What's new

India and Pakistan at 75: So different but so similar

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,977
75 years of Pakistan's existence - the positives and negatives

This 14th August we will complete 75 years of our existence as an independent nation.

Lots of negatives such as lack of a stable democracy, corruption, financial troubles etc

But what have been the positives?

Lets have a full spectrum discussion
 
positive - fairly ethnically tolerant, slowly moving towards a united identity over the generations. many people expected pakistan to balkanise, but its crossed that threshold.

negative - no development of critical thought, group think pervades everything. poverty and lack of education still a huge problem.

75 years score card - 4/10, has done basics well enough to survive, however given its geographical location, political access to world players and young and vibrant population, has failed to leverage numerous advantages it had.
 
Is Pakistan society more inclusive or become more divided amongst Shia/Sunni type or rich/poor classifications?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The humiliation of being slaves; and why my parents generation always reminded us how lucky we were to be born in an independent country. <a href="https://t.co/FQBgaGMHhu">pic.twitter.com/FQBgaGMHhu</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1556680473241427968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Most of the good stuff occurred in the 1960's and 1970's when we were so progressive. I guess the only positive thing at the moment is there is still a Pakistan! Can't think of anything positive happening at the moment. Our cinema is improving and music is good. Cricket is okay too....we won a few medals at the Commonwealth games too.
 
Last edited:
We're on the right track, nations take time to build and we are still a fairly young country. The positive is that we have a fairly free media that scrutinizes every little thing. The general population has also become more aware thanks to Imran Khan. A few decades of democratic stability and we will be up on all KPIs
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The humiliation of being slaves; and why my parents generation always reminded us how lucky we were to be born in an independent country. <a href="https://t.co/FQBgaGMHhu">pic.twitter.com/FQBgaGMHhu</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1556680473241427968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One of his ancestors jehangir something was part of the elite so i bet he also had such a certificate
 
Positives- We are still here and those people that lived under the British and the local Sikh and Hindu rulers said it a 1000 times better.

Negatives- A leadership elite full of criminals has stopped the country developing. This is nexus of Family Businesses and the Army are hell bent on ruling whether the people want them or not.
 
India and Pakistan will both celebrate their 75th Independence Day this coming weekend. Incidentally, I was in Pakistan last week, and in Lahore, numerous signs on streetlights of “Jashn-e-Azadi Mubarak” sprung up mainly in the posh neighborhoods.

But what does this 75th Independence Day means for India and Pakistan? So writes a faculty at Brown University in the United States. While Indians might be joyous of their numerous achievements, this 75th birthday must come as a moment of reflection for both, especially all Pakistanis residing inside or outside Pakistan. What path was chosen by India, where it is headed as a country, which route did the Pakistanis select, and where are we headed?


Understanding the matter better


Soon after independence, Pakistan suffered its most significant setback; Jinnah died. This was momentous in shaping our history but let’s focus on what happened in India first and what Nehru did in the early days.

After 1947, India and Pakistan faced similar problems. A Bloody partition, massive migration, and divisions of casts, creeds, and languages left many fractures and open wounds on both sides of the border. According to William Dalrymple, the partition displaced 15 million people and killed over a million alone.

Famous Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal writes about the partition as follows “A defining moment that is neither beginning nor end, the partition continues to influence how the peoples and states of postcolonial South Asia envisage their past, present, and future.”

This violent partition not only rewrote the history of British India but also led to deep wounds on both sides of the border, some of which are still seeping, namely Kashmir.

Despite all that, Indians have achieved remarkable progress in many domains and still face some challenges. Unfortunately, for Pakistan, progress has been very sketchy.


When the British left India in 1947, its literacy rate stood at merely 12%, and life expectancy was 30 years; it was almost a poster boy for poverty, disease, malnourishment, and some historians even predicted that India would not survive.

Moreover, its industrial and technological base was simply non-existent

Fast forward to 2022, Its literacy rate is more than 77%, life expectancy is around 70 years, and other human development indices are significantly better than Pakistan. Moreover, India has developed a vibrant and modern technological and industrial base and is a significant international power already.

India’s first prime minister Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was instrumental in this transformation. Nehru was the leading figure in India from 1947 to 1964. Nehru’s India was built on four pillars: democracy, non-alignment, socialism, and secularism. Nehru’s non-alignment gave India its political independence from the major world powers. But Nehru realized political freedom means nothing without economic independence, so he embarked on the industrial transformation of India.

Nehru’s focus on democracy did not mean merely conducting elections or the right to vote. He believed in economic democracy. He introduced Panchayati Raj, the idea of self-governance for villages.

This was instrumental in sowing the seeds of democracy in all segments of Indian society

“If poverty and low standards continue, then democracy ceases to be a liberating force for all its fine institutions and ideals. It must therefore aim continuously at the eradication of poverty. In other words, political democracy is not enough. It must develop into economic democracy as well. — Nehru, 1952”

Nehru had seen the violent partition and how the British had used communal divides to their advantage and believed in secularism. But, on the other hand, he was aware of the large Indian Muslim population and how peaceful co-existence was in the Indian interest if India must progress and prosper.


Nehru stated in 1951: “If anyone raises his hand against another in the name of religion, I shall fight him till the last breath of my life, whether from inside the government or outside.”

Finally, he laid the foundation of the Indian knowledge base

Nehru was educated at Trinity College in Cambridge. He inaugurated the prestigious Indian IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology), the CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research), the National Physical and Chemical Laboratories, and the AIIMS (All India Institutes for Medical Sciences, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. Nehru’s three 5-year Plans from the 1950s ensured India’s industrial sector grew at almost 7% each year, losing of zamindari system and its agricultural transformation.

