The Parliamentary system of government was well suited to the needs of the undivided India, and later enthusiastically adopted by Indian, Pakistan and Bangladesh after World War II. This is a special tribute to the genius of the people of these countries, as also of the enlightened leadership in Britain during the colonial era.

However, an important reason why democracy blossomed in a much better manner in India was its pioneering role to carve out its own path in the form of non-aligned movement. This was an attempt to create a third front to thwart the hegemony of the two powerful blocks.

India tilted more towards the Soviet Union after the end of the John F. Kennedy era of the US administration’s civilized/sensible foreign policy/behaviour.

Even then India showed remarkable freedom and resilience to prevent Soviet Union from meddling in its affairs. Pakistan, on the other hand, was slowly turned into a client state of the USA.

The US administration discovered that it was convenient/safer to promote military dictatorship to toe its line than the democratically-elected leaders.

And we can now see the tragic results of such a policy.

Maybe the introduction of the Western parliamentary form of government brought the concept of modern democracy to our subcontinent. But it is important to remember that democracy had existed in South Asia in different forms for many centuries, while the Western nations were living in Dark Ages and semi-barbaric conditions.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many countries in Asia had flourishing grassroots democracies from the days of the city-states at Mohenjodaro (now in Pakistan) nearly five thousand years ago.

The grassroots democracies continued until the dawn of the British era, when a systematic effort was made to bring a degree of uniformity to promote the consolidation of the colonial power.

Even then the grassroots democracy continued somehow or the other. So it would be wrong to assume that it was only the prolonged stay of the colonial power that helped introduce the concept of democracy in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.

I hope that Prof Michael Brenner is not seeking an analogy of colonial “direct, custodial and prolonged” rule to build up an argument for the continued stay of the American and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Unlike the then British colonialists, the present USA with its creaky and faltering Presidential form of government is in no position to introduce democracy anywhere in the world (as vividly demonstrated by the Bush presidency during the past eight years).

In fact it would be better if the US and Western experts/scholars discuss and debate the sickness that is seriously crippling the democratic functioning and the economies in their own countries.

It is a folly to forcibly introduce Western notions of democracies that are in total conflict with the culture and temperament of the host countries.

In fact the British colonialists gave up such hair-brained schemes in the Middle East and Afghanistan during the past 200 years.

It is surprising that the successive US administrations, as also experts and scholars, have failed to learn a lesson and seem hell bent in implementing myopic foreign and dangerous policies in the 21st century.