Zachariah

Banned
With a GDP growth rate of 6.8% during the '60s, Pakistan was seen as a model of economic development around the world, and there was much praise for its economic progress. Karachi was seen as an economic role model around the world, and there was much praise for the way its economy was progressing. In particular, West Pakistan's high rate of economic growth during this time period brought wide regard to Pakistan as a model of successful implementation of capitalism in a developing country - in 1964, GDP growth was 9.38%. Many countries sought to emulate Pakistan's economic planning strategy- most notably, South Korea directly copied the Pakistanis' second "Five-Year Plan" to kick-start its own meteoric economic growth, with the World Financial Center in Seoul modeled after that of Karachi.

Later on though, economic mismanagement in general, and fiscally imprudent economic policies in particular (along with Operation Gibraltar and the Indo-Pakistani War, of course) caused a large increase in the country's public debt, and led to slower growth in the 1970s and 1990s. When the Pakistanis' original 5yr plan began in 1960, it had a GDP of US$4.2 billion, compared to South Korea's GDP of US$2.7 billion in 1962 at the time when it adopted the Pakistanis' 5yr plan- both nations had roughly the same GDP/capita at the time. So then, your challenge is to have Pakistan continue its meteoric economic growth and retain its place as one of the Asian Tiger economies right up to the present day, with the Pakistani economy growing at a similar pace or faster than OTL's South Korea, to the extent where Pakistan still has a GDP/capita similar to that of OTL's South Korea (can be either nominal or PPP) by the present day. What do you think- can it be done? And how different would the world be as a result of Pakistan's far greater prosperity ITTL?
 
@Zachariah

(along with Operation Gibraltar and the Indo-Pakistani War, of course)
To the point of genocide in 1971 in what had been East Pakistan and would become Bangladesh. Yes, it was against a particular ethnic group and yes, a major method was manipulating an existing famine. What's new? It was the same old shit. Across a large range of cultures and time periods, this is was of the more common types of genocide.

And I think it definitely affects economic growth. It's like incest in the family. It's a big thing you can't talk about. And then it's like three other layers you can't talk about which potentially touch on it. Makes it harder to have openness and avoid various types of financial corruption.
 
Last edited:
What about having India screw up badly like keeping the License Raj or falling under the control of crazy Hindus (as in people who make the BJP look moderated)?
 
The short answer is no Pakistan cannot replicate South Korea's success imo. An underlying thread behind the East Asian success stories like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, HK and PRC is they are stable, single ethnic group dominated societies that embraced Western style secular political models. This means they can relentlessly pursue Capitalist and secular reforms to it's ultimate conclusion.

Capitalism inevitably leads to great inequality, especially in the industrialization phase. In typical multiethnic developing countries this growing inequalty usually lead to sectarian violence as one group is perceived to benefit at the expense of another. Consequently Pakistan had to back off market reform under Bhutto. Even today the China Pakistan Economic Corridor project drives antagonism with the Balochs.

The other problem is Pakistan being an Islamic country cannot truly embrace secular education and legal code essential to knowlege based industrial economy. Quite the opposite it increasingly embraced Saudi Wahhabism and religious schools as a means to nation build with religious identity.

If the government of Pakistan stuck to Capitalist and secular reforms they run the risk of internal upheval, but if they abandon them they take the road of stagnant growth. In the end they chose the latter. In a world where Pakistan chose differently and deftly make just enough compromises to keep the peace - they might reach Turkey's per capita GDP, but that's very optimistic. Even if it's only the level of Iraq that's far better than what they have now.
 

Zachariah

Banned
The short answer is no Pakistan cannot replicate South Korea's success imo. An underlying thread behind the East Asian success stories like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, HK and PRC is they are stable, single ethnic group dominated societies that embraced Western style secular political models. This means they can relentlessly pursue Capitalist and secular reforms to it's ultimate conclusion.

Capitalism inevitably leads to great inequality, especially in the industrialization phase. In typical multiethnic developing countries this growing inequalty usually lead to sectarian violence as one group is perceived to benefit at the expense of another. Consequently Pakistan had to back off market reform under Bhutto. Even today the China Pakistan Economic Corridor project drives antagonism with the Balochs.

The other problem is Pakistan being an Islamic country cannot truly embrace secular education and legal code essential to knowlege based industrial economy. Quite the opposite it increasingly embraced Saudi Wahhabism and religious schools as a means to nation build with religious identity.

