Css 2019

Log In

Indo Pak History 2018

Q. No. 2: Analyze and elucidate the institutional structure of the Sultanate of Delhi.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Historical Background of the Delhi Sultanate
  3. Central Institutions of Governance
    • The Sultan
    • The Council of Ministers (Diwan-i-Wizarat)
    • Other Key Diwans
  4. Provincial and Local Administration
    • Iqtadari System
    • Muqtis and Amirs
    • Village Administration
  5. Military Institution
    • Composition of the Army
    • Dagh (branding) and Chehra (descriptive rolls)
    • Nobility and Military Hierarchy
  6. Judicial and Revenue Institutions
    • Legal System (Shariah and Qazi courts)
    • Revenue Administration
    • Market Control and Price Regulation
  7. Religious and Cultural Institutions
    • Role of Ulema and Shariah
    • Patronage of Sufi Orders
  8. Institutional Reforms by Notable Sultans
    • Iltutmish, Alauddin Khilji, Muhammad Tughlaq
  9. Evaluation of Institutional Strengths and Weaknesses
  10. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Sultanate of Delhi (1206–1526) was a centralized Islamic monarchy that ruled much of the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries. Its institutional structure evolved from a Persian-Islamic administrative framework, blended with Indian traditions and local realities. The Sultanate established a complex bureaucracy that included military, judicial, religious, and provincial institutions, laying the foundation for future Mughal governance.

“The Delhi Sultanate introduced an administrative revolution, creating institutions that influenced India’s political culture for centuries.” – Peter Jackson

  1. Historical Background of the Delhi Sultanate
  • Founded in 1206 by Qutb-ud-din Aibak, following the decline of Ghurid power.
  • Ruled successively by the Mamluk, Khalji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, and Lodi dynasties.
  • It represented a highly centralized form of monarchy, heavily dependent on a powerful bureaucracy, loyal military, and Islamic law.
  • Faced constant challenges from Mongol invasions, provincial revolts, and internal court intrigues.
  1. Central Institutions of Governance
  2. a) The Sultan
  • Supreme authority in executive, military, judicial, and religious affairs.
  • Considered God’s shadow on earth (Zill-e-Ilahi).
  • Though Islamic in outlook, his authority was not always dependent on the Caliph’s sanction.
  • Important Sultans: Iltutmish, Alauddin Khilji, Muhammad bin Tughlaq.
  1. b) The Council of Ministers
  • Headed by the Wazir (Prime Minister), responsible for all departments.
  • Key ministers:
    • Diwan-i-Wizarat – Finance and Revenue
    • Diwan-i-Insha – Correspondence and records
    • Diwan-i-Arz – Military affairs
    • Diwan-i-Qaza – Judiciary
    • Diwan-i-Barid – Intelligence and espionage
  1. c) Diwan-i-Wizarat (Finance Ministry)
  • Supervised the empire’s revenues, expenditures, salaries, and land grants.
  • Headed by the Wazir, who was next only to the Sultan in authority.
  1. Provincial and Local Administration
  2. a) Iqtadari System
  • Empire divided into Iqtas (territorial units).
  • Assigned to Muqtis (military commanders) to maintain law, collect revenue, and send tribute.
  • Non-hereditary, revocable at the Sultan’s discretion.
  1. b) Role of Muqtis and Amirs
  • Muqtis functioned as provincial governors, both administrative and military heads.
  • Amirs and nobles often managed multiple iqtas and held significant influence.
  1. c) Village Administration
  • Retained indigenous panchayat and zamindari systems.
  • Village headmen were responsible for tax collection and order maintenance.
  • The Sultanate often operated indirectly at the village level.
  1. Military Institution
  2. a) Composition of the Army
  • Central army consisted of cavalry, infantry, elephants, and slave soldiers (ghulams).
  • Emphasis on horsemen for mobility and defense against Mongols.
  1. b) Reforms of Alauddin Khilji
  • Introduced Dagh (branding of horses) and Chehra (descriptive rolls of soldiers).
  • Paid soldiers directly in cash to prevent corruption by nobles.
  • Maintained a large standing army and a spy network.
  1. c) Role of Nobility
  • Nobles held military and administrative responsibilities.
  • The Chalisa (group of 40 nobles) during Iltutmish and Balban’s era formed the power elite.
  • Over time, nobility became factionalized, often causing instability.
  1. Judicial and Revenue Institutions
  2. a) Legal System
  • Based on Shariah law; justice was dispensed by the Qazi-ul-Quzat (Chief Judge).
  • Mazalim courts handled appeals and non-Islamic disputes under the Sultan.
  • Criminal and civil justice was centralized and operated via Islamic jurisprudence.
  1. b) Revenue Administration
  • Based on land assessment and productivity.
  • Revenue was collected by appointed officials or Muqtis.
  • No standard revenue policy until later reforms under Alauddin Khilji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq.
  1. c) Market Control
  • Alauddin Khilji implemented Diwan-i-Riyasat to regulate prices, weights, and supplies.
  • Severe penalties for hoarding and black-marketing.
  • Created an early model of state-controlled economy.
  1. Religious and Cultural Institutions
  2. a) Role of Ulema
  • Ulema held high religious offices; advised on Shariah.
  • Sultan often used religion to legitimize authority.
  1. b) Sufi Orders and Patronage
  • Sultans patronized Chishti and Suhrawardi Sufis.
  • Helped spread Islam in rural India, especially in Bengal, Punjab, and Deccan.
  • Sufis served as bridges between the state and local population.
  1. Institutional Reforms by Notable Sultans

