• Sunday, September 22, 2019

Featured Pakistan's Political History- PART 2

Discussion in 'Seniors Cafe' started by WAJsal, Jan 29, 2016.

  1. WAJsal

    WAJsal MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,761
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Ratings:
    +212 / 13,408 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Here is my entrance for poster of the year contest!

    For those who missed part 1:
    https://defence.pk/threads/pakistans-political-history-part-1.407849/

    Before reading i would suggest skimming through part 1 to get the general idea as to where part 2 starts from. Enjoy!


    The Founder of Military rule in Pakistan
    [​IMG]


    On 8th October 1958, Iskander Mirza declared Martial law in the country. Ayub Khan was made Chief Martial law administrator. Secretary of Iskander Mirza states, who was an eye witness of the steps that were being taken, states that:

    Translated:“The Process of Derailing democracy which was started by Ghulam Muhammad was finished by Iskander Mirza. It was completely unnecessary to abrogated the Constitution of October 1958. Pakistan was not facing any International threat(or not in a state of war), the only internal threat that was present was that, if general Elections were held Iskander mirza would have to say goodbye to presidency….”[1]

    On October 27, Iskander Mirza resigned from the presidency, transferring it to Ayub Khan. According to several eyewitnesses Ayub Khan forced Mirza to resign.[1] Ayub Khan assumed most executive powers as chief martial law administrator and President, and acted to assert himself. The very thing our founding father feared

    The coup was received positively in Pakistan as a relief from unstable governments and weak political leadership. There was hope that a strong central leadership could stabilise the economy and promote modernisation and the restoration of a stable form of democracy. Ayub Khan was also supported by the US, which was a major ally back then. In his first address to the nation, he used some harsh words for the politicians:

    “A word for the disruptionists, political opportunists, smugglers, black-marketers and other such social vermin, sharks and leeches. The soldiers and the people are sick of the sight of you. So it will be good for your health to turn a new leaf and begin to behave, otherwise retribution will be swift and sure.”[2]

    Soon after coming to power, the new military government promised that they would carry out reforms in the entire government structure and would cleanse the administration of the rampant corruption. A thorough screening process of all government servants was conducted and service records were closely scrutinized. Public servants were tried for misconduct by tribunals consisting of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court. If charges were proven, disciplinary action such as dismissal or compulsory retirement of the public servant could take place. A public servant could also be disqualified from holding any public office for 15 years. Within a month, the martial law authorities seized as much smuggled goods and gold as the previous governments had seized in the past 11 years, and imposed price controls that brought about a fall in the prices of a number of basic commodities. These measures brought initial popularity to Ayub's regime. He institutionalized the process of economic planning. This led to rapid economic progress in the early sixties, but exacerbated inter-class inequities in the distribution of income.

    About 3,000 officials were dismissed and many other were reduced in rank as a result of these measures. The rest of the government servants were provided with an incentive to working hard.

    If Ayub Khan was truly a well wisher of the country, and democracy, or if he had a little respect for Quaid-i-Azam’s wishes he would have done an unbiased accountability of Civil and Military Bureaucrats, after which conducting a free and fair elections and would have transferred the power to the civilian government. It was not to be; Ayub Khan was a first of many hungry-for-power General in Pakistan. Supreme Court ruled this coup to be correct, where the judiciary yet again gave ruled out a decision which was unconstitutional, and in contradiction of the oath the Judges took.

    Let’s not forget Ayub Khan’s coups was in contradiction of what our Quaid’s vision was and for the reasons Pakistan was made for:

    “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.”[2]

    In August 1959, Ayub Khan passed the Elected Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO). Under this, 75 leaders were disqualified for participating in political activities for 8 years (until December 1966). [3] Under this new law mostly politicians were targeted, it seems as if one of his main priorities was the destruction of the existing political order. several politicians like Suhrawardy and Qayyum Khan were disqualified.

    Ayub Khan also introduced a comprehensive scheme of local government, popularly known as Basic Democracies. This scheme was enforced through the Basic Democracies Order on October 27, 1959. Basic Democracies was a pyramidal plan enabling the people to directly elect to Local Council men they knew, who could in turn elect the upper tier of the administration. Functioning as a kind of electoral college, close to 80,000 recently elected village councilmen and local union councilmen in urban areas, were allowed to vote yes or no to the question: "Do you have confidence in the President, Field Marshal Mohammed Ayub Khan?" To lend legitimacy to his rule, Ayub Khan used the Basic Democrats as an electoral college, holding a referendum to seek a mandate to continue in office as President and to have the authority to frame the future Constitution of Pakistan.

