Stormy exit
PAKISTAN NASIM AHMED
Nasinz Ahmed is the chief overseas correspon- dent of the leading Pakistan newspaper 'Dawn.'
The people who see Tuesday's military take- over in Pakistan as a repetition of the bloodless coup in October, 1958, led by the former Presi- dent, Field-Marshal Mohammed Ayub Khan, ignore both the character and outlook of the service chiefs now in power and also the fact that in the past ten years political and econo- mic conditions of the country have greatly changed. It will be surprising indeed if the three service chiefs—General A. M. Yahya Khan, C-in-C of the army, Air Marshal Nur Khan, C-in-C of the air force and Vice-Admiral Ahsan, C-in-C of the navy—try to impose a prolonged military regime over Pakistan. Equally doubtful is the willingness today of the discontented 120 million people of Pakistan to accept a system patterned on the discredited Ayub administration.
Admittedly the service chiefs played an important part in the removal of Field-Marshal Ayub from the presidency. If they had been willing to deploy Pakistan's considerable and efficient armed forces to shore up the tottering Ayub regime, it might have lingered on for some time yet in spite of the nationwide agita- tion and demonstrations against Ayub and his system. It was on the eve of 21 February, when President Ayub announced his decision not to seek re-election at the end of this year, that Pakistan's service chiefs made it plain that armed forces should not be deployed to prop up discredited personalities and policies. They also urged the President to seek a political solu- tion of Pakistan's troubles in consultation with the opposition leaders. Their attitude was probably decisive in bringing about Ayub's abdication announcement and also in achieving the partial success this month of the round table talks in Rawalpindi with the opposition leaders.
During my recent visit to Pakistan, I found
senior service officers fully conscious of the reasons that led to the downfall of Field- Marshal Ayub's regime. They saw in him many great qualities and acknowledged the service he has rendered to Pakistan, but they resented the sycophants and nincompoops who had sur- rounded him, and particularly disliked the activities of his greedy sons and sons-in-law. Field-Marshal Ayub never regained his old robust self after his illness a year ago. It might have been far better for Pakistan and for him if he had retired at that time. There was genuine sympathy for him all over the country during his long illness, and many people even in dis- contented East Pakistan were wondering what might follow his sudden demise. That oppor- tunity for a peaceful transfer of power in Pakistan was missed as was the possibility immediately after the student disorders last November to give an entirely new look to the personalities and policies of the administration.
Every concession by the government that came afterwards was seen by the rebellious students and mobs as an act of surrender by a regime on the run. The announcement of the President's impending retirement failed to lower Pakistan's political temperature and to facilitate a peaceful change of government. Instead it led first to further and more violent agitation and later to blood-letting, arson and anarchy in East Pakistan and some other places. In the political vacuum which followed, extre- mist left-wing and right-wing factions were stepping out to foist on Pakistan their own brand of totalitarianism: either a theocratic right-wing dictatorship or a left-wing 'people's democracy.' They have infiltrated the trade unions and student bodies and have been using violence in breaking up their opponents' politi- cal meetings. Clearly, no democracy is possible in such conditions of violence and intolerance.
It is in turbulent East Pakistan that the new regime's major test will come. In an area half the size of Britain live nearly 70 million people. 60 per cent of Pakistan's population. The impoverishment and extremely poor communi- cations of this part of the former Bengal pro- vince date back to the misrule of the British East India Company and Lord Clive. The inland steamship companies introduced in Bengal after the province came under the com- pany, some of which are even today under British ownership, thwarted the development of roads and railways in the region. The British imposed upon the Muslim peasants of Bengal a revenue system called 'permanent settlement,' whereby the Hindu landlords took most of the income and created social and economic conditions of appalling misery. The so-called land reform carried out in East Pakistan after independence twenty-one years ago, coupled with the Islamic system of inheritance led to fragmentation of land holdings. With average families in East Pakistan of eight or ten child- ren, the population has increased rapidly during the past decade, and rural poverty abounds.
Not all the ills of East Pakistan can, how- ever, be laid at the door of the bygone Raj. In the twenty-one years since independence. East Pakistan has been denied proper participa- tion in the country's central government and a fair share of economic wealth. The rulers of independent Pakistan failed to evolve an equitable and proper partnership between East and West Pakistan. The absence of landed Muslim aristocracy and Muslim middle class in East Pakistan made it possible for business- men and officials from the west to dominate the eastern region. This only led to the alienation of East Pakistani intellectuals and masses. The belated attempts by the Ayub regime to provide more money for economic development in East Pakistan did little to damp down the revolt there, which was directed as much against the Ayub regime as against dominance by West Pakistan.
The military take-over in Pakistan itself can- not cure these and other political, economic anelocial ills which led to the mass movement against the Ayub government. The best the service chiefs now in power can do is to hold the ring until the moderate political leaders can evolve a system which assures democracy and peaceful development in Pakistan. The turbulent events of the past four months demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the quest for democracy and a more just social order in Pakistan is too deep-rooted to be era- dicated by force. The best that can now be hoped is that a system is devised whereby parliamentary democracy in Pakistan ceases to be a synonym for anarchy.
Previous page
