Why democracy failed in pakistan

For Russia, the economic heft of the U. The share of trade with the U. What this probably means is that China should outweigh the United States in its capabilities to use economic leverage.

Once again, we would like to stress that China tends to more restrained than the U. The above prompts the conclusion that India will have to take careful stock of its foreign policy priorities in the near future, revising the relations with regional and global partners and rivals that have been shaped over the last two decades or even longer.

This process will primarily be informed by how the U. What does all this mean for Russia? Most importantly, Russia does not have to panic as the India—U. So far, this has not posed immediate threats to Moscow as it is largely a challenge for Beijing. Naturally, competition will further intensify on the markets that Russia prioritizes in India, with this competition not limited to military equipment, which is something Russia should be prepared for.

Experts have long stressed that the current foundation for these relations is too narrow to create a solid fabric of social collaboration between the two nations. Biotechnologies, new energy, digital economy, higher education, transport logistics and tourism are but a partial list of the new opportunities that need to be carefully considered.

The international system slipping down towards a rigid bipolarity cannot align with the strategic interests of either Moscow or New Delhi while pushing them towards much closer collaboration.

Provided both sides demonstrate due political will, patience and empathy, the Russia—India partnership could come to be one of the pillars of the continental and global order in the years to come.

From our partner RIAC. The fault line gains significance as various Muslim-majority states compete with one another in their efforts to define Islam in the 21st century in what is as much geopolitical as it is an ideological struggle. The fault line by default divides proponents and detractors of political Islam and shifts the epicentre of religious ultra-conservatism in the Muslim world from the Arab to the non-Arab Middle East and expands it into South Asia.

Retired Indian Lt. General H. What the religious fault line does not do, is denote two blocs. Rivalries within rivalries play out on both sides of the divide. These include competition between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar in geopolitics, economic and religious positioning, and sports diplomacy as well as mounting tension between Turkey and Iran. That tension manifested itself last month in rival military manoeuvres along the Azerbaijani-Iranian border.

In addition, relations between Iran and the Taliban are fragile given Iranian concerns about the plight of persecuted Hazara Shiites in Afghanistan. What the religious divide does mean is that the Taliban are in good company in a swath of land stretching from Istanbul to Islamabad when it comes to restricting social behaviour like their preventing girls from getting an education, banning music and western hairstyles, and forbidding men to shave their beards.

Similarly, Mr. Erdogan is tanking in opinion polls. Education is one major marker of the different worlds reflected in the religious divide. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear scientist, human rights activist, and frequent commentator on educational issues noted that Ottomans and others had failed in their attempts to join regular schools and religious seminaries in one system.

Pakistan is trying to be an exception , but it will pay a heavy price. Hoodbhoy said, referring to the single national curriculum by its initials. The study found that Turkish curricula, once a model of secularism with an education system that taught evolution, cultural openness, and tolerance towards minorities, had increasingly replaced those concepts with notions of jihad, martyrdom in battle and a neo-Ottoman and pan-Turkist ethnoreligious worldview.

On November 9, India invaded and annexed Junagadh. The annexation of the princely state shows that India was bent upon annexing all the princely states by hook or crook. At the time of the British withdrawal, the princely states covered 40 percent of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23 percent of its population. Junagadh was mentioned by Pakistan when the Security Council took up the issue of the hostilities in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir in January This has been done to avoid disorder and resulting chaos.

We have, however, no desire to continue this arrangement and wish to find a speedy solution in accordance with the wishes of the people of Junagadh. We have pointed out to you previously that final decision should be made by means of referendum or plebiscite. We would be glad to discuss this question and allied matters affecting Junagadh with representatives of your Government at the earliest possible moment convenient to you.

We propose to invite Nawab of Junagadh to send his representatives to this conference. Your telegram informing that your Government had taken charge of Junagadh was received by me on November 10, Your action in taking over State Administration and sending Indian troops to state without any authority from Pakistan Government and indeed without our knowledge is a clear violation of Pakistan territory and breach of International law.

Arrival of the Indian troops was accompanied with widespread murder, rape and looting of Muslim properties in Junagadh. This is preposterous. The India that the constituent assembly inherited in was not the same as the Bharat of the Hindu Shastras.

In fact, it was an artificial British creation. Since the end of the Mauryan Empire over 2, years ago, no one government had ever held sway over what is now called India. British India did not resemble Bharatvarsha of the Puranas. Never was Bharat a unified political entity. At best, it was a reference to a social order of diverse communities living together, Sindhu, Hindu, Indu. The Hindu fanatic parties, like Bharatiya Jana Sangh, precursor to the Bharatya janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sevaksangh, began to claim that India was the exclusive homeland of the Hindu only.

This reality is conspicuous from the pattern of British governance. Bengal had the permanent settlement of land revenue, Punjab had the zamindari system and Madras the ryotwari system.

Where there were once the three presidencies of Bombay, Bengal and Madras, with significant powers, other British-ruled territories had lieutenant governors and chief commissioners with varying degrees of authority. Directly ruled British India, coexisted with princely India, roughly one-third of the landmass of the empire that had its own rulers and systems of government, subject to the paramountcy of the British Crown. The Constituent Assembly of India inherited a diverse and fragmented India.

It gave no precedence to any race, religion, caste or sect over another. The British gave virtual autonomy to the Princely States excepting British paramountcy in defence, foreign affairs and communications. After creation of dominions of India and Pakistan, the Princely States became independent. India coerced the states to grant it the Instrument of Accession. Even before drying of the ink on Instrument of Accession, India began to renege its pledges given to rulers of the Princely States.

