Is Pakistan a soft state?

[TheGreatMaratha]

I personally think that there is a lot of chaos in Pakistan even though it is less diverse than India. It should be the other way around actually and India should be unstable because of its diversity. In some cases, yes I think Pakistan is a soft state but in other cases I don't think Pakistan is a soft state. There's always some internal conflict within your country be it from the army, generals or even political parties. India on the other hand I feel is very united and even the protests are such that the country's interest are not hampered. I think all Indian governments have done a good job of separating religion from politics and even separating army from politics. I think Pakistan is more insecure as compared to India. That is my observation.

 

[Yankee-stani]

To be fair this is even thanks to past governments. Large parts of Pakistan were neglected and left in primitive stage of developemt. Southern K-Pk is terribly underdeveloped. So is South Punjab. We have huge % of people with zero education and desi thinking married to poverty leads to proliferation of madaris whose products are perfect as street mobs of JUI-F etc.

Well at least KPK is getting uplifted I am glad FATA has been integrated with the province much to the distaste of moulvi diesel and JUI-F I am not PTI person I despise Pakistani politics unlike my pops who follow it a lot I shrug for most part I mostly focus on foreign and geo politics releated to Pak or any positive thing Pak is going through

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Well at least KPK is getting uplifted I am glad FATA has been integrated with the province much to the distaste of moulvi diesel and JUI-F

Indeed. One of the greatest legacies of this government will be the massive changes that will and are taking place in K-Pk. In another generation expect this province to power ahead as reforms being carried out now take off. Most of this will be because of literacy and education.

 

[Yankee-stani]

I personally think that there is a lot of chaos in Pakistan even though it is less diverse than India. It should be the other way around actually and India should be unstable because of its diversity. In some cases, yes I think Pakistan is a soft state but in other cases I don't think Pakistan is a soft state. There's always some internal conflict within your country be it from the army, generals or even political parties. India on the other hand I feel is very united and even the protests are such that the country's interest are not hampered. I think all Indian governments have done a good job of separating religion from politics and even separating army from politics. I think Pakistan is more insecure as compared to India. That is my observation.

Your chaos is tolerated by most powers because they see a large market a billion people and a counterweight to maintaining a certain juggernaut against the PRC otherwise you are on same boat like us

Indeed. One of the greatest legacies of this government will be the massive changes that will and are taking place in K-Pk. In another generation expect this province to power ahead as reforms being carried out now take off. Most of this will be because of literacy and education.

That's my hope the next gen in those areas neglected for long will finally tell the pseudo Islamists and pseudo liberals how to better manage the country

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I personally think that there is a lot of chaos in Pakistan even though it is less diverse than India.

Indeed. Pakistan has 7 times smaller population and just one Indian state - Utter Pradesh has equivalent population to Pakistan. Where you have 26 [?] states we only have 4/5. Where you have dozens of ethnic groups, huge religious diversity we only have 4/5 ethnic groups with almost 96% Muslim majority. Furthermore nearly all of Pakistan's population lives withinn the Indus region whereas India has many geographic regions.

Yet we are always in state of chaos. Many people blame the army but that is not true. Military rule was symptom of underlying issues rather than the cause. The real reason why we have problems despite being homogenous compared to India is simple. It lies in the formative years.

At the outset in 1947 the indian state prepared the compact between the peoples it ruled. That compact was then written down in what you call the constitution. It was the template that you all agreed to live by. Those were the rules of the gane everybody agreed to with your courts acting as the umpires. And that is how you have lived since. That compact was flexible, loose enough to make all citizens in India feel included.

In Pakistan no such thing happened. We got our constitution in 1973. Think about that. You got yours in 1949. After 1947 our state did not prepare a compact to include all it's citizens but tried instead of to prepare a manifest by which it could prolong it's rule over the citizens and secure economic privilages. A minority created a system by which they could appropriate the state. To do so religion was used. When you were instituting your constitution in 1949 in Pakistan our leadership was giving sovereignty to Allah via the Objectives Resolution in 1949 which was fraud. It amounted to illigitimate rule by saying power belongs to Allah and I as appointed agent of Allah will rule you. It was cheap grab of power using Allah as a cloak.

For practical purposes the leadership relied on bureaucracy and the military to run the country. As we move forward the army thought "hey we can rule this country better then them" and they took over. Thus to this day there is no functioning compact but just recipes convenient at the time to garner few years of rule.

However I would say that Modi is in danger of unsettling the compact you have secured over the previus decades.

