Guys, since the Independance Day 14 August is just round the corner, leaving behind the regularly discussed issues such as terrorism, current political turbulance etc for a while we can have some discussions about Pakistan, it’s history, creation, the struggle for independance, the sacrifices, hopes, dreams and also mistakes that have been part of our heritage, to refresh the memory of one of 20th century’s greatest events.
I will stick all relevant threads discussing thoughts, issues, opinions relating to the creation of Pakistan/ freedom struggle and would really like you all to come up with topics and discusions and express openly, but as usual would also request all to be responsible and sober too.
So let’s have some nice new threads, topics and good discussions.
And, posts relating to a topic thread already existing should be posted in that thread instead of a new one.
***Note: **Non Pakistani members are encouraged to take active part in a positive and constructive way.
*
To start with, from a statement in another thread with an almost similar title, the question came up almost naturally;
Was Pakistan created in a hurry afterall…?
And if yes, What have been the consequences and why do people very often say that indeed Pakistan was created in a rush and because the founding father Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah passed away just 13 months after independance, almost all problems we face internally or externally are due to this misfortune?
To the extent that the Quaid was not able to present the constitution it can be understood, but when it reaches the stage of implementation, where did things go wrong? Were all Quaid’s associates inept? Why were all things not sorted outr whithin the 13 months he was around…? Did the man Jinnah command fear in everyone’s hearts to have the nation governed by his words? Why were his successors and their successors and then theirs and then theirs down to the current rulers unable to relate to the masses and implement the Pakistan Dream that the Quaid must have envisioned…? We have his speeches and quotes to show what he had in plan, but why didnt those that came after him try and implement it properly? what was the problem…?
and then again, if the whole concept of a new state had come in a hurry aftreall, everyone still had enough time to decide what to plan or implement afterwards…where dis things go wrong?
To blame a few names is wrong. It must be something else…what? why…?
Rather than hurry,pakiatan suffered a huge loss in the form Mr.Jinnah and the surprising thing is Jinnah could not make the things in order despite the fact he knew that he was being subjugated by the tuberculosis disease.The intitial traumasfaced by pakistan was quite big,that it could not adjust itself in to a right position and theincidents like kashmir(1948)only helped to decelerate it momentum.
Dou know the fact that,had the delay in formation of pakistan occured there would have been no pakistahn at all since it would have given ample time for the congress leaders to see the death of Mr.Jinnah and Musli league torn apart like anything.
The currentproblems pakistan facing are the results of downtrodden approaches towards many things including , kashmir,khalistan,sindh proble, and terrorism.
Second World War and international political issues rose just after required thorough attention of British Government. Things (in Politics) were changing radically and thus the decision of independence and separation of the subcontinent appeared well before the expected time. Jinnah cannot be said to have hurried but the decision came in a hurry.
Jinnah and (to some extent) Liaqat Ali Khan were the only well-know leaders Muslim League had. No other leader was recognized in each and every part of this country. Even many political leaders were said to have disputes with Liaqat Ali Khan on several issues. Jinnah's death left Pakistan and Muslim League in a state of anxiety; this was due to the lack of a national leader. No other person in Muslim League was accepted by each and every member as a proper leader. Liaqat was the most famous one though.
A huge number of immigrants left Jinnah busy as there was no proper government institute to deal with such situation. Many other leader are said to have been involved in false claims. Even well after the initial 13 months, the settlement of immigrants was perhaps more important than the formation of constitution. After Liaqat Ali Khan's assassination, Pakistan faced a huge political break. Bureaucracy and army interrupted the political system with Ghulam Muhammad and Ayub Khan followed by a chain. A constitution based on original Muslim League agenda was never in favor for them, so these Governments forced their versions.
Things went wrong just on leadership. In a united subcontinent, with very few options of newspapers and print media and a limited user base of radio listeners, political parties were required to have a single leader representing them in each and every part of the subcontinent. Jinnah and Gandhi are two examples. The huge number of immigrants and the lack of a national level leadership were the biggest problems Pakistan faced after independence and particularly after Jinnah's
death.
Main Points:
British made the decision of independence and separation of India in a hurry due to the political problems and issues they faced after World War 2. ML or Congress cannot be blamed for it.
In Subcontinent, political parties required a single central representative like Jinnah and Gandhi.
Pakistan faced a huge leadership gap just after Jinnah's death.
Muslim League had a well-defined agenda, but never got a strong and free (form other activities like immigrants' settlement and political disputes) leadership after Jinnah.
Bureaucracy and army were involved in political scenario on the requests of politicians and then they captured each and every politician and this country.
Did British Leave India in a hurry? (Re: Was Pakistan created in a hurry…?)
The right questions is: Did British Leave India in a hurry?
No! They were planning to leave India after the WW-1. However they wanted to make sure that a civil war won’t start in the region. Why? That’s a seperate discussion.
p.s. I am trying to correct the topic as “Did British Leave India in a hurry?” Current title is historically incorrect. Please update. Thanks.
The British Empire which was at its height at the end of WWI (having gained the territories of former Ottoman Empire) steadily showed decline in the years that followed. Anti-colonial, nationalist movements took hold in places like India in 30s. (South Africa gains indepedence in 1931, Iraq in 1932, Saudi Arabia in 1932, Egypt in 1936).
