The Door To The Barracks

ferozk

Just a Couple of things.

Judiciary is part of the bureaucracy and it is as corrupt as the bureaucracy itself. At higher level, making a corrupt bureaucrat judge for life would mean another lucrative position to grab for life. Even if the judges are for life, there are other ways to get to them.
This works in countries where people get respect for doing their job and not in a third world country. This won’t work in India either.
The constitutionality of the struggle for civilian rule and then democracy is not an issue. As long as the struggle remains within the confine of overall Pakistan society, it is constitutional and within the constitution.
Lastly, if you get a chance to think and write about it: where do we place the Pak Army in over all Pakistani society? Is it a National army or the party of usurpers? I think once it is determined that it is not a national army, all struggles by the smaller provinces become legal even when it leads to separation from Pakistan.

I hope this joke would perk you up a little.

A plane was taking off from Kennedy International Airport in New York. After it reached a comfortable cruising altitude, the captain announced over the intercom,``Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Welcome to Flight Number 293, nonstop from New York to Los Angeles. The weather ahead is good and, therefore, we should have a smooth and uneventful flight. Now sit back and relax... OH, MY GOD!``
Silence followed, and after a few minutes, the captain came back on the intercom and said, ``Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so sorry if I scared you earlier. While I was talking to you, the flight attendant accidentally spilled a cup of hot coffee in my lap. You should see the front of my pants!``

A passenger in Coach yelled, ``That`s nothing. You should see the back of mine!``

re: HP # 145

There is no simple or a formulaic answer to this question. The nature of the question itself only allows for speculation, but such a speculation can be based on the historic example of Pakistani politics. My only divergence from your point of view is that I was hoping for a solution, if that was possible, within a constitutional context. I can understand the need or even the urgency to confront the military, as you have suggested, but I am still hopeful that a constitutional means to end the military`s power over a period of time can be devised.

Your point about the nature of power in Pakistan in very apt and the question is really about sharing of the power. If the intent of the Pakistani politicans had been democractic, one would have atleast seen an example of that within their own parties` politics. Even at level of the political parties, power is distributed and never gained through votes and Pakistani political parties habit of having chairpersons for life makes a vulgarity out of their democratic claims. The fact that political elites assume for their workers and make a decision and then have it imposed on the workers is a cruel joke of the democratic process in Pakistan. As to the sharing of power, it would help if the political parties in Pakistan have periodic elections to elect the party leadership and in fact, hold organized conventions to hammer their political platforms into a party agenda. This will instill a sense of sharing power, which then can be translated upon the national scene. However, even in the present circumtances, political power is contested in political parties through means, which are not democratic but are rather more suited to a street fight with all its elegance for rules of behavior.

I agree, with you that it is this craving for sharing power, which forces the politicans to make unsavory deals with the military and this sort of behavior has greatly undermined the process of democracy in Pakistan. The corruption of politics in Pakistan is not a problem in comparsion to the appeasement of the politics to the dictates of military rule. The military knows this weakness of the Pakistani politics and has always played favoritism by anointing a ``king`s party``, which then offers the proverbial fig leaf to the military rule. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir may be the twins of Lucifer, but their actual sins lie in the systematic way in which they have dismantled the institutions of the state just to safe-guard their own power base. It was the lack of sharing power, and the habit of absolutism as exhibitated by Bhutto and Sharif, which made the lesser fortunate parties appeal to the military.

This point really galls me, because the function of the Pakistani military, i.e. the army is not to act as the lever of political power in Pakistan. In this sense, the politicans of Pakistan cannot absolved from the blame that they have encouraged the military and offered it a reason to intervene in politics. If that statement is true and accepted, then according to the constitition of Pakistan, the politican are guilty of treason since they have attempted to subvert the constitution just as the military interventions in Pakistan are nothing else than an act of treason. The real traitor in this whole sordid game of falsehoods, has been the role of the judicary in Pakistan and its habitual acceptance of the logic of accreditating legal cover to the military rule in Pakistan.

The judicary has to be sperated and made into a legal oversight institution charged with the mandate of ensuring the consitutionality of the acts of the executive and legislative branch of the governments. The judicary needs an urgent reform, because it has ceased to be of any value and all it does is delay justice and condone the illegality of the law through its inactions. In my view, the judges in Pakistan are as keen, as any one else, to curry favor and for their own satisfaction, they are quite happy to ignore the rule of the law. This prostitution of justice comes from the insecurity of the judges themselves, which orginates in the flawed idea of their tenures. The judges should be appointed for life in Pakistan and in this sense, they will feel secure enough to stop plying for political favors by doing consitutional misdeeds.