Sultan

Major Institutional Contribution

Iltutmish

Introduced Iqtadari system, consolidated Delhi Sultanate

Balban

Strengthened monarchy, introduced Zawabit (state laws)

Alauddin Khilji

Military and economic reforms, price control, branding

Muhammad bin Tughlaq

Introduced token currency, centralized administration

Firoz Shah Tughlaq

Built irrigation systems, encouraged hereditary nobility

  1. Evaluation of Institutional Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

  • Highly centralized system ensured order and quick decision-making.
  • Professional army and bureaucratic structure enabled territorial expansion.
  • Patronage of learning, architecture, and Sufi thought enriched culture.

Weaknesses

  • Excessive centralization made the empire fragile.
  • Overreliance on military elites created factionalism.
  • Lack of inclusive representation led to Hindu marginalization.
  • Iqtadari system deteriorated into semi-feudalism.

“The Sultanate was a sword-state, resting on military conquest and bureaucratic efficiency.” – K.A. Nizami

  1. Conclusion

The institutional structure of the Delhi Sultanate was a complex mix of Persian-Islamic administrative models and local Indian practices. It established a centralized bureaucratic state, a disciplined military, and a revenue system that influenced subsequent regimes, including the Mughals. However, its centralized autocracy, ethnic favoritism, and limited popular participation led to internal dissent and external vulnerabilities. Yet, in the broader context of Indian history, the Delhi Sultanate remains a pioneering example of early Muslim state-building with institutional sophistication and enduring legacies.

Q. No. 3: “Akbar and not Babur was the real founder of the Mughal empire.” Comment.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Babur: Founder by Conquest
    • Military Successes
    • Limitations of His Rule
  3. Humayun: A Struggling Interlude
  4. Akbar: Founder by Consolidation
    • Political and Administrative Consolidation
    • Military Expansion and Integration
    • Religious and Cultural Reforms
    • Institutional Reforms and Bureaucracy
    • Policy of Sulh-i-Kul (Universal Peace)
  5. Legacy of Akbar vs Babur
  6. Critical Evaluation
  7. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Mughal Empire, which ruled the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries, is often credited to Babur, the victor of Panipat (1526). However, historians widely agree that it was Akbar (r. 1556–1605) who laid its enduring foundations. Babur may have founded the dynasty, but Akbar established the empire—politically, institutionally, and culturally. His vision of inclusive governance, administrative innovation, and territorial consolidation transformed a fledgling foreign regime into a pan-Indian imperial power.

“Babur founded a dynasty, Akbar built an empire.” – J.N. Sarkar

  1. Babur: Founder by Conquest
  2. a) Military Successes
  • Babur, a descendant of Timur and Genghis Khan, defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the First Battle of Panipat (1526).
  • Secured victories at Khanwa (1527) against Rana Sanga and Gogra (1529).
  • Laid the territorial foundation for the Mughal presence in India.
  1. b) Limitations of His Rule
  • Ruled only for four years (1526–1530) after Panipat.
  • His empire remained militarily fragile, administratively unstable, and culturally alien.
  • Faced constant Rajput resistance, Afghan resurgence, and logistical challenges.
  • He neither established permanent institutions nor ensured dynastic succession.

Thus, Babur was a conqueror, not a consolidator.

  1. Humayun: A Struggling Interlude
  • Babur’s son Humayun (r. 1530–1556) inherited a shaky empire.
  • Lost territory to Sher Shah Suri and spent years in exile in Persia.
  • Regained the throne in 1555, only to die within a year.

Though significant in transferring Persian influences and the Shia-Sunni dynamics, Humayun’s rule lacked the vision and capacity to institutionalize Mughal dominance.

  1. Akbar: Founder by Consolidation

Akbar’s reign (1556–1605) transformed the Mughal dynasty from a military power to a civilizational force in India.

  1. a) Political and Administrative Consolidation
  • Defeated Hemu at the Second Battle of Panipat (1556) and quelled rebellious governors.
  • Introduced centralized bureaucracy and built imperial institutions such as:
    • Mansabdari system (military-civil grading)
    • Zabt revenue system
  • Divided the empire into Subahs with governors (Subahdars), finance officials (Diwans), and Qazis.
  1. b) Military Expansion and Integration
  • Akbar expanded the empire beyond Babur’s imagination:
    • Conquered Malwa, Gujarat, Bengal, Rajputana, Kabul, Kashmir, Sindh, and parts of the Deccan.
  • Unlike Babur, Akbar didn’t just defeat enemies—he integrated them:
    • Married Rajput princesses.
    • Appointed non-Muslims in court.
    • Forged alliances instead of just conquests.
  1. c) Religious and Cultural Reforms
  • Ended Jizya tax and pilgrimage tax on non-Muslims.
  • Initiated Din-i-Ilahi, a syncretic faith aimed at communal harmony.
  • Held interfaith dialogues at Ibadat Khana (Hall of Worship) in Fatehpur Sikri.
  • Respected diverse religious leaders including Hindu Pandits, Jain monks, Jesuit priests, and Zoroastrians.