Despite all the technological and industrial advancements of Indian society, it has failed to create an all-Indian identity. On the contrary, India is bitterly divided as it has ever been under the current government, and these divisions are intensifying. Some have suggested that India has always been communal, which has foundations in the Indian caste system. Even Nehru hoped that economic change would marginalize the Indian caste system, but this has not happened.

The rise of Hindu fundamentalism with its “Hindutva” and the demise of secularism have put India in unchartered waters with an unclear destination. Increasing attacks on Muslim men and women, lynchings, and demolition of their homes are burning the “Idea of Nehru’s India.”

But across the border in Pakistan, things worsened soon after 1947

Soon after independence, Pakistan suffered its most significant setback; Jinnah died. Jinnah’s death radically shaped the course Pakistan took after 1947. While Nehru was busy transforming India, Pakistanis had a prime minister murdered; they were actively looking for foreign alliances and aid. Pakistan had its first coup, and things only got worse. Pakistan lost half its land mass in 1971 and never had a stable democratically elected government. Although Pakistan had elections, but never really had democracy.


Economic democracy is a distant dream. Pakistan’s foreign policy depended on whoever was the biggest donor to Pakistan at that time. The only notable achievement was Pakistan becoming a nuclear state, but Pakistanis failed to integrate any military or scientific success into their civil society or commercialize it for economic benefits.

Due to a lack of democratic norms and principles, and repeated interference by internal or external powers, no institution could evolve and progress in Pakistan and attain any global stature.

We, Pakistanis, failed to develop knowledge and scientific base; hence, Pakistanis even food insecure today. Pakistan’s human developmental indices are among the worst in the World and cannot be compared to India or even Bangladesh. Pakistan’s literacy rate is 58% in 2022 compared to almost 80% in India.

Like India, Pakistanis have failed to create a national identity too, and even today, Pakistan remains as politically unstable as it has been in its history. Pakistani society has become increasingly polarized and divided in recent years. Increasingly politically unstable, insecure Pakistan with rising anti-Muslim sentiment and hatred against Muslims in India can create a dangerous cocktail. The rabid media particularly inflame this on both sides of the border.

So, this 75th Independence Day celebration must come with a moment of reflection for both countries and the path we are heading into. Peaceful co-existence with free trade, people-to-people contact, economic democracy in addition to electoral democracy, and celebration of our diversity and cultures should be the only way forward. Any other path will be too turbulent and violent for people on both sides of the border.


https://www.globalvillagespace.com/india-and-pakistan-at-75-so-different-but-so-similar/

The author is a graduate of the University of Oxford’s Said Business School and currently works as Faculty at Brown University in the United States. The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.
 
It's incredibly depressing to see after 75 years the two countries remain as bitterly opposed as they were then. Those migrants who thought one day they'd see their old homes again, that people-to-people contact would flourish and old wounds will heal have only seen relations worsen in their lifetime.

Maybe the founders were naive to think their societies would eventually become more pluralistic and less defined by religious difference, when religious division was the very basis of partition.

Perhaps Pakistan's identity crisis can be traced to Jinnah himself whose demands, out of political necessity when trying to hold together a disparate coalition of competing interests, could be interpreted in multiple ways. Even the famous 1940 Lahore Resolution can be interpreted as a confederation of Muslim states within a United India, not necessarily a demand for a separate Muslim state.

And when Pakistan was created, Jinnah's premature demise, having literally worked himself to death in service of his nation, meant we never saw his vision unfold. Therefore Pakistan continues to straddle between halfhearted attempts at being a tolerant Muslim nation and an Islamic theocracy.

However, despite the distortion of history and revisions to textbooks depicting Jinnah as a Pakistani Khomeini by the religious right, the biggest clue is Jinnah's words on this very day 75 years ago:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

I wish these words could be framed, and is the first thing children learn at school about their country instead of zombie-like parroting of religious scripture written in a language they don't understand. Perhaps then the next 75 years we'll see Jinnah's vision realised.
 
Both India and Pakistan ( and Bangladesh ) failed badly in economic development. Look at South east asia - they have made so much economic progress in the past 75 years. India , Bangladesh and Pakistan are still extremely poor and under developed with low HDI metrics

To be fair this is bigger concern for Pakistan now. India and Bangladesh have shown decent progress in the past 20 years and currently growing at a decent pace. Pakistan's economic growth has stalled in the last decade and given present circumstances ( heavy debt + inflation ) there is little chance of real income growth in the next decade
 
It's incredibly depressing to see after 75 years the two countries remain as bitterly opposed as they were then. Those migrants who thought one day they'd see their old homes again, that people-to-people contact would flourish and old wounds will heal have only seen relations worsen in their lifetime.

Maybe the founders were naive to think their societies would eventually become more pluralistic and less defined by religious difference, when religious division was the very basis of partition.

Perhaps Pakistan's identity crisis can be traced to Jinnah himself whose demands, out of political necessity when trying to hold together a disparate coalition of competing interests, could be interpreted in multiple ways. Even the famous 1940 Lahore Resolution can be interpreted as a confederation of Muslim states within a United India, not necessarily a demand for a separate Muslim state.

And when Pakistan was created, Jinnah's premature demise, having literally worked himself to death in service of his nation, meant we never saw his vision unfold. Therefore Pakistan continues to straddle between halfhearted attempts at being a tolerant Muslim nation and an Islamic theocracy.

However, despite the distortion of history and revisions to textbooks depicting Jinnah as a Pakistani Khomeini by the religious right, the biggest clue is Jinnah's words on this very day 75 years ago:



I wish these words could be framed, and is the first thing children learn at school about their country instead of zombie-like parroting of religious scripture written in a language they don't understand. Perhaps then the next 75 years we'll see Jinnah's vision realised.