If the government of Pakistan stuck to Capitalist and secular reforms they run the risk of internal upheval, but if they abandon them they take the road of stagnant growth. In the end they chose the latter. In a world where Pakistan chose differently and deftly make just enough compromises to keep the peace - they might reach Turkey's per capita GDP, but that's very optimistic. Even if it's only the level of Iraq that's far better than what they have now.

The thing is, both South Korea and Pakistan were pretty much military dictatorships back in the 60's and early 70's. Pakistan's economic ranking was higher than South Korea's back then, and even in religious aspects, there wasn't that much difference. But in the 70's, South Korea chose to aggressively pursue of anti-religious extremism, with President General Park Chung-Hee launching his Saemaul Undong pogrom and the formal "Movement to destroy the worship of gods" in 1970. Whereas in the late 70's, Pakistan instead chose to aggressively pursue the opposite policy of religious extremism, with President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq launching his Nizam-e-Mustafa pogrom to establish Pakistan as an inherently religious, non-secular Islamic state and enforce Sharia Law across the land upon coming to power. Pakistan wasn't always an inherently Islamic theocratic country; South Korea wasn't always an inherently non-religious secularist country. And there's no reason why Pakistan couldn't have remained more secular, or why South Korea couldn't have remained more religious, if not for the aggressive forced conversion policies of their respective military dictators back in the 70s and 80s. Sure, multi-ethnicity's more of an issue for Pakistan, but South Korea used to be markedly more multi-ethnic prior to Park Chung-Hee's policies- to strengthen his rule, he pursued aggressive ethnic nationalism (as opposed to the Pakistanis' Islamic nationalism), and using the "ideology of racial purity" along with state-sponsored encouragement of discrimination against all people of both "foreign-blood" and "mixed blood", effectively conducted silent ethnic cleansing. Why couldn't Pakistan have done the same, or something along those lines?
 
Bangladesh might stand a better chance being a tiger by having so much labor and a common history, but there were still tensions with India due to the partitions. If Bengal had went independent as a single unit and managed to keep together without Muslims fleeing out of fear that the Hindus might treat them badly due to their history of being on top... Maybe going back to the apparition of India and getting the Lakadweep Islands for Pakistan would help things out a bit. Muslim majority area, nice position, good for tourism... Might help bridge the gaps between east and west.
 
In order to develop, you need a sizable literate workforce. The Asian Tigers had this, and once they were no longer occupied/at war, they were able to become transition from agrarian societies to manufacturing and later service-oriented economies. Thanks to decades of British misrule, Pakistan/India had become agrarian backwaters. They started off in a better spot than, say, sub-Saharan Africa, but were just way behind East Asia. Frankly it's surprising that things didn't turn out worse for South Asia, but having inherited strong bureaucracies has promoted stability if nothing else.
 
What you'd want to do is avoid the Jammu and Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, thus keeping India and Pakistan from fighting (and Pakistan losing every time) every one in a while. Perhaps have Jammu and Kashmir split up along religious lines, with the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley going to Pakistan, and theHindu-majority Jammu Division and Buddhist-majority Ladakh going to India. Such a division would turn the divide between India and Pakistan into one more like that of India and Bangladesh once the wounds of Partition are healed. Potentially, Pakistan may be as developed as India in this scenario, rather than well behind it.

Reforming the feudal farm system may also be a good idea. India reformed its farming system under Nehru, and it's one reason why it pulled ahead of Pakistan. If Pakistan had done the same, it would be better than OTL. From there, Pakistan would be a centre of American investment and a stronger American ally, though working against it would be a strain of nascent Islamism that can never be entirely removed.

Pakistan wasn't always an inherently Islamic theocratic country

Yes, it was. It was founded because of Islam, in order to give Indian Muslims a country of its own, though most Indian Muslims outside the boundaries set for Pakistan stayed in India. Yes, it got worse with Zia, but it is impossible for a country founded on Islamism to completely abandon it. What is possible is that Pakistan is nominally secular, but it has a strong Islamist party competing with the main party.

As for your point on ethnic nationalism, Pakistani ethnicity has always been a bit fuzzy. What is Pakistani ethnicity? The people of Pakistan speak Hindustani and Punjabi, which are spoken across the border in India. They eat the same foods, practice the same customs, and hold the same culture. No, religion is the main way Pakistan differentiates itself with India. Take that away, and Pakistan no longer has any nationalism.

Maybe going back to the apparition of India and getting the Lakadweep Islands for Pakistan would help things out a bit.

