Pakistan success

[iori]

not a super power but one with as much economic influence as Japan

While it could be much better off and have a significantly stronger economy, it could not approach Japan's economic level.

Japan has been a homogeneous state that has been Unified and Centralized for centuries and has existed as a Nation for over a millenia.
Economically speaking Japan gradually built up a proto-industrial society from the 16th century onwards and in the late 18th and early 19th century they began adopting some further industries, which is what ultimately allowed the Meiji government to industrialize so rapidly and successfully; even with the economic disaster that was WWII Japan still came out of it with an intact economic system to use as a base for rebuilding and equally important were in a situation where they basically did'nt have to spend alot on rebuilding their military since they were under the U.S. Security Umbrella and, until the late 70's, had no real desire to do so.

Now, Pakistan has none of this, it's an artificial state created in the mid 20th century and thus has all the problems that come with that, has no advanced economy before independence, let alone and real industry and has tried to unify its population by being the anti-India, which requires massive military spending.

 

[Clandango]

In the undivided Pakistan the Eastern half(present Bangladesh) was more populous than West Pakistan. That was why when General Yahya Khan conducted democratic elections to the National Assembly, the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujib-ur Rehman secured absolute majority in the National Assembly without a single member from the West Pakistan. The Awami League had swept the East Pakistan leaving very few seats out of its grasp. The Pakistani Army was always dominated by Punjabis with a few Pashto officers and very little representation for Sindhis, Balochis or the majority Bengalis. The Punjabi elite was not prepared to hand over power to Bengalis or any other group. Then the military junta headed by Yahya Khan conspired with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had the majority support in the Western half, to deny Mujib and Awami League access to power which was rightfully theirs. Sheikh Mujib and other leaders of Awami League were thrown into prison and a reign of terror was let loose in the East Pakistan. Pakistani Army started a genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bengalis. Millions of refugees fled to India which surrounded the East Pakistan on three sides. The Bengalis rose in revolt and the refugee problem became unbearable. When all diplomatic moves failed, India was forced to send armed forces into the East Pakistan. The Pakistani Army, numbering about hundred thousand, surrendered and Bangladesh was liberated. The genocide and ethnic cleansing conducted by General Yahya and his junta was supported and applauded by none other than President Richard Nixon and the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, along with Chairman Comrade Mao Zedong.

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[Maxwell Edison II]

As a secularist, I consider many of Pakistan's problems to be inherent, they were a nation founded upon a specific religious group. Note that I'm not saying one religion is necessarily worse than another, I'm saying the "dosage" is wrong.

 

[ragescyther]

While it could be much better off and have a sinficantly stronger economy, it could not aproach Japana's economic level.

Japan has been a homogenous state that has been Unified and Centralized for centuries and has existed as a Nation for over a millenia.
Economically speaking Japan gradually built up a proto-industrial society from the 16th century onwards and in the late 18th and early 19th century they began adopting some further industries, which is what ultimately allowed the Meiji government to industrialize so rapidly and successfully; even with the economic disaster that was WWII Japan still came out of it with an intact economic system to use as a base for rebuilding and equally important were in a situation where they basically did'nt have to spend alot on rebuilding their military since they were under the U.S. Security Umbrella and, until the late 70's, had no real desire to do so.

Now, Pakistan has none of this, it's an artificial state created in the mid 20th century and thus has all the problems that come with that, has no advanced economy before independence, let alone and real industry and has tried to unify its population by being the anti-India, which requires massive military spending.

Sorry for the late reply.
I understand your argument in regards to pakistan not equaling Japan. But could you give me an idea as to how much it could actually develop?
And how would one go about industrializing a nation as fast as possible? What is the time required?
But I do think the nation has a national identity. They are not India and they have a great desire to remain free from foreign rule. And I think their religion would unify them together.
If not Japan could Pakistan be modelled more so on South Korea. They also used to be one nation and war devastated them. Could Pakistan follow their model?
Lastly Saudi Arabia is very close to Pakistan. If the cards are played correctly could Pakistan be able to benefit greatly from the relationship much more so than in reality. Also Iran another oil producer the first state to recognize Pakistan. Could these two fuel Pakistans economy?
I am new to history so pardon any discrepancies.
Have a great day

 

[iori]

Sorry for the late reply.
I understand your argument in regards to pakistan not equaling Japan. But could you give me an idea as to how much it could actually develop?

India itself is actually a pretty good example of what Pakistan could've become like by now, though obviously to a lesser degree since India has 8 times the population, more land and more resources, though possibly with a somewhat higher HDI.

