“India and Pakistan are born of the same history yet have vast differences in political set ups.” Comment.
Answers
Answer:
Despite the fact that both countries were carved out of the British empire, India has ended up as a democracy with civilians firmly in control, whereas Pakistan has witnessed a number of direct military rules and has always suffered from a severe civil-military imbalance. Moreover, India has managed its ethnic and communal diversity much better than Pakistan.
Explanation:
Democracy has emerged unevenly in South Asia. So Pakistan is not alone. In Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and sometimes even in India, efforts to establish democracy have to fight a winner-take-all, no-compromise mentality among politicians. Parties furiously work to undermine one another, derailing development projects and damaging the country's economy in the process. Corruption remains chronic, and generals or monarchs often cite it as the reason they must seize power for themselves.
Such skepticism about democracy was on exhibit here last week, when a close aide to General Musharraf praised Mr. Vajpayee's grace in defeat, but said democracy was not right for Pakistan at this time. He said the only successful models of economic development in the developing world were countries that had long periods of stable, semi-authoritarian rule. He gave Malaysia and Indonesia as examples, ignoring democratic Japan and South Korea.
One key to India's democracy is its development of strong institutions. Its Supreme Court and its election commission have managed to remain relatively independent of politics. Its enormously diverse population has also found that regular elections can relieve the pressures of economic, social and caste differences. Last week's Congress Party victory, in fact, was seen largely as an effective protest vote by the country's urban and rural poor, who have felt left out of India's technology boom.
Another difference in political culture is that India is a secular state and Pakistan is a specifically Muslim state.
And then there is history. An early democratic tradition was founded in India by its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who ruled from 1947 to 1964 and held regular elections.
In the 1970's India nearly lost its way during the rule of Mr. Nehru's imperious daughter, Indira Gandhi, when she declared a state of emergency after courts found her guilty of electoral malpractice and barred her from office. She arrested her critics and rivals, suspended political activity, muzzled the press and ruled by decree.
But under sharp pressure from home and abroad she called elections in 1977, seeking to validate her rule. Instead, India's voters threw her out of office -- and Mrs. Gandhi accepted the results.
A powerful precedent was set, and the next time Mrs. Gandhi wanted to rule she had to seek re-election. (She did, in 1980, and she won.) So has every leader since.
In Pakistan, by contrast, the country's political father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, died only 13 months after the country's founding in 1947, and the assassination of his closest associate four years later set a precedent for political violence. Thus, Pakistan was denied the early stability in which India had been able to build strong institutions and democratic habits.
plz mark my answer as brainliest and follow me