Pakistan's Democracy Blues

[Sid]

This is a ridiculous line of arguementation- please look at AH Amins own articles on the subject to see who had a more substantial contribution to warfare in South Asia, in terms of numbers. The British Army & its inductees have nothing to do with a mindset. The Sikhs returning from WW1 and 2 joined the Non violence movement for instance!

Rite! And where are the Sikhs from? I'll tell you, Punjab; which was split at the time of partition. No one can argue that the majority of troops recruited for the British Indian Army were Punjabis (non-Sikhs), Pathans, Sikhs, Gurkhas and to an extent people from Northern Sindh (close to Punjab). The military mind-set was thus entrenched in to the 'jawans' of those areas.

Sikhs returning from WWI and II joining non-violence movement is their political inclination. Towing that chain of thought, even I could say that Punjabis support or supported this and that movement and Pathans so and so. All this doesnt say anything about them being not of a military mindset. Bottom line is, they will always be suspicious of the civil polity until that mindset is rehabilitated.

Even to this day, the best troops in Indian forces are Sikhs and Gurkhas, not because that other Indians have a weak gene pool or anything, but because Sikhs and Gurkhas just have it in them to excel in this profession as their fathers and grandfathers did; and therefore they, to a good extent think like that too.

Paks military mindset is because of its dictatorships and army dominance of power.

You are confusing the cause and the effect here. Military mindset is NOT the result of dictatorships and army dominance of power because had it been the case, Pakistan wouldn't even have had the short stints of democratic governments that it has had up till now.

Its quite the contrary actually, dictatorships and army dominance of power are themselves the result of a military mindset which makes the generals reluctant to let the civilian institutions and politicians function on their own due to lack of faith in them.

India was heavily involved with the US as well. As they say- non aligned.

India was NOT heavily involved with the US and as proof you can just compare the relationship between the two now and back then. US was only involved with India back then to counter Soviet and then Russian influence and supplied India with an erratic amount of military ordinance in its bid to do so, but failed to oust heavy Soviet involvement with everything that happened in India, mostly militarily.

 

[Arrow]

Rite! And where are the Sikhs from? I'll tell you, Punjab; which was split at the time of partition. No one can argue that the majority of troops recruited for the British Indian Army were Punjabis (non-Sikhs), Pathans, Sikhs, Gurkhas and to an extent people from Northern Sindh (close to Punjab). The military mind-set was thus entrenched in to the 'jawans' of those areas.

Sikhs returning from WWI and II joining non-violence movement is their political inclination. Towing that chain of thought, even I could say that Punjabis support or supported this and that movement and Pathans so and so. All this doesnt say anything about them being not of a military mindset. Bottom line is, they will always be suspicious of the civil polity until that mindset is rehabilitated.

Even to this day, the best troops in Indian forces are Sikhs and Gurkhas, not because that other Indians have a weak gene pool or anything, but because Sikhs and Gurkhas just have it in them to excel in this profession as their fathers and grandfathers did; and therefore they, to a good extent think like that too.

Boss, when you are in a hole, its best to stop digging. No offence intended, but seriously.
First read what professional historians have to say on the subject. The entire line of British troops signify martial history is bunkum, to be honest. The troops who took up cudgels against Brits in 1857 were promptly excised from the RIA, and the Pathan and Sikh levies who remained loyal to the Queen got disproportionate representation- did this remove the martial spirit elsewhere in India, cultivated over centuries, apart from ethnic/ religious reasons which ensured the same even during times when attempts were made to snuff it out? Hardly!
The Marathas were as ferocious as anything your Pathans could come up with, ditto for many Southern and Northern jaatis and tribes that I could name- they havent turned inwards and become self destructive, even as they continue to contribute to the Indian Army of today!
Sikhs & Gurkhas being the best- gee, what of the Kumaonis then in 1962? What of the Rajput regiment or Rajputana Rifles?
You are missing the wood for the trees- the problems Pak faces are partly of its own creation & the lack of national leaders to correctly define the problems of low social awareness and development, like what has happened in India's present day Bihar. Pataliputra, seat of Indic civilization- spoken to the average Bihari? 5'8'' in height and mad enough to kick ones head in if provoked. Thats the thing. All this British -WW2 thing is hopeless jazz, sorry to be so direct, or rude (if I appear as such)- but so it is. In the Indian Army today, you have people whom the British ignored, but who are bloody ferocious.

