The first dictatorship - Pakistan 1948-1958.

[Indus Pakistan]

Generally speaking most people regard the coup of Gen. Ayub Khan in 1958 as the first dictatorship in Pakistan's history. But is that so? To answer that question let us ask ourselves what dictatorship means.

"a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power. Clique meaning a small close-knit group of people who do not readily allow others to join them"
The argumant I will make here is that Pakistan by definition had a form of dictatorship imposed on it after the death of Jinnah in 1948. No general elections and this is important to note, no general elections were held in the decade 1948-1958. To make my point I want to contrast this decade with India. Please refer to the infographic below.

As can be seen India effected a constitution by 1950 which still is in force. Prime Minister Nehru stood in the 1952 General Election and his Congress Party won. Exactly 5 years later in 1957 India had it's second General Election and PM Nehru won for the second time.

During this entire decade Pakistan did NOT even have one general election. A unelected political clique ran the country largely on administrative fiat. Non of the ruling clique had the elective mandate of the people. This descibes the definition of a dictatorship as given above.

The political dictatorship over this decade avoided general elections but were involved in game of intrigue and plotted against each other for power grab. In the game of music chairs four prime ministers were appointed and removed. Rule of the country was neglected and next door in India PM Nehru joked Pakistan changes PM's more regularly then I change underpants. In 1954 President Iskander appointed Gen Ayub as his defence minister. Instead of going to the public and testing their mandate thus gaining political legitimacy the clique began using the army to sustain it's dictatorship. In any democracy instability normally leads to elections being declared so that the public can let their views expressed.

Instead the ruling clique fought out for power between itself by sacking and making alliances but assidiously avoiding the MANDATE of the Pakistani public. Thus clearly Pakistan was a dictatorship from 1948-1958. It is instructive to note that as his power ebbed President Iskander Mirza began relying more on the army. In 1958 in desperation, when he should have declared general elections and let the people decide as is norm in any democracy the President declared martial law and appointed Gen Ayub to lead it.

As we know rest is history. The Praetorian Guard had been invited to seat of power. And as we know as the martial law administrator Gen Ayub just pushed President Iskander off the chair and made himself comfortable. Pakistan had got it's SECOND dictatorship. Only this time it would be a MILITARY dictatorship. So to sum this -

• 1948-1959 Political dictatorship by a clique
• 1958-1969 Military dictatorship by Gen Ayub Khan

*As noted earlier it would take Pakistan full 23 years from 1947 in 1970 when it got it's FIRST general election.

 

[gangsta_rap]

i wish that the past generations had gone along in the steps of other western-backed authoritarian regimes like korea/greece/argentina/turkey/brazil and the like with the military rule lasting for 30-40 decades.

instead we have as stunted democracy where people vote for take out food rather than an ideology or an action plan.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

military rule

The fashion in Pakistan is to denounce the military for all the ills in Pakistan. The reality as I have shown in the OP that dictatorship and rule by a unelected clique was imposed on Pakistan from 1948 onwards. Political history of Pakistan was tortured for a decade by dicatorship of civilians. And even the military that did take over was invited by the civilian dictatorship.

Furthermore it was this unelected dictatorship that inflicted on Pakistan the Objectives Resolution. This was nothing but a crutch using religion to continue rule over the population by appealing to the religious sentiments of the masses but avoiding seeking mandate of the people in a general election. Something that the vastly larger India next door managed to do by holding elections in 1952 and 1957. Meantime our democrats in Pakistan ruled by using administrrative fiat while playing with religion and teasing the Mullahs.

Every issue Pakistan faces today was laid then. when India was laying foundation of a stable democracy our dso called democrats were laying foundations of religious extremism [the first Ahmedi riots happened in 1951] and dictatorships.

Yet today the fashion is blame the military.

@VCheng @AgNoStiC MuSliM @masterchief_mirza @Talwar e Pakistan @Joe Shearer @PAKISTANFOREVER @waz

 

[Yankee-stani]

i wish that the past generations had gone along in the steps of other western-backed authoritarian regimes like korea/greece/argentina/turkey/brazil and the like with the military rule lasting for 30-40 decades.

instead we have as stunted democracy where people vote for take out food rather than an ideology or an action plan.

Pro American and Pro Soviet means nothing the Cold War was complex and ever changing during the 4 decades they were plenty of Pro American/Western regimes that were complete s..tholes eg-Suharto Indonesia,Mobutu Sesko Zaire or Congo and Marcos Philippines and Zia Ul Haq Pakistan

The fashion in Pakistan is to denounce the military for all the ills in Pakistan. The reality as I have shown in the OP that dictatorship and rule by a unelected clique was imposed on Pakistan from 1948 onwards. Political history of Pakistan was tortured for a decade by dicatorship of civilians. And even the military that did take over was invited by the civilian dictatorship.