Absolutely agree with your post. POTW nomination!
 
with all due respect bro, theres some things i disagree with here

It's incredibly depressing to see after 75 years the two countries remain as bitterly opposed as they were then. Those migrants who thought one day they'd see their old homes again, that people-to-people contact would flourish and old wounds will heal have only seen relations worsen in their lifetime.

Maybe the founders were naive to think their societies would eventually become more pluralistic and less defined by religious difference, when religious division was the very basis of partition.

the difference altho ostensibly religious today, are not religious in reality. india has very little antagonism with bangladesh, or other regionla muslim countries. pakistan's narrative identity, and india's too, based on historic wars are intertwined with the other nation.

as far as the real politik of today goes, the issue will always come down to kashmir, had that issue been resolved, and if it is eventually, the emnity between the countries will reduce considerably. the founding fathers, i do not believe, could have pre empted how badly these issues will affect both countries.

Perhaps Pakistan's identity crisis can be traced to Jinnah himself whose demands, out of political necessity when trying to hold together a disparate coalition of competing interests, could be interpreted in multiple ways. Even the famous 1940 Lahore Resolution can be interpreted as a confederation of Muslim states within a United India, not necessarily a demand for a separate Muslim state.

the actual wording of the resolution states:

(2) Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute “Independent States” in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

there is no ambiguity for me, soverign means for all intents and purposes free of any likelihood of influence of hindu rule, and whilst that may technically be possible in a confederation, in practise it was only ever going to be independence.

And when Pakistan was created, Jinnah's premature demise, having literally worked himself to death in service of his nation, meant we never saw his vision unfold. Therefore Pakistan continues to straddle between halfhearted attempts at being a tolerant Muslim nation and an Islamic theocracy.

However, despite the distortion of history and revisions to textbooks depicting Jinnah as a Pakistani Khomeini by the religious right, the biggest clue is Jinnah's words on this very day 75 years ago:

I wish these words could be framed, and is the first thing children learn at school about their country instead of zombie-like parroting of religious scripture written in a language they don't understand. Perhaps then the next 75 years we'll see Jinnah's vision realised.

jinnah is rightly lionised for his contribution to the creation of pakistan, but lets not forget that his purpose was as the father figure leader of the pakistan movement to make pakistans case to the world. he was never interested in administirial politics.

had he survived i have no doubt the actual political powers would have marginaised him, if not worse, regardless, between the army and the newly forming landed political class he would have never been more than a titualar head of state, and his survival, by one, three or ten more years wouldnt stop pakistan from heading down the sectarian route it did under bhutto and zia, imo.
 
with all due respect bro, theres some things i disagree with here



the difference altho ostensibly religious today, are not religious in reality. india has very little antagonism with bangladesh, or other regionla muslim countries. pakistan's narrative identity, and india's too, based on historic wars are intertwined with the other nation.

as far as the real politik of today goes, the issue will always come down to kashmir, had that issue been resolved, and if it is eventually, the emnity between the countries will reduce considerably. the founding fathers, i do not believe, could have pre empted how badly these issues will affect both countries.



the actual wording of the resolution states:



there is no ambiguity for me, soverign means for all intents and purposes free of any likelihood of influence of hindu rule, and whilst that may technically be possible in a confederation, in practise it was only ever going to be independence.



jinnah is rightly lionised for his contribution to the creation of pakistan, but lets not forget that his purpose was as the father figure leader of the pakistan movement to make pakistans case to the world. he was never interested in administirial politics.

had he survived i have no doubt the actual political powers would have marginaised him, if not worse, regardless, between the army and the newly forming landed political class he would have never been more than a titualar head of state, and his survival, by one, three or ten more years wouldnt stop pakistan from heading down the sectarian route it did under bhutto and zia, imo.

If we all agreed on everything, it would be a boring place !

I honestly think Jinnah tried to keep his options open for as long as possible - delicately balancing the interests of Muslim majority and minority provinces. The Lahore Resolution makes no specific mention of "Pakistan" with a capital city or territorial partition, although it was interpreted by his opponents as such. He accepted a federal united India in the 1946 Cabinet Mission plan.

The creation of Pakistan would mean, and has meant, leaving millions of Muslims under Hindu rule. Ayesha Jalal's excellent Struggle for Pakistan summarises:

Leading a party whose main bases of support were in the Muslim-minority provinces rather than in the provinces demanded for Pakistan, Jinnah, the constitutionalist, was on the horns of a dilemma.

Only by bringing the combined weight of the Muslim provinces to bear on discussions at the all-India level could the League expect to have a say in future constitutional arrangements. Making the best of a poor hand, Jinnah made ambiguity and vagueness the better part of valor.

[Leaguers in the Muslim-minority provinces] interpreted "Pakistan" as consistent with a confederation with Hindustan. The British reforms commissioner H.V. Hodson confirmed that "Pakistan" was effectively a revolt against minority status and that, far from aiming to divide India, it was a bid for a share of power in an independent India.

These contradictions, and the rushed manner of Partition, meant there wasn't time to build the civilian institutions to seamlessly take over an independent nation. True Jinnah could've been marginalised anyway, but perhaps we would've had a better chance of building those institutions had he lived slightly longer. In the event, the Army fills the power vacuum and cue 75 years of dysfunction.

I could be wrong of course but that's my theory.
 
Pakistan suffered from Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and America's war on terror. These two events probably set them back quite a bit.

India didn't have any such issue. That helped them.
 
The Hindu priest on the banks of the holy river Ganges spoke softly, but had a threatening message 75 years after the birth of independent India: his religion must be the heart of Indian identity.

