What's new

Pakistan's political history-Part 1

My humble salutes, Maestro.
Nothing better than reading a quality post...:tup:
I like your style of writing. :tup:
:lol: Thank you, experience helps. You remember when i started :hitwall:.
Half truth!
Truth nonetheless. You have only justified why India didn't pay this sum, not as to how quoted part is half the truth.
It was a privilege to read this post of yours. I had to spend an hour googling, to sort out all the context but it was an hour well spent.
A maestro at work:coffee:, you haven't seen some of his other posts.
Would you be kind enough to add details of East Pakistan too in the corresponding period.
I did not wish to write a book- if you want i me to i will certainly give it a try. There are somethings missing, i agree. Will be sure not to miss anything in coming part.
Thank you for giving it a read guys, and thank you for the kind words.


Completely forgot to tag you guys, do give it a read...
@S.U.R.B. ,@forcetrip ,@Psychic ,@A.M. ....
 
Last edited:
Truth nonetheless. You have only justified why India didn't pay this sum, not as to how quoted part is half the truth.
Well, you decided to post merely half of what had transpired between India and Pakistan, as in you did not mention in your article, the reason why India may not have paid the amount to Pakistan. By telling half truth, you're misleading your audience.
That what I meant.
:lol: Thank you, experience helps. You remember when i started :hitwall:.
yes I remember. It was a mushy teenager's story. :)
But it's okay, some ppl like me will never learn from their mistake
 
(Or to be exact: Pakistan's political history: mistakes we made and what lesson we can learn from them. Due to the lack of time i didn't get much time to go through it properly, ignore the grammatical errors. I hope i have not made any error. And do give it a read.)


Pakistan's political history-Part 1
by: WAJsal

The Initial Struggle

VYyjCxX5nk1AaB44NbsiEOw97FEopRRxNvFavA65rl0y4ELTz2dzB70dkEUZaQTyDAB6JNMIQJ0Ha0447pYflxmzRShwQkuAG3-rxoH-OaNqdRHttEMJ17nYZ1YxEvln_cC0-pcL

14 August 1947: Birth of Pakistan. Dawn Newspaper front page.

After decades of struggle and sacrifice Pakistan became an independent state in 14 August, 1947. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah became the first Governor General of the newly formed state. Liaquat Ali Khan became the first Prime Minister and a government was set-up to run the state.

Initially, the newly formed state faced many problems. The refugee crisis being on top of that list, as many refugees were coming in from India, they had to be provided with the essentials. There were constant riots, lack of resources and many such problems that had to be tackled.The 1947 partition of India and Pakistan led to the largest mass migration in human history of some 10-15 million people with Muslims migrating from present day India to present day Pakistan and Bangladesh (which was then known as East Pakistan) and Hindus migrating to present day India.

Pakistan had no administrative structure, no industrial infrastructure; while India inherited colonial state’s central government apparatus and an industrial infrastructure which for all its weakness, was better developed than in areas constituting Pakistan. Pakistan had to form an administrative structure, with lack of resources it all became nothing less than impossible. India inherited government institutes left by the British, India didn’t have to form these institutes, unlike Pakistan. This paved way to many problems...The shortage of trained human power especially senior officers was a serious problem in the setting up of federal government in Karachi. Most of them had migrated to India. There was a shortage of office space, equipment and furniture. Solving the problem of the Muslim refugees who had nothing to eat, drink, wear, rest, etc.

Newly formed state was financially very poor, initially there weren’t enough funds to run government buildings; with almost 70% of the budget being spent on the military due to number of reasons which were:

  1. Pakistan was not given military equipment, which it was supposed to get by India. The Indian government was not cooperative for transfer of record and equipment to Pakistan. The civil administration was not handing over the promised financial, military, and other shares that created mountainous hurdles to eradicate the pains and miseries of the refugees. The Indian Army was to be divided on basis of religion. The ratio of military assets were 64:36. There wasn’t a good number of Muslim serving in the Indian Army, which became a problem. Pakistan needed 4000 officers but only had 1500 officer, of which 500 were British. From 195000 ton ordnance store Pakistan received only 4703 ton, which was only 3%. Whatever equipment it did get was old, broken and useless…Total financial reserves were 4000 million rupees; Pakistan’s claim was a 1000 million rupees, but only 750 million were give, which is 15% of the total. 200 million were given directly and the rest 500 was associated with Kashmir. It was only due to efforts of leaders like Gandhi, who threatened of marn bert (fast until death) more funds were sent in early 1948 but no installment was later paid.[1]