Furthermore it was this unelected dictatorship that inflicted on Pakistan the Objectives Resolution. This was nothing but a crutch using religion to continue rule over the population by appealing to the religious sentiments of the masses but avoiding seeking mandate of the people in a general election. Something that the vastly larger India next door managed to do by holding elections in 1952 and 1957. Meantime our democrats in Pakistan ruled by using administrrative fiat while playing with religion and teasing the Mullahs.

Every issue Pakistan faces today was laid then. when India was laying foundation of a stable democracy our dso called democrats were laying foundations of religious extremism [the first Ahmedi riots happened in 1951] and dictatorships.

Yet today the fashion is blame the military.

@VCheng @AgNoStiC MuSliM @masterchief_mirza @Talwar e Pakistan @Joe Shearer @PAKISTANFOREVER @waz

I sometimes wonder what would Pakistan would look like if the 1950 Rawalpindi conspiracy actually was succesful at times I know the topic here is mostly about the ML one Party reign from 1947-1958 I say that and the Obejective Resoloutions what put Pakistan on its current path

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pro American and Pro Soviet means nothing the Cold War was complex and ever changing during the 4 decades they were plenty of Pro American/Western regimes that were complete s..tholes eg-Suharto Indonesia,Mobutu Sesko Zaire or Congo and Marcos Philippines and Zia Ul Haq Pakistan

Add to that some very brutal despots and regimes supported by the US in Latin America, including outright terrorist groups.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Add to that some very brutal despots and regimes supported by the US in Latin America, including outright terrorist groups.

I mean the US coined the term for one of the most Brutal Latin American dictators out there "Somoza He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch” they did not say that for no reason

 

[Old School]

Leftists and liberals both usually call one a dictator if it doesn't serve their purpose. When it does, it is never a dictatorship in their eyes. It becomes an ally. For instance, the artificial governments in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are nothing but front desks of NATO dictatorship. There are many more such dictatorships which now serve the purpose of the West.

 

[ARMalik]

By Military coups and Marshall Laws, Pakistan Generals have destroyed this country and its people. These people are SQUARELY RESPONSIBLE for the past and current economic, financial, social, educational, religious, corruption, and Geo-strategic dangers faced by Pakistan and its people. I pray that in future there will be a just leadership in charge of Pakistan who will hold these PEOPLE accountable for the hell hole they have created here.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The fashion in Pakistan is to denounce the military for all the ills in Pakistan. The reality as I have shown in the OP that dictatorship and rule by a unelected clique was imposed on Pakistan from 1948 onwards. Political history of Pakistan was tortured for a decade by dicatorship of civilians. And even the military that did take over was invited by the civilian dictatorship.

Furthermore it was this unelected dictatorship that inflicted on Pakistan the Objectives Resolution. This was nothing but a crutch using religion to continue rule over the population by appealing to the religious sentiments of the masses but avoiding seeking mandate of the people in a general election. Something that the vastly larger India next door managed to do by holding elections in 1952 and 1957. Meantime our democrats in Pakistan ruled by using administrrative fiat while playing with religion and teasing the Mullahs.

Every issue Pakistan faces today was laid then. when India was laying foundation of a stable democracy our dso called democrats were laying foundations of religious extremism [the first Ahmedi riots happened in 1951] and dictatorships.

Yet today the fashion is blame the military.

@VCheng @AgNoStiC MuSliM @masterchief_mirza @Talwar e Pakistan @Joe Shearer @PAKISTANFOREVER @waz

Blame the military but never the corrupt politicians like Nawaz-not-so-sharif and the zardari/bhutto retards...........

 

[Mentee]

Whats the way forward now other than blaming varying cliques of the past?

 

[Hareeb]

Elections are held according to constitution, and while first constitution was approved in 1956 -keeping Objectives Resolution 1949 aside- this is obvious elections couldn't be held. Secondly, first population census was conducted not before 1951 as people were still migrating till 1953-4 agreement. Lastly, while elections were not held for national aseembly seats but provincial elections were held in Punjab in 1951.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Good thread, it's important to learn one's history. IMO it's difficult to overstate how much went wrong in that era, and just how many seeds of what was to come were sown. To name a few legacies of that disastrous era:

• Nazriya-e-Zaroorat (Doctrine of Necessity)
• One unit scheme
• Politicised bureaucracy
• Political intrigues, plots (adianoeta), and coups
• Rigging of elections, removal of elected leaders, crushing of dissent, and other violations.

 

[Kambojaric]

Good observation. Indian democracy was much better equipped to succeed post 47. They had a political party with strong democratic traditions established since the 1800s and dominated by lawyers and civil servants. Pakistans political scene on the eve of independence barring Jinnah was dominated by feudal lords and aristocrats. India inherited the major industrial centers of British India (Calcutta and Bombay) whose economies supported the establishment of an urban middle class, key for the development of democracy. Pakistan meanwhile was used by the colonial authorities as an agricultural hub as well as a recruitment ground for the military. The fact that we ended up with civilian dictatorial leaders is as such hardly a surprise. The fact that so few know about this and as you point out regard Ayub Khan as the first dictator however is a surprise.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The fact that so few know about this and as you point out regard Ayub Khan as the first dictator however is a surprise.

