I meant by Pakistani companies.
The only car I have heard of from Pakistan is Adam Revo. A nice car, but unfortunately didn't come into mass production because of "un-favourable Government policies".
Does every successful country have its own 'car company'? Brands are either merging or being bought up by larger companies - by your yardstick Holland, Sweden and Switzerland would be 'failed states' because their car companies were unable to survive without being gobbled up by larger corporations from other nations, or because they never had ones to begin with.
Its a rather absurd line of logic you are pursuing.
Pakistan may not have successful brands of its own in terms of car manufacturers, but it has a successful manufacturing and assembling sector. Just focusing on the auto sector for example, local deletion levels range from 90% to 40%, depending upon the type of vehicle.
.
Population of Finland is 1000th lesser than the US.
Pakistan is only 1/2 of US.
.
Tiny countries like Norway, Finland can survive without big corporations because of smaller population, but large populous countries like India and Pakistan need big corporations to generate mass employment. A corporation of a large country portrays the business ability of its citizens.
.
Its an excuse that Pakistan do not need big corporations of its own to improve the lives of its people.
.
I disagree - just as there is no need for every country to have a successful auto company to not be declared a failed state, it is similarly not necessary that every country have corporations in the fortune 500 or X numbers of billionaires to be considered successful.
If favorable market conditions exist (political stability and policy stability), then foreign or/and local companies will set up shop and provide employment. The Koreans and Japanese in Pakistan are an excellent example of that in terms of the auto sector which provides hundreds of thousands of jobs, both in direct manufacturing and assembling as well as the auto parts sector.
Again, this argument of being successful only if a country has 'X number billionaires or Y number huge corporations' is a fallacious one.
All right what has Pakistan achieved?
.
Can you tell all of us what Pakistan has achieved except a Nuclear Bomb in comparison to Somalia and Afghanistan. May you tell us the name of the R&D organizations in Pakistan, and the research they have contributed to recognized world over.
.
This will help the case, than plainly saying that Pakistan is ahead in R&D stuff.
Juts look at every sector of the economy - starting from the military and related nuclear sectors. Military applications are invariably the most expensive and high tech area given the stringent performance parameters - in that respect there has been R&D in the chemical sector (propellants, explosives, etc.) as well as metallurgy (armor, nuclear components, centrifuges etc.).
While you dismiss Pakistan's achievement in detonating the bomb, realize that you don't get to that point without developing expertise in several key high tech industrial areas (some of which I mentioned).
Also check out the WMD section - a sticky thread there lists all of the military research organizations that form NESCOM.
It is good to be updated. In many indicators India is almost at same level as Pakistan, and in many Pakistan is nowhere near India.
Here have a kind look...
This is from the United Nations website...
Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Country Fact Sheets - India
Statistical update 2008/2009 - Country Fact Sheets - Pakistan
.
................................................................India................................Pakistan......
HDI Value..........................................
0.619....................................0.562
Life Expectancy............................63.7.......................................
64.9
Adult Literacy Rate......................................
61.........................................54.2
Combined school enrolment.....................
63.8.........................................39.3
GDP Per Capita(PPP).............................................3452.......................................2461
Human Poverty Index.......................
31.3.........................................33.6
Children Underweight age..............47..........................................
38
Female school Enrolment
as %age of males................................
87.7.....................................78.3
.
India's data is from 2005, and Pakistan's from 2006(before the insurgency gathered steam in Pakistan)
.
Now I don's see any indicators in which Pakistan has been able to hold ,
at par with India.
.
So its proved now that Pakistan is not at par but, is behind India in most of HDI. Even Per capita GDP(PPP) as claimed before.
Fascinating:
From the CIA factbook (2008 estimates)
---------------------India-------------------------Pakistan
GDP----------------2800-------------------------2600
(2008 being the year Pakistan experienced extremely low growth, otherwise the difference would be even less).
