Happy Birthday your majesty Queen Elizabeth the second.

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

mughals were not ruling area known as pakistan when british started colonization.
Since Indian subcontinent fought for independence from rulers and most of our leaders in that fight were either democrats or left wing politician, I dont think they would have been happy to bring back royals.
There is another practical problem, India had 300 or so kings when british left, pakistan probably less but not one king for whole country. Which one you will choose as monarch?
There is some lingering positive feeling towards monarchs among certain section of Indian society even now, many royals are in politics too and find it easy to get elected(I think) but as a country we became republic in 1950 and there is no looking back.

The idea of monarch is even less palatable to younger generation.

This is what I thought although it would not surprise me if the Mughals ruled territories of modern-day Pakistan as well for some time. I am not from South Asia so I am the wrong person to ask. All I know is that we had even more city states, kingdoms, emirates, sultanates, imamates, sheikdoms in the Arab world (if not Arabia alone) than all of South Asia combined. Previously, before the most influential rulers cemented their power (some of those rulers still rule to this day in the Arab world while others do not any longer) almost every single town, city if not village was ruled by a local ruler. Often those lesser influential rulers were under the jurisdiction of more powerful ones like it was the case in South Asia and Germany before and after the Mughals and German Empire (Prussia).

In regards to your last sentence, I have noticed this too. I hear that it is similar in Pakistan. I hear from my Pakistani and Indian friends that landlords still have tremendous power in both countries.

Nice question , well the reason why Pakistan did not become Monarch state was simple , we won our independence by means of political struggle

It was by means of political disorder, demonstrations and request for independent state by means of political disobedience

The people who made it happen were highly educated folks.

The British Empire went thru 2 world wars , they needed man power and the only way they could do that by agreeing with people of Sub continent to give them independence in return for man power

The Caliph , I view him as a "Democratically elected person" not a monarch , becasue tradition was that Muslim leaders of the society selected the most reputable person

They system later became controversial as the rule of who may select the caliph was not well defined so some groups voted for one person and others voted for other group, Lack of proper system acceptable to all population is what we lacked during that time and thus 2 sects were created due to differences

Most people who came to power after the assassination of Hussein were controversial entities in one way or other.

I think in end when UK gave independence to Pakistan , the citizens of Pakistan were grateful and wanted to wish well to UK going forward and we have good diplomatic ties with UK and many Pakistanis live in UK as joint citizens etc

All of that did not necessary have to hinder a constitutional monarchy from emerging or more under a federal state. Look at Malaysia and their systems. It's quite well-functioning from what I know and they have several Sultans.

Well, only the Rashidun Caliphate was like that. Afterwards all Caliphates (Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ottomans) were hereditary as well all other Muslim rulers.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Rashidun Caliphate was close to Democratic system as it involved people in locality sitting and deciding the next leader.

However as there was no definition of the "process" it became confusing one tribe assumed their locality may have preference vs other etc and so and so. ( No telephones, no Skype or email to get people in distant areas to agree or keep them updated). Lack of universal document detailing process is the number one reason why Muslims were split in sects beyond the 4 Caliphs

After the first 4 Caliph the selection process could not maintain itself due to lack of process

Monarch system, had already been used by civilizations in past so even Muslims states started to fall under it's influence

Can't say it was the best means to govern but it worked for small territories when people traveled on horses and camels. So in those times small territories were easily ruled by means of a monarch system.

Today Saudis have a Monarch system but the people who rule take care of their people so it works for GCC nations , a Monarch system has potential to work as long as the Leaders and families remain humble and not indulge in excess and remain close to general people

• 0% Tax, free education & healthcare, and cheap grants to start business etc all great initiative

• When for example we look at UAE or Saudia we see the Monarchs running large projects to benefit local population etc improving cities and do a lot of positive things, lovely cities, roads , trains and buildings and housing schemes

In Europe I think Monarchs routine were involved in wars over 1000+ years and eventually people decided a new system which became the democratic system perhaps originating in Greek Philosophical schools. Normally excessive war and poverty rise in local population is #1 reason that effect the Monarch system negatively.

