What's ahead of South Asia?

[Raj-Hindustani]

Here for example, compare this with nation using Islamic at their nation name, despite prophet Muhammad and the first 4 Caliph never put Islamic on their Madinah state

View attachment 212931
View attachment 212932
View attachment 212934
View attachment 212935

If religion is such an important foundation, why do Muslim-majority countries sometimes fight each other? Doesn’t that show that politics, leadership, national interests, and institutions can be more important than religion in how a country actually behaves?

 

[retaxis]

So, in your opinion, China is just a little bit better than India or the two countries are nearly the same in quality of life ? Then, good luck, don't come to China, China dorsn't need Indians. And then your foreign minister should not has complained to Chinese gov about drastically decreasing the approval rate of Indian applications for Chinese visas lately. Better to keep each other's fences.

Indians knows where all the technology is thats why they try to flood China. Every Indian needs to be treated as a spy and made sure never to be in vicinity of any advanced Chinese technology.

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's (ASPI) latest Critical Technology Tracker report for 2025–2026, China has achieved a significant leading position in global R&D competition for critical technologies.

Below is a summary of the report's core findings:

Indicator	Core Result
Overall Lead	Of the 74 critical technologies tracked, China ranks first globally in high-impact research output for 66 technologies, accounting for approximately 90%.
Monopoly Risk Areas	In 41 technologies, China is forming a "monopoly" position (i.e., high-impact paper counts exceeding those of the second-ranked country by more than three times), an increase of 8 technologies compared to the previous report.
U.S. Performance	The United States maintains its lead in only 8 technologies, including quantum computing and geoengineering.
Primary Drivers	The report attributes China's rise to sustained policy support, massive industrial clusters, a vast STEM talent pool, and high-intensity R&D investment.

Detailed Performance in Key Areas​

• Physical World & Energy: China has achieved comprehensive or absolute leadership in advanced materials and manufacturing (all 13 technologies) and energy and environment (9 out of 10 technologies).
• Defense & Space: China leads in 7 technologies related to defense, space, and robotics. For instance, in advanced aircraft engines and hypersonics, China's high-impact research output is reportedly four times that of the United States.
• AI & Biotechnology: China holds leading positions in artificial intelligence (7 out of 8 technologies), synthetic biology, brain-computer interfaces, and other fields.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

I agree, but I would break it down further. I would say community and regional culture can matter more than religion itself.

For example, Punjab on both the Indian and Pakistani sides has its own strong social and economic culture, despite being in two different countries. Similarly, the Marwari community in India has done very well in business and trade, even though they are part of the same Hindu society as many other communities.

We can also compare South India with North India. Both are predominantly Hindu, but there are clear differences in education, economy, social structure and political culture. So I don't think religion alone can explain these differences. Community, culture, history and social environment also matter a lot.

India and Pakistan both have a mix of cultures and regional differences within their own countries. They share some common challenges, while also having their own unique ones. More or less, the key issues today come down to governance, stronger institutions, better education, sound economic policies, and greater political stability.

I agree that community, regional culture, history and social environment matter, but I don’t think that disproves my argument. I’m not saying religion alone explains development; I’m saying it is an important variable that cannot be separated from those other factors.

Your Punjab example actually supports this point. Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab share the same geography, history and cultural roots, yet Indian Punjab has performed far better on all development indicators. One major difference is their religious composition: Indian Punjab has a Sikh majority, while Pakistani Punjab has a Muslim majority. Their different religious and national environments have shaped their societies differently.

The South India vs North India comparison also shows that religion is not the only factor. Both are predominantly Hindu, yet their development outcomes differ significantly because of differences in history, governance, institutions, education and regional culture.

But if religion were completely irrelevant, we would also have to explain why Muslims in India, on average, have poorer socioeconomic outcomes than other communities despite living under the same national institutions and economic policies. That obviously doesn’t prove that religion itself causes poverty, but it does show that religious and community factors can interact with historical and socioeconomic conditions.

So I’m not arguing for a simplistic “religion causes development” theory. My argument is that religion, particularly the difference in religious majorities between India and Pakistan, is one of the foundational variables shaping their cultures, societies and political environments. Governance and institutions matter enormously, but they don’t exist in a cultural vacuum.

 

[Indos]

If religion is such an important foundation, why do Muslim-majority countries sometimes fight each other? Doesn’t that show that politics, leadership, national interests, and institutions can be more important than religion in how a country actually behaves?

