William Dalrymple has a nice “state of the union” type essay in the Guardian, on the occasion of Pakistan’s Independence Day. (Incidentally, happy Independence Day! Here are two photos from Flickr relating to ‘Azaadi2007’ that mark the celebration: Karachi, yummy mithai at the Quaid e Mazar Mazar e Quaid; and a building in Islamabad, all lit up.)
Considering where Pakistan is and where it’s going, Dalrymple starts with the good news and then surveys the bad. First, the good:
On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country’s visible prosperity. There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.
Moreover, the Pakistani economy is undergoing a construction and consumer boom similar to India’s, with growth rates of 7%, and what is currently the fastest-rising stock market in Asia. You can see the effects everywhere: in new shopping centres and restaurant complexes, in the hoardings for the latest laptops and iPods, in the cranes and building sites, in the endless stores selling mobile phones: in 2003 the country had fewer than three million cellphone users; today there are almost 50 million. (link)
This confirms what I’ve often heard from friends about Lahore and Karachi in particular — there’s a lot of growth, which many people aren’t really aware of.
On to the long list of challenges and serious problems facing Pakistan, which Dalrymple divides into three categories. For Dalrymple, the first two categories are topics we have all heard a lot about in recent years: one is the lack of a culture of democracy, and the second is the threat of radical Islam. But it’s the third problem Dalrymple talks about, education, that I found interesting:
The third major issue facing the country is its desperate education crisis. No problem in Pakistan casts such a long shadow over its future as the abject failure of the government to educate more than a fraction of its own people: at the moment, a mere 1.8% of Pakistan’s GDP is spent on government schools. The statistics are dire: 15% of these government schools are without a proper building; 52% without a boundary wall; 71% without electricity.
This was graphically confirmed by a survey conducted two years ago by the former Pakistan cricket captain turned politician, Imran Khan, in his own constituency of Mianwali. His research showed that 20% of government schools supposed to be functioning in his constituency did not exist at all, a quarter had no teachers and 70% were closed. No school had more than half of the teachers it was meant to have. Of those that were just about functioning, many had children of all grades crammed into a single room, often sitting on the floor in the absence of desks.
This education gap is the most striking way in which Pakistan is lagging behind India: in India, 65% of the population is literate and the number rises every year: only last year, the Indian education system received a substantial boost of state funds.
But in Pakistan, the literacy figure is under half (it is currently 49%) and falling: instead of investing in education, Musharraf’s military government is spending money on a cripplingly expensive fleet of American F-16s for its air force. As a result, out of 162 million Pakistanis, 83 million adults of 15 years and above are illiterate. Among women the problem is worse still: 65% of all female adults are illiterate. As the population rockets, the problem gets worse. (link)
The literacy rate in Pakistan is actually falling — ouch. Maybe it’s time for a few less F-16s and a few more teachers?
Lest we be under any delusions – India cannot progress unless Pakistan progresses simultaneously.
This is a much bandied about argument, but the evidence is quite to the contrary. By many economic and other metrics such as emergence of IT industry or GDP growth etc, India really started to leapfrog on many many fronts in the post-1991 liberalization period. Within that same 1991-2007 period, Pakistan supported the proxy war in Kashmir, went to war in Kargil, slipped back into military dictatorship, rattled nuclear sabers with India, faced the post 9-11 blowback on its Taliban patrons, almost went to war over the Parliament bombings in India, had revolt in Baluchistan, is currently at war in the north-west and so on. This is remarkable, even for Pakistan. Musharraf is currently facing the revolt of judiciary and talking about imposing emergency. Even as Pakistan kept lurching from one crisis to another, India merrily kept growing well. Sure, India kept suffering collateral damage – bombings everywhere from Bnagalore and Varanasi to Mumbai or terrorist attacks on the Parliament or Akshardham kept happening at regular intervals. But Indian economy kept well on track, life went on as usual.