And how would one go about industrializing a nation as fast as possible? What is the time required?

Depends, if you want to go the Soviet or Chinese route and end-up with hundreds of thousands, if not million, of people dieing and forcing people to change jobs at gunpoint, then about 20 years with a massive amount of state resources devoted to it.

Otherwise about half a century, possibly more depending on the country in question and circumstances and situations that arise over time.

But I do think the nation has a national identity. They are not India and they have a great desire to remain free from foreign rule.

What Pakistan has is a nascent Civic Identity, which is a different thing from a National Identity, afterall don't forget half of Pakistan want's to secede and have nothing to do with them anymore.

And I think their religion would unify them together.

It has'nt been that much of a unifying force so far, I mean yes they're large majority Muslim, but the Shi'a and other non-Sunni's are discriminated and attacked by the Sunni and then their's the extremists who want the country to be modelled on their draconian notions of Islam while the rest of the population are more moderate and don't support that.

If not Japan could Pakistan be modelled more so on South Korea. They also used to be one nation and war devastated them. Could Pakistan follow their model?

Not really, no, South Korea is actually similar to Japan in that it had some existing industry as a result of earlier proto-industry and industrialization while part of the Japanese Empire and are/were under the American Security Umbrella, they also have the bonuses of having a population that was basically the perfect size to do what they did, and of course one big thing to realize is that South Korea itself took decades to get to where it is, it did'nt do it over night.

Lastly Saudi Arabia is very close to Pakistan. If the cards are played correctly could Pakistan be able to benefit greatly from the relationship much more so than in reality. Also Iran another oil producer the first state to recognize Pakistan. Could these two fuel Pakistans economy?
I am new to history so pardon any discrepancies.
Have a great day

Saudi Arabia is theocratic Absolute Monarchy with an economy wholly based on oil which is going to result in the country collapsing in a few decades, so no.

Iran is a Shi'a majority country that basically the rest of the Middle East hates, originally for stupid reasons (IE religion) and since the 90's for legitimate reasons.

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

So I'm a little late to the party, but this is definitely an interesting topic, and one that has a few options:

1) Kashmir resolution: As stated earlier, Kashmir was a major problem for early Pakistan. It was the main reason that the army was able to gain so much power in early Pakistani politics, as well as one of the reasons that the capital was moved from Karachi to Islamabad/Rawalpindi. While I think that the idea of giving Jammu and Ladakh to India while Pakistan kept Kashmir is a bit too simplistic, the idea that both states wouldn't allow their governments to be held so close to the maharajah's lack of a decision could've helped out greatly.

2) East/West Pakistan divide: While it might've been easier for Pakistan to just give up the eastern half of the country, I think that this greatly affects the chances for Pakistan's economic power, especially given the population increase that this would give Pakistan, as well as the potential to develop Dhaka into an infrastructural powerhouse. Theoretically, in this scenario, Pakistan would essentially develop a political situation similar to that of OTL's India, where there would be a few national parties, and a number of provincial parties vying for local votes.

3) Promote English as a national language: Again, this can do away with the 'language debate' that helped to spark Bengali grievances for secession. Make English the language of government, and given the provinces their own regional languages.

4) Stay in the Western political camp: Fairly simple. India's economy boosted in the 1990s after mostly abandoning the Nehru-ite socialist policies of the first five decades of independence. Pakistan never had a history for these kind of policies. Indeed, a good number of the muhajiran that fled from India included a decent chunk of the colonial "middle class", so you have an entrepreneurial group already. Could work out fairly well, especially if you can keep US investment in the region strong.
---
Hope this helps!

 

[TheHumblePoet]

What Pakistan has is a nascent Civic Identity, which is a different thing from a National Identity, afterall don't forget half of Pakistan want's to secede and have nothing to do with them anymore.

First I've ever heard of this. Which half doesn't want to be a part of Pakistan anymore? Aside from the low-level insurgency in Baluchistan most of the country is content being together (and Baluchistan represents less than 5% of the population, and not everybody supports the insurgents)

It has'nt been that much of a unifying force so far, I mean yes they're large majority Muslim, but the Shi'a and other non-Sunni's are discriminated and attacked by the Sunni and then their's the extremists who want the country to be modelled on their draconian notions of Islam while the rest of the population are more moderate and don't support that.

