11-21-2007, 12:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pioeer, 20 Nov., 2007
<b>Break the military cycle </b>
N Jamal Ansari explains why Pakistan can never be stable
After the concluding remarks of Kanchan Gupta, "If the US is hated in Pakistan today, the reasons are not unknown to those who are now chanting the democracy mantra in Washington" ("Blame America, not Musharraf," Coffee Break, November 11), the subject does not demand another article. But the basic question is:<b> Why did Pakistan fail? For an answer, we should understand the social and political system of that country.</b>
Pakistan came into existence as a result of the withdrawal of the British rulers from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 and its division into two dominions -- India and Pakistan. Thus the two nations inherited a political structure that was essentially British. But there was a difference between the political parties who dominated them. India was handed over to the Indian National Congress, which had an ideology. The secular and forward-looking ideology had evolved as a result of decades of anti-colonialism struggle.<b> Whereas Pakistan was gifted to the Muslim League which had no such ideology except catchy slogans for mobilising Muslims.</b>
Soon after independence, the Congress gave a new shape to the Indian state by adopting a new Constitution which assured the dignity of the individual as well as the unity of the nation. The ground realities in Pakistan were different. <b>The Muslim League had no base in many areas which constituted Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the elite there had opposed the movement for a separate state. The League had a negligible base in the NWFP and Baluchistan. In Sind and Punjab, it succeeded in making some inroads much later</b>.
<b>After Pakistan got its independence, its feudal lords emerged as the most dominant class. A very small capitalist class also emerged, consisting of migrants from India. These traders greatly profited by the boom created by the Korean War in the 1950s. Pakistan's bureaucracy also helped in the transformation of trading capital into industrial capital. But the landlords failed to become industrialists because they did not have the necessary will or resources. </b>
But the landlords were not a monolithic group. Infighting among their factions was commonplace. The Muslim League, dominated by this class, was afflicted with the same infighting as a result. Hence, it soon disintegrated after the death of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan. Disintegration of the Muslim League strengthened the bureaucracy and it forged an alliance with the military establishment.Â
On the other hand, most politicians in Pakistan came from the feudal class. In Punjab, they dominated the political scene.<b> A study of class origin of 50 Pakistani politicians who were on top positions during the first decade indicate that "at least 20 of them were landlords" (KK Aziz, Party Politics in Pakistan). This aristocratic domination of the Muslim League did not permit any nation building programme.</b>
There is no documented proof that either Mohammed Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan had devised any plan for the transformation of Pakistan into a democratic nation. Khalid B Sayeed, in The Political system of Pakistan, rightly observed, "Pakistan witnessed a continuation of the political system that was evolved by the British rulers." Naturally then, Pakistan polity was later to be dominated by retired civil servants, police, military officials and feudal bureaucrats.Â
Moreover, the origin of the Pakistani military lies with British army. It was never a politically neutral army. It took some time for the Pakistan Army to recover from the trauma of Partition and the Indo-Pak War in Kashmir. <b>The Army had first tasted political power when it was called to restore peace during anti-Ahmadi riots (1953) in Lahore. </b>Though the declaration of martial law in Lahore at that time had a limited objective, the Army went beyond its brief and took upon tasks which had not been assigned to it. The Lahore martial law of 1953 is the keystone in the history of military coups in Pakistan. "Martial law administrator, Maj Gen Azan Khan embarked upon cleansing whole civil life from sanitation to political reform" (Defence Journal, Karachi, November, 1978).