Monarch system was rejected in Sub continent as wealth moved to UK and local population remained extremely poor that is why a change in philosophy happened with respect to Pakistan

Subcontinent had the system (Monarchy) for 200-300 years under British but the local population did not get any benefits , that is why that system was Universally rejected. What I mean life style in Sub continent for average person was not same as person living in UK , the nagging poverty is what made the locals ask for Independence

On contrary had we been blessed with good leadership , and ample stable source etc obviously Monarchy would have worked it is just that our evolution (Politically) is greatly different


Historical Fact:
Subcontinent Under Mughal (Monarchy) was extremely rich civilization, the wealth from the civilization was taken by East Indian company (Organization/corporation etc who bought rights to territories provided it gave big $$$ tax to British government) and transferred to UK and that fueled the expedition and expansions of the British Empire as far as Canada/USA perhaps even into Australia. There were also heavy taxation on local population etc in occupied lands.


At Europe:
UK / Spain were in a race , like space race but it was for $$$ so they can have more influence
Over Europe - that is why they both sent expeditions to Americas - and to discover a sea route
to India. That why when East Indian company promised money to Monarchs. The Monarchs
were happy to provide military support or give free hand to the company.


History between 1000 - 2016 is quite interesting as a lot happened implementation of a system in one area was not necessarily equal to other parts of world


**How does it relates to modern Pakistan-UK relations not much as UK has democratic system
now and so does Pakistan, we generally have moved on.

**World war 2 , brought a fundamental change in British society and thus Pakistan was created
to allow people to live as they wish and not a rule enforced / same was case for the other
country who were freed a day later.

**Today due to the change we see UK a hub for all nationalities one of the biggest changes
of course being equality

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Funnily enough, during the 1947-8 war between India and Pakistan her father was technically at war with himself.

Yes he was but it get's even more crazy than this. After independance in 1947 Pak Army and Pak Air Force faced severe problem. Almost all ranks above Brigadier level were occupied by British officers. Pak government than contracted British officers to stay in their posts. Pak Air Force faced severe shortage of technical crew. This was resolved by even taking in Polish technicians who had experiance from the recent WW2.

In 1947 the Chief of General Staff and Commander of Pak Army was General Douglas Gracey and remained the chief until 1951.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Gracey

The infamous ISI (spy agency) in Pakistan was set up by a Australian born British Army General - Robert Cawthorne. He was the first director general of ISI and continued in his post until 1959.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cawthome

The Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul was set up by British officer Brigadier Francis Ingall in 1947 and remained the commandent till 1951.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ingall

The fact is and this is something many don't like accepting is that Pakistan Army is largely a British creation. Majority of the regiments date from British era and were set up in 1870s. Even today most continue following the traditions laid over century ago.

And the Poles (many of them settling in Pakistan) went on to play a vital role in building up Pak Air Force in it's early years. Men like Józef Turowicz went on to become Air Commodore in PAF.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_Turowicz

Many of the British officers also never left. One surviving example is Major Geoffrey Langland who after retiring from the army set up a school in the mountains.

Link > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/ex...jor-Geoffrey-Langlands-of-the-Hindu-Kush.html

 

[Umair Nawaz]

So the old woman has turned 90. Why dont u let her die n get rid of monarchy and become a democracy?

 

[Nilgiri]

So the old woman has turned 90. Why dont u let her die n get rid of monarchy and become a democracy?

A constitutional monarchy IS a democracy.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

A constitutional monarchy IS a democracy.

more like a topi drama. Freedom is a core essence in achieving democracy in the first place.

 

[Nilgiri]

more like a topi drama. Freedom is a core essence in achieving democracy in the first place.

UK is far more free and democratic than where you are from. Dont throw stones at others when you live in a glass house.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

UK is far more free and democratic than where you are from. Dont throw stones at others when you live in a glass house.

Speaking like a true Monarchy Worshiper.
First gain freedom n democracy, then compare with non monarchy states.

 

[Nilgiri]

Speaking like a true Monarchy Worshiper.
First gain freedom n democracy, then compare with non monarchy states.

I dont give a damn about the monarchy of a country. Their purpose is to serve as a historical link to their past, little else. I have no issue with people who have an affinity for that, personally its a distraction for me. The current Queen personally seems like a good dedicated individual...so thats good.

Anyways monarchy doesn't get in the way of the UK's freedom and democracy.

Do you classify people like @waz as a monarch worshipper?