    The referendum was held on February 14, 1960, he received 95.6 votes, and was elected not only as President of Pakistan for five years, but also got the mandate to give Pakistan a Constitution of his choice. Ayub Khan set up a Constitution Commission which was not only given the responsibility to make recommendations on the future Constitution, but was also to examine the causes of failure of parliamentary government in Pakistan. The report of the Constitution Commission was presented to Ayub Khan on May 6, 1961. Ayub Khan was not satisfied by the findings. The 1962 Constitution was very different from the recommendation of the Constitution Commission, as Ayub Khan favoured a presidential form of government. The 1962 Constitution was promulgated on March 1. This ended the three-and-a-half-year Martial Law regime of Ayub Khan. A civilian constitutional government under Ayub Khan replaced his previous military regime.

    1965 Presidential Elections
    After the enforcement of the constitution political activities and parties were no longer banned, and preparations for Presidential elections began. There were two major parties contesting the election: the Convention Muslim League and the Combined Opposition Parties. The Combined Opposition Parties consisted of five major opposition parties. It had a nine-point program, which included restoration of direct elections, adult franchise and democratization of the 1962 Constitution. The opposition parties of Combined Opposition Parties were not united and did not possess any unity of thought and action. Ayub Khan was nominated by the Convention Muslim League party while COP nominated Miss Fatima Jinnah. She did not take part in any political activity after independence. She accepted the candidature as she was strongly in favour of democratic ideals.

    She described her opponent, Ayub Khan, as a dictator. Her early rallies nearly 250,000 people turned out to see her in Dhaka, and a million lined the 293 mile route from there to Chittagong. Her train, called the Freedom Special, was 22 hours late because men at each station pulled the emergency cord, and begged her to speak. The crowds hailed her as the mother of the nation.[4]


    “The Big Stick. White-haired Miss Jinnah, 71, the candidate of five ragtag and usually disunited opposition parties, was picked mainly because she was the sister and confidante of the late revered Mohammed Ali Jinnah, father of his nation’s independence. But Pakistan’s response to her razor-tongued attacks on Ayub’s highhanded ways has surprised and shocked the government. Students throughout the nation staged angry protest marches against the regime, and at least one demonstrator was killed by police in Karachi. DOWN WITH THE AYUB DICTATORSHIP, cried posters in the East Pakistan city of Dacca, where students enthusiastically proclaimed Miss Fatima Jinnah Week. In Karachi, Pakistan’s biggest city, student unrest prompted the government to close all the schools indefinitely.

    Most legal groups in Pakistan have come out for Miss Jinnah, and were denounced by Ayub as “mischief mongers.” In reply, the Karachi Bar Association overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging “the party in power to get rid of the notion that wisdom, righteousness and patriotism are the monopoly of their yes men.” The usually complaisant newspaper editors defied the regime’s attempts to make them endorse a restrictive new press law.

    To Ayub’s claim that he is trying to develop “basic democracy,” Miss Jinnah replied: “What sort of democracy is that? One man’s democracy? Fifty persons’ democracy?” As for Ayub’s charge that the country would revert to chaos if he is defeated, his rival snapped: “You can’t have stability through compulsion, force and the big stick….”

    “.....Nonetheless, he is running scared, because Candidate Jinnah has managed to focus every form of discontent in the country. To brake her bandwagon, he abruptly decreed that elections would be held Jan. 2, instead of March, as originally scheduled. Explaining lamely that the situation is “a little tense,” the government also rescinded a law specifying that political rallies must be open to the public.

