even counting India’s achievements in hockey and other sports pre 2012.

Anyways india has definitely under achieved below its capacity no one denies that.

However point 1 you were gloating about physical superiority of Pakistanis

And point 2 this was a india vs Pakistan comparison thread.

I agree with you india should not be compared to Pakistan.

As far as standalone greats in specific sports, let’s not open that debate as I can give you a list of achievers in Chess, Billiards etc too who have accomplished on a world stage. That is not the topic here.

Let me throw back the question to you which I should have asked at the start, what exactly are you trying to say here in the context of the topic?

I am not gloating, an average pakistani is taller and physically stronger than an average indian. This is because majority of Pak population is similar to the northern Indians like Punjabis. So there is an obvious difference.

Whereas those (like my family) who migrated from India look like the average Indian. Though having said that even in those who migrated from India you can still see glimpses of their non-indian ancestry.

As for sports, its a fair point to make that Pakistan has performed very poorly due to nepotism and corruption. This is why many younger generation Pakistanis are no longer interested in traditional sports like Hockey, tennis etc Even the popularity of cricket is on decline.
 
Why is India ahead of Pakistan in terms of education, economy, sports inspite of having the same corrupt civilian politicians?
Pakistan Army's interference is the single biggest reason. All the corrupt civilian politicians are products of army. Army use corrupt politicians giving them turn for power where they toe army's line. Army would not let corrupt politicians get due punishment. Its a cycle.
 
Pakistan Army's interference is the single biggest reason. All the corrupt civilian politicians are products of army. Army use corrupt politicians giving them turn for power where they toe army's line. Army would not let corrupt politicians get due punishment. Its a cycle.
Salute hay, salute hay Teri logic pe salute hay

Drop the mic, end the thread we got our reason
 
Pakistan Army's interference is the single biggest reason. All the corrupt civilian politicians are products of army. Army use corrupt politicians giving them turn for power where they toe army's line. Army would not let corrupt politicians get due punishment. Its a cycle.

My knowledge of internal politics of Pakistan is solely as an outside observer. While corruption is an obvious evil that we are stuck with in the subcontinent, some of the more competent ones have either been a little corrupt even though in most cases maybe not them personally but people around them.

I would say biggest financial scams happened in India in the early-mid 90s but that was also the time when Indian economy was opening up to what it has become today. I am not saying corruption and progress are directly related but sometimes this corruption thing is just a crutch for clueless politicians. You can always work your way around it rather than saying that nothing else will be done Until corruption is eliminated or it is the sole agenda. You think American or British politicians don’t receive Kickbacks?

While I understand the glamor in someone who wants to eliminate corruption but there are so many other moving pieces as well that take to run a country.

I think Nawaz Sharif whatever the allegations against him are, is admired in India relatively speaking compared to other leadership of Pakistan because he actually made an honest effort to make peace with India and was ready to work to resolve major issues.

In fact he tried to work with government that is presumed to be hardliners and right wing which is BJP on both occasions. Also add the fact that he seemed to be a decent administrator.

I know Pakistanis hate Modi and I can understand that however I always see this jab that Modi is a chaiwala or whatever and Imran is an Oxford or was it Cambridge graduate?.

However the deal is that Modi started of at the lowest level possible, learned all the ins and out of politics on the job, eventually became a chief minister and then the prime minister of India. It was organic growth. Just because someone is an Oxford graduate and has done well in his profession doesn’t always translate to great diplomat, politician and administrator.

The criticism of Imran is because the perception is he is a total proxy of the army but with Sharif or Bhutto and obviously with the generals/presidents we never got the same vibe even though they might have been.

The big takeaway from what I am trying to say is subcontinent doesn’t really need these big charismatic leaders but they need capable administrators who can may be let a few things slide but at the end of day somehow get even half the job done.

Ask anyone who India’s greatest PM’s were and I will bet most Pakistanis won’t even be familiar with some of the names. Narsimha Rao and Shastri come to mind. Vajpayee obviously is well known in Pakistan due to the whole Lahore bus yatra but even he was never considered a charismatic leader but just aN excellent orator and admin. Same can be said to a lesser extent of Manmohan Singh who despite being somewhat of a proxy at-least was component and a scholar in his area of expertise which was economics which was useful.

I would say this is why may or may not be exactly Nawaz Sharif but someone who can work around silently in the background ,let army do their thing if it is unavoidable but still can somehow get even half the job done is needed in our part of the world .

I am not saying corruption is good or half-a**ing things is the way to go but that is why India is doing better than Pakistan also the reason why India has not achieved its full potential because of the half-a** ing things at times.However this is my theory why India has done a better job than Pakistan relatively speaking.
 
1- In India army is not pulling the strings from behind the scenes and is (visually) subordinate to the civilian government.
2- There is no feudal system in India thats deeply entrenched in the rural society to totally deflate any democratic electoral process. Though there will be other caste and biradri based mafias in place but not to the same extent.
3- India benefited from the IT outsourcing trend in 90s etc because of large population and cheap labour cost.

That’s about it. Army is the main reason why Pakistan lags behind.
 
India has not really flourished economically. It's all down to being pretentious, self-boasting and having a good PR machine.
Many Indians, remind me of certain Americans in that they have one thing in common: pretentious. 73% of wealth in India is owned by 1% of the population. The poverty rate is significantly worse than Pakistan. Half the population doesn't have electricity or toilets. Yet they are supposed to be an economic miracle. Given the inequality and wealth distribution in India, one can easily conclude a middle class India would be worse off than a middle class Pakistani.

It's similar to the pretentious Americans who boast about their large economy, which is mostly just down to having a large population in a high GDP per capita country. When it comes to actual life, the middle class in that country is significantly worse off than other developed countries due to health care system, chronic inequality, expensive education, etc. Very few people in the middle class from other developed countries would ever want to live in the US, despite the fact that the top 1% in the US are probably much better off than the top 1% in other developed countries. And that's what Indians here are compete for usually: our 1% is better than your 1%.

I mean, the fact that 73% of wealth is owned by 1% in India is a staggering figure.
 
India dominates the social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook compared to Pakistan. If you search Shahid Afridi and Imran Khan right now, you will find 99 Indian users abusing the crap out of him and one Pakistani defending him.

My dad works with the top international organization and travels world wide, he paints a very bleak picture where there are just so few Pakistani's working in the UN, World Bank, IMF, in the West, in Dubai, in leadership roles versus the Indians and then we crib and complain why does the entire world listen to India vis a vis Pakistan on international issues?

A bit late to complain about Indians in powerful positions in international organizations. Indians didn’t ask Pakistanis to stop being Indians, it was your choice. You made the bed, now lie on it.
 
A bit late to complain about Indians in powerful positions in international organizations. Indians didn’t ask Pakistanis to stop being Indians, it was your choice. You made the bed, now lie on it.

A little unfair given that many Pakistanis today were driven out by mob violence in India, including my grand parents.
 
Why is India ahead of Pakistan in terms of education, economy, sports inspite of having the same corrupt civilian politicians?

But you still have to define flourish. What does being ahead in sport even mean? India has the world's largest population living below the bread line, also known as the poverty line. I am sure winning a gold medal in some female pursuit has helped their lives greatly.

Pakistan beats India in measurements of happiness, toiletry hygiene, sexual abuse and many other factors, which for me would be a better example of a "flourishing" society.
 
A bit late to complain about Indians in powerful positions in international organizations. Indians didn’t ask Pakistanis to stop being Indians, it was your choice. You made the bed, now lie on it.

Pakistanis are very happy to lie on their own beds, especially looking at the state of patriotic Indian Muslims now being treated like sc*m by the Hindutva brigade in power and their fans on here.
 
India has not really flourished economically. It's all down to being pretentious, self-boasting and having a good PR machine.
Many Indians, remind me of certain Americans in that they have one thing in common: pretentious. 73% of wealth in India is owned by 1% of the population. The poverty rate is significantly worse than Pakistan. Half the population doesn't have electricity or toilets. Yet they are supposed to be an economic miracle. Given the inequality and wealth distribution in India, one can easily conclude a middle class India would be worse off than a middle class Pakistani.

It's similar to the pretentious Americans who boast about their large economy, which is mostly just down to having a large population in a high GDP per capita country. When it comes to actual life, the middle class in that country is significantly worse off than other developed countries due to health care system, chronic inequality, expensive education, etc. Very few people in the middle class from other developed countries would ever want to live in the US, despite the fact that the top 1% in the US are probably much better off than the top 1% in other developed countries. And that's what Indians here are compete for usually: our 1% is better than your 1%.

I mean, the fact that 73% of wealth is owned by 1% in India is a staggering figure.

American healthcare is good, its just not free. Doctors from Canada, Europe come to states why? Because it lets them have a better lifestyle.

America has 10 times the population of Canada and almost 5-10 times of each other developed country that you are talking about , much more diversity as well, taking in many more immigrants comparatively over the years, also it gives much more opportunity to its residents to grow but it cannot go and hand out as you are asking, it’s the only place where people born in other countries can becomes CEOs of American ones or setup big companies as well.
 