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I dont give a damn about the monarchy of a country. Their purpose is to serve as a historical link to their past, little else. I have no issue with people who have an affinity for that, personally its a distraction for me. The current Queen personally seems like a good dedicated individual...so thats good.

Anyways monarchy doesn't get in the way of the UK's freedom and democracy.

Do you classify people like @waz as a monarch worshipper?

Yes i do consider them the same. Whoever chose to sacrifice their freedom for monarchy.
Anyways my argument with u was that rather then comparing yrself ( a person living in a country which is even worse, since its ruled by a foreign monarchy ie Canada) to us. U guys and the other western monarchs should first work their way towards democracy and freedom. Because only then yr argument will gain strength while telling about Freedom n Democracy to a person like me who is a native of a non monarchy state. I hope i have clarified.

Now regarding yr post and bold part, if thats the case then same can be said about the monarchy states like in Middle East too? If not anything else but atleast theoretically, NO?

 

[Nilgiri]

Yes i do consider them the same. Whoever chose to sacrifice their freedom for monarchy.
Anyways my argument with u was that rather then comparing yrself, a person living in a country which is even worse, since its ruled by a foreign monarchy ie Canada, u guys and the other western monarchs should first work their way towards democracy and freedom. Because only then yr argument will gain strength while telling about Freedom n Democracy to a person like me who is a native of a non monarchy state. I hope i have clarified.

Now regarding yr post and bold part, if thats the case then same can be said about the monarchy states like in Middle East too? If not anything else but atleast theoretically, NO?

I would only care about the Monarchy if they have some role in governing my life. But they are a figurehead ...so are of no relevance to my attention (i,e they can be there or not be there....its no issue for me).

I elect my politicians, they are relatively transparent compared to most countries (but not ideal of course) and they make policies which they based their election platform on. Others do the same. At no point does any monarch interfere in anything of political/governing relevance in Canada or UK.

Now look at Pakistan where you vote between PPP and PML....and even have such parties like MQM....all of them full of corrupt cronies with massive vested interests (many are feudal landowners etc.).....all ultimately subservient to Pakistan military who they dare not anger/upset. Yet you are preaching democracy and freedom to others because you have some personal issue with monarch figureheads?

You are better off railing against Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia where there truly is no democracy and all political power is vested in the monarch....if you dont want to focus on Pakistan for some reason.

UK is not an absolute monarchy, hasnt been for 100s of years. I hope I have clarified.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I would only care about the Monarchy if they have some role in governing my life. But they are a figurehead ...so are of no relevance to my attention (i,e they can be there or not be there....its no issue for me).

I elect my politicians, they are relatively transparent compared to most countries (but not ideal of course) and they make policies which they based their election platform on. Others do the same. At no point does any monarch interfere in anything of political/governing relevance in Canada or UK.

Now look at Pakistan where you vote between PPP and PML....and even have such parties like MQM....all of them full of corrupt cronies with massive vested interests (many are feudal landowners etc.).....all ultimately subservient to Pakistan military who they dare not anger/upset. Yet you are preaching democracy and freedom to others because you have some personal issue with monarch figureheads?

You are better off railing against Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia where there truly is no democracy and all political power is vested in the monarch....if you dont want to focus on Pakistan for some reason.

UK is not an absolute monarchy, hasnt been for 100s of years. I hope I have clarified.

u sure about that?

If so then whats the point of keeping monarchy anyway? And giving special social privileges to a single family? Its almost like america where a single vote of billionaire can outshine the vote of millions.

One of the core essence of truely reaching democracy is Social equality too. Because by this only u can have a true Freedom in the first place. And what my limited experience says is that a country who doesnt adhere the core principles of Freedoms which lead to democracy is in no position to compare with a non monarchy state like Pakistan no matter her Democratic system is mature or not. But atleast it is a democracy not a mere monarchy.

U said that Their purpose is to serve as a historical link to their past,

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/happy-bi...zabeth-the-second.427879/page-6#ixzz46npIQW8G

So isnt theoretically Middle East are same. This is the same excuse they can give too to justify themselves, regardless of them being so called absolute dictatorships or not. Thats a different issue, we are talking about monarchy itself and the fact that these countries r still maintaining the concept of their dark ages. And criticizing others for same.