Justin Walters

2/22/2018

Politics of South Asia Essay #1

The reality of the post-colonial Indian subcontinent largely revolves around the struggles
between an array of different people groups emerging from the British colonial experience. During it’s
time as an imperial power in India the United Kingdom would rely on a strategy of divide and rule that
many scholars would point to as laying the foundation for the troubles and instability that plague the
region to this day as the enmity between the different peoples would carve out new, independent states
and lead to the emergence of two competing nuclear powers. Although both India and Pakistan
emerged from British Colonial rule the paths they have taken since have largely diverged from one
another. Nothing better illustrates this divergence than that the fathers of both countries once belonged
to the same Congress party which would later come to rule India for most of its history as an
independent state. Even before independence was gained the Congress party of India and the Muslim
League would begin to split from each other.

In The Idea of Pakistan Cohen points out, “No proponent of the Pakistan movement dreamed
that Pakistan and India would become bitter enemies, or that the armed forces of Pakistan would
dominate Pakistani politics.” Yet Jinnah would push forward with his gambit called the Pakistan
Resolution which by 1946 saw the Congress party agree to the partition as well. As we have discussed in
class perhaps Jinnah was surprised that the Congress party acceded to this idea rather than share power
with the Muslim League. Two interesting bits of speculation that Cohen’s text brings to our attention in
relation to this are the arguments from Shaukatullak Ansari a Muslim member of the Congress Party
from around the time who correctly foresaw that Pakistan would have insufficient resources to defend
itself without outside help for it would face three conflicts involving two fronts as well as B.R.
Ambedkar’s opinion that the partition actually stood to benefit India as it would leave India with most of
the wealth of the subcontinent and leave Pakistan with an Army without the kind of industrial base
needed to sustain a modern military. So, it was that partition occurred and the divergence between the
competing powers would begin in earnest.

Although recent trends in India may be worrisome in relation to this, one of the initial
differences that still so clearly illustrates the divide between India and Pakistan is the central role in
which cultural and religious identity plays for Pakistan which sees itself as an explicitly Islamic state
versus India where the Constitution put in place a secular and democratic republic. The issue of identity
would also come into play in the further partition of Pakistan into Bangladesh whose elites were more
focused on ethnic identity rather than identifying through the lens of Islam as their contemporaries in
the Western part of the country did. Since its founding Pakistan has dealt with near constant
interference from religious fundamentalists and its military (sometimes they are one and the same)
resulting in three different constitutions since its partition. Indeed, the first peaceful transition of
democratic power wasn’t achieved in Pakistan until May of 2013. Contrast that with India whose
national identity, as Tharoor notes, has been built on a slogan of “Unity in diversity,” and which has had
a remarkably stable period of democratic rule (with the one exception being Indira Gandhi’s state of
emergency that lasted two years from 75-77) with only one Constitution.
 The history and geography of the region have also played a not insignificant role in the way
these two countries have diverged. In our text From Midnight to the Millennium Shashi Tharoor notes
that India could hardly have survived as anything other than a pluralist state whereas Pakistan was
essentially founded as a result of a privileged minority within that pluralist context refusing to blend in.
From the time of the Mughal Empire on until partition the Muslims of South Asia had been a dominant
minority group, and when it came to form a free and democratic society that history of dominance,
particularly among the Muslim minority in Northern India, proved to be irreconcilable. Furthermore, the
geographical differences between a country the size of India (7th largest in the world), and which was
considerably larger at the time of its independence, with Pakistan (33rd largest) are worth mentioning.
The immensity of India made it inevitable that a wide variety of views and people groups would need to
be integrated into any successful attempt at governing such a vast country. That’s not to say Pakistan
doesn’t have its share of diversity, but when your name literally means “Land of the Pure” it seems likely
that diversity is not going to be a constituent idea in how you think of yourself.

It’s worth taking a moment to talk about settlement patterns as well. While both countries have
experienced increasing urbanization, and pretty sizeable population growth (+2% annual population
growth in Pakistan, India at 1.2%) there are large swaths of Pakistan with very few inhabitants and little
in the way of development. Pakistan’s population density lags behind India at 251 people per square
kilometer to India’s 382 persons per square kilometer. Much of what we now think of as Pakistan are
transplants from Northern India where they essentially packed up and grafted themselves onto the
people who were already living in the area we now know as Pakistan. India on the other hand has grown
up organically with overflowing cities to go along with many rural communities that have existed time
out of mind in much the same way for hundreds of years. This has led to a Pakistan with a national
character dominated by ethnic Punjabi’s and an India with multitudes of ethnicities and a census policy
of not recognizing racial or ethnic groups other than through the caste system.