The idea that India cannot progress unless Pakistan does is just ridiculous : India has done precisely that for many years. Ironically enough, it is Pakistan itself that created the necessary conditions for this : everything from ban on Bollywood films to restrictions on travel and tourism to absence of commercial ties has ensured that the two societies live in virtual isolation. This has ensured that India has practically nothing at stake in India. Pakistani economy could go the hell in a handbasket and India would not skip a beat. The only real problem is terrorism coming out of Pakistan – but India has lived with it for many decades and will keep on going. Terrorism also makes sure that Indian society at large will continue to remain, by and large, disinterested in Pakistan and therefore there will be nothing to link the two countries’ progress together.
I got so wrapped up in the numbers, I forgot the point I was going to make: The statistics support Dalrymple’s observations: As a matter of fact, there are proportionately fewer people living in absolute poverty (less than $1 PPP) in India (35%) than in Pakistan (17%).
Sorry about typos in the previous post : “This has ensured that India has practically nothing at stake in
IndiaPakistan.” Also the statement “Pakistani economy could gotheto hell in…” is a hypothetical, not that I personally wish that it does.Mukul, many thanks for making this point, somehow you mistyped. The number of people in absolute poverty in India is proportionately twice as large as in Pakistan.
It means property is cheaper in Pakistan. Middle-class HK residents or Japanese live in smaller houses than middle class Pakistanis. It doesn’t mean the Pakistani middle class has a better standard of living than middle class Japanese.
If you sell a 1000sq feet house in Bombay you might be able to buy a mansion in Pune.
And look at this – only one IIT – Delhi, and only one IIM – Ahmedabad.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There are three IITs in that region you talk about – IIT (Kanpur, UP), IIT (Delhi), IIT (Roorkee, UA)
There are three IIMs in that that region you talk about – IIM (Ahmedabad, Gujarat), IIM (Lucknow, UP), IIM (Indore, MP)
This does not include Delhi School of Economics (one of the world’s best economics school for developing countries – read Amartya Sen Nobel speech), and BITS (Pilani, Rajasthan – in some engineering fields better than IITs), RECs, and what not.
You are off by factor of three.
What can I say? It would really help you did some research on India, before writing. I really wish. Often, I am very busy with work, and I let it pass.
PS: I am not at all concerned about your Indistan experiment and the debate, but this is gross misinformation. Last year, I was supposed to go to Pakistan, and it got canceled three days ago, instead I went to India only. I met someone in India who was the organizer of the whole deal – some Americans – you know first thing he said, General Musharraf and ruling elite in Pakistan are very nervous about few things, they are not seeing “inhouse” growth like in India (their growth has always spruced by USA and China), and they want IITs, like India. His words, not mine. He claimed to be in discussion with the power elite of Pakistan.
Chachaji,
How do you really define “Indistan”?
Is it geographical area equivalence, because then all of UP, UA, and most of MP would be in hypothetical Indistan? Is there is some basis in your thought experiment? Is there some real mirror imaging?
Is funny, that the founder of Pkaistan, MA Jinnah after the Radcliff Plan thought he was given “moth eaten” Pakistan since the prize areas were denied to them.
Then why were you comparing the whole of North India to South India (while pointing out that there are more beggars in the North) ? Practice what you preach.
This misnomer has been shredded to bits in the article by Rajiv Srinivasan, who coined correct term (IMO) Nehruvian Penalty
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/14rajeev.htm
It is clear that this rate of growth in the first 30 years after independence, wrongfully attributed to “fatalism in Hindu outlook” was nothing more than the ugly result of a naive leader’s experiment with socialism.