American healthcare is good, its just not free. Doctors from Canada, Europe come to states why? Because it lets them have a better lifestyle.

America has 10 times the population of Canada and almost 5-10 times of each other developed country that you are talking about , much more diversity as well, taking in many more immigrants comparatively over the years, also it gives much more opportunity to its residents to grow but it cannot go and hand out as you are asking, it’s the only place where people born in other countries can becomes CEOs of American ones or setup big companies as well.

I knew that the CEO will turn up sooner or later.
 
I knew that the CEO will turn up sooner or later.

Its a plus point for America than India here.. who are more open to CEOs from other countries, I also said big business like that of Shahid Khan ,better read the context in which it was said.
 
Last edited:
A little unfair given that many Pakistanis today were driven out by mob violence in India, including my grand parents.

My ancestors also came from what became Pakistan.

The violence occurred mainly after the country was broken into two.
 
India has not really flourished economically. It's all down to being pretentious, self-boasting and having a good PR machine.
Many Indians, remind me of certain Americans in that they have one thing in common: pretentious. 73% of wealth in India is owned by 1% of the population. The poverty rate is significantly worse than Pakistan. Half the population doesn't have electricity or toilets. Yet they are supposed to be an economic miracle. Given the inequality and wealth distribution in India, one can easily conclude a middle class India would be worse off than a middle class Pakistani.

It's similar to the pretentious Americans who boast about their large economy, which is mostly just down to having a large population in a high GDP per capita country. When it comes to actual life, the middle class in that country is significantly worse off than other developed countries due to health care system, chronic inequality, expensive education, etc. Very few people in the middle class from other developed countries would ever want to live in the US, despite the fact that the top 1% in the US are probably much better off than the top 1% in other developed countries. And that's what Indians here are compete for usually: our 1% is better than your 1%.

I mean, the fact that 73% of wealth is owned by 1% in India is a staggering figure.

As for inequality being worse in India, the Gini indices are not very different. Also Pakistan and especially rural Pakistan remains much more feudal because of lack of land reforms.

India has a lot of people in poverty but the government having more money makes it possible to help them. India has developed many new modern industries over the last 3 decades while Pakistan hasn’t due to the environment created by its Army. It is seriously delusional to think that Pakistan’s economy hasn’t fallen far behind India. This is apparent from the composition of exports of the two countries plus India’s $125 billion a year IT related exports.

http://www.worldstopexports.com/indias-top-10-exports/

http://www.worldstopexports.com/pakistans-top-10-exports/


Being delusional and ignoring the data in the above links is not the way forward. Pakistan will only escape the perpetual cycle of bailouts when it develops modern industries.
 
Firstly yes there is a lot of poverty in the SC and sure by sheer volume alone India has a lot of poor people.

However just distributing money you can’t pull people out of poverty. If a lucky homeless person wins a million $ lottery it will bring him out of poverty but there will be a poor child born somewhere else in a poor family or even more to negate that. Also if the guy getting the handout is incompetent and doesn’t have discipline he will run through that money to end up poor anyways.

Poverty is eradicated by giving people opportunities. Showing them hope by actionable plans and implementations.

Let me give you an example- My watchmanÂ’s daughter in the apartment building I lived in India studied, did her MBA I think or some kind of masters from a local college and got some kind of a call center job in a MNC after passing out. First thing she did was moved her parents to a new house and bought her dad a small budget car. I am not saying she got rich but her family’s living standard has gone up.

You eliminate poverty by creating a system and organically bringing up the living standard of people.

Some of our padosi friends see everything in black and white and search for anything they can find to diss India and that is fine, itÂ’s all good banter however free advice- it helps if you think through things before you actually want to go with it.

The fact is India has invested in Education. These days every guy passing out is an engineer or a computer expert. Education is a big business with all these coaching centers etc. popping up in every street. people who get in to these big schools have their life made if not there are plenty of other schools to complete education.

Now where do all these graduates go, apart from government jobs,well, they have all these Corporate giants hiring them for be it IT or other back operations needs. They end up finding something else or the other for them to do.


While the downside of that is smart *** comments like oh! India has ceos and managers but these are employees and not innovators, well again that is true to some extent. However when your goal is to raise your living standard you are not taking too many risks or experimenting with path breaking ideas.Historically innovation happens when either you have your back against the wall or there is plenty of surplus. Not when there is an opportunity for you to have a risk free stable living but you have to compete.

So yes these are the steps taken by India over the years which has raised the standard of living significantly. There is an organic growth of these poor folk improving their living standards. There are plenty such heartwarming rags to riches stories In India every other day.

So you can rub in the poor people numbers or whatever but while that is not exclusive to India alone, however being one of the power players in service industry is.

This may go over peopleÂ’s heads so let me try with a cricket example, India invested at the grass roots level. They didnÂ’t give protein shakes to some of our trundlers from the 90s and gym trainers to make them look like body builders. They created a system due to which we have found at least half a dozen world class fast bowlers at the same time.
 
Last edited:
As for inequality being worse in India, the Gini indices are not very different. Also Pakistan and especially rural Pakistan remains much more feudal because of lack of land reforms.

India has a lot of people in poverty but the government having more money makes it possible to help them. India has developed many new modern industries over the last 3 decades while Pakistan hasn’t due to the environment created by its Army. It is seriously delusional to think that Pakistan’s economy hasn’t fallen far behind India. This is apparent from the composition of exports of the two countries plus India’s $125 billion a year IT related exports.

http://www.worldstopexports.com/indias-top-10-exports/

http://www.worldstopexports.com/pakistans-top-10-exports/


Being delusional and ignoring the data in the above links is not the way forward. Pakistan will only escape the perpetual cycle of bailouts when it develops modern industries.

What modern industries are there in India, other than the outsourced IT work?

Never really seen any noteworthy indian product outside India. Other than Paan parag perhaps...
 
What modern industries are there in India, other than the outsourced IT work?

Never really seen any noteworthy indian product outside India. Other than Paan parag perhaps...

The answer was there in the link I provided. A country only exports a product of a modern industry when that product is competitive in the world market.

Here are some modern Indian industries other than IT:

The world's largest refinery in Jamnagar, the reason for the top item at $44 billion in India's merchandise exports list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#World's_largest_refineries

Machinery, including computers $21 billion.

Vehicles $17 billion

Pharmaceuticals $16 billion

etc.

"Never really seen any noteworthy indian product outside India" if you drive Toyota in Europe, you will obviously never know the origin of the various different parts.
 
Last edited:
What modern industries are there in India, other than the outsourced IT work?

Never really seen any noteworthy indian product outside India. Other than Paan parag perhaps...

India has a huge start up culture now. Heard of FlipKart, PayTM? There a lot more such players


Also Indians are major players in the steel sector too.

Ask and you shall receive. This is good. Constructive debate.

As I said all this evolves organically. You can’t expect India to establish a Google or Amazon overnight but investment in education and service sector is reaping rewards now with Fintech, E commerce becoming booming sectors.

As I said you need to look at organic growth of India and how it has evolved and learnt from its problems rather finding any equivalence with Pakistan when it comes to common problems like poverty and toilets.
 
I had to google search that Engro is the largest company in Pakistan (correct me if I am wrong). Never heard of it but apparently it has a total assets of 1.2 billion usd (As per wiki. So again feel free to correct me)

Reliance India’s biggest company is worth 140 billion usd so it would be ridiculous to compare I thought I will go with a relatively newer or unknown company,

So I went with a It service sector player like Infosys which is worth 12 billion usd

Now since the scientists, doctors and economists on PP look down on IT and service sector that india prides itself in , I tried to pick a relatively newer Fintech start up in india Mobilwik which was valued at 1 billion dollars a couple of years back.

So yeah india is doing a lot of things when it comes to innovation and technology

Hope that clarified a few questions
 
That start up culture has previously been discussed. If Flipkart and PayTm are the major ones to gloat about, then it already proves the point.

As for steel sector, its another of the cheap labour intensive industry that has been outsourced by the west. Good that Indian investors picked up the declining steel mills of the west but how much of that is actually produced in India?

Vehicles, I don’t think Maruti can be called a world known major product. Rest of it would again be outsourced vehicle parts production for other foreign brands. Which many other low cost countries also do.

Pharmaceuticals? Other than the generic drug production. Name any single pharma product or Pharma company that originated in India?

Ofcourse everything is proportional to scale, so if a country with 1.25 billion population is making some basic outsourced stuff. Its not really a big deal.
 
That start up culture has previously been discussed. If Flipkart and PayTm are the major ones to gloat about, then it already proves the point.

As for steel sector, its another of the cheap labour intensive industry that has been outsourced by the west. Good that Indian investors picked up the declining steel mills of the west but how much of that is actually produced in India?

Vehicles, I don’t think Maruti can be called a world known major product. Rest of it would again be outsourced vehicle parts production for other foreign brands. Which many other low cost countries also do.

Pharmaceuticals? Other than the generic drug production. Name any single pharma product or Pharma company that originated in India?

Ofcourse everything is proportional to scale, so if a country with 1.25 billion population is making some basic outsourced stuff. Its not really a big deal.

