Css 2019

Log In

Indo Pak History 2019

Q. No. 2: “Internal consolidation rather than territorial expansion was the keynote of Balban’s policy.” Elucidate.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Background of the Delhi Sultanate and Balban’s Rise
  3. Political Philosophy of Balban: Niyaz-o-Sijda and Divine Kingship
  4. Key Measures for Internal Consolidation
    • Suppression of Nobility and the “Chahalgani”
    • Centralization of Power and Bureaucracy
    • Strengthening Law and Order
    • Military Reforms and Frontier Stabilization
    • Revival of Monarchical Prestige
  5. Balban’s Limited Territorial Aspirations
    • Defensive Strategy in Frontier Zones
    • Refusal to Expand Southward or into Rajputana
  6. Comparison with Expansionist Rulers (e.g., Alauddin Khilji)
  7. Impact of Balban’s Consolidation Policies on Delhi Sultanate
  8. Critical Evaluation
  9. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban (r. 1266–1287) of the Slave Dynasty is widely credited for transforming the Delhi Sultanate from a fragile military outpost into a centralized and absolutist monarchy. Unlike his predecessors and successors who aspired to territorial expansion, Balban focused on internal consolidation—establishing authority, discipline, law and order, and centralized administration. His reign was marked by a deliberate strategy to stabilize and strengthen the existing empire rather than risk disintegration through reckless expansion.

“Balban preferred the throne to be stable rather than glorious.” — Lane-Poole

  1. Background of the Delhi Sultanate and Balban’s Rise
  • The Delhi Sultanate was in a state of anarchy following the death of Iltutmish, weakened by internal feuds, nobility factions (especially the Chahalgani), and Mongol invasions.
  • Balban began his career as a noble and wazir under Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud before usurping power.
  • He inherited a fragile state vulnerable to internal rebellion and external aggression.

Thus, his priority became internal consolidation over military conquest.

  1. Political Philosophy of Balban: Niyaz-o-Sijda and Divine Kingship
  • Balban promoted the doctrine of “Niyaz-o-Sijda” (prostration before the king), borrowing from Persian and Central Asian political traditions.
  • Claimed kingship as “Zill-i-Ilahi” (Shadow of God), elevating the status of the monarch to semi-divine.
  • This ideological shift aimed to enforce awe and obedience among nobles and subjects alike.
  1. Key Measures for Internal Consolidation
  2. a) Suppression of Nobility and the “Chahalgani”
  • The “Chahalgani” (The Forty)—a group of powerful Turkish nobles—was seen as a threat.
  • Balban systematically eliminated or marginalized these nobles to end oligarchic rule.
  • Created a new loyal nobility, selected on merit and loyalty rather than lineage.

“The sword of Balban fell ruthlessly upon those who dared defy royal will.” — Dr. Ishwari Prasad

  1. b) Centralization of Power and Bureaucracy
  • Revived the Diwan-i-Arz (military department) and Diwan-i-Insha (records) to bring governance under central control.
  • Strengthened revenue collection and surveillance mechanisms.
  • Restricted hereditary fiefs, centralizing land control under the crown.
  1. c) Strengthening Law and Order
  • Launched a vigorous campaign against banditry and disorder, especially in the Doab region (between Ganga and Yamuna).
  • Appointed strong police officials, established check-posts (thanas), and enforced strict punishments.
  • His slogan: “Justice must strike fear into the hearts of evildoers.”
  1. d) Military Reforms and Frontier Stabilization
  • Reorganized the army with efficient recruitment, training, and regular salaries.
  • Focused not on expansion, but on defense, particularly against Mongol raids in the northwest.
  • Fortified the frontier regions (especially Multan and Lahore) rather than launching campaigns beyond them.
  1. e) Revival of Monarchical Prestige
  • Banned laughter and jest in court, introduced strict court etiquette, luxurious clothing, and ceremonial rituals.
  • Attempted to sacralize monarchy to project authority and legitimacy.
  • Withdrew from public appearances to instill majesty and distance.
  1. Balban’s Limited Territorial Aspirations
  2. a) Defensive Strategy in Frontier Zones
  • Mongols under Halaku Khan posed a serious threat. Balban’s policy was to contain and fortify, not attack.
  • Sent his son Muhammad Khan to repel Mongols, who died in the Battle of Behat (1285).
  • Built forts along the frontier and stationed garrisons instead of expanding borders.
  1. b) Refusal to Expand Southward or into Rajputana
  • Unlike later Sultans (e.g., Alauddin Khilji), Balban showed no interest in southern conquests.
  • His reign lacked major offensive expeditions into Rajputana or Deccan.
  1. Comparison with Expansionist Rulers

Ruler

Focus

Strategy

Balban (1266–1287)

Internal consolidation

Centralization, monarchy, defense

Alauddin Khilji (1296–1316)

Expansionism

South Indian campaigns, plunder

Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325–1351)

Expansion and administration

Far-flung conquests, failed experiments

Balban’s reign may seem less glorious in terms of territory, but it laid the administrative foundation for later Sultanate rulers.