Man, that different to individuals, nation state level

Some have more devotion, some are not. Some are more stubborn with their own interpretation, others are more open. etc. That is how human always does

Roman empire for instant is weakening due to their moral decline, greed, etc

 

[Aghor Warrior]

If religion is such an important foundation, why do Muslim-majority countries sometimes fight each other? Doesn’t that show that politics, leadership, national interests, and institutions can be more important than religion in how a country actually behaves?

I don’t think Muslim-majority countries fighting each other disproves the importance of religion; in some cases, it actually demonstrates how religion can shape political conflict. Islam is not a single, culturally uniform identity, and different Muslim societies have developed competing interpretations, traditions and claims about what constitutes the “correct” form of Islam. National interests and politics obviously matter, but religious identity can become part of the reason those conflicts emerge.

Pakistan itself is a good example. The discrimination faced by Bengali Muslims in Pakistan cannot be explained purely through politics or institutions. West Pakistanis often viewed Bengali language, cultural traditions, food habits and even certain social characteristics as insufficiently “Islamic” or as influenced by Hindu culture. The fact that both groups were Muslim did not eliminate those differences; religious and cultural identity interacted with ethnicity, language and regional politics.

That is exactly my point: religion does not operate in isolation—it interacts with culture, ethnicity, history, institutions and politics. The fact that Muslim-majority countries can fight each other doesn't make religion irrelevant.

So I’m not arguing that religion determines everything. I’m arguing that you cannot remove religion from the equation and then claim to have a complete explanation of why different societies develop different identities, institutions and outcomes.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

I don’t think Muslim-majority countries fighting each other disproves the importance of religion; in some cases, it actually demonstrates how religion can shape political conflict. Islam is not a single, culturally uniform identity, and different Muslim societies have developed competing interpretations, traditions and claims about what constitutes the “correct” form of Islam. National interests and politics obviously matter, but religious identity can become part of the reason those conflicts emerge.

Pakistan itself is a good example. The discrimination faced by Bengali Muslims in Pakistan cannot be explained purely through politics or institutions. West Pakistanis often viewed Bengali language, cultural traditions, food habits and even certain social characteristics as insufficiently “Islamic” or as influenced by Hindu culture. The fact that both groups were Muslim did not eliminate those differences; religious and cultural identity interacted with ethnicity, language and regional politics.

That is exactly my point: religion does not operate in isolation—it interacts with culture, ethnicity, history, institutions and politics. The fact that Muslim-majority countries can fight each other doesn't make religion irrelevant.

So I’m not arguing that religion determines everything. I’m arguing that you cannot remove religion from the equation and then claim to have a complete explanation of why different societies develop different identities, institutions and outcomes.

I think the Indian Muslim example actually needs a much deeper look before using it as evidence for religion. Poorer socioeconomic outcomes don't automatically mean religion is the cause. Political leaders have often used religious identity and fear for electoral gains, while community leadership has also had a responsibility to prioritise education, economic development, family planning, and the future quality of life of the next generation.

In my view, this is actually an example of why I separate religion from community and leadership. If people are repeatedly encouraged to focus on identity, fear, and population numbers instead of education, skills, economic opportunity, and better living standards, that can have consequences regardless of religion.

So I wouldn't use the Indian Muslim case to prove that religion determines development. If anything, it shows how political leadership, social priorities, education, and community decision-making can shape outcomes much more directly than religion itself.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

I think the Indian Muslim example actually needs a much deeper look before using it as evidence for religion. Poorer socioeconomic outcomes don't automatically mean religion is the cause. Political leaders have often used religious identity and fear for electoral gains, while community leadership has also had a responsibility to prioritise education, economic development, family planning, and the future quality of life of the next generation.

In my view, this is actually an example of why I separate religion from community and leadership. If people are repeatedly encouraged to focus on identity, fear, and population numbers instead of education, skills, economic opportunity, and better living standards, that can have consequences regardless of religion.

So I wouldn't use the Indian Muslim case to prove that religion determines development. If anything, it shows how political leadership, social priorities, education, and community decision-making can shape outcomes much more directly than religion itself.

There are also interesting patterns outside India. In the US, Hindu Americans have the highest levels of educational attainment and household income, while Muslim Americans have lowest. That obviously does not prove that Hinduism makes people wealthy or Islam makes people poor—the historical background, immigration patterns, education and socioeconomic selection of each community matter enormously. But it does show why religious and cultural factors are worth examining rather than automatically dismissing them.

I’m not arguing “religion causes poverty” or “religion causes development.” I’m arguing that religion can shape social norms, community priorities, identity, family structures and political behaviour, which can then interact with institutions and economic conditions.

