A review

A Political History of Pakistan, 1947-2007

Vyacheslav Y. Belokrenitsky & Vladimir N. Moskalenko





Review

July, 2015
I must foremost be grateful Dr Chelsea Schelly, for providing me the opportunity to write the review for a book. The subject of assumption which is now being published in a book form is possibly the most sought after topic in the present kaleidoscope of Pakistan's political mural. To comprehend and appreciate Politics, a deep acquaintanceship with history is a pre-requisite; Gibbon and Toynbee are those authorities whose analysis no politics and political player can evade. Communism may have lost its ideological relevance, but Karl Marx's analysis of history is as succinct and appropriate today as it was when he conceived it.
The authors has taken up a subject for his research i.e. the Political history of Pakistan, traversing from the establishment of the State of Pakistan in 1947, tracing the strands of politics from its formative years to the present latitudes of political realizations, is an apt topic to choose. Their decision to publish their research as a book will invariably be a rich contribution to the available literature on Pakistan and Politics. Contemporary Pakistan is a comprehensive work, focusing on the following issues in Pakistani society; the political role of military, restoration of democracy, the struggling economy, growth of fundamentalism, and drug trafficking
The Authors are not bound by dogmas, as the book splendidly reveals, and therefore they have treaded on many political questions, which may perceptively be accepted as historical facts, but aphoristically are open to reappraisals. Unfortunately, the dogmatic construction of the state structure lies entrenched in a surreal reality based on a confused identity, which continues to elude the state and the society alike.
Pakistan and India in plain words were creatures of a Constitutional Instrument, passed by the Parliament of United Kingdom, and titled "Indian Independence Act, 1947". Prime Minister Atlee made the formal announcement of the British Government's definite intention of transferring the power to responsible leaderships of India by 18th June 1948. As a sequence, Lord Mountbatten was appointed the new Viceroy of India, who devised 3rd June Plan, after extensive consultations with the leaders of both the Muslim League and the Congress, the inevitable conclusion drawn from the parleys with Muslim League and Congress. Lord Mountbatten announced the division of India into two separate states India and Pakistan. The British Government gave its approval to Mountbatten Plan and the Indian Independence Act 1947 was formally enacted and enforced on 18th July 1947. The British Government shifted the date of leaving India by almost a year and fixed 15th August 1947 as the date for the establishment of two dominions India and Pakistan
The Indian Independence Act, 1947 provided for the creation of two dominions. It envisioned the transfer of all powers to both the dominions independently. The Act provided for the appointment of a Boundary Commission to demarcate the boundaries of Punjab and Bengal. The Government of India Act was obvious to be the Basic Law of both the Dominions till the framing of the respective Constitutions by their Constituent Assemblies, who would act both as the Constitution framing bodies as well as the Legislatures in the interregnum. Through the Lord Radcliffe Award, the Boundary Commission marked the territories between India and Pakistan, separating both the countries. On the midnight of 14th and 15th August the Dominion of Pakistan and on 15th August the Dominion of India came into existence. Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah fondly remembered as Quaid-e-Azam by the people of Pakistan, and Lord Mountbatten took over as the Governor Generals of Pakistan and India.
The Government of India Act, 1935 in its scheme gave the Governor General ultimate political authority as the representative of the British Crown in India. The enactment of Indian Independence Act 1947 through Section 8, Proviso (c) removed the finality of this authority so far the "individual discretion" and "special responsibilities" of Governor General which were laid down in Chapter 2 of the 1935 Act were concerned. The Indian Independence Act's silence on the redistribution of the discretionary powers led to assumptions on the residual authorities to whom these powers stood transferred. As far as the Indian leadership view on these assumptions may be observed, those are discernable on the seriousness of the Congress on framing a Constitution within least possible time. Immediately, following 7th June 1947 Meeting, Baba Sahib Ambedkar a renowned jurist, was given the task steering the Constitution drafting body. The Constitution of the Union of India was finalized by 1949 and soon superseded The Government of India Act, 1935.
Quaid-e-Azam led Muslim League could not focus its immediate attention in Constitution making, struck by the bloodshed as an aftermath of the declaration of dividing India in June 1947. The economic problems facing the young nation, above all the ailing health of Quaid-e-Azam, all made up for the precarious situation the young nation was beset with in its formative years. Pakistanis could not realize their dream of a Constitution till 1956, some 9 years after its creation.
Till Quaid-e-Azam remained in good health, his authority not only as the Governor General was never questioned, he also continued to exercise executive and administrative powers; the cabinet more or less functioned on the same footprints of the Government of India Act, 1935 as it was prior to the enactment of the Independence Act, 1935. With his increasing health problems, the questions of control over the power structure began to rise in the government. Quaid-a-Azam had extraordinary qualities, most important of all, ethical integrity. As such his leadership did provide a sustaining effect in the government, and continued to rally the population around him.
Quaid's demise left a vacuum which was so deep that Muslim League was rudderless. To rally support and find a center of gravity and maintain its leadership. Muslim League went in for compromises with theocratic forces. The Objective Resolution was the primary document which reverted Quaid's vision back in the grip of theocracy, but provided enough space to the Muslim League to continue as the dominating political force.
The authors have taken up a great deal on the subject and have provided their own conceptions on the issues revolving on the decade of 1950s. These years have become the base of our present.
The issue of Proclamation of Emergency by the Governor General cannot simply be determined on the judgments of the Sindh Chief Court and the Federal Court in the case of Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs the Federation of Pakistan. The politics behind the controversy, which involved the powerful beaurocracy and the politicians alike, should also be viewed in an unbiased manner.
So also, (late) Justice Munir cannot be rejected outright on the basis of two judgments i.e. Moulvi Tammizudddin's Khan's Case and Dosso Case. His vision founded in the Munir Commission Report is so lucid, today mirrors the gruesome and the brutal truth he had expounded in the final paragraphs of his report. Rules may at time not be what they appear to be, and likewise fact many a time are perceived on individual or ideological context, moved far away from its actual.
To understand the rooted complications, the scholars must also take in to account the "marriage" of an institution of a secular system "democracy" with theoretically oriented Constitution.
M.H. Qureshi has put forward some hard questions which till today remain answered. What has gone so seriously wrong during the brief period of a quarter of century of our existence, that we are threatened with annihilation? What opportunities have we lost? What mistakes have we made? What follies have we committed to be brought to the brink -- not of disaster -- but of total destruction as a nation?
While Qureshi blames the government bureaucracy for this failure, Fazlur Rahman, the most well known Pakistani Islamist, blames Pakistani Islamic activists for this failure. Writing around the year 1969, he raises the question "What has been this nation's experience over two decades of its existence? Disappointing. What has been achieved by way of ushering in the new scientific and technological era through intelligent and confidant social adjustments under the banner of Islam? Precious little." The authors continues, "A partial but genuine attempt was made in the ancient regime [a reference to the rule of Ayub Khan from 1958 to 1969 but an orgiastic chorus of the politics-mongering mullah and certain Islam-mongering politicians set it at naught."
This in a nutshell puts the problems faced by Pakistan. Unless a true introspection of the policies, and areal exercise based on the Truth and Reconciliation is taken up in Pakistan. Not much hope lies ahead.

