Are politicians in India better than those in Pakistan?

[HillRock]

This question has been all along in my mind because Pakistani elitist think that Pakistani politicians are the most corrupt bunch of people on this earth and they should not be in power. If you ask Indians what they think of their politicians, you wouldn't get a different answer about their corruption, yet they elect from those politicians with the same process of election as was in Pakistan. They cannot think that their army should take the lead and finish off these corrupt politicians. Indra Gandhi imposed some kind of Emergency, a smaller version of Martial Law and it is considered as a lowest point in the history of their democracy. You can clearly observe what they have achieved with this consistency in democracy.
When Pakistani elitist will come to their senses and begin to think rationally? They lament the situation of institutions in Pakistan, and yet it is those dictators who have stalled the progress of institutions. The intellect of masses can never be under estimated only because most of them are uneducated and poor as India proved it.

[Hussain]

well the reason for that is not our imbeccile people but the strenght of the institutions they have developed over the years

which again must have been developed by their much more refined leaders

so we can say that Indians are ahead of us in this regards

[HillRock]

Originally Posted by Hussain well the reason for that is not our imbeccile people but the strenght of the institutions they have developed over the years which again must have been developed by their much more refined leaders so we can say that Indians are ahead of us in this regards

How did they develop the strength of their institutions?
Refined leaders? Can you give some examples? And how did they become refined?
I would also like to invite Indians on this forum to give their two cents.

[robosapien]

Originally Posted by HillRock How did they develop the strength of their institutions? Refined leaders? Can you give some examples? And how did they become refined? I would also like to invite Indians on this forum to give their two cents.

no martial laws, trust in their political system, an independant election commission. the institution of army is very strong there as well and it has its say in key decisions. people say that their current PM and president are actually appointed on army's favour.

[Cryin Out Loud]

Originally Posted by robosapien no martial laws, trust in their political system, an independant election commission. the institution of army is very strong there as well and it has its say in key decisions. people say that their current PM and president are actually appointed on army's favour.

Actually I can tell you from personal experience (father was in Indian army) that the army has no role in any key political decisions at all. It's the other way around- at the senior most levels armed forces officers are at the beck and call of the politicians. A Naval chief of staff (Vishnu Bhagat) was sacked a few years ago and not a peep out of anyone on the armed forces.

Which is the way it should be- but all systems have their problems. For example the upper levels of the Indian armed forces are often said to be in danger of becoming too indebted/servile to politicians and people who are incompetent can end up getting promoted. I guess no systemn is perfect, but I would rather have it this way than the alternative of an all powerful, political army.

[Hussain]

Originally Posted by HillRock How did they develop the strength of their institutions? Refined leaders? Can you give some examples? And how did they become refined? I would also like to invite Indians on this forum to give their two cents.

indira , GHandi , Jawahar Lal Nehru, Sardar Patel perhaps also Manmohan Singh and their current president Dr Abul Kalam


i think Nehru gets a lot of credit for setting up a system in place for the Indian democracy , while Ghandhi passed away very early after the partition , Nehru continued till the 1960s and he had quite a lot of time to put a system of his liking in the set up while is mass popularity ensured minimal opposition to his works

Perhaps one of the reason why we Pakistanis failed to strenghten our institutions was the very fact that we lost Jinnah and Liaquat ali khan very early in our history so we did nt have any leader with a vision to lead us through
as a result we went no where

[HillRock]

Originally Posted by Hussain indira , GHandi , Jawahar Lal Nehru, Sardar Patel perhaps also Manmohan Singh and their current president Dr Abul Kalam i think Nehru gets a lot of credit for setting up a system in place for the Indian democracy , while Ghandhi passed away very early after the partition , Nehru continued till the 1960s and he had quite a lot of time to put a system of his liking in the set up while is mass popularity ensured minimal opposition to his works Perhaps one of the reason why we Pakistanis failed to strenghten our institutions was the very fact that we lost Jinnah and Liaquat ali khan very early in our history so we did nt have any leader with a vision to lead us through as a result we went no where

