Who, in Pakistan, has ever overtly shown, with no strings attached, a true commitment to the democratic spirit or to whatever constitution has been in place? Admittedly, the start was not propitious, the country was born in bloodshed, refugees poured in, assets were hard to come by, as was competent manpower on the political and other fronts. So democracy was not part of the country’s birth.
Founder Jinnah, under the circumstances, had little choice, one supposes. He decreed that he be governor-general, president of the first constituent assembly and a cabinet minister. He failed to come up with even a draft constitution and the sole guidelines he laid down in his much quoted August 11, 1947 speech to his constituent assembly have been assiduously ignored by all who followed him. The good was indeed interred with his bones and the ‘iffy’ lived on — and on.
On August 22, 1947, with the country less than 10-days-old, the government of Dr Khan Sahib in the NWFP was sent packing so that a Muslim League government could be installed. On March 19, 1948, Mr Jinnah, at Dhaka’s racecourse, declared that Urdu and Urdu alone would be the state language of Pakistan, thus striking the first blow at East Pakistan. On March 28, 1948 Balochistan was annexed to Pakistan with the Khan of Kalat being ‘persuaded’ to sign an instrument of accession. On April 26, 1948 Ayub Khuhro’s government in Sindh was removed and a suitable successor appointed.
Mr Jinnah died on September 11, 1948. On January 25, 1949 his trusted lieutenant and prime minister manoeuvred the ousting of the Punjab assembly so that a chief minister of his choice could be installed. The biggest blow came on March 7, 1949 when the Objectives Resolution was passed, denying all that Jinnah had professed to stand for in his famous speech and plunging the country into a controversial morass of religious ideology.
Phew! Quite a lively start, so really who should be surprised at what has followed. It took the constituent assembly just under 10 years to come up with a constitution. On March 2, 1956 the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan received assent. It had a short insalubrious life and in a couple of years with the advent of the first of the military adventurers, it was consigned to the trash can, unmourned.
“Once the first constitution is destroyed, it is doubtful that any succeeding one will ever be truly accepted.” (The Enigma of Political Development by Lawrence Ziring.)
The first of the military adventurers gave the nation a second constitution in 1962, which also had a meaningless life as he did exactly as he wanted (and not too badly to begin with) and it was jettisoned by the second of the military adventurers in 1969.
Then along came the third one, gifted to us by the gifted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. This was messed up on day one by its maker who issued a presidential order suspending most of its fundamental rights and continuing a state of emergency. He later amended it seven times to suit his political and personal purposes.
We now have a constitution that has been amended 19 times, twice by this present, incoherent, dysfunctional thing known as government. It has been rendered an unintelligible document as each of the amenders, including the present lot, have had themselves foremost in mind rather than the country at large.
Sad — all of it.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 10th, 2011.
COMMENTS (21)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Ben:
Give me one speech where Quaid-e-Azam even used the third-class word secular. liberals love putting words in the Quaids mouth. Though its on record that the Quaid called Pakistan the Premier Islamic State, and his speeches had a tone of Islam in them.
And check out who Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani was. Dont blatantly issue a "fatwaa" declaring that mullahs were against creation of Pakistan.
If Pakistan was to become an Islamic country, no mullah would let liberal and secular Jinnah lead the movement. If it was an Islamic country then why did they oppose it. Pakistan was never meant to be a paradise for venom spitting mullahs, it was a democratic country on secular lines.
@Shock Horror:
thank you, I love being "labelled" extremist by a snobbish liberal. By the way, the context I used the phrase in died long ago.
Excellent article. Muslim League before Independence was espousing federalism as panacea for all the subcontinental problem, but as author mentioned within fortnight of Independence of Pakistan, a state government was dismissed by Jinnah and forcibly urdu was tried to impose upon Bengali, which ultimately led to creation of Bangladesh, nailing the two nation theory hailed by Jinnah. Jinnah's Two nation theory and his 11 August '47 speech are both contradictory to the least.
@Abdul Rehman Gilani: Well it was not my fault. The ET moderators did not publish my views in response to yours. I wanted to give you a tutorial about 9/11 and wrote about the actions of Wahabi Islamic Terrorists who had attacked the world trade centre. Anyway you live in cloud cuckoo land and you have already accepted that your opinions have no value. Hence I do not see any point what so ever in engaging in a discussion with extremists like you. QED. Bye Bye
@amina jilani:
Dear Amina
Thank you for your comment. I have never accused you of anything at all. In fact we have not had an exchange of views. My comments were directed at and addressed to Abdul Rahman Jilani. You can see that from my comments listed at number 4 from the top.
To be very honest I am a great admirer of your articles and really look forward to reading them every week. Please continue your deep analysis of Pakistani society and its serious shortcomings. I look forward to reading your next article.
Best wishes.