Bad idea. The population would be extremely resentful, and the islands are fairly pro-Indian IOTL. Mostly-Muslim does not mean pro-Pakistan by any means.
 

Zachariah

Banned
Pakistan was founded because of Islam, true, but back when it was founded, the Dominion of Pakistan had no official state religion prior to 1956- it was only then that it was declared as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, with the country's first constitution. Which was itself then abrogated in 1958, only two years later, after a military Coup d'état. Pakistan's second constitution was approved in 1962, granting executive power to the president and abolishing the office of the prime minister. It also institutionalized the intervention of military in politics by providing that for twenty years, stipulating that the president or the defence minister had to be a person who had held a rank not lower than that of lieutenant-general in the army. This 1962 constitution was suspended in 1969, and abrogated in 1972. And it was only the 1973 Constitution which actually introduced the adoption of religious, Islamic laws for government and judicial protocols and civil governance; declaring Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic and Islam as the state religion, stating that all laws would have to be brought into accordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, and that no law repugnant to such injunctions could be enacted, as well as creating institutions such as the Shariat Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology to channel the interpretation and application of Islam.

According to a survey in 1969 in pre-divided Pakistan, on the prevailing type of national identity, it was found that over 60% of people in East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) professed to have an ethnic as opposed to a religious national identity. However, in West Pakistan (current day Pakistan) the same figure (60%) professed to have a religious (Islamic) national identity instead. In South Korea, and to an extent North Korea as well, their respective military dictators founded their nationalism upon ethnicity above all else, and waged prolonged state-sponsored campaigns to wipe out Koreans' religious identities entirely. And they succeeded. Why couldn't that work in Pakistan, at least to some extent (eg, a similar extent to that of Cold War-era Turkey)? Couldn't 'Pakification' be conducted in a similar manner to Turkification, through an analogous ideology to that of Kemalism?

Another thought- could it be as simple as either having India go all the way over to the Soviets' side in the Cold War, and/or having the Sino-Pakistan Agreement of 1963 fall through? IOTL, in addition to increasing tensions with India, the agreement shifted the balance of the Cold War by bringing Pakistan and China closer together, while loosening ties between Pakistan and the United States. Have that border dispute result in a limited war between Pakistan and China, one which effectively becomes a proxy war in a similar manner to the Korean War, and forces the USA and NATO to intervene to some extent; you'd create a geopolitical situation where the USA would be forced to prioritize building up Pakistan to be as strong an ally as possible, and to place Pakistan at the centre of American investment, diplomacy and economic policy in Asia, out of necessity. What do you think?
 
Pakistan was founded because of Islam, true, but back when it was founded, the Dominion of Pakistan had no official state religion prior to 1956- it was only then that it was declared as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, with the country's first constitution. Which was itself then abrogated in 1958, only two years later, after a military Coup d'état. Pakistan's second constitution was approved in 1962, granting executive power to the president and abolishing the office of the prime minister. It also institutionalized the intervention of military in politics by providing that for twenty years, stipulating that the president or the defence minister had to be a person who had held a rank not lower than that of lieutenant-general in the army. This 1962 constitution was suspended in 1969, and abrogated in 1972. And it was only the 1973 Constitution which actually introduced the adoption of religious, Islamic laws for government and judicial protocols and civil governance

Indeed, Pakistan got more Islamic over time. However, all of these attempts to integrate Islam into government demonstrate that Islamism was a major political force, and I'm not sure if that could be changed. Islam would be brought time and time again into Pakistani government no matter what is done by the government to try to separate the two, and I severely doubt that anything could be done to change that. What you could do is keep Islamism as a secondary force in government by making a party that is usually the opposition the Islamist party. But even then, Islam would be a major force.

According to a survey in 1969 in pre-divided Pakistan, on the prevailing type of national identity, it was found that over 60% of people in East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) professed to have an ethnic as opposed to a religious national identity. However, in West Pakistan (current day Pakistan) the same figure (60%) professed to have a religious (Islamic) national identity instead.

But the thing is, the ethnic identity in East Pakistan was not a Pakistani identity. It was a Bengali identity, founded upon Bengali culture and the Bengali language. What do you do in Pakistan? Stress Punjabi culture and the Punjabi language? That would anger the Sindhi, Pashtun, Baluchi, and other peoples in Pakistan. Pakistan is just too heterogeneous for that. Then, what other options do you have? I'd say the only option left is the one that Pakistan took IOTL: Stress the Islamic heritage of Pakistan while promoting a Persianized and Arabized dialect of Hindustani as the lingua franca.

