Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
In my view the success of India and failure of Pakistan has only little to do with the respective founder' personality. Instead, while India, with all its resource deficiencies, was concentrating on developmental planning, Pakistan has traditionally concentrated on negative issues such as islamization, wars with India etc.
Also, even though we have made great strides in many many fields now, the IT boom that started 15 years ago has been a great kick-start for India. Pakistan unfortunately has not had such a boon. That is something I actually don't understand why since at that time qualitatively perhaps Indians and Pakistanis were not too different (ability to speak some english and inexpensive enough to write cobol).
It cannot be corruption because India is probably more corrupt than anyother country I know. This is the only thing about my great country I don't like (...well that and the gujju bhais spitting on every wall)
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
From 1947 to 1958, pakistan had 7 prime ministers due to some reasons(as per wikipedia). Ayub khan used this political instability for his military coup.
These are the biggest reasons and since then it is going on and on.
And pakistan alligned with US during cold war and with that US didn't mind whether there was democracy in pakistan or not. They continued their support, gave arms and money till the end of afghan war, which only made pakistani generals more confident.
Moreover, India's economic policies started off with socialism(nehru is a socialist) which is hell against feudalism. I hate socialism. But that is one good thing which it did and feudals could never exert much influence in politics!..But inspite of it, democracy in india has its own negative things and effects!!
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
India's economic policies started off with socialism(nehru is a socialist) which is hell against feudalism. I hate socialism. But that is one good thing which it did and feudals could never exert much influence in politics!..But inspite of it, democracy in india has its own negative things and effects!!
I think you have a point here. If we had started with a totally open capitalistic model, only those with capital would have succeeded; Now that capital and wealth are a bit more spread around, the slow inevitable move away from socialistic to open capitalistic policies pay dividends.
But to enable and facilitate such economic policy shifts, the country's representative democracy is / has been absolutely necessary. That is what leads to debates and choices by people rather than by a small subset vested interests. For example, this Indo-US nuclear accord - it makes me angry a bit that the PM of the country is not able to get it done after so openly pushing it ...BUT I am also glad that there is another side that is able to provide some checks and balances.
Gues that just brings it back to original point! democracy is its own means
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
so if pak politicians are such jeffersonian democrats, why do they fight among themselves? why did opposition not accept the results of 1976 elections under bhutto and turn to agitation instead? and why did nawaz shareef want to turn himself in to an ameerul momineen and why did bb and imran khan welcome musharraf's coup against nawaz?
also ataturk lived for a long time after creation of turkish republic but that did not prevent turkish army from overthrowing governments. if the length of founding father rule was the main criteria for democratic rule, then turkey would have been a stable demcocracy like india.
Politicians rarely have clean souls. They can be inspirational, selfless and idealistic. They can also be opportunistic, greedy and power mongering. Then they shift between states, like all humans.
Thats why its important people have the opportunity to kick them out every few years. I think it would be great for Pakistan to have provincial assembly elections 2 years askew from national assembly elections.
I think Attaturk did a fine job. The Turkish nation is clear about what he wanted. Their national ideals can not be hijacked. The Turkish Army exerts some pressure now and then but its a far cry from the 30 year amry rule in Pakistan(maybe more if you do the math). Just this year the Army disliked the nominee for president and the politicians called elections, got a mandate form the people and came back and nominated the same person as president(the current president). The army did not interfere.
On the other hand, Our leader died soon after 47. We are not sure what his vision was. He spent his life trying to create Pakistan, and did not get a chance to shape it. Attaturk was able to make sure the Turkish national ideals are clear for all to know and see. Our leader has a picture in a sherwani when he rarely ever wore it.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
On the other hand, Our leader died soon after 47. We are not sure what his vision was. He spent his life trying to create Pakistan, and did not get a chance to shape it. Attaturk was able to make sure the Turkish national ideals are clear for all to know and see. Our leader has a picture in a sherwani when he rarely ever wore it.
This is a good pint too that Jinna wasn't around too long to shape Pakistan but to say his visions wasn't clear or not communicated is difficult to accept.
The vision was clear and popular enough to form the country - it being, a nation for muslims. He achieved that.
The visions was also made clear in a famous speech about where to keep religion; and about how followers of other religions will be treated. **This part of the vision was rejected by the people of Pakistan. **Instead, they chose to bring islam into all facets of life and that has derailed Jinna's vision.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
If India is a democracy then I want no part of it, I am happy with whatever we have.
Yeap A choice between the ex-pat wife of the grandson of a prime minister and a bunch of religious fanatics stuck on the indo-srilanka land bridge history is hardly a good choice
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
Yeap A choice between the ex-pat wife of the grandson of a prime minister and a bunch of religious fanatics stuck on the indo-srilanka land bridge history is hardly a good choice
If India is a democracy then I want no part of it, I am happy with whatever we have.
This sounds more like sour grapes than a considered opinion.
expat, wife, grandson - whoever it is, we the people get to choose. our PM or President is not appointed at the will and mercy of G.W.Bush...oh not even MS.Rice.
Particularly Pakistani friends mocking our opposition party as religious fanatics is quite funny. I am sure there are lots of plate glass factories in Pakistan making the replacement walls for you.
The Indo-Srilanka land bridge, Sri Rama Setu, should not have been an issue at all since it is considered holy by most Hindus. The very fact that even this is open to debate shows how open and democratic our Indian society is. Thanks for pointing that out.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
This sounds more like sour grapes than a considered opinion.
expat, wife, grandson - whoever it is, we the people get to choose. our PM or President is not appointed at the will and mercy of G.W.Bush...oh not even MS.Rice.
