How has Pakistan avoided being plunged into civil war since 1971?

[msb314]

When Arab Spring broke out in 2011 - Pakistan remained unaffected. No protests, no violence and no revolution it was like people continued on with their normal life as revolution swept across middle east and north africa.

Similarly, many middle eastern countries experienced further civil war in the last few years like Syria, Iraq, Libya and even Bahrain was on the verge at one point.

Why has mass social unrest not occurred in Pakistan for quite some time?

Yes we have "democracy" but that is little of concerns to the common man who suffers form poverty, corruption, terrorism etc.

I guess how have we gotten this right over the years?

Comment away (don't be shy!)

 

[Pakistanian]

Maybe cause there's a stronger sense of nationhood, most pakistani people are quite patriotic.

 

[msb314]

Maybe cause there's a stronger sense of nationhood, most pakistani people are quite patriotic.

patriotism means little when you struggle for human needs such as electricity, food, water along with other problems that Pakistani's have to face.

Besides - patriotism does not necessarily correlate with civil unrest. In fact, many revolutionaries and protestors claim that they are patriotic and revolting for the greater good of their country. Everyone thinks they are right from their own perspective.

 

[PakLFC]

It is a miracle that despite many efforts from external powers we have managed to avoid civil conflict. The military and ISI have greatly helped in keeping the country together.

 

[saeedhk]

People are too divided along political, religious and regional lines. Also, Pakistanis are too lazy for a revolt to happen. I saw a rickshaw in Pakistan with the following statement plastered on its back:'Haran ahista bajai, quam so rahi hai.' This sums up Pakistani public!

 

[Slog]

When Arab Spring broke out in 2011 - Pakistan remained unaffected. No protests, no violence and no revolution it was like people continued on with their normal life as revolution swept across middle east and north africa.
)

Those countries were under oppressive dictatorial regimes

Pakistan was under a democracy, no matter how flawed

 

[msb314]

Those countries were under oppressive dictatorial regimes

Pakistan was under a democracy, no matter how flawed

But was so was Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Iran etc. yet they avoided revolution (SA and Bahrain had protests but not major govermment reforms)

These countries are definitely wealthier thank Pakistan - so what gives?

 

[msb314]

People are too divided along political, religious and regional lines. Also, Pakistanis are too lazy for a revolt to happen. I saw a rickshaw in Pakistan with the following statement plastered on its back:'Haran ahista bajai, quam so rahi hai.' This sums up Pakistani public!

That is the no. 1 cause for conflict - being divided.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

It is a miracle that despite many efforts from external powers we have managed to avoid civil conflict. The military and ISI have greatly helped in keeping the country together.

Gen Zia and Gen Mussharaf were the true patriots of this land of the Pure Indeed. 18 years of non civilian government made sure that Pakistan does not fall apart like India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco.

Their services should forever be validated by constructing monuments of these great men in all major cities of Pakistan.

 

[Varun]

Whenever Pakistan starts to froth historically, the army general of the time stages a coup and saves the day.

At least that's what it looks like from the outside. In fact, Pakistan is over due one right now - let's have a look at next year's election. If Nawaz Sharif's party romp to victory I expect things to churn bigstyle.

 

[Yossarian]

Civil war is usually either to remove an entrenched regime, or one region/ethnicity trying to break away, or the majority being ruled by a minority ethnicity/group, and the only means of the majority ethnicity/group having a say is to remove the minority group/ethnicity ruling over them.

Pakistan, by and large, has had none of those factors (except in the case of East/West Pakistan - which was a stupid idea anyway. How can you create a single nation, of two very different ethnicities, separated by thousands of miles of hostile territory, and the only means of maintaining any meaningful links between the two halves was via a thousands of miles long circuitous sea route, simply because they share a common religion?).

 

[Nostalgic]

One factor that shouldn't be discounted is the fact that the nascent Pakistani identity, fragile in the initial years, one that had barely been conceived mere decades ago, did mature into a more robust one. This alone does not explain it, and 70 years are perhaps insufficient for it to completely supersede our various ethnic, religious, sectarian and political identities, but it cannot be discounted either. I would bet that in the cities in particular, the majority do place their nationality above their ethnicity. They may also value their faith over the nationality, and vote along ethnic lines, but neither detail takes away from the fact that we've now had a few generations who identify more with the country than their respective provinces.

 

[Nostalgic]

Another detail worth highlighting is that geography played a major role in the 1971 conflict. A thousand miles of a hostile neighbor separating the two wings made it difficult for the state to keep a lid on the Eastern wing's (genuine) grievances for too long, and once the lid was off, it was only a matter of time till events took the course they did. The state, even a flailing one like ours, has been in a better position since 1971 in that regard. I state this without comment on whether the state's actions are (or were) fair or not.

