Daily Times

I cannot impress enough the need to understand the factors and circumstances of our first 30 years. A period of self-centered naked power politics by our politicians, of brazen praetorianism by Ayub and Yahya leading to our dismemberment, followed by Bhutto’s attempted fascism disguised as socialism, ending in our third tragic military intervention under Zia!

At the risk of repetition, in my opinion, several key events in our first 11 years defined our subsequent political journey. This is not an exhaustive list but it does provide a sense of the why.

These events include the following

The Quaid’s early death. The power struggles between an emigre-dominated Muslim League leadership at the center and the local landed elites dominating provincial politics . Liaquat’s assassination. The rise of a bureaucrat, Ghulam Mohammed as Governor General, and his imposition of Martial Law during the Ahmediya riots of 1953 which brought Ayub’s role front and centre. His sacking of PM Khawaja Nazimuddin and his government in 1953.

Justice Munir’s upholding of this constitutional murder by delving deep into 13th Century British law; Henry De Brocton’s maxim “that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity”, Roman law’s maxim of Sir William Ivor Jennings that “the well-being of the people is the supreme law” .

Ghulam Mohammad’s dismissal of the East Bengal Government in 1954.

And finally bringing Gen. Ayub into the Cabinet as Defence Minister in 1954.

One lesson from all this is clear. Especially those still enamoured by a strong central authoritative Presidential form of government of technocrats or the iron discipline of a military hand to sort out this mess we are in

What followed in 1956 and 1958 by Iskandar Mirza and Ayub were in my opinion forgone conclusions.

Thus commenced the start of the unholy Civil bureaucracy and military leadership oligarchy. Eventually only one would survive!

Would our political history have been different had the Quaid lived several more years given his stature and political values?

Given what we know, most likely we would have had a constitution and national elections in the first few years and certainly not Ayub as CinC. The Quaid had a very poor opinion of him, having earlier passed him over for promotion to live out his retirement in East Pakistan with a “local unpaid rank of Maj. General”.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, the Quaid didn’t survive and Ayub did, and we got what we got. 4 rounds of military rule. Half the country lost. A barely surviving, dysfunctional and highly politicized bureaucracy, police and institutions. A spineless and pliant judiciary. A rapacious class of kleptocratic and plutocratic politicians and a very powerful and disciplined military machine.

One lesson from all this is clear. Especially those still enamoured by a strong central authoritative Presidential form of government of technocrats or the iron discipline of a military hand to sort out this mess we are in.

It does not work!

It did not work under Ayub from 1958 to 1968 or under Yahya under whom we lost East Pakistan or Zia’s Islamic authoritarianism from 1977 to 1988 or Musharraf’s “Enlightened Moderation” from 1999 to 2007.

And it will also not work when a civilian fascist system is being imposed, as attempted by Bhutto, using democratic frameworks to impose a one party rule, mercilessly stomping out political dissent.

And it will certainly not work where greedy and rapacious merchants resort to the state capture of our democratic and electoral governance institutions, forums and processes as did Benazir, Nawaz and Zardari, resulting in the “democratic” wholesale loot and plunder witnessed between 1988 to 1999 and 2008 to 2018.

This is not to absolve the military dictators for weakening the state and its institutions in their desperate desire to legitimize and extend their rules by co-opting corrupt political elites, rural and urban, whose only interest was to “remain in the game”.

Bhutto served two dictators, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub. The Sharifs owe their entire politics to Zia. Zardari would never have made it President but for Musharraf. The vast majority of our current political elite in every political party, whether in or out of our legislatures, have all happily served under our military rulers.

But I do want to differentiate between the actions of our military rulers and their impact on our country and the institution of the Pakistan Army. It is very easy to club the two together and direct our anger and distress at the actions of 4 military dictators on to the entire institution. More on this in detail in a subsequent piece.

But back to our political journey. Gen. Yahya has brazenly taken over from a weak Ayub, whose rule has been a political disaster. East Pakistan is boiling at its stepbrotherly treatment, directly attributed to Ayub’s disdain of Bengalis. The one unit set-up is broken. Despite economic growth, street agitation tells a different story.

Then come the 1970 national elections. The Awami League sweeps in East Pakistan winning an outright majority on its 6 point agenda. Bhutto wins massively in the West.

Yahya and his Junta are clueless, playing into Bhutto’s Machiavellian hands. Yahya hoping his LFO would ensure his continuing control over power & the nature of the future constitution. The Awami League and Sheikh Mujib would have none of it and yet, in all fairness to them, attempted till the final days to achieve a compromise of a loose federation. This time Bhutto would have none of it and cleverly prevailed on Yahya to take military action.

The rest is a sad and sorry tale of the consequences of simplistic military thinking and machiavellian political objectives and ambition. One could delve into so many what if scenarios to seek a paradise lost.

What if Yahya had called the National Assembly session and allowed Sh. Mujib to be elected Prime Minister? What kind of Constitution would they have adopted? How would Bhutto have responded?

Would East Pakistan still have been a part of a loosely confederated Pakistani state? What about the other western provinces? Would Indian attempts to foment unrest in East Pakistan have continued? How would the military leadership have reacted to this? While it’s hazardous to even attempt to respond to hypothetical scenarios, I do think we could have averted our tragic civil war, the horrific killings and violence which followed and the final humiliation of surrender in the war against India.

In my considered opinion, alongside Governor General Ghulam Mohammed, Chief Justice Mohammed Munir, Gen Ayub and Gen. Yahya, the fifth inglorious name to be added to the list of those who were responsible for the events of 1971 has to be Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In many ways he’s the final cause of our breakup. Also responsible for the destruction of our entire economy by nationalizing our industrial, business, healthcare and education sectors and letting loose ethnic forces by disenfranchising Urdu speaking migrants in Sind from their evacuee property rights. He greatly weakened and politicized our bureaucracy through lateral entry appointments of party loyalists, and in counterproductive futile attempt to strength his hold over the Army, by appointing a seemingly weak, loyal and pliable Gen. Zia ul Haq as Army Chief, superseding 7 generals, or so he thought.

Finally, his luck ran out. In March 1977, Bhutto rigged the elections and faced huge street protests and nationwide agitation. I’ve written a detailed piece on Bhutto in an earlier OPED.

Inevitably on 5th July 1977, Gen. Zia reluctantly ousted Bhutto in a coup, declared Martial Law and became Chief Martial Law Administrator. Gen. Faiz Ali Chisti, then Gen. Zia’s closest advisor narrated how Zia told him prior to the Coup: “Murshid Marwa na dayna”- (“My Teacher, hope you don’t get us killed!”)

And thus yet again our political journey was stymied!

Would it have turned out any different if Zia hadn’t taken over? Till next week. Insha Allah!

Haider Mehdi is a Geo political commentator / blogger on National and International affairs