“Akbar transformed an Islamic dynasty into an Indian empire.” – Vincent Smith

  1. d) Institutional Reforms and Bureaucracy
  • Created a highly efficient record-keeping and taxation system (Zabt).
  • Encouraged merit-based promotions in administration and army.
  • Strengthened the legal system, establishing Qazi courts alongside secular tribunals.
  1. e) Policy of Sulh-i-Kul (Universal Peace)
  • Central to Akbar’s ideology was Sulh-i-Kul, promoting tolerance, justice, and inclusiveness.
  • Unified linguistically, ethnically, and religiously diverse populations under one sovereign rule.
  • This political theology gave the Mughals legitimacy among Hindu majority subjects.
  1. Legacy of Akbar vs Babur

Dimension

Babur

Akbar

Military Conquests

North India (Panipat, Khanwa)

Pan-Indian empire

Time in Power

4 years (1526–30)

49 years (1556–1605)

Administrative Setup

None significant

Mansabdari, revenue reforms

Cultural Integration

Limited

Deep syncretism (Din-i-Ilahi, Rajput alliances)

Institutional Foundation

Absent

Fully formed empire infrastructure

Religious Policy

Orthodox Sunni

Inclusive and secular

Succession and Legacy

Unstable

Ensured smooth transition to Jahangir

“If Babur was the sword, Akbar was the architect of empire.” – Dr. Ishwari Prasad

  1. Critical Evaluation
  • While Babur deserves credit for establishing Mughal presence, his role was foundational but limited.
  • Akbar built, structured, and legitimized the Mughal Empire in the Indian context.
  • Akbar’s reforms ensured the Mughals lasted until the 18th century, with his institutions adopted even by the British.

Some critics argue Akbar was too idealistic in religious matters, especially Din-i-Ilahi, but this reflects his attempt to unify a pluralistic empire.

  1. Conclusion

Babur laid the military cornerstone of the Mughal Empire, but it was Akbar who constructed the imperial edifice. Through his visionary policies, inclusive governance, and administrative genius, Akbar transformed a dynastic rule into an enduring empire. Thus, history rightly regards Akbar—not Babur—as the real founder of the Mughal Empire in the subcontinent.

Q. No. 4: Are you agree with the statement that “The Third Battle of Panipat paved the way for Colonial Rule in India”?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Historical Background of the Third Battle of Panipat
  3. Major Stakeholders in the Battle
  4. Causes of the Battle
  5. Consequences of the Battle
    • Decline of Maratha Power
    • Rise of Regional Fragmentation
    • Weakening of Indigenous Resistance
  6. British Response and Opportunism
  7. How Panipat Indirectly Paved the Way for Colonialism
  8. Counter-Arguments
    • British Expansion Began Earlier
    • Limited Direct Impact
  9. Critical Analysis
  10. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Third Battle of Panipat (1761) was a watershed moment in Indian history, fought between the Maratha Confederacy and Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani Empire). While it was not a direct confrontation with colonial powers, many historians argue that it created the conditions that made British colonization easier. The Marathas, seen as the only remaining pan-Indian power capable of checking foreign intervention, suffered a catastrophic blow—opening the way for the East India Company to expand without serious indigenous resistance.

“Panipat was not just a battle lost—it was a nation’s momentum arrested.” – V.D. Savarkar

  1. Historical Background of the Third Battle of Panipat
  • Date: 14 January 1761
  • Combatants:
    • Maratha Empire under Sadashiv Rao Bhau
    • Ahmad Shah Abdali (invited by Najib-ud-Daula and other Muslim nobles)
  • Location: Panipat, a traditional battlefield in North India
  • Preceded by:
    • The decline of the Mughal Empire
    • Maratha expansion in the north, including Delhi
    • Rising tensions between Hindu Marathas and Muslim nobility
  1. Major Stakeholders in the Battle

Party

Interest

Marathas

Establish pan-Indian hegemony post-Mughals

Durrani (Abdali)

Restore Islamic dominance and check Maratha rise

Mughals

Puppet rulers, unable to maintain sovereignty

Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats

Remained neutral or non-committal

British East India Company

Watched from the sidelines; not militarily involved yet

The lack of unity among Indian powers was crucial to Abdali’s success and later British exploitation.

  1. Causes of the Battle
  • Maratha expansionism in northern India and takeover of Delhi in 1757.
  • Abdali’s fear of Hindu domination and loss of Muslim influence.
  • Appeal by Indian Muslim nobles (e.g., Shuja-ud-Daula, Najib-ud-Daula) to Abdali.
  • Religious polarization and the dream of establishing a Hindu Padpadshahi (Maratha Empire).
  • Maratha eagerness to demonstrate supremacy in North India.
  1. Consequences of the Battle
  2. a) Decline of Maratha Power
  • Estimated 100,000 casualties, including many elite Maratha nobles.
  • Death of Sadashiv Rao Bhau and Vishwasrao (Peshwa’s son).
  • Loss of morale, leadership vacuum, and intra-confederacy disputes.
  • Marathas could never again wield unchallenged authority over India.
  1. b) Regional Fragmentation
  • No central power remained after the battle.
  • Rise of independent states: Awadh, Hyderabad, Mysore, Punjab.
  • Increased political instability, allowing foreign powers to interfere.
  1. c) Weakening of Indigenous Resistance
  • Decentralization of resistance to British expansion.
  • Abdali returned to Afghanistan, leaving a power vacuum.
  • British faced no strong, united opposition until Tipu Sultan and later the Sikh Empire.
  1. British Response and Opportunism
  • The British East India Company, although not involved in the battle, keenly observed the chaos.
  • They gained significant advantage by defeating the Bengal Nawab at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) soon after.
  • Maratha weakness after 1761 enabled gradual British military and political penetration into:
    • Western India (Bombay)
    • Deccan
    • Eventually Delhi (1803)

