What went wrong in Jinnah’s Pakistan?

The country was unable to follow Jinnah's principles during the Pakistan Movement after taking the reins of government

The pivotal role played by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah for the creation of Pakistan is undeniable. Rule of law, accountability, determination, integrity, democracy, tolerance, political pluralism and adherence to good governance were the hallmark of the Quaid but his vision of Pakistan was ruined when those who got power after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan on October 16, 1951 plunged Jinnah’s Pakistan into perpetual crisis and chaos.

Jinnah’s Pakistan also means united Pakistan composed of Eastern and Western wings but with the shameful December 16, 1971 surrender of our armed forces, Jinnah’s Pakistan was gone. Jinnah’s Pakistan survived only for 25 years because those who wielded authority were more interested in accomplishing their power ambitions rather than keeping the country intact.

Why did Jinnah’s Pakistan fail to transform into a reality under various governments after the assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and how was the country hijacked by those with no contribution to the struggle for a new state? How did the military-bureaucracy nexus and the role of feudal and political elites jeopardise political process in the formative phase? Why did the Quaid’s successors fail to give Pakistan a constitution for nine years after its inception? Even the first constitution, promulgated in 1956, was abrogated in 1958 and Martial Law was imposed. There were eight Prime Ministers in Pakistan from 1947 till 1958 whereas Jawalarlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, remained in power till 1964.

Revisiting Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan needs to be analysed with critical thinking. What went wrong and why was the country unable to follow the principles Jinnah followed during Pakistan Movement and after taking the reins of government? Four major reasons contributed to the degeneration of Jinnah’s Pakistan in its formative phase and afterwards.

First, the growth of mafias in the state and societal structures of Pakistan who patronised corruption and nepotism and carried out genocide of merit. Pakistan, particularly its Western part, reflected feudal and tribal characteristics with meager intellectual insight, political prudence and an enlightened culture. The Eastern part was better because Bengalese were neither feudal or tribal nor religiously extremist in their way of life. Stark contrast in cultural and social setting of East and West Pakistan gave rise to authoritarian forces having their hold in the West to usurp power. If Bengalese were more enlightened, educated and wise in political matters, their Western counterparts lacked insight to follow a democratic way of life. If Jinnah advocated political pluralism, enlightenment, democracy and the rule of law, those in the Western part were neither amendable to the culture of dissent nor wanted to adhere to simplicity and austerity in order to rely on the country’s resources rather than being dependent on borrowed money. It means Jinnah’s assurance for religious tolerance and equality for minorities was not subscribed by his successors who wanted to declare Pakistan an Islamic state. Had Jinnah been alive, the role and hold of clergy and military in shaping state policies wouldn’t have taken roots. Neither was his speech of August 11, 1947 in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan taken seriously by his predecessors nor was any plausible effort made to roll back the rising tide of religious extremism.

Second, Jinnah’s life — which was a role model in terms of integrity, rule of law, adherence to merit, enlightenment, austerity and contempt for VVP culture — failed to have any mark on people at the helm of affairs. Corruption, nepotism, bad governance, lack of accountability, absence of rule of law, lust for power, political opportunism and adherence to VVIP culture emerged as a dominant norm particularly in the Western wing of Pakistan. As years passed, Jinnah’s vision of a welfare state dwindled because Pakistan focused on state building instead of nation-building.

Pakistan emerged as a security state where the priority was not on social and human development but on projecting external threat perception, primarily those emanating from India. As a result, 20 million children in Pakistan are out of school and the country ranks 144^th on human security index, 154^th on human development index and 140^th (among 180 countries) on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2022. Abandoning proper work ethics, the post-Quaid leadership failed to focus on time management, discipline and efficiency, giving rise to the culture of incompetence and laziness. Till the 1950s and 1960s, things were better in terms of work ethics, rule of law, accountability and governance, but after the split in 1971 the culture of corruption, nepotism and greed permeated deep in the state and society.

Third, the degeneration of Jinnah’s Pakistan has much to do with the failure of political parties to establish democratic culture in their rank and file, thus giving rise to bureaucracy-military nexus and plunging the country into dictatorship. Degeneration of social sector — particularly education, health, public transport — and inability to provide clean drinking water and affordable housing reflect the failure of democratic forces to mitigate people’s sufferings. When non-political organs of state intervene in politics and get involved in making and breaking political parties, the outcome is fragility of democracy. The Quaid during his address at the Command and Staff College Quetta in early 1948 had made it clear that armed forces must adhere to their oath and remain subservient to civilian rule. But, after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, military-bureaucracy nexus took advantage of the irresponsible behaviour of political parties and imposed martial law. The military ruled the country for around 30 years out of 75, and retained its control by pulling strings from behind in the rest of the years. For the Quaid, it was unpardonable for non-political forces to overthrow civilian governments and impose their writ.

Finally, the mindset of those who succeeded Jinnah and Liaquat because of their myopic vision of politics, economy and foreign policy also plunged Pakistan in vicious political and economic crisis. Only by reverting to the vision and principles of Quaid can Pakistan be saved from further degeneration. In a nutshell, the Quaid would never have liked to live to see the pathetic state of his country at the hands of dishonest, corrupt, inefficient and mediocre leaders.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.