From Jan 1, UK to stop financial aid to India

[Pulsar]

I think it's time India started giving aid to UK instead!

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

Pakistan got the same corporation during the days of it's alliance with the west but unfortunately fumbled badly on it's path to bleed India with a thousand cuts and instead caused more damage to itself. Economic marvel of South Korea would be a good example of how to use your alliance with the west for your own benefits.
OT- Thanks to UK for the economic aid since independence as we know it would have been really hard for the UK's economy to carry the burden of aiding us, the same economy which they developed by exploiting the resources from the subcontinent and from its colonies all over the world during the colonial era.

Had Bharat not interfered in the Kashmir, the affairs between the two countries would have been very amicable. Bharat occupied Hyderabad Daccan, Junnagarh, Manawadar and Sardargarh with a pretext that the majority of people are Hindu and the Nawabs had not rights to decide their faith. Hypocritically, Bharat then interfered in Kashmir and occupied 70% of its area with a pretext that its Raja announced the annexation of Kashmir with Bharat. This hypocrisy of Bharat costed both of the countries very badly. All the conflicts started up with this hypocrisy of Bharat.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Despite being in the leftist bloc, the Bharati foreign policy makers intelligently took great benefits from both the Western and the Muslim bloc. Bharat is enjoying much greater business and employment opportunities in the Middle East.

Bharat owes a lot of gratitude to its foreign policy makers. .

Actually Pakistan was doing very well initially. Indus belt of Punjab and Sindh was one of the richest provinces of british India thet went to Pakistan. Its currency was stronger and per capita income was much more than India's until 80s or 90s. Somewhere things went wrong, perhaps when it became a front for USA in Afghanistan. Political instability deprived it from having a robust independent foreign policy.
As far as Bharat is concerned, it was not just foreign policy but also the internal policies were made with a view to benefit the masses. Some say socialist policies dragged us but perhaps Bharatiya society was not ready for an outright capitalist economy with so much social disparities. We still have a huge income disparities.

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

that happened only after 91... we lost nearly 40 precious years... more than half the time since independence.
pakistan was compared with south korea.. you guys could have been malayasia at least by now if things went smooth(although its not pakistan's fault that afgan invasion happened).

As stated earlier, the reins of our country are not in our hands. The British simply shifted the reins to America. No state head of Pakistan can make any decisions in the favor of the nation. In the first regime of Nawaz Shareef, he was making all the policies in the national interests. Very shortly, he was toppled by the CIA agent Ghulam Ishaq Khan. In the 2nd. and the 3rd. regime, Nawaz simply obeyed to America like a paid servant.

 

[Razia Sultana]

I think it's time India started giving aid to UK instead!

Lets not go overboard. We are still having a per capita income of a 3rd world country. Our GDP may be in top 10 but unless our per capita income counts in top 50 nations, we have a long way to go.

 

[livingdead]

Actually Pakistan was doing very well initially. Indus belt of Punjab and Sindh was one of the richest provinces of british India thet went to Pakistan. Its currency was stronger and per capita income was much more than India's until 80s or 90s. Somewhere things went wrong, perhaps when it became a front for USA in Afghanistan. Political instability deprived it from having a robust independent foreign policy.
As far as Bharat is concerned, it was not just foreign policy but also the internal policies were made with a view to benefit the masses. Some say socialist policies dragged us but perhaps Bharatiya society was not ready for an outright capitalist economy with so much social disparities. We still have a huge income disparities.

the socialist policy never really helped us.. it just shackled entrepreneurs... we dont have very high education level or women empowerment that comes with being in communist country.. at least that would have been nice.

 

[Grevion]

Had Bharat not interfered in the Kashmir, the affairs between the two countries would have been very amicable. Bharat occupied Hyderabad Daccan, Junnagarh, Manawadar and Sardargarh with a pretext that the majority of people are Hindu and the Nawabs had not rights to decide their faith. Hypocritically, Bharat then interfered in Kashmir and occupied 70% of its area with a pretext that its Raja announced the annexation of Kashmir with Bharat. This hypocrisy of Bharat costed both of the countries very badly. All the conflicts started up with this hypocrisy of Bharat.

How exactly does the Kashmir issue and India caused Pakistan it's development?

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

Actually Pakistan was doing very well initially. Indus belt of Punjab and Sindh was one of the richest provinces of british India thet went to Pakistan. Its currency was stronger and per capita income was much more than India's until 80s or 90s. Somewhere things went wrong, perhaps when it became a front for USA in Afghanistan. Political instability deprived it from having a robust independent foreign policy.
As far as Bharat is concerned, it was not just foreign policy but also the internal policies were made with a view to benefit the masses. Some say socialist policies dragged us but perhaps Bharatiya society was not ready for an outright capitalist economy with so much social disparities. We still have a huge income disparities.