  1. Impact of Balban’s Consolidation Policies on Delhi Sultanate
  • Stability and survival of Delhi Sultanate during Mongol threats.
  • Disciplined nobility and stronger institutions.
  • Established monarch-centric governance, influencing successors.
  • Provided a blueprint of strong centralized monarchy, although his successor (Kaiqubad) failed to uphold it.

“He reigned like a Caesar, not a conqueror.” — Satish Chandra

  1. Critical Evaluation

Aspect

Positive Contribution

Limitations

Political

Ended nobility’s interference

Ruthless suppression created fear

Administrative

Strengthened bureaucracy and military

Lacked institutional continuity post-death

Strategic

Protected Sultanate from Mongols

Did not extend influence into resource-rich south

Ideological

Elevated monarchy’s image

Alienated masses through aloofness

Balban was a realist, aware that expansion without internal stability would be self-defeating. However, his authoritarianism sometimes bordered on despotism.

  1. Conclusion

Balban’s rule was a turning point in the Delhi Sultanate, marking the transition from an oligarchic system to centralized monarchy. In an era of Mongol threats, rebellious nobles, and weak successors, his emphasis on internal consolidation, discipline, and state-building was both necessary and visionary. While he lacked the flamboyance of conquerors like Alauddin Khilji or Akbar, his enduring contribution was to preserve the Sultanate during a period of potential collapse. His legacy proves that sometimes preservation is greater than expansion.

Q. No. 3: “Akbar fully realized the absence of national spirit in the Mughal Empire and tried to build one, but history of his dynasty records that he failed in the task.” In this context, discuss Akbar’s policy towards non-Muslims.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. The Absence of National Spirit in the Mughal Empire
  3. Akbar’s Vision of Empire-Building
  4. Akbar’s Policy Towards Non-Muslims
    • Abolition of Jizya and Pilgrimage Tax
    • Policy of Sulh-i-Kul (Peace with All)
    • Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Administration
    • Matrimonial Alliances with Rajputs
    • Religious Debates and the Ibadat Khana
    • Creation of Din-i-Ilahi
  5. Objectives Behind Akbar’s Non-Muslim Policy
  6. Successes of Akbar’s National Integration Policy
  7. Limitations and Failures of the Policy
    • Resistance from Orthodox Muslims
    • Alienation of Both Muslims and Hindus
    • Lack of Continuity Post-Akbar
  8. Historical Verdict: Was It a Failed Attempt?
  9. Critical Evaluation
  10. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

Emperor Akbar the Great (1556–1605) is often remembered as a visionary who sought to build an empire not merely through conquest but through ideological integration. He realized that the Mughal Empire lacked a cohesive national identity, divided by religion, caste, language, and region. In response, Akbar initiated a series of inclusive policies aimed at winning the loyalty of non-Muslims, particularly the Hindus, who formed the majority of the population. However, despite his innovative efforts, history records that the Mughal dynasty ultimately failed to institutionalize a lasting national spirit, as later emperors reversed many of his pluralist policies.

  1. The Absence of National Spirit in the Mughal Empire
  • The Mughal Empire was multi-ethnic and multi-religious, with Turks, Afghans, Rajputs, Brahmins, Jats, Marathas, and Persians.
  • There existed a deep religious divide between the ruling Muslim elite and the Hindu majority.
  • No shared sense of nationhood existed—political loyalty was often based on kinship, caste, or religion, not national unity.

“Akbar understood that conquest alone could not forge unity in India; moral and cultural fusion was imperative.” – Vincent Smith