I am finding it tiresome to keep doing this and giving you explanations :)) anyway forget everything, what exactly are you trying to say here? This was a India vs Pak question, so rather than nitpicking on things just for the heck of it without even bothering to do any research, can you tell me if Pakistan is comparable to any of the positive things listed even though they may not seem much to a modern day influencer like you?

I mean what exactly are you arguing for or against.

It’s like someone says Leo DiCaprio is better than Varun Dhawan. Then first you start nit picking on Leo first by saying he is overrated or how he acted in some flop movie somewhere or how he got lucky with good directors and good co actors and finally after you nitpick you conclude Daniel Day Lewis is better actor than him. Now sure that last part is true but what does it have to do with the original comparison? :))
 
I had to google search that Engro is the largest company in Pakistan (correct me if I am wrong). Never heard of it but apparently it has a total assets of 1.2 billion usd (As per wiki. So again feel free to correct me)

Reliance India’s biggest company is worth 140 billion usd so it would be ridiculous to compare I thought I will go with a relatively newer or unknown company,

So I went with a It service sector player like Infosys which is worth 12 billion usd

Now since the scientists, doctors and economists on PP look down on IT and service sector that india prides itself in , I tried to pick a relatively newer Fintech start up in india Mobilwik which was valued at 1 billion dollars a couple of years back.

So yeah india is doing a lot of things when it comes to innovation and technology

Hope that clarified a few questions

Admittedly Pakistan is not a good yard stick because unfortunately we are marred by a more corrupt system with the balance of power totally in the hands of Army (and their Pet feudal lords) BUT that doesn’t automatically amplifies what you are claiming as India’s achievements. The reasons for Pakistan’s lack of progress have been discussed and agreed upon, so lets move on with the debate.

Question is that despite being free from the Army stronghold and Feudals, + having world largest democracy why has India also underachieved this much (compared to the only country similiar to it in size and population. I.e. China)?
 
Admittedly Pakistan is not a good yard stick because unfortunately we are marred by a more corrupt system with the balance of power totally in the hands of Army (and their Pet feudal lords) BUT that doesn’t automatically amplifies what you are claiming as India’s achievements. The reasons for Pakistan’s lack of progress have been discussed and agreed upon, so lets move on with the debate.

Question is that despite being free from the Army stronghold and Feudals, + having world largest democracy why has India also underachieved this much (compared to the only country similiar to it in size and population. I.e. China)?

Firstly this is not a India vs China thread. It’s not like every Chinese person living in the largest populated country in the world is swimming in gold and diamonds . They still do have a lot of poverty. However I am not delusional and it is obvious that China is a new super power absolutely and way ahead of India at the moment. I am not going to point out poverty in China and keep going in circles and nitpick on every single thing. It’s a fact.

Secondly India and Pak are comparable because they inherited the same problems and were under foreign rule at the same time. In fact some problems are still there which is common to both sides, however india despite being a lot more diverse landscape has done much better than Pakistan in a lot of areas. That’s a fact. I assure you I am not gloating because there is still a looong way to go for India but at the same time in the context of this thread there is nothing wrong in discussing the good things india has done and mistakes Pakistan made over the 70+ years in a constructive way to see why india has made this relative progress. In fact you guys need to start to look at even Bangladesh which is improving every year.

I only saw a couple of constructive posts so far and trust me most of us are willing to learn and understand Pakistan history from a neutral perspective but the moment India and Pakistan are mentioned, the usual jibes come out and sometimes it is tough to resist the banter and it ruins the entire purpose of a constructive discussion.
 
That start up culture has previously been discussed. If Flipkart and PayTm are the major ones to gloat about, then it already proves the point.

As for steel sector, its another of the cheap labour intensive industry that has been outsourced by the west. Good that Indian investors picked up the declining steel mills of the west but how much of that is actually produced in India?

You are confusing competitive industries with declining industries. Steel is a competitive industry, as can be seen from low market caps but high revenues of firms like Arcelor Mittal.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MT/financials?p=MT

Vehicles, I don’t think Maruti can be called a world known major product. Rest of it would again be outsourced vehicle parts production for other foreign brands. Which many other low cost countries also do.

Being a low cost country is fine. Malaysia doesn't have any internationally known products, yet its per cap GDP is 10X India's and 15X Pakistan's.


Pharmaceuticals? Other than the generic drug production. Name any single pharma product or Pharma company that originated in India?

Ofcourse everything is proportional to scale, so if a country with 1.25 billion population is making some basic outsourced stuff. Its not really a big deal.

Depends upon your definition of a "big deal". Like [MENTION=151383]Local.Dada[/MENTION] said, you are comparing Leo to Varun. A country can make significant progress without having reached the level of the US. Your attitude seems to be that there is no difference between a country whose top exports are textiles, leather and cereals and another country whose top exports are IT, vehicle parts and generic pharma. It is very long road from textiles to iPhones. Along the way you have to first get to generic pharma.
 
Firstly this is not a India vs China thread. It’s not like every Chinese person living in the largest populated country in the world is swimming in gold and diamonds . They still do have a lot of poverty. However I am not delusional and it is obvious that China is a new super power absolutely and way ahead of India at the moment. I am not going to point out poverty in China and keep going in circles and nitpick on every single thing. It’s a fact.

Secondly India and Pak are comparable because they inherited the same problems and were under foreign rule at the same time. In fact some problems are still there which is common to both sides, however india despite being a lot more diverse landscape has done much better than Pakistan in a lot of areas. That’s a fact. I assure you I am not gloating because there is still a looong way to go for India but at the same time in the context of this thread there is nothing wrong in discussing the good things india has done and mistakes Pakistan made over the 70+ years in a constructive way to see why india has made this relative progress. In fact you guys need to start to look at even Bangladesh which is improving every year.

I only saw a couple of constructive posts so far and trust me most of us are willing to learn and understand Pakistan history from a neutral perspective but the moment India and Pakistan are mentioned, the usual jibes come out and sometimes it is tough to resist the banter and it ruins the entire purpose of a constructive discussion.

That’s cool, if you dont want to engage in the discussion or answer the question raised.

Its already been said that what are the reasons of Pakistans poor progress, so we can’t just keep on beating the dead horse. Its more interesting to move on.

And just like you Indians, we Pakistanis (atleast I) are interested in learning about how and why things progressed in India. To me its a country of my ancestors, so i would like to see it progressing and prospering. Hence raising questions about where it stands in the world are not necessarily to belittle.
 
American healthcare is good, its just not free. Doctors from Canada, Europe come to states why? Because it lets them have a better lifestyle.

The myth about Canadian doctors moving to the US is similar to the myth about Canadians going to the US to get healthcare. Yes, a small percent (less than 0.5% of doctors, 0.1-0.2% of Canadians for healthcare) go to the US. Here's a reference in that regard: https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Migrated/PDF/myth29_e.pdf

No offence, you are not the type of Indians I thought would get hung up on how the 1% are doing in Canada v/s US, but that's what you are doing: you are only talking about the 1% and not the middle class.

A much more telling statistic is that 25% of Americans don't have health insurance or are underinsured. US healthcare is routinely rated the worst healthcare system in the developed world. Here's a video describing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO1IoKN0AkY

America has 10 times the population of Canada and almost 5-10 times of each other developed country that you are talking about , much more diversity as well, taking in many more immigrants comparatively over the years, also it gives much more opportunity to its residents to grow but it cannot go and hand out as you are asking, it’s the only place where people born in other countries can becomes CEOs of American ones or setup big companies as well.

What hand out are talking about here? Canada takes in 3x more immigrants per capita than the US. Most people are not immigrating to become CEOs. Again, why should we focus on the people whom you can count on one hand compared to the millions who move to the US so they can work and get a well paying job.
 
The myth about Canadian doctors moving to the US is similar to the myth about Canadians going to the US to get healthcare. Yes, a small percent (less than 0.5% of doctors, 0.1-0.2% of Canadians for healthcare) go to the US. Here's a reference in that regard: https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Migrated/PDF/myth29_e.pdf

No offence, you are not the type of Indians I thought would get hung up on how the 1% are doing in Canada v/s US, but that's what you are doing: you are only talking about the 1% and not the middle class.

A much more telling statistic is that 25% of Americans don't have health insurance or are underinsured. US healthcare is routinely rated the worst healthcare system in the developed world. Here's a video describing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO1IoKN0AkY



What hand out are talking about here? Canada takes in 3x more immigrants per capita than the US. Most people are not immigrating to become CEOs. Again, why should we focus on the people whom you can count on one hand compared to the millions who move to the US so they can work and get a well paying job.

First I'm not hung up about the 1%, but again I see you approve socialism to the core which I don't except maybe education and somewhat healthcare.

And here for Canadian immigrants to usa, now compare that as a percentage to Canadian population.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrants-countries-birth-over-time?width=900&height=850&iframe=true

On doctors leaving Canada where are you getting that number? It says in 90's it almost reached 400 -500 doctors leaving for USA.

Immigrants, yes Per Capita yes Canada takes in more number, you are right on that and I have massive respect for Canada and its system but its a different to American one, not necessarily a better one in all aspects, the reason am responding to you is that in Canada there are always limitations to grow and that's the reason for so many Canadians moving up here as I posted in the above link(if you check percentage of your population).

