Connect with us

South Asia

Nine Years from Dominion to Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Thereafter

Published

on

The parliament of UK passed the Indian Independence Act, 1947, on 18 July 1947 which stated that from 15th August 1947, British India would be partitioned into two dominion states India and Pakistan. Each dominion would have complete freedom to pass any law it wished. The Government of India Act 1935 would be the provisional constitution until the states devised their own. The Quaid while addressing the Constituent Assembly on 11 August 1947 emphasized that it has got two main functions, first framing the future constitution and the second, functioning as a complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. The Assembly passed the objective resolution on 12 March 1949, which gives the guidelines to frame the constitution, the main point being Pakistan shall be federation, wherein the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the representative of the people; the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated in Quran and Sunnah shall be fully observed. Provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religion and culture.

The Basic Principles Committee(BPC) headed by PM, Liaquat Ali Khan was formed the same day to frame the constitution.  It submitted a report on 28 Sep 50 which proposed bicameral legislation (two houses),the upper house having equal representation from former East Pakistan (E Pak) and West Pakistan(W Pak) consisting of 100 members.  The Lower House will be based on population, consisting of 400 members. Both Houses will enjoy equal powers. This report was criticized, because of equal seats in the upper house.  It is pertinent to mention that as per the census of 1951 population of E Pak was 42 and W Pak 33.7 million. The second draft was presented by PM Khawaja Nazim ud Din on 22 Dec 52, PM Liaquat had been assassinated on 15 Oct 51.It also proposed bicameral legislation in which House of Units to have 60 members from E Pak and 60 from all provinces of W Pak. House of People to consist of 200 members from all units of W Pak and 200 from E Pak.  It was not accepted because of equal representation in the lower house. The third draft was presented by Muhammad Ali Bogra on 5 Oct 53, it is also known as the Bogra formula.

The proposal was a bicameral legislature, Lower House based on population, total 300 seats(E Pak 165, 4units of W Pak 135). Upper house to consist of 50 seats to be divided into 5 constituent units (10 each, E Pak, Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, Balochistan). It was considered the most suited proposal. In the meantime, the assembly passed a bill in Sep 1954 which made Governor General (GG) act on the advice of the PM. Ghulam Muhammad, the GG dissolved the assemblies on 24 Oct 54, his decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Justice Munir under the law of necessity. However, Justice Cornelius wrote a note of dissent. Finally, PM, Muhammad Ali took the task of framing the constitution and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy of Awami League agreed to E Pak and W Pak both as one unit, unicameral legislation to be elected based on parity between the two provinces. National Assembly had 300 seats, equally divided.

The constitution of 1956 was passed on 29 Feb 56 to be effective from 23 March 1956. It was a parliamentary form of government; no law could be made against the teachings of Islam. The Dominion became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan after about nine years. Iskandar Mirza who was GG became the first President, and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, PM.   The constitution-making was delayed mainly because political elites from W Pak were not inclined to give democratic rights to E Pak.  Finally, Awami League sacrificed their right. It is pertinent to mention that India had adopted the constitution on 19 November 1949 to come into force on 26 January 1950. It has never been abrogated or held in abeyance. The constitution of Pakistan could last only for two and half years. President Iskandar Mirza imposed martial law on 7 Oct 58.

The main reason, the constitution is unworkable and rampant corruption. Gen Ayub Khan C-in –C, Army deposed Iskandar Mirza and became president and CMLA on27 Oct 58. The second constitution of 1962 framed by president Ayub Khan’s government was a presidential form of govt. President head of state, as well as Chief executive. Unicameral legislation. Introduced Basic Democracy (BD) system, 40,000 from each province. The national assembly also had equal 150 members from each province.  The BD members were the electoral college for national and provincial assemblies, and the president. The president became autocratic, with less provincial autonomy, more powers with the center. This constitution was abrogated by martial law imposed by Gen Yayah Khan on 25 Mar1969.This was declared usurper by the SC. Justice Hamood ur Rehman had written in the Asma Jilani case (PLD 1972SC 139) that Gen Yahya Khan had no authority to abrogate the constitution of 1962 and impose martial law. Gen Yahya was not tried. He died on 10 August 1980 and was buried with military honors. If he had been tried and given punishment accordingly the chances of subsequent martial laws may have been considerably reduced. After the 1971 war, E Pak became Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto assumed power as the president and CMLA on 20 Dec 1971and continued till 15 April 1972 when the National Assembly adopted the India Act of 1935 with amendments as an interim constitution.