  1. Akbar’s Vision of Empire-Building
  • Akbar’s goal was to create a pan-Indian empire with inclusive institutions.
  • He envisioned a central authority supported by all religious communities, not just Muslims.
  • This required winning over the hearts and minds of Hindus, especially Rajput chieftains and Brahmin intellectuals.
  1. Akbar’s Policy Towards Non-Muslims
  2. a) Abolition of Jizya and Pilgrimage Tax
  • 1563: Abolished pilgrimage tax, which burdened Hindu pilgrims at sacred sites.
  • 1564: Abolished Jizya, a discriminatory tax levied on non-Muslims since early Islamic conquests.
  • These acts sent a powerful message of tolerance and equality.
  1. b) Policy of Sulh-i-Kul (Peace with All)
  • Based on the principle of universal tolerance, Sulh-i-Kul became the ethical foundation of his empire.
  • All religions were to be treated with equal respect under state patronage.
  • It was implemented through state policy, not mere rhetoric.
  1. c) Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Administration
  • Appointed Hindus to high-ranking positions:
    • Raja Todar Mal – Finance Minister
    • Birbal – Military and court official
    • Man Singh – Commander of 7000 cavalry, highest mansab rank
  • Broke the precedent of Muslim-only rule, making the empire a meritocracy.
  1. d) Matrimonial Alliances with Rajputs
  • Married Rajput princesses, notably from Amber (Jodha Bai), Jaisalmer, and Marwar.
  • Did not force conversion, instead allowed Hindu queens to worship freely.
  • These alliances created personal bonds and political loyalty.
  1. e) Religious Debates and the Ibadat Khana
  • Established the Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) at Fatehpur Sikri in 1575.
  • Invited Sunni, Shia, Hindu, Jain, Zoroastrian, and Jesuit scholars for interfaith dialogue.
  • Aimed to synthesize religious knowledge, not convert others.
  1. f) Creation of Din-i-Ilahi
  • In 1582, Akbar founded the Din-i-Ilahi (Religion of God).
  • It borrowed elements from Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Jainism.
  • Intended as an ethical order for elite nobles, not mass conversion.
  • However, it failed to gain significant followers—only a few courtiers joined.
  1. Objectives Behind Akbar’s Non-Muslim Policy

Objective

Explanation

Political Stability

To integrate Rajputana and reduce rebellion risk

Cultural Synthesis

To foster a sense of shared imperial culture

Administrative Efficiency

To utilize talents from all communities

Religious Harmony

To end sectarian conflict and promote peace

  1. Successes of Akbar’s National Integration Policy
  • Consolidation of Rajputana without major military campaigns.
  • Social mobility for Hindus, reducing resistance to Mughal rule.
  • Establishment of a cultural renaissance blending Persian, Hindu, and Central Asian traditions.
  • Improved revenue systems through Hindu bureaucrats like Todar Mal.

“The empire of Akbar was the first real attempt at secular governance in medieval India.” – Dr. R.C. Majumdar

  1. Limitations and Failures of the Policy
  2. a) Resistance from Orthodox Muslims
  • Ulama and orthodox elements criticized his heresy.
  • Accused of undermining Islamic supremacy.
  • The Sharia-based judicial system grew alienated from the court.
  1. b) Alienation of Both Muslims and Hindus
  • Din-i-Ilahi failed to attract large support due to its esoteric nature.
  • Muslims saw it as blasphemy, Hindus didn’t fully accept it as theirs.
  • Akbar’s attempt to create a universal religion was perceived as elitist and artificial.
  1. c) Lack of Continuity Post-Akbar
  • Jahangir and Shah Jahan maintained some aspects of tolerance, but lacked Akbar’s vision.
  • Aurangzeb (1658–1707) reversed these policies:
    • Reimposed Jizya
    • Destroyed Hindu temples
    • Excluded non-Muslims from high offices
  • Hence, Akbar’s integration model collapsed under subsequent orthodoxy.
  1. Historical Verdict: Was It a Failed Attempt?

While Akbar succeeded in creating short-term harmony and administrative integration, he failed to institutionalize a lasting national identity. His successors either ignored or reversed his inclusive measures. Thus, his national spirit project lacked deep social and ideological roots, depending too heavily on monarchical will.

  1. Critical Evaluation

Aspect

Success

Failure

Political Integration

United Rajputs and Muslims

Fragile unity, reversed later

Religious Tolerance

Groundbreaking in medieval context

Opposition from religious orthodoxy

Administrative Reform

Efficient revenue and governance

Lacked institutional continuity

Nation-Building

Created inclusive identity symbols

No mass identification or cohesion

Akbar was a visionary ahead of his time, but he operated in a pre-modern empire with no mass political consciousness or nationalism.

  1. Conclusion

Akbar’s policy towards non-Muslims was a deliberate, strategic, and philosophical effort to overcome the absence of national spirit in the Mughal Empire. Through abolishing discriminatory taxes, integrating Hindus into administration, and promoting religious dialogue, he laid the foundation of secular imperial governance. Yet, the failure of his successors to carry forward his pluralist vision, coupled with religious backlash, meant that his dream of a unified national identity remained unfulfilled. Akbar may have failed in the long-term political integration of India, but he remains a symbol of tolerance and enlightened rule in South Asian history.

Q. No. 4: “By his political reforms and policy of religious toleration, Sher Shah laid the foundation of an enlightened government.” Discuss.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Historical Context: Rise of Sher Shah Suri
  3. Concept of Enlightened Government in Medieval South Asia
  4. Political and Administrative Reforms of Sher Shah
    • Centralized Bureaucracy and Revenue Administration
    • Military Organization and Land Reform
    • Judicial and Civil Governance
    • Road Network and Communication
  5. Policy of Religious Toleration
    • Equal Treatment of Non-Muslims
    • Inclusive Administrative Appointments
    • Separation of Religion and State Policy
  6. Sher Shah’s Governance vs. Mughal and Delhi Sultanate Models
  7. Lasting Legacy of Sher Shah’s Enlightened Governance
  8. Critical Evaluation
  9. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

Sher Shah Suri (r. 1540–1545), the founder of the Sur Dynasty, is hailed by historians as one of the most capable and reformist rulers of medieval India. Despite a reign of just five years, his political acumen and religious moderation introduced transformative changes that laid the foundation of a modern, enlightened administration. He envisioned a state where justice, meritocracy, religious coexistence, and efficient governance prevailed—centuries before such ideas became common in South Asia.

