Why have Pakistan and India evolved so differently?

[ajtr]

Why have Pakistan and India evolved so differently?

Lecture Title: Pakistan and India as a Socio-Religious Experiment

Why have Pakistan and India, created from the landmass called British India, evolved so differently, despite sharing so much -- language, culture, food habits and more?

Could some of the prominent features of Islam be responsible for Pakistan becoming a fountainhead of terror and a nation subsisting on foreign assistance?

 

[civfanatic]

The answer is quite simple.

Pakistan was founded on religious grounds, while India was founded with the slogan "Unity in Diversity".

This made all the difference.

 

[pankaj nema]

There is nothing wrong in Pakistan declaring itself an ISlamic state right from 1947.
Even Turkey Egypt Jordan Malaysia and UAE are Islamic states.

What went wrong was Pak Army's attitude AND creating the MONSTER of EXTREMISM .
Now perhaps it is the VESTED interest of many people IN PAkistan to continue the STATUS QUO.

 

[ajtr]

Why have Pakistan and India Evolved so Differently?​

(November 01, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) In 1947, unknowingly, a socio-religious experiment was launched: The British-ruled India was partitioned into Pakistan and India for the Muslim minorities and the majority Hindus respectively.

Back then, these two highly illiterate South Asian nations had predominantly agriculture-based economies, with Pakistan inheriting a better-developed irrigation system compared to India. Leaving aside their majority religions, at birth, they shared culture, language, ethnicity and culinary habits. Yet, their evolution couldn't be any more different – while India has emerged to become a secular nation with a thriving and multi-faceted economy, constitutionally Islamic Pakistan has descended into an economic basket case and a fountainhead of terror.

This analysis offers the possibility of identifying the roots of Pakistan's gradual evolution since its birth, including the policy decisions taken by the government and the factors influencing them. Such an analysis could form the basis of a more robust policy response to mitigate the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Pakistan. There is yet another reason: it's due to the realization that Pakistan stands today as a microcosm of the challenges faced by Muslim communities around the globe.

The Pakistani state had the opportunity, like India, to focus on development and wealth creation. But it chose not to. India's emergence is due to the investments it made in building quality higher educational institutions in the fields of engineering, technology and management in the 1950s and 60s.[ii]

During the same period, while neglecting modern education,[iii] Pakistan was busy sponsoring a myriad of homegrown jihadist groups as a means of extending its sphere of influence abroad. It is suspected of aiding some Taliban groups in order to advance its agenda in Afghanistan.[iv] It is also said to sponsor radical groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, implicated in the 2008 Mumbai attacks by the Indian government.[v]

A narrative of the Muslim minorities in South Asia consists of early hints that are as fascinating as they are telling of Pakistan's descend into radicalism.

When the British colonizers set up a Sanskrit college in Kolkata in 1829, Hindu leaders opposed it, demanding English medium schools instead. However, when the British announced a program in 1835 to introduce English in schools, Muslim clerics opposed the move by claiming that education imparted in English was at variance with the tenets of Islam.[vi] Hindus clearly understood that acquiring new knowledge required learning English, whereas, Muslim clerics had viewed modern education offered in the English language as abhorrent. These respective outlooks continue to shape these two communities in South Asia even after the birth of Pakistan and India. Back then, the Muslims can hardly be considered a disadvantaged community, having been the ruling class for several centuries, before the advent of the British rule in 1757.[vii]

Before the partition, the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah outlined a rationale behind a homeland for the Muslims: "So far as I have understood Islam, it does not advocate a democracy which would allow the majority of non-Muslims to decide the fate of the Muslims. We cannot accept a system of government in which the non-Muslims merely by numerical majority would rule and dominate us."[viii]

A prominent feature of Islam called jihad was invoked in order to carve-out the Muslim majority state of Pakistan. In general, jihad could either mean inner spiritual struggle or an offensive version – a religious war waged to conquer unbelievers and their land.[ix]

Toward establishing the goal of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah conceived "Direction Action Day" in 1946, which eventually led to uncontrolled rioting and manslaughter.[x] Pamphlets circulated (and read out in mosques) by the Muslim League Party led by Jinnah called for an offensive jihad: "We are starting a jihad in Your [God's] Name in this very month of Ramzan"¦ enable us to establish the Kingdom of Islam in India and make proper sacrifices for this jihad – by the grace of God may we build up in India the greatest Islamic kingdom in the world."[xi]

Immediately after the birth of Pakistan, another prominent feature of Islam called sharia was invoked to play an overarching role to help govern the new nation. This is in contrast to India where there was separation of church and state due to the consensus belief that no theocratic feature of the majority Hindu religion should likewise play a similar role.