In a report in Asian Age in 2004, P. Chidambaram, UPA finance minister, no less, allowed “that Nehruism wrought havoc on India…that Nehruvian Stalinism has been an economic crime against humanity…
“Colossal damage was done in these 30 years [the first 30 years post-independence when Nehruvian Stalinism ruled unchallenged – Ed.] as the heavy hand of state intervention destroyed all sense of responsibility and private enterprise, specially among the rural people.â€Â
“The disappearance of individual enterprise resulted in the people losing their sense of responsibility and pride in attending to development work in their villages. They, instead, look for State intervention at all levels, even desilting a village pond. The effect of this attitude of alienation, particularly among the rural people, contributed significantly to Indian poverty as a majority of its billion people lived in villages.â€Â
“We paid a heavy price for this. It will take 200 years to wipe out poverty.â€Â
…He was of course referring to the 2-3% growth in GDP, the Nehruvian Rate of Growth. The result? 250 million Indians condemned to remain below the poverty line: this is otherwise known as the Nehruvian Penalty.
59 · dassyu Nehruism wrought havoc on India…that Nehruvian Stalinism has been an economic crime against humanity…
True that!–my Dads has been saying this for 40 years–why he left the Desh to come to ny–finally it’s becoming common wisdom….
btw–happy Independence to the Desh–woot, woot!
i visited pakistan some years back and i too noticed how pakistani homes were “better appointed” by and large. its a sensitive point for DBDs whenever this impression has been elicited. the india about to become a superpower story has gotten to peoples heads. as if becoming a superpower is a great acheivement for a nation of India’s population and natural resources. rather than comparing the population density of the two nations, take into consideration population per sq/km of arable land, and even there you’ll see that pakistan is in many ways MORE densely populated than india, in as much as the vast majority of people in pak live only in the alluvial plains of punjab and sind. i care deeply about india and all, and regard its aims as a republic to be grander than pak. that is why it annoys me to see indians self satisfied in their claim that india>pakistan because there is nothing less grand than competing with a country seven times smaller with fourteen times less poverty, and probably 40 or 50 times less malnourishment and declare yourself champ. a randomly chosen indian does not live with any greater dignity or comfort than his south asian brethren. in fact, the lower class kids that ive seen in sri lanka and pak looked healthier and stronger than their indian counterparts.
Thanks, Mukul. You captured what I was trying to argue much more eloquently and precisely.
Samir, what property values are you comparing? It seems that the cost of commercial and residential property in Lahore is roughly on par with the “hot spot” areas of Kolkata or outer Delhi. If you’re comparing Mumbai to Karachi or Lahore, the analogy wouldn’t work — the cities are dramatically different in size, demand, etc.
Kush, Chachaji was trying to define a region in India that could be as similar to Pakistan as possible…culturally, geographically, ethnically, and population-wise. I think “Indistan” is a very valid comparison to Pakistan. All the more because it removes the poorest parts of India from the equation, which is what always makes India look abyssmal in any comparison. Where I disagree with Chacha ji though, is his opinion that Pakistan would still come out significantly ahead of the hypothetical Indistan. But I don’t have hard figures to back that up, just a hunch.
Anyway, the fact that twice the # of people in India live in ABSOLUTE poverty than do in Pakistan, is probably the crux of the matter, and explains why the general impression of tourists as well as Indians and Pakistanis who visit both countries, is that Pakistan is visibly much less poor than India.
Also there is a certain self-confidence and pride that an average Pakistani has that is missing in the average Indian. This is a big cultural difference right there. And the person above who suggested that India should spend 0.5% of its GDP on shoring up the PAKISTANI economy…THAT is as Indian (and I don’t mean that as a compliment) as you can get.
Anyway, the fact that twice the # of people in India live in ABSOLUTE poverty than do in Pakistan, is probably the crux of the matter, and explains why the general impression of tourists as well as Indians and Pakistanis who visit both countries, is that Pakistan is visibly much less poor than India.
Good point. I also think ‘visible’ poverty is the key. The Frontier Province in Pakistan is as poor as the poorest parts in India. But nobody goes to the Frontier Province as a tourist.
Kush, it was just a thought experiment, I was going by my sense of the rough equivalence of areas in the definition – and the constraint was geographical contiguity with Pakistan.
But, I just looked up the areas, and my imaginary Indistan is actually larger than Pakistan.
