How has the role and impact of military rulers and civilian politicians differed in Pakistan's political experience? To what extent have they succeeded in addressing elite and sectional interests, and social and regional tensions?

Authors Avatar

How has the role and impact of military rulers and civilian politicians differed in Pakistan's political experience? To what extent have they succeeded in addressing elite and sectional interests, and social and regional tensions? Discuss and give reasons for your arguments.

INTRODUCTION:

        This year Pakistan will celebrate its 56th anniversary on 14th August, 2003. Among these 56 years, Pakistan has been ruled more by the military leaders than the civil leaders. India which also got its independence with us has not seen even a single military coup in its entire history. Due to this reason India is recognized in the entire world as the largest democratic country after United States of America. If we compare Indian with Pakistan, we would realize that India has a very strong parliament, free press and media, a very strong and independent judiciary, strong government departments. The democratic institutions have their roots in the grass root level of their population. These are the things which block the way of military intervention. On the other hand, in Pakistan, unfortunately, never in its entire history a serious attempt has been made to make the parliament stronger. The press and the media have always been under influence of the government. The politics revolve around in the hands of few strong landlord and industrial families along with the generals.  It is due to these reasons that military got the opportunity to intervene in civil affairs and rule the country. The military has always considered itself as the better ruler than the civil politicians. In Pakistan, military is a sacred cow which is answerable to none

Through this paper I would try to explain the role of military and civil rulers in addressing the elite and sectional interests as well as the social and regional tensions. This paper is basically an attempt to show that how the role played by rulers of Pakistan (both military and civil) have differed. And what caused the repeated intervention of military personal in civil affairs.

        In order to make the paper look clearer we can divide the contents into different regimes.

  1. Jinnah to Ayub
  1. Ayub to Yayha
  2. Yahya to Bhutto  
  3. Bhutto to Zia
  4. Zia-ul-Haq
  5. Benazir Bhutto
  6. Nawaz Sharif
  7. Benazir Bhutto
  8. Nawaz Sharif
  9. Pervaiz Musharraf

  1. Jinnah to Ayub:

        The main reason behind the creation of Pakistan can be traced from a nationalist movement of a major Muslim party working in the colonial India. So at the time of Independence Muslim league representing the nationalist movement became the successor authority. The first Governor General of Pakistan was Muhammad Ali Jinnah , a secular politician with charismatic personality. Although it was never revealed openly but in fact Muslim League was an organization of elites. It was due to this reason that Muslim League which claimed to represent all the Muslims in Pakistan was not strong in Sindh and North West Frontier. According to Khalid Bin Sayeed “Muslim league organizations were not vibrant in provines like Sindh and the North West Frontier, and lacked cohesion in provinces like Sindh and the North West Frontier” 1 Sumit Ganguly describe that “ the league arrived in the newly independent state ill-equipped to form any type of representative government.”2 Jinnah dominated the cabinet as well as the provincial governments.

        At the time of partition, Pakistan had to face numerous problems, there were economic problems, social problems and even few structural problems as well. After the independence, Pakistan had to face numerous problems regarding disputes over territory, disputes over assets, maintaining public order, the refugee’s crisis etc. Their were disagreements on the question of division of power between the west and east Pakistan. Pakistan did not even drafted a constitution till 1954 i.e. seven years after independence. Jinnah and later Liaquat Ali Khan, relied almost entirely on the bureaucratic structures. The military was used as a last resort to maintain the law and order in provinces that were faced with problems arising out of the settlement of refugees, religious and ethnic disturbances. But the main image of Pakistan Army as a saviors was created after the Pakistani Army operation in Kashmir 3(a war in Kashmir between India and Pakistan) . Thus after the operations in Kashmir the officers of Pakistani Army started to think themselves as guardians of the nation.

