Differing democratic evolution of India and Pakistan

[Beezer]

As we near the anniversary of the 1947 partition, I wondered what people thought about the (then future) development of both countries at the point of independence. It is rather interesting to see that the vastly larger and more multiethnic India has become the world's most populous democracy while its smaller neighbor(s) have had a rather abysmal democratic track record. I suppose that is a somewhat counter intuitive evolution of the 2 and then 3 countries, seeing as one would think a vast and diverse nation would be more likely to require some sort of (military) strongman. So again, does anybody know what people (scholars in particular) were saying about the future of both nations close to 70 years ago? Any thoughts on why India and Pakistan have diverged so signficantly?

[Silent Hunter]

The classic explanation is that India is so diverse and multiethnic no group is big enough to dominate the others. In both cases, they inherited the British Army tradition of the military not getting involved in politics, but it fell by the wayside in Pakistan for some reason.

[ingemann]

The classic explanation is that India is so diverse and multiethnic no group is big enough to dominate the others. In both cases, they inherited the British Army tradition of the military not getting involved in politics, but it fell by the wayside in Pakistan for some reason.

It have nothing to do with it falling it of the wayside. India had a too small a army as a social institution, while in Pakistan it needed a major army to be near equal with India, so it became a major social institution, and also a way to create a common Pakistani identity. As such it was unavoidable that the army would mess in politics. While in India the army wasn't used to create a Indian identity, and while small in comparison with the entire population, it was too big that a single ethnic/religious group could dominate it, and use it as a tool of dominance.

[Indy Texas]

Yeah, basically, Pakistan was paranoid that it would get overrun by India, so their goal was to have a military equal to the size of India's. Since Pakistan has a much smaller population and economy than India, creating that parity meant devoting a greater share of the budget to defense and having a bigger share of the population serving in the military or having some connection to it. This created political clout that the Indian military establishment lacks. Losing "East Pakistan" in the 1970s exacerbated the problem, since now the country's population was halved but they didn't reduce the military's size or budget.

Pakistan's political culture was also never as populist as India's. Maybe part of it was the lack of the Hindu caste system as something to react against. Maybe it was the use of Islam as the foundation for the national identity. Maybe it was a feeling of being boxed in by India to the east, Iran to the west and the Soviet Union to the north leading to a bunker mentality.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I wrote a long paper in college on this exact topic. Hopefully,  I can type up an effort post in this thread by tonight.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing you need to understand is that India is essentially the same Empire (with different borders, simpler internal administrative divisions and considerably more democratic accountability) that used to be run by Britain. Its just that, one day, the British administrators left and were replaced by Upper Caste Indian ones. Pakistan is a much more typical postcolonial state (even if still not a very typical one) and this is even truer of Bangladesh.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wrt the issue of the military, most of the 'Martial Races' (i.e. the ethnic groups that the old Indian Army was recruited from) ended up in West Pakistan. Which had... consequences... but anyway, its not true to assert that the dangerously strong position of the military in Pakistani society is a result of a need to compete with India.