Pakistan’s Sorry State: Historical And Analytical Perspective

Developing Just Leadership

S. Haider Mehdi

Ramadan 01, 1446 2025-03-01

News & Analysis

by S. Haider Mehdi (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 1, Ramadan, 1446)

Many factors—big and small—contribute to understanding why Pakistan is in such a sorry state today. It is essential to sift through these factors and conduct a root cause analysis to explore political, social, governance and security challenges. Equally important is to identify external and internal threats, the role of democracy, human rights, rule of law, and equal opportunities for all. A quick historical review is crucial to contextualize Pakistan’s present challenges.

The Root Cause: Who has Governed Pakistan?

From the early days of its independence, certain patterns have shaped the trajectory of Pakistan’s institutions and governance. Who weakened public sector institutions? Who repeatedly violated and broke the Constitution? Who brought corrupt individuals into government, involved Pakistan in wars, and deposed civilian governments?

The answer lies in identifying those who have been at the helm of Pakistan’s affairs since partition in August 1947. A closer examination reveals that the Pakistan Army, starting from the time of General Ayub Khan, has played a central role in shaping Pakistan’s governance creating the challenges it faces today.

Colonial Legacy and Institutional Mindset

To understand why the military in Pakistan has dominated, while India escaped similar military control, we must go back to 1857 and the colonial era. The British created three primary institutions in British India:

1: Military: To fight wars and conflicts for the Empire, both inside and outside the region.

2: Bureaucracy: To subjugate the people and suppress any aspirations for independence.

3: Judiciary: To maintain imperial control and extract wealth.

The military was trained to be absolutely loyalty to the British crown, devoid of any allegiance to the state or people. This colonial mindset of blind obedience, hierarchy, and institutional self-preservation was inherited by both India and Pakistan in 1947.

Key differences between India and Pakistan Post-1947

In India, Nehru’s leadership brought reforms:

• He subordinated the military to civilian control.

• Army chiefs were rotated every three years, ensuring no single individual amassed excessive power.

• Land reforms diminished the influence of feudal elites.

• Civilian counterparts to military officials were kept senior in hierarchy, ensuring balance.

In Pakistan, Jinnah’s untimely death within a year of independence meant there was no leader of similar stature to initiate reforms. The country struggled to finalize even a constitution during its formative years. Jinnah enjoyed immense respect and could have pushed through reforms akin to Nehru’s, but his early death left a political vacuum.

This allowed General Ayub Khan, an ambitious and politically inclined officer, to rise to power. Despite being dismissed during World War II for cowardice, Ayub was appointed Commander-in-Chief in 1951, allegedly under pressure from the US, UK, and General Douglas Gracy, the British officer head of the Pakistan Army at the time.

Ayub Khan’s Era: The Beginning of Military Dominance

Ayub Khan’s tenure marks the formal militarization of Pakistan’s governance:

• In the early 1950s, he supported the dismissal of elected governments.

• By 1958, he imposed martial law, initiating a pattern of military interventions.

• His Basic Democracies system centralized power under him while eroding political institutions.

During his time as commander in East Pakistan, Ayub exhibited deep-seated prejudices against the Bengalis, considering them inferior. This discriminatory mindset contributed to the alienation of the people of East Pakistan, leading ultimately to the 1971 separation.

Fatima Jinnah, the sister of Jinnah and an emblem of Pakistan’s founding ethos, challenged Ayub Khan in the 1964 presidential elections. She faced character assassination and vile propaganda, including accusations of being an Indian agent. Despite widespread support, Ayub’s rigged electoral system ensured her defeat.

The 1965 War and Its Aftermath

Armed with a new mandate, although through rigged elections, Ayub Khan dragged Pakistan into the 1965 war. From January to September 1965, Pakistan launched multiple attacks in Kashmir, culminating in a full-scale invasion of the state on September 1, 1965. For the record, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is recognized as disputed territory by the UN whose final status is to be determined by an internationally-supervised plebiscite (referendum) to determine the wishes of the people.

Following Pakistan’s provocations in Kashmir, India retaliated by attacking across the international border on September 6. Despite claims to the contrary, Pakistan’s military leadership grossly miscalculated the Indian response and strength.

The 1971 Tragedy and Yahya Khan

Under General Yahya Khan, the seeds of East Pakistan’s discontent sown during the Ayub era culminated in the tragic events of 1971. ‘Operation Searchlight’, the Bengali genocide, and the dismissal of electoral mandates led to the disintegration of Pakistan. Yahya’s alliance with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto furthered political instability.

General Zia-ul-Haq: Islamization and the spread of Extremism

General Zia’s era (1977–1988) witnessed:

• Islamization policies that polarized society.

• Empowered extremist groups during the Afghan War, facilitated by US and Saudi funds.

• Introduction of drugs, arms, and sectarianism undermining Pakistan’s social fabric. Sectarian violence and killings spread throughout the country from which it has still not recovered.

Zia introduced changes in the recruitment process into the army, prioritizing candidates with a distorted understanding of Islam. This laid the groundwork for institutional decay.

General Pervez Musharraf: Economic Growth and Hidden Costs

Musharraf’s era brought superficial economic growth but exacerbated corruption within the higher echelons of the military. The ‘War on Terror’ funneled billions of dollars into the military. Musharraf and his henchmen acted as bounty hunters sending hundreds of completely innocent people into the Guantanamo Bay gulag.

Under Musharraf’s military rule,

• Civilian institutions were neglected.

• Military corruption surged, with vast wealth accumulated by a select few.

Post-2018: Bajwa and Beyond

Under General Qamar Javed Bajwa, the military’s influence deepened. The ousting of Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022 underscores the military’s continued role in shaping Pakistan’s political landscape. Khan’s independent foreign policy stance, including neutrality between the US, Russia and China, was seen as a threat by vested interests.

The Path Forward

The people of Pakistan have begun to realize the extent of institutional decay and military overreach. A peaceful transition requires:

1. Judicial reforms: Ensuring an independent judiciary free from political and military influence.

2. Civil-military balance: Subordinating the military to civilian oversight.

3. Institutional accountability: Addressing corruption and inefficiency across all sectors.

The alternative—continued military dominance, political instability, and public discontent—could lead to widespread unrest, violence, and even the balkanization of Pakistan.

Pakistan today stands at a crossroads. The choices made now will determine whether the country heals and rebuilds or succumbs to further chaos. It is imperative to break free from the cycles of military control, restore civilian supremacy, and rebuild institutions grounded in justice, merit, and accountability.

Haider Mehdi, a former military officer of the Pakistan Army, runs his own YouTube channel, Haider Mehdi Perspectives. He provides hard-hitting analysis of the current dismal situation in Pakistan that is completely controlled by the military.