Yes, the rulers of Pakistan, regardless, their of their taste in clothes are part of the same elite group, which has taken turns to rule Pakistan. Again, this brings up the point that the dispute over sharing of power is itself located within this small group. When we talk of democracy and democratic rights, we are basically talking about the ``democratic rights`` of this group and not about the democratic rights of the Pakistani people. Given the nature of the rule and the rulers in Pakistan, the democracy being debated nationally is an exclusivist democracy limited to a very narrow segement of the the Pakistani society.

The problem still lies in the cooperation of the political interests with the army and as to MQM cutting its ties with the army, the self-interest of MQM would make them very cautious to this idea. Also, putting additional pressure on the borders might work, but this kind of activity opens up the doors to an aggressive nationalism of a political varity, which army will exploit. As I said in the begining, I do not see the value of confronting the army, when the political house of Pakistani politics is itself divided over the issue and seems to be inclined towards capitulation to the army rule simply to scrap off some political crumbs for itself. Lahore is too timid to rise up against the military and as to Punjab, the province is not interested in resisting the army, since the army is the love child of the province. The army has influenced the politics of Punjab and by extension Pakistan for too long and hence, there is no ruler of Punjab who has not owned his rise to political power to the army. Punjab will never dare raise its voice against the army lest its own interests might be undermined.

If there has to be a meaningful change in Pakistan, then it has to come outside of Punjab and away from Punjabi influence. The process can be started simply by denying to Punjab the right to define Pakistani nationalism as a Punjabi nationalism, because it is this ethnic egocentric chauvinism of Punjab, which is disgusting the rest of the provinces in Pakistan. The role of Punjab in Pakistani politics has alway been to polarize the issues, because the nature of Punjab is to deny an equal share of the political power in Pakistan, but at the same time consume the majority of the resources of the other province for its own needs. The reality needs to be brought out that the rest of the provinces joined Pakistan in 1947 and they did not agree to join Pakistan as serfs to Punjab, which is exactly how Punjab treats the rest of the provinces. Since 1947, the British Raj has been replaced by Punjab Raj and the attitude of Punjab is the same; it wants its imperial rule to hold influence in Pakistan and the rest of the provinces are nothing more than colonies to it.

As you have made clear, the army has to realize that it cannot exist without the support of the civilian politicans, but before that to happen, Punjab must also be made aware the fact that it cannot exist without the rest of Pakistan and it will have to share power. The saying in Pakistani politics is very true that where Punjab goes, there goes the army. The political reforms of the army in Pakistan have to start in its core constituency of Punjab and once Punjab is convinced of the error of its ways, the army will follow suit because it power base resides in the politics of Punjab.

One more point. Can you visualize a change within a constitutional framework or do you still see the process of reform/change as through a means of confrontation?

Ciao

re: HP # 145

I am in overall agreement, with your analysis. There is not much that I disagree with, but as happens naturally, I have few more questions and some points of clarifications. Generally, what you have said does offer a viable means to ending the problem or atleast solving it.

I will respond after having re-read your post and after reflecting upon your comments.

Thanks for taking the time to compose such an excellent reply! :)

Ciao

#140 by ferozk

“My question is, is it possible for the political parties in Pakistan to turn the elites away from the army and if so, how?”

I wish there was any simple and straight forward answer to that. But if we try we can get to some reasonable work around to this puzzle. So here is my take and it would be helpful if you put together you ideas.

In my previous posts # 40 and others, I had tried to show that the conflict between the army and the civilians is not over democracy but over sharing power. Civilians have already conceded that they have to live with the army and find some workable solution or some terms that both parties can adhered to.
Before I go any further, let me just say this clearly that the two groups in Pakistan led by NS and BB are not democrats like you and I are. Their goals are not democracy a la India but some kind of civilian rule, where they dominate the political spectrum and not the army. They want concessions from the army but mostly on terms that the army would not physically remove them from the power and agree to stay in the background and still have vital input on essential issues.
OTOH, the army used to being in total control of the system, is not agreeable to a position where the threat to remove the political government disappears, thus giving the civilians time to eventually dismantle the army power base.

