Ahmed 1
Fatima Ahmed
24110048
Anam Fatima
Pakistan Studies SS102
10th May 2021
Question 3
Describe the democratic process in Pakistan over the 20th Century (1947-2000). Critique
how each stage added or took away from the cause of democracy in the country. (15)
Question 4
What does 1971 tell you about subaltern communities, agency, and war? (15).
Answer 3
Over the 20th century, Pakistan has seen many governments, both civil and military
bureaucracies. However, each stage has arguably took away from the cause of democracy.
How ironic is it that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, considered and
envisioned Pakistan to be a democracy but in its initial years, the state was anything but
democratic. The political instability and several military coups have played a significant role
in the failure for Pakistan to have been a democratic state. There were few governments that
were democratic on the surface, however, when analysed it can clearly be seen that they used
democracy as a front for their selfish agendas.
Following the untimely deaths of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan was
left in the hands of incompetent, power hungry politicians. The post of governor general was
filled by Ghulam Muhammad in 1951, who dissolved the prime minister Khwaja
Nazimuddin`s government. In a series of somewhat spiteful events, Khwaja dismissed the
assembly. Iskander Mirza then filled the post of governor general in 1955, and in his tenure,
he had four prime ministers in a period of less than three years. As can be seen, these political
leaders that the new-born state was met with, were not fit enough to rule.
The political instability Pakistan was facing gave rise to its first martial law, when General
Muhammad Ayub Khan took over. His reign was far from democratic. He introduced the
Basic Democracies system where the parliamentary government was abolished, politicians
were disqualified, and the power was in the hands of the army and the elite class. Of course,
this system had its share of unethical behavior, where the few who were given the right to
vote were bribed and bought. Several socio-economic factors and disputes among the East
and West Pakistan, forced Ayub Khan to give up his position and in 1969 General Agha
Muhammad Yahya Khan came into power as the second military leader. In Yahya’s reign,
the tensions between East and West Pakistan escalated to the heights of East Pakistan
breaking up. In the general elections of 1970, Mujib Ur Rehman who was leading the Awami
Ahmed 2
League, won 160 out of 162 seats in East Pakistan but was deprived of his right to rule. His
rule was seen as a threat to West Pakistan’s politicians who conspired with the military,
against Mujib Ur Rehman and prevented him from taking the seat. For East Pakistan, this was
the final straw, coupled with being neglected in every way. And in 1971, East Pakistan
gained its independence.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the leader of Pakistan’s People’s Party (PPP), then came into power. The
military regime was over however, Bhutto’s reign proved to not be democratic as well. He
required the backing of military and civil bureaucracy however, due to not being politically
strong in two out of four provinces of Pakistan, namely Baluchistan and NWFP (now KPK).
This meant that the people of Pakistan still did not have a voice, and the state remained far
from democratic. In the 1977 elections, PPP managed to win again, however Bhutto was
accused of rigging and eventually General Zia Ul Haq took over as a military dictator.
Zia abolished all political parties under his rule and strived to bring about an ‘Islamic State’.
This constant struggle towards “Islamization” proved to aid him in gaining support and
power. Under his rule, military and ulemas remained in power, further weakening the
democracy of the state. There was an obvious lack of rights among the minorities and a
struggle to be heard. Zia lifted the martial law in 1985, and the ban on political parties was
lifted. However, Zia made changes in the 1973 constitution, giving the ultimate power to the
president. This way, even though the military regime was over, Zia was in entire control. This
power was also exploited by the future presidents who expelled various prime ministers for
selfish reasons.
Muhammad Khan Junejo was elected as the new prime minister in the 1988 elections, and
proved to bring about several economic and welfare reforms. However, soon Zia dissolved
the national assembly, as he blamed Junejo for conspiring against him and the assembly of
being ‘un-islamic’ for carrying out corruption. Zia planned on holding non-party elections,
and once that was met with criticism, there was a possibility for another martial law,
however, Zia passed away in a plane crash and Ghulam Ishaq Khan became the new
president.
In the following eleven years, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif became prime ministers
twice, one after the other. In 1988, Benazir Bhutto took upon the seat of the Prime minister,
and in her two-year tenure, no reforms were seen. The bitterness between Nawaz Sharif and
Bhutto grew however, and in 1990 Bhutto was dismissed by the president. Sharif then came
in control; however, his tenure was filled with accusations of money launderings and fraud.
Three years later, Bhutto was back in control and Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari was elected
as the new president. Bhutto was corrupt in her reign and misused her power and resources to
her advantage. She was unable to run the country fairly and justly and in 1997, was again
dismissed. Sharif was elected again, and amendments were made in the constitution to gain
some political stability and take some control from the president.
Sharif was continued to be suspected of corruption and his inability to handle the Kashmir
crisis gave General Pervez Musharraf a reason for carrying out the fourth military coup of
Pakistan’s history. And so, in 1999 Musharraf came into power for almost the next decade.