<b>The first assault on democracy was the dismissal of Khawaja Nazimuddin as Prime Minister by bureaucrat-turned-politician Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed. "There have indeed been times-such as that October night in 1954 -- when with a General to the right of him and a General to the left of him, a half-mad Governor General imposed upon a captured Prime Minister the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the virtual setting up of a semi-fascist Executive" (The Dawn, 11 August 1957). </b>
A new Constituent Assembly was nominated which brought in another Constitution in 1956. Election was scheduled to be held in 1958. But before the election, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the constitution and imposed martial law headed by Gen M Ayub Khan. A decade of Ayub's regime legitimised military rule under a democratic façade. The rest is history. All these happening from 1947 onwards have either American backing or silent support.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Break the military cycle </b>
N Jamal Ansari explains why Pakistan can never be stable
After the concluding remarks of Kanchan Gupta, "If the US is hated in Pakistan today, the reasons are not unknown to those who are now chanting the democracy mantra in Washington" ("Blame America, not Musharraf," Coffee Break, November 11), the subject does not demand another article. But the basic question is:<b> Why did Pakistan fail? For an answer, we should understand the social and political system of that country.</b>
Pakistan came into existence as a result of the withdrawal of the British rulers from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 and its division into two dominions -- India and Pakistan. Thus the two nations inherited a political structure that was essentially British. But there was a difference between the political parties who dominated them. India was handed over to the Indian National Congress, which had an ideology. The secular and forward-looking ideology had evolved as a result of decades of anti-colonialism struggle.<b> Whereas Pakistan was gifted to the Muslim League which had no such ideology except catchy slogans for mobilising Muslims.</b>
Soon after independence, the Congress gave a new shape to the Indian state by adopting a new Constitution which assured the dignity of the individual as well as the unity of the nation. The ground realities in Pakistan were different. <b>The Muslim League had no base in many areas which constituted Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the elite there had opposed the movement for a separate state. The League had a negligible base in the NWFP and Baluchistan. In Sind and Punjab, it succeeded in making some inroads much later</b>.
<b>After Pakistan got its independence, its feudal lords emerged as the most dominant class. A very small capitalist class also emerged, consisting of migrants from India. These traders greatly profited by the boom created by the Korean War in the 1950s. Pakistan's bureaucracy also helped in the transformation of trading capital into industrial capital. But the landlords failed to become industrialists because they did not have the necessary will or resources. </b>
But the landlords were not a monolithic group. Infighting among their factions was commonplace. The Muslim League, dominated by this class, was afflicted with the same infighting as a result. Hence, it soon disintegrated after the death of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan. Disintegration of the Muslim League strengthened the bureaucracy and it forged an alliance with the military establishment.Â
On the other hand, most politicians in Pakistan came from the feudal class. In Punjab, they dominated the political scene.<b> A study of class origin of 50 Pakistani politicians who were on top positions during the first decade indicate that "at least 20 of them were landlords" (KK Aziz, Party Politics in Pakistan). This aristocratic domination of the Muslim League did not permit any nation building programme.</b>
There is no documented proof that either Mohammed Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan had devised any plan for the transformation of Pakistan into a democratic nation. Khalid B Sayeed, in The Political system of Pakistan, rightly observed, "Pakistan witnessed a continuation of the political system that was evolved by the British rulers." Naturally then, Pakistan polity was later to be dominated by retired civil servants, police, military officials and feudal bureaucrats.Â
Moreover, the origin of the Pakistani military lies with British army. It was never a politically neutral army. It took some time for the Pakistan Army to recover from the trauma of Partition and the Indo-Pak War in Kashmir. <b>The Army had first tasted political power when it was called to restore peace during anti-Ahmadi riots (1953) in Lahore. </b>Though the declaration of martial law in Lahore at that time had a limited objective, the Army went beyond its brief and took upon tasks which had not been assigned to it. The Lahore martial law of 1953 is the keystone in the history of military coups in Pakistan. "Martial law administrator, Maj Gen Azan Khan embarked upon cleansing whole civil life from sanitation to political reform" (Defence Journal, Karachi, November, 1978).
<b>The first assault on democracy was the dismissal of Khawaja Nazimuddin as Prime Minister by bureaucrat-turned-politician Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed. "There have indeed been times-such as that October night in 1954 -- when with a General to the right of him and a General to the left of him, a half-mad Governor General imposed upon a captured Prime Minister the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the virtual setting up of a semi-fascist Executive" (The Dawn, 11 August 1957). </b>
A new Constituent Assembly was nominated which brought in another Constitution in 1956. Election was scheduled to be held in 1958. But before the election, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the constitution and imposed martial law headed by Gen M Ayub Khan. A decade of Ayub's regime legitimised military rule under a democratic façade. The rest is history. All these happening from 1947 onwards have either American backing or silent support.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->