        The civilian government under the leadership of Jinnah was unable to control the growth of seeds of Bengali alienation and resentment that were laid due to the dominance of Punjabi and Urdu speaking officers in the provincial government. Another mistake which they did was that they overlooked the future developments on the viceregal system that they inherited from British. The first two C-in-Cs of the Pakistani Army were British : Generals Frank Messervy and Douglas Gracy 4. After them came Ayub Khan, who had risen from the rank of Lt Col to General in just four years.

  1. Ayub to Yahya:

        Iskandar Mirza who was the President of Pakistan from 1956 to 1958 was unable to handle the massive public demonstrations and political unrest. Therefore these conditions led Ayub Khan to ask Iskandar Mirza to abrogate the constitution and declare martial law for the first time on October 7, 1958. 5 Iskander Mirza was asked to give resignation by the army high command. But Qudratullah Shahab, who served Ayub Khan & Iskandar Mirza as secretary of state writes :

“Long before he came to power, Ayub Khan had been infected by the International disease of pro-Americanism. As C-in-C of the armed forces, he had formed very close ties with the Pentagon. He had started organizing Pakistan’s military forces under the influence and guidance of American military leaders so that in the future it (would) become impossible for Pakistan’s armed forces to stand on their own feet without American assistance.”6 

It is quite amaizing that no real attempt was made by the previous civil governments to transfer the power to the people at grass root level. The first attempt to do so was made by  Military General Ayub Khan through his Basic Democracy System 7 . But unfortunately this system was not used for its original motives. Rather it prevented the emergence of political parties and the establishment of a real democratic political system in Pakistan. Ayub Khan as a pro-American leader relied heavily on the projection of his PR and image building in order to insure the continuation of his rule. The most extensive PR exercise during the Ayub Khan regime was the 1965 Indo-Pak war. It is often believed that Pakistan won the battle of 1965, but in fact contrary to what is taught in school text books, Pakistan did not win the war; neither was it India who started it. “8 The 23-day war can at best be called a stalemate (Pakistan can, however, claim to have won the air battle) but it was projected as a major victory. In fact, the Tashkent agreement marked the start of the downfall of Ayub Khan as the people believed what the army had won on the battleground, Ayub lost on the negotiations table”

  1. Yahya to Bhutto:

         Initially Ayub khan was quite a popular leader especially amongst the students. But the interesting phenomena about Ayub is that the main reason due to which Yayha took control of the country was the major agitations of students. With the rapid decline in the popularity of Ayub Khan's rule, General Yahya, who had become the C-in-C in September 1966, declared martial law on March 25, 1969. 9 Yahya soon after getting the power started the political process of elections. The election date was given.After the December 7, 1970 elections, which are regarded as the only free and fair elections in the history of pakistan, West Pakistan had to phase a strange phenomena. For the first time a political party basically belonging to East Pakistan under the leadership of Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman got majority. This was the starting of the most unfortunate phase in the history of Pakistan. The establishment was not willing to transfer the power to a party of East Pakistan. Thus this delay started a political unrest in East Pakistan. General Yahya on finding no political solution to the problem ordered to launch a military action in East Pakistan. Yahya introduced a severe press censorship and the public was fed with incorrect information about the oppressions done by military in East Pakistan. India was already looking for such an opportunity. To get the revenge of the war of 1965 India overtly started helping the uprising in East Pakistan  and went into war with Pakistan. The doctrine of "defense of East Pakistan lies in West Pakistan" failed and East Pakistan became Bangladesh. This was a time when the morale of the nation was at its lowest level. The army and the generals were being openly criticized. Yahya had no choice but to relinquish control to Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was the leader of PPP and was in majority in East Pakistan.

Join now!

  1. Bhutto to Zia:

        After the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Bhutto who was in majority in West Pakistan became the President of Pakistan. Bhutto was quite a popular leader. One of the biggest achievement that Bhutto got and that was a serious demand of Pakistan was the release of 93,000 solders by India. A summit was held in Simla in which the two countries agreed on the release of POWs. This agreement was called as Simla Agreement. . Bhutto through Simla Agreement was able to bring back 90’000 POWs back from India. During the time of Bhutto General ...

This is a preview of the whole essay