“Sher Shah’s reign, brief though it was, left behind a legacy of administrative genius rarely matched in Indian history.” – R.C. Majumdar

  1. Historical Context: Rise of Sher Shah Suri
  • Born as Farid Khan, he belonged to a Pashtun (Afghan) noble family in Bihar.
  • Rose to power through military brilliance and administrative skill.
  • Defeated Humayun at the Battles of Chausa (1539) and Kanauj (1540).
  • Established a powerful empire stretching from Bengal to Punjab.
  1. Concept of Enlightened Government in Medieval South Asia

An enlightened government in the medieval context refers to:

  • Impartial rule of law
  • Fair revenue and land policies
  • Infrastructure for public welfare
  • Inclusiveness in religious and administrative spheres
  • Security, justice, and equal opportunities

Sher Shah’s reforms mirrored this philosophy with a vision of pragmatism, efficiency, and tolerance.

  1. Political and Administrative Reforms of Sher Shah
  2. a) Centralized Bureaucracy and Revenue Administration
  • Divided empire into Sarkars, Parganas, and villages with appointed officers (Shiqdars, Munsifs).
  • Revenue assessment based on measured land productivity (Zabt system), a precursor to Akbar’s reforms.
  • Introduced “Patta” (ownership deed) and “Qabuliyat” (tenant agreement) to document revenue rights.

“Sher Shah was the true architect of India’s revenue system.” – Dr. Ishwari Prasad

  1. b) Military Organization and Land Reform
  • Maintained a standing army directly paid from the treasury.
  • Followed branding of horses (Dagh) and descriptive rolls (Chehra) to curb corruption.
  • Encouraged agrarian development by offering revenue concessions to peasants.
  1. c) Judicial and Civil Governance
  • Set up Qazis and Munsifs for civil and criminal justice.
  • Separated judiciary from executive—a remarkable departure from tradition.
  • Provided swift and impartial justice; established the maxim “Justice is the backbone of kingship.”
  1. d) Road Network and Communication
  • Constructed Grand Trunk Road from Sonargaon (Bengal) to Peshawar—a lifeline for trade and administration.
  • Built rest houses (sarais) every few miles and maintained postal runners (dak chowkis).
  • Enhanced mobility, trade, and state supervision—hallmarks of a welfare state.
  1. Policy of Religious Toleration
  2. a) Equal Treatment of Non-Muslims
  • Did not impose Jizya on Hindus in Bengal and Orissa.
  • Respected Hindu religious customs and festivals.
  • Unlike orthodox rulers, Sher Shah refrained from forcible conversions or destruction of temples.

“He was a Muslim in faith but an Indian in spirit.” – Satish Chandra

  1. b) Inclusive Administrative Appointments
  • Appointed non-Muslims to key posts based on merit, not religion.
  • Emphasized common loyalty to the state, not sectarian identity.
  1. c) Separation of Religion and State Policy
  • Maintained a neutral approach in religious matters—rare for a 16th-century monarch.
  • Prohibited fanaticism in administration and discouraged sectarian violence.
  1. Sher Shah’s Governance vs. Mughal and Delhi Sultanate Models

Feature

Delhi Sultanate

Sher Shah

Early Mughals (Babur/Humayun)

Revenue System

Arbitrary, farmed out

Measured, documented

Weak, unstructured

Religious Policy

Mostly orthodox

Tolerant, inclusive

Religious tension during Humayun’s rule

Road Infrastructure

Neglected

National network created

Underdeveloped

Administrative Hierarchy

Nobility-based

Centralized bureaucracy

Undisciplined aristocracy

Sher Shah’s model influenced Akbar’s administration, becoming a template for enlightened monarchy.

  1. Lasting Legacy of Sher Shah’s Enlightened Governance
  • The Mughals adopted his land revenue model, further developed under Akbar.
  • Postal and road systems continued until colonial times—British expanded GT Road.
  • His coinage (Rupiya) became the basis of Indian currency for centuries.
  • Showed that good governance is rooted in justice, not lineage.

