Pakistan is an improbable state. The forefathers of the people, who now dominate it politically, were really just bystanders in the movement towards its creation, a refined forefront to the real struggle that followed in the shadowy backdrop. Massive confusion had run rampant during the time of accession, with provinces of Punjab and Bengal oscillating between the geographically larger pen holder, which came as a surprise since experiencing the tyrant rule of Congress over India after the period following World War Two had been anything but comfortable, and the new emerging phoenix state, one that promised security, autonomy and freedom, a nation that their students and poets and dreamers had rallied to create. The real unsung heroes hailed from Northern and Western India, cluttering in masses from ghettos and picket-fence neighborhoods alike, rising from cities like New Delhi, Calcutta and Bombay. Fast forward sixty-eight years and now the economy is shouldered by poor farmers and the worn-out middle-class, and the visionaries that had once lightened the horizon seem to be diminishing in numbers as the demand for accountants and desk-job seekers increases. And as conflict with India on the eastern border rises, the Military, being the most professional and powerful organization of the country and the often over-ruling, progressively becomes more of a dire necessity, consequently soaking up a major percentage of the tax-payers income like a dry sponge.
The intricate issue of Pakistan being ruled by feudal lords can be traced back to a time before a mesh of metal wires divided the subcontinent. During the British rule, the Muslim lands that would come to become Pakistan had been economically and politically dominated by wealthy land owners who exercised vast control over the areas in their possession. However, after partition, they were governed by party workers of the Muslim league, men and women who were far too busy stabilizing and actively working towards the survival of a nation they had been given to make from scratch to pay attention to the growing blip in the room. They hardly ever tried to put their leadership to vote.
This might not have mattered much if things had made a smooth run and Pakistan had been created into a republic in its early years within the lives of Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan. But the course of time did not favor this thought, and soon the army swept away any semblance of leadership Jinnah’s Muslim League sought to bring. By the time power had changed hands back to the control of the civilians, Jinnah’s Muslim League was long gone, replaced by the same feudal land lords who had dominated the region prior to partition, and who would bring with them their own brand of politics. In truth, there has been little change in the rulers of this country over the course of its existence, with the same feudal system still ruling it (just with more fancy names this time). For these feudal big guns, politics and government offices are little more than access to states resources, ones meant to be used for personal benefit and for that of their friends. Serious long-term problems faced by Pakistan never made the cut, nor were the predicaments faced by the local population an issue they liked to concern themselves with. These politicians have lived extraordinarily luxurious life, financed by taxpayer money of course, with large cabinets (Asif Ali Zardari once had sixty Ministers in his cabinet) to distribute favors to their friends and relative, all of whom have had their fair share in the extravagance.
Unlike the feudal political class, which has narrowly focused on servicing its patronage network, the army has ostensibly focused on the general welfare of the nation. It sees itself, and is seen by the general public, as the primary defender of national sovereignty and the ultimate grantor of domestic stability. It is commonly considered a fact that without such powerful, advanced, well established and meritocratic army, Pakistan wouldn’t have survived. However, when an armed force deviates from its primary function of defending the nation and comes to ruling it, it is found incompetent and tyrannically autocratic.
The entire outline of martial law goes against the very reason of the creation of Pakistan, as Muslims of India wanted democracy and not to be ruled by a single organization. The man titled Quaid-e-Azam of the Country never wanted it to be under military control, and had made it clear in most of his speeches that civil and military officers are the servants of the nation, not its rulers. Adding to that, the years of military rule have been the worst blow to the country, as history cannot deny that it was the pro West-Pakistan rule of Ayub which led to Mujib-Ur-Rehman’s movement and finally the separation of East Pakistan. The fact also remains recorded through military decisions to nurture Jihadist groups as low-cost army against India, and to please Western powers against Soviet Union, which is now costing Pakistan heavily in form of suicide attacks on public places and kidnapping of the local population.
In short, Pakistan, in its age of almost 68 years, has been ruled by two groups: one is the civilian political class of wealthy landowners and their industrial counterparts, to whom politics has always been about controlling funds and allocating more of country’s resources to favor themselves and friends; the other group is the army, whose leaders sprung from considerably more modest roots and kept the local population better in a short leash, and yet inevitably pursuing their self-appointed destiny as rulers of this nation. These two groups, who have led Pakistan and people interchangeably and in questionable terms, are actually responsible for Pakistan’s atrocious state.