Here is the question: Why Zardari is still in Jail and why NS still prefers to be in KSA rather than be in Pakistan? Once we begun to answer this question then we will have a better understanding of the conflict within the Pakistan elite.

Both BB+ Zardari and NS don’t have any record of fighting for democracy or even adhering to any democratic principals when they were in power. Then what is prompting them to so steadfastly hold on to their grounds? Zardari has spent 7 years in Jail now and NS almost 4 years in jail and in exile; still they are not willing to compromise with the army. Why? Does this not defy their political background or as Marxists would put it their class character? Why are they holding out when more conscious Pakistani elite feel that there is no way to possibly remove the army from the power, unless some catastrophic event happens. Obviously, NS and BB are not waiting for some catastrophic event. NS and BB have right alliances to win any fair election in Pakistan. Together it will be a landslide never seen before, but they also know that winning elections is no guarantee that they will also control the power. Which basically means that w/o winning the elite over they possibly cannot come to power.

I hope you would agree with me that the army generals, NS and BB+zardari are part of the same Pakistani elite. They have no claims to any populace ideology neither they champion human or democratic rights. In nutshell, they represent the same segment of Pakistani elite that is NOT convinced of unadulterated democracy. Now the question is much deeper. It is not merely that political parties have failed to win over the majority of elite but they have so far failed to win over the elite that the parties themselves represent.
I think with this background I can possibly put out a few things to answer your question in a better way.

It appears to me that currently two issues are much more important to Pakistani elite:
1. Their vulnerability in the face of emerging right wing and Nationalist forces in all three smaller provinces in Pakistan
2. A reliable force that can protect them from changing geo-political situation in Pakistan
A third factor that I think has some value is: possibly, that the elite would not like to work with the elements in Karachi and Sindh that will dominate, if any political set up is established.
The army in Pakistan is partially responsible for No.2, yet it is the only force that can provide protection, if the geo-political situation gets out of hand. Before 911, the army was in much more vulnerable position but now the elite have totally gone in the army’s corner. The elite want army to take care of the terrorists, Rightwing, and nationalist thus we see that the army is rolling back all the concessions that it gave up a year or two ago.

I don’t know how NS or BB or Zardari look at the situation. They may have more insight but I think barring some drastic changes in the international situation their chances of becoming a viable option for the elite in the near future look pretty bleak. Their current strategy of working with the international forces alone would not pay off.

Here is how I think the elite can be turned around.
1. Open as many fronts as possible against the army. Including the nationalist guerilla warfare option. We see some of it in Balochistan now.
2. Accelerate Sindhi nationalist movement and force the army to get in conflict with people in Sindh.
3. Force the MQM to severe its alliance with the army. Karachi is the key city for the army and any disturbances there would aggravate the situation for the army.
4. Persuade neighbors to go slow on easing pressure off the army on the borders.
5. Attempt to have some kind of agitation going against the army in Punjab, especially in Lahore.

The army is scared of Islamic terrorists and sooner or later it would have to look for some support from the moderate politicians. If there are more things happening simultaneously, chances of the army going to the barracks become viable.

re: Faruk # 141

Faruk, the problem with the elites and elitism in Pakistan is two-fold. One; it refuses to trust the choice of the people and secondly, it always assumes that it knows what is good for the people. Until this mentality changes, there will be elitism in Pakistani politics, which periodically retard the growth of democratic politics in the nation.

Ciao

re: Romair # 139

Yes, there is a contradiction because land reforms will only happen in Pakistan if the feudals implement it. Otherwise, there is no hope for any land reforms in Pakistan. Feudalism as a culture is dying out as more and more young feudal scions sell their lands for money so that they can waste the money in the cities. Feudals will always remain politically strong but the influence of fedualism is not what it used to be once.

The army is made up of the middle class, but this is only a twenty year or more trend and it needs to be seen how much of the values of Pakistani middle class will influence the values of the army. The army officer corps, up to the level of colonel, is increasingly professional. The problem starts in the ``flag country`` and it seems that professionalism always loses to politics in the upper ranks of Pakistani army. The air force, given its technical nature, is more professional than the military and has a better ratio of educated people in its ranks. I am not sure about the navy, but with the increasing modernization of the naval arm, I think that the navy will become more technical and will attract more professional minded people.

