Why Has Democracy Been Less Successful in Pakistan than in India?

From Partition to the present day, India has displayed an ability to sustain democratic forms of government and politics. There have been no military bids for power and even Mrs. Gandhi’s months of emergency rule, which many thought perilously close to a dictatorship, was ended by the electors’ verdict in 1977. Despite phases of acute domestic strain and communal violence, the assassination of two prime ministers and a number of armed conflicts and territorial disputes with her neighbours, India remains a flourishing democracy and a stable independent regional power. By contrast, Pakistan has a history marked by repeated military dictatorships: the generals have ruled the country for more than half the time since Partition. Why such different outcomes in countries which apparently share a common British colonial legacy of democracy, the rule of law, a functioning administrative system and the English language (not to mention cricket)? Why the contrasting political trajectories? It might be noted in passing that Bangladesh, the former East Pakistan, has also had its full share of military coups since Independence. The reasons for those coups are outside the scope of this article, which will attempt to identify the factors which have hindered the rise of democracy in Pakistan. It argues that Pakistan’s crisis of democracy is the result of a complex combination of factors, both historical and contemporary.