SOME COMMENTS ON WHY DEMOCRACY WAS DESTROYED IN PAKISTAN.
A.H AMIN
A rather arbitrary analysis....first responsibility is Mr Jinnahs who deliberately retained section 6 or section 9 from the 1935 act after partition , while Nehru made it a point not to have this.In a discussion with ex CJ Sajjad Ali Shah in 2002 , I pointed this fact out.He asked the authority and I gave him destruction of democracy by an american lawyer published by oxford press.the sections that jinnah retained allowed the governor general to dissolve the constitutent assembly.jinnah died and ghulam mohammad used this section to dissolve the constituent assembly in 1954.The funny part is that none of Jinnahs successor realised the paramount necessity of removing this deadly imbalance and anomaly.
Then comes the non regulation province status of punjab ...non regulation meant that executive was all powerful....the deputy commissioner was a law unto himself....now other provinces of east india company were regulation provinces......this legacy was decisive in punjab and that included nwfp of that time,non democratic ideals were virtually internalised and when the west pakistanis i.e more specifically the punjabis and pathans dominated things after 1951 this non regulation tendency became the guiding theme.then the generals.the isi.the feudals.how can you blame the people.
Rigging was started by liaquat ali khan from the mymensingh elections and the habit of branding all political opponents as dogs of india was also started by liquat ali khan.
Constitution making was deliberately delayed by west pakistani politicians and liaquat ali khan because they feared that bengali majority would be their political death sentence.
Thus 9 years lost.the army feared equal recruitment which would remove the punjabi and pashtun barani areas majority in the army .credit must be given to jinnah for creating the first two bengali infantry battalions.General Ayub Khan made sure that only a third was raised and no more.This was because he himself was from the rain irrigated barani areas and he did not want his kinsmen to loose the majority in the army .Thus the constitution was agreed to only after the punjabi feudals in league with army forced the bengalis to agree to parity.
Pakistan never recovered from 9 years lost in constitution making,from reducing the bengali majority to parity at gun point,three declared and one undeclared martial law of musharraf.its highly unfair to blame the common man.after all in 1946 elections only 5 % of indias population was enfranchised.nehru created the constitution in 1949 and made the system coup proof.pakistani politicians punjabi pashtun and hindustani in lead deliberately delayed constitution making because this would have meant losing their political power to the bengali majority.thus india became a country with a political system and pakistan remains an army with a state with some windbag feudals,industrialists and dubious bankers as the armys junior partners.the situation would continue.pakistan will remain a vassal of USA because this suits the military and political elite.
A Word for Hospitalman Eric D. Warren
-
Hospitalman Eric D. Warren of Shawnee, OK, died May 26, 2012, of wounds
received in an IED blast in Sangin District, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Doc W...
7 hours ago



















Pavo,
ReplyDeleteMr Jinnah who deliberately retained section 6 or section 9 from the 1935 act after partition ... ghulam mohammad used this section to dissolve the constituent assembly in 1954.
The Sindh High Court of the time declared the dissolution illegal on M.T. Khan's petition, which was only reversed by Justice Munir of the superior court of the time.
My question is, if that section provided for dissolution by Governor General, why did Sindh Assembly rule in favour of M.T. Khan and restored the assembly, and Justice Munir had to come up with the 'Law of Necessity' doctrine to reverse the decision?
Glad for your thoughts.
dissolution clause was retained by mr jinnah in 1935 act used to govern pakistan...nehru had that removed i think schedule 6 or 9....Cornelius the Christian Chief Justice ruled that in this particular case the dissolutions grounds were not admissible...the schedule 6 or 9 used to dissolve this was not questioned....you can check the american allen mc grath or somethings book published by Oxford Press,regards
ReplyDelete