A committee comprising 25 national assembly members framed the constitution which was adopted with consensuses on 11 April to be effective from 14 August 1973.It is bicameral legislation; Senate has equal representation of four federating units total of 104 members. As per article 59 of the constitution, it includes four each, women, technocrats/ ulema, and one each non – Muslim from the 4 provinces. The provision for representation of all segments of the society has been considered. The strength of national assembly members is as per the population of the provinces. By article 51 of the constitution total seats are 342, which include,272general seats, whereas 60 are reserved for women who are elected through a proportional representation system of political parties from each province. Ten seats are for the non-Muslims who are elected through a proportional representation system of political parties from the whole country.

In the past 73 years, Pakistan has been governed by five constitutions (twice by the India Act of 1935, 1956, 1962, and 1973 in vogue), and four martial laws (1958, 1969, 1977, and 1999), and once emergency was imposed by Gen Pervez Musharraf, acting as Chief of the Army Staff, on 3 November 2007, and issued a Provisional Constitutional Order. This was declared illegal by SC, the case was tried in the court of law, the punishment was awarded, but the final decision by the SC is pending.  Four times elected governments were dismissed under article 58, 2(b) of the constitution, which gave discretionary powers to the president to dissolve the elected government. Gen Zia ul Haq dismissed the govt of Muhammad Khan Junejo in May 88, Ghulam Ishaque Khan(GIH) of Benazir Bhutto first govt on 5 Aug 90, and her second by president Farooq Legahari in Nov 96. President GIK in Jul 93 of Nawaz Sharif. These PMs had served only for two and a half years approx. This clause has been finally removed by 18th amendment on 8 April 2010.

From the foregoing, it is evident that we have made a lot of experiments to frame the constitution, and tried almost all methods of governance. Infect the country has been mostly governed by hit and trials. Now there is a lobby which propagates that the presidential form is more suited because it caters to include technocrats as ministers who are not members of the Senate or National Assembly. As already mentioned there is a provision of technocrats and Ulema to be nominated by political parties in the Senate. Moreover, in the 60 reserved seats of women and 10 non-Muslims in the national assembly technocrats may be nominated by the political parties. Besides, the PM can have advisors and special advisors in his cabinet who are non-elected. According to the website of the national assembly, the present government has 27 federal ministers, 3 ministers of state, 4 Advisors, and 16 Special Advisors (total 40). Probably this size of the cabinet has not been observed before. It is a burden on the exchequer.  Advisors and Special Advisors are non-elected, mostly enjoy the status of a federal minister or minister of state. Hence there is a provision to include technocrats who are non-elected as in the presidential form of government. Therefore, the need of the hour is governance in the true spirit of the present constitution.  Make the three pillars of the state, judiciary, legislation, and administration strong. Major other institutions are required to be strengthened to work strictly under the constitution, rules, regulations, and the oath taken by various authorities/personalities.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

India’s North East: A cauldron of resentment

Published

on

The writer is of the view that the recent clash between police force of Mizoram and Assam is not an isolated event. Similar incidents have happened in the past. They reflect that it is not hunky dory in India’s north east as BJP’s government would have us believe. New states in India were created willy-nilly pacify agitation. Yet the boundaries of the new states do not satisfy the people of the new states fully. They are a simmering cauldron of resentment against India’s central government. They love their traditions more than monolithic Hindutva. s

On July 10, 2021, five Assamese policemen were killed while proceeding towards Varengate (outsider gate). Amid fiery statements of chief ministers of Assam and Mizoram, police officials and politicians, it appeared that the two states would launch a full-fledged war against one another. This was not the first incident of its kind. There had been similar clashes in the past (1979, 1985 at Mirapani where 42 persons were burnt alive and 2014 clash).

