The Indian example

When elections in developing countries are held, the West get worried about their fairness or otherwise. It stands to reason that in the West and other advanced countries, the leaders, whether belonging to the government or opposition, feel no harm in bowing before the people's verdict.
In almost every Muslim country, the boot is on the other leg, where the oppressive rule is in full enforced. That is the reason the people are quite unable to express their opinion freely and frankly.
Unfortunately, if a Muslim country has democracy, it is only in name. The people remain involved in manifold problems and want to change their existing environment but they are unable to do so on account of the alliance between the leaders and the uniformed people.
There are no two opinions on the fact that democracy thrives in a land where dispensation of justice is quick and is meted out to the people without making any discrimination amongst them. Whoever raises voice against victimisation of the majority, the uniformed people arrest him/her at once and is sent to the prison.
This is the main reason that democracy in the Muslim world does not flourish and its majority is forced to show complete submission to the persons who are at the helm.
It's a pity that though the general elections have been held in Pakistan, hardly any of them might have been. However, the polls of 1970 were said to be transparent. But what was the use of these polls when no respect was shown to the people's verdict? If due regard for the decision of the people had been shown Pakistan would certainly have been saved from dismemberment.
The Indian leaders of all hue and colour bowed before the people's verdict in the just-held polls. We are not used to such actions by the politicians.
Neither the ruling party tried to play a hide-and-seek game with the public mandate, nor did it use delaying tactics in accepting defeat.
When all matters relating to the Indian polls were settled peacefully, we found most of the people here praising the Indian leaders and their democracy. The behaviour of ruling party and the opposition remained excellent.
The ruling party wasted no time in saying good-bye to power.
Let us see what would have happened if this situation would have prevailed in Pakistan.
Indeed, the ruling junta would never have conceded defeat and instead got it involved in horse-trading to get the numbers to form the government.
The difference of seats between the BJP and the Congress was not larger. The BJP could have easily manoeuvred to form the government with other parties, including the independents.
Though the BJP did not take the advantage of being in power, it preferred to give the chance of forming the government to the Congress-led alliance.
If we take a glance at Pakistan's polls of 2002, we hardly find any big difference in the strength of PML (Q), PPP and MMA. Though the right to form the government was not of PML (Q), it was that of PPPP and MMA (being the third major party) to form the government for both these parties had 141 seats as against 118 seats of the PML (Q) in a house of 342.
Instead of convening the newly-elected federal and provincial assemblies session without any delay, the military junta gave ample time to PML (Q) so that it could be able to garner support for a parliamentary majority.
In the province of Sindh, the PPPP managed to win 50 seats, MQM got 32 seats, PML-F 12, NA 11, PML-Q and MMA succeeded in having 10 seats each, while the independents got 4.
Indeed, the position in Sindh favoured the PPPP to form the government. But the PPPP was not allowed to muster enough seats so that it could form the government in Sindh. While this right was given in the centre to the PML (Q), the reasons best known to the people.
In denying the people of Pakistan the real fruits of democracy, the blame by and large lies on our politicians. Have they ever thought as to how long these forces would continue to rule the country if they (politicians) do not support them in running the administration of the country? Why can't they learn political acumen from the politicians of India? Why do they remain so impatient in making hay while the sun shines? Again, have they ever pondered over this fact as to why in India the uniformed people do not take over the reins of the government? They know well that their politicians will neither tolerate them nor will they back them in running the affairs of the country.
What a nice thing was that they did not let a foreign-origin lady become the PM of India when she was the leader of the party. The Indians gave honours to Abul Kalam and made him President of India in recognition of his giving missile technology to his country. None of the Americans took exception to this act of theirs. But what we have done to Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan who made Pakistan an atomic power.