Pakistan will never amount anything for her people unless the obsession with Islam is eliminated. Look around and show me single Islamic country that is good and just to her people. Wherever Islam and governing mixes there is no gender equality, freedom of thought and expression. When cause of Pakistan was rallied using the relegion in pre partition India, it is wrong to expect reasonable and progressive state now! You reap what you sow. Thanks for great and blunt analysis from the author.
Ms. Amina Jilani. Thanks for an honest analysis of the history of Pakistan. Jinnah was a great leader, but treated Pakistan like a British viceroy. Some of his ideas of secular leanings were great, but this cannot be said about his democratic credentials. Once he dismissed a cabinet minister ( I think it was Khurro) without even informing Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. Just look around in many parts of arab world, you only see dictators clinging to power at the cost of unlimited number of lives who are against them. Gaddafi, calls his opponents as rats. Assad is just bad. These people remained power because west made deals with them which did not need approval of people of those countries which these SOBs were ruling for decades. So I say democracy has shortcomings, but still better than any efficient dictator. Yes, dictators act fast, because they do not need approval of the parliament. As we see, the current government is weak and its major worry is complete a full term. It is sad, but think for a second. It knows there are powers to derail the process. If the tradition of full terms becomes normal, things will definitely move forward. When I compare pakistan with other arab and muslim countries, I feel things are better here than many places. The only worry is not weak surroundings, but terrorism. Once that has been controlled, and no interruption of the process, we will compensate for the last time. I am only afraid of those parties which want to Islamize the country more.
@FactCheck:
Since your so into facts. Name me one Muslim,Sikh,hindu,Parsee etc. that ever become the President of US, or became Prime Minister of UK. Think Practically!
And no ahmedis cant become President or PM of Pakistan. Though Zafarullah Khan was an influential ahmedi. And yes, a Balochi can become both. Doesnt Zardari cling to his Balochi roots also!
@rs 'Fierce rival of Pakistan' Are you from Afghanistan?
The countries problems start with the Constitution and end with its Judiciary. Both are responsible for the state of the country today. In many countries there have been rogues who tried to subvert the Constitution but the Judiciary was strong enough and mentally free of any ideological hangups to support them. There in lies the bitter truth and the results are there for the World to see. The CJP made an amazing ideological statement beyond his brief when he announced that Judiciary will not allow Parliament to make Pakistan a secular Republic. Amazing that the CJ does not know it is the duty of Parliament to enact Laws, not Judiciary or Military.
As a fierce rival of pakistan, we just don't mind seeing all this confusion... :) Come on, you guys can do better...
Instead of trying to figure out what your past leaders intended to do why don't you apply brains, look around world and history and figure what's best for pakistan's future.. Countries like china, russia have made such mid-course corrections..
And please that 30 year period thousands of years ago should not even warrant serious attention.. World is a lot different and evolved now...
@Shock Horror:
Well then, the last discussion you became silent when cross-questioned as to why, till now, hasnt the mosque been built at Ground Zero!
But still, fact is in the US, there is not a single Muslim, Hindu, Parsee or Sikh who can practically become a President likewise is the case of Europe, a PM etc, does that prove that there is no "equal opportunity"?NOT.
If the Quaid's TRUE ideals were followed(and not those preached by the secularists) then Pakistan would be a state on Islamic lines, which gives minorities their due rights.
@Meekal Ahmed: Hello Meekal Yup, Ayub Khan with all his failings, at least delivered. There are those who now admit that his first few years were the best this godforsaken land has had. Am one of them. Enjoy DC. AJ
@Shock Horror: When have I ever said the citizens have equal opportunity? Have forever said quite the opposite. Think you have misunderstood.
@Abdul Rahman Gilani: You say people get equal opportunity. Ask Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists whether they get equal opportunities in the Land of the Pure. Can any of them become President or Prime Minister of Pakistan? Shows yet again that your views have no value which you accepted in a previous discussion. QED
The author as usual accused and criticized every leader from Jinnah, Liaquat and ZAB. However, simply failed about the high treason by army dictators. It is shameful to criticize the last amendments in constitution which were essential to undo the mutilation of constitution by the dictators. Nothing new in this Op Ed, the same doom and gloom. One feels like killing himself after this! What purpose or solution is there in this?
Wow, typical hogwash from a liberal. Dont forget Quaid-e-Azam called Pakistan the Premier Islamic State. Theocracy has no place in Islam. But our secular lobby only sees one speech of 11th August, uses it to further their perverse agenda and declares it to be the summation of all the ideals of the Quaid. And by the way, nowhere in that speech, or in fact any speech of the Quaid, has the word "secular" even used!
So its not surprising to see that the writer finds the Objectives Resolution irksome. The state cant become godless like the secularists! Pakistan wanted a state set up on Islamic lines, where the minorities get their rights, and people have equal opportunity.