If Canada was as developed as you said why would there be so much immigration compared to your population?
I really do like Canada but its white collar job fields would always remain limited because of its corporate policies,Yes its more humane but its also more susceptible to victim mentality.
 
First I'm not hung up about the 1%, but again I see you approve socialism to the core which I don't except maybe education and somewhat healthcare.

So now Canada and Europe are socialist to the core? I am in favour of capitalism with a base set of rights. Beyond that, you can have a free economy. USA isn't really capitalist per say, but rather crony capitalist. Look at the corporations cashing in on the coronavirus, while the public is given crumbs. There's nothing capitalist about not being able to start a company because you wouldn't have health insurance.


I am not sure what i am looking for here specifically.

On doctors leaving Canada where are you getting that number? It says in 90's it almost reached 400 -500 doctors leaving for USA.

" Thus, our net loss of physicians is fairly small
— since 1980, our annual net loss has never been more than
one percent (and averages closer to one quarter of a percent)
of all practising physicians."

Again though, this is not significant nor important, since a much bigger deal is that 25% of Americans don't have insurance or are underinsured. On top of that, a large chunk of those that are insured avoid going to the doctor or hospital because of the crazy deductibles they have, e.g. $8000 deductible AOC had before she became a congresswoman.

Immigrants, yes Per Capita yes Canada takes in more number, you are right on that and I have massive respect for Canada and its system but its a different to American one, not necessarily a better one in all aspects, the reason am responding to you is that in Canada there are always limitations to grow and that's the reason for so many Canadians moving up here as I posted in the above link(if you check percentage of your population).

Yes, being a small country has its limitations. You will not have diverse industries like the US does. That's not the fault of Canada though. Having a large population gives you certain advantages over countries less populated. US has a huge and diverse economy inspite of its crony capitalism, not because of its crony capitalism. If Canada was given the same hand, i.e. a large population and diverse industry, its

If Canada was as developed as you said why would there be so much immigration compared to your population?
I really do like Canada but its white collar job fields would always remain limited because of its corporate policies,Yes its more humane but its also more susceptible to victim mentality.

Primarily because a lot of Canadians are retiring or about to retire and they need to replace them, and the birth rate is not catching up.
 
So now Canada and Europe are socialist to the core? I am in favour of capitalism with a base set of rights. Beyond that, you can have a free economy. USA isn't really capitalist per say, but rather crony capitalist. Look at the corporations cashing in on the coronavirus, while the public is given crumbs. There's nothing capitalist about not being able to start a company because you wouldn't have health insurance.



I am not sure what i am looking for here specifically.



" Thus, our net loss of physicians is fairly small
— since 1980, our annual net loss has never been more than
one percent (and averages closer to one quarter of a percent)
of all practising physicians."

Again though, this is not significant nor important, since a much bigger deal is that 25% of Americans don't have insurance or are underinsured. On top of that, a large chunk of those that are insured avoid going to the doctor or hospital because of the crazy deductibles they have, e.g. $8000 deductible AOC had before she became a congresswoman.



Yes, being a small country has its limitations. You will not have diverse industries like the US does. That's not the fault of Canada though. Having a large population gives you certain advantages over countries less populated. US has a huge and diverse economy inspite of its crony capitalism, not because of its crony capitalism. If Canada was given the same hand, i.e. a large population and diverse industry, its



Primarily because a lot of Canadians are retiring or about to retire and they need to replace them, and the birth rate is not catching up.

Your point about Free healthcare is valid to a certain limit but other than its not and there will be not be free healthcare but it will get addressed as Gen Z cares about it.

Jus check the immigration to USA from Canada and tell me why would that be so high as % of your population (which is what i gave the article for) if Canada was providing everything to its citizens.
And again I genuinely respect Canada and its policies, I have utmost respect for it but you are implying that it cannot give its the citizens the opportunities that America can...
 
Your point about Free healthcare is valid to a certain limit but other than its not and there will be not be free healthcare but it will get addressed as Gen Z cares about it.

Jus check the immigration to USA from Canada and tell me why would that be so high as % of your population (which is what i gave the article for) if Canada was providing everything to its citizens.
And again I genuinely respect Canada and its policies, I have utmost respect for it but you are implying that it cannot give its the citizens the opportunities that America can...

Here's what I'll add w.r.t Canadians moving to US.

1) If you notice, since 1960, the number has remained basically flat, while the population might have doubled or tripled in that time.
2) In certain industries, such as software engineering, US pays more.
3) Climate is a big factor. Most Canadians I know are in California, or Florida, etc. Or they are close to the border cities so they can easily reach Canada.

Yes, like I said, Canada has limitations due to its population and geography. Canada has done really well with the hand that it was dealt.

Despite all this, what we should focus is how the working class or the middle class is faring in either country. And there's really no comparison in that. It is much more telling on the state of the country that 25% of the population basically has no healthcare, that education is absurdly high, that corporations are the ones making bank from coronavirus, etc, rather than a few thousand Canadians that move to the US each year. Like I said, how 50-70% of your country lives is far more important than the fact that a small sliver of your country emigrates.

You can be a well-educated person that immigrated to the US, has a high paying job, and still realize/acknowledge that middle class is far worse off than any other developed country.
 
What hand out are talking about here? Canada takes in 3x more immigrants per capita than the US. Most people are not immigrating to become CEOs. Again, why should we focus on the people whom you can count on one hand compared to the millions who move to the US so they can work and get a well paying job.

There is a difference between the US and Canada. While it is true that Canada provides more services to its citizens, that is also the nature of more ethnically homogenous countries like Canada.

The US is by far a more desirable destination for migrants who have a choice between Canada and the US. Out of my engineering class of around 45, about 30 are in the US and exactly 0 live in Canada.
 
There is a difference between the US and Canada. While it is true that Canada provides more services to its citizens, that is also the nature of more ethnically homogenous countries like Canada.

The US is by far a more desirable destination for migrants who have a choice between Canada and the US. Out of my engineering class of around 45, about 30 are in the US and exactly 0 live in Canada.

if youre going for education or are more qualified (and can get past the whole visa rigmarole) then obv there is no better country than the US in terms of opportunities and ceiling

but if you are lower middle class or very poor and looking to improve lives of your next generation then I think Canada is better option as there is more of a safety net and social services

on a side note - iirc you said your family's from bengal so hopefully theyre doing well.
 
if youre going for education or are more qualified (and can get past the whole visa rigmarole) then obv there is no better country than the US in terms of opportunities and ceiling

but if you are lower middle class or very poor and looking to improve lives of your next generation then I think Canada is better option as there is more of a safety net and social services

on a side note - iirc you said your family's from bengal so hopefully theyre doing well.

Yes, the US is a more unequal society.

Thank you for your concern, my relatives are okay. 40 years of CPM killed off Bengal's industry and Mamta was really no better. So I have only a few older relatives left in WB. The younger generation left in search of jobs.

I hope all of your family and loved ones are also safe wherever they may be.
 
There is a difference between the US and Canada. While it is true that Canada provides more services to its citizens, that is also the nature of more ethnically homogenous countries like Canada.

The US is by far a more desirable destination for migrants who have a choice between Canada and the US. Out of my engineering class of around 45, about 30 are in the US and exactly 0 live in Canada.

Canada is ethnically homogeneous? Where did you get that from?

As for US being far more desirable than Canada, that has been more of an Indian mindset than anything, at least that has been the case until the recent past. * I haven't really seen the obsession with immigrating to US outside of India. Canada, UK, Australia are considered equally desirable among Pakistanis and a bunch of other nationalities.

* In the recent past, it seems like a lot more Indians are considering Canada compared to the US. This may be due to the disaster that is the H1B more than anything else. But about 50% of express entry recipients are Indians in the recent past. I have seen a bunch of Youtube vloggers from India creating a crazy amount of videos on immigration to Canada, so I believe what you mention is changing.
 
As for inequality being worse in India, the Gini indices are not very different. Also Pakistan and especially rural Pakistan remains much more feudal because of lack of land reforms.

India has a lot of people in poverty but the government having more money makes it possible to help them. India has developed many new modern industries over the last 3 decades while Pakistan hasn’t due to the environment created by its Army. It is seriously delusional to think that Pakistan’s economy hasn’t fallen far behind India. This is apparent from the composition of exports of the two countries plus India’s $125 billion a year IT related exports.

http://www.worldstopexports.com/indias-top-10-exports/

http://www.worldstopexports.com/pakistans-top-10-exports/


Being delusional and ignoring the data in the above links is not the way forward. Pakistan will only escape the perpetual cycle of bailouts when it develops modern industries.

You see, it is possible to post constructively if one puts religious binoculars to one side. While your post does still ignore geopolitical difficulties unique to Pakistan which aren't there any more for India, there are some other underlying business values where India has shown more enterprise. India definitely benefited from wisely choosing to make English the second language, where Pakistan probably put more emphasis on Arabic.
 
But you still have to define flourish. What does being ahead in sport even mean? India has the world's largest population living below the bread line, also known as the poverty line. I am sure winning a gold medal in some female pursuit has helped their lives greatly.

