why is india more politically stable than pakistan?

[WalterMitty]

discuss.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Islam and modern technology aren't really compatible. Islam only works as a stable social base for pre-industrial societies.

[2952-0-0]

Because Pakistan was created out of thin air, and so there's little thing as nationalism. In fact the word Pakistan itself is an acronym: P for Punjab, A for Afghan, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh, and TAN for Balochistan. So when even the country's name is invented from thin air, there country will be divided.

[StateBoiler]

Islam and modern technology aren't really compatible. Islam only works as a stable social base for pre-industrial societies.

the UAE

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Islam and modern technology aren't really compatible. Islam only works as a stable social base for pre-industrial societies.

the UAE

While the UAE has somewhat adapted to techno-industrial modernity I'd look towards Turkey or even to an extent both Tunisia,Jordan and Malaysia as islamic places able to make a partial adaptation to modern civilization. Ask me in 30-40 years if Atlas is still around for me to make a judgement on the UAE(IMO the odds are decent of the UAE becoming the first islamic developed nation)

[StateBoiler]

Islam and modern technology aren't really compatible. Islam only works as a stable social base for pre-industrial societies.

the UAE

While the UAE has somewhat adapted to techno-industrial modernity I'd look towards Turkey or even to an extent both Tunisia,Jordan and Malaysia as islamic places able to make a partial adaptation to modern civilization. Ask me in 30-40 years if Atlas is still around for me to make a judgement on the UAE(IMO the odds are decent of the UAE becoming the first islamic developed nation)

The one constant throughout world history is that everything goes in cycles. Today's terrorist can be tomorrow's world leader and today's superpower can be tomorrow's strife-ridden hellhole. Who knows? In 50-100 years the citizens of Iraq could be asking themselves what's wrong with Americans and why are they blowing up buildings in Washington.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Err no. Iraq will either be a poor semi-stable shiite theocracy in 50-100 years or part of an arab caliphate or a tributary state to some Western Union or part of WorldGov(the last 2 outcomes presume that Spengler is right). History does have cycles but they don't operate quite as you're implying.

[StateBoiler]

Err no. Iraq will either be a poor semi-stable shiite theocracy in 50-100 years or part of an arab caliphate or a tributary state to some Western Union or part of WorldGov(the last 2 outcomes presume that Spengler is right). History does have cycles but they don't operate quite as you're implying.

I wasn't stating that to say that I actually thought it would happen.

It was more to demonstrate the passage of time and how none of us know the future.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Fair enough. I was just saying MY guess on what's likely to happen to Iraq.

[Padfoot]

Well I think the obvious answer here is that India has an actual democracy whereas Pakistan has a pretend democracy.  Also, India has a booming economy which usually helps maintain stability.

[Storebought]

Well I think the obvious answer here is that India has an actual democracy whereas Pakistan has a pretend democracy.  Also, India has a booming economy which usually helps maintain stability.

You mean 40 years of Nehrus can be called a democracy?

[WalterMitty]

Because Pakistan was created out of thin air, and so there's little thing as nationalism. In fact the word Pakistan itself is an acronym: P for Punjab, A for Afghan, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh, and TAN for Balochistan. So when even the country's name is invented from thin air, there country will be divided.

india was basically created out of thin air.  and in case you havent noticed, it has a pretty diverse population also.

[minionofmidas]

The main reason is that, in India, too much is at stake and too many different vested interests are involved. That is to say, it's too difficult to build a coalition that could successfully run a coup - or a democratic revolution.
And India is hardly a "real democracy". It's a hierarchy of bureaucratic oligarchies, some of which function democratically, some of which don't; some of which mean well, some of which don't. It's also a pretty ugly police state. Much of what's horrible about India is of course a direct British heritage - India's administration is much like what Britain's would be like if the British Upper Middle Class of yore had had its way.

For all that that is worth, if Nehru had died in 1948 without anyone to fill his shoes - ie like Jinnah in Pakistan - it is quite conceivable that India had become as dependent on the US as Pakistan, in which case it would likely be much less stable, too. Actually, the main factor is probably the following:
Because India and Pakistan have been armed enemy twins since partition, Pakistan has always been forced, or felt itself forced if it wanted to survive, to maintain an army as powerful as India's - on a fraction of the population. That the army's influence was going to be totally lopsidedly large was inevitable (even in India, the army's pretty inflated and dangerous, though not strong enough to successfully stage a national coup. What they do locally in some areas is quite like a coup, though.) and the effects that this was to have were totally predictable. Armies are not democratic or pro-democracy, period. It is against their nature. Besides, Pakistan became dependent on unscrupulous foreign donors (not only the US but China as well. India was never dependent on the Soviet Union, however much Nehru milched the Russians) to maintain it. And of course, in times of detente with India, the army looked for other things to do. So, in the 60s, they tried genocide on the Baluchis. Later, they got themselves involved in Afghanistan.
 