You are confusing the cause and the effect here. Military mindset is NOT the result of dictatorships and army dominance of power because had it been the case, Pakistan wouldn't even have had the short stints of democratic governments that it has had up till now.

Its quite the contrary actually, dictatorships and army dominance of power are themselves the result of a military mindset which makes the generals reluctant to let the civilian institutions and politicians function on their own due to lack of faith in them.

You are giving Jinnah & co a big pass here. Face it dude, these guys did not lay the foundations for a sustainable future. Your people are partly to blame for the Army seizing power in conjunction with the feudals, but they too are to blame for perpetuating the cycle of dictatorship and creating a siege mentality in Pak or militarized mindset if you will.

India was NOT heavily involved with the US and as proof you can just compare the relationship between the two now and back then. US was only involved with India back then to counter Soviet and then Russian influence and supplied India with an erratic amount of military ordinance in its bid to do so, but failed to oust heavy Soviet involvement with everything that happened in India, mostly militarily.

Really? PL 480, Green Revolution, Normal Borlaugh? US help for acad institutions? For ISRO at its infancy? Sure, it wasnt anything overwhelming, but the ties were of a sufficient level for India to be in the middle, not a Soviet stooge despite being NA as you implied.

Cheers for a civilized debate, mate!

 

[Jay_]

India was NOT heavily involved with the US and as proof you can just compare the relationship between the two now and back then.

Lets see, who built India's first nuke reactor and who supplied fuel for it?

US was only involved with India back then to counter Soviet and then Russian influence and supplied India with an erratic amount of military ordinance in its bid to do so, but failed to oust heavy Soviet involvement with everything that happened in India, mostly militarily.

Not true again, the US-India co-operation started much before Indo-USSR relations. India was very much closer to the US case and proof, read about the Indian involvement in helping Tibetians.

Even to this day, the best troops in Indian forces are Sikhs and Gurkhas, not because that other Indians have a weak gene pool or anything, but because Sikhs and Gurkhas just have it in them to excel in this profession as their fathers and grandfathers did; and therefore they, to a good extent think like that too.

Hardly logical, ever read about the regiments in India, their history and locations?

 

[Sid]

First read what professional historians have to say on the subject. The entire line of British troops signify martial history is bunkum, to be honest. The troops who took up cudgels against Brits in 1857 were promptly excised from the RIA, and the Pathan and Sikh levies who remained loyal to the Queen got disproportionate representation- did this remove the martial spirit elsewhere in India, cultivated over centuries, apart from ethnic/ religious reasons which ensured the same even during times when attempts were made to snuff it out? Hardly!
The Marathas were as ferocious as anything your Pathans could come up with, ditto for many Southern and Northern jaatis and tribes that I could name- they havent turned inwards and become self destructive, even as they continue to contribute to the Indian Army of today!
Sikhs & Gurkhas being the best- gee, what of the Kumaonis then in 1962? What of the Rajput regiment or Rajputana Rifles?
You are missing the wood for the trees- the problems Pak faces are partly of its own creation & the lack of national leaders to correctly define the problems of low social awareness and development, like what has happened in India's present day Bihar. Pataliputra, seat of Indic civilization- spoken to the average Bihari? 5'8'' in height and mad enough to kick ones head in if provoked. Thats the thing. All this British -WW2 thing is hopeless jazz, sorry to be so direct, or rude (if I appear as such)- but so it is. In the Indian Army today, you have people whom the British ignored, but who are bloody ferocious.

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me, I left the Rajputs out of the equation. Anyways, what you're still doing wrong is isolating the two issues here. They are co-related. A military mindset coupled with lack of civilian institutions (which would have let to a mature polity) at Pakistan's inception went hand in hand. And that is exactly what's being discussed and not who served when in British Indian Army or who was ignored or who has proved themselves in the present IA.

You are giving Jinnah & co a big pass here. Face it dude, these guys did not lay the foundations for a sustainable future. Your people are partly to blame for the Army seizing power in conjunction with the feudals, but they too are to blame for perpetuating the cycle of dictatorship and creating a siege mentality in Pak or militarized mindset if you will.

Yes Jinnah indeed deserves the pass because he was one of those few who rose above it all. Unfortunately for Pakistan, he did not live long enough to set things straight.

 

[Sid]

Why democracy in Pakistan has been difficult and how things can be changed. Discuss here.

 

[sparten]

Democracy is a fatally flawed system and the Sumerians did away with it 5,000 years ago, the Greeks 2500 years ago.
Pakistan needs something else.

 

[Sid]

Mind elaborating a bit?

 

[sparten]

My point is simple, throughout History, "Democracy" has experineced several waves, before disappearing for millenia. The Mesoptamian City States were democratic around 3000 BC, but then died out, theIndus Valley was democratic AFAIK, and we all know what happened there, the Greeks were democratic for about a century (until the end of the Pelopannsioan war in 404 BC).

Basically speaking, it is a useless, if idealitic anarchorism, that is best done away with.

 

[Arrow]

My point is simple, throughout History, "Democracy" has experineced several waves, before disappearing for millenia. The Mesoptamian City States were democratic around 3000 BC, but then died out, theIndus Valley was democratic AFAIK, and we all know what happened there, the Greeks were democratic for about a century (until the end of the Pelopannsioan war in 404 BC).

Basically speaking, it is a useless, if idealitic anarchorism, that is best done away with.

And what will replace it?

Democracy is the only system that allows everyone to have their say and makes them feel that their voice counts.

 

[Neo]

Democracy is a fatally flawed system and the Sumerians did away with it 5,000 years ago, the Greeks 2500 years ago.
Pakistan needs something else.

Interesting!
What else do we need?
Like to hear more on this.

 

[Arrow]

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me, I left the Rajputs out of the equation. Anyways, what you're still doing wrong is isolating the two issues here. They are co-related. A military mindset coupled with lack of civilian institutions (which would have let to a mature polity) at Pakistan's inception went hand in hand. And that is exactly what's being discussed and not who served when in British Indian Army or who was ignored or who has proved themselves in the present IA.

Ok, look let me be more clear:

It was your contention that present day Paks problems are because of its people and you gave proportional representation in the British Army as an example. My point was that your example was based on an incorrect premise, since The Brit Army favoured those who had been moreoreless loyal to them in 1857 and excluded the bulk of those who fought against them, and were as "martial" etc as the ones who were included.


Apart from that, I have three further points to make- India has had people like this too, and their condition has been far worse- why didnt they all too jump haphazardly into this dictatorship business and darg India down with them?

The key thing here is leadership. For all their foibles and egotistic antics, Nehru & co, laid the foundation for a modern India, which included extending the limited British administrative infrastcuture nation wide. Also, they confined the Army to the barracks and the Army leaders signed on to that concept.

Second, - Nehru & co & their followers on did not make the Indian ethos into an "anti"-xm, say anti- China, post 62 making the Indian elite militarized in heart and soul and giving more and more power to the military side of things, and signing away their own liberties in turn. Sad to say, but this is present day Pak- it basically defines itself as anything not Indian read which is "Hindu" and hence anti-Islamic. This itself ensures that you have to have a reliance on and assiduous belief in the military as being the heart and soul of Pak, etc.

Third, the fact that Pakistan is a theocratic state in its definition- this allows every tom, d1ck and harry mullah to come in & define what is correct and what is not, and the military to mollycoddle them to cultivate their consolidated votebank, even if limited, hence there is a "mullah-military" nexus, which cuts out the middle man, from decision making. A month or so back, the IA Army vice chief had to apologize after he made a few candid comments about how integrating women into the IA, training them for hardship was not easy and because of that he preferred men. Did Musharraf apologize for his comments on rape & women, who dares to hold him accountable? Take another example, the mullahs and the Armys reliance on them, does not allow brutal laws like the Hudood ordinance to be reformed. Break the mullah-military network and you will get autonomy back.

Yes Jinnah indeed deserves the pass because he was one of those few who rose above it all. Unfortunately for Pakistan, he did not live long enough to set things straight.

Even if one gives Jinnah a pass, the fact is that he chose his fellow travellers unwisely. Nehru & the INC had excellent second rung and third rung leadership who were committed to the idea of an independent India and subsumed their ego to Nehru for the sake of country, eg Sardar Patel, who was clearly a far better leader and administrator than Nehru was. With a high proportion of feudals in post partition Pakistan dictating the agenda, your nation has not gone through much of the essential social "terraforming" required to ensure that the public become used to weilding power and not just leave it to the Army or bureaucrats or feudal elite.

Regards,
A