Expansion Timeline Post-Panipat

Year

Event

1764

Battle of Buxar – British defeat combined forces of Awadh, Bengal, and Mughal Emperor

1773

British gain control over Bengal’s administration

1799

Defeat of Tipu Sultan in Mysore

1803

British capture Delhi from Marathas

“The collapse of Maratha supremacy after Panipat created a vacuum which only the British could fill.” – Percival Spear

  1. How Panipat Indirectly Paved the Way for Colonialism
  • Destroyed the last serious pan-Indian force that could rival the British.
  • Made regional Indian states dependent on British support to check each other.
  • Politically demoralized the Indian elite.
  • Set a precedent for foreign interventions (Afghans today, British tomorrow).

Moreover, the sectarian dimension of Panipat prevented Hindu-Muslim unity, later exploited by the British through their divide-and-rule strategy.

  1. Counter-Arguments
  2. a) British Expansion Began Before Panipat
  • Plassey (1757) already gave British de facto control over Bengal.
  • British imperial ambition was driven by trade and strategic interests, not Maratha decline.
  1. b) Limited Direct Impact
  • The British were not militarily involved in the battle.
  • Marathas resurged under Mahadji Scindia and Peshwa Madhavrao in the late 1760s.

However, these gains were temporary and localized, never returning the Marathas to their pre-1761 power.

  1. Critical Analysis
  • The Third Battle of Panipat was a decisive turning point.
  • It weakened indigenous resistance, removed centralizing ambitions, and allowed the British to expand diplomatically and militarily.
  • Though not a direct cause, it was a facilitating condition for British rule.

Criteria

Pre-Panipat

Post-Panipat

Political Unity

Possible (Marathas)

Dispersed

Centralized Power

Emerging

Lost

Resistance to British

Fragmented

Non-existent till late 18th century

European Influence

Limited to ports

Expanding rapidly

“Panipat was the fork in India’s political destiny—what the British couldn’t defeat in arms, they inherited by circumstance.” – Irfan Habib

  1. Conclusion

While the Third Battle of Panipat was not fought against colonial powers, its strategic consequences proved to be a gift for the British East India Company. The decline of the Marathas, the fragmentation of regional powers, and the absence of pan-Indian resistance after 1761 created an environment ripe for colonial exploitation. Thus, it is historically justified to state that Panipat did indeed pave the way for colonial rule in India, not by direct cause, but by creating a vacuum only the British could fill.

Q. No. 5: How reconciliation developed between the Indian National Congress and All India Muslim League during 1913–1916?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Historical Context: Divergence Before 1913
  3. Internal Transformation within Muslim League
    • Change in League’s Objectives (1913)
    • Role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
  4. Factors Leading to Reconciliation (1913–1916)
    • External Pressures (British Policies)
    • Hindu-Muslim Unity Sentiment
    • Common Political Interests
  5. The 1916 Lucknow Pact
    • Key Provisions
    • Significance for Congress-League Relations
  6. Role of Prominent Leaders
    • Jinnah as a “bridge”
    • Tilak, Maulana Azad, and others
  7. Impact and Limitations of the Reconciliation
    • Short-Term Unity
    • Long-Term Implications
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The period from 1913 to 1916 marked a rare phase of political reconciliation between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League—two organizations that had started off with overlapping liberal agendas but soon diverged sharply. The convergence during this period, culminating in the Lucknow Pact (1916), was a product of changing political objectives, growing anti-colonial consciousness, and the efforts of moderates and nationalists from both camps. Though short-lived, this reconciliation was a landmark moment in India’s struggle for independence.

“The Lucknow Pact was the high-water mark of Hindu-Muslim unity.” — Percival Spear

  1. Historical Context: Divergence Before 1913

Initially, the Congress (founded in 1885) claimed to represent all Indians, including Muslims. However, growing Hindu majoritarian tone and the failure to address Muslim-specific issues created mistrust.

  • The Muslim League (1906) was formed in response to:
    • Congress’s perceived Hindu bias.
    • Partition of Bengal (1905) and subsequent anti-Muslim agitation.
    • British encouragement of separate communal electorates (1909 Morley-Minto Reforms).

Thus, from 1906 to 1913, the League adopted a pro-British, separatist posture, while Congress moved towards mass nationalism under the Tilak-Gokhale leadership.

  1. Internal Transformation within Muslim League
  2. a) Change in Objectives (1913)

In 1913, the League officially modified its aims to include:

  • “The attainment of self-government suitable to India… in cooperation with other communities.”

This historic shift opened the door for cooperation with Congress, particularly on issues of national governance and reform.