“Sher Shah’s short rule eclipsed centuries of misrule.” – Lane-Poole

  1. Critical Evaluation

Aspect

Achievement

Limitations

Administrative Reforms

Codified governance, effective taxation

Heavy reliance on personal supervision

Religious Policy

Tolerant, merit-based governance

Lacked ideological propagation like Akbar’s Sulh-i-Kul

Economic Policy

Improved agrarian economy, trade infrastructure

No industrial or maritime expansion

Legacy

Influenced Akbar, British, and modern India

Dynastic decline after his death (Islam Shah ineffective)

Sher Shah was a pragmatist, not a philosopher-king. Yet, his focus on administrative excellence and social harmony made his rule enduring.

  1. Conclusion

Sher Shah Suri’s rule is a testament to how enlightened governance can emerge even in brief periods of political upheaval. His vision of centralized, just, and inclusive administration, along with religious tolerance, created a state that prioritized people over power. Though he ruled for only five years, his reforms echoed through the Mughal Empire and even British India. His legacy stands as an early example of good governance rooted in merit, justice, and pragmatism—a model still relevant in modern statecraft.

Q. No. 5: How and why the concept of Basic Democracies was evolved in Pakistan and with what results?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Background: Post-Independence Political Crisis
  3. Why the Concept of Basic Democracies Was Evolved
    • Military-Bureaucratic Rationale
    • Rejection of Parliamentary Democracy
    • Ayub Khan’s Vision of Controlled Democracy
  4. Structure and Working of the Basic Democracies System
    • Tiered Electoral Model
    • Link to Presidential Elections
    • Administrative and Developmental Roles
  5. Claimed Objectives and Justifications
    • Political Stability
    • Grassroots Participation
    • Nation-Building and Development
  6. Actual Outcomes of the Basic Democracies
    • Centralization of Power
    • Undermining of Political Parties
    • Electoral Manipulation and Presidential Control
    • Local Development Gains
  7. Criticism and Disillusionment
  8. Legacy and Historical Verdict
  9. Critical Evaluation
  10. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Basic Democracies System (BDS) was a unique form of local governance introduced by General Ayub Khan in 1959, soon after he imposed martial law in 1958. Intended to replace the “flawed” parliamentary democracy with a “controlled” democratic structure, this system blended military authoritarianism with grassroots representation. Although promoted as a model of participatory governance, it primarily served as a tool of legitimacy and control for Ayub’s presidential regime.

  1. Background: Post-Independence Political Crisis
  • From 1947 to 1958, Pakistan experienced frequent government dismissals, weak political institutions, and inconsistent policymaking.
  • The Constitution of 1956 failed to ensure stability; provincial tensions and weak party systems persisted.
  • In October 1958, General Ayub Khan imposed martial law, declaring parliamentary democracy unworkable.

“Democracy in the Western sense can neither succeed nor survive in Pakistan.” – Ayub Khan (Autobiography: Friends Not Masters)

  1. Why the Concept of Basic Democracies Was Evolved
  2. a) Military-Bureaucratic Rationale
  • Ayub Khan and his military-bureaucratic elite believed that Pakistan’s masses were illiterate, and political parties were corrupt and divisive.
  • The system aimed to bypass traditional elites and rural landlords, empowering “basic democrats” instead.
  1. b) Rejection of Parliamentary Democracy
  • Ayub viewed parliamentary democracy as chaotic and unsuited for Pakistan’s socio-political environment.
  • He sought a top-down approach that allowed executive authority with grassroots legitimacy.
  1. c) Ayub Khan’s Vision of Controlled Democracy
  • Ayub intended to create a “guided democracy”, rooted in village-level governance but closely monitored by the state.
  • BDS was introduced via the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, under martial law regulations.
  1. Structure and Working of the Basic Democracies System
  2. a) Tiered Electoral Model
  • The system had four tiers:
    1. Union Councils (local level)
    2. Tehsil Councils
    3. District Councils
    4. Divisional Councils
  • The lowest unit—the Union Council—was composed of Basic Democrats, elected by the people.
  1. b) Link to Presidential Elections
  • In 1960, 80,000 Basic Democrats voted in a referendum to confirm Ayub Khan as President.
  • In 1965, they again voted indirectly to elect the president, where Ayub defeated Fatima Jinnah.
  1. c) Administrative and Developmental Roles
  • Basic Democrats were also tasked with rural development, tax collection, and judicial mediation.
  • The bureaucracy remained dominant, supervising all tiers.
  1. Claimed Objectives and Justifications

Objective

Justification by Ayub Regime

Political Stability

Replace volatile parliaments with local accountability

Grassroots Participation

Enable common people to participate in governance

National Integration

Build unity through uniform administrative structure

Economic Development

Use local bodies to drive rural progress

Ayub Khan claimed BDS would train people in democratic habits, acting as a nursery for leadership.