Indistan area = 916,072 sq km Pakistan area = 877,406 sq km Actual India area = 3,093,183 sq km
Pakistan 2001 population = 147,648,229 Indistan 2001 population = 184,543,083 India 2001 population = 1,021,976,134
And if you check the definition, there is only one IIT and only one IIM. Yes, I ‘should’ count the BITS and the RECs in some detailed comparison, sure.
And Amitabh, thanks much! On the issue of military defence of Indistan, of course, if it came into existence and had survived, it would surely have had a comparable army, and perhaps would have also had an alliance with US or China or Russia, and/or Nepal etc 🙂 But you can also do a comparison by deployment of current Indian Army Corps and HQs and where they are – though that would be a Bharat Rakshak thread! (Personally, I feel right now, Pakistan Army would be rough parity with Indian Northern + Western Commands (or maybe slightly larger)) Same thing with PAF vs IAF Northern Western Southwestern, but Pakistan Navy would totally trounce Indian Navy out of Surat and Dwarka. 🙂
Frankly, for all its faults – that Pakistan not only survived, but in some ways also thrived, even thinking of itself as a rival and competitor of India, both on the world and local stage, is worthy of acknowledgement and cheer by Indians and in fact, the world.
post 62 by Ara summed it all up for me!
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004654.html#comment158856
Amardeep,
The numbers from the Guardian report don’t seem right, for e.g. the number of cellphone subscribers in Pakistan as of 2004 was around 8 million and I think about 15 million in 2005, the 50 million number seems outlandish
Although a little dated, this paper is a good comparison between India and Pakistan. Keep in mind it doesn’t account for the growth in Indian economy since 1995. Also some more numbers around the mobile phone subsrcibers in both countries.
Yes, I agree too. India’s sexagenarian triumphalism is actually quite misplaced. Hope and confidence in oneself is good, but pride goes before a fall, always. A little introspective humility would do a lot of good.
Amardeep – I believe Economic growth and National security, particularly in the sub-continent to be conjoined.
“Yes, I agree too. India’s sexagenarian triumphalism is actually quite misplaced. “
i think that’s a bit unfair. from what i’ve read and seen, there’s been a bit of everything in india’s coverage of 60 years of independence – some triumphalism (justifiably so), a lot of introspection (justifiably so) and everything in-between (justifiably so).
Gujjubhai – “…..India really started to leapfrog on many many fronts in the post-1991 liberalization period. Within that same 1991-2007 period, Pakistan supported the proxy war in Kashmir, went to war in Kargil,…”
To a Kashmiri, your point would suggest that you do not consider Kashmir a part of India. For the sake of brevity, I will eschew a detailed analysis of how the Pakistani sponsored proxy war curbed [significantly] Kashmir’s and thus India economic potential. In lieu do consider the following points: Kashmir’s stunted economic development due to terrorism; Astronomical amounts spent by the Indian army, which could have been used otherwise; Thousands of young lives lost to terrorism; Half a million Kashmiris relegated to lives of penury in Jammu’s fetid refugee camps, once again, due to Pakistani sponsored proxy wars; you get my drift…..
“Pakistani economy could go the hell in a handbasket and India would not skip a beat. The only real problem is terrorism coming out of Pakistan – but India has lived with it for many decades and will keep on going.”
As I said earlier, if [nuclear power] Pakistan’s economy does go to “hell in a handbasket”, India will go into coronary shock. And, exponentially higher number of terrorists heading east from Pakistan will be only one reason amongst many, like, uncertainty in the market place, which will lead to domestic risk aversion and massive flight of [FDI] capital.
disclaimer – since becoming an american citizen, i have voted republican in 00 and 04, and prefer bjp over congress in india.
I am not comparing the countries directly but can US afford to let Mexican economy deteriorate further let alone go to hell in a hand basket?
The G of I claims that the people living on less than a dollar a day is actually 26%. The Indian currency has risen 12% against the dollar this year, so the percentage living on less than a dollar may have fallen to 22%. Isn’t that amazing, slight currency adjustment, and voila, millions of people transcend poverty 🙂
The point is a good one though. India may have a larger per capita GDP, but the inequality and conspicuous consumption of its ultra-rich, including one who is building a fifty story RESIDENCE in Mumbai, is quite disgusting. Hope he has a good view of the slumbs from his terrace.