  1. b) Role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
  • Jinnah joined the Muslim League in 1913, while still a Congress member.
  • Advocated Hindu-Muslim unity and constitutional methods.
  • Called “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity” by Sarojini Naidu.
  • Opposed extreme communalism and championed joint political action.
  1. Factors Leading to Reconciliation (1913–1916)
  2. a) British Policies and World War I
  • World War I (1914–18) increased Indian expectations of self-government in return for war support.
  • British remained non-committal, fueling nationalist disappointment.
  • The Rowlatt Committee and harsh wartime laws created common grievances.
  1. b) Sentiment for Hindu-Muslim Unity
  • Inspired by Swadeshi Movement and Khilafat debates, moderate leaders sought inter-communal harmony.
  • Nationalism began replacing communalism as the dominant political language.
  1. c) Shared Political Interests
  • Both parties sought:
    • Expanded legislative representation.
    • Protection of minority rights.
    • Greater provincial autonomy.
    • A united front to pressurize the British.
  1. The 1916 Lucknow Pact
  2. a) Background
  • Congress and League held joint sessions in Lucknow in December 1916.
  • After prolonged negotiations, they signed the Lucknow Pact.
  1. b) Key Provisions
  • Separate electorates accepted for Muslims (by Congress).
  • Weightage to Muslim representation in minority provinces.
  • Agreement on joint constitutional demands to the British.
  • A common platform demanding:
    • 1/3 representation for Muslims in central legislature.
    • Expansion of elected legislatures.
    • More Indian control over executive functions.
  1. c) Significance
  • Marked the first formal agreement between the two major political parties.
  • Congress recognized the Muslim League as the legitimate representative of Muslim political opinion.
  • Strengthened pan-Indian nationalist sentiment.
  1. Role of Prominent Leaders

Leader

Contribution

Jinnah

Chief negotiator; ensured Congress acceptance of separate electorates

Tilak

Reconciled assertive nationalism with Muslim aspirations

Annie Besant

Supported inclusivity through Home Rule League

Maulana Azad

Promoted Islamic reform and interfaith harmony

Their collective vision helped frame a common national agenda.

  1. Impact and Limitations of the Reconciliation
  2. a) Immediate Impact
  • Gave Indian nationalism a unified face.
  • Weakened British claims that Indians were not politically mature.
  • Created pressure for constitutional reforms (leading to Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 1919).
  1. b) Long-Term Significance
  • Set a precedent for inter-communal negotiation.
  • Enhanced the legitimacy of the Muslim League.
  1. c) Limitations
  • Pact reinforced communal representation, entrenching communal identities.
  • Post-1919 divergences over Khilafat, Nehru Report, and Jinnah’s 14 Points eroded the unity.
  • Did not resolve underlying ideological differences between the two parties.
  1. Conclusion

The reconciliation between the Congress and the Muslim League from 1913 to 1916 was a strategic convergence born out of necessity, shared grievances, and political maturity. The Lucknow Pact was its crowning achievement, marking a brief but historic moment of Hindu-Muslim unity. While the unity unraveled in later years due to communal politics and British manipulation, the phase remains a powerful testament to the potential of negotiated nationalism in colonial India.

“Had the spirit of Lucknow been sustained, the history of the subcontinent might have taken a different turn.” — Dr. R.C. Majumdar

Q. No. 6: The Congress Rule in the Provinces (1937–39) Paved the Way for the Pakistan Movement. Comment.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Background: Elections under 1935 Act
  3. Congress Victory and Formation of Ministries
  4. Policies of Congress Ministries (1937–39)
    • Symbolic Hindu Domination
    • Socioeconomic Discrimination
    • Educational and Cultural Interference
  5. Muslim Grievances under Congress Rule
    • Wardha Scheme and Hindi imposition
    • Bande Mataram and Vande Mataram controversy
    • Widening Political Alienation
  6. Role in Revival of Muslim League
    • Jinnah’s Critique and Mobilization
    • League’s Resolution of Grievances
  7. Congress Resignation and its Aftermath (1939)
    • Muslim League’s “Day of Deliverance”
    • Shift Toward the Two-Nation Theory
  8. Link with Pakistan Movement
  9. Critical Evaluation
  10. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The period of Congress provincial rule from 1937 to 1939, although brief, left a deep imprint on the psyche of Indian Muslims. Far from uniting the diverse Indian polity, this period exposed the communal biases of Congress leadership, triggering a political awakening within the Muslim community. The perceived Hindu majoritarianism during these two years significantly contributed to the demand for Pakistan as a separate Muslim homeland, marking a critical turning point in Muslim political consciousness.

“The Congress rule was the finishing stroke to the dream of Hindu-Muslim unity.” — Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman

  1. Background: Elections under Government of India Act 1935
  • The 1935 Act introduced provincial autonomy with bicameral legislatures and responsible government.
  • Elections held in 1937.
  • Congress won majority in 7 out of 11 provinces.
  • The All India Muslim League (AIML) performed poorly—won only 109 out of 482 Muslim seats.

Congress formed ministries in Madras, Bombay, Bihar, Orissa, UP, Central Provinces, and NWFP.

  1. Congress Victory and Formation of Ministries
  • Congress formed ministries but refused coalition governments with the Muslim League.
  • It insisted that Muslim League MLAs must resign and join Congress unconditionally.
  • This created resentment and exclusion among Muslims, who felt deliberately marginalized.