Pakistan beats India in measurements of happiness, toiletry hygiene, sexual abuse and many other factors, which for me would be a better example of a "flourishing" society.

yo [MENTION=2501]Savak[/MENTION] you still alive bro?
 
If by flourish you mean a man eating the raw corpse of a dead dog on the street out of hunger then Allah bachaye aisi flourishing se. If you don't believe me just search social media from yesterday or maybe the BJP IT cell would already have gotten the video removed.


That video is one such proof.... You can also see the millions of poor and hungry who are out on the streets due to chaiwala's lockdown. Whattay flourish. Heck 120 people died just trying to get home due to lockdown in separate incidents.


All of India's wealth is concentrated in the top 20% and the level of poverty and inequality seen in India is not at all evident in Pakistan.


Try and find that on Wikipedia 'online experts'. If India was flourishing so much why are they falling over each other to get out of India by any means possible. Heck the Indian who is most active on this flourishing thread himself doesn't live in India.
 
Perhaps "flourish" should be taken literally: either to thrive in numbers, or to wield or brandish a hand-held implement. The former is evident from their burgeoning numbers on PP, YouTube, Quora, Twitter et al., the latter by the profusion of pellet guns in their hands in Kashmir.
 
Perhaps "flourish" should be taken literally: either to thrive in numbers, or to wield or brandish a hand-held implement. The former is evident from their burgeoning numbers on PP, YouTube, Quora, Twitter et al., the latter by the profusion of pellet guns in their hands in Kashmir.

Speaking of which, their recent push to alter demographics in Kashmir means they’ll “flourish” there in both meanings of the term.
 
Here's what I'll add w.r.t Canadians moving to US.

1) If you notice, since 1960, the number has remained basically flat, while the population might have doubled or tripled in that time.
2) In certain industries, such as software engineering, US pays more.
3) Climate is a big factor. Most Canadians I know are in California, or Florida, etc. Or they are close to the border cities so they can easily reach Canada.

Yes, like I said, Canada has limitations due to its population and geography. Canada has done really well with the hand that it was dealt.

Despite all this, what we should focus is how the working class or the middle class is faring in either country. And there's really no comparison in that. It is much more telling on the state of the country that 25% of the population basically has no healthcare, that education is absurdly high, that corporations are the ones making bank from coronavirus, etc, rather than a few thousand Canadians that move to the US each year. Like I said, how 50-70% of your country lives is far more important than the fact that a small sliver of your country emigrates.

You can be a well-educated person that immigrated to the US, has a high paying job, and still realize/acknowledge that middle class is far worse off than any other developed country.

Middle class is still pretty good in America but I do see your point on below middle class, not coz social benefits which are provided in states too but free healthcare.

Yes the poor don’t fare as well as in Canada or other developed countries but again as to why reasons , let’s leave that debate for another thread.
 
Speaking of which, their recent push to alter demographics in Kashmir means they’ll “flourish” there in both meanings of the term.

This obsession with Kashmir is the prime reason why Pakistan keeps falling behind economically.

1) Kashmir is the prime issue used by the Pakistani Army to paint India as the "enemy", thus justifying their own importance, and continued domestic dominance.

2) All this publicity given to Kashmir, and the domestic jihadis bred by ISI/Army promotes religious radicalization and leads to terrorists like Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Faisal Shahzad etc. and firmly associates Pakistan with terrorism in the minds of Western investors. Why invest in Pakistan when Vietnam and Indonesia are much much better, and India and Bangladesh are much better?

3) IK going on a world tour saying that a nuclear war with India is imminent if it doesn't leave Kashmir has Western investors running for the hills.

4) The truth is that India will never leave Kashmir as long as it has a strong federal government. The trend is that India is strong and getting stronger, so any Pakistani energy spent on Kashmir is wasted energy. In contrast Pakistan tetters on the edge of bankruptcy due to its inability to attract Western investment and develop modern industry. The truth is no country respects someone asking for a bailout.

5) If you really want the world to pay heed to your opinions on Kashmir, first fix your economy. This non-stop chanting "Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir" is counterproductive, and the biggest reason why Pakistan can't seem to develop any industry that exports something more advanced than textiles.
 
Last edited:
This obsession with Kashmir is the prime reason why Pakistan keeps falling behind economically.

1) Kashmir is the prime issue used by the Pakistani Army to paint India as the "enemy", thus justifying their own importance, and continued domestic dominance.

2) All this publicity given to Kashmir, and the domestic jihadis bred by ISI/Army promotes religious radicalization and leads to terrorists like Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Faisal Shahzad etc. and firmly associates Pakistan with terrorism in the minds of Western investors. Why invest in Pakistan when Vietnam and Indonesia are much much better, and India and Bangladesh are much better?

3) IK going on a world tour saying that a nuclear war with India is imminent if it doesn't leave Kashmir has Western investors running for the hills.

4) The truth is that India will never leave Kashmir as long as it has a strong federal government. The trend is that India is strong and getting stronger, so any Pakistani energy spent on Kashmir is wasted energy. In contrast Pakistan tetters on the edge of bankruptcy due to its inability to attract Western investment and develop modern industry. The truth is no country respects someone asking for a bailout.

5) If you really want the world to pay heed to your opinions on Kashmir, first fix your economy. This non-stop chanting "Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir" is counterproductive, and the biggest reason why Pakistan can't seem to develop any industry that exports something more advanced than textiles.

True that Pak army keeps Kashmir as a reason for its existence and defence funding (which takes priority over other things). To trump it, why does India not agrees to have a referendum in Kashmir. Let it be a separate independent country. Then have some kind of EU type union between all Subcontinent countries. I.e a real meaningful version of SARC.

Having said that Right wing extremist government in India and the ongoing violence against muslims is another big reason why there is animosity.
 
This obsession with Kashmir is the prime reason why Pakistan keeps falling behind economically.

1) Kashmir is the prime issue used by the Pakistani Army to paint India as the "enemy", thus justifying their own importance, and continued domestic dominance.

2) All this publicity given to Kashmir, and the domestic jihadis bred by ISI/Army promotes religious radicalization and leads to terrorists like Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Faisal Shahzad etc. and firmly associates Pakistan with terrorism in the minds of Western investors. Why invest in Pakistan when Vietnam and Indonesia are much much better, and India and Bangladesh are much better?

3) IK going on a world tour saying that a nuclear war with India is imminent if it doesn't leave Kashmir has Western investors running for the hills.

4) The truth is that India will never leave Kashmir as long as it has a strong federal government. The trend is that India is strong and getting stronger, so any Pakistani energy spent on Kashmir is wasted energy. In contrast Pakistan tetters on the edge of bankruptcy due to its inability to attract Western investment and develop modern industry. The truth is no country respects someone asking for a bailout.

5) If you really want the world to pay heed to your opinions on Kashmir, first fix your economy. This non-stop chanting "Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir" is counterproductive, and the biggest reason why Pakistan can't seem to develop any industry that exports something more advanced than textiles.
Rather be poor than let oppressors keep on oppressoresing kashmiris whatever even if damage India a lil is worth it because it's the national duty of Pakistanis to make sure kashmiris are treated fairly
 
Rather be poor than let oppressors keep on oppressoresing kashmiris whatever even if damage India a lil is worth it because it's the national duty of Pakistanis to make sure kashmiris are treated fairly

1) Kashmiris actually have more democratic rights than more than 60% of the world's population that live in dictatorships. So calling them oppressed is a stretch.

2) Most other countries don't care what a nearly bankrupt Pakistan has to complain about Kashmir, so there if there is any damage to India it is one-hundredth the damage to Pakistan.

3) Indians who dislike Pakistan and have your mentality actually are thrilled by your thinking, like I said in 2) the damage to Pakistan from the Kashmir obsession is much greater than it is to India.

4) There are these sort of territorial disputes all over the world, the smarter countries keep it confined to diplomacy and don't let it damage their economies. Imagine Japan without modern industries, instead training terrorists to attack Russia to get them out of the Kuril islands.
 
Last edited:
What an ego.

The “flourishing economy” and “developed” industry that you keep on harping about is only down to availability of cheap labour and the Western corporations money saving ambitions. That’s about it.

Its not like that indians ve produced einsteins or world known brands, products and unique new technological advancements. Keep on going round in circles abt flipkart and those CEOs, they dont really mean anything in grand scheme of things. Indians ve been caught red handed in many countries (recently germany) for plotting & lobbying against pakistan and spreading propaganda but what exactly did it all achieve?

All the hate and animosity against muslims and Pakistanis is keeping india behind. So its time to look in the mirror.

Pakistan is still in good books of the western and gulf countries. Western countries are not dumb and will only go after their own interest regardless of what propaganda india is doing.
 
What an ego.

The “flourishing economy” and “developed” industry that you keep on harping about is only down to availability of cheap labour and the Western corporations money saving ambitions. That’s about it.

Its not like that indians ve produced einsteins or world known brands, products and unique new technological advancements. Keep on going round in circles abt flipkart and those CEOs, they dont really mean anything in grand scheme of things. Indians ve been caught red handed in many countries (recently germany) for plotting & lobbying against pakistan and spreading propaganda but what exactly did it all achieve?