Then came the WWII and its aftermath left the Empire exhausted and impoverished. Labour Party in UK won elections and replaced Churchill's govt after the war and they formally acknowledged that the era of the Empire was over. Decolonization started leading to creation of India and Pakistan in 1947. It was much easier to give independence to far flung colonies for economic, political and logistic reasons. A lot of countires in Africa and far east also gained independence eventually and by the 60s the sun had finally set on the British Empire.
The British simply wanted to get out of th sub-continent (and a lot of other nations) after WWII and this is one of the reasons it may appear that Pakistan was created in a hurry.
Allen McGrath, published by OUP, **The Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan, **is a vivid description of the effort at consitition-making in Pakistan during the early years of its inception. The book also unvails the conspiracies of Punjabi chauvinists to impose One Unit in order to marginalize Bangali majority and usurp the rights of Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtuns.
I believe Pakistan was certainly made in a hurry. The All-India Muslim League knew it had to create a Pakistan before Congress created an independent India. Whereas it may have been possible to talk the British into allow a Partition, it would have been impossible to get the same from Congress.
Proof that the Muslim league had to rush things faster than Congress can be seen by the fact that Pakistan did not have a constitution until 1953 - nearly 8 years after coming into existence. The rate at which Congress was making progress in achieving Indian independence meant that to delay the Pakistan concept to discuss a constitution would be to risk India becoming independent first.
I don't believe that losing Jinnah that early was too much of a negative effect on Pakistan. So what if he was the political leader who founded he country - that is no obligation for the country to follow his vision of the country for ever. Pakistan was made above all to be a democracy - it must follow the vision of its people, not its founder.
Jinnah was using Pakistan as a bargaining chip with the Brits and Hindus to get equal rights for Muslims in India. When he could not get what he wanted he reluctantly accepted a "moth eaten" Pakistan as he knew he did not have much time. All the other Muslim League Leaders were feudals who wanted to ensure they remain in power and knew they would not in a united india.
I don't think if QA would have stayed for a few more years, it would have made that much of a difference- the bureaucracy and aristocracy was too strong for him and he would not have survived the back-stabbing of the "leaders" of the time. It is only because he snuffed it so soon that he was created into a legend by the establishment- look at what happened to Fatima Jinnah a few years later.
Jinnah was the voice of each and every individual at the time of independence. It is just common these days, in the third generation of Pakistanis to find people who feel different when they blame Jinnah (when they fail to get a job or make some money). No bureaucrat or general could ever have dared to take over the government. Millions of people can sacrifice their properties and lives on the will of Jinnah. No general can take over when people are so much keen and dedicated to their leader.
Fatima Jinnah was another issue. It is never a good idea to indicate her defeat to prove that Jinnah was not as much supported in Pakistan. She had no proper political background, and she was put into politics by a bunch of politically illiterate people.
Lahore resolution was passed in 1940, even then it was not clear what Pakistan wud look like, thus the correct impression created in a hurry. Statement Pakistan was made in hurry holds value, but only when we look at events which took place on a global basis. WWI & WWII had altered axis of power, England was no longer the empire which had occupied India. Post WWII power had shifted to the Americans and the communist threat was knocking on westrn frontiers. Matters had to be settled in haste to create states which wud appeal to all parties. Division of ME, Northern Africa and Sub-Continent were part of that trade-off where major powers drew new boundaries suiting their sphere of influence.
While Congress failed to back the allies in WWII, it was MA Jinnah's vision and trust in the western capitalist system that led him to side openly with the allies, and he was proven correct. Congress kept waiting for Japanese soldiers to liberate India, while Jinnah and his party worked alongside the British. This single factor is probably the most important motivating force which convinced the English that India needs to be partitoned in such a manner where power is not concentrated in the hands of Congress who had failed in their first major test. Probably the single most important important reason for Pakistan creation was MA Jinnah. His grasp of constitutional matters, negotiating abilities, upright character, single minded approach and belief in the principle of democracy gave him tremendous credibility in the eyes of his people and opponents.
Since Muslim League was struggling to garner support for its creation, very little or none was spent on what next. Add to this the migration of millions of muslims and hindus across borders which was never part of the equation and a belligerent Congress party who refused to share resources according to the agreed upon plan. Jinnahs failing health also proved to be a major stumbling block. Since Jinnah was regarded in such high esteem and the fact that his party leaders were not of the same calibre led to the many problems after his death. Ambitious beauracrats and cavalier army generals did not help matters and the first unsuccessful army coup was 1951 (Rawalpindi conspiracy), barely 4 years after partition.
List of people and events which shaped Pakistan in its formative years is a sad reading. Ghulam Mohd, Iskander Mirza, Ayub Khan, murder of Liaqat Ali, Justic Muneer famous decision (Maulvi Tamizuddin), lack of political leadership, lotas and desperate attempt to stay in power these are just a few contributing factors.
Well, I am not sure what is so important about discussing if Pakistan was made in a hurry.
I think if it was made in a hurry then it would be that politicians were not sure if it will become into existance if Mr. Jinnah the great loses his life. That was a smart decision to make a country afterall. May Allah Bless Pakistan and Pakistanis...forever.
i think u think wrong mr..chnge ur word Jinnah was using Pakistan as a bargaining chip…its easy 2 say…but hard 2 do..man…i agree k akr quaid e azam zinda rehte tu Pak ajj aisa na hota…n its true…