Mr. Jinnah, a westernized and non-practicing Muslim, started his reign with the following promise to the people, including the minorities: "We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State."[xii] Yet, he too found himself unable to resist sharia, often called an Islamic law. Mr. Jinnah remarked in 1948: "Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Sharia Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago"¦ Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct, even in politics and economics, and the like."[xiii] Sharia is an Islamic legal system based upon the teachings of the Muslim holy book, the Koran and the Hadith, sayings and actions of Islam's founder Muhammad – and it reflects the customs and traditions of Arab tribes of a bygone era.[xiv]

In the subsequent decades religious conservatives successfully pushed to enact increasingly ideological policy measures without encountering much resistance from the civic society. This put Pakistan on an inexorable path to extremism. For instance, in 1949, the Constitutional Assembly of Pakistan passed the "Objectives Resolution" making it clear that Muslims would have higher status than non-Muslims.[xv] With the adaptation of its constitution in 1956, Pakistan called itself an "Islamic Republic."[xvi]

In 1962, the Pakistani government established Council of Islamic Ideology to ensure that the laws enacted were in conformance with sharia.[xvii] In 1971, as part of putting down an insurrection by disgruntled Muslims in East Pakistan (now called Bangladesh), the West Pakistan-dominated army was issued both verbal and written orders by the military high command to selectively kill the Hindu minorities in East Pakistan in collaboration with jihadist groups.[xviii] This was carried out as part of a pogrom to "cleanse" the region of the "infidel" influence. As a result, millions of Bengalis including possibly a million Hindu minorities were exterminated.[xix]

In 1974, the government, pressured by orthodox Sunni Muslims, passed a bill declaring the more tolerant and inclusive Ahmadiyya Muslim community a non-Muslim minority. Interestingly, unlike the orthodox Sunnis or the Shias, the Ahmadiyyas do not subscribe to the idea of a violent jihad waged on unbelievers.[xx]

A defining metric of where the new nation chose to expend its creative energies and resources is elucidated through the following data. Since its birth in 1947, a total of 106 doctorates in engineering and technology have been awarded in Pakistan, compared to a grand total of 232 doctorates in the field of Islamic studies (out of 2287 total doctorates awarded in social sciences).[xxi] Further breakdown reveals that the majority of the 106 doctorates were awarded since 2005.[xxii] While there has been a major spurt in the number of doctorates awarded since 2000, the focus in PhD production has shifted away from social sciences. For instance, between the years 2005 and 2009 the number of doctorates awarded in engineering and technology shot up from 9 to about 40.[xxiii] However, during the same period, the social sciences saw only a 50 percent increase in the number of doctorates granted.[xxiv]

The above data analysis leads to the following conclusion: until the year 2000 – fifty three years into its birth – Pakistan produced between five to twenty times more doctorates in the single subject of Islamic studies for every doctorate produced in the entire fields of engineering and technology. Evidently, with Islam playing a prominent role in the affairs of the state through sharia and jihad, even mainstream universities took to emphasizing religious scholarship.

By portraying sharia as a "divine" law, the masses are made to depend on regressive Muslim clerics for its interpretation, thereby by giving the clerics unmatched control and authority over Muslim communities. Sharia can be seen to create conditions for the flourishing of jihad in Pakistan, by restricting and over-regulating young Muslims' lives, and importantly, hampering their ability to create wealth. Offensive jihad then became an all-too-convenient outlet for their pent up energies and desire for adventure.

Whole new independent channels were created to systematically indoctrinate impressionable young minds to develop a passion for jihad (in the context of a religious war) in Pakistan. The social studies curriculum guidelines for grades 6 and 7 instruct textbook writers and teachers to "develop aspiration for jihad." The government-approved Islamic studies textbook for eighth grade tells students they must be prepared "to sacrifice every precious thing, including life, for jihad."[xxv] The government even went on to declare that jihad was essential for every Muslim.[xxvi]

Indoctrination extended to the armed forces; "faith, piety and jihad in the path of Allah," became the motto of the Pakistani army.[xxvii] A required reading of Pakistan's military officers is an authoritative military manual on jihad called The Quranic Concept of War.[xxviii] It outlines an offensive jihad claimed to be rooted in the religion: "The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy, known or hidden... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means; it is the end in itself... Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him." A map distributed to the Pakistani military singles out northern India for a transformation into a Muslim-dominated region and its eventual merger with Pakistan by the year 2020.[xxix] Toward achieving this nefarious design, over 800 jihadist cells have been setup within India, presumably with the help of the military-dominated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.[xxx]

Sharia is popular with the Pakistani public. A poll conducted by World Public Opinion during the period 2006-2007 even in the relatively cosmopolitan urban areas of Pakistan found seventy nine percent of the respondents agree with seeking to "require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia."[xxxi] Evidently, the perception of Islam as an all-encompassing "guide to life," shaped by sharia and preached through Muslim religious institutions was the likely culprit behind Pakistan's less than whole-hearted embrace of modern education. Indeed, this very outlook too may have discouraged Pakistan from setting up a modern and equitable tax revenue stream. With the affluent and elite hardly paying any taxes, the cash starved Pakistani treasury has to rely on foreign assistance.[xxxii]