"We must change with time," said Jairam Mishra. "Now we must cut every hand that is raised against Hinduism."

Hindus make up the overwhelming majority of India's 1.4 billion people but when Mahatma Gandhi secured its independence from Britain in 1947 it was as a secular, multi-cultural state.

Now right-wing calls for the country to be declared a Hindu nation and Hindu supremacy to be enshrined in law are growing rapidly louder, making its 210-million-odd Muslims increasingly anxious about their future.

Those demands are at the core of Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi's popularity, and his government has backed policies and projects across the country -- including a grand new temple corridor in the holy city of Varanasi -- that reinforce and symbolise the trend.

Gandhi was a devout Hindu but was adamant that in India "every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is".

"The state is bound to be wholly secular," he said.

He was assassinated less than a year after India and Pakistan's independence and Partition in 1947, by a Hindu fanatic who considered him too tolerant towards Muslims.

And Mishra believes Gandhi's ideals are now out of date.

"If someone slaps you on one cheek," he told AFP, "Gandhi said we must offer the other one. Hindus are generally peaceful and quiet compared to other religions.

"They even hesitate in killing a mosquito but other communities are exploiting this mindset and will keep dominating us unless we change."

To many, that change is already under way, emphasised by the rhetoric of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and symbolised by the big-ticket Hinduism-related projects with which it has enthused his sectarian base during its eight years in power.

A grand temple is under construction in the holy Hindu city of Ayodhya, where Hindu zealots destroyed a Mughal-era mosque three decades ago, triggering widespread sectarian violence that killed more than 1,000 people nationwide and was a catalyst for the stunning rise of right-wing politics.

The BJP has backed a $300 million, 210-metre statue off the Mumbai coast of Hindu warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji, who successfully challenged the Islamic Mughal empire.

And nine months ago, Modi opened a grand temple corridor in his constituency of Varanasi with much fanfare, taking a televised dip in the Ganges.

He has represented the city since 2014, when he secured his first landslide national election victory, and his successes transforming its once-creaking amenities are recognised even by his critics.

"The infrastructure push, roads, riverbank projects and cleanliness -- everything's better," said Syed Feroz Hussain, 44.

But the Muslim hospital worker said he was "really worried" about his children's future.

"Unlike the past, there is also too much violence and killing over religion and a constant feeling of tension and hatred" between communities, he said.

Varanasi is in Uttar Pradesh -- India's most populous state, with more people than Brazil -- and at the forefront of the BJP's "Hindutva" agenda.

It has renamed nearby Allahabad back to Prayagraj, 450 years after the Mughal emperor Akbar changed the city's designation.

Authorities have carried out arbitrary demolitions of homes of individuals accused of crimes -- most them Muslims -- in what activists say is an unconstitutional attempt to crush minority dissent.

In Karnataka -- which saw a spate of attacks on Christians last year -- the BJP has backed a ban on hijab in schools, which triggered Muslim street protests.

Emboldened Hindu groups have laid claims to Muslim sites they say were built atop temples during Islamic rule -- including a centuries-old mosque next to the grand Varanasi corridor opened by Modi -- raising fears of a new Ayodhya.

A new wave of anti-Muslim riots was triggered in 2002 after a train carrying 59 Hindu pilgrims from the site was set on fire, and at least 1,000 people were hacked, shot and burned to death in Gujarat. Modi was the state's chief minister at the time and has been accused of not doing enough to stop the killing.

But Professor Harsh V Pant of King's College London said the BJP's rise was enabled by Gandhi's own Congress party, which ruled the country for decades.

While preaching secularism, it pandered to extremist elements in both major religions for electoral purposes, he said.

But the BJP tapped into Hindu sentiment after mobs demolished the Ayodhya mosque in 1992 and is now "central to Indian politics", Pant said.

"Everyone buys its narrative, responds to it and it feels no one else has any ideas," he said.

"They are here for the next two to three decades."

- 'Growing schism'-

That shift is a boon to those who want to see India declared a Hindu nation, such as the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad organisation.

"We're a Hindu nation because India's identity is Hindu," its leader Surendra Jain told AFP.

The "double face of secularism" had "become a curse, and threat for India's existence".

"It doesn't mean everyone else has to leave," he added. "They can live peacefully but the character and ethos of India will always be Hindu."

As prime minister, Modi has largely avoided the polarising rhetoric he employed during his tenure in Gujarat, but according to critics he often ignores incendiary comments by figures in his own party.

And his actions, they say, enable calls for a Hindu nation without explicitly endorsing them.

That worries Muslims. Nasir Jamal Khan, 52, caretaker of a Varanasi mosque, said there was a "sense of growing schism" even though "our forefathers were born here".

He hopes for a day when India's elected leaders stop talking about religion, and told AFP: "I see the PM as a father in the family. It doesn't behove a father to treat his children differently."

© 2022 AFP
 
Pakistan suffered from Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and America's war on terror. These two events probably set them back quite a bit.

India didn't have any such issue. That helped them.

Or India didn’t involve itself in such an issue?
 
Bhatinda (India) (AFP) – Tears of joy rolled down his wizened cheeks when Indian Sika Khan met his Pakistani brother for the first time since being separated by Partition in 1947.

Sikh labourer Sika was just six months old when he and his elder brother Sadiq Khan were torn apart as Britain split the subcontinent at the end of colonial rule.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of Partition, during which sectarian bloodshed killed possibly more than one million people, families like Sika's were cleaved apart and two independent nations -- Pakistan and India -- were created.

Sika's father and sister were killed in communal massacres, but Sadiq, just 10 years old, managed to flee to Pakistan.