  2. On October 1947, Dogra ruler of Jammu and Kashmir state under pressure and fear, had acceded his state to the Indian government. Quaid-i-Azam ordered the commander in chief of the time Sir Douglas Gracey to send troops to Kashmir to maintain control of the area and control law and order situation. According to Major General Shahid Ahmed: “On 27th October he (Quaid-i-Azam)ordered Gracery to move troops into Jammu and Kashmir and to seize Srinagar and the banihal Pass. Gracey repled that he could not comply with the order and must report the matter to Auchinleck as compliance would entail the issue of ‘Stand Down Order No.2’ which meant the withdrawal of the British officers from the Pakistan Army. According to Gracey’s private secretary, Wilson, Mountbatten rang up Gracey and threatened that if he moved any troops to Kashmir he would ensure that he would not get knighthood. Gracey capitulated.”[2]
Failure of Pakistan army in Kashmir made it an utmost priority for the Pakistan government. To remain integrally strong and to protect itself in any future war Pakistan army had to be given huge funds. Kashmir war continued for some time and both side accepted to a cease fire. Both sides accepted to hold a referendum in Kashmir, and the rest is history. From a neutral point of view and from a Kashmiri point of view, more importantly, the best thing to do is to let the people decide. Kashmiris should be given this basic right. It is quite unfortunate that even after all these years the nations haven’t been able to solve this problem.

Secondly Indian state not giving what was rightfully Pakistan sew the first seeds of enmity between the two nations. It was something the founding Father of India opposed, who had hoped for good relations between the two countries. Pakistan’s leadership and the intellectual felt India did not wish to see Pakistan strong, and expected (foolishly) Pakistan would collapse and rejoin India soon after its existence, it tried its level best to block these funds to suffocate the newly born state.

Due to the failure of the army in Kashmir, to strengthen the state internally and to safeguard the motherland from foreign attack- it was essential to spend so much on the armed forces.


mJn9v31jprdYuu2zdzZMXyivJOAUxAZTF6uwvNQYmNakl3-tsqkeL95oHEzo6sSTK3GeVk0yDeVERHhVI_VWC0AN9li-a3idpsdEN4DF3qWaSmjmgmuNHMjfjfFH8nldZegaWKrK

Sept. 19, 1947: Muslim refugees sit on the roof of an overcrowded coach railway train near New Delhi in trying to flee India. Millions of Muslims migrated from India to Pakistan and vice versa



10 years of Political and Military struggle
Quaid-i-Azam wanted to get rid of the old mentality and old ways, applied by the British. He also wanted Pakistan to treat all citizens equal regardless of their religion, as for hundreds of years Muslims had suffered being a minority. He didn’t want to apply the same principle to the minorities living in Pakistan, wanted to establish a state where they have full religious freedom. He wished to create a progressive state.While explaining his policy he stated that, “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state.

Now i think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslim would cease to be Muslims, not in religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in political sense as a citizen of the State.” [3]

He had hoped to give the state a constitution, a proper system which the coming generations could run the country by. Unfortunately, it was not to be. He was going to governor's house from the airport, in an army ambulance. The ambulance broke down on the road into town, and the Governor-General and those with him waited for another to arrive; he could not be placed in the car as he could not sit up. They waited by the roadside in oppressive heat as trucks and buses passed by, unsuitable for transporting the dying man and with their occupants not knowing of Jinnah's presence. After an hour, the replacement ambulance came, and transported Jinnah to Government House, arriving there over two hours after the landing. Jinnah died at 10:20 pm at his home in Karachi on 11 September 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.

It was a great setback for all Pakistanis, the founder of Pakistan had just passed away. He cared not for his health, instead worked day and night for Pakistan, Fatima Jinnah later wrote, "even in his hour of triumph, the Quaid-e-Azam was gravely ill ... He worked in a frenzy to consolidate Pakistan. And, of course, he totally neglected his health ..."

If only he had a chance to give the nation a strong constitution, if only he had time to give the nation a strong base.



GetFfg6D-FWj_XHZMtYO5VrH6cpwQNsCAdyROMBXklKBCZ4TsxNf2Edy7Ck7yvGqsgLG8GEyqTnHpQ_iE6NtKTLIdb8DSMM03PyBTqBiuyO0s2xVWOnEXOmTGyPrurIsfZdOwfPj


Fatima Jinnah and Dina Jinnah mourning at Quaid-e-Azam Funeral

yYgbfVVPdFr33lRYgG87G-vp6J_UT7NdTAaG8G7zKo7ppTkiSQ3SavHM1Yb6HVzx7SpyTej0H7YqRZRg4y1YHPVXVox5oytKeE7cGKWfT3GunaBJe3eLSoBcUQrtxxkl9Zi27imy


Special services and prayers were held in the Kwitang mosque of Jakarta (Indonesia) after the death of Jinnah.


Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second Governor General of Pakistan. Liaquat Ali Khan did the heavy lifting and used governor General's powers.

Ayub Khan was made Commander in Chief of the Army in 1951. Ayub had to face mutiny in the army, as soon as he took the charge. At the time it was called Rawalpindi Sazish. It is stated that General Akbar and his supporters were keen to take over the government and bring a Socialist revolution in the country. If this revolution was successful Pakistan’s history would be much different. Feudal system would be abolished, chances of military interventions would be slim-it was something not to be.

On 16th October Liaquat Ali Khan was shot to death in Liaquat park Rawalpindi, his killer was shot at the spot. His death is termed as: eerie. Some state those who profited the most from his death are responsible. The reason why he was killed is still unknown to this date. His killer was identified as Saad Akbar Babrak. It was a great setback for the nation. After Jinnah Liaquat Ali Khan had also died. After his death major problems started occurring. There was no other leader in Muslim league to take his place-which caused some major problems in near future, Muslim league could not establish itself as a dominant political forces and started fading away.

Liaquat Ali Khan’s death is considered to be part of some well-planned conspiracy. After Liaquat Ali Khan’s death Ayub Khan writes about the behavior of Cabinet ministers in his book, ‘Friends not Masters’:

“....I met several members of the new Cabinet in Karachi-Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin ...and others. Not one of them mentioned Liaquat Ali’s name, nor did i hear a word of sympathy or regret from any one of them. Governor General Ghulam Muhammad seemed equally unaware of the fact that the country had lost an eminent and capable Prime Minister...I wondered at how callous, cold-blooded, and selfish people could be...it seemed that every one of them had got himself promoted...it was disgusting and revolting...I got the distinct feeling that only person who might have kept them under control had disappeared from the scenes…”[4] (It is upto you to believe this revelation, it is indeed quite startling.)

Some Mistakes made….
Some major mistakes were made in this starting period: India had established its constitution in 1949, which brought all institutions under the constitution. And a system was formed, which was respected and followed. India was quick to rid of the British system and ways, getting rid of the feudal system, abolished Princely states. This was done for a number of reasons, as these landlords and princes had been principal collaborators with the British in ruling India and could, therefore, be attacked fairley and revengeful as enemies of both the nation and the people. Pakistan, instead of getting rid of the old ways: the Feudal system, they were made politically strong; which again was a failure of the state.

India was quick to realize the fault in the system, on 15 August commander in chief's rank was removed, as it was a very powerful rank. Army was kept away from politics and through time Army was brought completely under civilian control. Pakistan never did this and continued the commander in Chief's rank, who was by protocol equal to President, Prime Minister and etc, etc... In 1972 Bhutto changed the structure of the army, till then much had already happened.

Pakistan had retained the structure of the colonial state from its inception. Lacking an indigenous bourgeoisie, dominated by a feudal elite totally dependent upon the colonial bureaucracy, deprived of well structured programme-oriented and duly encarded political parties and without a judiciary which would jealously protect civil authority and the citizen rights, Pakistan saw a gradual choking of the democratic spirits from it’s early days.

(@Indos ,@Nihonjin1051 ,@Daneshmand ,@Chinese-Dragon ,@Serpentine )

I am sure Mountbatten was joking. He was instrumental in designing a future wherein Pakistan would remain in perpetual conflict with India.
 
Allama never mentioned or desired total independence. The Two Nation Theory proposed separation of Muslim majority areas within the larger Indian federation.

(1) Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and

(2) Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire,

(3) or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State


(4) appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.


Allahabad Address 1930 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was it destiny ?. Well, look at Pakistan 2015. Is it not a federation of those very provinces Allama mentioned in 1930 - Khyber Paktunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan?

compensation

It was not compensation. India was not giving anything to Pakistan. This was Pakistan share of assets of British India. Both India and Pakistan had equal legal claim on those assets as both were successor states to British India. It so happened that the money was in New Delhi and thus ended up in hands of India.

And the Kashmir issue happened some time after independance. Why such protracted delay? This was because there was extreme reluctance on part of India to let go of Pakistan assets inherited from British India that ended up in control of India. This reluctance explains the delay until much later the Kashmir issue cropped up which provided the ideal excuse as a cop out.
 
India and Pakistan had equal legal claim on those assets as both were successor states to British India.
Equal claim???
Sorry sir, you've got it wrong. The assests were to be divided proportionately.

upload_2015-11-17_8-14-35.png
upload_2015-11-17_8-19-35.png


And the Kashmir issue happened some time after independance. Why such protracted delay?
Back then, India wasn't rich enough to have paid Rs75 crores in hard cash and ergo it was decided to be paid in 2-3 installments. And that's when Kashmir incurssion took place and Nehru decided not to pay the rest of the amount.
For more info you can read my thread
Partition and the division of assets between India and Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Equal claim???