In economic terms both India and Pakistan are developing economies with India’s economy
growing at a rate of 1.42% faster than Pakistan. Both countries still have the largest share of their labor
forces working in agriculture, but India has the edge in GDP per capita. As developing countries both
India and Pakistan can boast growth rates in excess of 5% of GDP, but India as of last year surpassed
China to become the world’s fastest growing major economy. Beyond the numbers it is important to
note that for much of its life as an independent state Pakistan has had to rely on foreign aid from
countries like the United States and most recently from China. India on the other hand was able to
pursue a foreign policy of non-alignment during the Cold War which also allowed them to shelter certain
homegrown industries from foreign competition long enough for those sectors to become profitable
and competitive on their own. As you might guess from this paragraph the economic situations of each
nation have been shaped and are shaping to some extent the different foreign policies of each nation.

Whereas India has traditionally been seen as a leader of the non-aligned movement in
international politics, Pakistan has courted international patrons since its inception. Although, Pakistan
has tried at various times to place itself at the center of the Pan-Islamic movement it has also
pragmatically sought out alliances with America to counter the encroaching Soviets and then again later
against the Taliban while most recently seeking to align itself more and more closely with China
ostensibly to balance against India’s rising power. India on the other hand has mostly avoided entangling
itself with foreign allies outside of the region, although perhaps it can be said that during the late 60’s
India had pursued close ties with the Soviets to counter the US-Pakistani alliance. Since the end of the
Cold War the balancing act has begun to change a bit as India has warmed towards the United States as
US support for Pakistan has waned and China has stepped into to provide support for Pakistan. The
foreign policy goals of each country appear to be aimed at creating a balance of power between the two
of them. Secondarily, Pakistan has used limited support of terrorist movements to accomplish broader
foreign policy objectives as in Kashmir as well as to destabilize Afghanistan so as to avoid any trouble
from that side of the border. Starting in the 70’s India has begun to assert itself as a regional hegemon
intervening in Sri Lanka and the Maldives as well as supporting Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan
even going so far as to become as of 2012 the world’s largest arms importer as it seeks to defend against
continued Pakistani belligerence and counter China’s aggressive push into the Indian Ocean.

Ultimately, there are numerous differences and explanations for why Pakistan and India have so badly
diverged from one another after centuries of being lumped together (India is named after the Indus river
in current day Pakistan!). I have only been able to touch upon a few. The story behind how India has
largely been able to succeed as a secular and pluralist society whereas Pakistan has been plagued by
instability and a poor record of development is just as relevant as ever. With many observers worried
that one day soon Pakistan may well collapse into a failed state, and signs of weakness in India’s, to date
successful, attempt at a pluralistic democracy it is useful to notice how the interplay between social
structures, economic development, foreign policy, and yes, politics can affect two countries born from
similar circumstances and with significant historical overlap. The fear of being relegated to permanent
minority status within the political context of an independent and democratic India led to the creation of
Pakistan but it may also have contributed in no small part to what Tharoor describes as, “The Indian
adventure is that of human beings of different ethnicities and religions, customs and costumes, cuisines
and colors, languages and accents, working together under the same roof, sharing the same dreams.”

For the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent their long history as a privileged minority had,
according to Cohen, “By the time of the Raj, India’s Muslims had become a politically and culturally
mixed population. They had a dispossessed court, narrow elite, and large poor peasantry. Filled with
fresh memories of grandeur and glory, they grew increasingly frustrated and fearful as Hindus adapted
more swiftly than Muslims to the Raj’s new political and social order.” This fear, this frustration led to a
separation that is particularly relevant to today’s context with the rise of sub-national, usually ethno-
nationalistic, separatist’s movements emerging throughout the world. Rather than work to build bridges
and create governing coalitions within the framework of the emerging independent state of India the
Muslims of what would become Pakistan chose to separate whereupon they have, by all evidence that I
can find, come face to face with the realization that the grass is not always greener on the other side of
the hill.