"My mother could not bear the trauma and jumped into the river and killed herself," Sika said at his simple brick house in Bhatinda, a district in the western Indian state of Punjab, which bore the brunt of Partition violence.

"I was left at the mercy of villagers and some relatives who brought me up."

Ever since he was a child, Sika yearned to find out about his brother, the only surviving member of his family. But he failed to make headway until a doctor in the neighbourhood offered to help three years ago.

After numerous phone calls and the assistance of Pakistani YouTuber Nasir Dhillon, Sika was able to be reunited with Sadiq.

The brothers finally met in January at Kartarpur corridor, a rare, visa-free crossing that allows Indian Sikh pilgrims to visit a temple in Pakistan.

The corridor, which opened in 2019, has become a symbol of unity and reconciliation for separated families, despite the lingering hostilities between the two nations.

"I am from India and he is from Pakistan, but we have so much love for each other," said Sika, clutching a faded and framed family photograph.

"We hugged and cried so much when we met for the first time. The countries can keep on fighting. We don't care about India-Pakistan politics."

Pakistani farmer and real estate agent Dhillon, 38, a Muslim, says he has helped reunite about 300 families through his YouTube channel together with his friend Bhupinder Singh, a Pakistani Sikh.

"This is not my source of income. It's my inner affection and passion," Dhillon told AFP. "I feel like these stories are my own stories or stories of my grandparents, so helping these elders I feel like I am fulfilling the wishes of my own grandparents."

He said he was deeply moved by the Khan brothers and did everything possible to ensure their reunion.

"When they were reunited at the Kartarpur, not only me but some 600 people at the compound wept so much seeing the brothers being reunited," he told AFP in Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are believed to have fled when British administrators began dismantling their empire in 1947.

One million people are estimated to have been killed, though some put the toll at double this figure.

Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, while Muslims fled in the opposite direction.

Tens of thousands of women and girls were raped and trains carrying refugees between the two new nations arrived full of corpses.

The legacy of Partition has endured to this day, resulting in a bitter rivalry between the nuclear-armed neighbours despite their cultural and linguistic links.

However, there is hope of love transcending boundaries.

For Sikhs Baldev and Gurmukh Singh, there was no hesitation in embracing their half-sister Mumtaz Bibi, who was raised Muslim in Pakistan.

As an infant, she was found alongside her dead mother during the riots and was adopted by a Muslim couple.

Their father, assuming his wife and daughter were dead, married his wife's sister, as was the norm.

The Singh brothers learned their sister was alive with the help of Dhillon's channel and a chance phone call to a shopkeeper in Pakistan.

The siblings finally met in the Kartarpur corridor earlier this year, breaking down at being able to see each other for the first time in their lives.

"Our happiness knew no bounds when we saw her for the first time," Baldev Singh, 65, told AFP. "So what if our sister is a Muslim? The same blood flows through her veins."

Mumtaz Bibi was equally ecstatic when an AFP team met her in the city of Sheikhupura in Pakistan's Punjab province.

"When I heard (about my brothers), I thought God is willing it. It is God's will, and one has to bow before his will and then he blessed me, and I found my brothers," she said.

"Finding those separated brings happiness. My separation has ended, so I am so content."

AFP
 
If we all agreed on everything, it would be a boring place !

I honestly think Jinnah tried to keep his options open for as long as possible - delicately balancing the interests of Muslim majority and minority provinces. The Lahore Resolution makes no specific mention of "Pakistan" with a capital city or territorial partition, although it was interpreted by his opponents as such. He accepted a federal united India in the 1946 Cabinet Mission plan.

The creation of Pakistan would mean, and has meant, leaving millions of Muslims under Hindu rule. Ayesha Jalal's excellent Struggle for Pakistan summarises:

from what ive understood having read the history of the time, whilst jinnah could be framed as ambiguous on the matter, one of the major reasons the majority muslim provinces fell in line with the muslim league, which historically did very poorly in majority muslim areas was the recognition amongst local power players an idependent pakistan would mean they would exert far more political and economic influence.

so perhaps it was a case of the cart leading the horse, but id still argue that my previous point made independence an inevitibility as the provinces needed to exert political influence had their own specific motivations for doing what they did.

These contradictions, and the rushed manner of Partition, meant there wasn't time to build the civilian institutions to seamlessly take over an independent nation. True Jinnah could've been marginalised anyway, but perhaps we would've had a better chance of building those institutions had he lived slightly longer. In the event, the Army fills the power vacuum and cue 75 years of dysfunction.

I could be wrong of course but that's my theory.

the vast majority of indias civil infrastructure stayed in new india. regardless of when a new pakistan was made pakistan would have faced these issues as the provinces that consituted the new country, bengal notwithstanding were very rural or tribal, and the west would never have tolerated bengal being the gestational centre of the new civil service.

the only thing i believe jinnah could have impacted was the language issue, he went to bengal and openly said that their are to be only two languages, i believe he was the only non-bengali who commanded enough respect from bengalis to have been able to push through some form of linguistic standardisation had he lived maybe a decade more.
 
Or India didn’t involve itself in such an issue?

Why do you think USSR invaded Afghanistan? Because they wanted more rocks to build another red sqaure?
Come on, man!

Their ultimate goal was to get to a warm water port and Pakistan was the eventual destination of conquest. We had no choice but to get pulled in.
 
In a recent work of contemporary art on Pakistan’s founder, called Finding Jinnah, there was one painting that caught my eye, by Ayaz Jokhio:

finding-jinnah-08.jpg

Here we see, unusually, the back of Jinnah’s head. As the historian, Ali Usman Qasmi writes, there is ambiguity here. Does the paining signify sadness, with Jinnah having turned his back on Pakistan because it has failed to live up to his vision? Or does the painting signify hope, with Jinnah looking outwards toward the boundless possibilities for Pakistan to explore, and thereby capturing a spirit of adventure and a sense of wonder that accompanied Pakistan’s birth?
 