 

[Mentee]

We did got our constitution in 1956 but that Dumbo of a self proclaimed field marshal ruined the very fabric of the society

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Indeed. Pakistan has 7 times smaller population and just one Indian state - Utter Pradesh has equivalent population to Pakistan. Where you have 26 [?] states we only have 4/5. Where you have dozens of ethnic groups, huge religious diversity we only have 4/5 ethnic groups with almost 96% Muslim majority. Furthermore nearly all of Pakistan's population lives withinn the Indus region whereas India has many geographic regions.

Yet we are always in state of chaos. Many people blame the army but that is not true. Military rule was symptom of underlying issues rather than the cause. The real reason why we have problems despite being homogenous compared to India is simple. It lies in the formative years.

At the outset in 1947 the indian state prepared the compact between the peoples it ruled. That compact was then written down in what you call the constitution. It was the template that you all agreed to live by. Those were the rules of the gane everybody agreed to with your courts acting as the umpires. And that is how you have lived since. That compact was flexible, loose enough to make all citizens in India feel included.

In Pakistan no such thing happened. We got our constitution in 1973. Think about that. You got yours in 1949. After 1947 our state did not prepare a compact to include all it's citizens but tried instead of to prepare a manifest by which it could prolong it's rule over the citizens and secure economic privilages. A minority created a system by which they could appropriate the state. To do so religion was used. When you were instituting your constitution in 1949 in Pakistan our leadership was giving sovereignty to Allah via the Objectives Resolution in 1949 which was fraud. It amounted to illigitimate rule by saying power belongs to Allah and I as appointed agent of Allah will rule you. It was cheap grab of power using Allah as a cloak.

For practical purposes the leadership relied on bureaucracy and the military to run the country. As we move forward the army thought "hey we can rule this country better then them" and they took over. Thus to this day there is no functioning compact but just recipes convenient at the time to garner few years of rule.

However I would say that Modi is in danger of unsettling the compact you have secured over the previus decades.

Thanks. That was a really good explanation and answer to the question that I had posed. So you mean to say that it all comes down to setting rules at the earliest time. Since Pakistan didn't have a Constitution till 1973, it was an open ground for anyone for anyone to come in and grab power. And even though Pakistan got its Constitution in 1973, the habit had been set and people weren't giving too much importance to it. That's interesting. But then my next question would be this: Why did it take 26 years for Pakistan to draft its own Constitution?
I think Indian leaders were really progressive and ahead of their time in the formative years. In fact, Indian was one of the few countries where there wasn't even a discussion about whether to give voting rights to women or not. While a few other countries took a long time to give voting rights to women. And many over here don't know but Congress didn't cave into the pressure of right wing Hindus post independence. In fact, Congress undertook many reforms in Hindu laws even though there was a lot of pressure from right wing leaders.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

We did got our constitution in 1956 but that Dumbo of a self proclaimed field marshal ruined the very fabric of the society

Did we, sunshine. Wanna tell me which [date] elections we had from 1947 onwards that gave legitimacy to the ruling elite. Ayub took over in 1958. Please tell me whic Prime Minister or leader of Pakistan from 1947 to 1958 a period of 12 years came to power on basis of electoral mandate?

All we had was bunch of civilian dictators playing game of music chairs until Ayub though "hey I can also play this game". Can you name me a democracy where no national eletions are held for 12 years? What mandate did the assembly have for the 1956 constitution?

By the way India got her constitution in 1949 and first national elections in 1951.

 

[Mentee]

Did we, sunshine. Wanna tell me which [date] elections we had from 1947 onwards that gave legitimacy to the ruling elite. Ayub took over in 1958. Please tell me whic Prime Minister or leader of Pakistan from 1947 to 1958 a period of 12 years came to power on basis of electoral mandate?

All we had was bunch of civilian dictators playing game of music chairs until Ayub though "hey I can also play this game". Can you name me a democracy where no national eletions are held for 12 years? What mandate did the assembly have for the 1956 constitution?

By the way India got her constitution in 1949 and first national elections in 1951.

All things could have turned rosey had khuaja nazimudin not opted for the premiership and stayed as the governor General. That deformed psychotic British Civil servant who sent him packing home is largely responsible for the political upheaval and the vacuum which followed

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Thanks.