Crux of the problem

Hasty creation of states to deal with separatism

When India came into being, many of it states were in grip of insurgencies. To pacify the separatist movements India hastily bowed to demand for creation of new states by reorganising the existing territories of bigger states. Many northeastern states were carved out of the state of Assam. Under the Indian constitution, secession is an offence but a new state could be created through reorganistion of the bigger state. Mizoram and Nagaland were created in haste to meet insurgents’ demand for greater self-representation.

Northeastern frontier Agency was converted into Arunachal Pradesh after the fall of Dacca. Indira Gandhi hoped that China would remain a silent spectator to her initiative as it did while East Pakistan was seceded through intervention in East Pakistan.

Linguistic states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were created mainly owing to agitation by Marathi and Gujarati speaking populations of Bombay.

In 1960, the Indian government accepted the Naga tribes’ demand for a separate state. Three districts of the state of Assam were detached from Assam to create Nagaland. It had no railway station or airport. So Dmapur also was truncated from Assam and included in Nagaland. The Dima Kachhari tribe that mostly inhabited Dimapur resented this decision. Any how the city is now a throbbing commercial centre.

In 1966, the state of Punjab was divided to create the hind-speaking state of Haryana. In 1971 Himachal Pradesh was created. Then in early 1970s, three new states were created: Jharkhand out of Bihar, Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, and Uttaranchal out of Utter Pradesh. In 2014, Talangana was created out of Andhra Pradesh.

Nagaling (Naga homeland)

The Naga consider that the demarcation of their state is repugnant to demarcation done in 1875 by the British government. Their concept of Nagaland extends up to Nepal.

Citizenship Amendment Act and the national Register of Citizenship

These two laws are abhorred in many states of the North East.

Concluding remarks

The pitched battle between the Mizo and Assamese policemen exposed India’s “myth of unity in diversity”. Like the British rulers, India is holding together its union of states by use of brutal force and draconian laws. However sub-surface against the Indian government persists. Obviously people cherish their tradition culture and religions more than monolithic Hindutva. The BJP has set up a north East Democratic Alliance to forestall disputes between the northeastern states. This body utterly failed to predict or prevent the recent Mizo-Assam clash.

India understood that if the erstwhile East Pakistan supported the insurgencies in the North east, it will be impossible for India to keep them within Indian fold. As such, India aided and abetted insurgency in East Pakistan.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Pakistani PM’s Interview with PBS News Hours on Afghanistan Issues

Published

on

In an interview with PBS News Hour, host Judy Woodruff asked PM Imran Khan multiple questions about Pakistan’s point of view for Afghanistan and its relationship with the United States.

When she asked the PM about his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, he said that Washington had really messed up the situation in Afghanistan. The US military failure is causing mess-ups in Afghanistan. “First of all, they tried to look for a military solution in Afghanistan when there was never one. And people like me, who know the history of Afghanistan and kept saying there isn’t a military solution, were called anti-American. I was called Taliban Khan,” said PM Imran. But now the US, after spending trillions of Dollars, sacrificing thousands of servicemen, and killing millions of innocent Afghans, destroying Afghanistan infrastructure, and damaging the whole country, realized that it is un-win able and withdrawing its troops in hap-hazard, causing a huge mess-up.

PM Imran also shared that despite the US being in Afghanistan for 20 years and 46 nations’ strong allied forces up to 150,000 troops, he does not know what the US objective was in the country. Only the destruction of a country, killing human beings, is beyond understanding.

“I don’t know what the objective was in Afghanistan, whether there was to have some nation-building, democracy, or liberate the women. Whatever the cause was, the way they went about it was never going to be the solution,” said PM Imran.

While the US is facing tremendous unrest and the civil war-like situation at home and yet wanted to interfere in other domestic issues. Beyond understanding!