    At closed meetings with groups of electors, Ayub answered practical questions sensibly enough, but kept lashing out at the opposition with growing anger. Countering Miss Jinnah’s repeated charge that he had been unable to restrain the U.S. from helping Pakistan’s No. 1 adversary, India, he set out to portray her as pro-Indian and pro-American. Ayub’s campaign, in fact, was turning increasingly anti-American.”[5]

    Jinnah won the popular vote in the presidential election of 1965. However through post election rigging, coercion and manipulation of the electoral college, Ayub Khan got himself elected as the President of Pakistan. Ayub utilized the state facilities as head of state, not as the President of the Convention Muslim League and did not even hesitate to legislate on electoral matters. Bureaucracy and business helped him in his election campaign. It is believed that had the elections been held via direct ballot, she would have won. The Electoral College consisted of only 80,000 Basic Democrats, who were easily manipulated. This unfair elections and rigging set a very bad example, and a culture. She had received massive support all over the country, be it East or West Pakistan, she became a beacon of hope for the people of the country. She was a hurdle in the way of the group that wanted to remain in power. This particular group wanted to get rid of her by all means.

    It was an unfortunate day in our history. Had Ayub Khan conducted free and fair elections, people’s representatives would come back in power and democracy would be back on track, and what could have not be achieved under the leadership of Māder-e Millat ("Mother of the Nation"). Much could have been avoided, had Ayub Khan cared for wishes of the people of Pakistan. First, democracy would be back on track, which in itself was enough to avoid many coming hurdles.

    [​IMG]

    A rare photo of Fatima Jinnah during her election campaign in 1965

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QE8xmLfscQ

    Controversy regarding Fatima Ali Jinnah’s death
    [​IMG]

    Huge crowd attending Fatima Jinnah’s Funeral


    On July 7, 1964, Miss Fatima Jinnah had attended a wedding ceremony and everyone witnessed that she was in sound health. However, on July 9, it was suddenly announced that she had passed away. The cause of death was said to be heart attack. The story of her death, however, was also a strange one for the country. Many believe she was actually murdered. During her funeral, no common man was allowed to go near her dead body. No one was allowed to see her face for the last time before she was buried. Those who tried to do so, were baton-charged and dealt with tear gas.

    There were rumors that the mother of the nation had visible marks of wounds on her body.

    Malik Ghulam Sarwar said further that he had concerns that Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah was murdered. Later, Hassan A. Shaikh and other respected individuals, too, expressed similar concerns. The matter has also been highlighted in newspapers. Some even wrote editorials on it. [6]

    On August 2, 1971, a local Urdu newspaper published a news report which claimed that Miss Fatima Jinnah had been murdered. The report included interviews of the people who had given her the ghusl – ritualistic bath given to the dead before burial, as per Islamic tradition. In case of state personalities, people are hired to do the job.

    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.

    [​IMG]

    In 1964, when she contested elections against Ayub Khan, she became a beacon of hope for the people of the country. Her death came at a very crucial stage for Pakistan and it remains a mystery.

    (@Daneshmand ,@Neutron ,@Icarus ,@HRK ,@Slav Defence ,@Manticore ,@S.U.R.B. ,@Indos ,@Chinese-Dragon ,@Jungibaaz ,@New ,@Nihonjin1051 )
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 13
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 12
  2. WAJsal

    WAJsal MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,761
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Ratings:
    +212 / 13,408 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Operation gibraltar and the 1965 war

    [​IMG]

    M.M Alam going on mission in 1965 War

    Operation Gibraltar was the codename given to the strategy of Pakistan to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir, and start a rebellion against Indian rule. If successful, Pakistan hoped to gain control over Kashmir. The aim was an "attack by infiltration" by a specially trained irregular force, highly motivated and well armed. It was reasoned that the conflict could be confined only to Kashmir. The reasons were "to defreeze the Kashmir problem, weaken Indian resolve, and bring India to the conference table without provoking general war." The operation itself was a major failure, due to poor planning and execution.

    The operation was quite successful to initiate a conflict between the two countries. India retaliated by India retaliated by launching a full-scale military attack on West Pakistan(Pakistan today). The seventeen-day war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and also witnessed the largest tank battle since World War II. Hostilities between the two countries ended after a ceasefire was declared following diplomatic intervention by the Soviet Union and the United States, and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration.

    Pakistanis were led to believe Pakistan had won the war, which was not the case. No side truly won the war; Pakistan did well to defend itself against a bigger, well equiped Indian Army. Pakistan Army failed as far as communication, intelligence and command and control; involving itself in politics and concerning itself in other matters certainly did degrade the army from its basic task. Valiant efforts of PAF cannot be forgotten in 1965 war, facing a much superior adversity PAF certainly came up to its expectations.




