Pakistan's Political History- PART 2

[Indus Pakistan]

@WAJsal Good read, however I am 100% through and through pro Ayub Khan. In fact I would go as far as to say he is the best leader we have ever had. He made one terrible mistake but besides that he laid the foundations of Pakistan you see today. Dams, capital, infrastructure, military, laws he was our own Napoleon.

But was it not for one damned mistake he would been Pakistan's Kemal Ataturk.

 

[Providence]

@WAJsal a great read bro ! Thanks for the educative post !

Sometimes I feel a parallel book like Francine Frankel's History of Indian Political Economy 1947-2004 is missing for pakistan ! @PARIKRAMA @scorpionx @Joe Shearer

 

[WAJsal]

This book chronicles Indian history from 1930 onwards and in its prologue (Unnatural Nation), starts with an observation that a multi ethnic and plural and geographically diverse nation like India existing is little beyond conventional logic.
When India got independence, Mahatma was perhaps only leader to have a unique appeal cutting across religion and age groups. What's more Indian National Congress heeded to his every advice.Unfortunately after his assassination, a turmoil happened. But as destiny would have it, Gandhiji, didn't have any political ambitions and a class of able leaders was available (Nehru, Sardar Patel, Shastriji...). Luckily they also realized post painful partition of country, that it would be difficult to keep nation together, unless democracy reaches the most down trodden. this meant proper representation and certain laws that were enacted (like land ceiling, taking away royal titles, discouragement and later abolishment of zamindari system) had far reaching effects.
Although economic conditions weren't good for nearly 2-3 decades after independence (mostly owing to idealistic Nehruvian economics) and youth still disillusioned, education system became stronger and when generation born after independence started to enter mainstream, the skills they had, began to generate a positive momentum.
& while all this was happening, Army knew that people still had faith in democracy and hence people's rule prevailed over anything else.

Sounds good; i'd say we shared the same problems, initially we tackled our problems quite well, though we never had leaders like Nehru to give the nation a strong-base

A lot of old british colonies gained independence post WW2 in late 40s and 50s.

It is pertinent to note that a significant many of them did not have successful run of democracy and later owing to ethnic differences (African countries specifically) went on to have civil wars and ultimately dictatorship. In certain cases this dictatorship brought stability to society (even if by use of force) and allowed citizens to live peacefully (even if not with full freedom). Even in Asia, Burma went under military rule and considering that all this could've happened in India as well, it's a miracle that Democracy does not merely survive here but evolves constantly. yes as you say its not a perfect democracy but it is alive and kicking. & already we have signs that old school of politics is changing with more young blood getting infused. It gives a lot of hope!

British were quite aware that they had to leave, i would say, they left in a hurry, leaving these countries to their fate.

I hope you will give little stress how military regimes perform with much success in your country and enjoys enviable popularity still.

The balances lies in their performance and the state they leave the leadership, take example of any dictator, be it Zia or Musharraf, they might have performed well, look at the state they left the country in. They don't really perform as good as perceived, they are involved in much corruption of sorts themselves. As far as popularity is concerned, well people usually welcome dictators, and in the end they say, 'insey to behtar siyasatdan they.' 'politicians were better than them.' If democracy is given some time in Pakistan, we can solve many problems, including this mentality. I'd say they army has learned its place, though one-poor minded can change that, generally that mentality of being in control seems to have vanished(or you can say in process). Army will not risk a coup, and the people now will not tolerate it. Different times.

@WAJsal Good read, however I am 100% through and through pro Ayub Khan. In fact I would go as far as to say he is the best leader we have ever had. He made one terrible mistake but besides that he laid the foundations of Pakistan you see today. Dams, capital, infrastructure, military, laws he was our own Napoleon.

But was it not for one damned mistake he would been Pakistan's Kemal Ataturk.

He made too many mistakes, not one. I would say we never had a good leader. Ayub Khan was corrupt to the core, who made a good sum of money when in power. Like any other leader we have had. Ayub Khan's assets drastically rose.