He also lamented the way the US dealt with this solution. The PM explained that when the NATO forces had decided that there was no military solution, the bargaining power they had was gone.

“When they finally decided there is no military solution, unfortunately, the bargaining power of the American or NATO forces had gone,” said PM Imran. He added that the US should have gone for a political solution when 150,000 NATO troops were in Afghanistan.

“Once they had reduced the troops to barely 10,000, and when they gave the exit date, Taliban thought they had won,” said PM Imran. He added that it is difficult right now to ask the group to compromise or “force them” to take a political solution. “It’s tough to force them into a political solution because they [Taliban] think that they won,” said PM Imran.

PM rejects claims of Taliban sanctuaries.

The anchor also asked PM Imran about claims of Taliban sanctuaries being present in Pakistan and a report about 10,000 fighters crossing the border to help the group in Afghanistan.

“Judy, for a start, this 10,000 Taliban, or as the Afghan govt. Says, Jihadi fighters have crossed over, is absolute nonsense. Why don’t they give us evidence of this?” he said in response.

As a matter of fact, the Afghan Government is confused and helpless. After the foreign troop’s withdrawal, they are left at the mercy of the Taliban. The US has admitted its defeat, Afghan Government as a puppet Government has also been defeated. Taliban is the winner and in a position to dictate.

To the question about the safe-havens, PM Imran wondered where the sanctuaries are located in Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism, and the recent terrorist attack in Pakistan is planned, managed, and originated from Afghanistan. Pakistan has provided irrefutable evidence on several occasions.

The premier explained that Pakistan is hosting three million refugees, Pashtuns, the same ethnic group as the Taliban. He added that there are camps of 500,000 and 100,000 people or more. “Taliban are not some military outfit. They are normal civilians. If there are some civilians in these camps, how is Pakistan supposed to hunt these people down? How can you call them sanctuaries?” asked PM Imran.

The host had thrown this question to a follow-up on Washington and other organizations’ claims that Pakistan has helped the Afghan Taliban. The PM had told the host that the allegations were unfair and told her the history of the conflict. He explained that Pakistan had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York. The premier said that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, and no Pakistani was involved in the attack. “There were no militant Taliban in Pakistan, and no Pakistani was involved,” said PM Imran. He added that when Pakistan decided to join the US war on terror, the country was devastated as it lost 70,000 of its citizens, and $150 billion was lost in the economy.

Pakistan’s good and bad outcomes for Afghanistan

The host had also asked the PM about Pakistan’s good and bad outcomes for the Afghanistan conflict. PM Imran told the host that the good outcome for Islamabad would be if an inclusive government with all factions, including the Taliban, is formed in Afghanistan. He added that the worst situation for Pakistan would be a “protracted civil war” in Afghanistan.

In such a scenario, the PM said Islamabad would face two problems, firstly, of refugees, and secondly, the country fears that Pashtuns within Pakistan would be drawn to the conflict.

“What we fear is that a protracted civil war would bring more refugees, and you know our economic situation is not such that we can have another influx,” said the PM.

“Secondly, the worry is that the civil war will flow into Pakistan because Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns. Now there are more Pashtuns on our side of the border than in Afghanistan. And so the worry is if this goes on, the Pashtuns on our side will be drawn into it, and that is also the last thing we want,” said PM Imran.

US bases will make Pakistan a target: PM.

The PM also shared that having a US military presence in Pakistan would make the country a target. He told Woodruff that when Pakistan joined the war on terror, it lost 70,000 people and was on the verge of bankruptcy. “We do not have the capacity to have any more fighting within our border or any terrorism within our country,” said the PM. He reminded that at the height of the war on terror, there were suicide bombings taking place all over the country, and businesses and tourism had collapsed.

“If there is a conflict going on in Afghanistan and there are bases in Pakistan, we then become targets, and we will then become part of a conflict,” said PM Imran. The premier said that Pakistan wants to partner with the US in peace but not in conflict. He added that the last relationship between Islamabad and Washington was transactional. “Pakistan was more like a hired gun. The US says we gave you aid, and that’s why you were fighting this so-called war on terror,” said PM Imran. He added that the aid given by the US was “minuscule” compared to the cost of Pakistan’s participation in the conflict.