In a claim there are two facets: -

(i) the right to that claim.
(ii) the share of that claim.

I was alluding to (i) that is Pakistan had equal right to that claim in consequence of the fact that it along with India were both the successor states to British India. One or the other did not have a right that superseded the other because both ( notwithstanding that one adopted the name used as a suffix for the colony ) were heirs to the British colony. To put it in another way both were children of the colony.

The next issue is that how both claims are balanced. That is simple. You uses plain logic and common sense. Where assets can be divided in proportion to population size that ought to be done. Which is what we have here.

Back then, India wasn't rich enough to have paid Rs75 crores

India was indeed not rich enough. However we are NOT talking about India having to give anything. We are talking about "monetary and liquid assets" that belonged to British India.

I have not done the reading on the subject but it says "monetary and liquid assets" that had to be shared along the percentages given. In order to share something along a percentage the the quantum must have existed as assets of British India.

Thus all India had to do was hand over the share of that quantum and I can't understand why you mention India was poor or required time. It was quantum of assets already in the kitty of British India at the point of independance.

What India did was after the all the assets fell into the hands of India simply because of the accident that the administrative structure of British India was based in New Delhi, Nehru became evasive because he did NOT want to give Pakistan's share. Wait long enough and he got his excuse. Kashmir. Cop out.
 
Last edited:
Equal claim???
Sorry sir, you've got it wrong. The assests were to be divided proportionately.

View attachment 272730 View attachment 272733


Back then, India wasn't rich enough to have paid Rs75 crores in hard cash and ergo it was decided to be paid in 2-3 installments. And that's when Kashmir incurssion took place and Nehru decided not to pay the rest of the amount.
For more info you can read my thread
Partition and the division of assets between India and Pakistan.
Was distribution of resources of colonial government fair? It seem Pakistan won a poor share of the colonial government's financial reserves 17.5 % vs 82.5%? and Pakistan economy was still best performing asian economy until 1965 even without getting their share of colonial government
 
What India did was after the all the assets fell into the hands of India simply because of the accident that the administrative structure of British India was based in New Delhi, Nehru became evasive because he did NOT want to give Pakistan's share. Wait long enough and he got his excuse. Kashmir. Cop out.
Was distribution of resources of colonial government fair? It seem Pakistan won a poor share of the colonial government's financial reserves 17.5 % vs 82.5%? and Pakistan economy was still best performing asian economy until 1965 even without getting their share of colonial government

I am not going to bang my head against a wall. I have already explained the reasons under which such a decision was taken.
And if you guys don't know Pakistan still owes a debt of Rs 300 crores to India.
I have explained all this and more in my thread.
Partition and the division of assets between India and Pakistan.

I want you guys to do more research on this subject before quoting me. Do your homework guyz!
 
The struggle continues
Khuwaja Nazmuddin resinged as a governor general and became the second Prime minister of Pakistan. Bureaucrat, Minister of Finance, Ghulam Muhammad became the Governor General of Pakistan.

It is to note that when Khawaja Nazimuddin was a Governor General, Liaquat Ali Khan would often use his powers, when Khawaja Nazimuddin became Prime minister his powers were being used by the Governor General, this attitude was incorrect and paved way to future problems. Ghulam Muhammad becoming a Governor General was clearly against Quaid-i-Azam’s policy. He was against bureaucracy in power-which was the very thing he feared and struggled against to form Pakistan. While addressing to the Gazetted Officers of Chittagong on 25th March, 1948 , he stated(a speech i will constantly be making mention of):

“I want you to realize fully the deep implications of the revolutionary change that has taken place. Whatever community, caste or creed you belong to you are now the servants of Pakistan. Servants can only do their duties and discharge their responsibilities by serving. Those days have gone when the country was ruled by the bureaucracy. It is people’s Government, responsible to the people more or less on democratic lines and parliamentary practices. Under these fundamental changes I would put before you two or three points for your consideration:


You have to do your duty as servants; you are not concerned with this political or that political party; that is not your business. It is a business of politicians to fight out their case under the present constitution or the future constitution that may be ultimately framed. You, therefore, have nothing to do with this party or that party. You are civil servants. Whichever gets the majority will form the Government and your duty is to serve that Government for the time being as servants not as politicians. How will you do that? The Government in power for the time being must also realize and understand their responsibilities that you are not to be used for this party or that. I know we are saddled with old legacy, old mentality, old psychology and it haunts our footsteps, but it is up to you now to act as true servants of the people even at the risk of any Minister or Ministry trying to interfere with you in the discharge of your duties as civil servants. I hope it will not be so but even if some of you have to suffer as a victim. I hope it will not happen –I expect you to do so readily. We shall of course see that there is security for you and safeguards to you. If we find that is in anyway prejudicial to your interest we shall find ways and means of giving you that security. Of course you must be loyal to the Government that is in power.