“Congress wanted Muslims to accept its suzerainty rather than accommodate their identity.” – Ayesha Jalal

  1. Policies of Congress Ministries (1937–39)
  2. a) Symbolic Hindu Domination
  • Promotion of Bande Mataram as a national song offended Muslims due to its idolatrous references.
  • Celebration of Ganesh Puja and Tilak anniversaries in government schools and offices.
  • Introduction of Congress tricolor flag in official events.
  1. b) Socioeconomic Discrimination
  • Employment bias in civil services.
  • Funding of educational institutions with Hindu revivalist overtones.
  • Muslim landlords and businessmen felt targeted under Congress-driven land and tax policies.
  1. c) Educational and Cultural Interference
  • Wardha Education Scheme:
    • Promoted Hindi as the national language.
    • Discouraged Urdu and religious instruction.
    • Emphasized Hindu religious texts and values in curriculum.
  • Muslims saw this as an attempt at cultural assimilation and Hinduization.
  1. Muslim Grievances under Congress Rule

Grievance

Description

Vande Mataram

Forced recital of a song with Hindu deities

Wardha Scheme

Imposed Hindu cultural values, suppressed Urdu

Bureaucratic Bias

Muslims sidelined in administration

Economic Pressure

Muslim traders and professionals marginalized

Cultural Suppression

Rise of Hindu symbolism in governance

These developments strengthened the perception that Congress aimed to create a Hindu Raj.

  1. Role in Revival of Muslim League

The failures and exclusions under Congress rule provided fertile ground for:

  • Jinnah’s resurgence as a national Muslim leader.
  • Shift of Muslim sentiment toward the Muslim League.
  • Reorganization of the League (1937–1939) as a mass party, particularly after its Lucknow Session in 1937.

Jinnah’s Rhetoric

  • Declared Congress rule as “Hindu Raj“.
  • Accused Congress of pursuing policies that endangered Muslim identity.
  • Championed the idea of Muslim nationalism and political separateness.
  1. Congress Resignation and Aftermath (1939)
  • In October 1939, Congress ministries resigned in protest against British war policy without consultation.
  • Muslim League observed “Day of Deliverance” on 22 December 1939, celebrating freedom from Congress tyranny.

“It was not just the end of Congress rule, but the beginning of a new Muslim awakening.” – Stanley Wolpert

This celebration marked the end of any illusion of Hindu-Muslim unity.

  1. Link with the Pakistan Movement
  • The Congress rule became a case study in Muslim marginalization.
  • Validated Jinnah’s claim that Muslims were a separate nation.
  • The idea of Pakistan, previously ambiguous, began to gain ground.
  • Direct link between:
    • Congress’s behavior in power.
    • Rise of Muslim political consciousness.
    • Lahore Resolution of 1940 demanding a separate homeland.

From Grievance to Ideology

  • Congress’s 1937–39 rule was the ideological trigger.
  • It proved that Muslim interests could not be safeguarded under a Hindu-dominated majority rule.
  1. Critical Evaluation

Positive Impact

  • Highlighted the true political agenda of Congress.
  • Awakened Muslim masses to their political vulnerability.
  • United diverse Muslim groups under League’s leadership.

Negative Outcomes

  • Also entrenched communal politics on both sides.
  • Set a dangerous precedent for politics of religious polarization.
  • Missed opportunities for institutional power-sharing and coalition building.
  1. Conclusion

The Congress rule (1937–39) acted as a turning point in Indo-Muslim political relations, disillusioning Muslims with the idea of composite nationalism. It exposed the hegemonic tendencies of the Congress, thereby validating Jinnah’s demand for a separate homeland for Muslims. While the Congress may have intended to strengthen India’s autonomy under British rule, its failure to accommodate Muslim concerns inadvertently catalyzed the Pakistan Movement.

“Had the Congress behaved with more statesmanship in 1937, the history of South Asia could have been less divided.” — Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi

Q. No. 7: In what sense were the Elections of 1970 unique in nature and important in the electoral history of Pakistan?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Historical Background
  3. Unique Features of the 1970 Elections
    • First General Elections on Adult Franchise
    • Proportional Representation and Direct Vote
    • Neutral Electoral Management
    • Absence of Constitution
  4. Political Environment Preceding the Elections
    • Rise of Awami League in East Pakistan
    • Bhutto and the PPP in West Pakistan
  5. Major Outcomes of the Elections
    • Absolute Majority of Awami League
    • PPP Dominance in West Pakistan
    • Failure to Form a Unified Government
  6. Impact on Electoral and Political History
    • Breakdown of Centre-Province Relations
    • Prelude to Secession of East Pakistan
    • Lessons for Democratic Evolution
  7. Critical Evaluation
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The General Elections of 1970 stand as a defining moment in Pakistan’s political history. Held on December 7, 1970, they were the first elections based on adult franchise, encompassing universal suffrage, direct voting, and relatively fair administration. While these elections were a milestone of democratic development, their aftermath led to catastrophic consequences—including political deadlock, civil war, and ultimately, the creation of Bangladesh.