Shias are only discriminated by the Taliban and other extremists. Don't forget that Jinnah was Shia, and so was the Bhutto family. Its only the Ahmadiyya community that is officially discriminated because the government believed they aren't true Muslims when they claim to be (Something to do with the fact that the Ahmadiyya believe in a Prophet after Muhammad which goes against Islam's teachings)

Not really, no, South Korea is actually similar to Japan in that it had some existing industry as a result of earlier proto-industry and industrialization while part of the Japanese Empire and are/were under the American Security Umbrella, they also have the bonuses of having a population that was basically the perfect size to do what they did, and of course one big thing to realize is that South Korea itself took decades to get to where it is, it did'nt do it over night.

Indeed. When the British left India, what is now Pakistan only had four factories in total. Pakistan did do well for itself and had lots of promise in the 60s. However somewhere along the line it all went downhill.

Saudi Arabia is theocratic Absolute Monarchy with an economy wholly based on oil which is going to result in the country collapsing in a few decades, so no.

It'd be hard to increase Saudi aid to PAkistan. They are already immensely close. there are even rumours that Pakistan bases some nuclear weapons in Saudi Aabia

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

First I've ever heard of this. Which half doesn't want to be a part of Pakistan anymore?

Bangladesh?

 

[iori]

First I've ever heard of this. Which half doesn't want to be a part of Pakistan anymore? Aside from the low-level insurgency in Baluchistan most of the country is content being together (and Baluchistan represents less than 5% of the population, and not everybody supports the insurgents)

Not half as in a literal contiguous area comprising 50% of the countries terrtiory, but half as in a large minority of the population, namely the Baluchi and Pashtuns, though yes, they don't ALL want to, but alot of them.

Shias are only discriminated by the Taliban and other extremists. Don't forget that Jinnah was Shia, and so was the Bhutto family. Its only the Ahmadiyya community that is officially discriminated because the government believed they aren't true Muslims when they claim to be (Something to do with the fact that the Ahmadiyya believe in a Prophet after Muhammad which goes against Islam's teachings)

I did'nt say official discrimination, I mean societal discrimination, which has been increasing over the years.

I don't have the link anymore (it was from a year or so ago) but I read an article detailing how the Sunni majority were becoming dicks towards the Shi'a like in most of the Sunni majority Middle Eastern countries that have Shi'a minorities.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

As a secularist, I consider many of Pakistan's problems to be inherent, they were a nation founded upon a specific religious group. Note that I'm not saying one religion is necessarily worse than another, I'm saying the "dosage" is wrong.

That's an overly-simplistic assessment of an extremely complex set of historical events.

Pakistan wasn't any more of a basket case upon independence than many of the other states gaining independence during the decolonization era, "Pakistanis" as they would come to think of themselves as certainly had more in common than say, Nigerians or Congolese, both of whom were the unfortunate victims of state-building that fit more to the views of European colonial powers than it did to the ethnic and religious makeup of the peoples there.

Pakistan's problems come from its complex ethnic makeup and major differences between the lifestyles and traditions of its peoples (how do you get a Balochi to identify with a city-slicker from Karachi), combine this with the economic strain of a somewhat perpetual mindset of needing to be in constant military readiness for war with India and well... you have the ground laid out for why Pakistan has a lot of the issues it does.

 

[TheHumblePoet]

That's an overly-simplistic assessment of an extremely complex set of historical events.

Pakistan wasn't any more of a basket case upon independence than many of the other states gaining independence during the decolonization era, "Pakistanis" as they would come to think of themselves as certainly had more in common than say, Nigerians or Congolese, both of whom were the unfortunate victims of state-building that fit more to the views of European colonial powers than it did to the ethnic and religious makeup of the peoples there.

Pakistan's problems come from its complex ethnic makeup and major differences between the lifestyles and traditions of its peoples (how do you get a Balochi to identify with a city-slicker from Karachi), combine this with the economic strain of a somewhat perpetual mindset of needing to be in constant military readiness for war with India and well... you have the ground laid out for why Pakistan has a lot of the issues it does.

The same could be said for India, which has more ethnic diversity than Pakistan itself, and it doesn't have the religious unity that Pakistan does either. Yet they've made it work.

Pakistan does have a chance to be a successful nation, yet numerous military regimes and continuous mismanagement by civilian governments has held it back greatly. Not to mention problems such as little to no taxes are ever collected (Pakistanis are one of the most charitable nations in the world, but pay no taxes), a system of feudalism still in place with all major politicians coming from feudal land-owning families (so they have an interest in not changing the system).

