Register to read the introduction…
India was left still in a search for a common identity with its many cultures in the north, south, east and west. Pakistan, primarily a Muslim country, also had its own set of splits within the country itself. The east and west sides were not divided over religion (they were mostly all Muslim), but rather the populations from each side came from a different area in India and thus the two sides were divided by culture and language. In 1971 there was a major war between India and Pakistan and the east side of Pakistan split off into what is today Bangladesh. For the purposes of this essay, we will be focusing on just Pakistan and
…show more content…
The political society among the elites was such that people wanted a democratic federal state. There are many factors that led to this, Jawahar Lal Nehru’s initial stance, the fact that India felt secure as a country, the fact that from all sides the political atmosphere was such that the institutions were able to give India the tools and motivation needed for India’s democracy to thrive. Nehru, despite knowing that he was going to win the elections, held free and fair elections to establish precedent. He was able to oversee India’s transformation from a feudal monarchy system to a democracy that maintained a federalist, multi-party system. Because of the initial emergence of democratic institutions the Indian government was compelled to build roads, schools, and other infrastructure so they could get votes to try and stay in power. When the opposition came into power, they directed resources for their constituencies, but they did not tear down the opposition’s work: they just preferentially supported their own interest groups. This is democracy at work: of course people will be greedy and want more power but the initial institutions were strong enough that they produced a slow sputtering move towards …show more content…
The Indian National Congress, the ringleaders of India’s nationalist movement, had enjoyed mass support since the 1920s, when Mohandas Gandhi became the party’s leader (Varshney 1998). Gandhi’s presence as a unifying force, during his life, struggle and posthumously, played a major role in providing Nehru and the Congress party with further legitimacy. This meant that since Congress had no real, strong opposition they were able to confidently spur the Indian national movement and were able to focus primarily on building the country rather than fighting for their right to power. India has always been a country that has no single culture. It is as they say a “salad bowl” of different, religions, castes, languages, customs, rituals and beliefs. The country before and after its conception has had many problems with dealing with the different racial, ethnically, religiously and economically different people. This is one would assume a big reason why a country like India would not be able to succeed. However, it is, in fact, the federalism and that there was a system for dividing and giving representation to these different groups that kept the ethno-linguistic divides in society from becoming so prominent that there was uncontrollable conflict. India created a constitution that in turn put in place proper legislative, judiciary and executive institutions. The
The political society among the elites was such that people wanted a democratic federal state. There are many factors that led to this, Jawahar Lal Nehru’s initial stance, the fact that India felt secure as a country, the fact that from all sides the political atmosphere was such that the institutions were able to give India the tools and motivation needed for India’s democracy to thrive. Nehru, despite knowing that he was going to win the elections, held free and fair elections to establish precedent. He was able to oversee India’s transformation from a feudal monarchy system to a democracy that maintained a federalist, multi-party system. Because of the initial emergence of democratic institutions the Indian government was compelled to build roads, schools, and other infrastructure so they could get votes to try and stay in power. When the opposition came into power, they directed resources for their constituencies, but they did not tear down the opposition’s work: they just preferentially supported their own interest groups. This is democracy at work: of course people will be greedy and want more power but the initial institutions were strong enough that they produced a slow sputtering move towards …show more content…
The Indian National Congress, the ringleaders of India’s nationalist movement, had enjoyed mass support since the 1920s, when Mohandas Gandhi became the party’s leader (Varshney 1998). Gandhi’s presence as a unifying force, during his life, struggle and posthumously, played a major role in providing Nehru and the Congress party with further legitimacy. This meant that since Congress had no real, strong opposition they were able to confidently spur the Indian national movement and were able to focus primarily on building the country rather than fighting for their right to power. India has always been a country that has no single culture. It is as they say a “salad bowl” of different, religions, castes, languages, customs, rituals and beliefs. The country before and after its conception has had many problems with dealing with the different racial, ethnically, religiously and economically different people. This is one would assume a big reason why a country like India would not be able to succeed. However, it is, in fact, the federalism and that there was a system for dividing and giving representation to these different groups that kept the ethno-linguistic divides in society from becoming so prominent that there was uncontrollable conflict. India created a constitution that in turn put in place proper legislative, judiciary and executive institutions. The