All the hate and animosity against muslims and Pakistanis is keeping india behind. So its time to look in the mirror.

Pakistan is still in good books of the western and gulf countries. Western countries are not dumb and will only go after their own interest regardless of what propaganda india is doing.

Good books as in being on a grey list and other not so flattering lists?
 
These grey lists don’t mean anything. If they did, Pakistan would be getting treated like Iran or North Korea. All this despite A Q Khan nuclear technology smuggling saga.

Indians can keep on trying to sideline Pakistan but it wont make any difference. Pakistan is strategically and geographically important for west to keep the tabs on India and to some extent Iran etc.

Its better to realise that this hate is detrimental for India itself. Move on from the animosity carried over from middle ages and accept Pakistanis as your brothers (albeit with a different religion). That’s the only way forward.
 
1) Kashmiris actually have more democratic rights than more than 60% of the world's population that live in dictatorships. So calling them oppressed is a stretch.

2) Most other countries don't care what a nearly bankrupt Pakistan has to complain about Kashmir, so there if there is any damage to India it is one-hundredth the damage to Pakistan.

3) Indians who dislike Pakistan and have your mentality actually are thrilled by your thinking, like I said in 2) the damage to Pakistan from the Kashmir obsession is much greater than it is to India.

4) There are these sort of territorial disputes all over the world, the smarter countries keep it confined to diplomacy and don't let it damage their economies. Imagine Japan without modern industries, instead training terrorists to attack Russia to get them out of the Kuril islands.
It is what it is

I think it is our national duty to make Muslim majority part of kashmir our land, independent or whatever but get those areas out of Indian influence whether the economy is booming, bankcurropting or whatever cause due to the partition and it's logic kashmir should not be in India simple as that so it's OUR people living in foreign occupation and just like any other proud nation we should do whatever it takes to get certain areas of kashmir out of Indian hands you can say it's not possible and to a certain extent I agree with you (but we cannot afford to back off) but I think this issue should not be associated with economy it is more ideological there maybe other ways of dealing with it (maybe like china Taiwan) but completely backing off is dare I say means there's no reason for the very exsistance of pakistan if we back off we should end the country and say goodbye cause there's no ideological reason left cause all the Muslim majority rigions should be under pakistan and at the very least independent of India cause theory was Muslim majority rigions cannot live peacefully with majority Hindu India

And if we say take kashmir we won't worry about kashmir cause it's a burden on our economy than don't have a country in the first place

I know it's sounds ultra nationalist but I think we shouldn't back off the kashmir issue cause we lose our ideological reason for very exsistance as a country
 
It is what it is

I think it is our national duty to make Muslim majority part of kashmir our land, independent or whatever but get those areas out of Indian influence whether the economy is booming, bankcurropting or whatever cause due to the partition and it's logic kashmir should not be in India simple as that so it's OUR people living in foreign occupation and just like any other proud nation we should do whatever it takes to get certain areas of kashmir out of Indian hands you can say it's not possible and to a certain extent I agree with you (but we cannot afford to back off) but I think this issue should not be associated with economy it is more ideological there maybe other ways of dealing with it (maybe like china Taiwan) but completely backing off is dare I say means there's no reason for the very exsistance of pakistan if we back off we should end the country and say goodbye cause there's no ideological reason left cause all the Muslim majority rigions should be under pakistan and at the very least independent of India cause theory was Muslim majority rigions cannot live peacefully with majority Hindu India

And if we say take kashmir we won't worry about kashmir cause it's a burden on our economy than don't have a country in the first place

I know it's sounds ultra nationalist but I think we shouldn't back off the kashmir issue cause we lose our ideological reason for very exsistance as a country

You may regard it as your "national duty", but it won't happen. Kashmir will remain Indian. No Indian government, whether BJP or Congress is going to commit suicide by letting Kashmir go. And the deaths of a few Indian soldiers and policemen is tragic, but all it does is make the average Indian voter even more determined to keep Kashmir. The pressure on the Indian government to let Kashmir go is minor, the Indian industries are far away and not affected.

What will happen is you will have the terrorist label stamped on you, and will not receive investments. You will perpetually be in danger of bankruptcy. The oil wealth of the Mideast is coming to an end, the future is solar and electric cars. Remittances by Pakistanis from those countries, and direct support by those countries will fall in the future, leaving Pakistan in an even worse financial shape.
 
Last edited:
You may regard it as your "national duty", but it won't happen. Kashmir will remain Indian. No Indian government, whether BJP or Congress is going to commit suicide by letting Kashmir go. And the deaths of a few Indian soldiers and policemen is tragic, but all it does is make the average Indian voter even more determined to keep Kashmir. The pressure on the Indian government to let Kashmir go is minor, the Indian industries are far away and not affected.

What will happen is you will have the terrorist label stamped on you, and will not receive investments. You will perpetually be in danger of bankruptcy. The oil wealth of the Mideast is coming to an end, the future is solar and electric cars. Remittances by Pakistanis from those countries, and direct support by those countries will fall in the future, leaving Pakistan in an even worse financial shape.
I mean we will go in circles in this argument it doesn't matter if it'll stay as indian for a thousand years as long as it Muslim majority it's not ideologically right for us to back off it's simple it's not even about economy

Either end Pakistan or Kashmir "Muslim majority" areas become Pak or independent if neither happens than this conflict will keep on going cause it will ideologically never sit right to have a Muslim majority region in India with Pak sitting peacefully sooner or later people will think why are we Unique what's our reason for exsistance

It's not Economically viable but Pak wasn't a natural country like India or China It's is ONLY standing because of its ideology if we let go of it there's nothing left
 
It's not Economically viable but Pak wasn't a natural country like India or China It's is ONLY standing because of its ideology if we let go of it there's nothing left

You are onto something. Pakistan exists due to religion so it's unlikely that Muslim majority Kahsmir will be given up by Pakistan. As you said it may start to threaten the existence of Pakistan. Also, Army benefits the most by keeping the issue alive as well and they control Pakistan.

There is flip side here. India is a huge diverse country. If it allows one area to separate then nothing stops some other area to ask the same in future. Giving up Kashmir will threaten their existence as well.

My view from 10000 Miles distance and I may be wrong.
 
Flourished in thread title should be replaced by doing better. No way India is flourishing right now.
 
I mean we will go in circles in this argument it doesn't matter if it'll stay as indian for a thousand years as long as it Muslim majority it's not ideologically right for us to back off it's simple it's not even about economy

Maybe you are right, but I think that many Muslims would choose to be practical and wealthy rather than impractical and poor.

It's not Economically viable but Pak wasn't a natural country like India or China It's is ONLY standing because of its ideology if we let go of it there's nothing left

You have to find a better reason to be a country. Switzerland has Italians, Germans, French and Romansh people but doesn't need religion to justify its existence. Telling Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans and Balochis "we should be one country because of religion, so we have to fight for Kashmir even if it means we will be poor" is a weak argument and didn't work with Bengalis.
 
Maybe you are right, but I think that many Muslims would choose to be practical and wealthy rather than impractical and poor.



You have to find a better reason to be a country. Switzerland has Italians, Germans, French and Romansh people but doesn't need religion to justify its existence. Telling Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans and Balochis "we should be one country because of religion, so we have to fight for Kashmir even if it means we will be poor" is a weak argument and didn't work with Bengalis.

So if you are pakistani leader :ss what would you suggest Pakistan do in terms of ideological existence (no economy in this scenario) cause you have a neighbor who is on paper secular and you are an Islamic nation can you tell your people we are becoming secular wont they be like wait aren't we based on different ideologies how will you explain it em and keep em united as Pakistan?
 
So if you are pakistani leader :ss what would you suggest Pakistan do in terms of ideological existence (no economy in this scenario) cause you have a neighbor who is on paper secular and you are an Islamic nation can you tell your people we are becoming secular wont they be like wait aren't we based on different ideologies how will you explain it em and keep em united as Pakistan?

If you go down that path, and justify your existence as a nation as an Islamic nation, then you have no good argument against Sipah-e-Sahaba which will say true Islam is Sunni Islam and Shias, Ahmediyas and Bahais are heretics.

Having to continuously use religion to justify to yourself why you chose to cease being Indian won't work. Going down that path will lead to constant strife and poverty.
 
If you go down that path, and justify your existence as a nation as an Islamic nation, then you have no good argument against Sipah-e-Sahaba which will say true Islam is Sunni Islam and Shias, Ahmediyas and Bahais are heretics.