The second point is that of your conduct and dealings with the people in various Departments, in which you may be: wipe off that past reputation; you are not rulers. You do not belong to the ruling class; you belong to the servants. Make the people feel that you are their servants and friends, maintain the highest standard of honor, integrity, justice and fair-play. If you do that, people will have confidence and trust in you and will look upon you as friends and well wishers. I do not want to condemn everything of the past, there were men who did their duties according to their lights in the service in which they were placed. As administrator they did do justice in many cases but they did not feel that justice was done to them because there was an order of superiority and they were held at a distance and they did not feel the warmth but they felt a freezing atmosphere when they had to do anything with the officials. Now that freezing atmosphere must go and you must do your best with all courtesy and kindness and try to understand the people. May be sometimes you will find that it is trying and provoking when a man goes on talking and repeating a thing over and over again, but have patience and show patience and make them feel that justice has been done to them.”[5]

This clearly shows how weak federal government really was. Parliament had no say in running the state of affairs, decision were made outside of parliament. Politicians, if they would have should a little unity and exerted a little pressure things would be much different.

Ghulam Muhammad gave an extension to Ayub Khan to get his support, he was to retire on January 1955. By 1953 civil servants were completely dominated on civil servants. Prime Minister was given no respect, cabinet ministers Iskandar Mirza by passed Prime Minister, Karamat Ali states:

“How ruthlessly this unholy alignment of power worked was narrated to me by an ambassador in Tokyo, Mr Qamarul Islam, an old ICS himself with the encyclopedia knowledge of the Pakistani bureaucracy. His was an eyewitness account. The time was 1953 and the cabinet of Khawaja Nazimuddin was convened to decide the line of action in regard to the sectarian violence then consuming Lahore. In the middle of the heated debate, Iskander Mirza, then cabinet secretary, rose and left the room without seeking PM’s permission. He returned to the cabinet session ten minutes later and calmly announced to its participants not to bother themselves any more as he had spoken to Lt-Gen Azam Khan , Lahore’s corps commander who was all primed to declare martial law in the city next morning. That ended the discussion. Neither the PM nor anybody else dared challenge Mirza over his arbitrary decision or insolent behavior.” Karamat ullah ghori.

On 16th April 1953, Governor General Ghulam Ali dissmissed Prime Minister Khuwaja Nazmuddin, even he had the support of the assembly. This decision was purely on personal bases of Ghulam Ali. (Ghulam Ali-a disabled bureaucrat-made some unconstitutional decisions in his tenure, such as making West Pakistan one unit, and not accepting the majority of East Pakistan.)

Muhammad Ali Bogra became the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Bogra was wishful of making constitutional changes, through which Governor General's powers were to be reduced. This was kept a secret from Ghulam Ali. It was something not to be as: on 24th October 1954, Governor General implemented Martial law in the country and broke the assembly. Speaker of the Assembly challenged this decision in Sindh Chief court. The court ruled in favor of the assembly stating that it was a constituent assembly and it could not be broken, until it reaches it’s goal, which was to draft a constitution. The federal Government went to Federal court on this decision, which changed the decision in favor of the federal government. This was the first of many shameful decisions made by the Judiciary, instead of protecting the parliament and following the constitution, a bad example was set. According to Hammed Khoro, “Governor General had called Justice Munir in his office and asked him to cooperate. Chief Justice Cooperated.”[6]

Ayub Khan became Minister of Defence and joined the Cabinet-truly a shameful inclusion, including army into Politics is a dangerous mix, then again a person who is hungry for power is willing to go to any limits to safeguard his authority.

A new assembly was elected, which was based on these members, due to not getting a majority in the assembly both Governor General Ghulam Ali and Prime Minister Bogra had to leave their positions. Iskander Mirza became the caretaker Governor General, and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali became the Prime Minister. After nine years Pakistan’s first constitution was Passed, on 29 February 1956. Iskander Mirza became the President. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali resigned as Prime Minister. Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy became the Prime Minister, who was a popular leader; who was made to resign due to spending ten Million dollars of National Shipping corporation in East Pakistan. Ibrahim Ismail Chaudhry became the sixth Prime Minister of Pakistan, on December 16th, 1957. He couldn’t stay Prime Minister for more than two Months. Firooz Khan Noon became the Seventh Prime Minister of Pakistan.

This constant change of Prime Ministers showed how weak Political parties were and how they had kneeled infront of civil and military bureaucracy.