In South Korea, and to an extent North Korea as well, their respective military dictators founded their nationalism upon ethnicity above all else, and waged prolonged state-sponsored campaigns to wipe out Koreans' religious identities entirely. And they succeeded. Why couldn't that work in Pakistan, at least to some extent (eg, a similar extent to that of Cold War-era Turkey)? Couldn't 'Pakification' be conducted in a similar manner to Turkification, through an analogous ideology to that of Kemalism?

Because South Korea, North Korea, and Turkey were all relatively homogeneous, unlike Pakistan's diverse number of cultures. And unlike Turkey, Pakistan already had a bloody population exchange, and Pakistan's population exchange failed to make a largely monocultural country. What culture do you push? That brings us to my point above, that the only possible culture that can unify them is Islamic culture. Either that, or divorce Pakistani nationalism from religion and ethnicity entirely, and base it upon something else (I'm not sure what).

Have that border dispute result in a limited war between Pakistan and China, one which effectively becomes a proxy war in a similar manner to the Korean War, and forces the USA and NATO to intervene to some extent; you'd create a geopolitical situation where the USA would be forced to prioritize building up Pakistan to be as strong an ally as possible, and to place Pakistan at the centre of American investment, diplomacy and economic policy in Asia, out of necessity. What do you think?

That's quite a good idea. Pakistan would be quite isolated in the region, and that naturally means American investment would have to go into it.
 
According to a survey in 1969 in pre-divided Pakistan, on the prevailing type of national identity, it was found that over 60% of people in East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) professed to have an ethnic as opposed to a religious national identity. However, in West Pakistan (current day Pakistan) the same figure (60%) professed to have a religious (Islamic) national identity instead. In South Korea, and to an extent North Korea as well, their respective military dictators founded their nationalism upon ethnicity above all else, and waged prolonged state-sponsored campaigns to wipe out Koreans' religious identities entirely. And they succeeded. Why couldn't that work in Pakistan, at least to some extent (eg, a similar extent to that of Cold War-era Turkey)? Couldn't 'Pakification' be conducted in a similar manner to Turkification, through an analogous ideology to that of Kemalism?

As has already been said, Pakistan is not Turkey. The identity of Turkey is a nation of Turks, they were able to put their religious identity on the backburner to modernize the Turkish state, something that would be hard to imagine in Pakistan as its identity is that of a safe haven for Indian Muslims of all stripes. The South Koreans are Koreans above all else. Multiethnic Muslim countries that promoted secular nationalist identity generally ended up not too stable - see Syria and Iraq; although they did pretty well in terms of literacy and basic welfare.

I'm not saying Pakistan can't try hardline seculaism like the Turks. Maybe it would even succeed. But it would be like playing Russian roulette risking sectarian and Islamist backlash. Things could be a lot better or a lot worse. In any case, recognizing Bangladesh independence amicably would save Pakistan much headache. Their defeat in the 1971 war made cool headed secular reforms even less likely. The fact that Pakistan's ruling elite could not forsee the obvious nonsustainability of East Pakistan speaks volumes about the ability of its leadership to manage incredibly difficult reforms.

Another thought- could it be as simple as either having India go all the way over to the Soviets' side in the Cold War, and/or having the Sino-Pakistan Agreement of 1963 fall through? IOTL, in addition to increasing tensions with India, the agreement shifted the balance of the Cold War by bringing Pakistan and China closer together, while loosening ties between Pakistan and the United States. Have that border dispute result in a limited war between Pakistan and China, one which effectively becomes a proxy war in a similar manner to the Korean War, and forces the USA and NATO to intervene to some extent; you'd create a geopolitical situation where the USA would be forced to prioritize building up Pakistan to be as strong an ally as possible, and to place Pakistan at the centre of American investment, diplomacy and economic policy in Asia, out of necessity. What do you think?

No. There's this fallacy that if your country was anti-Communist in the Cold War, America will be your sugar daddy and you got it made. US cares about Europe and East/SE Asia because these are areas of vital strategic and economic concern, even in today's post Cold War world. Furthermore the Soviets and Chinese could very plausibly fill the void were America absent in these regions. These conditions were never true for South Asia and the Middle East. That is why US never really invested in Pakistan and was willing to walk away from it despite it being a so-called frontline state against Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, and engaged in multiple wars against Soviet ally India. A border war with China would not overly distress Washington. It would only deepen dependence on American aid without significant increase of American commitment.
 
Last edited:
Top