Why can India do it and Pakistan not?

[PakSarZameen47]

This Lota lost the earlier contested election with just 16,000 votes, and with a PTI ticket after joining them got about 110,000 votes and won, all because of Imran Khan wave of popularity last elections.

But still proved how a lowlife he is.

As said by Faisal Javed Khan, the young PTI senator, PM IK could not be able to clean all the dirt/Kachra, but he succeeded in putting all the dirt in one place.

Now all the corrupt, the lowlife are in one place and clearly identified.

Exaclty , all in one place makes it easier to clean up...

 

[Solidify]

The reason why Pakistan didn't return fire by its missile attack :

The conflict in Ukraine - Russia media attention would be diverted hence new escalation unnecessary starts.

Then the issue of too many ghadaars sitting in coalition govt of PTI.

Lastly, Pakistan armed forces don't want a conflict with India at this moment in time for reasons x,y,z of internal problems from Afghanistan, Iran & other countries around its borders.

 

[SIPRA]

In contrast with India, most of the top Pakistani politicians, with a few exceptions, were and are utterly characterless. Now most of them are corrupt and criminals, as well.

 

[Reddington]

1) Threw Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah out and Made Ayub Khan head of state by force

Not really. Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law, and removed his own party's Prime Minister by enforcing it through Ayub Khan as he was appointed Chief Martial Law Administrator who in turn declared Martial Law and removed Iskander Mirza. It had nothing to do with Fatima Jinnah.

2) Refused to Give the Majority vote holder Sheikh Mujib ul Rehman the reins of Country. Instead started crackdown in Majority Population half of country

He was rightfully not given the helm of the country by the establishment. He was found to be the prime suspect in Agartala Conspiracy 1967 but was let go by Ayub due to the pressure of political parties. Anyways the result was still the same as East Pakistan separated in the end.
And btw, Bhutto, a power hungry man, himself didn't want to let Mujib rule the country.

3) Hanged Zulfiqar Ali bhutto despite being the most popular and powerfull Civillian in remaining western half of Country

Rightfully so. His hand in the destruction of Pakistan's industrialization alone should have been enough to hang him a hundred times over; not to mention murders of hundreds of his political opponents he was involved in through his FSF Force.

And where is it written that as long as a person remains the most popular and powerful Civilian, he can not be hanged?

 

[VkdIndian]

In contrast with India, most of the top Pakistani politicians, with a few exceptions, were and are utterly characterless. Now most of them are corrupt and criminals, as well.

Our guys are pretty solid when it comes to corruption.
How dare you rate them lower than your’s?

Barring few big ones who are famous and have a clean image, our system is also termite infested and majority is corrupt.

 

[SIPRA]

Our guys are pretty solid when it comes to corruption.
How dare you rate them lower than your’s?

Barring few big ones who are famous and have a clean image, our system is also termite infested and majority is corrupt.

My comparison was overall or aggregate, from 1947 to date. Our ones were far more characterless, than the Indian ones, both in quantum as well as intensity. This can be established by a detailed analysis.

 

[VkdIndian]

My comparison was overall or aggregate, from 1947 to date. Our ones were far more characterless, than the Indian ones, both in quantum as well as intensity. This can be established by a detailed analysis.

Now this would be an interesting one.
Both sides trying to prove theirs are worst.
A unique moment on PDF.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think the root cause is that contrary to common belief, our establishment or deep state is not as strong as in India or other countries.

One parameter of measuring how powerful the deep state or "establishment" is, is to keep it unknown and out of media. You do not hear much about the real "establishment" in USA, EU, India etc in the main stream media.

Ours on the other hand is 24/7 in the news. This just tells you that they do not have control. We need a very powerful deep state. The faces visible in the public could be any, but the economical and strategic policies must have a continium, no matter who sits on the PM seat.

This is what we see in all the "developed" countries.

What a fantastic post. Your 100/100 right. Contrary to the myth of Pakistani establishment being all powerful the truth is opposite. Compared to India, USA, China, Russia, Turkey etc our establishment is weak and does not quite have the grip as others do.

The truth is power in Pakistan is diffused among many diverse power centres and they all are in state of conflict. Thus nothing can get done other than make money while sat in the chair.

1) Threw Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah out and Made Ayub Khan head of state by force

Are you not validating dynastic politics? Fatima Jinnah's sole qualification was she was the sister. Would you have preferred if Jinnahs had also become a dynasty with Dina Wadia running for power in 1970s???

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Before people start blaming Ayub Khan I would ask people what exactly existed prior to his take over? Ayub Khan did not over throw a democracy because there was non.

No general elections were held in Pakistan from 1947 right upto 1971. This is a fact. The dispensation that ran Pakistan before Ayub take over was in fact a political dictatorship that did NOT have public mandate.

They cleverly avoided going to the polling booths. In fact they did not even agree to give the country a constitution. The political dicatorships that precded Ayub merely looted and plundered the country.

If indeed there were general elections between 1947 and 1958 somebody please corrrect me here. From what I have read they were all political dicators that got replaced by a military dictorshiop.

Even that came about because Ayub realised that the so called political leaders ran the country by using administrative fiat and the military as crutch.

 

[coffee_cup]

Before people start blaming Ayub Khan I would ask people what exactly existed prior to his take over? Ayub Khan did not over throw a democracy because there was non.

No general elections were held in Pakistan from 1947 right upto 1971. This is a fact. The dispensation that ran Pakistan before Ayub take over was in fact a political dictatorship that did NOT have public mandate.

They cleverly avoided going to the polling booths. In fact they did not even agree to give the country a constitution. The political dicatorships that precded Ayub merely looted and plundered the country.

If indeed there were general elections between 1947 and 1958 somebody please corrrect me here. From what I have read they were all political dicators that got replaced by a military dictorshiop.