I thought the original numbers were based on PPP rather than absolute $
Anecdote,
I have the utmost sensitivity to Kashmir, having shared an anguished few years in college with a close Kashmiri friend – a Pundit from Srinagar – whose father was shot dead by terrorists. In fact, that was the turning point in my life when I turned from a commie-pinko-secularist to a strong Indian nationalist. I do believe Kashmir is, and will always be, part of India and the broader Indic civilization : no disrespect meant to Kashmiris in my previous post. However, the thrust of my argument was toward the overall progress of Indian economy, education, reduction in poverty and so on. Clearly, within India, West and South have been primary beneficiaries of the liberalization mainly because they were relatively well-administered and the population was well-educated. North and East, I guess with the exception of Punjab and Haryana, have largely missed the boat due to terrible political situation while Kashmir’s economy has been largely dependent upon government handouts and stayed relatively isolated from the rest of India’s.
Of course, if Pakistan implodes then India will face a major security threat. However, that is very different from saying that the two countries’ progress are conjoined. For one, India’s growing economy allows it to ensure military expenditure remains robust enough to defend the country. Secondly, the continued investment in terrorism infrastructure has exacted a much bigger toll on Pakistan itself : the society has been radicalized, its internal stability has been threatened, and the world has brought Pakistan under a close watch. This will not only curtail Pakistan’s ability to continue sending jihadis to India but also makes any potential implosion of Pakistan a world problem. As long as India’s internal security machinery is able to prevent major terrorist strikes from occurring too frequently, Indian economy can keep growing at 10% clip. In fact, I think that Musharraf recognized this in the nineties and Kargil was really all about deterring FDI from pouring into India and attempting to portray as a politically volatile place to do business. That risk has reduced significantly now.
Circus,
Funny you should ask : that’d make a great case study. Compare Mexico with Pakistan: 1.Mexico and US are linked within NAFTA, while Pakistan refuses to trade with India even under its WTO obligations. 2.90% of Mexican exports go to US and Canada, 55% of Mexico’s imports come from those two countries. (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Economy). Pakistan does not even figure in the top 16 trading partners of India (http://indiaonestop.com/tradepartners/indias_trade_partners.html). Even Bangladesh trades more with India than Pakistan does. 3.US companies have made huge investments in manufacturing facilities in Mexico. No investment linkages currently exist between India and Pakistan.
There is nothing on the horizon to suggest that the picture will reverse any time soon. If anything, by continuing to send terrorists across the border, Pakistan has lost a lot of goodwill even among those Indians who otherwise might have been favourably predisposed to them.
1.Mexico is not sponsoring a covert war against the US. 2.Mexico did not go to an overt war against the US in recent history. 3.Mexico has not defined its identity as anti-US. 4.Mexico has not attempted to create distance between its cultural identity and that of the US. Pakistan, on the other hand, has explicitly tried to re-fashion itself in the image of an Arabic-Islamic ummah-centric identity and played down its roots in the Indian subcontinent for the last 60 years.
I don’t think we are going to see these chasms being bridged any time soon. The very existence of Pakistan is predicated on the two-nation theory, and an utter negation of its inherent connection with the Indian civilization. Such contradiction cannot go on forever, so either Pakistan will need to re-define itself in a very fundamental way or continue to stay aloof from India.
Gujjubhai, that was brilliant. Very well-put.
Except…in regards to Kashmir…I think they should have the freedom to decide their political fate…but ONLY the Kashmiris (no Pakistani involvement, and no Arab-Chechen-Afghan fighters in the picture). The only option should be independence OR stay with India…not to become a part of Pakistan (Pakistan would take over them within a day of their becoming independent anyway). And, the only other rule would be that the Kashmiri Pandits would have full safety and security, and be free to follow their religion and practise their culture and be a part of the economy. Otherwise, there really is no solution to this Kashmir mess, and India will be stationing 500,000 troops there forever.
