[HN Gopher] India and Pakistan are choking on each other's pollu...
___________________________________________________________________
India and Pakistan are choking on each other's pollution
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-02-14 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| samstave wrote:
| Its really sad when people in power are idiots, or malicious
| idiots that think they are smart.
|
| Pakistan, IMO sucks (not defending India) -> My family has a long
| history in the State Department and my Uncle was a diplomat in
| Karachi for many, many years - and I managed a team out of
| Karachi, and had a Pakistani CEO founder at the startup in the
| states...
|
| I was asked to go to Karachi a couple times and I refused. I
| loved my team there, but our internet was regularly taken out
| because it was via roof-based dishes, that regularly got shot at
| to take them out.
|
| My uncle was driven directly from the embassy to his residence
| daily in an armoured car, and basically never left either his
| residence or embassy for _years_
|
| The pakistani CEO became a religious zealot IMAM or something and
| moved back to Pakistan, to become some holy person over there....
| even though he was sleeping with the marketing head of his
| company and cheating on his wife and newborn kids...
|
| but tried to maintain some sort of holy image.
|
| --
|
| As for India. (ever Indian peer I had was great. Every Indian
| manager I had sucked.)
|
| The CTO at the division of lockheed was really connected in India
| and had a collection of Lamborghinis and other really expensive
| cars (like 20 of them) -- we wound up having to walk him out of
| the office with security due to him both not doing a damn thing,
| and lying about his qualifications.
|
| The lady who sat next to me at FB was the daughter of an Indian
| PM -- and was the most materialistic braggart I have ever had to
| endure...
|
| In conclusion, every country has douchebags. It just sucks that
| when Pakistani or Indian professionals get power, it has been my
| consistent experience that they abuse it.
| chewz wrote:
| Anus mundi
| alephnerd wrote:
| It's a farming issue like everything else. As I've mentioned
| before in a couple previous HN comments, most farmers in North
| India and Pakistan know stubble burning is bad, but no government
| agency or NGO steps in to buy Rotavators for farmers, so the
| cycle continues.
| pphysch wrote:
| A magazine owned by European old-money families fanning the
| flames between two foreign countries they formerly colonized.
| Just an innocent story, I suppose.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Let's let Desi old money families like the Goenkas (Zee),
| Adanis (NDTV), Badals (PTC), Ambanis (News18, Firstpost), etc.
| write stories instead. They've never fanned flames. /s
| pphysch wrote:
| If partisan Indian or Pakistani media reports like this, it's
| just another day in the office. It's obvious what the biases
| are, no one is misled. Not that I condone it.
|
| When it comes from ultra-wealthy foreign families that
| benefit from the ongoing brain-drain and economic
| exploitation of those countries (which is directly benefited
| by foreign and domestic political disunity), this puts it on
| another level of insidious misinformation.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Would you argue that pollution problem isn't real in India and
| Pakistan? Or that they're poor journalists because they have a
| colonialist mindset?
| pphysch wrote:
| It's not about the facts, it's about the framing and
| omissions. They frame it as a "pollution war" and even use
| the phrase "countries that hate each other" in the lede. This
| is "FBI Statistics" level of hate-baiting. It's not
| journalism.
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Which part is false?
| BeetleB wrote:
| Which part of his comment claimed anything was false?
| pphysch wrote:
| Please read at least the first sentence of a comment
| before replying to it. Preferably all of it, though.
| mikymoothrowa wrote:
| The title, if it's not clear to you already.
|
| It makes it sound like there's a pollution warfare even
| though the article makes no justifications on how these
| countries are choking on each other's pollution rather
| than their own. The article also talks about Nepal and
| Bhutan but the title has only Ind/Pak
|
| it's hard not to associate a nefarious reason especially
| because it is the economist
|
| should have simply been "South Asia is choking in its
| pollution"
| wobbly_bush wrote:
| This is a low-effort article trying to use politics as a click-
| bait title.
|
| >India is trying to follow this example in and around Delhi. In
| 2021 it launched a pollution-control agency, called the
| Commission for Air Quality Management (caqm), with responsibility
| for a 55,000-square-km area, encompassing the capital and parts
| of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh...Though many have
| criticised the CAQM's pace of progress, the early results are
| promising.
|
| That's about the only news in the article.
|
| >South Asia's filthy air
|
| This is the tag associated with the article. When will these
| haughty sounding articles end, and when some article is written
| there is more substance to it. There isn't even an author
| attached to this article. This is one of the reasons these
| western publications have very low readability and confidence in
| non-western countries even though they do well in western
| countries (where quality of articles are much better).
| telchior wrote:
| Criticisms aside, not having an author byline is an intentional
| thing the Economist has done since its founding. The article
| tag that you're correctly pointing out is haughty is also
| standard for them; they're haughty about everything, not just
| foreign countries.
| alephnerd wrote:
| I don't see anything that's triggering. It's just a summary of
| a World Bank report (which btw is HEAVILY staffed with Indian
| and Pakistani nationals - big reason there are so many South
| Asian restaurants on K street, so don't pull the economic
| nationalism card on me).