In a recent work of contemporary art on Pakistan’s founder, called Finding Jinnah, there was one painting that caught my eye, by Ayaz Jokhio:

View attachment 116787

Here we see, unusually, the back of Jinnah’s head. As the historian, Ali Usman Qasmi writes, there is ambiguity here. Does the paining signify sadness, with Jinnah having turned his back on Pakistan because it has failed to live up to his vision? Or does the painting signify hope, with Jinnah looking outwards toward the boundless possibilities for Pakistan to explore, and thereby capturing a spirit of adventure and a sense of wonder that accompanied Pakistan’s birth?

I think its both.

A part of him wants to turn away in shame after he sees what this country has done after he left.

But knowing of him, someone who saw so much potential in the people of this country, he is trying to show us the way forward.
 
I think its both.

A part of him wants to turn away in shame after he sees what this country has done after he left.

But knowing of him, someone who saw so much potential in the people of this country, he is trying to show us the way forward.

You summed it up beautifully Miggs...
😊
 
In a recent work of contemporary art on Pakistan’s founder, called Finding Jinnah, there was one painting that caught my eye, by Ayaz Jokhio:

View attachment 116787

Here we see, unusually, the back of Jinnah’s head. As the historian, Ali Usman Qasmi writes, there is ambiguity here. Does the paining signify sadness, with Jinnah having turned his back on Pakistan because it has failed to live up to his vision? Or does the painting signify hope, with Jinnah looking outwards toward the boundless possibilities for Pakistan to explore, and thereby capturing a spirit of adventure and a sense of wonder that accompanied Pakistan’s birth?

This is deep.
 
Quaid Jinnah would still own Pakistan but not Pakistanis. He would be disgusted at the Mullah culture and sectarianism that rules Pakistan. How since the 1980's we have failed at almost everything we touch as we're accursed or something. I do feel Pak can only be sorted out with a massive civil war now so bad is the situation like there is darkness before light.

I can't think of anything that India is not better then us at.
 
Why do you think USSR invaded Afghanistan? Because they wanted more rocks to build another red sqaure?
Come on, man!

Their ultimate goal was to get to a warm water port and Pakistan was the eventual destination of conquest. We had no choice but to get pulled in.

Why didn’t Iran get involved? Irrespective will leave it for another thread.
 
In a recent work of contemporary art on Pakistan’s founder, called Finding Jinnah, there was one painting that caught my eye, by Ayaz Jokhio:

View attachment 116787

Here we see, unusually, the back of Jinnah’s head. As the historian, Ali Usman Qasmi writes, there is ambiguity here. Does the paining signify sadness, with Jinnah having turned his back on Pakistan because it has failed to live up to his vision? Or does the painting signify hope, with Jinnah looking outwards toward the boundless possibilities for Pakistan to explore, and thereby capturing a spirit of adventure and a sense of wonder that accompanied Pakistan’s birth?

thats really cool.

i lived there ten years and even during that time, as a kid i recognised some things were just needlessly difficult. but cant imagine how regular people cope anymore, life for the poor must be excruciating.

the level of political discourse is staggeringly inane. a non stop stream of populism being fed into a nation far too besotted by the idea of messianic saviour.

i hope pakistan thrives and excels, but realistically, the sad truth is ive never been more pessimistic about the coutnry, and those whove read my posts about pakistan here know im usually fairly balanced in my analysis.

as far as jinnah goes, it pains me to say this, im happy he didnt witness what pakistan became. he died with belief and hope, and thats pakistan could ever afford him.
 
Pakistan emerges as 24th largest economy in 75-year journey

• Nominal GDP grows to $383bn from $3bn in 1950
• Per capita income to $1,798 from $86

ISLAMABAD: The structure of economy has drastically changed since Pakistan’s inception in 1947 with industry and then services sectors dominated the economy, says a finance ministry report released on Saturday.

The report gives a glimpse of the country’s 75-year economic journey, with all major economic indicators seeing massive changes over the period.

At the time of the independence in 1947, Pakistan inherited only 34 industrial units out of the 921 in undivided India.

The nominal GDP rose from $3 billion in 1950 to $383bn in 2022, while GDP growth was recorded at 5.97pc in 2022 compared to 1.8pc in 1950. Per capita income jumped from $86 in 1950 to $1,798 in 2022.

The tax revenues rose from Rs0.31bn to Rs6,126.1bn from 1950-2022, while agriculture accounted for 59.9pc of the total GDP in 1949-50.

In the agriculture sector, the production of wheat increased from 3.35 million tonnes in 1958 to 29.4m tonnes in 2022, rice from 0.69m tonnes to 9.32m tonnes, maize from 0.36m tonnes to 10.64m tonnes, sugarcane from 5.53m tonnes to 88.65m tonnes, cotton from 1.16m bales to 8.33m bales and water availability from 63.9 million acre-feet to 131 MAF.

On the external side, remittances sent by Pakistanis working abroad jumped from $0.14bn in FY73 to $31.2bn in FY22, exports from $162m in FY50 to $31.8bn in FY22, and imports from $276m in FY50 to $80.2bn in FY22.

Finance Minister Miftah Ismail said the dearth of resources to meet the local needs after independence was not a secret as India refused to give due share of its wealth to Pakistan soon after its birth.

The severely disrupted country’s economic system along with settlement of the refugees were major challenges faced by the newly born country, he said but added that Pakistan’s economy quickly revitalised with the hard work and determination of its people.