Your points are well taken. I was coming from a different perspective. Can US afford a Mexico that behaves like Pakistan currently does towards India? Like supporting terrorists in TX & CA? Can US live with a Canada like China that is tacitly supporting Mexico? If Pakistan’s economy deteriorates further relatively to that of India’s, guess what will Pakistan’s military or civilian leadership do to appease its people?
Thank you, Amitabh.
As far as independence option for Kashmir is concerned, I think it is an unworkable pipe-dream. With the exception of Turkey, I am yet to see a single Muslim majority society go anywhere else slowly and inevitably towards more Islamization and less liberalism. If anything, the failure of Pakistan to emerge as a modern secular state itself is an example of this is likely to play out : visionary secular leader dreams of a msulim majority secular state which initially veers towards the West and remains reasonably secular but then inevitably falls to Islamism. With the possible exception of Turkey, not a single Islamic society treats non-muslims as absolutely equal and legitimate stakeholders. Nor does any of them have shown the establishment of any pre-conditions – secular constitutions, liberal democracy, multiple parties with different ideologies, free press or independent judiciary to name a few – that will give any confidence about the fate of minorities in those societies. Why will the independence of Kashmir – which will be trumpeted as a victory of Islamists in snatching territory away from Hindu India – meet a fate that will be any different from this? Who will check build and protect institutions to check the rise of Islamism in independent Kashmir, especially as its leadership is likely to try and forge a national identity around the ummah and Islam?
Essentially, that’s the same contradiction that is has torn Pakistan apart over the last 60 years. Who can keep fundamentalist power centers in check in a country that has attached a specific religion to its identity? Even if liberal institutions did exist in such societies, they can never hope to compete against their Islamist rivals as Islamists will, over a period of time, garner more and more resources in the form of money, power and ideological converts. There is, after all, a rational reason why Islamic societies tend to be more prone to totalitarian regimes : the only institutions that can arrest the power of Islamists are either Islamists themselves or an autocratic institution such as the monarchy or the military which can create alternate sources of power. However, you can rest assured that any democratic power base will slowly but surely accrue only to Islamists due to the nature of competitive politics and the advantage of using an increasingly intolerant position in gaining power. This is not something unique to Islam, it is the rational equilibrium state for any theocratic society as nothing can compete against the intrinsic claim on moral legitimacy by the usurpers of power wearing the robes of that religion. On a smaller scale, you can even see this getting played out in India – the barbarian lawmakers that attacked Tasleema Nasreen are motivated to indulge in such acts only because such brutal acts only makes their power base stronger and quashes any liberal competition for those whose votes give them that power. Such acts is what their increasingly radicalized constituency demands, and that’s what they are giving to them. That, in essence, is the failure of Indian democracy as elections have degenerated into increasingly violent exercise of competitive intolerance (not my phrase, credit goes to an Indian blogger) that has unfortunately worked as the quickest way to grab power.
If Pakistan’s economy deteriorates further relatively to that of India’s, guess what will Pakistan’s military or civilian leadership do to appease its people?
Well, nothing that they aren’t doing right now or have already done: they have attacked the IISc, Mumbai trains, two revered Hindu temples, India’s Parliament, exploded nukes, and gone to war – all in less than last 10 years. See, you are thinking about they will do in future after Pakistan has done much worse than India, while the reality is that Pakistan acted against India even before this happened as a preventive action. They escalated the war against India at the very first inklings of India’s rising economic power. Why do you think Musharraf took such a huge risk in Kargil or in attacking the Parliament? He is not stupid. Analyze his motives.
So, considering that Pakistan has already done its damndest to arrest India’s rise and failed, I think there is reason for optimisim going forward especially considering how tangled up it has become in the whole NWFP-Taliban mess. Don’t forget that India already survived a Pakistani economy that almost went bust in the nineties as American money dried up after the Soviet withdrawal. Now American money is flowing back and re-inflating Paksitan’s economy. That, ironically, is the best insurance India has. American presence and money in Pakistan will hopefully work for India for many years as Pakistan army continues to perform sentry duties for the Americans. I, for one, wholeheartedly support America’s Frontline Ally in The War Against Terrorism (FATWAT) 🙂 :).