I actually was under the impression that Gen. Ayub Khan was responsible for destruction of democracy. I had formed this on what is normally said about this period. Only recently when reading on the period did I become aware that the rulers had no political mandate. 1970 was the first general election in Pakistan's history. The army was invited into politics by the clique that ruled Pakistan.

Interestingly military dictators always held elections but mostly restricted to local or provincial polls which left them in power at the federal level. In the period 1948-58 Pakistan did have elections but non for the central government. The polls were for provincial elections.

Another thing to note and I will open a thread on this, it appears lot of the energy of the rulers from 1948 onwards was on three things -

• getting up to all sort of shenanigans to prevent the majority of the country namely the Bengali 55% from gaining power. This tension began as early as 1948. A erudite reader could have seen the birth of Bangladesh inevitable by 1950 given the ruling elites utter contempt for democratic values and their depriving of the majority of Pakistan democratic will. The effects would explode open after the first general election of 1970.
• 
  
• using religion to sustain their rule by gaining purchase within the largely conservative rural masses. I don't have as yet primary source for this but I would go as far as to say the the elite even made peace with religious groups who had opposed the idea of Pakistan in effort to gain traction and hedge against leftist movements. You can see how Maudoodi was treated even after having been found guilty.
• Grabbing as much of the assets left by prosperous Hindu and Parsi trading comunities. False claims would be lodged on what person lost in the partition and then the government would hand out compensation from those assets. Fortunes were made.

*In fact Bhutto senior was the first leader Pakistan got who could remotely claim that he had popular electoral mandate, although even that is contestable. Furthermore a a functiuoning constitution was enacted.

 

[Kambojaric]

I actually was under the impression that Gen. Ayub Khan was responsible for destruction of democracy. I had formed this on what is normally said about this period. Only recently when reading on the period did I become aware that the rulers had no political mandate. 1970 was the first general election in Pakistan's history. The army was invited into politics by the clique that ruled Pakistan.

Interestingly military dictators always held elections but mostly restricted to local or provincial polls which left them in power at the federal level. In the period 1948-58 Pakistan did have elections but non for the central government. The polls were for provincial elections.

Another thing to note and I will open a thread on this, it appears lot of the energy of the rulers from 1948 onwards was on three things -

• getting up to all sort of shenanigans to prevent the majority of the country namely the Bengali 55% from gaining power. This tension began as early as 1948. A erudite reader could have seen the birth of Bangladesh inevitable by 1950 given the ruling elites utter contempt for democratic values and their depriving of the majority of Pakistan democratic will. The effects would explode open after the first general election of 1970.
• 
  
• using religion to sustain their rule by gaining purchase within the largely conservative rural masses. I don't have as yet primary source for this but I would go as far as to say the the elite even made peace with religious groups who had opposed the idea of Pakistan in effort to gain traction and hedge against leftist movements. You can see how Maudoodi was treated even after having been found guilty.
• Grabbing as much of the assets left by prosperous Hindu and Parsi trading comunities. False claims would be lodged on what person lost in the partition and then the government would hand out compensation from those assets. Fortunes were made.

*In fact Bhutto senior was the first leader Pakistan got who could remotely claim that he had popular electoral mandate, although even that is contestable. Furthermore a a functiuoning constitution was enacted.

There are no charismatic leaders in the Muslim League post Jinnah in my opinion. Therefore the path of pandering to the mullahs and ignoring the Bengalis had already been taken with the Basic Principle Committee. Justice Munir also highlights this and the political leaderships weakness in the face of mob mentality in the Munir Report.

We have stated in earlier parts of the Report how the three demands in respect of the Ahmadis came to be formulated and presented to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din under the threat of direct action. In view of the long and frequent discussions Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din had with the ulama, the correctness and justification of the demands on theological grounds must have been discussed. Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din is a devoutly religious man, and since he did not straight away reject the demands, he must have been impressed by their plausibility.
...
These implications must obviously have been present to the mind of Khwaja Nazim ud-Din, and he must have felt a troublesome conflict between his own religious convictions, and the implications resulting from the acceptance of the demands. He, therefore, protracted his negotiations with the ulama, hoping against hope that they would abandon the demands, or that some unexpected event would solve the issue, or human ingenuity discover some solution of the problem. He hardly expected that the ulama, who had had long conversations with him and his colleagues on this theological topic, would revolt against his Government and start what was nothing short of a rebellion.

1313khwaja

If you are interested in this era by the way to try to get your hands on "From Jinnah to Zia" by former Chief Justice Muhammad Munir https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14759046-from-jinnah-to-zia