    [​IMG]



    The story behind this blood mile goes like this:

    The Indian advance towards Lahore was met with faced severe resistance from the Pakistani armed forces. In order to boost the morale, the Indian commander told the troops on the wireless communication that Lahore was only 2 - 3 miles away. The communication was intercepted by the Pakistani side and officer added "Lahore - 14.2 Bloody Miles ", some say with his blood as he was seriously wounded in his effort.


    Pakistan after Ayub’s tenure
    Ayub Khan, like any other dictator looked to maintain a positive image and acted to assert himself, constantly working on his image; in other words he would do anything to stay in power, even if he had to mislead the masses. Ayub Khan’s stay in power was not based on civilian support, like any other dictatorship it was based on forceful rule. Ayub Khan’s real power was the support from Industrialists and Jagirdars(Feudals); Ayub Khan was the first one, followed by Zia-ul-Haq, to strengthen Feudal-class politically and helped grew their influence(the very Feudal/Industrialist class ruling us to this date and dominating our politics).


    “The brand of socio-economic engineering was not simply a highly controlled method of institution building as some Western observers were mistakenly led to believe. It depended on a closed personalized network involving some 15,000 civil servants, 500 or so top military officers, less than two dozen wealthy urban families controlling the bulk of the industrial, banking and insurance assets of the country and, finally, a somewhat more sprawling bunch of basic democrats drawn mostly from among middle-sized landlords in the rural areas.”[7]


    Twenty two industrial, trading and feudal families, fifteen thousand civil servants, and five hundred top military personals were Ayub Khan’s real strength. Under Ayub Khan's supervision Feudals and Industrialists took over Pakistan. Ayub Khan’s policy were in contradiction of what Quaid-i-Azam believed, and the general struggle for which Pakistan was made; Pakistan was made for the poor. Ayub Khan strengthened a class which collaborated with the British, opposed the partition and were strongly opposed by Quaid-i-Azam.

    “I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam.”[8]

    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]

    Ayub Khan’s policies were complete opposite of Quaid-I-Azam, the policies which strengthened his rule. Power had blinded Ayub Khan.

    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]

    Ayub Khan’s policies favored West Pakistan, the worst thing that happened in his tenure was the growth of sense of deprivation in East Pakistan. When the government took steps to help boost the economy, the measures seemed to favor West Pakistan. More than twice as much foreign aid and capital investment went to West Pakistan. Between 1949 and 1960 the per capita income increased in West Pakistan from 330 rupees to 373 rupees.

    In East Pakistan it declined from 305 rupees to 288. In 1951 the per capita income of East Pakistan was 85% of that of West Pakistan. In other words, West Pakistan was, on average 15% wealthier than East Pakistanis. By 1970 the gap had grown to 40%.

    The Bangladeshis believed and rightly so, that West Pakistan’s economic growth had taken place as a result of transferring resources from East to West Pakistan. They argued that single largest Pakistani export was Jute, which was grown in East Pakistan. Whereas the perhaps the largest spending by the government was on defense to protect the border with India. Since most of the border between the two countries lay in West Pakistan, some East Pakistanis considered that spending on the army was really to protect West Pakistan.

    This difference was also seen in health and education.[12]

    To be continued…….


    [1]”shahab nama”-Qudratullah Shahab

    [7]”Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia”-Ayesha Jalal (page 58)

    [9]”The Ayub Regime and the Alienation of East Bengal”

    [10]”A Journey to Disillusionment”- Sherbaz Khan Mazari,

    [11]”The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan's Political Economy of Defence Ayesha Jalal.”-Ayesha Jalal

    (@scorpionx ,@nair ,@Levina ,@PARIKRAMA ,@Spectre ,@WebMaster ,@Horus ,@fatman17 ,@araz ,@Dazzler ,@Atanz ,@waz )
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 17
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 5
  3. VCheng

    VCheng ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    38,199
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Ratings:
    +57 / 32,279 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    How much of this claimed instability and political weakness was real and how much was manufactured?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. PARIKRAMA

    PARIKRAMA PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    4,873
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2014
    Ratings:
    +185 / 16,734 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Again a superb write up by Superman Wajsal. leave the poster of the year entry, you have won probably one of the best coveted trophies of doing justice to the nation. History is very important and what you pointed seems for an outsider like me shocking.