 

[Nostalgic]

Finally, there is the state successfully co-opting religion in the manner that it did, being able to harness it in service of the goal of national cohesion. It is one of the state's great successes, at least in their eyes, and if you ever have the opportunity of speaking with an army general or senior bureaucrat with pretensions of belonging to the intellectual wing of the deep state, they will tell you so, quite frankly.

Certain repercussions of this endeavor have of course been deleterious, and deadly, but in the eyes of the real movers and shakers, it has been a price worth paying. Whether you agree with them or not is a different debate entirely.

 

[amax]

Institutions

Though weak , Pakistan has proper institutions while Middle eastern countries lack it.

Strong National identity

Pakistani People are generally patriotic

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION] the MENA had been under the iron fist of brutal authoritarian regimes for decades thats what led to the protests against the regime. Pak at least has some form of democracy and not the oppressive police state structure like we have seen Egypt and in Tunisia Syria.

In Egypt n Tunisia while there were revolutions these countries never descended into civil war because they are relatively homogenous ethnically and the national identity is a lot stronger.

In Syria once the resentment was against dictatorship corruption etc but also the fact a minority sect of 10% was running the whole country became a sectarianised conflict and caused the breakdown of the country.

Same in Iraq Sunnis revolted against persecution from Shia majority govt in Baghdad. thats how isis got some popularity in Iraq initially claiming to stand up for Sunnis.

Libya is highly tribalistic society n once Gadaffi fell the tribalism re emerged in the scramble for resources.

In the countries where civil wars did break out it was due to a weak sense of national identity n a stronger sectarian identity
combined with tyrannical dictatorship that legitmised taking up of arms in the eyes of protestors.

In Pak while there is sectarian violence and discrimination of certain minorities national identity is strong due to circumstances of Paks creation and majority have strong affiliation to Pakistan and dont want to overthrow the state n create a new state bar a few radicals.

 

[Adil_94]

Paks geographical location makes it harder for foreign fighters to pour into the country once an uprising of any sort would happen..Unlike in a lot of the MENA. Pak has been a state that has emphasised defence since its inception due to hostility on eastern n western front. This has enabled a strong military to emerge to safeguard ita territorial integrity that would prevent all out civil war. in Arab world only Egyptian army is comparable to Pak armys power n influence and well we saw what happened when Morsi got too big for his boots.

 

[last_knight]

We know the art of practicing something yet not letting the world know of it.

 

[Leo23]

strong army thats why

 

[srh]

Gen Zia and Gen Mussharaf were the true patriots of this land of the Pure Indeed. 18 years of non civilian government made sure that Pakistan does not fall apart like India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco.

Their services should forever be validated by constructing monuments of these great men in all major cities of Pakistan.

I would say also build statues of the other 2 military rulers General Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan. All kids in all schools of Pakistan should start their day with signing songs for those 4 great military rulers.

 

[Syed1]

A common enemy that all Pakistanis hate irrespective of race or provincial background.

The people of East Pakistan were too close to India to ever be patriotic Pakistanis.

 

[msb314]

A common enemy that all Pakistanis hate irrespective of race or provincial background.

The people of East Pakistan were too close to India to ever be patriotic Pakistanis.

Poverty, corruption, terrorism, inequality?

 

[msb314]

Gen Zia and Gen Mussharaf were the true patriots of this land of the Pure Indeed. 18 years of non civilian government made sure that Pakistan does not fall apart like India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco.

Their services should forever be validated by constructing monuments of these great men in all major cities of Pakistan.

Bro don't lump Musharraf together with Zia Ul Haq.

Under Musharraf - Pakistan enjoyed economic prosperity, stability and security.

2002-2007 was our best period during the last few decades.

 

[Major]

Unpatriotic, giving up hope.

In the past it was easier to rally up people by using patriotism. Now you cant use that. People arnt as patriotic as they were before.

Plus, people dont have hope. People will first look at themselves before getting involved in revolts. When meeting ends becomes difficult people cant be bothered to get involved in such civilian activities.

 

[Major]

Bro don't lump Musharraf together with Zia Ul Haq.

Under Musharraf - Pakistan enjoyed economic prosperity, stability and security.

2002-2007 was our best period during the last few decades.

If you compare year 2025 to 2017, then obviously 2017 would look comperativly better if the same rate of change continues to exist

 

[msb314]

If you compare year 2025 to 2017, then obviously 2017 would look comperativly better if the same rate of change continues to exist

The rate of change hasn't been the same - 2009 has been one of the worst years ever in our country whilst 2017 is relatively better in terms of security. The future could be better or worse - obv don't know yet.

 

[PakLFC]

Gen Zia and Gen Mussharaf were the true patriots of this land of the Pure Indeed. 18 years of non civilian government made sure that Pakistan does not fall apart like India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco.

Their services should forever be validated by constructing monuments of these great men in all major cities of Pakistan.

I did not say anything about Mush. Appreciate the fauj and ISI, okay.