This book is not only a grand argument in favor of giving Pakistan's political thought its due,
but it is a tour de force of reasoned argument and analysis that blends history, law, political
science, and philosophy. The author concentrates on the founding era and rescues the study of
early Pakistan's constitutionalism from the intellectual morass into which advocates of
original intent, on the one hand, and proponents of constitutional interpretation as judicial
fiat, on the other, have placed it. He does so by liberating the study of Pakistan's political
system from narrow empiricism while showing analysis is an essential part of that theory.
The result is a powerful, persuasive, and long needed book that elevates the thought and
action of the founding generation of this nation into a preface for understanding the
evolution of Pakistan's political system.

I wish to applaud the work of the author and hope his book will be taken well by the critics.
Though one may disagree with some of the points that author has touched on, the frame-
work for the analysis of political Pakistan is comprehensive and could be the basis for any
future study of the subjects. No doubt this book is a serious addition to the existing political literature on Pakistan.






Dr Arshad javed Rizvi
Associate professor
Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology
Karachi,
Pakistan


Edu.holisticthought.com
The Mountbatten Plan and The Indian Independence Act 1947
In-text: (Edu.holisticthought.com, 2014)
Bibliography: Edu.holisticthought.com,. (2014). The Mountbatten Plan and The Indian Independence Act 1947. Retrieved 19 April 2014, from http://edu.holisticthought.com/the-mountbatten-plan-and-the-indian-independence-act-1947/