“Neither the people of Pakistan through their lack of education, nor the politicians through their alleged ill disciplined and corruption were to be blame for the demise of Pakistan’s democracy. The responsibility lay with Mirza, Ghulam Muhammad and Munir(Judge) who provided a legal smokescreen for their authoritarian activities.” Ian Talbot [7] This is an excellent analysis of failure of democracy in early days of Pakistan. Muslim League not establishing itself as a dominating force, created many problem. It lead bureaucrats to remain in power without any sort of opposition or any pressure. And like this first ten precious years of Pakistan were wasted, Ayub was more interested in Politics rather than doing his job, Civil-Military bureaucrats had gone completely opposite to the stated policy of our Quaid and institutions could not be powered, army was not brought under civilian control. Non-continuity of a government, a system made any real progress a challenge.

There was massive pressure on Iskander Mirza due to the rallies and protests by Khan Kyum and other politicians, Iskander feared if he held elections he would no longer be in power. If elections were held much could have be averted, our history would be much different. Democracy was not given a chance to prosper...

To be continued....


[2]”Divided by democracy”(page 98 to 100)

[4] ”Friends not masters”-General Ayub Khan(Page 41)

[5]Speech to Gazetted Officers of Chittagong on 25th March, 1948

[6]”M.Ayub Khuhro”-Hameed Khoro(page 409)

[7]”Pakistan a modern history”-Ian Talbot(Page 129)

(@Slav Defence ,@Bratva ,@Jungibaaz ,@haviZsultan ,@Arsalan )
Quite a good read, man. Thanks for the effort.
It's not a complicated fact, there are just two options, you either learn from history and walk on the pass of progression, or you are just repeating it. And if the improvements seems to be hard and slow, and progression as it's expected is not achieved then shall not be hard to conclude that history is being repeated.
It's really nice to see you as an individual being so eager to learn from the past, but the more important is the fact that how would you try to educate your society, that progress will not occur anywhere outside, but rather it comes from within, from the hours a nation spend in libraries, learning from the past and history.
 
It's really nice to see you as an individual being so eager to learn from the past, but the more important is the fact that how would you try to educate your society, that progress will not occur anywhere outside, but rather it comes from within, from the hours a nation spend in libraries, learning from the past and history.
Thank you for the kind words. The worst part is people trying to doctor our history, heroes being presented as villains and vice versa. I have shared it with my friends, shared it with as many people as i can. Have done a proper analysis at the same time. Moving on to military rule, the real problems start for us. It's a shame we had to go through such avoidable conflicts. Our younger generation must know our real history, nothing worse than seeing the likes of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan being presented as heroes, nothing.
regards
 
Not to brag about it but i have explained it as well as anyone can here:
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistans-political-history-part-1.407849/#post-7865321
@Levina , check the comparison made between Pakistan and India.

Muslim League also failed to sustain itself as a party, it faded away after the creation of Pakistan. Say if the party remained strong would any dictator be able to remain in power for long, politicians didn't even challenge bureaucrats.

Thank you for leading me to this thread once again. You've done a good job. :thumbsup:
Albeit, I must say, you have completely avoided delving into the advantages that Pakistan had over India,immediately after independence. If I were to list a few then those would be:
  1. Pakistan was a smaller territory, making it easier to govern for administrative purposes and development.
  2. Pakistan had just one major religion and the minority population was just too small. India,on the other hand,had a majority which was divided among themselves along the lines of caste, and minorities which were in majority,in different parts of the country.
  3. Being an Islamic country, a number of Muslim countries were its allies. Ex - Saudi Arabia. India at the same time had to cautiously choose its friends and recognise the foes.
  4. Paksitan had connectivity to Middle East.
  5. Pakistan had abundace of minerals and fertile lands.
India has survived merely on its will to remain united or it would have splintered into tiny countries almost 7 decades back.
 
  • Pakistan was a smaller territory, making it easier to govern for administrative purposes and development.
In my personal opinion Pakistan and India faced similar problems, only difference was the magnitude of it and the political smartness of overcoming those problem(call it what you can). Main problems being:
  • Poverty
  • Unrest
  • Administrative challenges.
Muslim League was a one-man show, with Jinnah passing away in 1948 Muslim league itself was exposed. Jinnah had so many other things to worry about he completely neglected Muslim League(and i don't blame him), there was no other second or third tier leadership which could take over Jinnah. With the party dissolving over time, bureaucrats had an opportunity to steal the show from the politicians. It was later stolen by man in Uniform, you can read more about in Part 2.
Read the quoted part carefully and i will get back too your post:
Some Mistakes made….
Some major mistakes were made in this starting period: India had established its constitution in 1949, which brought all institutions under the constitution. And a system was formed, which was respected and followed. India was quick to rid of the British system and ways, getting rid of the feudal system, abolished Princely states. This was done for a number of reasons, as these landlords and princes had been principal collaborators with the British in ruling India and could, therefore, be attacked fairley and revengeful as enemies of both the nation and the people. Pakistan, instead of getting rid of the old ways: the Feudal system, they were made politically strong; which again was a failure of the state.