    Some crisp points i want to point
    First
    Any dictator trying to use the state mechanism to gain legitimacy and to be seen as propagator of grass root democracy based system was actually day dreaming. The way so many politicians were systematically targeted and barred for 8 years was a direct way of manipulation. Strangely, the entire PA and the political system facilitated all this due to the fact that from 1947-1959 the whole timeline showed utter chaos.

    It is indeed strange than no intellectual raised voice against Ayub or whomsover raised was silenced. It would be interesting if some old writeups of such intellectuals warning the common mass against what Ayub Khan did could be read.

    Interestingly, by this Basic Democracies Order, whom did Ayub Khan really intended to please? Was he seeking just legitimacy or support from a foreign power/powers of recognizing him formally?


    Second,
    These are dark days. Of course the manipulation was expected but targeting Miss Jinnah and her associated death mystery is very gruesome. Political murders are not uncommon in any part of the world. Strangely, why did there was so much silence on this matter? Was much later some sort of investigation revealed the true story? Did she pass on a natural death reallly? or it was really a murder whom no one wants to talk about?

    Thirdly,
    This will set many tongues wagging all sides. A tie decision or even an unfavourable outcome wont get accepted by most of the people.

    Fourthly,
    This shows the apathy and systemic problem that Ayub Khan created. The control of best resources under such families ensured if he kept such families under his firm grip everything else being minority can be easily trampled. This perhaps was the biggest debacle and goes firmly against what Quaid-i-Azam had thought and planned for Pakistan.

    It would be interesting to know how such a stronghold was broken over time and what action was undertaken to bring such institutions under more national control over family control.

    Fifthly,
    What was the reason for Ayub Khan not being interested or having such discriminatory behavior. Was it bcz in between East and West Pakistan another country was present (geographically) that he felt he cannot manage East Pakistan and thus should concentrate on West only.
    When Ayub Khan was elected with 95.6 votes, was there by any chance limited or less votes from east Pakistan? Was there the small minority form East Pakistan favouring Miss Jinnah?

    +++
    @WAJsal
    Congratulations again for an excellent write up.. You have raised the bar with a very high quality post. The topic is already very very interesting. Do keep it up Sir.

    It would be nice if some folks with yesteryear history give their two bits here. Some one who had seen these events from close. Would love to read their views on what really happened and how good, bad or frightening was the time of those years..

    BTW you should promote me to give you good sir, a positive rating from my side. For the moment you have to be satisfied with just my thanks. :p::p::p:
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2016
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  5. Aepsilons

    Aepsilons PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    24,978
    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Ratings:
    +118 / 35,748 / -0
    Country:
    Japan
    Location:
    United States


    GREAT READ!!!!!!!!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  6. WAJsal

    WAJsal MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,761
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Ratings:
    +212 / 13,408 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I only hope our younger generation can take some time out to give it a read, doing what i can, sir.
    Answer is in the questions.
    Will remain a mystery, just like Liaquat Ali Khan's death and etc, etc.
    It was indeed a misadventure.
    He introduced the Feudal-Elite-class in politics, the very class which collaborated with the British and opposed Partition. Even today, we have this class ruling us and controlling our industries.
    She received more suppose in East, compared to the West.

    @niaz , forgot to tag you, do give your incite on this period of our history.

    @AUSTERLITZ , @anant_s , forgot to tag you.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  7. AUSTERLITZ

    AUSTERLITZ SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,030
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Ratings:
    +175 / 9,932 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Awed by this effort.I had missed these threads.Great job man.I'm midst exams right now,i'll try to reply a bit more in depth to the content of the posts if i can soon.I believe as a history student that history is created by a combination of actors ad factors,historical developments should be studied from four angles -

    The role of actors -
    The human angle.Which includes the idiosyncrasies of the individual players of that event,how they react,their strengths,weaknesses how they interact with each other.For example gandhi ,jinnah,aurangzeb these are pivotal historical figures for south asia.In the world scene newton,napoleon,alexander,genghis khan -they completely changed the world.

    The role of factors -
    The Institutional angle - Role of the institutions or prevelant social,political and economic systems and economic mode of production because they in a large manner determine the ethos of the individuals and the constraints they have to work with.This is the marxist approach.For example the feudal mode of production,the industrial capitalistic society is an institution,the mughal jagurdari system was an institution,parliamentary democracy is an institution,caste sytem is an institution,the german general staff was an institution etc.Gaius Marius's change in the nature of institution of the roman army from a citizen militia to removal of property requirements and professionalization led to warlordism and civil wars and ultimately empire.

