Bill clinton says India and Pakistan could overtake China economically if ...

[roma]

India, Pak could overtake China: Bill Clinton
Former US president Bill Clinton has said that India has to try to make progress with Pakistan. Clinton said that if India and Pakistan were to work together, they could overtake even China in 21st century in terms of growth.

Clinton, who US President Barack Obama once considered appointing US special envoy on Kashmir - an idea swiftly shot down by India, says in order to become a global super power, India must make progress with Pakistan first.

"If you did not have to raise defence spending 20 per cent a year and these countries could be working together, I think you will grow faster than China," said Clinton.

The former US president, who played a role in ending Pakistan's occupation of Kargil heights in 1999, has voiced a hard reality - that decades of rivalry have prevented both India and Pakistan from realising their full economic and geopolitical potential.

While Clinton's vision of a peaceful subcontinent is not very different from that of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who said in Parliament last year that India and Pakistan's destinies are interlinked, mapping the pathway for peace continues to be elusive.

 

[tarunraju]

And that's pretty much what both China and the US don't want, which is why we're being drifted further away using exclusive military deals, aid, etc.,etc.

 

[Martian]

""If you did not have to raise defence spending 20 per cent a year and these countries could be working together, I think you will grow faster than China," said Clinton.

The former US president, who played a role in ending Pakistan's occupation of Kargil heights in 1999, has voiced a hard reality - that decades of rivalry have prevented both India and Pakistan from realising their full economic and geopolitical potential."

Clinton is right on target. The mutual suspicions, arms race, lack of strong trade relationships, and lack of technological sharing/exchange has significantly held back the Pakistani and Indian economies. Unless things change, the handicap for both countries will continue into the future.

I couldn't understand why India wasn't outgrowing China. Economic theory states that the lower your economic base, the easier it is to grow. The answer was Indian-Pakistani lack of cooperation.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

someone remind bill clinton India and Pakistan are two separate nations, to count both of them together is silly,what can pakistan do with india to help india reach this position? i don't see much except stopping terror but even that won't make much difference in GDP
terms.

 

[Martian]

I may be wrong, but I think Bill Clinton is thinking along the lines of a China-Taiwan relationship. China and Taiwan didn't like each other for a long time, but that didn't stop them from developing tighter business relationships. Perhaps Pakistan and India can do something similar to make both economies boom.

 

[johnee]

I may be wrong, but I think Bill Clinton is thinking along the lines of a China-Taiwan relationship. China and Taiwan didn't like each other for a long time, but that didn't stop them from developing tighter business relationships. Perhaps Pakistan and India can do something similar to make both economies boom.

Taiwan does not finance and fund terrorism in China.

Let us all remind ourselves that Pakistan is essentially a terrorist nation and nothing more. There is not one field where Pakistan can help India. India gains nothing with Pakistan's friendship and India is not affected by Pakistan's enemity.
The problem for India and to the world at large is that Pakistan uses terrorism as a state policy, making it nothing more than Al Queda and other terrorist groups that operate from Pakistani land. If someone says that US could become even more powerful if it makes friendship with Osama, wouldnt it be laugable? Bill Clinton's suggestion is similarly laughable.

There are several victims of Pakistani sponsored terrorism. India and Afghanistan are at the top of this list. Western war on terror is very recent compared to the brutal terrorist assualt(sponsored by Pakistani Army) that India and Afghanistan have had to contend with. It is a cruel joke, if someone sermons us about being friends with Pakistan. Bill Clinton should know better!!

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

People who have reached highest position in their political career feel the vacuum when they retire from that position. So they always try to do or say something to stay in lime light. Bill Clinton is doing the same.

Bill Clinton played a role in ending Pakistan’s occupation in Kargil. Yes this is true. But the question is when he had done that? It is only after India had stated its military operation. The then US President thought of intervening only when the military operation was in its last phase. So US is a well wisher of India by compulsion and not by choice.

India and Pakistan are two separate countries. You can not equate the relationship of India and Pakistan with that of China and Taiwan. US is neither a well wisher of India nor Pakistan.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I may be wrong, but I think Bill Clinton is thinking along the lines of a China-Taiwan relationship. China and Taiwan didn't like each other for a long time, but that didn't stop them from developing tighter business relationships. Perhaps Pakistan and India can do something similar to make both economies boom.

If Bill Clinton is so serious about this why dosen't he back a proposal made a few years ago of everyone in the Indian subcontinent sharing one single currency, this was vehemently opposed by pakistan if they this farcical proposal should be considered at all something like this should be done first, and it would fit into the current trend of many regions developing their own currency and moving away from the dollar.

 

[amitkriit]

First thing there is no rivalry between India qnd Pakistan, Pakistan is not worthy enough to be tagged as India's rival, its China.

Second we are better off without Pakistan, otherwise we could not progress as an open society and a liberal democracy.

Third an EU style confederation is possible and good for the whole SA region that will include all other SAARC members. But USA and China will try to prevent it from happening as it doesn't serve their purpose in this region.

 

[ppgj]

seems like USA is planning an envoy for india- pakistan(read J&K). these are familiar noises to create a ground for that. even mirwaiz omar farooq of the hurriyat has alluded to it.

 

[S.A.T.A]

The former US president is both right and wrong in his assessment.Let's see what he is wrong about.India's defence expenditure is neither high nor disproportionate to its economic size and hypothetically speaking a warm relations with Pakistan could not have made any serious dent on Indian current defense expenditure(under 3% of the Net GDP) which is consumerate to its geostrategic compulsions of an emerging regional power and the ever present China threat.

If anything i'm of the belief that any positive economic health as result of the Indo-Pak peace dividend would have provided further incentive for India to invest on its defence infrastructure.

However Bill Clinton is indeed right that Indo-Pak tension has had a serious fallout on each countries ability to achieve their full economic potential,more so with Pakistan(lets also include B'desh).You have remember that the Indo-gangetic plain has always been a single logical economic unit,whether they existed under single central imperial unit or a fragmented units.What the partition and subsequent political stalemates did was not just brick wall national boundaries,but they also interrupted productive economic interaction between geo-economic units that had been established over millennia and created nonviable and less than fully productive economic entities(esp the former united Pakistan)

For India this resulted in loss of economic interaction with the fertile and populated Indus basin,but also its natural corridor to the strategically important regions of Central Eurasia.For Pakistan(also Bangladesh)this was even more bad,these regions lost the primary natural market,the vast and populous Gangetic basin,for their goods and services,which for centuries sustained these regions.Pakistan,whether one likes to see it that way or or not,is today economically locked,cutoff from its natural market in the east.

On another thread there was discussion about reunification of the now separate Indian political units,but political union will mean lot of hard work,they can make an excellent beginning by undoing the disastrous effect of the economic partition of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Martian]

"If anything i'm of the belief that any positive economic health as result of the Indo-Pak peace dividend would have provided further incentive for India to invest on its defence infrastructure."

Are you saying that India's defense budget wouldn't change in a rapprochement between Pakistan and India? Any saved money would have been spent on the military anyway to deal with China? This would imply that India needs a simultaneous detente with both Pakistan and China.

"For India this resulted in loss of economic interaction with the fertile and populated Indus basin,but also its natural corridor to the strategically important regions of Central Eurasia."

I've been puzzled by China's higher economic growth rate compared to India's. Economic theory states that India's lower economic base (i.e. GDP) should make it easier for India to grow at a higher rate; yet, this has not been true for thirty years. However, if India is cut off from Central Eurasia and Russia then it makes sense that India's economic growth has been stunted.