Find it hilarious certain people keep asserting the counterintuitive claim that an undivided India would be wealthier than OTL when the India that exists barely manages to function as a country. Removing partition wouldn't suddenly make India richer when the India that currently exists is subsistence level.
For Pakistan I'll repeat again the answer is Kashmir. That territory which is 1/5 of its landmass being held hostage has in no small part stunted the economic and political development of the nation for the past 70 years, ballooned its defence budget and created a sprawling monster out of its army. All the while also negatively impacting Kashmiris who could've played a much larger and prominent role in Pakistan than they ever would've in India.
Considering OTL Pakistan has had a mix of Bengali, Pashtun, Punjabi, and Sindhi rulers its very likely there would have, at some point, been a Kashmiri President or Prime Minister hailing from Srinagar or another part of Kashmir maybe even Gilgit/Baltistan.
Unlike Pakistan OTL India has no real excuses to remain poor. It has no real existential threats since independence so why has the 'World's Largest Democracy' spawned a nation in large part living in abject poverty. What gives?
Maybe the opposite is true (as someone on a different thread rightly hinted at - but was cancelled). If you balkanize India across ethnic boundaries (Tamils, Punjabis, Bengalis and so on) you would see much greater economic development rather than the artificially yoked OTL nation where dark Southerners suffer racism at the hands of lighter skinned northern Indians, those in places like Himachal aren't even considered 'real Indians' and outlying places like Andamans feel almost no affinity to the centre.
You really are going to ignore the exponential growth of India in the last three decades and the fact the percentage of people in extreme poverty stands at 4% today? Really? Does this mean you openly admit by omission that Pakistan is abjectly poor - seeing how both its GDP per capita and PPP per capita are lower than India's?
Are you also going to completely ignore one nation being under
military rule pretty much constantly from 1958 had absolutely no impact on the economic and political development of a certain nation? Or the
present day feudal zamindar class in Pakistan with dual citizenship?
And ignore that Pakistan with nukes
is an existential threat to India? Or that the US and the UK were willing to put boots on the ground in '71 - that's not an existential threat? Or China's war against India in '62, not an existential threat? And are you really going to argue that India is the reason for Pakistan's sprawling army for "defensive" purposes while this same army seems to have launched all wars with its neighbour due to either incursions or a full on genocide?
I love the harping on about Kashmir. Surely it wasn't the locals in
1965 or
'99 that alerted the Indian Army to Pakistani incursions. Surely not.
Do you honestly have any understanding of the geopolitical realities of the nations of the Indian subcontinent not named Pakistan?
Nehru was Kashmiri. The first and longest reigning Prime Minister of India was a Kashmiri Pundit. How many army chiefs or party leaders in Pakistan have been from "Azad" J&K or Gilgit I wonder.
Unlike India,
Pakistan doesn't have a reason for remaining poor, being much more homogenous both in language and culture and starting out with much higher rates of growth. Punjab alone comprises near 50% of Pakistan's population, with the Sindhis making up 25% more. These two groups alone create a supermajority large enough for a central identity to be established, but in practice has led to other groups to be essentially locked out of ruling, and
even then the Punjabis dominate - 4 army chiefs, including the current one. The Bengali ruler doesn't apply - since it caused a civil war and whatnot.
Also do tell me how a nation which apparently spawned such a large part living in abject poverty has companies such as
TATA Group which rival Pakistan's GDP (I'm sure you've seen the memes) while
Reliance stands at 2/3rd the size of the Pakistani GDP. Indeed, what gives?
Bangladesh doesn't have West Bengal present within in, but somehow seems to have overtaken Pakistan in both GDP and per capita numbers while starting off from an incredibly impoverished base due to West Pakistan essentially plundering the East. On top of that, somehow they've managed to make democracy work, while being an Islamic nation.
Kashmir perhaps is the reason that even the former Prime Minister Imran Khan is now showing videos of the Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar at his rallies. The Pakistani obsession with Kashmir and religion over economic growth and development has led to a foreign policy tied to a larger power - whether that be America or China and has left the current economy reliant on bailout after bailout.
Who on earth told you Himachalis aren't considered real Indians? Or that the Andamans don't feel an affinity to the centre? Or that the racism the south apparently suffers means that in places like the capital landlords say "
South Indians preferred" - didn't know preferential treatment implied racism but here we are. India has a definite problem with colourism -
but so does Pakistan, and the rest of Asia. So pardon my French but you better back up your points with sources or I officially call bullshit.
On the balkanisation I do think you have it the opposite, after all it isn't 1/5th of Pakistan being held hostage, it's technically 2/5 (Balochistan; wonder why you didn't mention them once). Hasn't
Sindhudesh also been a movement? Easy to see why, after all Karachi alone is 25% of the Pakistani economy - I'm sure they must be tired of the economic mismanagement of their resources over the decades. That is a region with a genuine economic argument for independence, and it isn't hard to see why a balkanised Pakistan would have been very much a massive benefit for them and the subcontinent. After all, the Mohajirs might finally have gotten Jinnahpur. Afghanistan would also happily reabsorb the NWFP which would undo some of the damage caused to the region there too. After all, a non-balkanised India is a massive internal market, whereas a balkanised Pakistan is very much a guarantee of lower military spending needed for all nations in the region and secure borders.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, Pakistan was a mistake both for cultural and economic reasons.
It's good to be proud of one's country. It is also good to rationally analyse it's shortcomings and be informed. It's bad to sprout rubbish.