Musharraf comes from a solid middle class background and his family, by Pakistani standards, would be in the upper middle class. Musharraf`s children are employed in middle class professions and it seems that Musharraf will not follow the way of the other military rulers in wooing the feudals.

Ciao

ferozek #139: ``I agree with you that feudalism is a problem but in the long run, I see a lack of political institutionalism as a bigger problem in Pakistan than the feudal rule, which is already in its twilight.``

I don`t think feudal rule is in its twilight. I am not sure why people keep making this comment. Why is its twilight? If you take a look at the statistic of the last four elections, the proportional of feudals in NA remains between 60-66%, consistently. It is only in this elections, that the maulvis have made inroads into the landed aristocracy`s seats. So the only way the feudals` rule is in its twilight is if the maulvis are able to defeat them everywhere.

Lack of political institutionalism is obviously the biggest problem. But that is a result of feudal rule, and its after-effects - including the entry of non-democratic forces like the Army into politics. Instituions do not appear from thin air. They only appear, if the pre-requisites are there.

``Romair, the feudals are not a serious problem and they can be easily dealt with, but the real problem is the lack of will to implement serious land reforms.``

This is a self-contradicting statement. If feudals are not a problem, then land reforms should be easy. The reason they aren`t easy is because feudals dominate the legislative house, which would introduce these land reforms. Why are feudals into politics so much, and not into their chose profession of agriculture? It certainly isn`t for public service or to promote democracy. It is to protect their lands against any nationalistic legislation (as happened in India). And this is why they are the biggest supporters of the current system of democracy. They know they have it beat, and it is under their control.

``The question is, what will make the army move against the feudals?``

Of all the questions about the Army, this is the one I cannot figure out. Why doesn`t the Army move against the feudals. Previously, it may have been because many feudals were married into the Army, or one sibling was in the Army. But now that is no longer true. The Army is an extremely middle-class urban group. Far more middle-class than those of us on Chowk. Musharraf`s has moved against everyone, to the point of risking his own life. But not against the feudals. Ayub and Zia`s families actually joined the feudals. Musharraf`s has yet to do that.

I cannot see any way to take on the feudal, other than the maulvi or the massive urbanization of Pakistan, through economic growth, where small cities in feudal areas, like Gwadar, Tando Allah Yar etc. become economic centers, thereby allowing the local peasant popuation to take a stand.

re: HP # 133

I am not denying that Pakistan is another socio-cultural milieu. But I don’t think the hopes and aspiration of its people are that different from other peoples of the world.

I assure you Indira Gandhi did not call elections because 0.01 % of the Indian population was protesting. No dictator or wannabe dictator has quit because a very small number of people were protesting their rule.

“Lastly, which is more elitist political party in India than the old mighty Congress itself?

Congress has ruled India in the last 48 years out of 57 years and how do they do that: by making the same dirt poor to vote for them. Congress attacked the democracy in India. The Indian elite brought them back in power within three years, after the Indian poor had booted them out soundly.
…..
…
Democracy is the form of government chosen by the elite to govern the society. In some countries like India, they do it by being nice and in some like Pakistan; they do it by showing the muscle.
By the people, for the people… that was a joke…”


Why do you think congress is elitist? What makes you think the Indian elite decide elections is India. Do you really believe that BJP would have lost the last election if the Indian elite had that much influence? For all its faults the Indian economy and the Indian elite were doing really well under the BJP.

I understand your point about that the established system has an inertia and it’s difficult to change. The question is what will trigger the change. I think democracy is worth it, you don’t and that’s fine too.


Regards,

Faruk

re: HP # 133

HP, that was a very well thought post.

My question is, is it possible for the political parties in Pakistan to turn the elites away from the army and if so, how?

If you have any answer, I would like to like know what it might be, because what you say is a serious problem in Pakistan.

Ciao

re: Romair # 134

I agree with you that feudalism is a problem but in the long run, I see a lack of political institutionalism as a bigger problem in Pakistan than the feudal rule, which is already in its twilight.

Romair, the feudals are not a serious problem and they can be easily dealt with, but the real problem is the lack of will to implement serious land reforms. There is no political will in the nation to deal with the feudals and their power. The army is a major beneficary of lands in Pakistan and the question is, who will bell the cat? Despite the percentages of the feudal held seats in the national assembly, they are no match and neither can they resist if the army moves against them. The question is, what will make the army move against the feudals?

