There have been many defying moments in Pakistan’s History and this essay will look to see how Islam has played a role throughout Pakistan’s sixty-three years of existence and whether it has had an effect on Pakistan’s history.
Islam is widely regarded as the fastest growing religion, second only to Christianity in its number of members (Sardar, 2002). It maintained that Pakistan was created as a Muslim state and therefore religion has had a distinct role in its history as well as its political evolution. It is widely claimed that Pakistan became the first Islamic ideological state of the modern times. Unlike non-ideological states, it was not established due to any geographical conflict or territorial domination by a group of people.
So this sinister idea, that Pakistan, like Israel and Iran, is one of three confessional states in the world; that, like Israel, its very origin was to fulfil a religious ideal, to create an Islamic state and Islamic society for the Muslims of India. The regime of General Zia UL-Haq has declared similarly that Pakistan was created to establish an Islamic state for the Muslims of India. With a lack in a popular mandate, the military regime has sought its claim to legitimacy, if not its purpose, in divine decree. (Alavi 1988)
Religion plays a central role in bringing a nation together. Once Pakistan was created, Islam was charged with the task of containing it. The mix of Islam and ethnicity on which Pakistan was premised did not by itself constitute a national identity. Hamza Alavi provides great sight into the relationship between Muslims in India and the creation of Pakistan. He argues that it was not Islam; rather Muslims in India that acted as a catalyst and the means for the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
Consequently, the claim that Pakistan was created to fulfil the ‘millenarian religious aspirations of Indian Muslims’ is further flawed by the fact that the main bearers of the Islamic religion in India were aloof from the Pakistan movement. The Muslim League even during its heydays was never an organization. Rather the sole reason for its phenomenal success was mass popular support. The Pakistan movement though led by secular, liberal educated middle classes primarily drew its mass support on the basis of an Islamic communitarian tradition.
Hamza Alavi, writing in ‘Islamic Reassertion in Pakistan’ argues that, ‘It is only in retrospect, when history is being rewritten, that Jinnah is pictured as a religious bigot. The fact remains that Islam was not at the centre of Muslim nationalism in India, but was brought into the political debate in Pakistan after the nation was created.’ (Alavi 1988)
The Pakistan movement, in that sense and to that extent, became a national movement, on the basis of the 'Two Nation Theory' that Jinnah propounded, affirming that Muslims of India were a separate nation from Hindus. Insofar as their politics entailed the establishment of their own state, their objective was the creation of a 'Muslim state', as a nation state; they did not seek an 'Islamic state', as a theocratic conception. (Alavi 1988)
Islam may not be the major factorial issue that has affected Pakistan’s history as other areas that have affected Pakistan would be its political arena and its military’s function; these two topics intertwine with each other.
Pakistan was created amidst a great Hindu Muslim conflict, because of which the Pakistani nation had a very strong sense of coherence among its social structures. In August 1947 to provide a better homeland to Muslims Pakistan gained independence from British Colonial rule. But the intellectual and physical efforts towards political and national solidarity lacked the cultural and religious commonness. They were solely dependent upon the Muslim nationalism that had developed before the creation of Pakistan.
What Pakistan has witnessed is growing disparity between class structures, internal contradictions and a power struggle between the political elites and the military. Civilian and Military governments have both been responsible for such actions but looking at statistics it shows that military regimes have performed better than civilian governments. The military is an essential part of the Pakistan political set up. It would be hard to imagine the state of Pakistan without a strong army who interferes in policy matters and has a strong say in the functioning of the government.(Monshipouri & Samuel 1995: 973) It is important to analyze and ask why the military has such a stronghold.
Well at independence there was a lack of a political setup and so Pakistan followed the British style of governance – a strong bureaucracy. (Gardezi & Rashid 1983: 5) This strong bureaucracy led the way for feudal aristocrats and a group of rich professionals and merchants to carve policies. The policies that were initiated were in favour of the political elite. This weak and hardly entrenched way of governance paved the way for the armed forces in the political structure of the nation. The case of the army was further helped by a growing threat from India over the issue of Kashmir.
For instance, the issue of Kashmir is only one example of how Pakistan started at an unequal footing in terms of land, capital and military strength. Another major setback was the fact that all the major industry was located in India, and the new nation of Pakistan was namely an agricultural economy dominated by feudal (landowners) that did not help the situation. Almost all political democratic institutions were left in India and the war of 1948 immediately plunged the nation into conflict showing the necessity of the military for national defence. The death of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, premature demise of Liaqat Ali Khan, and the barely adequate leadership thereafter brought about the first military coup in 1958 by Ayub Khan only nine years after independence.