—>”Can US afford a Mexico that behaves like Pakistan currently does towards India? Like supporting terrorists in TX & CA?”
What is with the Mexico bashing? Mexico does not currently and has not ever sponsored terrorism in any U.S. state. Is this what we have been reduced to in our anti-Pakistan paranoia? Maligning inoffensive 3-party nations? What has Mexico ever done to India? Mexicans in general, such as the Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz, have been very well disposed to India. When Paz was Mexican ambassador to India, he wrote an eloquent homage to Indian culture titled “In Light of India.” I had posted the following on another thread in response to another blogger who was maligning Mexico, but I think it is very relevant to this tread as well”
—>To whomever wrote: “I meant successful nation, i.e. First world, something India should aspire to become within the next 50 years. I somehow don’t think Indians want their nation to be known as “Mexico of Asia”.”
(1) India would be lucky to become the “Mexico of Asia”. Mexico’s real per capita GDP of US$7870 is ten times that of India’s and the proportion of people living in absolute poverty in India is 35% compared to 4% in Mexico. Mexico is in the group of countries that have attained a high level of human development according to the UN, with rank #53 compared to India’s rank of 126 (latest figures).
(2) Before India aspires to become the “Mexico of Asia,” perhaps it should first aspire to be the ‘Nicaragua of Asia.’ With a Human Development Index of 112, Nicaragua is 14 positions higher in terms of Human Development compared to India.
(3) No major country has ever gone from 3rd world impoverishment to first world prosperity in 50 years. I think you will find that the road toe development is a long hard slog. A little more sober reflection on the realities of this world and quite a bit less hubris-laden jingoistic chest-thumping would be welcome.
(4) Have you ever been to Mexico? I have had the opportunity to travel there and I can tell you that it is a far more developed country (infrastructure-wise, educationally, and socially) than India currently is. To become a country ‘like Mexico’ is a noble goal for a country ‘like India’ and I think it will be harder to reach that goal than most people are predicting.
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/23.html
Mukul:
May be I wasn’t clear. I was not maligning Mexico. I was asking hypothetical question whether US could afford a Mexico that behaves like Pakistan. You can get that context if you read my previous comments. I also said that I wasn’t comapting India to US or to Mexico directly but comparing the neighborly relationship.
Vishal, I made that comment. I think you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. Where is Mexico? In North America. What is the position of Mexico in North America by economic indices? 3rd of 3 countries in North America. (last by any numerical indices) So do any Indian want India to become the “Mexico of Asia” i.e. the worst country of Asia by economic indices after 50 years. I hope not. Hope I have clarified my point.
Himanshu: I am familiar with the context of your original remarks. One of the blog participants held up Mexico as an example of country that contains many different ethnic groups, and perhaps it could shed some light on the multi-ethnic situation on the Subcontinent. You dismissed the comparison, by stating that Mexico is not “a successful nation, i.e. First World.” You statement thus implies that Mexico is a “failed nation,” and by extension that any country that is not a First World country is a failed nation. The motivating impetus behind my response in the post above is that India can learn much from other developing countries that are further along the path toward prosperity than India currently is. The contemptuous tone of your remark suggests that you think India can miraculously “leapfrog” over stages of development that other developing countries have encountered. A sober analysis shows that even if India maintains its current high rate of growth (9%) for the next 50 years (which is highly doubtful looking at the history of other development countries), Indian per capita GDP will reach approx. $24,000 (non-inflation adjusted) in 2057. Right now Mexico is growing at a much slower rate because it is going through some economic difficulties which are likely to be resolved in the mid term. However, even at Mexico’s current GDP growth rate of 4%, in 50 years Mexico will still have a considerably higher GDP per capita than India, such is Mexico’s head start. Thus, some humility is called for.