As can clearly be inferred, in the 20th century Pakistan was highly politically unstable. If the
power of the state was not juggling between one corrupt politician to the other, then it was all
Ahmed 3
in the hands of military officials. Throughout, it can be observed that the people in power,
whether politicians or military officials, were power hungry and their decisions were led by
selfish motifs. The people of Pakistan were not given a voice and it can be concluded that all
the initial leaders came together to fail the state in the name of democracy. The idea of
democracy was countlessly exploited by people in power, or the elite, who were only driven
by the lust of power. The people of Pakistan eventually started losing faith in the democratic
system for the governments were corrupt, unstable, and continued to shift between the
bureaucratic elite and the military.
Answer 4
Pakistan was openly recognised as a country that preached inclusivity of all minorities, by its
founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Equality was promised to all and the idea of rights of
minorities was stressed upon. However, Pakistan was divided into two, not only
geographically but ethnically as well. West Pakistan consisted majorly of Punjabis and Urdu
speaking nationals while East Pakistan consisted majorly of Bengalis. A series of events led
up to the partition of East Pakistan in 1971. They were highly neglected and exploited, in
various aspects. West Pakistan was favoured, despite East Pakistan being more prosperous
and Bengalis were forced to fight for independence. Resources were distributed unfairly,
Bengalis were economically exploited, were not granted their right in political representation
and there was also a huge culture gap between the two.
When Urdu was declared as the national language of Pakistan, it was met with a lot of
criticism. It should be noted that the population of East Pakistan constituted as 56% of the
entire population of Pakistan. A wide majority of these spoke Bengali and protested
vigorously for Bengali to be made the national language, in the Bengali Language
Movement. Years later, in 1956, Bengali was recognized as the national language, however,
by then it was too late for the Bengalis had started resenting the Punjabis and Urdu speaking
nationals. This resentment was bigger than the fight for a national language, as the language
represented power and opportunity.
As the Pakistan army majorly consisted of Punjabis, Bengalis resented the military rule.
Under the military rule, their voices were not heard. They in turn protested the coup.
When General Ayub Khan came into power, he brought about reforms that clearly hinted at
his personal favor of West Pakistan. The idea of a federated union was dismissed, and West
Pakistan was considered as one unit. Moreover, despite East Pakistan having a higher
majority, West Pakistan was given equal electoral weightage. These steps of course further
fueled the resentment in the heart of the Bengalis. Moreover, when Karachi was chosen as the
capital of the country, it made matters worse.
It should also be noted that the East Pakistan was widely run by non-Muslims. It was the
migrated Hindus who were in dominance, who had high paying jobs and were factors of the
economy. East Pakistan was also the major source of industrialization and economic reform
however, it was exploited, and it did not benefit from its own resources. Slowly, Bengalis
were beginning to be considered as ‘Hindu-like’, and this similarity was used against them as
they started to become more vocal about their rights. Furthermore, they were deprived of
their right to rule. In the first democratic elections of 1970, Mujib Ur Rehman, leader of
Awami League of East Pakistan, won 160 out of 162 seats. His victory was admirable, and he
deserved the right to power and rule as he had rightfully gained it however, the politicians
Ahmed 4
and military elite in West Pakistan saw him as a threat and conspired against him, arrested
him and did not let Awami League get into the position of power. This led to further
resentment and riots in East Pakistan, where military was deployed to suppress the unrest.
Biharis were the minority in the East Pakistan. They were Muslims who were pro-Pakistan,
they supported Urdu as the national language and voted for West Pakistan instead of the
Awami League in the elections. They also supported Pakistan army, even during the fight for
independence of Bangladesh. As a result, the hate between Bengalis and Biharis grew out of
proportion, and Biharis were widely massacred in 1971. The Bengali protest and riots against
Biharis, West Pakistanis and Muslims grew and eventually led to the civil war. India soon
stepped in when the situation started to get worse. It aided East Bengal in seeking
independence. The Pakistan Army widely tortured and raped the women of East Pakistan. As
Bengalis rushed to India to save themselves, violence and terror grew.
The events leading up to the civil war of 1971 highlight the ugly truth about the West
Pakistan. While Pakistan was made in the name of independence and equality, the leaders of
West Pakistan failed in keeping up to that promise. They ended up treating Bengalis like the
way they themselves were treated under the Hindus before 1947. Power hungry and under the
lust for dominance, all leaders lost track of what was important. Bengalis’ rights were
continuously neglected. Whether the matter was of language, economy or politics, West
Pakistan was constantly favored above them. Once looking into the factors that influenced the
civil war, one realizes how the resentment that Bengalis had was completely called for. They
were the majority and deserved to be treated that way however, they were not. They were
supposed to be given 56% of the electoral weightage however, they were given 50%. The
Bengali community was not given the right to voice their issues. They had to protest to gain
attention. Whether it was the language movement, the economic neglect or the under
representation in the politics and army, Bengalis were neglected in every aspect. They were
exploited under the rule of Punjabis. Moreover, the war of 1971 proved how inhumane West
Pakistan could be. The way the army mass raped the Bengali women, massacred Bengalis,
and tried to suppress the riots, just mirrored the partition of 1947. Having been the receiver of
such violence, Pakistanis should have done better.
The events of 1971 show how the rights of minorities were not protected. It shows how West
Pakistan let everyone down. How they let Muhammad Ali Jinnah down. Pakistan was made
in the name of equality, independence, peace, and discipline however, the leaders failed to
live up to it.