I addressed the question in a different thread.
You will have to accept that both the nations are relatively young nations and had unique and peculiar problems at the time of independence and in the subsequent phase of their evolution as a nation state. Indeed, evolution by itself denotes a continuous process and as such, one can accept the fact that we are still evolving.
What differentiated the two nations was the approach taken. The priorities were different for both the nations.
For Pakistan the immediate national need to identify itself as a nation state translated into a war over Kashmir at a time when the democratic institutions of the nation were in their nascent stage. The apparent inability to meet its objectives as also the short period of guidance by MA Jinnah, who could have strengthened the nascent democratic institutions of the new nation and kept the army under control during the intervening period to allow for emplacement of robust democratic institues, allowed for the armed forces to solidify its position on the political scene of the country. This led to a weakening of the said institutes/mechanisms in the initial phase itself and subsequently the outright erosion of the democratic institutions/government and rendered the civil machinery an ineffective tool in the overall perspective of nation building and economic progress.
The army, on its part, played bogey using India and over the decades was able to further solidify its role in both domestic and international policy formulation when there was actually no tangible proof of an emergent requirement of Pakistan to focus exclusively on military and security aspects at the cost of its national economic development initiatives. This further created an aura where the narrative of national unity and prestige became synonymous with the army instead of an economically progressive and democratic Pakistan. Need I say that the words of ZA Bhutto aptly epitomized this malady in the infamous 'eat grass' statement?
That is my perception of where the evolution of Pakistan missed it's boat in enabling a strong democratic and accountable system where in the armed forces were relegated to a civil control and were exclusively entrusted the task of maintaining the unity and territorial integrity of the nation itself rather than undertake policy formulation and implementation, which put it into an antithetical position wherein as the history is indicative, instead of war and conflict being the last resort, diplomacy was relegated to the last tier. This is the classic situation, wherein the policy malaise and incompetence (diplomatic overtures bereft of pragmatism and necessary risks) which in a democratic nation would have been with the civil power, thereby enabling conflict resolution through various means, the whole role is now adopted by PA, thereby leaving available options and flexibility very limited.
In such a scenario, where the democratic process has been systematically rendered a charade, it is obvious that the narrative of Pakistan's political destiny is now controlled by PA rather than an elected civil government. The sentiments, will obviously be with PA when even till date, the bold initiatives of GoP to engage India in conflict resolution are undermined through various means thereby maintaining a posture of merely conflict 'management'
That, indeed is what I am also saying. There is a need to strengthen and enable the civil democratic process in Pakistan to enable an accountability as also tangible gains and moves in the present conflict between the two sides to reach an everlasting peace.