With regard to your content that you simply meant to draw attention to the fact that Mexico is “3rd out of the 3” economies in North America and thus bottom-of-the-list, I suppose this is true. However, the tone of your remark was certainly belittling of Mexico’s achievements as a country.
Upon further reflection, I thought I would follow up on the “Mexico of Asia” comment to see if it has any merit based on the data. In fact, the case can be made that India is already a sort of “Mexico of Asia”, when you consider that India is roughly in the bottom 3rd of the Asia-Pacific Per Capita GDP ranking. This is directly analogous to Mexico being “3rd out of 3” (i.e. in the bottom 3rd of the distribution) for countries in North America. I suppose the comparison itself, then, is not so far-fetched after all.
1 Singapore 25,191 2 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 23,684 3 Brunei Darussalam 23,614 4 Korea, Rep. of 14,136 5 Malaysia 4,753 6 Fiji 3,125 7 Thailand 2,539 8 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 2,439 9 Maldives 2,345 10 Samoa 2,042 11 China 1,490 12 Indonesia 1,184 13 Philippines 1,036 14 Sri Lanka 1,033 15 Bhutan 751 16 Papua New Guinea 677 17 Mongolia 641 18 India 640 19 Pakistan 632 20 Solomon Islands 554 21 Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 423 22 Bangladesh 406 23 Cambodia 354 24 Nepal 252
Source: World Bank. 2006. World Development Indicators 2006. CD-ROM. Washington, D.C. ; aggregates calculated for the Human Development Report Office by the World Bank.
Chachaji, perhaps its just a desi characteristic to get a teeny bit carried away. I was looking through some of my dad’s old books on my recent trip to India when I came across a copy of Seshan’s ‘The Degeneration of India’. It was a huge bestseller back in the desh a little more than a decade ago: can you imagine a book by that title selling now. Ten years ago we were sure we couldn’t do anything right, and now we are going to clean everyone’s ghantaghar ;).
And this is after a couple decades of Manmohan Singh’s economic liberalization that dumb and delusional jingos keep insisting has already made India a “rich” and shining superpower! Its not just Pakistan that looks far less impoverished than India. Ditto for Nepal and Sri Lanka. What accounts for the horrifying human degradation so widespread in India? Hindu casteism?
Hogwash. Indians are very good at making silly excuses for India’s failures. Japan and the Netherlands are far more densely populated than India, and far more prosperous. Try again.
India leads the world in child malnutrition. The children of practically every nation in the world are healthier than indian children.
The children of practically every nation in the world are healthier than indian children.
even Djabouti?
Prema,
Sure. India is very poor now, crippled by decades of slow growth caused by predatory governance and socilist policy. It has been growing rapidly over the past decade and a half, after the repeal of many growth inhibiting regulations and policy. It takes time for growth to make a poor country wealthy. 5 or 6 more decades of 6-10% growth, and a lot of seemingly insurmountable problems start to go away. development takes time. Every rich country was poor at some point. took a few decades of rapid growth to fix that.
I think a lot of the lower visibility of poverty in pakistan is just that. lower visibility. the places where the tourists go arent he places where the poor people live. its easy to pretend they dont exist.
Who cares?
India is far worse than countless countries, let alone the Pakis.
We should mind our own business and try to do what we have shamefully failed to do all these 60 yeras: feed, clothe, educate and medicate our own suffering people.
We don’t give a damn what some Brit like Dalrymple thinks of us.
All we want from the Pakis is that they leave us alone. Other than that they can go to hell.
Prema:
I despise the Hindu caste system as mch as anyone, but at least it is not like Islam or Christianity which are slaves of the Jewish idea that “My God is the Only God, and Yours Is a Fake”.
Hinduism permits huge intellectual freedom; its tenets are all optional, not binding. Anyone is a Hindu who regards India as a sacred land.
So I prefer to reform Hinduism rather than junk it. Certainly the viciously dogmatic and intolerant Jewish religions are no decent alternative.