Many crises that societies experience might appear completely specific or limited, but they are often the byproduct of decades long democratic backsliding.
One sign of such decay would be the absence of political actors from political scenes. This is a reflection of a failing polity. In societies where political culture has evolved and matured, political institutions develop the capacity to manage crises through dialogue and negotiations because that is the natural order that comes into place.
However, when violence becomes the default response to any crisis. It signals a complete erosion of an institutional approach and collapse of that natural order. The repeated use of force to resolve political disputes is not a sign of political strength but of political failure.
Force may suppress a crisis in the short term, but it lays the foundation for another crisis since it erodes public trust, deepens political polarization, and weakens the social fabric by replacing politics with fear and suspicion.
As societies get more polarised, compromise becomes more difficult, moderates lose ground, and political disagreements increasingly become societal fractures. In such circumstances, there will never be any enduring political stability, as it can't be built on coercion and violence alone.
We beat the hell out of TLP in Muridke, they never dared again. We did the same to PTI in November and 9th May, they don't dare to misbehave. Balochistan is completely different and is a valid failure. However, Waziristan issues are solvable with enough force...
Those who serve the British and the Yankees never serve their own people.
If that's the case, India always used force to supress Kashmir in the past. Why no disturbance there?