what is difference between Indian government and Pakistan government
Answers
Answered by
0
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 ofpolitics. ... Another difference in political culture is that India is a secular state and Pakistan is a specifically Muslim state.
Answered by
1
Hi...
Here is your answer...
Fair comparison. These two countries became independent simultaneously. They formed their constitution around the same time. Then the life changed.
But before I state it let me admit that not everything that India has achieved is without blemish and there are sufficient silver linings in the failures of Pakistan. So please avoid reading you versus I approach in my answer.
India, except the time when Emergency was imposed, through her Legislative, Executive and Judiciary ensured that the basic tenets of our Constitution remained untouched,even sacrosanct. In the process, government won and lost, parties emerged and grew or failed but the continuity remained. No dispensation/no individual was considered indispensable.
Indian military for seventy long years remained in the barracks. The credit goes to the polity as well as the leadership of Military which could develop a completely apolitical military. Even in face of some not very correct deployment like in IPKF or even in J&K. But for one or two instances of passions getting better of them the military personnel too showed to the world that they are one of the the most disciplined and professional military of the world. And I am including the Communist world of today and past where the military always directly reported to semi-militarized ruling parties. For a country which was an under developed country in 1947, remained developing country for better part of the last seventy years and now is in the stage of emerging economies, this has been an exemplary show.
Pakistan, after the initial couple of years, saw various stages of failure of civil governments. The Military, I am sure with active manipulations of politicians, crossed the barracks repeatedly and did what they are incompetent to do - administer the country in peace period. It was inevitable that the Constitution was changed repeatedly with no real impact. Pakistanis forgot that their Constitution was failing not because of its inherent defects but because of the inadequacies of their rulers. Because their rulers did not believe in the basic tenets of the Constitution they had drawn. And because each dwarf (mentally and not physically) politician and military ruler considered himself/herself to be indispensable. The military grew into a vested interest group and for a military of people who do not lack courage slowly degenerated into an unprofessional military.
An economist deciding the military tactics will be an unmitigated disaster but a military general deciding economic policy leads to a failed state.
Hope it will help you....
Here is your answer...
Fair comparison. These two countries became independent simultaneously. They formed their constitution around the same time. Then the life changed.
But before I state it let me admit that not everything that India has achieved is without blemish and there are sufficient silver linings in the failures of Pakistan. So please avoid reading you versus I approach in my answer.
India, except the time when Emergency was imposed, through her Legislative, Executive and Judiciary ensured that the basic tenets of our Constitution remained untouched,even sacrosanct. In the process, government won and lost, parties emerged and grew or failed but the continuity remained. No dispensation/no individual was considered indispensable.
Indian military for seventy long years remained in the barracks. The credit goes to the polity as well as the leadership of Military which could develop a completely apolitical military. Even in face of some not very correct deployment like in IPKF or even in J&K. But for one or two instances of passions getting better of them the military personnel too showed to the world that they are one of the the most disciplined and professional military of the world. And I am including the Communist world of today and past where the military always directly reported to semi-militarized ruling parties. For a country which was an under developed country in 1947, remained developing country for better part of the last seventy years and now is in the stage of emerging economies, this has been an exemplary show.
Pakistan, after the initial couple of years, saw various stages of failure of civil governments. The Military, I am sure with active manipulations of politicians, crossed the barracks repeatedly and did what they are incompetent to do - administer the country in peace period. It was inevitable that the Constitution was changed repeatedly with no real impact. Pakistanis forgot that their Constitution was failing not because of its inherent defects but because of the inadequacies of their rulers. Because their rulers did not believe in the basic tenets of the Constitution they had drawn. And because each dwarf (mentally and not physically) politician and military ruler considered himself/herself to be indispensable. The military grew into a vested interest group and for a military of people who do not lack courage slowly degenerated into an unprofessional military.
An economist deciding the military tactics will be an unmitigated disaster but a military general deciding economic policy leads to a failed state.
Hope it will help you....
Anonymous:
ok..i will
bt do u remember what is today??
its sunday..n last day of brainly of me..
Similar questions