Ayub Khan came in power to get get rid of corruption and fix the system, and when he resigned the country was in worse situation than when he took over. Ayub's family acquired about $20 million in assets. Military officers were given land in newly created "defence housing societies" at throwaway prices, and profited enormously by reselling it on the open market. Similarly, a large portion of the 2.5 million acres of land that was surrendered by the feudal lords through the Land Reforms of 1959 was given to military and civil officials.[10] Retired military officers were given plum jobs in public and private sector corporations while others were absorbed into the central and provincial bureaucracies.[11]

According to the Chief Economists of Planning commision of Ayub Khan, “Pakistan’s 22 families were controlling 66% industrial, 79% insurance and business, and 80% banks.”[9]

@WAJsal a great read bro ! Thanks for the educative post !

Thanks.

@TankMan ,@Arsalan , forgot to tag you guys!

 

[Slav Defence]

@WAJsal
Excellent write up bro,
Every event was very nicely summed up.You made my day.Regarding political history of Pakistan, it is an undeniable fact that politics was played in the name of Pakistan, but never for the sake of Pakistan.
Believe me,this is one core reason and cause of every problem residing in Pakistan.
The western media claims that Pakistan was more controlled by military establishment rather than political.Had our politicians would have played their role for Pakistan and military never needed to intervene in civil and leadership affairs.

A successful and strong political-civil regime is one where the( individual) common sense of every member is equivalent to intelligence of military. That's why they are able to guide other sectors of government under their rule for how to tackle problems. Unfortunately our political establishment lacked such wisdom and there are least events on basis of which we can appreciate their political moves, though again they are not meant to be played for benefit of Pakistan.
Regards

 

[VCheng]

Had our politicians would have played their role for Pakistan and military never needed to intervene in civil and leadership affairs.

Back when the first Martial Law was declared and the Army seized power, what is the evidence that this oft-repeated mantra is true? Could it be the these reasons were manufactured as an excuse to grab power?

 

[untitled]

@anant_s the first martial law in Pakistan was not declared in 1958 but a mini martial law was declared in Lahore in 1953

 

[Joe Shearer]

A superb piece. Please let me know by e-mail when the other four parts come out; I shall look forward to reading them.

Congratulations.

@WAJsal a great read bro ! Thanks for the educative post !

Sometimes I feel a parallel book like Francine Frankel's History of Indian Political Economy 1947-2004 is missing for pakistan ! @PARIKRAMA @scorpionx @Joe Shearer

I wouldn't have seen it unless I had accidentally opened PDF today. Do please tell me about good articles by e-mail. Thanks very much.

 

[Levina]

Thanks for the tag.
A very well written article.
I had read something similar on a blog.
I am not sure if it's true but I read that Fathima Jinnah was not allowed by the Pak Govt. to give speech for 2 years after Jinnah's demise. And on the third year after his demise when she gave a speech on radio, then the govt cowardly censored some part of her speech.

The news item quotes one of these hired men – Hidayat Ali aka Kallu Ghusl – as saying that the corpse of Miss Fatima Jinnah had visible wounds on it, and there was an opening in her stomach which oozed blood and other fluids. Her bloodstained clothes were also with him as evidence. However, he said, no one from the administration paid any attention to his requests of inquiry, nor was the matter ever made public. Other companions of Kallu Ghussaal, too, confirmed the reports.

Like we revived Subhash Chandra Bose's case years after his death, Pakistani populace can also demand an investigation into her death.

 

[Aepsilons]

Beautifully written piece of work @WAJsal bhai !

 

[Joe Shearer]

@WAJsal a great read bro ! Thanks for the educative post !

Sometimes I feel a parallel book like Francine Frankel's History of Indian Political Economy 1947-2004 is missing for pakistan ! @PARIKRAMA @scorpionx @Joe Shearer

@Providence

Just saw this: don't come to PDF much these days, and missed the original post. Haven't read Frankel; am putting her on my reading list. Thanks.

 

[Providence]

@Providence

Just saw this: don't come to PDF much these days, and missed the original post. Haven't read Frankel; am putting her on my reading list. Thanks.

I felt it's an excellent book to know more about India's tumultuous post independence history. I enjoy reading such books of different countries. I felt that Frankel was too kind to the emergency crisis in India. Do give me a review though.