I have been conducting a panel discussion – Indo-Pak Dialogue featuring Indian guests, alongside the renowned Professor Emeritus of Political Science and author Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed, on my show Talking Politics for over six months. Most of our guests have ancestral roots in pre-Partition Punjab and share poignant stories of how their families were forced to leave their homes during the riots. Some have since visited Pakistan; others recall memories passed down from their parents’ childhoods. Our esteemed guests have consistently expressed goodwill towards Pakistan, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of their sentiments.
Our guests often ask why Pakistan lags behind in economic development, especially in contrast to the substantial gains India has made over the past two decades. A sense of national pride is evident in their reflections – and perhaps rightly so. However, when they comment on Pakistan’s political system, national institutions, social welfare, or broader societal trends, it becomes clear that their understanding of Pakistan is largely shaped by Indian publications or portrayals in the Indian media.
For instance, there exists a common perception – perhaps even a prevailing belief in India – that Pakistan is steeped in religiosity and plagued by hunger. While elements of these issues may be observable, the reality is far more nuanced. Often, comparisons between the two nations’ economic trajectories are accompanied by an almost didactic tone – a tendency to lecture Pakistan on how to reform. Perhaps this stems from a lingering emotional attachment to the land of their forefathers – or, in some instances, a subtle air of condescension.
Yet, time and again, they reveal a striking lack of understanding of Pakistan’s ground realities.
It is indeed easy to compare India and Pakistan in economic terms today. India’s economy has performed impressively over the past decade, while Pakistan’s has faltered – teetering on the brink of collapse over the last three years – creating a stark disparity between the two. To understand the roots of this divergence, three historical junctures are essential: the demographic landscape at independence in 1947, the liberalisation of the Indian economy in 1991, and the impact of 9/11 on both countries.
This, I believe, may help our Indian friends develop a more informed understanding of Pakistan.
In 1947, India’s urban population stood at 18%, while estimates suggest that Pakistan’s was around 6%. Of the four provinces in West Pakistan, two – Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the North-West Frontier Province or NWFP) – were predominantly tribal, while Sindh and Punjab remained largely feudal. Under British rule, these regions were governed through feudal lords, Nawabs, Khans, and Sardars. As a result, state institutions such as the police and judiciary operated under the sway of these local chieftains, who exercised near-absolute authority within their domains.
Pakistan was burdened with the perpetual demand to “do more”: to make greater sacrifices, to endure escalating drone strikes on its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan
At its inception, Pakistan was economically destitute. The Indian government initially withheld Pakistan’s share of financial assets inherited from the British Raj. Mahatma Gandhi, then a leading figure in the Indian National Congress, took up this matter with his government – a moral stance that ultimately cost him his life.
Thus began Pakistan’s journey: with empty coffers and a hostile neighbour that resented – and perhaps still resents – its very existence.
With Kashmir as the central issue-defining bilateral relations – having led to four wars, ostensibly initiated by Pakistan – the matter of a plebiscite has languished in the vaults of an impotent United Nations since 1948. For India, it is a historical relic – irrelevant and buried. Yet it could not have been so easily dismissed; Article 370 would not have been abrogated had the United States not forged a strategic partnership with India in 2004, built on the rhetoric of “shared values” – presumably democracy – and converging geopolitical interests, with China as the evident target.
This partnership emerged shortly after 9/11, at a time when Pakistan had positioned itself as a frontline ally of the United States in the War on Terror. Ironically, the United States would later accuse Pakistan of duplicity – of playing a double game – all the while itself running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Washington gave India ample space for economic growth, encouraged its multinationals to invest heavily, and opened American universities to Indian students with generous scholarships.
Meanwhile, Pakistan was burdened with the perpetual demand to “do more”: to make greater sacrifices, to endure escalating drone strikes on its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, and to constantly adapt to shifting American expectations.
Yet, no matter how much Pakistan did, it was never enough.
When Pakistan hesitated to take harsher measures in Afghanistan – aiming instead to safeguard its national interests – economic pressure was swiftly applied. Afghanistan was turned into a hostile neighbour. It was during this time that India was granted a clear path to prosperity, while Pakistan’s economic woes deepened, particularly after General Musharraf’s resignation in 2008. India entrenched itself along the Pakistani border in Afghanistan – capitalising on its strategic partnership with the United States and exploiting Pakistan’s growing vulnerabilities.
As for those who undermined Pakistan from within – that is a story for another time.
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was initiated in 2014, followed by a landmark visit by the Chinese President to Pakistan in 2015. Pakistan embraced this moment as a ‘game changer’ – a potential route to economic revival and independence from American influence. Yet the groundwork to undermine this initiative had already been laid. India’s influence in Afghanistan was entrenched, and the United States maintained control of Kabul. Their geopolitical interests converged: both sought to thwart CPEC. For Washington, it was a matter of curbing Chinese expansion and denying Beijing access to Gwadar. For India, it was simply intolerable for Pakistan to benefit economically or strategically.
It was around this time that Baloch nationalism surged – and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) came into action.
When you are a strategic partner of the United States against China, the global media will buy your narrative wholesale
Amidst all this, several terror incidents occurred in India, including the attacks on the Indian Parliament and the Mumbai Taj Mahal Hotel. Those who accuse Pakistan of masterminding these events must ask themselves: what conceivable benefit could Pakistan gain? Are we to believe that Pakistanis are so naïve as to think such actions would advance the cause of Kashmir? Does such logic hold up?
As for the involvement of Pakistani nationals in these attacks – anyone versed in intelligence operations knows how vulnerable individuals holding Pakistani identification can be co-opted, particularly by an agency like RAW.
And so the narrative is born: Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorism.
When you are a strategic partner of the United States against China, the global media will buy your narrative wholesale. That is precisely what happened. India rises. India shines. And India plays its part – gladly dirtying its hands in service of strategic masters. Play your role well, and you are rewarded: the revocation of Article 370, another Pulwama incident, an endless cycle of 'jihadi' rhetoric – while the West clamours for cheap labour and a vast consumer market.
But facts are stubborn things. They do not change to suit narratives – nor do they flatter.
The liberalisation of the Indian economy in 1991 was undoubtedly a wise move, pulling the country back from the brink. Conversely, Pakistan’s political leadership under Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto wreaked havoc on the political system and national institutions. The Pakistan of the 1980s – relatively stable, competent, and confident – suffered immense setbacks during the 1990s. For Indian friends and our own younger generation, it is worth recalling that under Ziaul Haq’s Islamic regime, Pakistan led in cricket, hockey, and squash; it produced distinguished poets, writers, films, and television dramas; its universities turned out high-quality graduates; its defence was robust, and it was making respectable economic strides.
The downward spiral began in the 1990s with so-called democratic leaders. This trend was arrested briefly under General Musharraf, particularly in the early post-9/11 period. The rest of that history, I have already outlined.
So, when comparing today’s India and Pakistan, do keep this history in mind. Pakistan’s economy will recover – once it recalibrates its geopolitical priorities. Indians need not concern themselves with this. What they should reflect upon, however, is their attitude. Nations possess collective memories. The way you treat Pakistan today will not be forgotten. Even as we continue to seek peace with our neighbours, our friends do not hesitate to say, “India doesn’t need Pakistan” – that’s how you think, that’s how you speak! Nevertheless, we still believe in peace, as we know the cost of conflicts better, especially with nukes in both hands, while you do not stop striking in KP and Baluchistan. And, we have seen you celebrating our wounds and woes!
The history being written today will be remembered tomorrow – tread carefully.