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| I wish Kashmir would get resolved so we could get on with our
| lives. Literally there would be no reason for all the hate /
| hate-mongering if not for Kashmir.
|
| Which co-incidentally would mean that the powers that be in those
| nations would lose a lot of their raison d'etre, so maybe that's
| why that's not happening. :)
| r00fus wrote:
| If it weren't Kashmir, it'd be some other border province. As
| you said, it's the politicians and the political (possibly
| geopolitical) structure that results in this.
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| I doubt it, I mean, what would they fight over, Junagadh? Who
| even cares about that?
|
| Kashmir matters because of its resources / Muslims / Hindus.
| Jenepas wrote:
| [dead]
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| I wonder what India would look like without Pakistan constantly
| pestering them. Would they be more democratic without an
| existential, aggressive border threat? Would they be less united
| and collapse? Sure seems like a loose confederation. Maybe they'd
| have the same problems, just towards China.
|
| I'm not saying that Pakistan shouldn't exist, just that the
| entire game of Pakistani politics seems to be one-upping each
| other on who can hate their neighbor more.
|
| Geography really is destiny.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| I don't think Pakistan cares much about India except in the
| case of Kashmir.
|
| Reverse question, what Pakistan would look like without India
| constantly pestering them?
| newyankee wrote:
| The entire existence of Pakistan depends on being a strong
| Islamic entity in South Asia and selling their Nuclear
| Weapons as being the defender of Islamic Ummah. It is a
| different issue that all these factors have been exploited by
| the all powerful Army , extremists and other vocal actors
| leaving very less modern, practical voices in the country.
| lab14 wrote:
| Pakistan is selling nuclear weapons? Can you provide any
| support for this claim?
| alephnerd wrote:
| * was selling. This isn't happening anymore
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Prolifera
| tio...
| hef19898 wrote:
| That is far from selling actual _warheads_ , isn't it?
| And the history of nuclear prolifiration is long and
| complicated.
| alephnerd wrote:
| yep! pretty much, but selling the supply chain and specs
| themselves is almost as bad. It took PK almost 30 years
| with PRC information transfer to build the Islamic bomb,
| but 10 for NK thanks to Khan Labs.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And how many new nuclear powers are there since North
| Korea? I can not think of any.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Libya and Syria both contracted with Khan Labs before the
| whistle was blown in 2003.
|
| Iran is almost one.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Neither Libya nor Syria have them, do they? And Iran was
| close, but the treaty (the one the last US admin tore
| appart) stopped them for the time being.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Libya does not due to sanctions and diplomacy in 2003 -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
|
| Syria does not due to Israeli airstrikes in 2007 and
| sanctions until the Civil War began -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box
|
| Iran has started building again -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/world/middleeast/iran-
| mis...
|
| None of what you are saying even contravenes my larger
| point though
| russh wrote:
| >> selling their Nuclear Weapons as being the defender of
| Islamic Ummah
|
| They are selling the _idea_ that their nuclear weapons
| are the defender...
| asadlionpk wrote:
| Which is not wrong actually. Pakistan could have been the
| next US war if PK didn't have Nuclear.
| hef19898 wrote:
| To whom exactly did Pakistan export nuclear weapons tech
| again?
|
| Edit: They sold centrifuges to North Korea. Which is not an
| islamic country as far as I know...
| [deleted]
| fooker wrote:
| Allegedly North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I am reasonably certain it is the opposite. Saudi Arabia
| funded Pakistani science to make sure they developed
| nuclear weapons.
|
| Saudi Arabia has no need to develop nuclear weapons or
| posses them as a result. They can just ask Pakistan for
| them at a moments notice if they actually need to.
| fooker wrote:
| Sure, think of it as buying call options instead of
| shares from the Saudis POV.
| fooker wrote:
| Compare how often Pakistan is mention in r/India and how
| often India is mentioned in r/Pakistan.
| manquer wrote:
| Reddit is really poor sample of how average person or
| decision makers think in these two countries.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Neither subreddits are realistic snapshots of South Asian
| social media. Most South Asians use FB+Whatsapp with a
| smattering of Twitter.
| yumraj wrote:
| The biggest beneficiary of India's partition was China.
|
| Without India's partition, assuming that the Muslim population
| that wanted a separate Islamic nation was willing to live
| peacefully, China may not have had the guts to gobble Tibet,
| there would have been no friend of China on the other side of
| India to contain it and population of India + Pakistan +
| Bangladesh would have surpassed China long time ago.
|
| So, yes, India and the world would have looked a lot different.
|
| But, that's not the reality today, so no reason to ponder over
| it I guess.