The first step in its history would be to solve the Kashmir issue, and second would be to allow Jinnah to live longer. The language issue with Bangladesh needs to be solved as well if it is to remain together. If I recall, Bengalis were content with being Pakistanis until the campaign of terror led by the Pakistani military, continuous denial of forming an Awami Leauge government and the fact that during the 1965 war, Pakistan left East Pakistan relatively undefended (with only a few divisions and squadrons), which left the impression that the West did not consider the East important enough to defend.

 

[Kishan]

Jinnah was Shia and the Bhutto family too? I have doubts about that statement of TheHumblePoet. Sorry if I am wrong. But persons belonging to Shia community are not likely to develop such power and influence wielded by Jinnah and the Bhuttos over Pakistan with an overwhelming Sunni majority. Will someone clear my doubts in this case? Please don't feel offended by my raising this doubt, I am asking out of curiosity. It is news to me, if it is confirmed.

 

[TheHumblePoet]

Jinnah was Shia and the Bhutto family too? I have doubts about that statement of TheHumblePoet. Sorry if I am wrong. But persons belonging to Shia community are not likely to develop such power and influence wielded by Jinnah and the Bhuttos over Pakistan with an overwhelming Sunni majority. Will someone clear my doubts in this case? Please don't feel offended by my raising this doubt, I am asking out of curiosity. It is news to me, if it is confirmed.

After Jinnah died, his sister Fatima asked the court to execute Jinnah's will under Shia Islamic law.[176] This subsequently became the part of argument in Pakistan about Jinnah's religious affiliation. Vali Nasr says Jinnah "was an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously observant man."[177] In a 1970 legal challenge, Hussain Ali Ganji Walji claimed Jinnah had converted to Sunni Islam, but the High Court rejected this claim in 1976, effectively accepting the Jinnah family as Shia.[178] Publicly, Jinnah had a non-sectarian stance and "was at pains to gather the Muslims of India under the banner of a general Muslim faith and not under a divisive sectarian identity."[176] In 1970, a Pakistani court decision stated that Jinnah's "secular Muslim faith made him neither Shia nor Sunni",[176] and in 1984 the court maintained that "the Quaid was definitely not a Shia".[176] Liaquat H. Merchant elaborates that "he was also not a Sunni, he was simply a Muslim".[176]

This was taken from Jinnah's wikipedia page. It's well-cited so no need to worry about its reliability.

And Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was Shia as well (Zulfiqar Ali, the name practicaly screams Shia ). You can do a quick google search and it will confirm my statements.


Also another important thing for a Pakistani success, avoid General Zia-ul-Haq's policy of Islamization, which sowed the seeds for much of the radicalism we see today. Avoid him altogether and Pakistan may remain a (relatively) moderate state which would help development.

 

[PhilippeO]

Pakistani problem start much sooner than Zia-ul-Haq

Several problem already started before independence :
1. dominance of 'feudal lord' in politics
2. islamic extremism (there already violence against Ahmadis and Khudai Khimatgar before independence)
3. Urdu national language debate

And Kashmiri problem started soon after independence.

There are also event in 1953 (less than 10 years after independence) that created precedent for later removal of democratic government.
1. Military deployment to take over civilian government in Lahore during Lahore riot.
2. Constitutional Coup when prime minister (Khawaja Nazimuddin) with parliamentary support removed from his office.
3. condoning of constitutional coup by Pakistani Supreme Court with 'necessity doctrine'

if this three incident is canceled, Pakistan might getting Awami government, which will be more secular, leftist and federal ?

or

Perhaps Kuomintang survival in China ? USA maintain ties to India after Sino-Indian war, so if no Sino-Indian war, India would be more in Communist camp, Pakistan might getting support to build industry during 1950-1960, become SouthKorea of South Asia.

 

[Kishan]

This was taken from Jinnah's wikipedia page. It's well-cited so no need to worry about its reliability.

And Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was Shia as well (Zulfiqar Ali, the name practicaly screams Shia ). You can do a quick google search and it will confirm my statements.

Thank you for the details provided.
I also agree to the fact that Zia-ul Haq was the person who really screwed the future of Pakistan. But his predecessors like Gen. Yahya Khan had also contributed their share to the process. Among the military and civilian rulers who ruled Pakistan, perhaps Ayub Khan was the one person who could have done some sensible thing. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was more of a megalomaniac and a populist politician than a statesman. His daughter Benazir or her opponent Nawaz Sharif were small persons with little power to challenge the men in khaki. Musharaff was a showman who just tried to impress his audience. Asif Ali Sardari, the present President, famous as Mr. Ten Percent during the tenures of his late wife, got a dying-in-harness job. Pakistan was always terribly short of leaders with a vision, who could lead the state in the right direction.