The Political system of Pakistan: A constitutional study Author: Dr Arshad Rizvi

Dr Arshad Javed Rizvi

Associate Professor Author, translator, and short story writer

· Published Jul 4, 2018

I must foremost thank Dr. Arshad Rizvi, for providing me the opportunity to write the preface for his
book. The subject of his thesis which is now being published in a book form is possibly the most sought
after topic in the present kaleidoscope of Pakistan’s political mural. To comprehend and appreciate
Politics, a deep acquaintanceship with history is a pre-requisite; Gibbon and Toynbee are those
authorities whose analysis no politics and political player can evade. Communism may have lost its
ideological relevance, but Karl Marx’s analysis of history is as succinct and appropriate today as it was
when he conceived it. I must confess I am not a person who airs his views publicly. It was only Mr. Naseer
Turabi’s intervention that became the galvanizing force, which pushed me in accepting a simple but for
me an difficult task. He is not only a very dear friend and an associate, and who I may add, a person who
has left very deep imprints of the finesse of human relationships etched in my soul. I must also put on
record my deep respect for Professor Ismail Saad, (late) Professor Saeed and Professor Wali Durrani who
were once the mainstay of Hamdard University and provided it the momentum by which it came to be
recognized as an institution of higher educational learning. As acknowledged by Dr. Arshad Rizvi, in his
book, these gentlemen have also had a very important role in my life during my mid-career change from
litigation to academics. Professor Wali Durrani in fact played a dynamic role in the changeover and his
influence I still carry to this day.

Dr. Rizvi has taken up a subject for his research i.e. the Political System of Pakistan, traversing from the
establishment of the State of Pakistan in 1947, tracing the strands of politics from its formative years to
the present latitudes of political realizations, is an apt topic to choose. His decision to publish his taxing
research as a book will invariably be a rich contribution to the available literature on Pakistan and
Politics.

Dr. Rizvi is not bound by dogmas, as his book splendidly reveals, and therefore he has treaded on many
political questions, which may perceptively be accepted as historical facts, but aphoristically are open to
reappraisals. Unfortunately, the dogmatic construction of the state structure lies entrenched in a surreal
reality based on a confused identity, which continues to elude the state and the society alike.

Pakistan and India in plain words were creatures of a Constitutional Instrument, passed by the
Parliament of United Kingdom, and titled “Indian Independence Act, 1947”. Prime Minister Atlee made
the formal announcement of the British Government’s definite intention of transferring the power to
responsible leaderships of India by 18th June 1948. As a sequence, Lord Mountbatten was appointed the
new Viceroy of India, who devised 3rd June Plan, after extensive consultations with the leaders of both
the Muslim League and the Congress, the inevitable conclusion drawn from the parleys with Muslim
League and Congress. Lord Mountbatten announced the division of India into two separate states India
and Pakistan. The British Government gave its approval to Mountbatten Plan and the Indian
Independence Act 1947 was formally enacted and enforced on 18th July 1947. The British Government
shifted the date of leaving India by almost a year end fixed 15th August 1947 as the date for the
establishment of two dominions India and Pakistan

The Indian Independence Act, 1947 provided for the creation of two dominions. It envisioned the
transfer of all powers to both the dominions independently. The Act provided for the appointment of a
Boundary Commission to demarcate the boundaries of Punjab and Bengal. The Government of India Act
was obvious to be the Basic Law of both the Dominions till the framing of the respective Constitutions by
their Constituent Assemblies, who would act both as the Constitution framing bodies as well as the
Legislatures in the interregnum. Through the Lord Radcliffe Award, the Boundary Commission marked
the territories between India and Pakistan, separating both the countries. On the midnight of 14th and
15th August the Dominion of Pakistan and on 15th August the Dominion of India came into existence.
Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah fondly remembered as Quaid-e-Azam by the people of Pakistan, and Lord
Mountbatten took over as the Governor Generals of Pakistan and India[1].

The Government of India Act, 1935 in its scheme gave the Governor General ultimate political authority
as the representative of the British Crown in India. The enactment of Indian Independence Act 1947
through Section 8, Proviso (c) removed the finality of this authority so far the “individual discretion” and
“special responsibilities” of Governor General which were laid down in Chapter 2 of the 1935 Act were
concerned. The Indian Independence Act’s silence on the redistribution of the discretionary powers led
to assumptions on the residual authorities to whom these powers stood transferred. As far as the Indian
leadership view on these assumptions may be observed, those are discernable on the seriousness of the
Congress on framing a Constitution within least possible time. Immediately, following 7th June 1947
Meeting, Baba Sahib Ambedkar a renowned jurist, was given the task steering the Constitution drafting
body. The Constitution of the Union of India was finalized by 1949 and soon superseded The
Government of India Act, 1935.

Quaid-e-Azam led Muslim League could not focus its immediate attention in Constitution making, struck
by the bloodshed as an aftermath of the declaration of dividing India in June 1947. The economic
problems facing the young nation, above all the ailing health of Quaid-e-Azam, all made up for the
precarious situation the young nation was beset with in its formative years. Pakistanis could not realize
their dream of a Constitution till 1956, some 9 years after its creation.
Till Quaid-e-Azam remained in good health, his authority not only as the Governor General was never
questioned, he also continued to exercise executive and administrative powers; the cabinet more or less
functioned on the same footprints of the Government of India Act, 1935 as it was prior to the enactment
of the Independence Act, 1935. With his increasing health problems, the questions of control over the
power structure began to rise in the government. Quaid-a-Azam had extraordinary qualities, most
important of all, ethical integrity. As such his leadership did provide a sustaining effect in the
government, and continued to rally the population around him.

Quaid’s demise left a vacuum which was so deep that Muslim League was rudderless. To rally support
and find a center of gravity and maintain its leadership. Muslim League went in for compromises with
theocratic forces. The Objective Resolution was the primary document which reverted Quad’s vision
back in the grip of theocracy, but provided enough space to the Muslim League to continue as the
dominating political force.

The author has taken up a great deal on the subject and has provided his own conceptions on the issues
revolving on the decade of 1950s. These years have become the base of our present.

The issue of Proclamation of Emergency by the Governor General cannot simply be determined on the
judgments of the Sindh Chief Court and the Federal Court in the case of Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs the
Federation of Pakistan. The politics behind the controversy, which involved the powerful beaurocracy
and the politicians alike, should also be viewed in an unbiased manner.

So also, (late) Justice Munir cannot be rejected outright on the basis of two judgments i.e. Moulvi
Tammizudddin’s Khan’s Case and Dosso Case. His vision founded in the Munir Commission Report is so
lucid, today mirrors the gruesome and the brutal truth he had expounded in the final paragraphs of his
report. Rules may at time not be what they appear to be, and likewise fact many a time are perceived on
individual or ideological context, moved far away from its actual.

To understand the rooted complications, the scholars must also take in to account the “marriage” of an
institution of a secular system “democracy” with theoretically oriented Constitution.

M.H. Qureshi has put forward some hard questions which till today remain answered. What has gone so
seriously wrong during the brief period of a quarter of century of our existence, that we are threatened
with annihilation? What opportunities have we lost? What mistakes have we made? What follies have
we committed to be brought to the brink -- not of disaster -- but of total destruction as a nation?

While Qureshi blames the government bureaucracy for this failure, Fazlur Rahman, the most well known
Pakistani Islamist, blames Pakistani Islamic activists for this failure. Writing around the year 1969, he
raises the question "What has been this nation's experience over two decades of its existence?
Disappointing. What has been achieved by way of ushering in the new scientific and technological era
through intelligent and confidant social adjustments under the banner of Islam? “Precious little." The
author continues, "A partial but genuine attempt was made in the ancient regime [a reference to the
rule of Ayub Khan from 1958 to 1969 but an orgiastic chorus of the politics-mongering mullah and
certain Islam-mongering politicians set it at naught."

This in a nutshell puts the problems faced by Pakistan. Unless a true introspection of the policies, and
areal exercise based on the Truth and Reconciliation is taken up in Pakistan. Not much hope lies ahead.

The questions of Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamist radicalization, the role of the democratic governments and the
Independence of Judiciary become relevant only when the fundamental issues can be framed in logic,
which regrettably can never happen given the irrationality embedded in the grund norm of our
governance.

I wish to applaud the work of Dr. Arshad Rizvi and hope his book will be taken well by the critics.