No problen. People think the army is the problem. Or today is the problem. The problems were in laid in our childhood. If you get the time please compare political history of India from 1947 to 1958. Then compare Pakistan from 1947 to 1958. The trajectories that both countries followed could not have been differant. We had -

Prime Minister

• 1947–1951
Liaquat Ali Khan
• 1951–1953
Khawaja Nazimuddin
• 1953–1955
Mohammad Ali Bogra
• 1955–1956
Chaudhry Mohammad Ali

Not one general election took place. All the PMs were appointed. Yes appointed from a cabal that took over after Jinnah's death. These so called democrats ruled, wrote constitutions but avoided electoral mandate like as it was sin. Lacking any political legitimacy they relied on bureaucracy and the military until Gen. Ayub thought "hey these guys are just dictators in suits and why don't I become dictator in uniform.

The crucial question is never asked. Why did we not have general election from 1947 to 1958 deapite 4 Prime Ministers? India was vastly larger, diverse country yet it held elections within 4 years of independemce in 1951.

Again why did we NOT have general elections that would have given mandate for 12 year period from 1947. Yes we can blame army after 1958. But what about the term of two elections and half prior to that? This amounted to rule by civilian dictators as they had no electoral mandate to rule or write a consititution.

By 1957 India had two elections. Pakistan zero.

1951–52 [3][4][5] 1st Lok Sabha 489 INC 364 45% CPI 16 3.29% SOC 12 10.59%
1957[6] 2nd Lok Sabha 494 INC 371 47.78% CPI 27 8.92% PSP 19 10.41%

 

[MBT 3000]

more like the ones in power are too soft

 

[Psychic]

This is what happen when establishment backed PTI dharna of 2014 was allowed for 4 months. Imran Khan and his minions have only taken u turn since coming to power. Attacking parliament, PTV HQ, police etc Moulana dharna has been peaceful compared to that so far.

PTI was even supporting Maulan Khadim Rizvi and playing the religion card against PMLN govt - Inn ka kutta tommy hi hota hai humaisha

 

[Yaseen1]

india is also soft state as we have seen manipur and nagaland have declared independence from india ,rss terrorists in india are controlling their govt and there are high rate of lynchings and rapes in india,india end is near

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Your chaos is tolerated by most powers because they see a large market a billion people and a counterweight to maintaining a certain juggernaut against the PRC otherwise you are on same boat like us



That's my hope the next gen in those areas neglected for long will finally tell the pseudo Islamists and pseudo liberals how to better manage the country

Ok so the point you are making is that our chaos is tolerated by Western powers just because we have a large population. Let me tell you this that the population of Pakistan is also ~200 mil which is also the 6th most populous state in the world. The world has a big market in Pakistan as well.
And let's be honest, India never has had a civil war in these many years except maybe one 'Emergency' like situation which was imposed by Indira Gandhi. After she removed the 'Emergency' and elections were held, she was kindly shown the door by the people. Indira Gandhi was the only PM that was close to a dictator that India had.
One other problem with the Pakistan state is that it's very confused. You don't know whether you want a secular republic or an Islamic state or a state run by the military or maybe a combination of all these things. India was clear right from the start that it wanted to be a secular republic and the people supported this idea right from the start. Other than a few fringe elements protesting, there was no confusion around it. The Constitution as well clearly specified that Army will have no interference in government while the government as well won't have any interference in Judicial matters.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

india is also soft state as we have seen manipur and nagaland have declared independence from india ,rss terrorists in india are controlling their govt and there are high rate of lynchings and rapes in india,india end is near

Ok so I really don't know what you are talking about Manipur and Nagaland here unless there is some info that has not been revealed to the general public. Regardinly lynchings, I agree that there has been an increase in the number of lynchings. 113 people since 2015 have been killed in lynchings. Just to let you know, we are 1.3 billion people and the number 113 is nothing. With so many language differences, religious differences, cultural differences and ethnicity differences, these kind of things are kind of expected. I mean we are not perfect. Of course, I condemn every lynching and not even 1 lynching should happen in the first place but if we look at numbers, it's very less. Now you'll say that Pakistan doesn't do any lynching of Hindus, etc. In Pakistan 99% are Muslims and other minorities are not even visible so the majority Muslims don't have any threat as such and thus there is more conflict between different Muslim groups in Pakistan as opposed to conflicts with minorities. In India, there are ~200 million Muslims and they are more visible. If India had 99% Hindus and 1% Muslims I don't think there would have been any conflict. Look at Nepal which has ~90% Hindus and Buddhists and 4% Muslims. You don't see lynchings over there since Muslims are a very small minority. It's really simple actually. As minority population grows, there are more chances of conflicts between majority and minority.