  1. Actual Outcomes of the Basic Democracies
  2. a) Centralization of Power
  • Although decentralized on paper, power remained highly centralized in the presidency and bureaucracy.
  • Elected representatives had limited decision-making authority.
  1. b) Undermining of Political Parties
  • National parties like Awami League, Muslim League, and others were disempowered.
  • BDS isolated national leadership from mass political engagement.
  1. c) Electoral Manipulation
  • Presidential elections (1960, 1965) were engineered through controlled electorate of Basic Democrats.
  • Reports suggest coercion and manipulation in Ayub’s victory over Fatima Jinnah, undermining democratic legitimacy.
  1. d) Local Development Gains
  • Despite structural flaws, BDS led to:
    • Construction of schools, dispensaries, roads in rural areas.
    • Integration of bureaucracy with village-level administration.
  • These benefits, however, were uneven and bureaucrat-led.
  1. Criticism and Disillusionment
  • Civil society and opposition figures criticized BDS as:
    • A “dictatorial tool wrapped in democratic language”.
    • A manipulated apparatus designed to legitimize military rule.
  • Fatima Jinnah, opposition leader in 1965, called it a “mockery of democracy”.
  • The East Pakistan leadership, especially the Awami League, viewed BDS as West-centric and autocratic.
  1. Legacy and Historical Verdict

Positive Legacy

Negative Legacy

Infrastructure improvements in rural areas

Created pseudo-democracy

Introduced structured local governance

Weakened party system and federalism

Built administrative record of voters

Fostered bureaucratic authoritarianism

Provided a model later adopted in Zia and Musharraf eras

Further alienated East Pakistan

BDS was revived in modified forms by:

  • General Zia-ul-Haq (1979) – Local Government Ordinance
  • General Pervez Musharraf (2000) – Devolution Plan
  1. Critical Evaluation

Area

Evaluation

Democracy

Undermined participatory politics; centralized control

Representation

Indirect elections alienated masses

Governance

Bureaucratic efficiency, but low public empowerment

National Unity

Heightened East-West grievances due to unequal representation

Longevity

Collapsed with Ayub’s resignation in 1969; never institutionalized

BDS succeeded administratively but failed politically, as it lacked institutional legitimacy and popular ownership.

  1. Conclusion

The Basic Democracies System was a political innovation born out of Ayub Khan’s distrust of parliamentary politics and his vision of guided democracy. While it succeeded in administrative decentralization and rural development, it failed to foster genuine democracy or long-term political stability. Instead of empowering people, it consolidated authoritarian rule, suppressed political discourse, and contributed to regional alienation, particularly in East Pakistan. The legacy of BDS highlights the dangers of top-down democracy without institutional inclusivity or political pluralism.

Q. No. 6: Elaborate Legal Framework Order of 1970 and its far-reaching impact on the politics of Pakistan.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Background: Political Crisis and Need for a Legal Order
  3. Objectives and Context of the Legal Framework Order (LFO)
  4. Key Features of the Legal Framework Order, 1970
    • Assembly Composition and Election Criteria
    • Time-bound Constitution-Making Mandate
    • Principles of Representation and Federalism
    • Presidential Powers and Martial Law Continuation
  5. Implementation of the LFO: General Elections 1970
  6. Far-Reaching Political Impacts
    • Rise of Awami League and Pakistan Peoples Party
    • East-West Political Polarization
    • Constitutional Crisis and Power Struggle
    • Prelude to the 1971 War and Fall of Dhaka
  7. Long-Term Legacy of the LFO
  8. Critical Evaluation
  9. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Legal Framework Order (LFO) of 1970, promulgated by General Yahya Khan, marked a significant attempt to transition Pakistan from military to constitutional civilian rule. The LFO served as a provisional constitutional order, laying down rules for Pakistan’s first-ever general elections based on adult franchise. While its intentions included democratization and constitution-making, its execution unintentionally triggered the most severe political crisis in Pakistan’s history, culminating in the separation of East Pakistan.

  1. Background: Political Crisis and Need for a Legal Order
  • Pakistan had no constitution since the abrogation of the 1962 Constitution after Ayub Khan’s resignation.
  • Military rule (1958–1971) undermined democratic institutions.
  • Growing ethnic and regional resentment, especially in East Pakistan, demanded political inclusion and equal representation.
  • General Yahya Khan assumed power in March 1969, promising to hold free elections and restore civilian rule.
  • Thus, the LFO was promulgated on 30 March 1970 as a legal framework for elections and constitution-making.
  1. Objectives and Context of the Legal Framework Order (LFO)

Stated Objectives

Underlying Motives

Establish a representative National Assembly

Preserve federal control over constitution-making

Facilitate peaceful transition to civilian government

Maintain military oversight during transition

Allow provinces proportional say in governance

Avoid dominance by regional parties

The LFO was both a democratic initiative and a control mechanism—reflecting the military regime’s apprehensions over full political liberalization.