An intriguing question is why sharia and violent jihad have dictated the evolution of Muslim-majority Pakistan. A plausible explanation could be because sharia[xxxiii] and jihad[xxxiv] are among the prominent or standout features of Islam's foundational texts – the Koran, the Hadith and Sira (Muhammad's biography). And in particular because violent jihad waged on unbelievers has been shown to statistically dominate the non-violent inner struggle jihad in the texts.[xxxv] If these are indeed true, not just in Muslim-majority Pakistan, even if all manner of opportunities for development are available, there should exist compelling evidence of sharia and jihad stunting development and fostering extremism in minority Muslim communities. A window into this perspective comes from the developed western nation of Britain where Muslims of Pakistani origin form the dominant ethnic component in a sizeable Muslim minority population.

The first generation of Muslims from Pakistan and Hindus from India immigrated to Britain during the post war era to find employment in textile mills and in other blue-collar professions. Yet almost fifty to sixty years later, Hindus there have income and education levels comparable to those of the native majority whites. Muslims of Pakistani origin have exactly the opposite record; they tend to be poorer, less educated, and tend to have high crime rates.[xxxvi] In fact, the Muslim population (of which Muslims of Pakistani origin constitute about thirty five percent) in British prisons is about twenty times that of the Hindus. But the Muslim population in Britain is only three times that of the Hindus – and the British Muslims are three times more likely to be unemployed.[xxxvii]

A survey of young British Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 found that forty percent of them would prefer to be governed by sharia laws, while the figure among Muslims of age 55 and over, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.[xxxviii] This discrepancy can be readily inferred as due to the increased exposure to jihad and sharia the younger generation was subjected to, thanks to the well-resourced local mosques funded in the 1980s (and onwards) by the oil-rich Middle Eastern Sheikdoms.

One in eight young British Muslims showed admiration for jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda that, "are prepared to fight the West."[xxxix] Three of the four jihadists associated with the 7/7 London bombings were from ethnic Pakistani Muslim communities.[xl] And one in four British Muslims, while not condoning the London bombings, sympathized with the feelings and motives of the perpetrators.[xli]

Religions are defined by ideas and practices. In retrospect, that certain attributes of a religion influence people, communities and even nations should surprise no one.

However, it is indeed worrying that certain prominent features of Islam overwhelm modernism and development opportunities under varying conditions – and lead to radicalization of communities, and eventually in many cases, formation of armed groups with a political agenda.

Yet the conventional wisdom is that Muslim radicalism needs to be tackled politically, augmented by security and economic measures, while doing little to directly address the underlying religious dynamics. Among the proponents of this view is the prominent counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen. In discussing the insurgencies in Pakistan and elsewhere, Dr. Kilcullen asserts: "Islam is invoked by all sides as a rallying cry, not solely by the insurgents. And in fact the conflict is entirely political: it concerns power in human social structures, not theological disputation."[xlii]

The fact that Islam should be a rallying cry for all sides in itself is an indication that certain religion-based regressive mindset has taken root across the spectrum – and as a consequence, the conflict is not entirely political, free of religious influence.

Admittedly, Dr. Kilcullen's insightful observations came from field studies; but they are best described as anecdotal evidence. Besides, in his piece he failed to note that sharia has long repressed Pakistan from developing itself, and the focus on violent jihad didn't help Pakistan's relations with non-Muslim nations or its very own non-Muslim citizens. Evidently, in the long run, all of this has led to a nation that has failed to provide a future for its citizens and has immersed itself into conflicts in the name of religion. Behind Pakistan's evolution lie political decisions that are – as discussed in the previous paragraphs – driven by certain prominent features of Islam. Hence, religion plays a central role in the politics of this conflict, contrary to the assertion of Dr. Kilcullen.

Dr. Kilcullen gives the example of successful counter-terrorism strategies implemented in Iraq as a justification of his delinking of politics from religion. For many decades under Saddam Hussein's secular rule, there was a "separation" of mosque and state. Not wanting to be challenged or dictated by clerics, Mr. Hussein kept a tight leash on Islamic institutions, by curtailing political sermons and community mobilizations led by the mosque. This ensured that sharia was relegated to the backburner.[xliii] However, Mr. Hussein's deposal in 2003 due to the American military intervention created a power vacuum that was readily filled by the mosque. Still, decades of Mr. Hussein's secular rule left the Iraqis unprepared for the sharia-based edicts of the clerics.[xliv] The resulting erosion of the newfound clerical support base, and the radicals supported by them, arguably, were among the primary reasons for the success of the America-led "surge" in 2007. In other words, unlike Pakistan, due to its unique history, delinking of politics from religion was an exception in Iraq, rather than the rule – a nuance missing from Dr. Kilcullen's narrative.

This political-centric view probably led to proposing what may be called "development first" (long-term) strategy toward addressing the jihadist threat. This strategy presumes that by helping to build modern institutions of governance and education (in order to create wealth and opportunities), improve infrastructure and create employment in nations such as Pakistan, an increasingly influential and assertive civic society can be created that would in turn roll back the radicalization of the society. This is the basis of the Kerry-Lugar legislation – a $7.5 billion, 5-year American non-military developmental package for Pakistan.[xlv]

However, the plan associated with the legislation lacks specific religion-centric measures to soften the influence of sharia and jihad on Pakistan. As the previous paragraphs make it clear, the plan in the present form ends up dealing with the symptoms of Pakistan's shortcomings while overlooking the root causes. This approach is not only destined for failure but is bound to backfire.

Right from its birth, Pakistan chose to ignore opportunities for development, and went on to embark on a sharia-jihad buildup. One wonders, with the fervor for sharia and jihad still remaining high in Pakistan, what has changed? Indeed, the nation's religiosity appears to have only increased in the subsequent decades. Hence, increasing the standard of living of Pakistanis under the present circumstances is to facilitate furthering the present trend, as paraphrased in the summary of an expansive survey carried out recently: "better economic conditions may be associated with greater support for Islamist militancy."[xlvi]

Under the present levels of religiosity in Pakistan, externally funded efforts to improve its education system could mean producing more capable new generation of jihadists. For instance, the extremist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba has recruited more educated youths, some of whom even hold advanced degrees, in the recent years.[xlvii] The other concern is the diversion of funds to wage jihad on Pakistan's neighbors and to the programs aimed at developing new generation of nuclear weapons.[xlviii]

In conclusion, a study of Pakistan and its Diaspora in Britain, and Pakistan's contrasting evolution with India suggests the need for paradigm shift in addressing the threat of radical Islam (long-term) – that of a strategy shift from "development first" to "undercutting the influence of sharia and jihad first."

(Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a U.S.-based nuclear physicist and author of the recent book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War. His email: [email protected])

 

[sob]

The author has managed to cover all the points but on a very superficial level. One must remember that till 70s we were dependent on handouts from the US to feed our population. It is only after almost 50 years of Independence that we have shown our true mettle. Groundwork may have been laid in the 50s and 60s but one foot was always on the brake and one hand on the reverse gear.

The biggest difference between the two countries lies in the entrepreneurial skills displayed by the Indians, leading to a strong Industrial base and on the other side the elite were comfortable being the landlords.

 

[ejazr]

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy a nuclear physcist and armchair theorist on politcal Islam and terrorism trying to counter Kilcullen's "anecdotal evidence" who is a twenty year veteran of conflicts as well as chief strategist who sucessfully changed the course of the Iraq War. Kilcullen also is fluent in Indonesian and Arabic. I think any informed person can decide for himself who is more credible here .

But one high level theme is correct. Politcal religious ideology is the problem with Pakistan. And this applies for all religions that try to use religion for a politcal agenda. Any country that allows a minority of its people to use religion or race to hijack them for politcal purposes will lead to perversion of that religion. This is a big challenge for muslims at present, and something that I would say has already seeing a changing tide.

Ofcourse there are numerous other things that are involved and these can't be simplified into one or two things that made all the difference. But a fundamental fact is this use of religion for politcal purposes that has to be tackled head on.

Some points that come to mind:
(1) No mass base leaders otehr than Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan, India had large number of freedom fighters mostly from the Congress that were in the nation building process uptil the 80s even.
(2) Landlords and Army demoinated the country, no land reforms and no taxation on agricultural land, India had land reforms right in the beginning
(3) Defence pacts with the US which basically made it into a proxy of the west India stayed away from formal pacts and continues to do so

 

[ajtr]

(1) No mass base leaders otehr than Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan, India had large number of freedom fighters mostly from the Congress that were in the nation building process uptil the 80s even.

Even those two were the alien to the new land only thing which made both of them popular is is their extreme ideology.liaqat ali khan's real mass base was in UP.

(2) Landlords and Army demoinated the country, no land reforms and no taxation on agricultural land, India had land reforms right in the beginning

Princely states and landlords dotted the entire india too.Real problem was the making of constitution as quickly as possible.As the leaders of of muslim league were themselves were landlords and tribal sardars its was not in position to impose any land reforms taxation on agriculture land.muslim league could not ve put its support base ie the landlords against the party. only thing that bound muslim leaguers to masses were the islam.

(3) Defence pacts with the US which basically made it into a proxy of the west India stayed away from formal pacts and continues to do so

For whatever reason people blame army for making pakistan the stooge of west.but real truth was that jinnah himself was in favour of such an alliance or watever fears of him(may be first kashmir war) he gave such an indication to usa president (Truman i suppose) many times.So it was not that west that forced it into alliance but it were the leaders of pakistan who invited west to use it.

 

[Singh]

I would like to make a few points.

1. Jinnah was a lawyer, he was not a philosopher, political scientist, a visionary leader, an ideologue nor an intellectual.

2. Jinnah believed,whether erroneously or otherwise, that in an independent India the Hindu upper caste elite via Congress will rule and all other voices(elite) will be stifled. Therefore, Jinnah's struggle throughout was to ensure greater political rights for the Muslim (elite) in an independent India.

3. Jinnah was against partition, but when Congress refused to budge on its stance the megalomaniac Jinnah decided to pull the plug. As such creation of Pakistan marked a failure of Jinnah's dream.

4. Jinnah still believed that both Hindu Hindustan and Muslim Pakistan together would constitute India. That's the reason why he was miffed when India decided to call itself India. However, the events preceding and succeeding partition/independence laid to rest his vision of joint Hindustan and Pakistan being called India.

5. Jinnah who never desired Pakistan was now at a loss on what to do when finally Pakistan was created. He then tried to envision Pakistan as a carbon copy of India, with the only difference he thought was that India was to be ruled by the Hindu elite and Pakistan the Muslim elite. However soon after Jinnah died.

 

[devgupt]

Well we had Mahatma Gandhi and it certainly helped.One special feature of Indian independence struggle was the spirit of accomodation.For example Gandhi and Ambedkar both backed down from their main beliefs to sign the Poona Pact, also the decision to enter assemby in 1924, formation of Congress Socialist party within Congress.Always there was space for debate and accomodation.Our leaders always tried to took each other on board.
On the other hand the freedom struggle of Muslim League was based upon exclusivity.
This was displayed in the actions of leaders of both nations post indpendendence.Nehru allowed the formation of linguistic states even though personally he was against it, while Shastriji backed down from imposing Hindi when he realised the depths of Tamil resentment.Contrast this with the attitude of Ayub Khan

 

[devgupt]

I would like to make a few points.

1. Jinnah was a lawyer, he was not a philosopher, political scientist, a visionary leader, an ideologue nor an intellectual.
.

Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were lawyers too.
3. Jinnah was against partition, but when Congress refused to budge on its stance the megalomaniac Jinnah decided to pull the plug. As such creation of Pakistan marked a failure of Jinnah's dream.

o remain India, I th

4. Jinnah still believed that both Hindu Hindustan and Muslim Pakistan together would constitute India. That's the reason why he was miffed when India decided to call itself India. However, the events preceding and succeeding partition/independence laid to rest his vision of joint Hindustan and Pakistan being called India.

That's an interesting point. While I had read about Jinnah being angry on India's decision to remain India, the reason behind it was his assumption that a Hindu Hindustan would have been the final seal of approval by Congress on his decison to seek Pakistan , something which was denied to him by India remaining India.

 

[Singh]

Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were lawyers too.

Nehru, Gandhi, Patel were in a different league, they were intellectuals, mass leaders, visionaries, they were giants.

That's an interesting point. While I had read about Jinnah being angry on India's decision to remain India, the reason behind it was his assumption that a Hindu Hindustan would have been the final seal of approval by Congress on his decison to seek Pakistan , something which was denied to him by India remaining India.

As I said Jinnah never sought an independent country.

 

[Oracle]

It doesn't matter on what basis a Country is born. It's ultimately the citizens who shape it. It because of us what India is today, it's simply because of them what Pakistan is today. Mentality and the heart to accept changes as the world progresses. They still live in the stone age and will be living in for decades for come.

 

[Tshering22]

Though the initial evolving of India during the early years was totally socialist in nature and not to my pleasure, still despite this one drawback and a lack of strong sincere leadership India trudged ahead. Pakistan's obsession with religion in everything; from social life, to politics, to schooling, to relationships caused it to eventually start cracking. Having no individual cultural and ethnic heritage, Pakistani leaders went ahead making that country into the "living breathing Islam". This single-point strategy envisioned a Pakistan that re-united the old Ottoman Empire, this time having a base in South Asia.

Due to limited vision and understanding of modern politics and having selective myopia on their outward perspectives, Pakistani leaders started viewing the world in their own image; meaning that a country could exist for them only if it had an indigenous religion and if it didn't have, it didn't have an credibility to exist as a nation. This self-ignoring and lack of a distinct cultural identity and their obsession with making themselves based on Islam, made them forget that other Muslim countries relied not just on religion but on distinct cultural habits. TO the extent that the country that Pakistan idolized, modern Turkey has an interpretation of pre-Islamic Turkic religions that were existing in tribes and blended them with Arabia's Islam, creating a distinct, modern and more tolerant version of religion that made them focus on more practical aspects of running a country; economics, politics, education, scientific development, engineering, infrastructure, national defence and so on.

By 60s and 70s, Pakistan became so obsessed with Islam that everything was seen even more a requirement for everything. Soldiers were encouraged on adapting to hardline interpretations of Islam and indoctrinate themselves on the lines of "Ghazis" or "destroyers of Kuffar". Another theory that becomes the false foundation of this mentality was that of the "martial race" concept that the British used during their time in the sub-continent to favour a specific bunch of people as "superior to others". Since Pakistan's foundation was to deny everything that was Dharmic (Indian by origin) whether ancestral or cultural, religion or customs in society, they further lost themselves in this vortex of superiority complex with General Ayub Khan's famous line "1 Pakistani = 10 Indians".

This dangerously narrow-minded and intolerant mentality was further fueled by radical air giving countries like Saudi Arabia who's own regressive and intolerant interpretation of religio-political philosophy egged Pakistan into becoming more Arabic than Arabs themselves, more Persians than Persians and more Turkish than Turks themselves. All this while their inability to demographically put Kashmir in favour of "land of Muslims" failed in 2 wars, one of which caused their existing territory to be torn into another country (1971). During 80s, numerous failures in the form of small skirmishes successfully thwarted by Indian Army fueled religious fanaticism to new levels when Pakistan finally resorted to using of religiously fundamentalist Islamists from Soviet war into Kashmir; this horde of zealots entering into the valley made sure that the existing Muslims of Kashmir were radicalized enough to start their conquest of the state through ethnic massacre. In total, it is estimated that more than a lakh non-Muslim Kashmiris mostly being Hindu/Sikh or Buddhists were killed, raped, manhandled, attacked, threatened and arond another 5-6 lakhs were driven out with sheer violence.

This showed the beginning of a non-military religion-themed war that a desperate and frustrated Pakistan resorted to due to their inability to take Kashmir by simple military force. While Indian government fumbled with the Soviet collapse, it was careless not to ensure safety of pandit, sikh and buddhist community with their safe return to the valley and therefore couldn't stop the islamization of the valley that radicalized the otherwise peaceful people of Kashmir.

All this while Pakistan's downfall had already started taking place. With the US disenchantment of Pakistan post Cold war, the former stopped and sanctioned all of military aid supplies that Pakistani armed forces were being blessed with for the past 4 decades without having to pay much for it, on the grounds of CIA realizing Pakistani nuclear ambition. Leaving the job of creating problems for Indian forces in Kashmir to Islamic radicals in the valley, Pakistani army was free to pursue politics like never before. However, in their elation of being able to attempt to "bleed India with a thousand cuts", little did they realize that the gamble of religious terrorism that they had started carried a very horrific dark side; a demon so fierce that their poorly managed, madrassa influenced country would not be able to manage.

The demon started showing itself more and more by the time the nationalist NDA government came into power in India, furthering the economic liberalization that Dr. Manmohan Singh had initiated in early 90s post Soviet collapse. The arrival of more assertive and fierce nationalist regime in India saw numerous occasions of tension with Pakistan especially after PM Vajpayee's declaration of India as a nuclear weapons state. Unkown to Indian officials then was that China had already embarked on supporting its only military puppet in Asia, namely Pakistan with nuclear weapons technology and according to some reports had tested nuclear bombs for them in Chinese territory itself, therefore making Pakistan appear successful just merely 3 weeks later as a nuclear weapons state. The demon of Pakistan's jihad began to show signs of pressure when the then PM Vajpayee attempted to dissolve the tensions and enmity with a historic state visit to Pakistan. However unbeknownst to the then Pakistani PM, his more aggressive and Islamist motivated generals had already embarked on a plan to once again try to take Kashmir by force; an act which initiated the Kargil conflict in 1999.

This last attempt to take Kashmir by force also as its previous attempts saw a crushing defeat. Despite flattening Pakistani backed terrorists and undercover military officers, the war exposed numerous weaknesses of Indian armed forces, catching the government cold feet, which embarked then on a rapid modernization and upgradation programme of all weapon systems in the tri-services in India. Due to the absence of India's largest partner and longtime friend, the Soviet Union, the nationalist NDA government began to expand ties with alternate countries like Israel and France, who increased their arms supply and were the only 2 countries apart from Russia herself who refused to condemn Indian nuclear tests and openly supported the Indian cause in front of the world. Relationship with the Jewish state of Israel reached all time high under the NDA regime when Israel send emergency supplies to Indian army of 155 mm shells during Kargil war without questioning. Looking at Israel as a stop gap supplier and alternate line of military diplomacy, NDA embarked on a shopping spree for cutting edge systems for Indian military's modernization, all this cemented with the first state visit of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon.

This visit sent shockwaves in Pakistan's elite ruling group for Israel was the only other country that Pakistan had nurtured its ideological hatred against due to their obsession with Islam and Arabophilia. Pakistan's religious zealot Army once again saw disappointment in personal terms as it struggled with explaining its public about the war, ultimately refusing accept their own deceased soldiers to censor the news of their defeat to local public: a historic policy of Pakistan's military throughout its conflict period with India since their inception in 40s. Another factor that changed the dimensions of this two-nation conflict was that post-1999 for the first time in more than 55 years, India was able to expose Pakistan's hand in terrorism in Kashmir to the entire world. The nuclear testing, the war victory and the diplomatic victory in exposing Pakistani hand of terror boosted the rating of the ruling NDA government in India, costing Pakistan the deafness that US had maintained for so many years about their hand in terror.

The demon become even worse when 9/11 tragedy struck United States and opened world's eyes to a new enemy for the first time after collapse of Soviet Union; Jihadic terrorism. Due to Pakistan's significant hand in radicalizing mujahideen to fight USSR, this time Pakistan was caught on the receiving end when Bush administration issued an ultimatum; "either you're with us or against us".

After that.... we all know the story.

 

[Tshering22]

Here's why.....

Though the initial evolving of India during the early years was totally socialist in nature and not to my pleasure, still despite this one drawback and a lack of strong sincere leadership India trudged ahead. Pakistan's obsession with religion in everything; from social life, to politics, to schooling, to relationships caused it to eventually start cracking. Having no individual cultural and ethnic heritage, Pakistani leaders went ahead making that country into the "living breathing Islam". This single-point strategy envisioned a Pakistan that re-united the old Ottoman Empire, this time having a base in South Asia.

Due to limited vision and understanding of modern politics and having selective myopia on their outward perspectives, Pakistani leaders started viewing the world in their own image; meaning that a country could exist for them only if it had an indigenous religion and if it didn't have, it didn't have an credibility to exist as a nation. This self-ignoring and lack of a distinct cultural identity and their obsession with making themselves based on Islam, made them forget that other Muslim countries relied not just on religion but on distinct cultural habits. TO the extent that the country that Pakistan idolized, modern Turkey has an interpretation of pre-Islamic Turkic religions that were existing in tribes and blended them with Arabia's Islam, creating a distinct, modern and more tolerant version of religion that made them focus on more practical aspects of running a country; economics, politics, education, scientific development, engineering, infrastructure, national defence and so on.

By 60s and 70s, Pakistan became so obsessed with Islam that everything was seen even more a requirement for everything. Soldiers were encouraged on adapting to hardline interpretations of Islam and indoctrinate themselves on the lines of "Ghazis" or "destroyers of Kuffar". Another theory that becomes the false foundation of this mentality was that of the "martial race" concept that the British used during their time in the sub-continent to favour a specific bunch of people as "superior to others". Since Pakistan's foundation was to deny everything that was Dharmic (Indian by origin) whether ancestral or cultural, religion or customs in society, they further lost themselves in this vortex of superiority complex with General Ayub Khan's famous line "1 Pakistani = 10 Indians".

This dangerously narrow-minded and intolerant mentality was further fueled by radical air giving countries like Saudi Arabia who's own regressive and intolerant interpretation of religio-political philosophy egged Pakistan into becoming more Arabic than Arabs themselves, more Persians than Persians and more Turkish than Turks themselves. All this while their inability to demographically put Kashmir in favour of "land of Muslims" failed in 2 wars, one of which caused their existing territory to be torn into another country (1971). During 80s, numerous failures in the form of small skirmishes successfully thwarted by Indian Army fueled religious fanaticism to new levels when Pakistan finally resorted to using of religiously fundamentalist Islamists from Soviet war into Kashmir; this horde of zealots entering into the valley made sure that the existing Muslims of Kashmir were radicalized enough to start their conquest of the state through ethnic massacre. In total, it is estimated that more than a lakh non-Muslim Kashmiris mostly being Hindu/Sikh or Buddhists were killed, raped, manhandled, attacked, threatened and arond another 5-6 lakhs were driven out with sheer violence.

This showed the beginning of a non-military religion-themed war that a desperate and frustrated Pakistan resorted to due to their inability to take Kashmir by simple military force. While Indian government fumbled with the Soviet collapse, it was careless not to ensure safety of pandit, sikh and buddhist community with their safe return to the valley and therefore couldn't stop the islamization of the valley that radicalized the otherwise peaceful people of Kashmir.

All this while Pakistan's downfall had already started taking place. With the US disenchantment of Pakistan post Cold war, the former stopped and sanctioned all of military aid supplies that Pakistani armed forces were being blessed with for the past 4 decades without having to pay much for it, on the grounds of CIA realizing Pakistani nuclear ambition. Leaving the job of creating problems for Indian forces in Kashmir to Islamic radicals in the valley, Pakistani army was free to pursue politics like never before. However, in their elation of being able to attempt to "bleed India with a thousand cuts", little did they realize that the gamble of religious terrorism that they had started carried a very horrific dark side; a demon so fierce that their poorly managed, madrassa influenced country would not be able to manage.

The demon started showing itself more and more by the time the nationalist NDA government came into power in India, furthering the economic liberalization that Dr. Manmohan Singh had initiated in early 90s post Soviet collapse. The arrival of more assertive and fierce nationalist regime in India saw numerous occasions of tension with Pakistan especially after PM Vajpayee's declaration of India as a nuclear weapons state. Unkown to Indian officials then was that China had already embarked on supporting its only military puppet in Asia, namely Pakistan with nuclear weapons technology and according to some reports had tested nuclear bombs for them in Chinese territory itself, therefore making Pakistan appear successful just merely 3 weeks later as a nuclear weapons state. The demon of Pakistan's jihad began to show signs of pressure when the then PM Vajpayee attempted to dissolve the tensions and enmity with a historic state visit to Pakistan. However unbeknownst to the then Pakistani PM, his more aggressive and Islamist motivated generals had already embarked on a plan to once again try to take Kashmir by force; an act which initiated the Kargil conflict in 1999.