Having to continuously use religion to justify to yourself why you chose to cease being Indian won't work. Going down that path will lead to constant strife and poverty.
It's easy to say but not to do that's why I said how would you handle that you really think IK the Playboy is a right wing mullah all of a sudden he is that way cause he can't make nor can any leader (in the world) make Pak secular that's the fabric of the nation not saying it's right or wrong but that's the situation we live with and I don't think we can justify being a country without that it's a unique situation I know it's easy to say become secular cause it really make sense but how would you justify that change to the different ethnicities who live with us cause I don't think I can that's why the question
 
It's easy to say but not to do that's why I said how would you handle that you really think IK the Playboy is a right wing mullah all of a sudden he is that way cause he can't make nor can any leader (in the world) make Pak secular that's the fabric of the nation not saying it's right or wrong but that's the situation we live with and I don't think we can justify being a country without that it's a unique situation I know it's easy to say become secular cause it really make sense but how would you justify that change to the different ethnicities who live with us cause I don't think I can that's why the question
I think you are thinking I am an islamist which I am not I find secularism awesome but I don't think Pak can justify being secular that's where I think we are thinking differently and since they can't than it leads tham into trouble of kashmir
 
If you go down that path, and justify your existence as a nation as an Islamic nation, then you have no good argument against Sipah-e-Sahaba which will say true Islam is Sunni Islam and Shias, Ahmediyas and Bahais are heretics.

Having to continuously use religion to justify to yourself why you chose to cease being Indian won't work. Going down that path will lead to constant strife and poverty.

The same way Israel is a Jewish state Pakistan is a Muslim state. There is nothing wrong with that.

And India before 1947 is now referred to South Asia or subcontinent, and Pakistanis don't have a problem with identifying with that.However Pakistanis want there country to reflect the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent, the same way Hindus want India to reflect the Hindu heritage of the subcontinent.

The problem is that Hindus see there culture as being synonymous with India and the subcontinent. So they cant accept that Hindus and Muslims should have differences in there culture, even if they are part of the same linguistic group. And therefore they see no issue with there culture dominating, because they think Muslims should also follow that culture.

One example would be between Sanskrit and Persian. The same way that Sanskrit has had a great influence on the culture of Hindus, Persian (and Arabic via Persian) has had a great impact on the culture of subcontinent Muslims.

It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures, could ever be equal in one country. One must dominate the other, and the majority is the usually the dominant one.
 
The same way Israel is a Jewish state Pakistan is a Muslim state. There is nothing wrong with that.

And India before 1947 is now referred to South Asia or subcontinent, and Pakistanis don't have a problem with identifying with that.However Pakistanis want there country to reflect the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent, the same way Hindus want India to reflect the Hindu heritage of the subcontinent.

The problem is that Hindus see there culture as being synonymous with India and the subcontinent. So they cant accept that Hindus and Muslims should have differences in there culture, even if they are part of the same linguistic group. And therefore they see no issue with there culture dominating, because they think Muslims should also follow that culture.

One example would be between Sanskrit and Persian. The same way that Sanskrit has had a great influence on the culture of Hindus, Persian (and Arabic via Persian) has had a great impact on the culture of subcontinent Muslims.

It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures, could ever be equal in one country. One must dominate the other, and the majority is the usually the dominant one.


Firstly define common culture? Are you talking about religion? I am not using this as a taunt but Bengali Muslims and Pakistani Muslims couldn’t find a common ground. Could they? Didn’t Pakistan help USA against Afghanistan. Was there a common unifying factor there?

Religion can never be used as a unifying factor. Religion is a personal choice. Do you think everyone in Pakistan is the same level of religious?

Linguistics/common culture override religion.

The 2 biggest conflicts in the SC in the last 50 years have been Culture based . Case in point the Bangladesh war and the LTTE conflict.

Let’s take the example of Taliban, the most extreme and radical face of Islam. Do you think the Taliban tribal leaders will inter mingle with other Muslim sects in the sense like marry off their sisters/daughters to other Muslims ethnicities? They are supposed to have a strong sense of that tribal nationalism.

That’s how it works everywhere else.

Let me ask you this would a Punjabi Pakistani be more comfortable and feel right at home while interacting with a Hindu Indian Punjabi or with a Muslim from South India?
 
Firstly define common culture? Are you talking about religion? I am not using this as a taunt but Bengali Muslims and Pakistani Muslims couldn’t find a common ground. Could they? Didn’t Pakistan help USA against Afghanistan. Was there a common unifying factor there?

Religion can never be used as a unifying factor. Religion is a personal choice. Do you think everyone in Pakistan is the same level of religious?

Linguistics/common culture override religion.

The 2 biggest conflicts in the SC in the last 50 years have been Culture based . Case in point the Bangladesh war and the LTTE conflict.

Let’s take the example of Taliban, the most extreme and radical face of Islam. Do you think the Taliban tribal leaders will inter mingle with other Muslim sects in the sense like marry off their sisters/daughters to other Muslims ethnicities? They are supposed to have a strong sense of that tribal nationalism.

That’s how it works everywhere else.

Let me ask you this would a Punjabi Pakistani be more comfortable and feel right at home while interacting with a Hindu Indian Punjabi or with a Muslim from South India?

I dont know much about South India. However a Punjabi Muslim would feel more comfortable with a Muslim from North India, or Pakistan. Same way a Punjabi Hindu would have more in common with other North Indian Hindus, and Sindhis Hindus from Pakistan. Religion is a huge part of your culture. Simple things like the food you eat, the names you give your children, and even like saying Salam, or Namaste differs because of religion.

However its not the only part and i would agree that a Punjabi Muslim would have more in common with a Punjabi Hindu than a Arab, or Bosnian, or Nigerian, etc, Muslim. Same way a Punjabi Hindu would have more in common with a Punjabi Muslim than a Hindu from Indonesia.

And while religion might not unite, it can certainty divide people.

Let me give an example. My family came from UP during partition to Pakistan. This is how UP Muslims and Hindus are divided.

Muslims prefer Urdu, Hindus prefer Hindi.
Muslims prefer Nastaliq, Hindus prefer Devnagari.
Muslims prefer Allahabad, Hindus prefer Prayagraj.
Muslims want Babri Masjid, Hindus want Ram Mandir.
Muslims see the Muslim era as a golden age. They think of architecture, and the poetry, the cuisine, sufis, etc. Hindus see the Muslim era very differently.

in subcontinent, at least the northern part, Muslims and Hindus draw inspirations from different sources of history. They doesn't mean they should not have a good relationship, but to say they dont have significance differences is just not true.
 
If you go down that path, and justify your existence as a nation as an Islamic nation, then you have no good argument against Sipah-e-Sahaba which will say true Islam is Sunni Islam and Shias, Ahmediyas and Bahais are heretics.

Having to continuously use religion to justify to yourself why you chose to cease being Indian won't work. Going down that path will lead to constant strife and poverty.

Can we use the same reasoning to describe India as a land for Hindus rather than a secular one? After all, you guys actually voted in a govt which is filled with people who grew up schooled by militant Hindu outfits like RSS and Bajrang Dal.
 
Muslims prefer Urdu, Hindus prefer Hindi.
Muslims prefer Nastaliq, Hindus prefer Devnagari.
Muslims prefer Allahabad, Hindus prefer Prayagraj.
Muslims want Babri Masjid, Hindus want Ram Mandir.
Muslims see the Muslim era as a golden age. They think of architecture, and the poetry, the cuisine, sufis, etc. Hindus see the Muslim era very differently.

Let me address point by point.

Most Bollywood lyricists and movie writers be it Majrooh Sultanpuri, Sameer (pen name), Saleem-Javed are all Muslims who used a lot of Urdu flavor in some of the most famous Bollywood songs ever written. Unless it is scenario specific most songs sound more Urdu than colloquial Hindi to me,Songs that are still hummed by billions of SC folks regardless of religion. No one is nitpicky about Urdu/Hindi there.

As far as script goes, most folk in the SC are illiterate anyways or can barely sign their name. The rich only focus on English anyways, middle class have their own problems to deal with, so not sure if a small segment is nitpicking on the script is such a big deal.

Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid yes it has been one of the biggest communal conflicts ever in modern India but as of 2020, the Waqf board is happy, the Hindus are happy. settlement reached. In fact you can hate BJP and Modi govt. that is probably the best move they domne in the last 6 years. Not a single complaint from either side. Everyone is happy. Clearly shows it was only a political issue than a religious one because of how easily it got resolved in the end.

Allahabad and Prayagraj well you have a point about being offended about the name change, People who prefer Prayagraj which is one of the most holiest places for Hindus have a point too. I see there is a conflict there. However it seems people have moved on from it.

I know there is a lot of whatsapp history on both sides but trust me, someone might have bias about the Muslim rule in India which is solely an inherent bias. Neither the government issued textbooks nor the fed/state policy show any Mughal empire in a negative light. The whole Shahajahan love story no matter how surreal it sounds, Akbar being one of India's greatest king, Jahangir-Anarkali love story,Tipu Sultan as a warrior who fought british etc these are the first things that come to mind for every Indian when we hear about the Mughal empire or Muslim Kings. Nver 1 negative thing said in text books. They are never potrayed in a negative light. In fact Indian history book focus more on Mughals and British and may be a little mention of the Gupta empire. There are so many other Hindu kings who get lost in the shuffle.

In fact the only 2 guys who are portrayed as negative are Mahmoud from Gahazini and Aurangazeb. In case of Aurangazeb most of his history comes from "neutral" British source than Indian historians about all his crusades. so you can't hold Indian historians accountable for that.

We tend to over magnify the differences.
 
The same way Israel is a Jewish state Pakistan is a Muslim state. There is nothing wrong with that.