The most obvious answer seems to be a threat to the army`s rule itself and just like the army ditched the Taliban, because supporting them seemed to undercut its own rule, the army will move against the feudals once its own institutional interests are threatened.

The other option is to marginalize the feudal vote bank by appealing to the urban voters but that implies an acceptance of the major political parties, which are present in the cities and their politics, which is something that the army is not willing to stomach. The fact of the matter is that the military better wise up and realize two things: one, it cannot any longer play the politics of divide and conquer and secondly, it cannot rule Pakistan unilaterally any more.

What is needed in Pakistan is a fusion of the politics to demand that military leave politics and the political osteracism of those who support military rule. I have my doubts as to whether it can happen, but idealism will have to replace realism, and the need of the hour is an idealism, which is not willing to compromise in order to evict the military from power.

Ciao

faruk
//....That is largely true. But what about our current prime minister, Natwar singh, Yashwant sinha, Rajesh pilot and a host of others. I hope it will change in the future. ...//

Very unlikely. Because - politics in India is all about money (like politics anywhere, I guess) - huge amounts of it. Consequently - middle class folks with hard-earned white money can hardly afford it. So mafias have moved in .... people with dubious characters who have made monies thru black trade have moved in ..... Which in turn has deteriorated the quality of politicking ... muscle power , violence has been already been incorporated as legitimate tools of business.

This has muddied the water to the point where only the most crooked can trive in there .... And this ain`t going to change near future.

Unless there is a strong reaction from public and institutions and other ``good`` politicians. Recently the EC has moved some ideas regarding barring criminals fighting from elections. That would be a welcome first step.

re: ballukhan # 136

So soon! I had expected much more grit from you. :)

Ciao

Amazing! I think Pakistan is not good enough for democracy! I give up.

re :Faruk # 127

No! I do not agree, with others, that a benevolent dictator is the best choice. In fact, I do not even consider it as a choice and I do not wish to accept this statement as a choice either. I believe that there is no subsitute to populism and democracy. I believe in the common sense of the average Pakistani and I believe that s/he does not need to be told, what is good for them, but they should be given the choice to decide for themselves, what is good and what is bad. I believe that a dictator, benevolent or not, is still a dictator.

My post might sound pessimistic, because that is the experience of the society I grew up in and understood and learned. If people think I am wrong, all they have to do is prove me wrong and none would be more happy than I. However, that is not going to happen. There is a quote from Goethe, which once it is paraphrased describes my loss of hope vis-a-vis Pakistanis. Goethe was talking about the German people and all I have to do is replace the word ``German`` with Pakistani`` and the sentiment still holds true. As Goethe said, and I am paraphrasing him, I feel bitter sorrow for the Pakistani people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality. I am quite confident that my pessimism in the Pakistani political experience will not be proven wrong.

Ciao

Faruk #130: ``My point is different too. What will it take for the normal/general/common people of Pakistan to get tiered of dictators and look for another choice. I am not advocating one form of dictatorship over another.``

You have to divide the people into two categories: those in urban and non-feudal rural areas. And those in feudal rural areas. For the later, other than massive land reforms or related economic progress, through other means, nothing else will change their lifestyles. They have lived for generations under their feudal masters, and will continue to do so.

For the urban group, I really don`t know. They are not under the control of feudals. They have some money, etc. And now they even have options. My family supports PTI actively, and all of us thought it would easily emerge as a counter to PPP and PML in the urban areas. It has a lot to offer Pakistan, and is honest and middle to upper-middle class. Its candidates are accomplished urbanites.

Yet it cannot get more than one seat. Imran Khan got crushed even in his hometown Lahore constituency, where he built a cancer hospital. If he cannot even win, there, then what chance is there for anyone else?

I think the main obstacle is that 66% of the Assembly seats are under feudal control. So urban politics doesn`t really matter much. What will need to happen is what happened everywhere else, including India, pre 47. Urbanization will need to increase, through a growth in the economy, and more jobs. This will result in cities growing larger, and the distribution of population for feudal areas to cities. This will slowly tilt the Assembly in favor of the urban areas, thereby allowing the passge of land reforms.

The other option is what we are seeing now. The religious parties, due to their democratic nature, and their lower class memberships will start winning in feudal areas. The peasant is scared of only one thing, more than he is scared of the feudal. And that is God, which is why he may vote for the relgious parties. And then the religious parties may introduce land reforms........