“The 1970 elections were a democratic triumph and a national tragedy in one breath.” – K.K. Aziz

  1. Historical Background
  • Pakistan was formed in 1947 but lacked a permanent constitution until 1956.
  • The 1956 and 1962 constitutions were short-lived, as the country experienced:
    • Military coups (Ayub Khan in 1958, Yahya Khan in 1969)
    • Centralized authoritarianism
    • Growing East-West economic and political disparities
  • By 1970, President General Yahya Khan announced general elections under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) to restore democracy and draft a new constitution.
  1. Unique Features of the 1970 Elections
  2. a) First General Elections Based on Adult Franchise
  • For the first time, all adult citizens (21+ years) were allowed to vote, regardless of gender, class, or literacy.
  • Voter turnout: ~59% in East Pakistan, ~45% in West Pakistan.
  1. b) Proportional Representation via Population
  • 313 National Assembly seats were divided:
    • East Pakistan: 162 seats
    • West Pakistan: 151 seats
  • Representation based purely on population, giving East Pakistan a clear majority for the first time.
  1. c) Direct and Transparent Voting
  • Unlike previous indirect or manipulated elections (e.g., Basic Democracies under Ayub), this was a direct election.
  • Managed relatively independently and peacefully with minimal rigging.
  1. d) Held Without a Constitution
  • The 1962 Constitution was abrogated.
  • Elections were held to constitute a National Assembly which would frame a new Constitution within 120 days, as per LFO.
  1. Political Environment Preceding the Elections
  2. a) East Pakistan and Awami League
  • Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, emerged as the voice of Bengali nationalism.
  • Its Six-Point Program demanded:
    • Provincial autonomy
    • Separate currencies
    • Independent trade and taxation
    • Control over paramilitary forces
  • The Awami League was seen as a threat to national unity by the West Pakistani elite.
  1. b) West Pakistan and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)
  • Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto founded the PPP in 1967.
  • Campaigned on slogans like “Roti, Kapra, Makaan“.
  • Focused on socialist policies, land reforms, and anti-imperialism.
  • Gained popularity among the working class and peasantry in Punjab and Sindh.
  1. Major Outcomes of the Elections
  2. a) Victory of Awami League
  • Won 160 out of 162 seats in East Pakistan.
  • Became the single largest party in the National Assembly—enough to form the government alone.
  1. b) Dominance of PPP in West Pakistan
  • PPP won 81 out of 138 seats in West Pakistan, but none in East Pakistan.
  • Bhutto refused to accept a government formed solely by the Awami League.
  1. c) Political Deadlock
  • Bhutto declared: “Udhir tum, idhar hum (You rule there, we rule here).”
  • Yahya Khan delayed the National Assembly session, igniting mass protests in East Pakistan.
  • Eventually led to military crackdown (Operation Searchlight) and civil war.
  1. Impact on Electoral and Political History
  2. a) Breakdown of Centre-Province Relations
  • Elections highlighted the deep political, economic, and cultural rift between East and West Pakistan.
  • East Pakistan’s democratic verdict was denied recognition, undermining the federal structure.
  1. b) Prelude to Dismemberment
  • Failure to honor the election results led to:
    • Massive uprisings
    • Civil war in 1971
    • Indian intervention and the creation of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971
  1. c) Lessons for Democratic Evolution
  • Showed the potential of democratic expression, but also:
    • Fragility of institutions
    • Dangers of political ego and military interference
    • Need for respecting electoral mandates

“It was a moment where democracy could have saved the nation but instead exposed its deepest wounds.” – Hamid Khan

  1. Critical Evaluation

Positive Aspects

  • Proved that Pakistanis could participate in democratic elections peacefully.
  • Reflected regional aspirations and political diversity.
  • Established PPP and Awami League as major parties.

Negative Aspects

  • Showed lack of national integration.
  • Power-sharing arrangements were absent.
  • Military regime failed to mediate the political crisis.
  1. Conclusion

The 1970 General Elections were a paradox in Pakistan’s history—a model of democratic procedure, yet a prelude to national disintegration. Their uniqueness lies in being the first fair, direct, and participatory elections, but also in how their results were rejected, leading to a civil war and the fall of East Pakistan. The lesson remains stark: democracy, without political wisdom and institutional integrity, can turn from hope to catastrophe.

“1970 taught us that electoral justice is not just about voting—it’s about accepting its outcome.” — Dr. Safdar Mehmood

Q. No. 8: Highlight the factors that create obstacles in the smooth functioning of the Parliament in the contemporary history of the country.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Constitutional Role of Parliament in Pakistan
  3. Importance of Parliamentary Democracy
  4. Key Obstacles in Smooth Parliamentary Functioning
    • Military Interventions and Authoritarian Legacy
    • Institutional Imbalance: Judiciary and Establishment
    • Political Polarization and Lack of Consensus
    • Absenteeism, Poor Attendance, and Lack of Debate
    • Weak Legislative Output
    • Presidential Interventions (8th and 17th Amendments)
    • Role of Dynastic Politics and Personality Cult
    • Ineffective Standing Committees and Oversight
    • Financial Dependence and Budgetary Rubber-Stamping
    • Media Trials and Public Distrust
  5. Case Studies from Contemporary Period (2008–Present)
    • PPP (2008–13)
    • PML-N (2013–18)
    • PTI (2018–22)
    • Current Parliament (2024–2025)
  6. Implications on Democracy and Governance
  7. Recommendations for Reform
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

Parliament is the heart of a parliamentary democracy, tasked with legislation, oversight, and representation. In Pakistan, however, the Parliament has struggled to perform its functions effectively since independence. The contemporary political history (post-2008), despite democratic continuity, reflects serious challenges that impede the smooth functioning of Parliament. These obstacles are not only structural and political but also cultural, reflecting deeper flaws in Pakistan’s democratic evolution.

