Why Pakistan isn’t a Democratic Country

27 05 2013


To find the causes of a non-democratic Pakistan we have to analyze the situation not only after the 1947 but also before the 1947. The collective consciousness and psyche of a nation develops in hundreds of years. So in this article we will study the factors which are in a sequence before and after the independence.

1. Military based policy:

In south India Muslim started their attacks with Mahmood of Ghazni and after Mohammad Ghaouri they established their own state in India. But this state was surrounded in Hindu states and was thus constantly on threat of war. So the survival of Turkish ruler was in this policy that a strong ruler with an efficient and well equipped army should have rule on Delhi so that he may regularly carry on the war policy against his neighboring states. On this stage another problem was that how to get as many people as required for a strong army? Surely they can got people from Muslim colonies which were established after conquest. These people could only be made ready for joining army if they were given they knowledge of their non-safe life. And this was only possible if a strong separation between Muslim and Hindu is created. And thus the majority of Hindu and Threat of their attack created a psyche in Muslim Indians that their safe life is only possible if a sovereign king with an efficient army and strong capital is there. In their opinion survival with Hindu majority was only possible on base of power. And for this reason, even till now , Muslim paid respect to those ruler with carried on the policy of war and other rulers who shown weakness in military matters were criticized and were considered responsible for Muslim decline.

2. Use of Religion:

Muslim ruling class of India knew that their rule and power is based on Muslim community so for getting more support from them they felt it is necessary to use the religion. And thus all Muslim rulers tried to be called as “saver of ummah”. Although practically they were bounded to run the governmental system on secular basis but they used the religion as well. They supervised Ullamah and they supported Sufis. They also implemented some religious laws which were not directly opposite of political system. At the same they created a threat in the minds of the people that if their rule is over thrown on weaken then Muslim Community from India will cease to survive. Its example could be seen from Khilji era. When Khusro Malik named slave who was racially Indian got the rule after killing the last Khilji king Quttab-ud-Deen Mubarak, they he was propagated as Hindu and also that the life and property of Muslims was in danger. This threat gathered all the Lords under the supervision of Ghayas-ud-Deen Tughlaq. Khusro was defeated and contemporary histories told that Muslim lords felt nice that their life and preferences were saved. Its second example could be observed in Akbar regime. Akbar’s secular policy threatened the strict believers and they opposed Akbar on the slogan that Islam is in danger. Muslim lords wanted that only they should be awarded the part in rule and no one else should be there with whom they have to share their rule. For this case religion was used because if state is labeled Muslim then only Muslims has the right to run the state.

So it was in their benefit that State should be named Islamic and that Muslim and Hindu should not be closed culturally and socially. Use of religion on such an extent hide the class contradictions within the Muslims and the common Muslim remained happy only because of the fact that they and the ruler belongs to same religion. Even till now to hide the class contradictions between the Muslim a common goal based on Islam is propagated. “Aik hi saf men khary ho gae Mahmood o Ayaz” is a proof of such a psyche of Muslim rulers.

3. In decline era and 1857:

With the decline of Mughal Empire the base of Muslim ruling class destroyed. Their base was sovereign ruler, efficient army and strong capital. When these bases weaken then Sikhs, Marathas and Jaats started attacking the Mughal Empire. Muslim ruling class searched the substitute of their lost power. Shah Walli Ullah’s invitation to Abdalli is a proof of the fact that a strong king and army is necessary to save Muslims. Opinion of Syed Ahmad Shaheed is also there that Muslims could only be saved by Personality of Ameer Ul Muslymeen and Jihad. About war of 1857 we can say that it was the last effort of Muslim ruling class to save their objectives by power. And after its failure their resistance ended.

4. After 1857:

When British rule started then Muslim ruling class had lost their power. So Sir Syed Ahmed Khan thought that Muslim should save their objectives by compromise by British rule. Sir Syed and Muslim lords were having a wish for an eternal British rule on India because they thought that only in this condition; objectives of Muslims can be saved. Descendants of Sir Syed expressed this view many times. They opposed the jobs allotments on competition examination and representative government as they thought that it was dangerous for Muslims. In December 1906, Nawab Waqar Ul Mulk said in his speech:

“Our population in India is 1/5 as compared to Hindus. May God not do, if British government ends then our Life, property, reputation will end. We will be slaves to Hindus.”

When Muslim ruling class associated their safety and objectives to British government then they opposed every movement which could weaken the government. This is the reason for which Sir Syed criticized the establishment and political activities of Congress when Congress demanded power sharing with Indians then Sir Syed representing the Muslim elite opposed it and said that in democracy Hindu voters due to their majority will rule India and Muslims both. He also said that political capability of Muslims is far less then Hindus so in any form of election, Muslims cannot overcome Hindus, so British should rule independently and Muslims should remain loyal to government.

As it was in benefit of British rule that Muslims and Hindus should not unite so to keep Muslims against the political activism laid be Hindus they created an anti-democratic psyche in Muslims. Once Professor Theudor Marrison principle of Aligarh, said in his speech to students:

“Democratic system will made the minorities on the status of working class and even every name and sign of Muslims will be ceased to exist in India.”

In producing such an opinion, their historical consciousness also took part. It was in their mind that they were the rulers and they ruled the Hindu majority with power. So they are racially superior to Hindus then how can we accept that democracy make the Hindus rulers . In 1920 Muhammad Ali Johar opposed democracy due to same reasons as stated above.