He said a country with 30 million population in 1947 could not feed its population and had to import most of its food requirements from abroad, adding that local agriculture production has risen significantly today.

Mr Ismail said Pakistan constructed both large and small dams like Tarbela and Mangla, which increased the water storage and availability to 131 MAF in 2022 from 63.9 MAF in 1965-66, adding that it helped in achieving sustain agriculture sector growth.

He said Pakistan emerged as one of the leading exporters of textiles, pharmaceutical goods and food-related items and economic policies of the successive governments have promoted industry, agriculture and services sectors.

The perseverance of its people made Pakistan the world’s 24th largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity and 44th in terms of nominal GDP, the finance minister said.

Federal Secretary Ministry of Finance Hamed Yaqoob Sheikh said the 75 years journey of Pakistan was a story of economic, political, social and regional events that has shaped the country that we live today.

He said several boom-bust cycles, political crises and geo-strategic challenges have guided the country’s policies and programmes.

He said Pakistan was ranked among 50 leading economies of the world with GDP amounting $383bn, adding that it also established its vibrant banking system that supported economic development over the years.

DAWN
 
Not sure why Pakistanis downplay their country so much. With the doom and gloom mindset how would anyone ever recover and progress? Pakistan was doing fine till 80s. It's not just Pakistan that is part of this world, there are many other struggling and developing nations with their own set of issues. Challenges that Pakistan has faced can't be compared with many others.

US/USSR/Afghan war has been the biggest setback for the country and recovering from it has been an extremely challenging task. And then post Sep 11 Pakistan was dragged into someone else's war, and paid and still paying a very hefty price, but there is a slow progress. Don't know why news pieces and posters simply ignore this dire gruesome fact about the country.

Internally corruption is our biggest enemy, its because of that why we continue to have unstable governments, illiteracy and poverty. I honestly believe we need visionary leaders like Imran to make any progress in that front. As people are becoming more informed I hope our future generations will elect much better leaders who will emphasize on reforming education, government transpency and economical setup of the country.

Our Quaid would still be proud despite all the challenges nation (common people) still stands and fights.
 
As India marks 75 years since independence, Indians share their hopes for future

In a swirl of orange, green and white, India today marks 75 years since the country became independent and ended almost 200 years of British colonial rule.

It also marks the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan — with ripple effects of that delineation still being felt today.

From a movement inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, often regarded as the architect of nonviolent resistance, India has seen a meteoric rise.

India will soon become the world's most populous nation — it's projected to overtake China's 1.4 billion population next year, according to the UN.

It has grown its agricultural sector, made its mark in global politics, developed nuclear capabilities, has a thriving tech industry and is making leaps in the space race.

But many challenges remain — the ABC spoke with Indians, who shared their ambitions and concerns about inequality, climate change, development and diversity.

Emergence as an economic powerhouse
Back in 1947, India's gross domestic product was just 3 per cent of the world's GDP — now it's the world's sixth largest economy.

Lisa Singh, CEO of the Australia India Institute, said India had been protectionist in the 1950s and 60s.

"That protectionist nature that India had earlier on, really came out of the fact that it had been ruled by the East India Company," she said.

A significant shift occurred in 1991 with economic liberalisation, which saw an influx of foreign investment and radical globalisation, and India became a leader in manufacturing.

Agriculture still employs 60 per cent of Indians, but contributes to just 23 per cent of GDP, according to the UN.

Anand Shriram, 35, is the vice-president of an agribusiness company in north India, with a focus on fertilisers, chemicals and plastics.

He's the fifth generation to enter agribusiness and has witnessed a transformation of the sector, but notes there's a long way to go in agricultural policy.

"I feel very, very proud to be Indian. We've come a long way, and it's great the way the country has progressed over the years," he said

At the same time, there are contradictions — literacy rates have lifted, but unemployment is an ongoing concern, he said.

"We're talking about going to Mars and reaching outer space, but electricity and poverty and clean water for all is still an issue," he said.

India has invested heavily in research and development, becoming more competitive, but is still impacted by daily issues with traffic, pollution and corruption, he said.

The youth population is huge — more than half the country's inhabitants, or more than 600 million people, are under the age of 30.

That means there's a lot of opportunities, but an economic challenge to be met too, with the country needing to create about 10 million jobs per year for the next five to seven years, Mr Shriram said.

Many of those jobs could be in the tech and start-up sectors — India recently reached the milestone of 100 unicorns, or start-up companies worth $US1 billion.

But musician and entrepreneur Bindu Subramaniam, 38, hopes more career opportunities open up in the arts sector, too.

Ms Subramaniam was born in the US but her parents moved back to India when she was a teenager, and she has since become involved in music education.

She said India's policy of having arts education as part of every child's schooling until grade eight would help to broaden their horizons.

"A decade ago, someone who wanted to leave a stable engineering job to be a musician would be looked at as like crazy," she said.

"But I think more and more people are embracing the idea of different career pathways."

She said the 75-year milestone was an opportunity for people to reflect on how far the country had come.

"Being born outside India but very much part of the Indian diaspora gave me a unique understanding of what India was and what India is," she said.

"Because sometimes when you're born outside, you are part of the culture that your parents carried."

India's 'new place in the world'

A significant moment in India's history was the forging of its constitution in 1950.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram, 39, a lawyer in the high court of Madras in the state of Tamil Nadu, in the country's south-east, says one of the most significant moments was the first amendment.

That extended affirmative action in education and government jobs to include groups that had been historically and systematically discriminated against, he said.

Minket Lepcha, 39, a researcher and filmmaker from the Lepcha Indigenous community in West Bengal, is documenting folklore and traditional knowledge, especially in relation to women and water flows.