  1. Key Features of the Legal Framework Order, 1970
  2. a) Assembly Composition and Election Criteria
  • Created a unicameral National Assembly with 313 seats (300 elected + 13 reserved).
    • 162 seats for East Pakistan
    • 138 seats for West Pakistan
  • Elections to be held on adult franchise basis, with direct voting.
  1. b) Time-Bound Constitution-Making Mandate
  • Assembly to frame a constitution within 120 days.
  • Constitution must ensure:
    • Islamic ideology
    • Federal structure
    • Judicial independence
    • Preservation of Pakistan’s territorial integrity
  1. c) Principles of Representation and Federalism
  • Abolished One Unit, restoring four provinces in West Pakistan.
  • Representation based on population, giving East Pakistan a majority.
  1. d) Presidential Powers and Martial Law Continuation
  • Assembly decisions subject to Presidential assent.
  • Martial Law remained in place until constitution was approved.
  • President held veto power to reject any constitution violating LFO principles.
  1. Implementation of the LFO: General Elections 1970
  • Elections held on 7 December 1970, considered free and fair.
  • Results:
    • Awami League (East Pakistan): 160 out of 162 seats (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman)
    • Pakistan Peoples Party (West Pakistan): 81 out of 138 seats (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto)
  • Awami League gained absolute majority in the National Assembly.

“The verdict of the people was clear, but the power elite wasn’t ready to accept it.” – Stanley Wolpert

  1. Far-Reaching Political Impacts
  2. a) Rise of Awami League and Pakistan Peoples Party
  • Awami League’s Six-Point Program aimed at provincial autonomy, viewed as secessionist by the military and PPP.
  • PPP’s refusal to accept Mujib as Prime Minister deepened East-West rift.
  1. b) East-West Political Polarization
  • Awami League won no seats in West Pakistan; PPP won none in East Pakistan.
  • Reinforced the regional nature of political parties, lacking national character.
  1. c) Constitutional Crisis and Power Struggle
  • Yahya Khan delayed National Assembly session, fueling East Pakistani anger.
  • Bhutto’s threat of “udhar tum, idhar hum” (you rule there, we rule here) blocked compromise.
  • Led to Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971—military crackdown in East Pakistan.
  1. d) Prelude to the 1971 War and Fall of Dhaka
  • Civil war escalated into Pakistan-India War (1971).
  • East Pakistan declared independence as Bangladesh on 16 December 1971.
  1. Long-Term Legacy of the LFO

Positive Outcomes

Negative Outcomes

First-ever direct general elections

Triggered civil war and national disintegration

Abolished One Unit and restored provinces

Exposed ethnic tensions and weak federation

Promoted political awareness in masses

Highlighted failure of elite compromise

LFO was well-structured legally, but politically mishandled, especially by Yahya Khan and Bhutto’s leadership.

  1. Critical Evaluation

Dimension

Evaluation

Legal Framework

Provided clear electoral and constitutional procedures

Democratic Impact

Enabled political participation across Pakistan

Execution Failure

Lack of elite consensus on power transfer

Federal Relations

Failed to balance East-West aspirations

Military Role

Undermined democratic mandate through force

LFO exposed the contradiction between constitutional legality and authoritarian control.

  1. Conclusion

The Legal Framework Order of 1970 stands as a landmark in Pakistan’s political history—it was the first legal attempt to democratize governance and restore civilian authority. However, its implementation without consensus, and the elite’s unwillingness to honor electoral results, resulted in the worst political disaster—Pakistan’s dismemberment. While the LFO laid the legal foundations for democratic politics, it also tragically highlighted that democracy without compromise leads to division. The episode remains a powerful lesson in the necessity of federal inclusivity, political maturity, and institutional integrity.

Q. No. 7: Write notes on the following:
i. Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD)

The Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) was a coalition of opposition political parties, formed in 1981 in response to General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law regime (1977–1988). Its primary aim was to restore constitutional rule, civil liberties, and representative democracy in Pakistan.

Background and Formation
  • Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and imposed martial law.
  • After executing Bhutto in 1979, Zia banned political activity and postponed elections indefinitely.
  • In February 1981, major parties—including the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Awami National Party (ANP), Tehreek-i-Istiqlal, and others—formed the MRD alliance.
Objectives
  • End military rule and restore the 1973 Constitution.
  • Hold free and fair general elections.
  • Restore judicial independence and freedom of the press.
  • Ensure provincial autonomy and civil rights.
Major Phases
  • 1983 Uprising (Sindh): MRD launched a mass civil disobedience movement, particularly strong in interior Sindh, but it was brutally suppressed by military action, arrests, and censorship.
  • 1986–88 Phase: MRD resumed agitation as Benazir Bhutto returned from exile, leading to widespread rallies, eventually forcing Zia to announce elections before his death in 1988.
Impact
  • Though MRD failed to immediately topple Zia, it mobilized mass resistance and kept the democratic struggle alive.
  • It exposed the dictatorial nature of Zia’s regime and strengthened democratic discourse in Pakistan.

