Bahri Karam Khan
THIS land of the pure came into being through a calm political struggle. Had All India Muslim League not got landslide victory in the Muslims dominated provinces of British India in the 1946’s election, we couldn’t have got this homeland of ours. Thus, for its survival, a genuine democracy is as necessary as nothing else. But, unfortunately, our post independence history on the score isn’t what we should be proud of. After we got emancipated, the founding leaders lived no longer. Consequently, the nascent state began to fall prey to conspiracies from unknown quarters.
The sole objective was to weaken its democratic institutions and convert the infant ideological state into a despotic one so that raison d’être for its subsistence may no longer exist. The first such plot surfaced in the shape of an attempt to overthrow legitimate democratic government in March 1951. However, when this blow was spoiled, the same very year in October, another successful punch was delivered at when our first premier Liaquat Ali Khan was martyred. He was close companion of Quaid and had quality leadership with the potential to bring the country out of whatever critical situation it might come across or even plunge into. Obviously, his martyrdom was a well-thought-out plan and part of the game already embarked on.
So, after removal of the iconic personality of Liaquat Ali Khan from the scene, that happened what actually was aimed at. The worst kind of chaos and anarchy prevailed during next seven years. Parliament and parliamentary leaders stood toys in hands of handful undemocratic figures. Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan — all from Civil-Military Establishment — got sheltered successively in office of the Governor General or President and played havoc with democracy. Six premiers — Khwaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, H S Suhrawardy, I I Chundrigar and Feroz Khan Noon, were brought and sacked. In short, the period was symbolized by lust for power and fortune seeking. Financial disorder, corruption, smuggling, food crises and other social menaces were the other consequential features of the period.
Interestingly, it was Khwaja Nazimuddin that brought Ghulam Muhammad as Governor General in his own place when he himself stepped down from the said office to that of the premiership in October 1951. It was indeed blunder on his part for which he did bear the brunt when the same Ghulam Muhammad dispensed with his ministry in April, 1953. Ghulam Muhammad didn’t content with that and, the following year in October, dissolved the Assembly as well. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan, President of the Assembly, moved the Supreme Court against this act of his. However, Justice Munir’s infamous verdict whereby the plea was dismissed under self-devised ‘Inevitability Doctrine’ is yet another dark part of our history. In 1955, yet another bureaucrat Iskander Mirza replaced ailing Ghulam Muhammad, who completed the residual agenda by October 1958 when he handed over reins of government to General Ayub Khan — Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
It was the first ever Martial Law that laid foundations of despotism in the country. Ayub Khan prolonged his stint of power through self devised ‘basic democracy’ for as long as eleven years. True, during his regime, the country put strides on track to economic progress, yet, his certain political decisions created deep sense of deprivation in East Pakistan that subsequently proved detrimental to the country’s integrity. Then, he handed over government to yet another military autocrat Yahya Khan who lost East Pakistan just as on gambling table in 1971. Such actions on Ayub’s part eroded his credibility substantially and thus his tenure is not remembered in positive sense.
General Zia’s third military coup was provoked by long anti-Bhutto agitation in 1977. The ostensible objective behind was to hold fair elections within three months. But, instead, he clinched to power for long eleven years till his death in air crash in 1988. His authoritarian tenure is marked eminently for three things. First, an elected prime minister, Z A Bhutto was executed through an [in-]famous judgment of the superior courts which is now viewed as ‘judicial murder’. Second, Islam was misused for mere prolongation of his power stints. And, third and most important, he opted to fight the US’ proxy war against Communism — the decision that perturbed not only the regional but also the global landscape. That war gave birth to gruesome militancy which we badly fell victim to.
And in October 1999, yet another military ‘take over’ took place by Gen Pervez Musharraf. The narrative he came with was to have across-the-board accountability and to weed out corruption from this land of the pure. What however the poverty stricken and helpless masses witnessed and fell victim to, was the plague of militancy surfaced, flourished and converted into a ‘dreadful monster’ during that very tenure which wrought havoc with our lives and property. Thanks to the Pak Army’s innumerable sacrifices by virtue of which we have, to a great extent, got rid of that monster. Musharraf’s tyrannical regime finally came to an end in 2008 but not earlier than it had caused colossal damage to this land.
This was a brief account of what we experienced during dictatorial regimes. It’s famously stated bad democracy is better than a good dictatorship. Had there been an uninterrupted democracy in this land, we would have, neither come across the tragedy like fall of Dacca nor fallen victims to militancy. The countries where genuine democracy is in practice, inclusive of our traditional adversary, enjoy exalted position both politically and economically in global communities. Hence, question essentially arises as to why we shouldn’t be amongst such nations? Though much water has passed through the Nile, yet, it is never late to rove one’s boat in right direction before it is wrecked.
—The writer, retired officer of Provincial Management Service, researcher is freelance columnist based in Swat.