This is how things have worked out in all feudal socieites - be if Europe or India. Either it is a slow urbanization process, as in India, pre-47. Or a civil war, that got rid of the landed aristocracy`s hold on power, as in USA.

Faruk 109, Ferozk

“Let me give you an example from India. …………..but I support the right of people to fight for their rights.

Why are the Pakistani people not fighting for their rights? They protest the violation of the rights of Palestinians and everyone under the sun, but never Pakistanis.”

Examples from India?

Let say this from the very outset that Pakistan and India are two different countries and they have chosen two different paths for development and comparing the two countries does not make sense.
These two examples would tell; how hollow the comparisons are.

Pakistanis are struggling to find ways to get to democracy and Indian democracy is struggling to find ways to end the communal violence against minorities. Mostly it is Muslims but sometime Sikhs, Christians and Dalit become victims of majority’s hooliganism.

Unfortunately, the Indian democracy has not even begun to find solutions after 57 years of democracy. Now the purpose here is not to start a flame war but merely to point out that during the emergency, when the Indian democracy was effectively toppled, less than 0.01 percent showed up on the streets to “fight for their rights”. When the only thing that Indians had ever known as a form of government was democracy, not many including the all mighty media in India showed any sign of “fighting for their rights”.

Comparisons are futile and in fact downright stupid.

Let us just think what “people” fight for. People don’t even fight when they or their families go hungry and when they see their kids dying. If they do come out and fight for bread, the governments would consider that civil disobedience and crush them outright. Has anybody in this world seen demonstrations by people against hunger or political rights, when all protestors were not surrounded by the law enforcement?

This begs the question: Are street demonstration and Hartals the only form of protest? I think that they are the most uncivilized forms of protest. But that is not the issue here.

Let me just hypothetically put this out here: What if tomorrow morning we wake up and find that India Army has taken over in India. Can anybody give me a timeframe, as to how long it would take the politicians and the public to fight back and get the democracy back from the Army? With India being such a huge country, I am sure the Indian army would find some to distribute sweets (gulab Jaaman) in the streets as well.

No! It does not look likely that Indian army would ever takeover and in Pakistan it does not look likely that the army would ever give up. What is the reason for these contrasting positions? Yaps! We can say Indian democracy would prevent the army of even thinking about it and in Pakistan; lack of democracy propels the army without any hindrance.

I think this is not the whole truth.
The reality is that people grow up in one system and it is always difficult to change the system outright. Yes! The communist did it but can we compare those conditions with Pakistan now? Also where are they now? Somewhere in the dustbin of the history and even after 70 years of the communist rule, people in Russia just went back to living the happy ways they always did before the revolution.

Getting back to Pakistan,
Pakistan has a system which is dominated by the army. It is there for the last fifty odd years. The army has made sure to suppress any legitimate opposition by using every mean possible. They control the state power and what do people have? Some liberals fighting and beaten up constantly in the brigs or some PMs in exile or in grave with head buried separately.

There is no doubt that the Pakistan elite support the army. The political parties in Pakistan still have not turned the elite away from the army. Until the elite in Pakistan are firmly convinced that the army is NOT the way to go, Pakistan will remain under the army rule overtly or covertly. But the part of the elite that has moved away from the army, would not give up the fight and that is what makes the Pakistani elite more resilience and great.

Why do I say so? Because it is the elite in countries like India and Pakistan, that yearns for democracy, civil liberties and freedom of press. When was the last time anybody saw a dirt poor in both countries reading a newspaper? Isn’t the dirt poor a majority in both countries? For that matter, how many dirt poor read newspapers in the USA? They rely on entertainment media-TV- to provide them news.

Lastly, which is more elitist political party in India than the old mighty Congress itself?

Congress has ruled India in the last 48 years out of 57 years and how do they do that: by making the same dirt poor to vote for them. Congress attacked the democracy in India. The Indian elite brought them back in power within three years, after the Indian poor had booted them out soundly.
The army in Pakistan has ruled 50 years out of 57 by denying the same dirt poor the right to choose. It is the same damn elite that rule both countries.

Democracy is the form of government chosen by the elite to govern the society. In some countries like India, they do it by being nice and in some like Pakistan; they do it by showing the muscle.
By the people, for the people… that was a joke…

Was I comparing? How futile….
Long post! That sure is futile…