Religion is not the entire explanation, but neither is it irrelevant. That is especially important when comparing India and Pakistan, where the difference in religious-majority civilizational frameworks is one of the fundamental differences between the two societies.

 

[EgoKaempfer]

If religion is such an important foundation, why do Muslim-majority countries sometimes fight each other? Doesn’t that show that politics, leadership, national interests, and institutions can be more important than religion in how a country actually behaves?

Colonial masters have influenced the socio-political fabric of many such Muslim countries. The table below, generated via AI for a quick overview, lists just some of them. It has always been the same playbook, including non-muslim countries like ivory-cost & Congo: create a class divide between the ruling elite and the "cockroaches."

Region / Country	Primary Influencer	Nature of Contemporary Influence
Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar)	United States	Defense guarantees, massive arms trade, and energy infrastructure.
Egypt & Jordan	United States	High volumes of foreign aid, military coordination, and diplomatic alignment.
Morocco & Tunisia	France	Deep bilateral trade, linguistic dominance, and elite political networks.
Senegal & Chad	France	Monetary ties (CFA Franc framework) and active security partnerships.
Pakistan	US / United Kingdom	Institutional legal frameworks, military aid, and reliance on IMF fiscal policies.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

There are also interesting patterns outside India. In the US, Hindu Americans have the highest levels of educational attainment and household income, while Muslim Americans have lowest. That obviously does not prove that Hinduism makes people wealthy or Islam makes people poor—the historical background, immigration patterns, education and socioeconomic selection of each community matter enormously. But it does show why religious and cultural factors are worth examining rather than automatically dismissing them.

I’m not arguing “religion causes poverty” or “religion causes development.” I’m arguing that religion can shape social norms, community priorities, identity, family structures and political behaviour, which can then interact with institutions and economic conditions.

Religion is not the entire explanation, but neither is it irrelevant. That is especially important when comparing India and Pakistan, where the difference in religious-majority civilizational frameworks is one of the fundamental differences between the two societies.

I already said, bro, I agree that religion can influence people's moral values and social norms. History clearly shows that.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

"Will India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan ever truly become advanced, developed nations, or are they trapped in permanent stagnation? Despite boasting booming tech sectors and massive economic potential, all three countries remain heavily weighed down by deep-rooted issues like corruption, weak infrastructure, political instability, and poverty. Do you think these structural hurdles and regional rivalries will permanently stunt South Asia's growth, or can these nations actually transition into fully modern societies ever?

False equivalence 101.

 

[Indos]

I think the Indian Muslim example actually needs a much deeper look before using it as evidence for religion. Poorer socioeconomic outcomes don't automatically mean religion is the cause. Political leaders have often used religious identity and fear for electoral gains, while community leadership has also had a responsibility to prioritise education, economic development, family planning, and the future quality of life of the next generation.

In my view, this is actually an example of why I separate religion from community and leadership. If people are repeatedly encouraged to focus on identity, fear, and population numbers instead of education, skills, economic opportunity, and better living standards, that can have consequences regardless of religion.

So I wouldn't use the Indian Muslim case to prove that religion determines development. If anything, it shows how political leadership, social priorities, education, and community decision-making can shape outcomes much more directly than religion itself.

Most of the developing countries we are discussing, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc have experience long colonization. They are being ruled by Western Christian and not given education.

So they need to do many learning and improve their organization as large community people with more than 100 million people inside. It needs time.

It is different with East Asian like China, Japan that actually never get colonized, this is why they are now able to catching up with Western World.

More authoritarian system like in Vietnam may create better growth while democracy that we chose could be much chaotic than that and requires more energy to stay at the decent growth path.

About religion, actually Western people when they were at peak in controlling the world, they still pretty much adopt their Abrahamaic religion with passion. Just look on their women dress

 

[Vikramaditya1]

It doesn’t augur particularly well for India tbh especially when our neighbours are in an even worse position. Competition within the region is not necessarily the answer, cooperation is. But cooperate on what?

Sri Lanka is perhaps the only country in the region that has performed relatively well on certain social indicators. Beyond that it is difficult to identify a particular economic model, industry, or developmental strategy that others could emulate. The same problem applies across the region, including India there are few distinctive niche industries or signs of a broader drive towards rapid, transformative development.

Some members have pointed out that India is doing relatively well, yeah we are but a significant part of this performance comes from the sheer financial capacity of the Indian government. It has the resources to invest heavily in infrastructure, subsidise consumption in various forms, and accelerate consumption all of which contribute to stronger headline growth.