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| Yup my relatively liberal Pakistani friends used to ponder
| that a lot... until Modi came and suddenly they were really
| glad for Pakistan. :)
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| And then they elected Imran Khan.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| What's wrong with Imran Khan?
| Jenepas wrote:
| [dead]
| Jenepas wrote:
| [dead]
| OmegaPG wrote:
| Pakistan was created for political reasons to keep India busy
| and to make sure USSR don't get such huge country as its ally.
|
| It is now 75 years and Pakistan is still used by USA, Russia,
| China, UK and even smaller countries like Sri Lanka to keep
| India occupied.
|
| Pakistan never should had existed.
|
| It was created with a great human tragedy, it will go down with
| a great human tragedy.
|
| Pakistan with 250 million population is out of money, power,
| oil, fertilizer and even food and water because they are
| spending 1/3rd of their money maintaining their army.
| adharmad wrote:
| I wonder how long it will take for the people of Pakistan to
| realize that POK is a money sink and their money could be
| used much more effectively to develop their own country.
|
| The terrorist organizations that are fostered by their
| military establishment are simply turning on Pakistan and
| attacking them.
| OmegaPG wrote:
| That time was 2010. That ship has sailed.
|
| Pakistan has to pay 2-3 billion USD in next few weeks or
| else they will default.
|
| They have to pay 8-10B USD this year or they will default.
|
| They have to pay 70-80B USD in next 5 years or they will
| default.
|
| Pakistan right now has 2 billion dollars in their forex
| that too because Saudi gave them 3 billion USD some time
| back.
|
| Pakistan can collapse in just few months like Sri Lanka.
| time_to_smile wrote:
| > Geography really is destiny.
|
| While I generally agree with the importance of geography I
| think this is glossing over a _major_ part of the history of
| India and Pakistan.
|
| The partition of India [0] by the British upon their exit from
| the region should be understood as a major tragedy in human
| history and very much lead to increased instability in the
| region.
|
| Writing this off as "mere geography" is to miss the major and
| well documented impact of British colonialism on today's
| political climate in the region.
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
| dartharva wrote:
| Pakistan is not an existential threat, but more of a hot
| political talking point in India, and vice versa in Pakistan
| for India. Had Pakistan not been an issue, India's politicians
| would have invented another populist topic to distract people
| with. Vice versa for Pakistan.
|
| It's possible it would get worse without Pakistan, because then
| the artificial boogeyman could be something inside the country,
| capable of creating pandemonium that can reach the country's
| sovereignty. But that's just a random speculation.
| winter_blue wrote:
| > would have invented another populist topic to distract
| people with
|
| Probably China. A far more dangerous sparring partner likely,
| considering China's generalized over-aggressiveness even at
| minor perceived offenses.
| r00fus wrote:
| China and India have plenty of contention points. They
| fought a war in 1962 and have ongoing border disputes to
| this day.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| ...and are conducting genocides to their minorities.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Pakistan unites India as much as India unites Pakistan.
|
| But in recent years, India is less relevant to Pakistan as
| the country has tried to fend off post Afghanistan war
| terror. On this subject, the country is divided either in
| favor of taliban or in support of western powers.
|
| Without Pakistan, India has more factions within its borders
| that they would be fighting amongst themselves.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| I dont think India ever got that much airtime in Pakistan
| (even before 911). When comparing to the level of media
| coverage India's foxnews-equivalent does on PK (it's
| hilarious, and pretty popular meme in Pak)
| yumraj wrote:
| > Pakistan is not an existential threat,
|
| So, a nuclear power, effectively ruled by military junta and
| full of religious fanatics is not an existential threat. In
| that case, I don't know what it.
|
| I guess North Korea is not an existential threat to South
| Korea (instead of religious it's the communist ideologues)
| and China is not an existential threat for Taiwan (CCP
| ideologues).
| nashashmi wrote:
| Your comment is racist and inappropriate for HN.
| pkd wrote:
| India also has nuclear weapons, unlike South Korea and
| Taiwan, so there is a strong deterrence effect.
| yumraj wrote:
| Deterrence yes.
|
| But, it all depends on whose finger is on the button and
| whether they are rational or simply driven by an ideology
| of hate.