‘Afghanistan in this situation because of US military failure.’

PM Imran told the host that Pakistan could not do much if the Taliban take over Afghanistan as the military solution has already failed. “What are we supposed to do about it? Here was the US for two decades in Afghanistan trying to force a military solution. The reason why we are in this position now is that the military solution failed,” said PM Imran.

The premier repeated that the best choice that everyone has is that somehow a political settlement emerges in Afghanistan. He added that the Taliban sitting down with the Ashraf Ghani government to form an inclusive government was the best choice.

“Absolutely, there is nothing more we can do except push them as much as we can for a political settlement – that’s all,” the PM said when asked if Pakistan was willing to accept a Taliban government in Afghanistan. However, he said that all Pakistan could pray that the people of Afghanistan decide what Government they wish to have, “As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have done what we can,” said PM Imran.

It is well understood that the Taliban have won the war, and it is time to rule the country. The US has negotiated with the Taliban and recognized them as the actual power of pillar and real owner of Afghanistan. It is a practice that the winner will dictate the defeated ones. It is proved that the unholy and biased media projecting Taliban as terrorists, insurgents, and illegal outfits were right people and were freedom fighters and opposed their homeland’s foreign occupation. Suppose the Taliban were so bad, how the US negotiated with them and signed a peace agreement with them. It is indirectly recognition of the Taliban as legitimate rulers of the country.

Continue Reading

South Asia

The Indo-US bonhomie: A challenge to China in the IOR

Published

on

The oceans have long been recognized as one of the world’s valuable natural resources, and our well-being is tied to the oceans. From providing minerals and food to coastal nations to serve as highways for seaborne trade, Oceans are highly-regarded in the geopolitics and geo-economics. In 2010, the global ocean economy was valued at $1.5 trillion, and by 2030, it is likely to surpass $3 trillion. Such a growing geostrategic and economic significance pit authoritative nations into the race. 

Bounded by Africa on the west, the Indian subcontinent on the North, Australia on the East, and the Antarctic Ocean on the South, the Indian Ocean is the third largest water body. Over the years, it has become an area of competition among Washington, Beijing, and New Delhi. China, the world’s second-largest economy, imports energy via sea lanes in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), while India, an influential regional actor and competitor of China, has also significant reliance on the IOR for its trade. Therefore, the reliance of both countries on the safe transportation of resources is inevitable, and they seek dominance in this water body. The growing global leadership of China, and the Indian economic rise have heightened the strategic value of the IOR and both powers have locked horns in it.

The success of the Chinese Belt and Road initiative (BRI), which strives to enhance China’s economic dominance from East Asia to Europe, hinges on the IOR. The IOR provides China with critical sea trade routes to the Mideast and Africa through BRI’s flagship project: China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China, through BRI’s connectivity and economic potential, outweighs Indian influence in the IOR. Snaking its way from China’s western province Xinjiang to Gawadar port on the Arabian Sea, CPEC is a counterfoil to India, diminishing India’s strategic weight in the IOR. Therefore, India has an aversion to the CPEC because it ends the Chinese Strait of Malacca dilemma and makes its way through Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Having access to a port like Gawadar, China is likely to gain strategic and economic leverage in the region. Not only in India, but Beijing’s grandeur BRI is not well-received in the US as well. The world’s second-largest economy, China, aims to surpass the US economy in the coming years. On the accounts of the Chinese economic growth, the unipolar world order, once dominated by the US, has swapped its position with multipolar world. In addition, the US stakes are high in the IOR. With its interests in the Mideast, Africa, and Central Asia, the US is wary of China’s growing influence in the IOR. As a result, the US and India share a broader spectrum of mutual interests in the IOR.