[Silent Hunter]

With India, there's no ethnicity that can dominate the others and no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.

[StateBoiler]

With India, there's no ethnicity that can dominate the others and no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.

Isn't the country currently dominated by a party that is mainly the "middle-class caste" and that their main opposition are made up of the untouchables and the brahmins?

[minionofmidas]

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

[StateBoiler]

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

The merchant/trader caste.

[minionofmidas]

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

The merchant/trader caste.

Which one? There are hundreds. Anyways, that would be very much upper caste.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Much of what's horrible about India is of course a direct British heritage - India's administration is much like what Britain's would be like if the British Upper Middle Class of yore had had its way.

Indian politics does occasionally remind me of politics here in the late 19th/early 20th century.

[StateBoiler]

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

The merchant/trader caste.

Which one? There are hundreds. Anyways, that would be very much upper caste.

I don't know. I was reading about it in Foreign Affairs a couple months ago.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86207/ashutosh-varshney/india-s-democratic-challenge.html

[2952-0-0]

Because Pakistan was created out of thin air, and so there's little thing as nationalism. In fact the word Pakistan itself is an acronym: P for Punjab, A for Afghan, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh, and TAN for Balochistan. So when even the country's name is invented from thin air, there country will be divided.

india was basically created out of thin air.  and in case you havent noticed, it has a pretty diverse population also.

There was at least a sense of Indian nationalism, and the vast majority of the people are/have been Hindu. There have been empires like the Moguls who did rule over the whole country successfully. Besides, the current division was only drawn up by the British to divide the subcontinent after independence.

[minionofmidas]

Because Pakistan was created out of thin air, and so there's little thing as nationalism. In fact the word Pakistan itself is an acronym: P for Punjab, A for Afghan, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh, and TAN for Balochistan. So when even the country's name is invented from thin air, there country will be divided.

india was basically created out of thin air.  and in case you havent noticed, it has a pretty diverse population also.

There was at least a sense of Indian nationalism, and the vast majority of the people are/have been Hindu. There have been empires like the Moguls who did rule over the whole country successfully. Besides, the current division was only drawn up by the British to divide the subcontinent after independence.

Indeed. While an India on anything like the current boundaries was a novel idea, India as a country had been thought of for a hundred years. The Country of the Pure (the initials thingy is secondary) had only been thought up by an intellectual, what, 25 years previously? Besides, most Muslim League voters did not necessarily endorse Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League.

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

The merchant/trader caste.

Which one? There are hundreds. Anyways, that would be very much upper caste.

I don't know. I was reading about it in Foreign Affairs a couple months ago.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86207/ashutosh-varshney/india-s-democratic-challenge.html

Your article (well, the excerpt they're showing to us nonsubscribers) states: "The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), a coalition with the Indian National Congress at its core, counts on the lower social orders as its most important voting bloc." (But I wouldn't accept that sweeping generalization either.)

Electoral alliances in India vary from state to state and frequently from constituency to constituency. Not always do they pit Upper Castes vs Lower Castes (+Muslims). Frequently you'll have two locally dominant "good" castes each heading its own electoral coalition with numerous lower-status communities.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Much of what's horrible about India is of course a direct British heritage - India's administration is much like what Britain's would be like if the British Upper Middle Class of yore had had its way.

Indian politics does occasionally remind me of politics here in the late 19th/early 20th century.

How so? I don't see many resemblences myself.

[Verily]

There is no such thing as "the middle-class caste". And the last elections were probably marked by a decrease in community voting, at least when seen on a national level (really, every constituency has to be seen on its own terms...)

The merchant/trader caste.

Which one? There are hundreds. Anyways, that would be very much upper caste.

I don't know. I was reading about it in Foreign Affairs a couple months ago.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86207/ashutosh-varshney/india-s-democratic-challenge.html

Varshney's main point is that the upper classes in India can't be bothered to vote while the lower classes vote much more often than the lower classes in most democratic societies. This has kept India mired in the License Raj because the lower classes see all of the restrictions in place as somehow good for them (even though they, for the most part, aren't).

You are sort of right in saying that India tends to be the middle class against the upper and lower classes; the BJP is very middle class while Congress draws from both the upper and lower classes. However, the political system is much more complex than that. For example, the BJP has a strong religious streak, so many urban secularists avoid it even though it advocates much-needed state reform.

[minionofmidas]

Varshney's main point is that the upper classes in India can't be bothered to vote while the lower classes vote much more often than the lower classes in most democratic societies.

Do they? Turnout was something like 65% in the last general election. (That many rich educateds have copped out from the political system due to "them being all alike" and "elections never changing anything" is true - I'll even accept the fact that their turnout is subaverage, but really even by the very broadest possible definition the "middle class" (western usage) don't make up more than 10% of the population.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's, frankly, utterly ridiculous. Everybody knows the restrictions in place - those that can be enforced, anyways - are good mostly for the rich. (And here I can either stop or go into a hundred page rant, so I'll go with the former option. )