|
| If and when the finger changes, all bets are off.
| barelysapient wrote:
| Sure, if the handful of people who control such weapons
| act rationally. Of course, 'acting rationally' isn't
| exactly something humans are known for... Especially when
| faced with adverse social pressures or fanatical
| religious adherence.
| dartharva wrote:
| India has full confidence in the incompetence of its cute
| little neighbour. Look at that country's condition right
| now, it is on its knees with a crippled economy and
| dysfunctional administration.
|
| How can a country that has consistently shown itself to not
| be capable of even regular state governance be an
| existential threat? Just because it got nuclear tech in the
| cold war? Lol give me a break.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| That's exactly what an existential threat looks like -
| desperate for an external enemy to blame. Consider Putin,
| Hitler, etc - when things are properly screwed, the
| easiest thing for a leader to do is blame then annihilate
| their neighbors.
|
| Nuclear weapons mean that poor troop training means
| nothing. Trucking a bomb into New Delhi has never been
| difficult.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I think you can manage a less reductive analysis the
| considers the possibility that militancy is rooted at least
| partly in legitimate grievances rather than mental illness.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So, a nuclear power ruled by populists hating your guts
| because of religion is no existential threat? That is, to a
| degree, a reasonable stance to take for Pakistan. In this
| particular conflict both sides suck.
| newyankee wrote:
| India is finally growing out of thinking too much about
| Pakistan and other threats most of the time and focusing on
| growing and at least trying to catch up a bit with China in the
| future in some respects. Although being a democracy that is
| difficult to achieve.
| rajman187 wrote:
| I've noticed that Indian news media is far more interested in
| covering Pakistan than the other way around. Indeed, I'd wonder
| what Pakistan would look like without India constantly
| pestering them, e.g. reducing flow of critical river paths from
| Indian Panjab that supplies much of the agricultural needs)
| alephnerd wrote:
| Depends on the media. If you read general mass media like
| OpIndia, Zee, or NDTV that's true, but if you read media
| aimed at policymakers (ThePrint, ORF, or Himal for example)
| it's 70-30 China-PK. Same in PK as well - in vernacular media
| like Ary or Geo it's all Amreeki/Yahudi/Hindu Sazish but
| English media which policymakers read is more prosaic. I
| guess the difference is, English has increasingly become a
| vernacular language in Indian discource, but not yet in PK.
| pkd wrote:
| I'm not sure that's a great example. The Indus water treaty
| has been respected by India despite all the wars and tensions
| with Pakistan over the decades. Only in the last month is it
| that it has been brought into question.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| India was an empire from Pakistan to Burma which was
| partitioned because the British wanted to weaken it and divide
| it. That caused a huge amount of problems, like Kashmir,
| Bangladesh.. If you read about the history of British perfidy
| in Bengal, its actually pretty horrifying. Yes India was once
| very rich and capable, before it was reduced to penury.
| hef19898 wrote:
| You really think, that Hindus and Moslems would have lived
| peacefully this whole time without British India being split
| apart? Honestly, I think a civil war between those groups
| would have been equally as likely as peaceful co-existance.
|
| Anyway, that is pure speculation, isn't it?
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Well, India has 200million Muslims.
|
| No civil war yet.
|
| There have been altercations between Hindus and Muslims.
| There's no reason to believe it would be significantly
| worse if you doubled the number of Muslims in India,
| especially when you consider that a lot of the Hindu-Muslim
| divisions were sown as a result of partition itself, which
| was an incredibly divisive and bloody affair.
|
| Further, a larger Muslim population would also have reduced
| political power of the Hindu fascists as well and lack of
| funding through Pakistan and increased Democratic power
| would have led to less political disaffection in the
| extremist Muslim side.
| Jenepas wrote:
| [dead]
| manquer wrote:
| In the Indian public discourse Pakistan does not get much
| airtime as it used to even 15 years ago, there aren't simply
| that many border tensions or terror attacks as there used to be
| and people care lot less, few enough remember the partition or
| have close relatives on the other side still alive, the
| emotional connections are all gone .
|
| Pakistan enjoys more political stability in the last decade not
| withstanding recent drama with Imran khan compared to how it
| was for most of the last century under military control.
|
| The junta was in power till late 2010s , they still hold a lot
| of influence over politics of course but don't really fully
| control it as they did last century .
| alephnerd wrote:
| Ideally a US-Canada or a France-Germany kind of coexistence,
| but realistically probably more like Nepal, Bangladesh, or Sri
| Lanka (close but tense relations due to local level political
| populism).
| ignoramous wrote:
| https://archive.is/gph07
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-14 23:02 UTC)