"India has come a long way, because we have a president who is from an Indigenous community. It's very empowering and positive that India has been addressing and acknowledging the role of Indigenous communities across India," she said.

With its many borders, she said India is "a beautiful kaleidoscope of influences" and there should be a deeper listening to ethnic and Indigenous groups.

The country has seen a transformation under Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), elected in 2014.

The government has invested heavily in constructing roads and building toilets, as well as policies to uplift those who are most impoverished.

But it has also been accused of fostering right-wing nationalism, stoking religious tensions and excluding Muslims and other non-Hindu groups.

Charu Pragya, 38, who works for the BJP political party, said the whole country was coming together to mark independence this year.

"This is a big birthday that my country is celebrating," she said.

Internationally, India has forged partnerships with Australia, the US and Japan under the Quad, and with Brazil, Russia, South Africa and China through BRICS. India is also set to take on the G20 presidency next year.

"After the pandemic especially, I feel that we have found a new place in the world," she said.

"India went on from being a country that needed to import basic N95 masks to today … we have become a vaccine supplier to the world. So that's the progress that we have made in a very short period of time."

But Mr Shunmugasundaram, who is also a spokesperson for the progressive social justice DMK political party, said despite gains for India's diverse groups since independence, he feared an erosion under the current government.

He said moves like the passage of a citizenship law for new migrants that excludes Muslims were not just nationalism, but exclusionary to the point of "fascism".

"They want this one nation, one language, one religion," he said, saying his party historically opposed the imposition of the Hindi language on other groups.

"[This] is a starting point or something which I feel is going to be much more exclusionary, much more discriminatory and much more polarising."

Ms Pragya deflected accusations of exclusionary nationalism as "political posturing" and described India as "truly secular and truly welcoming" to refugees.

She said the country was looking to further improve healthcare and education, subsidise housing for those in need and connect even the tiniest villages to the electricity grid.

"Once you get the basics to your people, only then you can start making sure that this disparity is done away with. And that's what we have focused on."

She said the country was also prioritising the economy and tackling climate change.

"We're working on those modern things, while we ensure that we keep our culture intact," she said.

"We are taking our rightful place in the world.

"That gives us a lot of responsibility that also makes a lot of other countries look at us with hope."


India is not 'China 2.0'
Ms Singh from the Australia India Institute said the relationship between the two countries had a lot of potential — especially in education and technology — but there needed to be a deeper understanding.

"Misunderstandings and stereotypes play a disruptive role in forging closer links between our people and countries," she said.

She said there was jubilation after independence and India was a tremendous growth and development story; the world's largest democracy lifting millions out of poverty.

She said Australia and India had much in common. More than 780,000 people of Indian origin now call Australia home, according to the latest census.

"Australia's pivot to India shouldn't be borne out of the fact of its challenges with China," she said.

"You can't look at India as China 2.0.

"India is all about relationships, it's about building trust. And that can only happen by listening to India."

She said while India was made up of diverse groups and identities, it projected a unified national identity on the world stage, including on the cricket pitch and at the Commonwealth Games.

Looking ahead, lawyer Mr Shunmugasundaram said he wanted to see more vulnerable sections of society protected, and key areas to improve on were gender justice and equality.

Until recently, non-heterosexual people could be criminally charged, but the Supreme Court issued a historic decision to decriminalise gay sex in 2018.

But gay marriage has not yet been legalised, and there were knock-on effects for that for adoption and inheritance.

"The LGBTQIA+ community is in a grey area — they will not be charged for being a lesbian or gay person, but beyond that, there is nothing there, they cannot join a house together, for example," he said.

Another important factor was climate justice; nearing the world's largest population gave India an obligation to act, he said.

Ms Lepcha said India needed to deepen its understanding of ecology to deal with a coming water crisis and climate change.

"The sacred understanding of water goes beyond what is taught to us," she said.

"Sometimes we do not realise that we are basically creating an ecological imbalance, and it is us who as the community, as the population who really needs to address these issues of climate change at a very personal level."

Musician Ms Subramaniam also wanted to see more equality for India, adding she thinks state governments are taking steps in the right direction.

"We should continue moving towards LGBTQIA+ rights, we should continue moving towards social equity … making sure that access to good education and healthcare is more fundamental," she said.

"These are gaps that are really critical to fill, and I hope that that's where we can continue to move forward."


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08...ependence-people-share-hopes-future/101312202
 
Heh, we get a long weekend while Pakistan doesn't.

India - 1. Pakistan - 0. :batman:
 
Biden calls India an 'indispensable partner' on 75th anniversary of independence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Sunday congratulated India on 75 years of independence and said the United States and India were "indispensable partners" that would continue to work together to address global challenges in the years ahead.

India will mark its 75th year of independence on Monday, celebrating the end of British colonial rule in 1947.

"The United States joins the people of India to honor its democratic journey, guided by Mahatma Gandhi's enduring message of truth and non-violence," Biden said in a statement, referring to the leader of India's independence movement.

"India and the United States are indispensable partners, and the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership is grounded in our shared commitment to the rule of law and the promotion of human freedom and dignity," Biden said.

Biden also said his country's Indian-American community had made the United States a more innovative, inclusive, and stronger nation.

(Reporting by Chris Gallagher; Editing by Diane Craft)

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-calls-india-indispensable-partner-191716598.html
 
Diplomatically, India has good relations with US as well as Russia.
Good trade with China despite the differences.

Pakistan needs to learn that days of selling Geo-Strategic location are gone, and the state/politicians/thinkers need to come up with a different strategy now to deal with todays challenges.

Work on Economy, Increase spending on Education and Technology... Rest will follow.
 
Back
Top