Particularly Pakistani friends mocking our opposition party as religious fanatics is quite funny. I am sure there are lots of plate glass factories in Pakistan making the replacement walls for you.
The Indo-Srilanka land bridge, Sri Rama Setu, should not have been an issue at all since it is considered holy by most Hindus. The very fact that even this is open to debate shows how open and democratic our Indian society is. Thanks for pointing that out.
Too early times for our young nations to be talking about sour grapes as yet stir. :))
Yes, your are correct, the people of India will choose, as is their right, and as they have exercised more then the Pakistan people have in the past. I was merely commenting on the relative poverty of choice considering the punctual tradition of democracy.
About the glass, you should look in it. The people of Pakistan, whenever they have made a choice have defeated anyone who ran on a religious agenda consistently over decades, where as your religious right actually won the elections once.
Sri Rama Setu is something that tests the country's secularism and I hope Secularism wins out. But it seems the government withdrew a brief from the court, and its something being used by politicians. You would know about it more then me, I just read the news.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
About the glass, you should look in it. The people of Pakistan, whenever they have made a choice have defeated anyone who ran on a religious agenda consistently over decades, where as your religious right actually won the elections once.
When?....Creation of pakistan itself was based on religious agenda so forget about rejecting religious agenda.
[quote]
Sri Rama Setu is something that tests the country's secularism and I hope Secularism wins out. But it seems the government withdrew a brief from the court, and its something being used by politicians. You would know about it more then me, I just read the news.
[/quote]
No. Government just told rama was a myth. even i consider it as myth. If it was really secular, it would have told all religions are based on myth!!...Ofcourse such double standards exist in all parts of the world.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
^ yaar you're missing one of the points I am trying to make. Yes we many a times get poor choices in elections - thugs, rowdies, even murderers. But there is due process at work. We stick by the rules we made and ultimately the criminals get punished. And the country is not in constant uproar over something or other and we as people get to focus on life and living instead of constant acrimony and destruction.
On Sri Rama Setu issue, I don't know what you mean by secularism winning out. The ASI made a very erroneous affidavit to court stating "there is no Rama". Subsequent to the opposition to that, the govt withdrew the affidavit.
An equivalent analogy will be if your govt wants to raze down a mosque on the grounds that there is no Allah....will that be proper?
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
I guess the topic is not about secularism, rama, allah or anything. It is just about democracy. I as a indian have to just to say this which mentions india in this thread...Yes..there is democracy in india, whether the people elect thugs, rowdies, BJP, modi, or congress or good guy or on the basis of caste/religion or any damn guy. Whether democracy has done good to india or not and wherther it was very perfect or not, an all together different topic .
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
When?....Creation of pakistan itself was based on religious agenda so forget about rejecting religious agenda.
No. Government just told rama was a myth. even i consider it as myth. If it was really secular, it would have told all religions are based on myth!!...Ofcourse such double standards exist in all parts of the world.
I agree on the double standards part, its more of a diplomatic dance.
If the creation of Pakistan had a singular religious stimulus, and if such a stimulus was valid, there would be no Muslims left in India. The fact is that religion is and always has been part of the socio-economic fabric and as all things are tied together, you cannot isolate one and look back on history in black and white.
My point stands that the people of Pakistan have never given a mandate to a religious party while India elected them, atleast once to the federal govt.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
The main difference in India and Pakistan: India took away feudal power from feudal lords and Pakistan did not, call it socialism or whatever but that resulted in good foundation of politics in India while Pakistan's "politics" remained in hands of feudal lords while govt remained in "military" hand for most part of the history while there was no military govt in India. In essense, socialism became the basis of success for India's current democracy.
Re: Why India Became a Democracy and Pakistan Did not
Does the answer lie in the make up/ organization of the founding political parties of the respective countries, that is Congress and Muslim League.
Or the personalities of the founding fathers, i.e, Gandhi and Quad-e-Azam?
**Congress: **All members of the Congress paid a 4 anna annual fee. All these members had a vote for electing provincial congress committees and for a delegate conference which inturn elected the All India Congress Comittee. The President of the Congress was then elected by the annual All India Congress Comittee. The President then nominated the treasurer and 13 members from the All India Congress Comittee, which was called the working comittee that had executive authority of the party.
**Muslim League: **Formed by more effluent of the Muslims in India, Nawab Salimullah, Nawab Waqarul-mulk and its first President was Tha Agha Khan III. It was largely a diaorganized body till 1930's. The 1931 annual sessiona at Delhi, only 75 members attended. The President was elected in the annual meetings that were largely low key affairs, held in private houses. President was elected every three years.
**Gandhi: **Was (or presented himself) as a pure Indian. Dhoti clad, wore khaddar, vegetarian.
Quaed-e-Azam: Meticulous and elegantly dressed in western clothes, hardly spoke a language other than English. His appearance and demenour were aloof from the ordinary Muslims of India.
I agree with Captain1. India became democracy because they got rid of feudal lords in 1950 wheras, Pakistan is still being ruled by the third generation of 20 odd feudal families and needless to say they are as incompetent as their forefathers were and they are the main reason for army to step into the politics. Aur Iconoclast bahi saab yeh 4 anay wali ghatiya theory apnay paas hi rekhain aur kuch history perh kar ayein iss say phelay aap humain sabq dain kay congress kitni democratic thee. Did you know what congress did to Muslims when it was elected in 1935 in British India and what they have been doing with the miniorities in india since 1947??