This last attempt to take Kashmir by force also as its previous attempts saw a crushing defeat. Despite flattening Pakistani backed terrorists and undercover military officers, the war exposed numerous weaknesses of Indian armed forces, catching the government cold feet, which embarked then on a rapid modernization and upgradation programme of all weapon systems in the tri-services in India. Due to the absence of India's largest partner and longtime friend, the Soviet Union, the nationalist NDA government began to expand ties with alternate countries like Israel and France, who increased their arms supply and were the only 2 countries apart from Russia herself who refused to condemn Indian nuclear tests and openly supported the Indian cause in front of the world. Relationship with the Jewish state of Israel reached all time high under the NDA regime when Israel send emergency supplies to Indian army of 155 mm shells during Kargil war without questioning. Looking at Israel as a stop gap supplier and alternate line of military diplomacy, NDA embarked on a shopping spree for cutting edge systems for Indian military's modernization, all this cemented with the first state visit of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon.

This visit sent shockwaves in Pakistan's elite ruling group for Israel was the only other country that Pakistan had nurtured its ideological hatred against due to their obsession with Islam and Arabophilia. Pakistan's religious zealot Army once again saw disappointment in personal terms as it struggled with explaining its public about the war, ultimately refusing accept their own deceased soldiers to censor the news of their defeat to local public: a historic policy of Pakistan's military throughout its conflict period with India since their inception in 40s. Another factor that changed the dimensions of this two-nation conflict was that post-1999 for the first time in more than 55 years, India was able to expose Pakistan's hand in terrorism in Kashmir to the entire world. The nuclear testing, the war victory and the diplomatic victory in exposing Pakistani hand of terror boosted the rating of the ruling NDA government in India, costing Pakistan the deafness that US had maintained for so many years about their hand in terror.

The demon become even worse when 9/11 tragedy struck United States and opened world's eyes to a new enemy for the first time after collapse of Soviet Union; Jihadic terrorism. Due to Pakistan's significant hand in radicalizing mujahideen to fight USSR, this time Pakistan was caught on the receiving end when Bush administration issued an ultimatum; "either you're with us or against us".

After that.... we all know the story.

 

[Rage]

My thoughts on the article: though the article seems superficial, I think it hits home at some very important psychological constructs.

More and more, from my interactions with Pakistanis, I have come to realize that: the crucial difference between us and them was a focus on secular education, jurisprudence, civil and military administration- more so at the Centre than in the states - notwithstanding central exacerbation of state cleavages (as in the states of Punjab and Assam)- but on the whole, at a macro level.

What this has translated into is the building up of firm and secular* institutions, and on bases which are themselves secure. In contrast, Pakistan has vacillated between civilian and military rule, between rulers that were more democratic or more secular and that have managed to drag, transform and metamorphose these institutions with them.

Essentially, Pakistan is resolving, still, first order issues of state: what they are? how they choose to define themselves? and where their destiny takes them? This paradigm is complicated by their constant comparisoning with India.

India, on the other hand, is resolving second order issues of state: issues of poverty, corruption, administration, physical & social infrastructure.

At the psychological level, there seems to be an inability to accept this fact : by the cogitation that it is ok to lag behind in all these social indicators because Islam is a "superior" religion and they have had it delivered to them. Needless to say, like the zamindaars in India of old, their rural elite see a utility in propagating this fact- by withholding secular education, law and civil-social services from the poor peasants, they only strengthen their base of power.

There is also the very important consideration of long-term measures of ruling, which India, despite its ad hoc government at times, has undertaken: in the form of construction of dams, building up of the steel industry, agri-revolutions, educational institutions and more recently, independent, indigenous civil and military technologies and alt. energy-sourcing. Pakistan has not done any of these, and the results today are showing: from depending on handouts to fight economic non-recovery, to relying on foreign powers for every last one of their military hardware, to allowing the free-run of foreign intelligence agents, military bases, operators and mercenary combatants in their country.

The reliance is itself a gamble: a gamble that will inherently fluctuate with the tide of int'l politics. It is the reason why they did so well in the 60's and 70's, when the US shored them up, being on the 'right side' of the international fence as they were. It is also the reason they're being screwed today: as the U.S. sees them as an unreliable, contra-purposeful, yet necessary partner.

Where Pakistan will go from now is not difficult to see. They will rise, if the int'l situation permits them to rise. They will fall if it wants them to fall. This dependence is their bane, and their ignominy.

But, they won't learn.....Because they have the "superiorness" of their "being" with them.


* secular here, defined as uniquely indian secular, with a focus on accommodation rather than standardization.