Introduction to my individual research paper, the one I had submitted while attending NDC in yrs 2003-2004, peak of Musharraf’s rule:

1.            At its creation on 14 August 1947, Pakistan comprised the territories of Balochistan, the NWFP, Sindh, some parts of Punjab and East Bengal. Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns and Baluchis represented distinct nationalities or ethnic groups in Pakistan who have had their distinct history, culture, language, traditions, customs and traditional homeland territories, and even ethno-national movements originating prior to the independence. Pakistan, as it emerged with manifest diversity, was a state-nation and not a nation-state. While propounding his well-known Two-Nation Theory, the Quaid-e-Azam was not unaware of the sectarian feuds and ethno-national cleavages among the Muslims of the areas that constituted Pakistan. He mainly aimed at securing a homeland state for the Muslims of the Indian Sub-continent within or outside free India to safeguard them against political and economic domination by the Hindus and proceeded on the assumption that the state would level down ethnic, linguistic and other differences in due course of time. For such a diverse society, it was imperative to have very well developed institutionalized systems, including political, and sincere competent leadership.

2.            The Lahore Resolution formed the basis for creation of Pakistan as a federal state, wherein, the people of its federating units, with diverse ethnicity and culture, could practice their religion with freedom, follow their traditions / culture and, above all, have equal opportunity of economic well-being. Over 56 years of Pakistan’s history, however, presents a different story, marked by excessive centralization / authoritarian rules, wide economic disparity and religious polarization.

3.            Barring few exceptions, the political scene has been dominated by opportunist politicians, unenlightened clergy, ambitious bureaucrats and autocratic military rulers. This has given rise to political, socio-economical and religious polarization in the country. Though, then perceived as a requirement, the Quaid-e Azam, by permitting himself to be elected the President of the Constituent Assembly, while simultaneously holding the office of the Governor General, concentrated both legislative and executive powers, not in one body but in one individual. He unfortunately could not live long to set the system on the right track and, the nation, since then, has witnessed a pattern, whereby, quest for power has remained the name of the game in Pakistan’s polity, with adverse ramifications for the country. The military rules, spread over slightly less than half of Pakistan’s history, did provide temporary relief but left behind greater ills, the greatest being internal disharmony. Failure of the political leadership to deliver and successive military take-overs, thus, set in a climate of political uncertainty and eroded national cohesion, a must for a federal state.

4.            Another emerging major threat to Pakistan’s internal security is the religious polarization, often manifested in the shape of sectarianism and, more recently, as terrorism. To analyze the problem in its true perspective, it is essential to clearly define the purpose of creation of Pakistan. There is also a need to determine whether Pakistan is a nation-state or is it an ideological Islamic state, based on the concept of Islamic nationalism or is there any co-relationship between the two concepts in the context of creation of Pakistan. Historically, Pakistan was created to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslims from Hindu domination. The Quaid never visualized it as a theocratic state and wanted Pakistan to be a modern, progressive Islamic state. It was in the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that Pakistan was given an ideological identity. While, in essence, it provided, a very formidable base to the newly created state, it also provided clergy with the leverage to interpret Islam for their vested interests. Its manifestation was amplified during President Zia-Ul- Haq’s regime, gained impetus during the “Jihad” in Afghanistan and IHK and now Pakistan is faced with a situation where religious extremism and terrorism is not only threatening its internal cohesion but also adversely affecting its image in the comity of nations.               

5.            Pakistan’s challenge of tackling its adverse global image, though initially the result of handling the entire question of links to terrorism and militancy, must eventually depend on how far the country successfully tackles the multi-dimensional  dilemmas  within. A state which is continuously locked in one stream of political disorder after another cannot hope to embark upon long term stability. Likewise, a state which remains in the midst of recurring bouts of uncertainty, cannot expect to oversee economic progress and social restructuring of the kind which is long overdue.

6.            President Musharraf’s three years rule and the present government, functioning under his direct supervision, have taken certain measures to bring the country out of the quagmire and address issues related to internal disharmony and religious extremism, yet a lot is required to be done in this regard.

Extracts from the remaining paper:-

1.         Military Rules.           Pakistan has remained plagued by political uncertainty, mainly caused by intermittent take-overs by the Army. Army’s rule is also looked upon with apprehension by the three smaller provinces. It has always been construed by them as rule by the Punjabis, and resented. This perception alone has adversely affected national cohesion. Some of the other major adverse ramifications include retarding the growth of democracy, weakening of the political system, causing constitutional problems and hindering the development of the institutions. To illustrate, main highlights of different military regimes are given below in a very brief form:-

a.            Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s Rule

                          (1)          Abrogated 1956 Constitution.

  (2)          Promulgated the 1962 Constitution, proclaiming Presidential form of government. This was not acceptable to the masses in general who also resented the Basic Democracy System introduced by him to perpetuate his rule.

   (3)          Era witnessed tremendous economic growth and industrialization, yet unequal distribution of wealth ultimately brought people on to the streets. He eventually abdicated.

    b.        General Yahya’s Martial Law.    Held free and fair elections, however, failed to ensure transfer of power to the political leadership. Resultantly, the country was dismembered and erstwhile East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971.

    c.        General Zia’s Regime

(1)          General Zia’s rule is characterized by the legacy of the dictatorial policies when floggings of political foes and critics blatantly remained the crudest enforcement tool in the hands of military dominated state.

(2)          Overthrow of Bhutto, his hanging and ruthless suppression of Movement for Restoration of Democracy completely alienated the people of Sindh.

(3)          Though his leadership contributed in forcing the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan, yet the nation is still facing the aftermath of his policies to woo the clergy. ‘Kalashnikov Culture’ and ‘Jehadi Culture’, emanated during his tenure and still haunt the Pakistani society.             

   d.      President Musharraf’s Rule.       Though President General Musharraf’s rule has    many achievements to its credit, yet tragically, Pakistan’s politics remain confronted with an almost dead end, and the hope of a young democracy maturing with time and experience remains an  uncertain prospect.