At the same time, this creates an economy in which private companies are not only competing with one another but in certain sectors effectively competing with the government.

I’m also inclined to agree with some of the points raised about corruption. But corruption is ultimately a symptom rather than the disease. The deeper problem is the absence of sufficiently strong institutions, incentives, productive specialisation, and a coherent long term development plan.
Im totally blackpilled about this region.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Most of the developing countries we are discussing, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc have experience long colonization. They are being ruled by Western Christian and not given education.

So they need to do many learning and improve their organization as large community people with more than 100 million people inside. It needs time.

It is different with East Asian like China, Japan that actually never get colonized, this is why they are now able to catching up with Western World.

More authoritarian system like in Vietnam may create better growth while democracy that we chose could be much chaotic than that and requires more energy to stay at the decent growth path.

About religion, actually Western people when they were at peak in controlling the world, they still pretty much adopt their Abrahamaic religion with passion. Just look on their women dress

Agreed.

I see Indonesia and Vietnam having a brighter future for several reasons. I don’t know enough about their internal politics and current challenges to make a strong judgment, but I feel they may be able to recover and adapt faster than India and Pakistan.

In India, political leadership often seems more focused on short-term political interests and their own future. In Pakistan, the military leadership appears more focused on maintaining its power and position than on long-term political and economic development. Combined with so many internal and external challenges, I think both countries could continue to struggle with development in the future

 

[Aghor Warrior]

Most of the developing countries we are discussing, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc have experience long colonization. They are being ruled by Western Christian and not given education.

So they need to do many learning and improve their organization as large community people with more than 100 million people inside. It needs time.

It is different with East Asian like China, Japan that actually never get colonized, this is why they are now able to catching up with Western World.

More authoritarian system like in Vietnam may create better growth while democracy that we chose could be much chaotic than that and requires more energy to stay at the decent growth path.

About religion, actually Western people when they were at peak in controlling the world, they still pretty much adopt their Abrahamaic religion with passion. Just look on their women dress

Religion does not develop in a cultural vacuum; it evolves alongside the history, geography, traditions and social structures of the societies in which it takes root. Islam emerged in Arabia, Christianity in the Mediterranean and later became deeply rooted in Europe, while Hinduism and Buddhism developed within the Indian cultural sphere and Buddhism subsequently spread across much of East Asia.

The important distinction is between organic religious development and forced religious imposition. When a religion spreads gradually through cultural exchange, migration, trade or voluntary conversion, it can adapt to local traditions and develop uniquely within that society. But when an external religious system is imposed through conquest, political power or coercion, it can create tensions with existing cultural traditions and identities.

This is why religion should not be viewed simply as a set of beliefs that can be separated from culture. Over centuries, religion and local culture often become intertwined, shaping language, customs, social norms, political identity and even perceptions of history. When that relationship is disrupted abruptly or coercively, the resulting tensions can persist for generations.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

Agreed.

I see Indonesia and Vietnam having a brighter future for several reasons. I don’t know enough about their internal politics and current challenges to make a strong judgment, but I feel they may be able to recover and adapt faster than India and Pakistan.

In India, political leadership often seems more focused on short-term political interests and their own future. In Pakistan, the military leadership appears more focused on maintaining its power and position than on long-term political and economic development. Combined with so many internal and external challenges, I think both countries could continue to struggle with development in the future

Indonesia and Singapore are actually an interesting comparison. Both are in Southeast Asia and have important historical and economic connections, yet their development trajectories are dramatically different. Singapore became one of the world’s wealthiest countries through strong institutions, political stability, human-capital development and an outward-oriented economy, while Indonesia, despite making substantial progress, remains far poorer on a per-capita basis.

I’m not saying Islam makes Indonesia poor or that secularism automatically makes Singapore rich. That would be an oversimplification. My point is that religion and the broader cultural framework surrounding it can influence political identity, social norms, attitudes toward pluralism, institutions and ultimately stability.

And this is where I think you keep making a false equivalence between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan share geography, history and some cultural roots, but they developed fundamentally different national identities after Partition. India’s civilizational identity is rooted primarily in the traditions of the Indian subcontinent, while Pakistan was created around a distinct Islamic national identity.

You cannot keep treating India and Pakistan as essentially the same countries with different governments and then expect to reach a logical conclusion about their differences. India–Pakistan equivalence is emotionally appealing, but it is not necessarily a practical or analytical framework.

Governance, institutions, education and economic policy absolutely matter, but they operate within a deeper religious, cultural and civilizational framework. Ignoring that framework is precisely why I think your analysis keeps missing an important part of the explanation.