“MRD laid the groundwork for the eventual restoration of democratic rule post-Zia.” – Dr. Safdar Mahmood

ii. Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy and His Ministry (1956–57)

Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy was a prominent Bengali politician, founder of the Awami League, and served as Prime Minister of Pakistan from September 1956 to October 1957—a crucial period in Pakistan’s early political history.

Background
  • Suhrawardy had served as Premier of Bengal in British India and was respected for his legal acumen and oratory.
  • He became Prime Minister with the support of the Awami League and the Republican Party, after the 1956 Constitution was adopted.

Key Policies and Initiatives

  • Advocated for democratic federalism and civilian supremacy.
  • Tried to strengthen ties with the United States, leading to increased foreign aid and military assistance.
  • Promoted provincial autonomy, particularly for East Pakistan, and criticized bureaucratic control over politics.
  • Attempted economic reforms and defense reorganization, including closer military cooperation with Western powers.
Challenges and Fall
  • Faced strong opposition from the Muslim League, as well as civil-military bureaucracy who feared his populism.
  • His insistence on giving East Pakistan its due share in federal governance created friction with West Pakistani elites.
  • Resigned under pressure in October 1957, as President Iskander Mirza and the military sought greater control.
Significance
  • Suhrawardy was one of the few leaders who tried to bridge the gap between East and West Pakistan.
  • His ministry marked the last real civilian attempt at democratic consolidation before the 1958 martial law.

“Suhrawardy was a democrat in spirit and a statesman in principle—too liberal for the establishment to tolerate.” – Stanley Wolpert

  1. What do you know about Democratic Action Committee (DAC)?

The Democratic Action Committee (DAC) was a political alliance formed in 1969 against the authoritarian rule of President Ayub Khan. It consisted of major opposition parties including the Awami League, National Awami Party, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Pakistan Democratic Party.

  • DAC was established in response to Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracies system and Presidential style of governance, which concentrated power in the executive.
  • The alliance rejected the 1962 Constitution and demanded the restoration of parliamentary democracy and free elections.
  • DAC played a crucial role in nationwide protests during the 1968–69 uprising, which ultimately forced Ayub Khan to resign and transfer power to General Yahya Khan.

Significance: DAC was a rare instance of cross-ideological unity in Pakistan’s political history and contributed significantly to the downfall of military-dominated civilian rule.

  1. What was Operation Fair Play?

Operation Fair Play was the code name for the military coup executed by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq on the night of July 4–5, 1977, which overthrew Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s civilian government.

  • The coup followed a period of political unrest, mass protests by the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), and allegations of election rigging in the 1977 general elections.
  • Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law, dissolved the assemblies, suspended the constitution, and promised elections in 90 days (which were delayed until 1985).
  • The operation marked the beginning of Pakistan’s third military regime, leading to Islamization policies, curbs on civil liberties, and Bhutto’s execution in 1979.

Significance: Operation Fair Play ushered in an 11-year military dictatorship and significantly altered the political and ideological trajectory of Pakistan.

  1. Describe the main reforms of Prime Minister Moeen Qureshi.

Moeen Qureshi, a former World Bank official, served as interim Prime Minister of Pakistan from July to October 1993, appointed to oversee fair elections after the resignation of Nawaz Sharif and Ghulam Ishaq Khan during a political deadlock.

His short tenure is noted for key technocratic reforms, including:

  • Economic Transparency: Publicly revealed tax defaulters list including politicians and industrialists.
  • Currency Reforms: Introduced the free-floating exchange rate for the Pakistani rupee.
  • Austerity Measures: Reduced government expenditures and luxury perks for officials.
  • Revenue Mobilization: Increased electricity and utility charges to boost fiscal revenues.
  • Electoral Neutrality: Reorganized civil bureaucracy to ensure impartial general elections.

Significance: Despite his brief term, Qureshi introduced bold and long-lasting administrative and economic reforms, earning him praise for professionalism and integrity.

  1. Incident of Ojhri Camp

The Ojhri Camp explosion occurred on April 10, 1988, in Rawalpindi, when a large ammunition depot—used to store weapons for the Afghan Mujahideen—accidentally exploded.

  • The camp housed U.S.-supplied arms intended for the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan.
  • The blast led to the death of over 100 civilians and injured more than 1,000, with widespread damage across Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
  • Notable casualties included General Zia’s closest advisor, Khaqan Abbasi (father of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi).
  • The government never fully disclosed the exact cause, leading to widespread speculation—from accidental fire to conspiracy theories about evidence tampering.

Significance: The incident damaged public trust, exposed the risks of covert military operations, and cast a shadow over Zia-ul-Haq’s regime in its final months before his own death in August 1988.

.  .  Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 Indo Pak History 2019 

You cannot copy content of this pages.