  1. Constitutional Role of Parliament in Pakistan

According to Article 50–89 of the 1973 Constitution, Pakistan’s Parliament comprises:

  • National Assembly
  • Senate
  • President

It holds powers to:

  • Make laws
  • Approve budget
  • Oversee executive through questions, motions, and committees
  • Represent diverse population segments

Yet, despite constitutional backing, Parliament often remains ceremonial rather than functional.

  1. Importance of Parliamentary Democracy
  • Ensures separation of powers
  • Channels public grievances into policies
  • Keeps the executive accountable
  • Serves as a platform for inter-provincial dialogue

However, for it to work, Parliament must be strong, autonomous, and respected.

  1. Key Obstacles in Smooth Parliamentary Functioning
  2. a) Military Interventions and Authoritarian Legacy
  • Frequent military coups (1958, 1977, 1999) undermined parliamentary supremacy.
  • Even during civilian rule, the military establishment retains influence over foreign policy, defense, and security.
  • Result: Parliament is bypassed in critical decision-making.

“The shadows of GHQ loom large over Pakistan’s elected houses.” – Ayesha Siddiqa

  1. b) Institutional Imbalance: Judiciary and Establishment
  • Judicial activism and selective accountability undermine Parliament’s autonomy.
  • Supreme Court’s disqualification of elected PMs (Yousaf Raza Gillani, Nawaz Sharif) weakened democratic stability.
  1. c) Political Polarization and Lack of Consensus
  • Opposition parties often focus on regime change rather than legislative contributions.
  • Frequent boycotts, walkouts, and protests paralyze Parliament.
  • Absence of Charter of Democracy-style consensus post-2013.
  1. d) Absenteeism, Poor Attendance, and Lack of Debate
  • On average, less than 30–40% attendance in National Assembly sessions.
  • Many legislators show lack of interest or understanding of parliamentary procedures.
  • Parliamentary debates are often shallow and partisan.
  1. e) Weak Legislative Output
  • Most legislation is passed through ordinances.
  • Executive often dominates policy without proper legislative scrutiny.
  • From 2008 to 2023, less than 15% of private member bills were enacted.
  1. f) Presidential Interventions
  • 8th and 17th Amendments gave the President power to dissolve Parliament (Article 58(2)(b)).
  • Though repealed by the 18th Amendment (2010), the precedent weakens trust in the parliamentary process.
  1. g) Dynastic Politics and Personality Cult
  • Political parties operate more like family-run enterprises.
  • Decision-making lies outside Parliament, in drawing rooms and party leadership.
  • MPs often lack independent opinions and follow party lines blindly.
  1. h) Ineffective Standing Committees and Oversight
  • Standing Committees lack technical staff, budget, and expertise.
  • Reports are delayed, and their recommendations often ignored by the executive.
  • Oversight over ministries is superficial.
  1. i) Budgetary Rubber-Stamping
  • Annual budgets are often passed without detailed parliamentary review.
  • Finance bills are drafted by bureaucracy and pushed through Parliament.
  • Parliament has minimal input in Public Sector Development Programs (PSDPs).
  1. j) Media Trials and Public Distrust
  • Politicians face trial by media even before courts or Parliament take action.
  • Sensationalism replaces facts, reducing public respect for Parliament.
  • TV coverage of noisy sessions and scuffles undermines Parliament’s dignity.
  1. Case Studies from Contemporary Period (2008–Present)
  2. a) PPP Government (2008–2013)
  • Passed the landmark 18th and 19th Amendments.
  • Struggled with judicial interventions and Memogate crisis.
  • Parliament rarely debated foreign policy or security affairs.
  1. b) PML-N Government (2013–2018)
  • Focused on infrastructure and CPEC.
  • PM Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by judiciary (Panama verdict).
  • Weak parliamentary debates and opposition walkouts were common.
  1. c) PTI Government (2018–2022)
  • Passed several laws through ordinances.
  • Intense opposition-government hostility.
  • Key issues like Kashmir, FATF, and economic crises rarely debated in Parliament.
  1. d) 2022–2025 Coalition and Present Government
  • Hampered by coalition instability and lack of legislative coordination.
  • PTI boycott weakened opposition role.
  • Recent laws passed without quorum or proper debate (e.g., Official Secrets Amendment 2023).
  1. Implications on Democracy and Governance
  • Decline in public trust in democratic institutions.
  • Weak role of Parliament gives space to extra-constitutional players.
  • Policies lack deliberative depth, hurting governance quality.
  • National unity suffers as Parliament fails to mediate center-province issues.
  1. Recommendations for Reform

Area

Reforms

Electoral

Proportional representation, intra-party democracy

Institutional

Strengthen Standing Committees with budget and experts

Legal

Limit ordinance power, restore supremacy of Parliament

Civic

Improve MP training, attendance enforcement

Structural

Civil-military dialogue through Parliamentary committees

“Parliament should be the first forum for national crises, not the last.” — Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi

  1. Conclusion

The smooth functioning of Parliament in Pakistan remains constrained by a mixture of historical legacies, structural weaknesses, and political immaturity. While the country has witnessed successive elections and peaceful transfers of power since 2008, Parliament continues to be overshadowed by executive overreach, establishment dominance, and internal inefficiencies. Without genuine parliamentary strengthening, Pakistan’s democratic journey will remain incomplete.

“Strong nations are built on strong parliaments—not strong individuals.” – Syed Fakhar Imam (Former Speaker NA)

 

.  .  Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 Indo Pak History 2018 

You cannot copy content of this pages.