Manmohan Singh and Dr. Abdul Kalam are not politicians. They are technocrat and scientist respectively. During Nehru, Gandhi, and Patel era (50's) Pakistan also had great politicians like Suhurwardi, Bhashani and many more. So, the problem started in 60's during Ayub's era and from the n the system began to fall apart. The both countries had exactly the same systems, it is the consistency which prevailed in India in the form of continued democracy. Their politicians are not more honest than ours and their masses are not more educated than ours.
Another difference is that they have kept their army at the right place i.e. in barracks. Even the Generals in India get their normal salaries just like any other grade 20 employees. In Pakistan, Generals are "crore pati" when they are retired. Actually, corps commander is commonly known as "crore" commander in Pakistan. Also, land mafia in Pakistan actually has big Generals behind it now a days. So, the corruption is not confined only to politicians, it is as common in Army as in politicians. I am talking about the ranks upper than Brigadier.

[jusarrived]

Originally Posted by HillRock Manmohan Singh and Dr. Abdul Kalam are not politicians. They are technocrat and scientist respectively. During Nehru, Gandhi, and Patel era (50's) Pakistan also had great politicians like Suhurwardi, Bhashani and many more. So, the problem started in 60's during Ayub's era and from the n the system began to fall apart. The both countries had exactly the same systems, it is the consistency which prevailed in India in the form of continued democracy. Their politicians are not more honest than ours and their masses are not more educated than ours. Another difference is that they have kept their army at the right place i.e. in barracks. Even the Generals in India get their normal salaries just like any other grade 20 employees. In Pakistan, Generals are "crore pati" when they are retired. Actually, corps commander is commonly known as "crore" commander in Pakistan. Also, land mafia in Pakistan actually has big Generals behind it now a days. So, the corruption is not confined only to politicians, it is as common in Army as in politicians. I am talking about the ranks upper than Brigadier.

agree with everything you ahve said..indian politicians are not less corrupt compared to their pak counterparts.....but lately we have had some wonderful chiefministers at state level....in the last deceade or so state government in india have played a huge role in our progress...Karnataka,andhra n Tamil nadu and recently haryana n West bengal have benifited a lot from their proactive chiefministers...the guy who started all this was andhras CM chandrababu naidoo..he was solely responsile for putting hyderabad on IT map ...Andhra ,which used to be a poor state is one of the fastest growing state now ..the media even called him CEO of andra..now we ahve a healthy competetion between states for investments...every state has its own global investors meet,CM's frequently visit foregin countries pitching for investments.....Central govt though still in mess !

[MIG]

Are they less corrupt ? Are there more checks and balances in Indian Democracy than in Pak ? Is that the reason ?

[Nauman]

Their institutions are far more superior to the non existant institutions in Pakistan, a democratic leader is only as good as the system/institutions he has. There are only exceptional cases where a democratic leader has single handidly done wonders for the country.

[robosapien]

Originally Posted by Nauman Their institutions are far more superior to the non existant institutions in Pakistan, a democratic leader is only as good as the system/institutions he has. There are only exceptional cases where a democratic leader has single handidly done wonders for the country.

Agreed. It's very risky to trust one person's judgement and vision, whether it's cricket team's selection or running a country.

[MIG]

Personal integrity of politicians and a system with checks and balances ( an independent judiciary ) has a lot to do with how these things run.

[Cryin Out Loud]

Originally Posted by MIG Personal integrity of politicians and a system with checks and balances ( an independent judiciary ) has a lot to do with how these things run.

Actually our politicians are as bad as anyone else (we're second to none buddy ). It is the checks and balances that are important. Human beings are basically the same the world over.

[Joseph K.]

Is it true that there are no big landlords in India and great estates were broken into smaller parts, which means they don't have their share of Jatois, or Khars or Bhuttos?

[Cryin Out Loud]

Originally Posted by Joseph K. Is it true that there are no big landlords in India and great estates were broken into smaller parts, which means they don't have their share of Jatois, or Khars or Bhuttos?

True- this happened in India in stages over the past 30-40 years. But many people found ways of getting around it (for example landlords were allowed to own only a certain amount of land. Some of them managed to preserve their thousands of acres of holdings by 'gifting' their land to relatives, or even to people who did not exist. In one case one landlord even put his land in his dog's name!)

[Disco_Lemonade]

ya i think they have many states which helps. i think pakistan also need to break punjab and baluchistan states infact all provinces needs to be remaped or whteva u call it. break it into small pieces so that it will be much easier to manage it and also the monopoly of punjab province will diminish.