    The ideological angle - This is very vital as ideologies determine how a people view he world,and they will organize their institutions depending on what they believe is just and right.So ideologies are vital to the formation and to maintain the legitimacy of institutions and new ideologies to challenge existing institutions and ideologies(used for good or bad...for example islamic ideology being used by terror groups now to give legitimacy to themselves,racial theory used by nazis to legitimize the policies in eastern europe against slavs, are examples of bad.No taxation without representation used as an ideological cry for american revolution,writings of voltaire ,rousseau proclaiming natural rights of man used in french revolution as examples of good).Ideologies can be social ,political,economic.Role of ideologies like monotheism and its variants in religion,socialism,laissez faire in economics,universal sufferage are very important in progress of human history.New ideologies generally rise(except religions which are a bit more complex) to give concrete form to the socio-political aspirations of sections of society and can fulfill those aspirations and legitimize them(french bourgeosie rally behind enlightenment ideals to challenge divine right and the feudal absolute monarchical system which extracted wealth from them but didn't give them any social or political power in turn) or are created to legitimize one's domination over others.(divine right,racial theory)

    Technological angle - The advance of technology determines in many ways how society,economy,politics will advance.New technology creates new variables in a stable status quo which can lead to rise of new military powers who use this to change the political scene- how use of navigation technology led to european colonization of americas with far reaching effects,new social classes -how industrial revolution created the urban proletariat while destroying the feudal landlord class,how the railways transformed societies across the world,how modern communications has slowly globalized the world).How machine made cloth destroyed handicrafts industries during the industrial revolution wiping out artisan classes.The nuclear bomb for example prevented a third great war and totally changed political dynamics making war as a regular instrument of state policy -a feature present from ancient times obsolete.It can also give societies great advantages over others who are slow to adopt or keep up.How the ottoman-european power balance is broken.

    Luck - A combination of circumstances,moments and decisions and geography.Because the americas were closest to portugal,spain and england they colonized these places and thus the culture and institutions of todays north america and latin america are derived from those origins.But what if the italians were closest-how would the americas look-what if the chinese were closest and colonized?What if czarina elisabeth had not suddenly died in the end of the seven yrs war which led to his successor making peace with almost defeated prussia and saved her from annihilation.It would have been the end of frederick and prussia and germany would not be unified under prussia..there may not even be 2 world wars?See the chain reaction?What if clietus the black was a second late at granicus and alexander was killed..we wouldn't even hear of alexander the great and the hellenistic culture would never spread.What if ogedei khan didn't die and mongols didn't turn back from europe?What if berke didn't attack hulegu and he attacked and destroyed the mamluks and then arabia?
    What if the random metoer shower that constantine took as sign from god before his great battle vs a rival in his bid for roman emperorship,didn't occur and christianity would not become the official religion of the empire?What if genoa hadn't sold corsica to a french duke?There would be no emperor napoleon .What if napoleon didn't sell louisiana to the usa randomly because he felt it was worthless?Or this british soldier who spared wounded corporal hitler's life out of pity in ww1?http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28593256
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  8. Khafee

    Khafee PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    7,475
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Ratings:
    +60 / 26,365 / -0
    Country:
    United Arab Emirates
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  9. anant_s

    anant_s SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,602
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Ratings:
    +92 / 16,533 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    I sincerely wish some of your articles were in form of books, that i so love to read during quiet winter evenings.
    If we all go back in time, there are remarkable similarities between early independent India and Pakistan. Infact India owing to larger geographic area, had a larger variety of ethnic groups after it was united under one flag. The education and economic levels were more or less at par for both nations and perhaps so was the level of social disparity. Both nations started under extremely popular national leaders that countrymen could look upto.
    Unfortunately something changed here (for Pakistani society) and it was Army's meddling into political and fairly popular democratic system. I really don't know why it happened or was allowed to happen.
    Top brass of Army in entire 50s (& 60s perhaps) came out of same system that British had in prior to 1947 and it is difficult to understand what different did top Generals in pakistan army saw, to harbour ambitions of ruling the country or running administration, because for some reason this never happened in India.
    I've tried to learn answer to this question from whatever literature is available and the two answers i end up getting are:
    1. Untimely demise of Jinnah Sahab led to a political vacuum that leaders in Pakistan found impossible to fill.
    2. Generals in Pakistani army were delusioned to thinking themselves as saviors in this situation