Unemployment---6.8% (2008 est.)-------------7.4% (2008 est.)
-------------------7.2% (2007 est.)-------------5.6% (2007 est.)
Again, we see that unemployment was significantly lower in Pakistan compared to India in 2007, until the extremely poor 2008 year.
Poverty-----------25%--------------------------24%---------------
Pakistan has slightly lower poverty levels than India as well. By the way, the WB and independent Pakistani institutions have calculated the 2008 Pakistan poverty rate to be around 17%, which is a significant improvement.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/27672-17-poverty-rate-pakistan-world-bank.html
The rest of the numbers largely bear out my argument that the per capita indicators are largely close, with Pakistan ahead in some and India in others.
It would be interesting to see how Pakistan's HDI index is impacted with the more current numbers I provided on the per capita GDP and if the WB estimated poverty numbers are accepted.
Not true. As I said, all the functioning institutions in India were started post-independence except 1-2 exceptions.
.
As I already said the only thing in name of industrialization in India in 1947 were some Jute mills in Bengal and Textile mills in Bombay.
All the industrial development in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi region, etc. took place after independence.
Literacy of India, WP and EP were almost same according to my knowledge. If you have some contrary credible proof, then kindly show it.
Please read pages 996-997.
The Cambridge economic history of India - Google Books
As the authors state, the manufacturing industry in Pakistan was minimal, and a large part of Pakistan's trade with India involved the import of manufactured goods, with exports of agricultural goods - that would not be possible unless India had an existing Industrial base.
Secondly, on the issue of developed institutions and infrastructure, this is a self evident argument. The British administrative seat of power was based in what is today India, and while the British treated their colonies poorly, they nonetheless had to govern them, which meant that all of their governing and administrative machinery was in India.
.
I am really shocked to read this. Really.
.
This is a comparison between EP and WP from 1947-1971. Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan till 1971, and the report say that it had no or little up-gradation in educational levels and infrastructure from 1947 to 1971, whereas in West Pakistan in the same period, educational levels increased dramatically.
So this is primarily the mistake, not the superiority of West Paksitani Central Govt. This is nothing to boast of. A part of a county for 25 years lagged in education, in comparison to the other part, is no boasting for the other part, knowing the fact that the Central Govt was in that other part as well.
.
This shows the neglect of East Pakistan by the Central Govt. of Pakistan from 1947 to 1971 in Education front. So much so that a good level of education in one part of Pakistan in 1947 did not keep pace with the other part of Pakistan. And people will still say that it was India's conspiracy to break Pakistan in 1971.
.
Why was this neglect shown to East Pakistan, which led to de-gradation of educational levels there?
Whether neglect was shown or whether it was a case of 'progressive taxation/development' (focusing development on the less developed West Pakistan) is a matter for another thread.
The point I think has been sufficiently made that East Pakistan started off with better educational and industrial infrastructure (one of the gripes the Bengali nationalist movement had with WP was that EP contributed a majority of the revenue - more industry in EP - but did not retain all of it.).
[/quote]
And lastly I never said Pakistan is equivalent to Afghanistan and Somalia, and neither I am going to prove anything which I did not say. Also I said in my previous to previous post that Pakistan is some-what better than Somali and Afghanistan. You assumed that I was trying to do that. My point was the comparison between post-independence India and Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
If you were not trying to equate Pakistan with Somalia and Afghanistan, you would not have tried to defend the conclusions of the clearly flawed 'failed states index'. You stand exposed on that count and are now dissembling to find a way out.
---------- Post added at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------
No longer I suppose.
Tata Plans World's Largest Wimax Network
The Indian telco plans a system of 3,000 base stations to deliver limited or full broadband service to 110 cities
Tata Plans World's Largest Wimax Network
Achievements are meant to be broken - the point is that plenty of evidence has been presented documenting Pakistani achievements. You need to look beyond your anti-Pakistan agenda and bias to recognize that.