Israel's security situation is hardly ideal. It has been able to develop economically due to abundant talent and support from the US.

And India before 1947 is now referred to South Asia or subcontinent, and Pakistanis don't have a problem with identifying with that. However Pakistanis want there country to reflect the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent, the same way Hindus want India to reflect the Hindu heritage of the subcontinent.

The problem is that Hindus see there culture as being synonymous with India and the subcontinent. So they cant accept that Hindus and Muslims should have differences in there culture, even if they are part of the same linguistic group. And therefore they see no issue with there culture dominating, because they think Muslims should also follow that culture.

One example would be between Sanskrit and Persian. The same way that Sanskrit has had a great influence on the culture of Hindus, Persian (and Arabic via Persian) has had a great impact on the culture of subcontinent Muslims.

It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures, could ever be equal in one country. One must dominate the other, and the majority is the usually the dominant one.

Persia was actually an Indo-European civilization and the Arabs were tribal people who conquered a decaying Persian empire that was at war with another Indo-European civilization for 700 years (the Eastern Roman Empire). So Persian culture is a mish-mash of Islam, Arab and Indo-European, and suffers from an identity crisis. Some Persians despise the Arabs as uncivilized, while other Persians exalt them as the people their Prophet came from. I have seen Pakistanis exhibit the same ambivalence about the Arabs.

Given the failure of multicultural liberalism, you do have an argument that "It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures". However, that doesn't mean you have to choose self-destructive policies. Identifying your country with Islam doesn't mean you have to foolishly pursue the arming of rebels in Kashmir, which leads to your country being marked as a terrorist depot, and results in a backward economy.
 
Last edited:
Can we use the same reasoning to describe India as a land for Hindus rather than a secular one? After all, you guys actually voted in a govt which is filled with people who grew up schooled by militant Hindu outfits like RSS and Bajrang Dal.

Hinduism is much more diffuse than Islam. Unlike Islam, there is no one book that Hindus must accept to be a Hindu. Many Hindus identify their religion with Ram, but many other Hindus (Saivites) don't. Hinduism as a unifying force for India is a weak argument, because the Hindus themselves are not unified. A better argument is Indian philosophy, which has common elements like acceptance, duty, respect for all life etc. and is more common to different Hindus and their offshoots like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc.

BJP tries to get votes on the basis of religion, in addition to economic performance. Main reason why they won in 2014 is voters hoped that Modi would repeat Gujarat's economic success at the national level. The communal aspect of the reaction to the Pulwama killing of Indian soldiers was a factor in its 2018 success. The poor option offered by the opposition (Rahul Gandhi) was a bigger reason. The 14% Muslim vote often proves decisive if the opposition is able to get its act together.
 
Hopefully some of that flourishing reaches these people too. India expected to add highest number of people to poverty because of corona. More than elimination of poverty you people need working brain cells so that you don't cheer on deaths due to tragedies in other countries.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Figure 1 shows 12 countries that are likely to see an increase in poverty of over 1 million people in 2020 as a result of COVID-19. They are in Asia & Africa, with Brazil as the sole exception. India & Nigeria stand out...” <a href="https://t.co/0Tw2ygTSlH">https://t.co/0Tw2ygTSlH</a> <a href="https://t.co/Gz0oz43mX5">pic.twitter.com/Gz0oz43mX5</a></p>— Rooshan Aziz (@rooshanaziz) <a href="https://twitter.com/rooshanaziz/status/1263632569117089793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Maybe it is good not to have too many over active brain cells :))

A stat called "Poverty head count" itself is genius lol. Didn't expect such tweeets from a Nobel proze winning economist (sarcasm alert)

Anyway yes as an Indian or as a some one working in the USA I am concerned of the economic impact and sure this will effect every developing country out there.

However If I were from a country that is on the verge of bankruptcy, already panicking to get write offs and some huge interest loans + Chance of poor folk turning to radicalism +All of the above problems that plagues India and other developing nations I would be so freaked out that I wouldn't have time to search corners of the internet and make posts about other countries.
 
Israel's security situation is hardly ideal. It has been able to develop economically due to abundant talent and support from the US.



Persia was actually an Indo-European civilization and the Arabs were tribal people who conquered a decaying Persian empire that was at war with another Indo-European civilization for 700 years (the Eastern Roman Empire). So Persian culture is a mish-mash of Islam, Arab and Indo-European, and suffers from an identity crisis. Some Persians despise the Arabs as uncivilized, while other Persians exalt them as the people their Prophet came from. I have seen Pakistanis exhibit the same ambivalence about the Arabs.

Given the failure of multicultural liberalism, you do have an argument that "It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures". However, that doesn't mean you have to choose self-destructive policies. Identifying your country with Islam doesn't mean you have to foolishly pursue the arming of rebels in Kashmir, which leads to your country being marked as a terrorist depot, and results in a backward economy.

Imagination running wild, eh. Whole world isnt ‘Indo’ centric. Persia is an older and more influential civilization that anything we had in the subcontinent.
 
Hopefully some of that flourishing reaches these people too. India expected to add highest number of people to poverty because of corona. More than elimination of poverty you people need working brain cells so that you don't cheer on deaths due to tragedies in other countries.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Figure 1 shows 12 countries that are likely to see an increase in poverty of over 1 million people in 2020 as a result of COVID-19. They are in Asia & Africa, with Brazil as the sole exception. India & Nigeria stand out...” <a href="https://t.co/0Tw2ygTSlH">https://t.co/0Tw2ygTSlH</a> <a href="https://t.co/Gz0oz43mX5">pic.twitter.com/Gz0oz43mX5</a></p>— Rooshan Aziz (@rooshanaziz) <a href="https://twitter.com/rooshanaziz/status/1263632569117089793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Great post man!

And [MENTION=2501]Savak[/MENTION] you still ain't responded to me bro
 
Israel's security situation is hardly ideal. It has been able to develop economically due to abundant talent and support from the US.



Persia was actually an Indo-European civilization and the Arabs were tribal people who conquered a decaying Persian empire that was at war with another Indo-European civilization for 700 years (the Eastern Roman Empire). So Persian culture is a mish-mash of Islam, Arab and Indo-European, and suffers from an identity crisis. Some Persians despise the Arabs as uncivilized, while other Persians exalt them as the people their Prophet came from. I have seen Pakistanis exhibit the same ambivalence about the Arabs.

Given the failure of multicultural liberalism, you do have an argument that "It would never be possible to have one country where these two separate cultures". However, that doesn't mean you have to choose self-destructive policies. Identifying your country with Islam doesn't mean you have to foolishly pursue the arming of rebels in Kashmir, which leads to your country being marked as a terrorist depot, and results in a backward economy.
That's the trouble of being a religious state always surrounded by enemies that sometimes they create on purpose
 
I feel small and medium size countries have more chances to develop rapidly than larger nations.
Larges countries will take ages to develop.
 
I know there is a lot of whatsapp history on both sides but trust me, someone might have bias about the Muslim rule in India which is solely an inherent bias. Neither the government issued textbooks nor the fed/state policy show any Mughal empire in a negative light. The whole Shahajahan love story no matter how surreal it sounds, Akbar being one of India's greatest king, Jahangir-Anarkali love story,Tipu Sultan as a warrior who fought british etc these are the first things that come to mind for every Indian when we hear about the Mughal empire or Muslim Kings. Nver 1 negative thing said in text books. They are never potrayed in a negative light. In fact Indian history book focus more on Mughals and British and may be a little mention of the Gupta empire. There are so many other Hindu kings who get lost in the shuffle.

In fact the only 2 guys who are portrayed as negative are Mahmoud from Gahazini and Aurangazeb. In case of Aurangazeb most of his history comes from "neutral" British source than Indian historians about all his crusades. so you can't hold Indian historians accountable for that.

We tend to over magnify the differences.

I always had a bone to pick on not focusing enough on guptas and Harappas I thought this was a Pak problem only but nope

I learned more about tham in States than in Pak which is embarrassing cause these groups were fascinating, groups are not supposed to have an empire or a civilization that long ago but THEY did why are we not learning more about them it's beyond me I don't know I can go on and on I don't wanna bore people but the point is since these civilizations were giants and an inspiration we should be giving more importance to em and get out of Mughal, Brit a** hope we move to a point where we acknowledge our difference but don't let em blind us into thinking we don't share a common history

But regarding the negative portrayal I don't like it Gahzanavi just like the Brit took advantage of a power vacuum in India So why blame em as anyone would do it China, Rome, and thousands of civilizations had a problem with barbarians but I don't read than as "evil" people

Two prob in SC textbooks black or white characters and lack of understanding regarding the early civilizations
 
Last edited:
Imagination running wild, eh. Whole world isnt ‘Indo’ centric. Persia is an older and more influential civilization that anything we had in the subcontinent.

I understand that due to your religion and nationality you are dismissive of the historical achievements of the subcontinent, but those more knowledgeable have reason to believe that it far exceeds that of Persia. The same remains true in the modern world.

The subcontinent is also the legacy of your ancestors, learn more about it and develop a bit more confidence
 
Last edited:
Back
Top