India or Pakistan

07: I am more concerned about the increasingly growing population of India. Will the resources and space of India be able to support larger population than China in a dozen years? And How does the government deal with the population issue?

Thanks

0 Replies

Unlike China, whose majority of population thrives only in costal regions, India's population density is more uniform throughout the region. Both the countries have almost the same amount of arable land, even after the wide difference in the land mass. There is a large scope of increasing the food production by increasing the productivity.

I think the only steps government should take are regarding universal literacy and heath care.

0 Replies

Yes, thanks for reminding that China and India have the same amount of arable land, 07 Smile

And about health care I've heard that the Indian government really do well.

0 Replies

Umm, sorry for offending you Question

but i dont know who else to explain the rationale of India feeding a bigger population other than arable land.

Primary heathcare and immunisation in India, as in any 3rd world country requires further investment and overhauling.

0 Replies

Thanks for the info, 07s.

0 Replies

Why apologize 07?
And yes thanks for the information Smile

0 Replies

I don't know why the Western democratic culture likes to split the other nations so much. The Parkistan and India were once a country, but just before the British leave, the British split the country into two, then the troubles began...

0 Replies

07s wrote:

Unlike China, whose majority of population thrives only in costal regions, India's population density is more uniform throughout the region. Both the countries have almost the same amount of arable land, even after the wide difference in the land mass. There is a large scope of increasing the food production by increasing the productivity.

I think the only steps government should take are regarding universal literacy and heath care.

You must know that the geographical status between the two are so different, the general Indian geography is plain, and for China is a different case. Plus the economical structures are different too.

0 Replies

DestinyX wrote:

I don't know why the Western democratic culture likes to split the other nations so much. The Parkistan and India were once a country, but just before the British leave, the British split the country into two, then the troubles began...

Previous posts illustrate why the British had to divide the land.

0 Replies

Quote:

You must know that the geographical status between the two are so different, the general Indian geography is plain, and for China is a different case. Plus the economical structures are different too.

Read the context in which it was stated.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

DestinyX wrote:
I don't know why the Western democratic culture likes to split the other nations so much. The Parkistan and India were once a country, but just before the British leave, the British split the country into two, then the troubles began...

Previous posts illustrate why the British had to divide the land.

I just doubt at the culture that's all.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

hahaha.

i don't see either side as 'the good guys'. especially under the previous Vajpayee government India has made many blunders in its relation with Pakistan (well same goes for Pakistan). Vajpayee was a nuclear physicist and pulled the whole country deeper into the whole mutual deterrence quagmire.
I hope with the current attempts to restore some resemblance of friendly relations and the upcoming (well, in 2 years) 60th anniversary of I-P partition will bring about some real progress.

Will be back with articles and links.

welcome to earth, since you evidently landed from some other planet.

vajpayee was as much a nuclear physicist as you are a chess grandmaster.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

hahaha was in response to prince.

but i don't see hindu as particularly peaceful either. hindu-muslim riots were violent on both sides (think Godhra train incident in 2002 after which more than 3,000 people were burnt to death in Gujarat, most of them muslim)

Hindu nationalism is a just as dangerous an animal as jihad. Not all Hindu are nationalist, of course, just as not all Muslims follow or wish to follow jihad.

about 100 people died in godhra - nothing compared to the hindu genocide that took place in india in about 600 years of muslim rule.

it exceeds the holocaust by a factor of 2, if not 3.

if people in india fail to keep their anger bottled up completely and omce in a blue moon hit out at the muslims - then you can hardly blame them. i am sure the odd jew (palmach, hagannah) killed a few germans.

dont equate a herring with a whale !!

its to their immense credit that events like the godhra dont occur every day but about once in 20 years.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

I don't really care if people kill for God or for other reason. Hindu - Muslim, and Hindu-Christian violence, as well as Muslim - Christian, or inter-caste conflicts are commonplace in India. In the case of Hindu-Muslim conflicts the riots peaked in 1960s, another large wave in 1990s and in 2002. Much of them was a response to the process of the Partition (certainly 60s) and the growing Hindutva (Hindu way of life, political expression of hindu nationalism) in 1990s and 2000s.

Both are a mixed bag, and particularly within India, both are equally guilty of violence and hatred towards the other.

Moreover, Pakistan does not equal Muslims, and India does not equal Hindus.

welcome again to earth.

are you a missionary of some kind or a jehovah's witness or something??

"hindu muslim riots" - took place mainly during the "partition of bengal" circa 1921, and then the division/independence of india - 1947.

what took place in 1971 was the killing and persecution of millions of hindus in east pakistan by pakistan (and approved by usa, just like they supported the genocide suharto carried out in east timor) - which led to the indian army stepping in to kick pakistan's ass resulting in the formation of the country today known as bangladesh.

partition was not in "certainly 60ies" but in 1947.

the "both are equally guilty of violence to each other" holds only if you "convert" - if the life of one muslim is equal to that of 100,000 hindus, then its equal.

else muslims have killed about 100,000 more hindus than hindu's have killed muslims for invading their country and persecuting them.

pakistan does not equal muslims - but has clearly ststed laws that prevents a non muslim form holding the lowest elected chair, let alone become the premier of the country.

meanwhile india as i write this post, has a muslim president and a sikh prime minister, and in the past has also has had a zorastrian prime minister and sikh and muslim presidents. lesser elected positions are very commonly held by non-hindus.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But at the time of Partition hundreds of thousands of Muslims were driven out of India by the Hindus, right? Many more than vice versa (Hindus driven out of now-Pakistan and Bangladesh)?

no muslims werent thrown out of india - which is why they continue to live in india and india has the world's second highest muslim population.

the opposite is true though - there hardly are any hindus left in pakistan and bangladesh - most were forced to move into india, leaving all their possesions behind, save perhaps the shirt on their back. since indepencence, the hindu population has gone down dramatically both in pakistan and bangladesh, in the last 50 (and 30) years - i suppose they were persecuted - sometimimes killed (in millions during the creation of bangladesh) and sometimes forcibly converted.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

No, I don't think that's a fair characterization.

