Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia

Jalal, Ayesha

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511559372

Cited by 290 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In March 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent to India as a new viceroy to arrange the British withdrawal from the country. Meanwhile, the Congress leadership accepted the Muslim League's demand for the division of India and the creation of two countries on the basis of religion (Jalal 1995;Khilnani 1999). The Bengal and Punjab Partition riots had distinct characteristics.…”

Section: India Shining or Shaking?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia

D’Costa¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: India Shining or Shaking?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We saw in Chapter 6 that the violence of Partition was crucial to understanding why Pakistan became a militarised state (Jalal 1995). Military domination of East Pakistan by West Pakistan ensued.…”

Section: Chittagong Hill Tracts' Layers Of Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia

D’Costa¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As Jalal observes, India had embarked on a more authoritarian trajectory in the mid-1980s under Rajiv Gandhi, leading some observers to suggest that the political trajectories of India and Pakistan were converging. 26 Most of Pakistan's neighbours were staunchly authoritarian at this time, and its only democratic neighbour was moving in an authoritarian direction. Using Brinks and Coppedge's model, 27 one would need to look back to 1985 to find a value suggesting a diffusion effect promoting democracy.…”

Section: Neighbour Emulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Military extrication and temporary democracy: the case of Pakistan

Hoffman

2011

Democratization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pakistan's 1988 transition to democracy defies most of the conventional wisdom on democratization as well as the bulk of the literature on democratic transitions. This peculiar case can be understood as a case of 'temporary democracy', in which democracy emerges as a short-term outcome that is not likely to be sustained. Pakistan's military leaders chose to democratize because of the high short-term costs of repression coupled with the low long-term costs of allowing democracy. The authoritarian elite agreed to allow democratization knowing that the prospects of democratic consolidation were dim. In this sense, the same factors that made the consolidation of Pakistan's democracy unlikely made the transition possible.

show abstract

“…Various arms assistance was signed with Pakistan. In return for military aid Pakistan territories to be used for US interest in the region (Alavi, 1998;Jalal, 1995).…”

Section: Pakistan's Economy: Growth and Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of Capitalism in India and Pakistan

Siddiqui¹

2011

RAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to examine the economic policies and socio-economic changes which have taken place in South Asia for the last six decades. However, my focus will be mainly on India and Pakistan to try to examine how capitalism has been developing differently in these two countries. It seems to me that this study is important because the proponent of free-market polices (i.e. mainstream economists) ignore the poverty issues and emphasise mainly growth rates and unquestionably assume that 'trickle down' would solve poverty problems. We should also not forget that India is home to the largest number of poor in the world, and as such is an obvious test case for whether pro-market reforms work or not. The ruling elites cite high GDP (gross domestic products) growth rates as indicative of economic development and consequently the well-being of the people.Growth is seen as a panacea and in order to achieve higher economic growth rates both countries had earlier adopted import-substitution-industrialization (ISI) and later on neo-liberal (i.e. 'free market') economic policies. The study will also analyse the impact of neo-liberal economic reforms on socio-economic situation both in India and Pakistan and its impact on reducing poverty. In Pakistan these reforms were launched in 1988, while in India in 1991 under the IMF supervision. As a result both economies have witnessed an upsurge in GDP growth rates (especially in India). Despite the high GDP growth rates for the last two decades in India, for example, over all employment has not been growing. The service sector, which witnessed a rapid economic growth, accounts for a much smaller share in employment relative to their contribution to GDP. The study finds that capitalism has failed to remove poverty and inequality despite its long history of penetration in South Asia under colonial and neo-colonial regimes and in spite of being backed by the new technology and increased amounts of credits. The experience of Pakistan clearly illustrated this fact. There is a lack of discussion about the presence of a large proportion of people living in sub-human conditions and lack of overall and holistic development of human being.

show abstract

Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia

Cited by 290 publications

References 0 publications

Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia

Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia

Military extrication and temporary democracy: the case of Pakistan

Experiences of Capitalism in India and Pakistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About