Your views are based on very vivid truths. It was a big blunder of Zia's govt. to become a power broker of the Western bloc. Bharati policy makers carried out their both internal and external affairs very intelligently.

 

[livingdead]

As stated earlier, the reins of our country are not in our hands. The British simply shifted the reins to America. No state head of Pakistan can make any decisions in the favor of the nation. In the first regime of Nawaz Shareef, he was making all the policies in the national interests. Very shortly, he was toppled by the CIA agent Ghulam Ishaq Khan. In the 2nd. and the 3rd. regime, Nawaz simply obeyed to America like a paid servant.

You are talking about political autonomy.. neither japan nor korea has it as much as they should.. you gave up some political autonomy(for security), in return you should have been a bit more propsperous.
btw we also gave up some sovereignty to soviets then, nothing is free.

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

How exactly does the Kashmir issue and India caused Pakistan it's development?

Other than the Kashmir issue, there is no issue for both Pakistan and Bharat to settle. This issue instigated the first two wars of 1948 and 1965. In the same series, the war of 1971 also took place. Bharat was victorious in the war of 1971 but the aftermath results then badly damaged Bharat also. In retaliation, Pakistan started supporting Sikh movement and strengthening Kashmir movement also. These regional hostilities are damaging the interests of both Pakistan and Bharat.

You are talking about political autonomy.. neither japan nor korea has it as much as they should.. you gave up some political autonomy(for security), in return you should have been a bit more propsperous.
btw we also gave up some sovereignty to soviets then, nothing is free.

I admit that our rulers are very poor negotiators and they are not sincere with the nation. They performed such an unimaginable colossal job of toppling the main rival of the West (ex USSR) and in return got nothing positive but all negative.

 

[livingdead]

Other than the Kashmir issue, there is no issue for both Pakistan and Bharat to settle. This issue instigated the first two wars of 1948 and 1965. In the same series, the war of 1971 also took place. Bharat was victorious in the war of 1971 but the aftermath results then badly damaged Bharat also. In retaliation, Pakistan started supporting Sikh movement and strengthening Kashmir movement also. These regional hostilities are damaging the interests of both Pakistan and Bharat.


I admit that our rulers are very poor negotiators and they are not sincere with the nation. They performed such an unimaginable colossal job of toppling the main rival of the West (ex USSR) and in return got nothing positive but all negative.

you can only negotiate based on what you bring to the table and what is on offer. India is bigger country with bigger market..so our leaders can indeed go a bit further... you can see it in climate change negotiation even now... or other trade negotiations..
take the example of pakistan - china relation, can you fault your leaders for virtually being junior partner of china, its the best deal they can get from any country...

 

[Grevion]

Other than the Kashmir issue, there is no issue for both Pakistan and Bharat to settle. This issue instigated the first two wars of 1948 and 1965. In the same series, the war of 1971 also took place. Bharat was victorious in the war of 1971 but the aftermath results then badly damaged Bharat also. In retaliation, Pakistan started supporting Sikh movement and strengthening Kashmir movement also. These regional hostilities are damaging the interests of both Pakistan and Bharat.

It was not India's fault that Pakistan army helped the tribals to invade Kashmir further Pakistan's policies to support religious extremists to divide India backfired badly on itself and created the mess Pakistan is in today and that's not India's fault either.

 

[Great Sachin]

Bharat is a very rich country. People misunderstand it as a poor country because of the abject poverty with more than 50% of its population. The abject poverty is attributable to the economic disparity not exactly any weakness of the Bharati economy.


Good that Bharat has gained its economic targets to transform into a rich country. Now the poverty of the general public must be alleviated eliminating disparities.

dont burn your....nobody said that India is rich country...

 

[SrNair]

Actually Pakistan was doing very well initially. Indus belt of Punjab and Sindh was one of the richest provinces of british India thet went to Pakistan. Its currency was stronger and per capita income was much more than India's until 80s or 90s. Somewhere things went wrong, perhaps when it became a front for USA in Afghanistan. Political instability deprived it from having a robust independent foreign policy.
As far as Bharat is concerned, it was not just foreign policy but also the internal policies were made with a view to benefit the masses. Some say socialist policies dragged us but perhaps Bharatiya society was not ready for an outright capitalist economy with so much social disparities. We still have a huge income disparities.

Agreed .Even some eminent western and Indian economists termed it as a gradual revolution of our nation.We took 30-40 years to eliminate thousand years of superstition and practices and then initiate liberalisation and globalisation .
Of Course Pakistan did very well during initial years but their fundamentals and foundation was not that strong .Because they also had social problems like ours.

On topic :Still they couldnt repay what they had been stolen from my nation .Any way use those money for Afghanistan or other poor nation.

 

[tsinga]

Celebrate this hallowed day. We don't want their damned aid.