Ayub Khan declared martial law in 1958 and carried out policies of industrialization. His policy of industrialization did really well as Gross National Product increased by over 60% from 1959 to 1968.(MacEwan 1970: 8) Even with massive population growth, the average per capita income of people grew by almost 30%. The previous civilian governments only managed to increase the gross national product at the rate of 5.1% annually, with population growing at 2.8% it meant that average income only grew by 2.3%. (Burki 1983: 302) Ayub Khan’s ‘decade of development’ ended in 1968. He gave Pakistan ‘relative political stability and a coherent public policy’ (Wilcox 1969: 90)
In 1970 Zulfiqar Bhutto and his Pakistan People’s Party won a free election and made the government the ruling party. This was the first civilian government since 1958. He wanted to close the income gap between class structures and change the economic structure of Pakistan which had increasingly become elitist. He was not successful in implementing many of his policies and the country as a whole did worse than it did in the period of Ayub Khan. (Monshipouri & Samuel 1995: 978) He tried to balance all sections of society, which resulted in poor economic performance. Public sector invest grew from 5% in 1971 to 74% in 1977, leading to a decrease in private investment. (Monshipouri & Samuel 1995: 978) Large scale manufacturing declined during his time, it grew at a rate of less than 2% compared to rates of 10% during the ‘decade of development’ in Ayub Khan’s time.
This was followed by another military coup by Zia UL Haq who took control in 1977. New innovations were introduced in banking and taxation under the name of Islamization. (Gardezi & Rashid 1983: 14) This regime re-emphasized some policies of the Ayub Era. This showed in figures; the Gross Domestic Product grew at 6.3% during 1978-1983. (Monshipouri & Samuel 1995: 979) The growth of the manufacturing industry was at 9% compared to the 3.8% during 1972-1978. The growth in the later half was even better. GDP grew at an annual rate of 6.6% from 1983 to 1988 and large scale manufacturing grew at an average rate of 16.6%.
A strong government is essential for political and economic development. But the 1990s were unprecedented in the history of instable political and economic development in Pakistan. There was increasing pressure on the economy to do well; majority of the budget went towards debt financing and the military, the civilian governments tried to vest more power in the Prime Minister as opposed to the President resulting in the short span of governance by the same political party. The short occupancy of a single democratic administration meant that reforms could not be carried out effectively; no significant change resulted.
It is interesting to analyze the role of civilian and military regimes and how they have done in terms of political and economic development. Looking at historical figures statistically it would suggest that during the rule of the military Pakistan has achieved sustainable economic growth. Much healthier when compared to civilian governments in retrospect. But this doesn’t suggest that military regimes are better for economic growth than civilian governments, but does indicate that to have sustainable economic growth you need a stable political system, and surprisingly with Pakistan this has been provided by the military organization rather than elected chosen governments of the people. Why has this trend carried on for so much for the history of Pakistan?
There is no simple answer to this question, but it can be traced back to the partition and gaining independence from direct British colonial rule. From the beginning the military was an important part of the political setup, it was an internal rather than an exogenous factor in the political apparatus of post independence Pakistan.
So why have the military seized power four times (’58, ’69, ’77 and ’99 (Schaffer 2002: 7)) in Pakistan’s 63-year history? This goes to heart of many problems with the very institutions inherited in Partition, lack of a strong design, foreign intervention and support, elite control, half-successful nationalism, regional inequalities and representation as well as unequal resource collection and allocation.
It’s because the failures of civilian regimes automatically paved the way for the military, thus the four times military men have ruled Pakistan. Military regimes have tried to make them democratic through the constitution and gain legitimacy through the political apparatus. It appears that the civilian governments were in a balance of power struggle between the prime minister and the president which effectively carved the way for the military to take over. It would be wise to say that military governments in Pakistan provided economic and political stability that was missing in civilian governments. But the military must stop thinking of itself as a saviour to the crises created by the civilians and let the civilian politicians sort out their own mess. For only then can a true democracy emerge?
In conclusion Pakistan the problems that Pakistan is facing in terms of the democracies and military coups come from a various number of reasons and inequalities that have compounded to create an almost predictable cycle of military coups from the democratic governments. This comes in part from the military’s role as protector of the State. The key for democracy and the strengthening of democratic institutions in Pakistan is simply education not just literacy, with education people can create their own nation and eventually Pakistan will become a developed nation of solvent institutions and become a powerful economic power to be truly independent.
There needs to be a reform of parliament and political parties. One of the major problems is that existing political parties do not allow a proper democracy to develop, because there is no shifting pluralities to allow the electorate to keep elected officials in check. Allow more power in the hands of the citizenry, not in the vested interests of political elites. Furthermore there needs to be institutional reform and checks and balances, creating a more formal role for the military. Looking at the issues in this essay that has affected Pakistan it can be said that each one of them contributed in its own way towards the promotion of Pakistan’s national solidarity and a Pakistani Identity.
However overall Pakistan’s history has been a most turbulent one, “producing anything but a participatory democracy” (Siddiqui 2001: 7) where men have lusted after power for their own purposes and the people have suffered without a say in how their country is run. As Kapur put it “they had not been groomed in the nursery of democracy and in the ideas of individual freedom, liberty and nationalism”. (Kapur 2002: 8)
It is still in the process of determining its political scope for the future, still in the process of settling down with an effective form of government. A great weakness of the Pakistani Government contrasting greatly with the Indian one is the lack of power separation of the military with the executive. The collapse of Ayub’s policies to bring Pakistan into a more secular, foreign-friendly nation and his attempts to modernize the nation, indicate that Islam did in fact have a significant political role in state affairs and is probably why Pakistan is still non-secular.
This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com