The lines were drawn by the Brits at the insistence of the leaders of the Muslim and Hindu people. The huge migration was out of fear of both religions.

The Muslims couldn't bear to live with the 'idolatrous' Hindus, and the Hindus had come to fear and hate the Muslims, as well.

Mutual.

various parts of india was under muslim rulers for 600 years+.

when it became imminent that india would get her independence (and no matter what people say the real reason for india's independence is this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm ), the muslims realised that in a democratic country they would not enjoy the sort of previledges (not would anyone else) that they did under muslim rulers - and so they demamded for a chunk of india to call their own - where muslims could live as the boss, with or without democracy.

the english gave in to their demand - what have they got to lose if the 6000 year old country called india got divided ???

mutual yes - between the english and the muslims - they joined hands to carve out pieces of india.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Do the results have to be equal, dag?

And, 07s-- Are you currently in India? If you have current information, I have a few questions. India is said to be making gains with the US outsourcing of technology jobs, and due to India investing in communications infrastructure.

How would you characterize India's economy and employment?

Do you see the improvements we're hearing about?

Is there a tangible improvement?

Always wondered why India seems to produce such technologically-gifted people.

Do you have any opinions or information regarding any of this? Have any ideas why Western schools fail so miserably, while India's (among others) excel?

Thanks.

can i take the liberty of hazarding a few answers (notice not guesses) ??

india is gaining with the usa outsourcing jobs yes. usa/ us companies are saving a lot of money though - in the same way american companies save a lot of money by getting blue collar workers in south east asia to work in sweat shops. of course, the tech jobs are white collar jobs, with decent pay and not done in sweat shops but in regular offfices. the only guy at the losing end of the whole outsourcing move is the american guy who's job is send to india.

how do i characterise india's economy and do i see improvements ??

- world 2nd fastest growing economy, fourth largest in size. by 2010, india will overtake china to become the world's fastest growing economy. the only economy in the world that theoritically has a chance of growing a more than 5% year after year till the year 2050 - by which time it will be the 3rd biggest if not the 2nd biggest economy of the world, with a "middle class" (basic house, food, shelter, clothing, schooling, medicine, personal vehicle) about twice as big as population of usa today !!

tangible improvement? yes, in the lives of the middle class. india is a service sector economy, through and thorough. if you are qualified in india, a plush life is yours for the taking. if you are blue collar, religion may come in handy. if you are business class or extremely capable (top doctor, scientist, lawyer, ceo) than you live with the standards of your japaneese or western counterparts.

always wandered ?- keep wondering. we are called "people of the book" -
this link may help uyou understand why math/science/technical stuff is not just in our blood but genes as well - http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_mathematics.html

i dont know whether western schools fail miserably or not but i do know indiand suceed brilliantly in the west - so much so that they are the most qualified and the highest earning community in usa.

silicon valleey is 1/3rd indian as are nasa scientists. you could try going to the website of the science/math dept. of any which top college in usa - and will find more than its fair share of indians. we produce as many engineers as afghanistan produces jehadis and then some.

the computer you use most likely runs on a pentium - invented by an indian called Vinod Dham, at intel corp.

have a nice day.

0 Replies

07s wrote:

Umm, sorry for offending you but i dont know who else to explain the rationale of India feeding a bigger population other than arable land.

now that you mentioned arable land - india has some of the world's most fertile land and is a food surplus country.

they lost a very fertile piece of land, wehn they had to part with pakistan.
and in bangladesh, they lost THE MOST FIRTILE PIECE OF LAND IN THE WORLD. no land is more fertile. bangladesh can produce 3 crops a year - and theoritically can support the world's highest population density.

india is the highest/2nd highest/3rd highest producer of a lot of agricultural stuff - wheat, milk, cotton, rice many others.

how ever their yields are pathetic compared to western countries - despite having such fertile lands !!

in 10-15 yrs time, when india becomes more affluent and more developed / advanced, they will also be able to afford hi-tech farming techniques like in the west - and their yield/hectare will become comparable/better than in western countries.

the population will not be a problem at all - food wise that is.

other problems like education and infrastructure need to be sorted out though.

0 Replies

Quote:

Posted by Brahmin
since indepencence, the hindu population has gone down dramatically both in pakistan and bangladesh, in the last 50 (and 30) years - i suppose they were persecuted - sometimimes killed (in millions during the creation of bangladesh) and sometimes forcibly converted.

Not true. Since independence, the Hindu population of West Pakistan (modern day Pakistan) has greatly flourished, so much so that the Hindu growth in modern Pakistan is one and a half times that of the Muslim growth rate.

As for partition, there was rioting on both sides and many Hindus and Muslims were killed. However, the figures suggest more Muslims were killed than Hindus during partition.

0 Replies

Here is some data i've found on partition between India and Pakistan in 1947. Prior to 1941 the Muslim population was increasing steadily compared to the Hindu population for 100 years. The between 1941 and 1951, the subcontinent's Hindu population increased much more than the Muslim population. This can only have occurred if more Muslims had been killed off during this period when partition occurred (there was a famine in 1943 but this can be considered as non-selective for Hindus and Muslims).

1941
%age Hindu = 69.5 %
%age Muslim = 24.3 %

1951
%age Hindu = 73.5 %
%age Muslim = 23.6 %

0 Replies

India or Pakistan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know