Menon himself notes a mere few months after these grand constitutional instruments had been signed Vallabha Patel began to create a union of Orissa and Chhattisgarh states in December Yet, the mergers and the reorganisation of the states continued unabated.

By the end of , almost all smaller states were reorganised into either unions of states or merged in adjoining provinces. The coercive and fraudulent creation of the India Union bears seeds of disintegration.

He observed that India was disintegrating as a political union and devolving into smaller coalitions of mutually hostile proto-states. In the post-Partition period, India was wracked by insurgencies in her eastern states, the Khalistan and Naxalbari movements, and the Dravidian south movement. The latter was a reaction to fears that the majority of the population, mostly fair-skinned Hindus, would always dominate the South Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.

India agreed to create new states Chandigarh, Telangana, etc. Insurgents became chief ministers. Resilience paved the way for resolution of issues peacefully through talks. But this was in the past. Now India is heading towards disintegration.

The Institute for Conflict Management estimated that till June 22, , there were at least fatalities in 12 districts spread across the four north-eastern states Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland. India is on tenterhooks. Indian leaders harboured a perfidious wish to annex all the princely states. Take the disputed Kashmir. But then India repealed not only article but also article A. The Indian constitution allows reorganisation of the existing state. Current academic discussions on a range The global food trade should hit an all-time record high in both volume and value terms, according to a new report released on Thursday by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization FAO.

UN agencies raised the alarm on Wednesday over the growing food crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo DRC , calling for an urgent scaling-up of assistance. A world where every car, bus and truck sold is electric and affordable, where shipping vessels use only sustainable fuels, Connect with us.

Share Tweet. Related Topics: Democracy Pakistan. Don't Miss Containing the Chinese aggression is not a choice for India but a necessity. Tamseel Aqdas. Continue Reading. You may like. South Asia replaces the Middle East as the epicentre of Muslim religious ultra-conservatism. Ultraconservative triumph puts Pakistan at risk.

Published 19 hours ago on November 11, By Dr. Published 3 days ago on November 9, James M. Published 4 days ago on November 7, By Amjed Jaaved. Rated 5. Rated 4. Rated 3. Reports 3 hours ago. Green Planet 7 hours ago. Africa Today 9 hours ago. Energy News 11 hours ago. Development 13 hours ago. Environment 14 hours ago.

Southeast Asia 4 days ago. Defense 4 days ago. Intelligence 3 days ago. Economy 4 days ago. International Law 3 days ago. Defense 3 days ago. Intelligence 2 days ago. East Asia 2 days ago. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.

Accept Reject Read More. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.

Pakistan inherited the feudal system which gained power and strength since there was no longer the check and balance of colonial governance over their conduct. These feudals have played a negative role in Pakistani politics since independence. During democratic rule, they formed political parties, participated in elections and became a part of the ruling classes. In case of military government, they supported every coup in order to preserve and protect their privileges and properties.

Army officers who are granted property after their retirement also became landlords and as their interests became common, both made efforts to strengthen feudalism. Presently, feudal lords control state institutions for their own benefit as most of the leading families are members of the parliament, holding ministerial portfolios. They use this power to enhance their influence and prestige in the society.

Nearly all political parties are dominated by feudal lords who are so powerful that a common person does not have the courage to contest elections against them. In political parties as well as in the ruling circles, there is no space for ordinary people to participate or challenge them.

Some feudal lords exercise even more power and control as spiritual leaders of their community. Their disciples have no alternative but to vote for them. Therefore feudalism is an impediment in the way of democratic institutions and their growth.

Moreover, contesting elections has become so expensive that common people stand no chance of participating in the electoral process. The whole process is undemocratic and against the spirit of democracy.

Another cause for the failure of democracy in our country is the institution of the bureaucracy which we have also inherited from the colonial rule. Bureaucratic institutions such as police, secret agencies, judiciary, and government officials were trained during the colonial period to control people by using coercive methods. They were not pro-people but against them. For example, in case of strikes and demonstration, the colonial police would crush them brutally, a practice which continues to the present.

Secret agencies used to check the conduct of people and those whose activities were suspected to be anti-government were imprisoned and tortured. Nobody would be appointed on an important government post without the clearance of these agencies.

At present our government follows the same exercise. All these bureaucratic institutions are used for the interest of the ruling classes and not for the welfare of the people. All respective governments have retained these institutions and use them to subdue and crush any opposition which challenges their power. Therefore, the existence of these bureaucratic institutions is also a major cause for declining democratic traditions.

The Pakistani leadership has created confusion by building the political structure of the country so as to make it an ideological state. Whether democracy is according to our religious tenets or not remains a debate.

Does nationhood include non-Muslims within its orbit or not? In the absence of Pakistani nationalism, regional sub-nationalism is becoming a strong source of identity. As a result, central authority has weakened and there is no binding force to unite different provinces under one state rule. There is a need to end feudalism, tribal leadership and the hold of powerful individuals from political parties. Common people must be provided opportunities to participate in political activities.

Only their inclusion in mainstream politics would strengthen democracy and save the country from corrupt, dishonest and mediocre leadership. When democracy fails Mubarak Ali Published October 26, Facebook Count. Twitter Share.

Freedom and democracy are dreams you never give up. Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 26th,