    Now thats hardly a decade after Independence and the generation of leaders who would've been a part of freedom struggle would be still around at that time. & while i may be wrong here, i suppose it wasn't the dearth of able leaders having a nation wide appeal but army's unnecessary intervention, that perhaps didn't give enough time for democracy to mature and people to embrace it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. Sipahi

    Sipahi SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,200
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Ratings:
    +8 / 3,211 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The worst civilian rule is better than the best military ruler.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  11. WAJsal

    WAJsal MODERATOR

    Messages:
    7,761
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Ratings:
    +212 / 13,408 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thanks.
    I am planning on writing 5-6 parts, you can read it all in a form of a book. :-)

    I have touched this subject in previous part, let me make a mention:
    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.

    Source: https://defence.pk/threads/pakistans-political-history-part-1.407849/#ixzz3yjgWQ5kp

    It is to note that soon after independence the Muslim League had completely faded away from the scenes, if a political leadership was present no Bureaucrat would dare intervene, military or civilian.
    They applied British-mentality.
    Pakistan had first civilian government after 1971.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  12. anant_s

    anant_s SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,602
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Ratings:
    +92 / 16,533 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    :tup:

    I read a book recently titled India after Gandhi (Ramachandra Guha).
    51R-P+9es3L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    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.

    When i try to draw analogy with what i've said above, with Pakistan society of today, i find that today's youth in the country are well educated, skilled and have a far liberal and open view. Maybe here lies the seeds of a far stable democracy as leaders who come out too would have a similar intellectual mindset. & once that happens (it surely will), army will go back to soldering, leaving job of managing country, to countrymen.
    @scorpionx @Levina @AUSTERLITZ
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  13. scorpionx

    scorpionx SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,178
    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Ratings:
    +90 / 14,306 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    To a school boy in modern Pakistani politics, this effort very well represents an excellent synopsis of post Jinnah political degradation in form of abuse of democratic principles, encroaching corruption in bureaucracy and ascendancy of military class over the civilian elites; I would also eagerly wait @WAJsal to know how liberal society coped with this gradual deterioration of a society that Jinnah once dreamed of.

    When Ayub was consolidating himself in the throne, India lost its last of tridents (Gandhi, Patel and Nehru) whose firm belief in a secular, liberal democracy formed the foundation of Indian political psyche. After his death, India had to fought hunger, corruption, linguistic chauvinism and secessionist movements in different corners from a more vulnerable position than ever before. But somehow democracy survived (though not in its best form) because Nehru with the help of few more good men in his office successfully institutionalized democracy with Indian politics. Indians were repeatedly remembered and they started to admire the fact that how for centuries participative democracy enriched its ancient societies. This is the reason, Indians energetically refuses any form of dictatorial government. I hope you will give little stress how military regimes perform with much success in your country and enjoys enviable popularity still.

    We talked once about this book Anant, if you remember. This is one of the best book I have in my collection.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  14. anant_s

    anant_s SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,602
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Ratings:
    +92 / 16,533 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    A lot of old british colonies gained independence post WW2 in late 40s and 50s.
    List_of_countries_gained_independance_from_the_UK_2.svg.png
    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!

    Indeed it is Sir!
    During my schooling, i studied NCERT books (part of CBSE curriculum) and history books written by eminent historians like Romila Thapar, while being objective, do look like telling you a story, in a politically correct way.
    In this light Guha's book was like going back to school again and it is a very refreshing take on the times we are so intrigued about.

    @WAJsal
    Sir, i missed this line in my earlier reading. Its interesting that a military leader had support of some powerful civil society members. Not meaning to generalize, but it looks like some section (old wealthy families perhaps) saw more of hope to retain their power with a military leader rather than entering politics themselves.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  15. niaz

    niaz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    4,646
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +175 / 9,387 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    I was a student in London at that time. You have summarized the event nicely. I have nothing more to add.
    I would only comment that it had been realised by the establishment that East Pakistan’s' defence was not possible. 1965 war was fought under the doctrine that ”Defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan"
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6