India was quick to realize the fault in the system, on 15 August commander in chief's rank was removed, as it was a very powerful rank. Army was kept away from politics and through time Army was brought completely under civilian control. Pakistan never did this and continued the commander in Chief's rank, who was by protocol equal to President, Prime Minister and etc, etc... In 1972 Bhutto changed the structure of the army, till then much had already happened.

Pakistan had retained the structure of the colonial state from its inception. Lacking an indigenous bourgeoisie, dominated by a feudal elite totally dependent upon the colonial bureaucracy, deprived of well structured programme-oriented and duly encarded political parties and without a judiciary which would jealously protect civil authority and the citizen rights, Pakistan saw a gradual choking of the democratic spirits from it’s early days.
See how bureaucrats gained power, all thanks to the incompetence of politicians:

“How ruthlessly this unholy alignment of power worked was narrated to me by an ambassador in Tokyo, Mr Qamarul Islam, an old ICS himself with the encyclopedia knowledge of the Pakistani bureaucracy. His was an eyewitness account. The time was 1953 and the cabinet of Khawaja Nazimuddin was convened to decide the line of action in regard to the sectarian violence then consuming Lahore. In the middle of the heated debate, Iskander Mirza, then cabinet secretary, rose and left the room without seeking PM’s permission. He returned to the cabinet session ten minutes later and calmly announced to its participants not to bother themselves any more as he had spoken to Lt-Gen Azam Khan , Lahore’s corps commander who was all primed to declare martial law in the city next morning. That ended the discussion. Neither the PM nor anybody else dared challenge Mirza over his arbitrary decision or insolent behavior.” Karamat ullah ghori.

On 16th April 1953, Governor General Ghulam Ali dissmissed Prime Minister Khuwaja Nazmuddin, even he had the support of the assembly. This decision was purely on personal bases of Ghulam Ali. (Ghulam Ali-a disabled bureaucrat-made some unconstitutional decisions in his tenure, such as making West Pakistan one unit, and not accepting the majority of East Pakistan.)

Muhammad Ali Bogra became the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Bogra was wishful of making constitutional changes, through which Governor General's powers were to be reduced. This was kept a secret from Ghulam Ali. It was something not to be as: on 24th October 1954, Governor General implemented Martial law in the country and broke the assembly. Speaker of the Assembly challenged this decision in Sindh Chief court. The court ruled in favor of the assembly stating that it was a constituent assembly and it could not be broken, until it reaches it’s goal, which was to draft a constitution. The federal Government went to Federal court on this decision, which changed the decision in favor of the federal government. This was the first of many shameful decisions made by the Judiciary, instead of protecting the parliament and following the constitution, a bad example was set. According to Hammed Khoro, “Governor General had called Justice Munir in his office and asked him to cooperate. Chief Justice Cooperated.”[6]
“Neither the people of Pakistan through their lack of education, nor the politicians through their alleged ill disciplined and corruption were to be blame for the demise of Pakistan’s democracy. The responsibility lay with Mirza, Ghulam Muhammad and Munir(Judge) who provided a legal smokescreen for their authoritarian activities.” Ian Talbot [7] This is an excellent analysis of failure of democracy in early days of Pakistan. Muslim League not establishing itself as a dominating force, created many problem. It lead bureaucrats to remain in power without any sort of opposition or any pressure. And like this first ten precious years of Pakistan were wasted, Ayub was more interested in Politics rather than doing his job, Civil-Military bureaucrats had gone completely opposite to the stated policy of our Quaid and institutions could not be powered, army was not brought under civilian control. Non-continuity of a government, a system made any real progress a challenge.

There was massive pressure on Iskander Mirza due to the rallies and protests by Khan Kyum and other politicians, Iskander feared if he held elections he would no longer be in power. If elections were held much could have be averted, our history would be much different. Democracy was not given a chance to prosper...
  • Pakistan was a smaller territory, making it easier to govern for administrative purposes and development.
I have answered this part of your post. In simpler words, India made a 'foundation', everyone was brought under the constitutional wing. Your magnitude of problems were greater but with our incompetence i'd say we faced similar problems. You just dealt with them in a better manner.
Pakistan had abundace of minerals and fertile lands.
Doesn't really matter, we haven't even yet taken any real advantage of fertile land or mineral resources. We took some economic advantage in Ayub Khans era, but even then a small section or the 'status quo' really benefited from the economic progress. The poor suffered, and the sense of deprivation grew in Balochistan and East Pakistan. Any resource is useless if the country doesn't take advantage of it.
@scorpionx ,@Joe Shearer

Last point, Pakistan faced more administrative problems. With little skill and no structure too, i think not having a structure could have been one of the reasons for all the political instability.
 
