LAHORE, Jan 14: Democracy flourished in India because the pre-independence leadership that learnt it from Britons lived for many years to advance it, and it failed in Pakistan because of military, feudals and religious elements. India remained intact despite many internal problems because of democracy and Pakistan got dismembered and was having complications because of lack of it.

These views were expressed by London School of Economics Professor Emeritus and Labour Party Member in England’s House of Lords Lord Meghnad Desai and Pakistani politician Aitzaz Ahsan at the launch of their co-authored book “Divided by Democracy” here at Alhamra on Saturday. The ceremony was attended by a large number of intellectuals, writers and politicians.

Mr Desai’s remarks on the role of Pakistan military in Azad Kashmir after the October 2005 earthquake irked ruling party MNA Farooq Amjad Mir who contradicted his views. But Mr Aitzaz Ahsan advanced part of Mr Desai’s opinion and said Pakistani army had more luxury cars than helicopters and tanks it possessed.

Oxford University Press Managing Director Amina Syed and Indian television anchor Vinod Dua also spoke on the occasion.

Mr Desai said India and Pakistan had the same culture, people and democracy till 1947 but the modes of democracy in the two states changed after they got independence.

He said democracy was not like a DNA which some races had and some other did not. One had to learn and practice it everyday. The Indians started learning democracy when their British rulers posed a threat to their history and culture after conquering them. They learnt that the Britons were great because of democracy, and from 1857 to 1947 their generations learnt democracy and its intricacies.

Mr Desai said India inherited democracy in 1947 and it prospered because the its top leadership survived for many years to come. Nehru was the main leader who lived for 17 years after the independence, playing a major role in teaching his people how to change a government through elections after five years. Army too was kept strictly under the civilian control there.

He said democracy was started in India by the upper class men but afterwards common people sought the right to vote. India now looked a chaotic democracy, not as much regulated as it was in early days. Now, even the sectarian groups had launched their political parties. Mr Desai said the important thing was that everybody in India had a stake in the democratic process. People were free to throw out the government through elections. “Democracy gives human dignity and not roti, kapra and makaan,” he said.

He said it was correct that Indian politics had gone corrupt and democracy had not prospered as it should have been. But Indians knew that if they wanted to progress they had to follow and promote democracy.

Mr Aitzaz Ahsan said that while writing the book it was hard to answer the question as to why Pakistan and India chose different directions (with regard to democracy) despite the fact they had the same colonial experience and had jointly shook off the yolk of British Raj.

To draw a comparison between the two countries, he said, India had been a democracy since 1947, whereas Pakistan has had a non-representative budget for 32 years of its existence. The elected assemblies had presented only 26 budgets here.

Mr Ahsan said democracy was deep rooted in India because the British Raj established industry in its areas and the producers developed a desire to get rid of imperialism. At the time of independence India was an industrial country with a strong business and middle class.

But, he said, Pakistan was composed of areas where the British Raj had raised army and planted a feudal elite. The British India had recruited half of its total infantry for the World War II from four districts alone and it had planted the feudal elite to collect revenue from the vast land it made cultivable with its massive canal system.

Mr Ahsan said these two classes mingled with the Raj and Pakistan inherited them. The situation would have been the same had the Quaid-i-Azam lived today. From Mr Jinnah to Mr Nawaz Sharif, every political leader had been dislodged by a military commander. Mr Jinnah’s orders about Kashmir were defied where as the entire Sharif family was arrested.

He said mullahs (religious element) who had opposed Pakistan joined the ruling system after 1947. The religious parties launched the anti-Ahmadis movement in 1953-54 and afterwards there was no looking back for them. In the last held elections they bagged the highest number of seats in assemblies which was not threatening but worrisome. The Quaid-i-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a Muslim state and the religious parties were making it an Islamic state.

Mr Ahsan said the first martial law was imposed in Pakistan in 1958 by the commander-in-chief and afterwards the nature of Pakistan was changed from a social-welfare state to a national security state and India was declared an enemy to justify the shift. “In my view, the greater national security comes only through the welfare of citizens. Look at the former USSR which got destroyed despite a mammoth war machine,” he said.

He said the rulers in Pakistan began history from Muhammad bin Qasim and were obsessed with the national security. “We lost half of the country, now there was confrontation over Kalabagh dam and army action in Balochistan. We don’t have a sovereign parliament and an independent judiciary,” he said.

Mr Ahsan said to return to its original form, Pakistan did not need a new map, it had to erase the path made by army and return to Pakistan of the Quaid-i-Azam.

He said while writing the book he had asked Mr Desai what if there had been no partition, to which he replied there would have been democracy all over India. “But I said our army would have imposed martial law all over India,” Mr Ahsan said.

Replying to questions, Mr Desai said unlike America poor Indians cast vote in elections because they considered themselves the owner of democracy.

To a question on religious extremism in India, he said India was ruled by people and Pakistan by army. And the country which had military dictatorship broke up first. India had separatist movements at many places but it stayed intact because of the democratic negotiations.

He said Pakistan attacked the held Kashmir in 1965 with the idea that its people would rise against India, but the response was nil. Indira Gandhi used army in Golden Temple and she had to pay the price.

Mr Desai said India did many wrong things in Kashmir, but despite the trouble since 1989, the state had an elected prime minister who peacefully transferred power to an elected partner.

In contrast, he said, there was no road in Azad Kashmir and when it was destroyed by the earthquake, the army realized it had no helicopters for the affected people. India had overcome the problems in Gujrat and Punjab. “India should do better but there is a Muslim president, and I am waiting for a Hindu president in Pakistan,” he said.