New Delhi and Washington are enjoying rapprochement in their ties so as to limit China’s burgeoning influence. To materialize the quest of Washington about the freedom of navigation and maintaining open sea lanes, India spearheads the US paradigms in the IOR to curb China. For this purpose, India has eyed to magnify its naval capabilities and seeks partnership with many littoral-nations in the IOR. “Activating partnerships and expanding capabilities in the Indian Ocean are central to our quest for security,” says Indian Foreign Secretary. Indian bonhomie with Japan and Australia stands as the crux of New Delhi’s disposition to share warm ties with influential global actors. Australia, India, and Japan share the same US security umbrella: Checkmating the Beijing rise. These nations have translated their partnership in the Quad as a new feature of diplomacy to establish their authority in the Indo-Pacific region. Navies of India, the US, and Japan cooperate under the aegis of the trilateral Malabar Exercises, the most recent held in early November near Visakhapatnam in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. This time, Australia was also part of the exercise. The Indian Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR), a naval information hub initiated by India, brings all Quad members under one roof to exchange vital maritime information in the IOR.  Australia and Japan recently posted liaison officers to the (IFC-IOR), where a US liaison officer has served since 2019.

India has a long aspiration to dominate the Bay of Bengal and prioritizes closer economic ties with South Asian states to balance China’s trade advantage. For its part, India is eager to visualize greater security cooperation among the littoral nations through BIMSTEC. The seven-member alliance among India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, and Nepal aims to accelerate members’ economic growth and social progress among members across multiple sectors. BIMSTEC is a platform accentuating Indian vigor and its manifests the Indian overtures against China in the IOR.

Sharing common goals in the IOR, the US perceives India as a significant ally in the region and strongly supports its maritime expansion. The rapprochement between the two sides has resulted in the significant naval build-up of Indian forces in the IOR. The construction of military bases, modernized equipment and fleets, new maritime assets, and the expansion of security ties are all part of New Delhi’s push to assert itself as the region’s leader. By acquiring ‘blue water’ capabilities, the Indian Navy aspires to undertake its traditional role, like ensuring the coastal defense of the country, providing sea-based nuclear deterrence (entailing its assured second-strike capability), projecting the nation’s soft power beyond its shores, and maximizing the sphere of influence in the region. India aims to become a 200-ship navy in the next decade. In the defense budget for the year 2015-16, 16% share has been allocated to the Navy.

The Indo-US cooperation poses a considerable challenge to China’s ingress in the IOR, and Pakistan is no exception. Moreover, their cooperation undermines the peace prospects and endangers stability in the IOR. Recently, the G7 summit concluded with an objective focusing to challenge China’s rise. Joe Biden Administration maintained a firm line against China. Therefore, in the near future, pining hopes for preemption of the competition among authoritative nations in the IOR would be the pie in the sky.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Tech News48 mins ago

Ensuring a More Inclusive Future for Indonesia through Digital Technologies

While Indonesia has one of the fastest growing digital economies in South East Asia, action is needed to ensure that...

Africa3 hours ago

Russia and China: Geopolitical Rivals and Competitors in Africa

The growth of neo-colonial tendencies, the current geopolitical developments and the scramble for its resources by external countries in Africa:...

South Asia5 hours ago

India’s North East: A cauldron of resentment

The writer is of the view that the recent clash between police force of Mizoram and Assam is not an...

Economy7 hours ago

Bangladesh-Myanmar Economic Ties: Addressing the Next Generation Challenges

Bangladesh-Myanmar relations have developed through phases of cooperation and conflict. Conflict in this case is not meant in the sense...

Development9 hours ago

Moscow is in the Top7 Intelligent Communities in the world

For the second time since 2017, Moscow made it to the final stage of the Intelligent Community Awards rating. It...

forest fire forest fire
Green Planet11 hours ago

Wildfires in Turkish tourist regions are the highest recorded

Turkish fires in tourist regions are the hottest in history, due to which thousands of tourists evacuated as the nation...

Defense13 hours ago

The Future of The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the QUAD) Grouping Explained

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) comprises four counties, Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. It was founded in...

Trending