In my personal opinion Pakistan and India faced similar problems, only difference was the magnitude of it and the political smartness of overcoming those problem(call it what you can). Main problems being:
  • Poverty
  • Unrest
  • Administrative challenges.
Muslim League was a one-man show, with Jinnah passing away in 1948 Muslim league itself was exposed. Jinnah had so many other things to worry about he completely neglected Muslim League(and i don't blame him), there was no other second or third tier leadership which could take over Jinnah. With the party dissolving over time, bureaucrats had an opportunity to steal the show from the politicians. It was later stolen by man in Uniform, you can read more about in Part 2.
Read the quoted part carefully and i will get back too your post:

See how bureaucrats gained power, all thanks to the incompetence of politicians:




I have answered this part of your post. In simpler words, India made a 'foundation', everyone was brought under the constitutional wing. Your magnitude of problems were greater but with our incompetence i'd say we faced similar problems. You just dealt with them in a better manner.

Doesn't really matter, we haven't even yet taken any real advantage of fertile land or mineral resources. We took some economic advantage in Ayub Khans era, but even then a small section or the 'status quo' really benefited from the economic progress. The poor suffered, and the sense of deprivation grew in Balochistan and East Pakistan. Any resource is useless if the country doesn't take advantage of it.
@scorpionx ,@Joe Shearer

Last point, Pakistan faced more administrative problems. With little skill and no structure too, i think not having a structure could have been one of the reasons for all the political instability.

Your analysis is bang on. Unfortunately, we are now ruled by majoritarians, who forget that the essence of democracy is the protection of the rights of the individual, which, incidentally, our Constitution did very well. Now we have a pack of hyenas attacking the Constitution at every level, in letter and in spirit. We stand to lose all the advantages we gained over our chaotic environment, thanks to these mindless and extremely short-sighted ideologues of the right.

The day will come, if they continue, when the Pakistan military will simply walk into India.
 
In my personal opinion Pakistan and India faced similar problems, only difference was the magnitude of it and the political smartness of overcoming those problem(call it what you can). Main problems being:
  • Poverty
  • Unrest
  • Administrative challenges.
Muslim League was a one-man show, with Jinnah passing away in 1948 Muslim league itself was exposed. Jinnah had so many other things to worry about he completely neglected Muslim League(and i don't blame him), there was no other second or third tier leadership which could take over Jinnah. With the party dissolving over time, bureaucrats had an opportunity to steal the show from the politicians. It was later stolen by man in Uniform, you can read more about in Part 2.
Read the quoted part carefully and i will get back too your post:

See how bureaucrats gained power, all thanks to the incompetence of politicians:




I have answered this part of your post. In simpler words, India made a 'foundation', everyone was brought under the constitutional wing. Your magnitude of problems were greater but with our incompetence i'd say we faced similar problems. You just dealt with them in a better manner.

Doesn't really matter, we haven't even yet taken any real advantage of fertile land or mineral resources. We took some economic advantage in Ayub Khans era, but even then a small section or the 'status quo' really benefited from the economic progress. The poor suffered, and the sense of deprivation grew in Balochistan and East Pakistan. Any resource is useless if the country doesn't take advantage of it.
@scorpionx ,@Joe Shearer

Last point, Pakistan faced more administrative problems. With little skill and no structure too, i think not having a structure could have been one of the reasons for all the political instability.
Great post @WAJsal .
I need to skim through your points once more before I reply to this.
Give me time.

Rgds :)
 
Your analysis is bang on. Unfortunately, we are now ruled by majoritarians, who forget that the essence of democracy is the protection of the rights of the individual, which, incidentally, our Constitution did very well. Now we have a pack of hyenas attacking the Constitution at every level, in letter and in spirit. We stand to lose all the advantages we gained over our chaotic environment, thanks to these mindless and extremely short-sighted ideologues of the right.

The day will come, if they continue, when the Pakistan military will simply walk into India.

That is what happens when one instead of taking the problem head-on (like Indira did with emergency) one starts the policy of appeasement (like Rajiv did with appeasing of Muslims on Shah bano case & give into Sharia and later appease Hindus with Ram Janmabhoomi )

Rajiv was a such curse on India...He could have done wonders with his 2/3rds majority but alas....
 

Back
Top Bottom