Why Is Pakistan's Government So Frequently Ousted By Its Army When India Is Stable?

The question of why Pakistan has a frequent history of governmental overthrows by the army, while India remains relatively stable, is a complex one. This discrepancy can be attributed to a variety of socio-political, historical, and cultural factors. This article aims to dissect these differences, focusing on the unique circumstances and factors at play in each country.

Historical Context and the Formative Years

Partition and its Aftermath

The partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 was a watershed moment. It is said that 'India got an army, while the army got Pakistan.' This early preeminence of the Pakistani military in the political landscape set the stage for future political instability. Looking at the early years, we see stark contrasts when comparing historical instances such as the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan in 1951 and the 1971 Bangladesh war.

After the assassination of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, the military was involved in a ‘Rawalpindi Conspiracy’ in 1951, a failed coup attempt. Since then, the concept of the army as a political actor became deeply entrenched. In India, the existence of a powerful military was consolidated during the Sino-Indian War and the Bangladesh Liberation War, but it did not lead to the overthrows of civilian governments.

The Role of the Military

Dispersion of Power and Responsibilities

In India, the power is widely dispersed among various branches of government and institutions. The Indian military's role is strictly confined to its operational and state-oriented functions. This ensures that civilian rule remains intact and entrenched. In Pakistan, the military has often played a direct role in politics, leading to frequent coups and the ousting of various governments.

Support for Military Rule

A competent yet corrupt state apparatus in India ensures that support for military rule remains quite low. Additionally, the personal ethics and discipline among military officers, coupled with good remuneration, further mitigate the likelihood of military takeovers.

Civilian Governance in Pakistan and India

Checks and Balances in Pakistan

After the devastating first war between India and Pakistan in 1965, there were significant efforts by civilian leaders to discourage democratic backsliding. The tribal nature of much of the Pakistani population, combined with the strength of civilian institutions, has often prevented military intervention. However, these efforts have not been entirely effective.

Stability in India

In India, the challenge of diverse regional identities has been met with a robust federal system and a strong civil society. This has contributed to a high level of stability. Additionally, the cultural ethos of Hinduism, which traditionally restricts the role of the military, has played a significant role. Unlike in Islamic or monotheistic states, military officers are not expected to be versatile managers or business owners. Thus, their role is confined to defense, making military rule unpalatable to the broader populace.

Paramilitary Forces and Regional Stability

India also has paramilitary forces under civilian control, aimed at offsetting the military's influence. Furthermore, the sheer size of India's population makes it difficult for military rule to be enforced. The historical narrative of India as a land of multiple states and ethnicities has contributed to a cohesive and stable democratic system.

Conclusion

The frequent overthrows of Pakistani governments by the army, unlike in India, can be attributed to a combination of historical events, military influence, and cultural and institutional factors. The persistence of military rule in Pakistan, despite concerted efforts to the contrary, is largely due to the early and deep entrenchment of military power in the political sphere. Conversely, India's stability can be attributed to a well-dispersed power structure, a civilian ethos, and strong democratic institutions.

Key Takeaways

indh’s civilian governance has been more stable compared to Pakistan. he military's expanded role in Pakistani politics has led to frequent regime changes. he cultural and historical context, along with strong civilian institutions, has contributed to India's stability.

Understanding these nuanced differences is crucial for both scholars and policymakers aiming to promote stable governance in South Asia.