Even that came about because Ayub realised that the so called political leaders ran the country by using administrative fiat and the military as crutch.

Honestly, I dont think that Western Democratic system is suited for Pakistan.

Taking a look around the region and seeing which countries are far better off, I would almost tend towards an authoritarian rule like China, Iran (minus the sect factor) etc. With one condition to make sure that system is run by half decent people.

We should not expect any honest angels there - they dont exist. People with brain who have self respect and have a vision to give a direction to the country and its people and can keep their business interests separated from state affairs are fine.

And I dont have to like them at personal level... me fully ok with this lesser devil.

 

[Krptonite]

The top politicians in India, whether you agree with them or not, are not multi billionaires (in $$). Modi, Vajpai, etc etc. I dont see their multi billion enterprises spread across the world.

Ours on the other hand, anyone who has a little power in politics is at the very least a billionaire.

Why is this that a third world extremist country like India has made it so that their party system and their democracy works whereas our sucks big time?

May be we are following a wrong system? May be we need a presidential system where an elected leader (no matter from which party) can not directly be blackmailed by the so called "parliamentarians" ?

At the VERY LEAST we need to get rid of two most corrupt families - Zardaris and Sharifs.

Let others come forward and I dont care who those others are as long as they do not start creating another dynasty!

The polity of a nation is primarily driven by its geographical confines. It's not that politicians on our side do not make illegal hay, it's just that there's just so many goddamn of us out there. That translates to multitudes of multiple forces working for their own benefit. In such a system, progress is incentivised through consensus, i.e. striking deals is more beneficial than spending resources fighting your opponents. There's always someone waiting to take your place. In a long enough run it becomes systematic and formal/informal procedures develop to gain concensus and move forward.

Since there are so many of us, the faction that consolidates and organises faster will edge out it's opponents. In a first past the post system of democracy over a long cycle of elections, the electoral base basically converges to two main parties, i.e. a electoral base that will always vote not party A and the other which will always vote not party B. The implication here is rather than voting for someone you like, the electoral votes against thier opposed sides. This also has the effect of making any gain in political power on one side increase in cost as it increases. For each gain on one side the opposite side has impetus to consolidate, unite, and oppose a common enemy thus counter weighing the gain.

The problem will GoP is that there are multiple power centres which each percieve the other as enemies and persecutes them as such. Politics is about compromise and finding common ground, picking the lesser of two evils for a net gain over a long period of time. It means working with people in the opposition to pass legislation that would make institutions in Pakistan stable, systematic and over a long period of time, autonomous. Studies show multiple autonomous institutions working their mandate have a net positive effect and can reduce corruption to a great extent.

Elimination of corruption and development will come by systematically eradicating sources of all that ail the people of Pakistan, not by jailing or persecuting opponents every chance you get.

The pragmatic truth is, to build a nation, short term personal gains must be replaced by long term collective gain.

 

[SIPRA]

Honestly, I dont think that Western Democratic system is suited for Pakistan.

Taking a look around the region and seeing which countries are far better off, I would almost tend towards an authoritarian rule like China, Iran (minus the sect factor) etc. With one condition to make sure that system is run by half decent people.

We should not expect any honest angels there - they dont exist. People with brain who have self respect and have a vision to give a direction to the country and its people and can keep their business interests separated from state affairs are fine.

And I dont have to like them at personal level... me fully ok with this lesser devil.

What you are asking for, that lot also doesn't exist in Pakistan. A very barren land.

 

[TheSolution]

What you are asking for, that lot also doesn't exist in Pakistan. A very barren land.

As much as I hate to say it, Pakistan is a ticking time bomb.

With US against us, it's too easy to set it off.

Even some Pak Pashtuns I spoke to have separatist desires and were telling me it's increasing lately between them.

Every region apart from Punjab basically has them. These corrupt families make it worse.

 

[shayyman]

Because Indians don't sell their votes for a plate of chicken biryani.

They're mostly vegetarians, so instead, You can buy them folk for a plate of Pakistan hate and they'll put any fascist in the hot seat for that. 2023 elections are approaching and you'll see how the anti pakistan hate kicks in again. All their electioneering circles around bad mouthing pakistan.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Honestly, I dont think that Western Democratic system is suited for Pakistan.

I certainly agree with you there but ....

Taking a look around the region and seeing which countries are far better off, I would almost tend towards an authoritarian rule like China, Iran (minus the sect factor) etc. With one condition to make sure that system is run by half decent people.

What you see in Pakistan is merely reflection of the peoples of the land. Countries produce the systems that their people make. Authoritarian rule can only exisat in countries that are highly homogenous or have history of strong central rule. Pakistan has neither.

To begin with there is no Pakistan but Pakistans [note plural]. Is it the Pkistan of Pakhtuns? Is it Pakistan of Punjabi's? Is it Pakistan of Sindhi's? Is it Pakistan of Karachi Indian Mohajirs? And it goes on.

All these and others throw up so many diverse political streans that cluster around parties which then fight and gouge space for themselves in contest for greater resources. For instance MQM always will side with any party at the centre that offers it a share in the pie - Ports and Shipping is a must have ministryas that is money making licence to rape the entire export/imports of 220 million Pakistan.

Thus there is zero chance of authoritarian rule because all other groups will rally together and bring you down. I can certainly see a strong man emerge in KPK and end up as a authoritarian ruler but that would be only possible if KPK left the federation. Sindh again could potentially end up under one strong man. Both have history of this before the arrival of British. Although in Sindh the large Mohajir community would mitigate against this.

Punjab is I think too divided although even there a strong man could emerge following on the tradition of Ranjit Singh.

In short Pakistan's very ethnic geography and history means the country will alway face chaotic rule until time merges the fissures in the country.