One thing should also be kept in mind that these views among democracy were only of Muslim elite which had no link with common Muslims. Even in the earlier days of British rule they did not sent their children in Government schools to avoid interactions with common class Muslim children. Muslim elite due to their class objective opposed democracy. They think to status quo due to their loyalty with British government. Allama Iqbal also expressed the same views regarding democracy. His poetry also has anti- democratic contents.

5. Pakistan Movement and Muslim League:

Muslim elite had just one way to keep their preferences safe and that was to loyalty to British government. Muslim League representing Muslim elite got separate electoral process and quota system that is completely opposite to the ideology of democracy. Muslim League never thought about welfare of common Muslims and that’s a reason that Muslim Socialists joined Indian nationalized Congress instead of Elite’s Muslim League.

These situations created such psyche in Muslim community that was based on threat of Hindu majority and danger to their culture and religion. Here Muslim League’s intellectuals complete an historical fault when they said that Islam and Muslim culture in India are same and thus different from Hinduism and Hindu culture. Jinnah’s speech of 1940 convention is based on this fault.

Another thing that makes the people of Pakistan separate from political activism is that Pakistan faction was a constitutional war between Muslim League and Congress. So the participation of common Muslims was very low. That’s a why after the partition common Muslim didn’t show any sort of political activism. It is a law that in those Colonies where political independence was got by public movements and revolution, people participated in political activities but Pakistan Movement was a constitutional war. The areas where Muslim League started some common people movements became the part of India later. Current Pakistan was represented was Feudal elite, so democratic thinking didn’t flourished here. And after independence Feudal Lords and Bourgeois controlled the whole population of common Muslims with military, Judiciary and Bureaucracy.

Muslim league and congress Muslim hadn’t any tradition of giving political training to its workers. Students of Aligarh and other educational institutes can be said as politically trained and conscious workers to a limited extent. After the elections of 1937 Muslim League just emphasized on increasing the number its members and thus voters. But it was against the objectives of the Muslim Feudal and elite to trained political workers. As they knew that after independence they will require such workers who can obey only to their orders and thus an un-trained cadre was necessary for the Feudal, having completely anti-democratic approach.

6. After independence:

Muslim Feudal got the role of new born Pakistan. It is a principle that an authoritarian have to have some strong reason close to the people’s will so that their rule could be saved. After independence, Muslim elite of Pakistan practiced the same experiment which was being practiced from Mahmood of Ghazni. The principle which stopped the democracy in Pakistan was a part of collective consciousness of Muslims of India. This

1. Threat of attack by Hindu’s majority state named “India”.

2. A strong and well equipped army for defiance.

3. Use of Religion.

These points are chronologically associated and turn under the theory of elite’s rule. From the very first day of independence it was taught to common Pakistanis that India is your enemy and still she is trying to create the subcontinent united. And for the same reason, she attacked Pakistan for many time. So there should be a strong army to defend Pakistan “the castle of Islam”.

Muslim League in Pakistan movement while representing Muslim elite had opinion that as Muslim are minority and educationally they are minor then Hindus, so democracy will create slaves of Hindus. But after independence, Muslim elite of Pakistan adopted the views that as people of Pakistan are not well-educated and are not trained politically so democracy is unfit for them. And Ayub Khan the first military dictator of Pakistan said that democracy is only applicable in cold countries and not in hot countries like Pakistan.

7. So called Muslim Nationalism:

As Pakistan movement, apparently was based on religion so after independence religious scholar tried to made Pakistan a theocratic State the totally opposite of democracy. In 1949 on the call of Moulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, Objectives resolution was passed. And all the major posts of the state were bounded for Muslims only. They transferred sovereignty to Allah, while democracy wants the people to be sovereign. All the laws were to be deducted from Quran and Sunnah and even the majority of people of Pakistan can’t alter those laws. Hence they tried to mix democracy with Islamic system neglecting the fact that both are contrary. In a result Pakistan still living without any ideology. due to this, the development of institutions of state and process of formation of Pakistani nation and civilization effected badly.

With democratic system when Muslim nationalism was announced the foundation of state then all the communities living in Pakistan were demanded to be loyal with federation so that a singular nation could be formed. But in this process the local and provincial cultures were discouraged. This process laid an internal war due to the contradictions of the theory of Muslim Nationalism. Separation of East Pakistan as Bangladesh as the current freedom movements in Sindh and Balochstistan are proofs of that.

So a national reconstruction process should be started on the base of pure democracy and secularism.

8. Association with United States:

When ruling class in Pakistan lost legitimacy and power roots in people then they compensate it with associating the state of Pakistan with objectives of American Imperialism. This policy made Pakistan alone on international ground and even an Egyptian President named Pakistan as “tail of imperialism”. American involvements in Pakistan state enhanced to such an extent that now every political party looks toward America to gain power. Conflicts with USSR, Korea and some Arab countries in past and involvement in so called War against Terrorism, on behalf of America has caused that damages which are far more them the capability of Pakistan.

9. Political Parties:

Political parties are failed to solve the problems of the country. As these parties are either Feudal or Bourgeois in nature and origin and thus are not interested in power sharing with people and in political training of their workers. Politics without ethics is a horse race and Pakistan is presenting an excellent example of race course. Political parties are inherited and their policies revolve around will of personalities neither on people nor on ideology.


State institutions are getting more powerful day by day. Feudal and Bourgeois in cooperation with imperialism are busy in exploitation. This exploitation is not only economical but also political and ethical. Religious forces habitually are with them. But class difference in Pakistan which is getting greater day by day is an only hope for a complete change in situation. People the center of power will remove all these conservative forces and a new Pakistan will appeared based on Socialistic ideology.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: