40 years of Zia and the far-reaching repercussions of the

1977 military coup

On the 40th anniversary of Gen Zia's military coup, Eos looks back at the events which altered
Pakistan's trajectory.
From InpaperMagazineUpdated Jul 05, 2018 05:16pm
 HOW ZIA REDEFINED PAKISTAN
 THE 'INEVITABLE' COUP?
 LIFE IN THE TIME OF ZIA
 A TIMELINE OF ZIA'S RULE
HOW ZIA REDEFINED PAKISTAN
By: I.A. Rehman
Forty years ago General Ziaul Haq seized power and put the country under its third and longest martial law.

Over the next decade, he decisively transformed what was left of Jinnah’s dream of a secular democratic
Pakistan into an almost completely theocratic polity.

His handiwork has survived more than three decades and appears unlikely to be replaced with another political
structure in the foreseeable future.

In order to understand Ziaul Haq’s success in redefining Pakistan and the survival of his scheme we have to
examine the genesis of ‘the Pakistan idea’ because he drew upon the tussle between two groups of people over
what Pakistan was meant to be.

Pakistanis today live not in the country envisaged by Quaid-i-Azam

Mohammad Ali Jinnah but in the country practically shaped by Gen Zia,
who drew on a tussle from its founding moments.

The Lahore Resolution of 1940 offered a constitutional scheme as an alternative to the one embodied in the
Government of India Act of 1935.

In his address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam also described
the creation of Pakistan and Partition as the only solution of India’s constitutional problem.

This would imply that the movement for Pakistan was a purely political struggle unrelated to any religious
objective.

However, the new constitutional scheme advanced for two parts of the British Indian territory was based on the
fact that these were Muslim-majority areas and, after the failure of the Muslim leaders to secure adequate
safeguards to which they were entitled as a large minority, the All-India Muslim League had won considerable
support for the Two Nation Theory.

This theory defined the Muslims of India as a nation completely different from the majority (Hindu)
community and one entitled to a state of its own.

The grounding of the Pakistan demand in the religious identity of the people for whom a state was being
demanded gave rise to the idea that Pakistan could be an Islamic state.
Jinnah did not advocate a religious polity but he did not completely disown the religious motivation either. He
ignored Gandhi’s offer of persuading Congress to concede Pakistan if it was not demanded on the basis of
religion.

Jinnah often maintained that he was asking for a democratic state and that was what Islam stood for. The only
people who believed Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic state were the ulema, with rare exceptions.

The elections of 1945-1946 revealed a significant division in the ranks of Pakistan’s supporters.

While the League leadership continued demanding Pakistan without disclosing in detail what Pakistan was
going to be (like, religious slogans were raised especially in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).

Although the slogan 'Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha il-Allah' was not the battle cry, it was frequently raised
at some places.

Other religious slogans, such as 'Muslim hai tau Muslim League mein aa' [If you are a Muslim join the Muslim
League] and 'Pakistan mein Musalmaanon ki hukumat hogi' [Pakistan will be ruled by Muslims] were freely
used.

That religion did play a role in the movement for Pakistan was confirmed by the request made by Congress
campaign organisers in Punjab to their high command to send some Muslim scholars to help them.

Thus the Pakistan supporters were divided into two camps; one may be loosely defined as the group that swore
by democracy while the other was vaguely attached to the concept of a religious state.

The roots of Zia’s Pakistan lay in this division.

With the creation of Pakistan there was a reshuffling of posture by both groups.

The Quaid-i-Azam realized he no longer needed the religious card.

Three days before Pakistan’s emergence as a new state he said goodbye to the Two Nation Theory and called
for the formation of a new nation on the basis of people’s citizenship of Pakistan.

The religious parties that had opposed the Pakistan demand did a complete volte-face and called for making
Pakistan an Islamic state.

Pakistan supporters were divided into two camps; one may be loosely
defined as the group that swore by democracy while the other was
vaguely attached to the concept of a religious state. The roots of Zia's
Pakistan lay in this division.

Two factors guided them: They had opposed Pakistan because they had no hope of its becoming an Islamic
state; in the Pakistan the League had demanded, the Muslims were going to be in a nominal majority and
declaring it as an Islamic state would have been almost impossible.

The partition of Punjab and Bengal changed the situation. In the new Pakistan’s population of 65 million, non-
Muslims were only around 20 million, and most of them were in the eastern wing.
The ongoing riots could further reduce the non-Muslim population.

Besides, the religious parties had seen in the elections the strength of the religious slogans.

These two factors had brightened the prospect of declaring Pakistan an Islamic state.

Maulana Maududi was among the first ulema who decided to benefit from this situation.

He migrated to Pakistan, deleted the anti-Pakistan thesis from his major publication 'Musalman aur Siyasi
Kashmakash' [Muslims and Political Struggle], accepted the Punjab government’s invitation to lecture the
bureaucrats on Islamic values and broadcast similar messages on the radio.

However, he soon lost the government’s goodwill when he declared that Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir
was not jihad as the state was not Islamic.

Within a few months of Pakistan’s creation, in February 1948, the ulema of various shades of opinion
presented the government with a charter of demands containing steps required to establish a religious state.

They were put off with promises of favourable consideration of their demands.

But the government was rattled by East Bengal’s demands for acceptance of its cultural rights and tried to face
these demands by raising the standard of Islamic solidarity.

Eventually, it took refuge under the Objectives Resolution of March 1949, which displayed a variety of wares
to suit different sections of the population.

The most important feature of the resolution was a declaration that sovereignty belonged to Allah. The ulema
were jubilant.

The slogan-walas had defeated the Jinnah lobby.

The Jamaat-i-Islami now declared Pakistan an Islamic state.

The most telling observation on the Objectives Resolution came from a Congress member of the assembly who
warned the house that the resolution had cleared the way for the emergence of an adventurer who could claim
to be God’s appointee.

And General Zia behaved exactly like that.

Thus we find that between 1947 and 1953 the ‘religious slogan group’ acquired a toehold in the political arena,
thanks to the failure of the ‘democratic ideals group’ to honour Jinnah’s advice to keep religion out of politics
and also its failure to promote democratic norms.

Further, it made the grave mistake of resisting democratic demands by seeking refuge under a religious
canopy.

The ‘religious slogan group’ took an exaggerated view of its strength and challenged the government by
launching the anti-Ahmadi agitation in 1953.
It lost because the state services, especially the army, had not abandoned the colonial policy of denying
religious/sectarian elements any accommodation at the cost of law and order.

But this was the only victory the ‘democratic ideals group’ was able to achieve against the ‘religious slogan
group’.

Between 1953 and 1958 the ‘democratic ideals group’ had to contend with a new challenger — a civil and
military bureaucratic combine that had scant respect for the democratic facade that had hitherto been sustained
to a certain degree.

Neither party paid much attention to the ‘religious slogan group’ that was left to lick the wounds it sustained in
1953.

However, while preparing the country’s first constitution, the civil bureaucracy gave considerable concession
to the religious parties by calling the state the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, reserving the presidentship for
Muslims and creating an Islamic board to advise the government on its religious duties, including the task of
‘Islamisation’ of laws. These provisions were later to be used as the foundations of a theocratic state.

The Ayub regime tried to crush both the ‘democratic ideals’ and ‘religious slogan’ groups.

The former were Ebdo-ed out of the political arena (Ebdo was the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order
which threatened prosecution of politicians for ‘misconduct’ unless they promised not to participate in politics
for seven years). The latter were controlled by putting mosques under the Auqaf department.

Further, Jamaat-i-Islami was subjected to a propaganda campaign in addition to the detention of its leader.
When the regime brought in its constitution in 1962, it dropped the word “Islamic” from the state’s title. (It
also dropped the chapter on fundamental rights.)

However, the Ayub regime was responsible for strengthening the religious parties’ place in national politics.

After most of the politicians had been sent into the wilderness, mosques were the only platforms left for any
agitation.

When the opposition parties got together to set up their candidates to contest the 1965 presidential election, the
alliance had as many religious parties as the quasi-democratic ones and they gained in terms of popular support
while campaigning in favour of Fatima Jinnah.

The anti-Ayub agitation was a secular, democratic movement and therefore Yahya Khan concentrated on
removing the people’s political grievances by accepting the ‘one-man, one-vote’ principle, and undoing the
one-unit.

He did not think of pandering to the religious lobby till his attempt to issue a new constitution on the night of
surrender at Dhaka but these parties’ support to this draft constitution was of help neither to Yahya nor to
themselves.

The religious parties benefitted a great deal from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s attempts to win them over to his side.

The constitution of 1973 declared Islam as the state religion and invested the Council of Islamic Ideology with
wide powers.

In February 1974, Bhutto joined King Faisal’s efforts to counter the forces of Arab nationalism with Islamic
nationalism and organised the Islamic Summit.
About six months later, his government had the Ahmadis declared non-Muslims. All this did not help him.

And after the mishandling of the 1977 election by his advisers, the religious parties spearheaded a movement
for his ouster under the slogan of Nizam-i-Mustafa, which called for Islamic laws to be implemented in the
country.

Further concessions to the clergy — such as imposing of a ban on the sale and consumption of liquor and
declaring Friday as the weekly holiday — did not help Bhutto because Zia had already decided to overthrow
him.

Now it can be said that the Bhutto government of 1971-1977 provided Zia with a broad enough platform to
launch his plan to redefine Pakistan. And he went about this task with the zeal and confidence of a neo-
convert.

Between 1978 and 1985, Zia took a number of steps to complete Pakistan’s transformation into a theocracy of
the medieval variety.

A Federal Shariat Court was created for enforcing religious laws, striking down laws it found repugnant to
Islam, and with some power to make laws.

The state assumed the power to collect zakat and ushr.

Ahmadis were barred from calling their prayer houses mosques, from possessing and reading the Quran or
using the Muslim ways of greeting one another, using Islamic epithets or naming their daughters after women
belonging to the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) family.

The Penal Code was amended to provide for punishment for desecration of the Holy Quran and for punishing
blasphemy with death or life imprisonment (later on the the Shariat Court made death for blasphemy
mandatory).

The parliament was designated as the Majlis-e-Shura, and an arbitrarily amended Objectives Resolution —
used hitherto as a preamble to the constitution — was made its substantive part.

Furthermore, an attempt was made to subvert the system of democratic elections by holding party-less polls.

In addition, Zia amended the constitutional provisions relating to qualifications for membership of assemblies
and disqualification of members to make them suggestive of respect for religious criteria.

He also subverted the education system, firstly by facilitating the growth of religious seminaries (while
extension and improvement of general education were neglected and books on rights and democracy were
burnt) and increased religion-related lessons in textbooks at all grade levels.

Further he tried to consolidate his measures through a constitutional amendment (the ninth amendment) but it
was not adopted.

He was also unable in his attempts to create morality brigades to enforce the system of prayers and puritanical
regulations.

Many factors helped Zia to impose his belief on the people including measures that lacked Islamic sanction.
He fully exploited the political advantages the religious parties had won from poorly performing quasi-
democratic governments.
 And the conflict in Afghanistan yielded him enormous dividends. He was able to convince a large body of
people that through his Afghan policy he had brought glory to Islam.

That Pakistan today is what Gen Zia made it into cannot be denied and the reasons are not far to seek.

First, it has not been possible to undo the changes made by Zia in the constitution and the laws. Every bit of
change made by him is treated by the religious lobby as divinely ordained.

Some of the parties that are not included among religious outfits are unabashedly loyal to Zia’s legacy — those
that are not are afraid of taking on the religious mobs.

The secular elements lost the streets to the hordes controlled by the clergy, especially by the madressah
authorities, long ago.

The judiciary, never keen to rule against religious extremists, has often declined to touch Zia’s amendments on
the grounds of their having been endorsed by elected governments through acquiescence.

The difficulty in interfering with Zia’s disruption of the Pakistan structure can be judged from the fact that his
name could not be removed from Article 270-A of the constitution until April 2010 — that is, 22 years and
five elections after his death.

Secondly, the religious landscape is dominated by arch-conservative elements who do not allow any intra-
religious discourse and those who can challenge them dare not stay in the country.

Further, the ouster of left-of-centre parties from the councils of influence and power has made the so-called
mainstream parties hostages to the orthodoxy.

In this situation, there is little hope of relief from exploitation of belief in the interest of an unjust and
oppressive status quo.

The curse of the Zia legacy will continue to bedevil the state and the people for quite some time till ordinary
citizens realize it has nothing to offer them except for unmitigated misery.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 2nd, 2017

Click on the tabs below to read more about Pakistan under Ziaul Haq.
 HOW ZIA REDEFINED PAKISTAN
 THE 'INEVITABLE' COUP?
 LIFE IN THE TIME OF ZIA
 A TIMELINE OF ZIA'S RULE
Twitter Share
Facebook Count2005
RELATED STORIES

Smokers' Corner: Disco and the dictator

The sage, the populist and the dictator
In pictures: Gen Zia-ul-Haq's life and death
continues till today! Doctrine of Necessity, judicial murder of an elected Prime Minister... Things have not
changed one bit!
A very sad day in Pakistan's history, indeed.

RECOMMEND28
SHAOKAT ALIJUL 05, 2017 11:01AM
No mention of foreign hand in coup, drugs, militancy, etc. Great article for naieve readers.

RECOMMEND9
ALI KHANJUL 05, 2017 11:09AM
@Brainiac well said.

RECOMMEND0
ALI KHANJUL 05, 2017 11:10AM
He was better than the current drums

RECOMMEND5
APAKMUSLIMJUL 05, 2017 11:12AM
@Syed right on. He was partly responsible for creating the dark days.

RECOMMEND5
ROHIT CHAUHANJUL 05, 2017 11:37AM
Great article. The same change has been shown quite well in a movie khamosh paani.

RECOMMEND4
AMMAR KHALIDJUL 05, 2017 12:40PM
I am old enough to remember clearly how it was growing up in General Zia's era. Although I am not a fan of
him, but there was a sense of peace and security and extreme patriotism back then.

People may disagree with me here but a few things he did can not be discounted... Pakistan completing its
nuclear warhead in 1982... warhead delivery system through hataf missile... and the most controversial of them
all... THE AFGHAN POLICY... I for one believe that it was the right thing to do and that enabled us to keep
USSR away from the hostile takeover they were aiming at towards warm waters.

RECOMMEND14
AMMAR KHALIDJUL 05, 2017 12:48PM
@khaled What damage?

If people don't understand global politics and strategy they should simply abstain from commenting

RECOMMEND3
AMMAR KHALIDJUL 05, 2017 12:58PM
@El Cid Agreed... Most People follow whatever they read blindly.

RECOMMEND2
ABJUL 05, 2017 01:03PM
Zia was the best leader this country ever had, closest to its islamic ideology. A lot of people love him for that
and want a strong leader like him again.

RECOMMEND9
ASADJUL 05, 2017 01:15PM
The use of religious identity politics in the creation of Pakistan ensured that the confusion between democratic
and theocratic state would always exist regardless of what Jinnah said or didn't say. The one to change the
discourse from religious identity politics to a politics of material/social needs, public service was Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto and he was enormously successful in doing so given his popularity with the people, however based on a
conspiracy of "those who lost the war in Vietnam" as he proclaimed in court, the religious identity group was
given prominence and support by the super power which overturned gains made and led to compromises like
those mentioned by the author where "do more" was the order of the day. The role of America in bringing Zia
to power cannot be ignored.

RECOMMEND8
AV HOUSTONJUL 05, 2017 01:44PM
@Colonel , yes he was great muslim leader but far from A GREAT PAKISTANI LEADER. He was the one
who got us between the fight of 2 super powers. I fail to understand what policy and strategy you are talking
about that helped this country, free flow of arms in the hands of general public or free access to drugs. Israel
and India were of our back becuase he sold the soul of the country to another mighty power for few billion
dollars

RECOMMEND27
AV HOUSTONJUL 05, 2017 01:47PM
@El Cid @Colonel Absolutely! Very well stated. Zia earned Pakistan friends and allies. Enemies learned
caution and respect. And some friend he got us ....that is the height of ignorance

RECOMMEND9
AV HOUSTONJUL 05, 2017 02:02PM
@Rohit Chauhan . Thank you, i will check it on netflix

RECOMMEND2
ANILJUL 05, 2017 02:19PM
@Brainiac but he was the driver who put the train of pakistan down the road to disaster all others are simply
continuing to drive the train.

the tragedy is pakistani politics / military have till date not thrown up a person with the necessary spine to
correct the direction of the train which seems to be rushing into an unmitigated disaster

RECOMMEND10
MUHAMMAD UMAR NAWAZJUL 05, 2017 02:48PM
every cloud has a silver lining ,they say..its hard to find it in Zia's scenario though..

RECOMMEND6
SIYASATJUL 05, 2017 03:08PM
Despite all criticism, one can conclude that Zia was the best thing that happened to Pakistan through its 70
years of history till date. We couldn't have asked for a more patriotic, capable, clean , non corrupt, nationalistic
visionary as the head of state. He is unmatched even now. He held the unruly nation and its people with a leash
and ensured that all the jokers in the democratic system knew their place. One can go on criticizing his rule,
but his motives were clear.

RECOMMEND10
RAHUL THAKURJUL 05, 2017 03:15PM
Such dictators are worse than corrupt governments because they spoil the basis of democracry: human rights
and freedom of expression.

RECOMMEND12
TAIMOORJUL 05, 2017 03:29PM
Mr. Jinnah never wanted a secular Pakistan. When you start reading the article and when you see it starts with
a misconception, the rest of the article is as futile to read as any thing.

RECOMMEND7
KHALEDJUL 05, 2017 05:52PM
@AB We do not want a strong leader, what we need is an honest and straightforward leader , who abide by his
promises.

RECOMMEND4
AHMADJUL 05, 2017 06:04PM
@Brainiac And Actually he Bettered What Bhutto Started So More Credit to the Guy who is Still Zinda in
Sindh - Zinda hai Bhutto Zinda hai- .

RECOMMEND2
KHALEDJUL 05, 2017 06:35PM
@Colonel .kindly do not match the qualities of the father of the nation with him.

RECOMMEND7
AHMADJUL 05, 2017 06:56PM
By dividing the nation, Zia brought a misery to the nation, results of which we are still facing.

RECOMMEND14
B R CHAWLAJUL 05, 2017 08:08PM
Zia shall continue to haunt Pakistan and force it to remain in the middle age mindset. Posterity is ill bound to
follow this irreversible damage

RECOMMEND11
MASOOD HUSSAINJUL 05, 2017 08:27PM
An excellent analysis,I was not aware of Gandhi's offer to get Pakistan accepted by the Congress if it was to be
a secular state Zia regime was the darkest period in our history,he was looking for an excuse to ti overthrow
the democratic govt.

RECOMMEND13
AJUL 05, 2017 10:18PM
@Rahul Care to explain ?

RECOMMEND0
KAMRAN SHABQADARIANJUL 05, 2017 10:39PM
His bank balance, after his death was 20k rupees. From that you can judge for yourself that what kind of
person he was. He ruled Pakistan for 11 years or so and never made any property or bank balances. He was gift
of God to Pakistan. Musharaf was his opposite.

RECOMMEND2
PLS READ CAREFULLYJUL 05, 2017 11:48PM
"The Lahore Resolution of 1940 offered a constitutional scheme as an alternative to the one embodied in the
Government of India Act of 1935"

Not true. In that resolution, Jinnah talked about Two nation theory and how Hindus and Muslims were two
different nations and should not be yoked together.

"However, the new constitutional scheme advanced for two parts of the British Indian territory ... the All-India
Muslim League had won considerable support for the Two Nation Theory"

No such support was visible where Congress allies Unionist Party won in Punjab and Khan Abdul Ghaffar
Khan won in NWFP in 1945 elections. Until the religious slogans were belted out, there was little support for
Muslim League.
You also forgot to mention the Objective Resolution of 1953 and the reasons why Jagannath Mondal returned
to India after having supported Pakistan. Nor do you mention how Liaqat Ali involuntarily pushed out Hindus
from Karachi to make way for mohajirs that had migrated voluntarily.

RECOMMEND5
ADIL306JUL 06, 2017 12:17AM
People tried to find corruption on Zia but they have failed till now.

RECOMMEND0
TARIQ, LAHOREJUL 06, 2017 12:37AM
For those who measure Zia's rule through their vision of regressive religious spectacles, it's taken the country
to the dark ages. To this day nation has lost more than half a century's worth of progress. We were far more
progressive in the sixties than we are at present. Religious education is given more credence than science.
What do you expect from the nation that is only teaching you to prepare for the here after from the moment
that you are born!

RECOMMEND7
ASADJUL 06, 2017 03:25AM
@Rahul Thakur dictators have led us into wars that have killed tens of thousands of Pakistanis and tens of
billions of dollars in lost economic activity- there is no corrupt politician in this country who can match those
numbers. The higher corruption resides with uniformed dictators.

RECOMMEND4
MOHSEENJUL 06, 2017 03:43AM
@Shaokat ali nobody bites this foreign hand theory any longer. You must be living in Zias times.

RECOMMEND0
MUSHAHID HUSSEINJUL 06, 2017 04:12AM
Sadly, reading some of the comments praising late General Zia makes one realize that people actually miss the
lesson embedded within this article. Read his conclusion: "The curse of the Zia legacy will continue to bedevil
the state and the people for quite some time till ordinary citizens realize it has nothing to offer them except for
unmitigated misery."

If the post-9/11 terrorism in Pakistan that destroyed more than 40,000 Pakistani lives has not taught us the
problem with Zia's legacy, then author's dismay is completely valid.

Yes, Zia was just one man and we surely cannot blame him for ALL the evils that Pakistan has faced since.
But like Ayub, he continued and further the legacy of military intervention within Pakistani civilian politics,
but he was worse as he used religion to suppress and destroy intellectual discourse that would have otherwise
challenged both the obduracy of our religious right and its (at times improper) influence on political discourse.

RECOMMEND5
KHALEDJUL 06, 2017 10:14AM
@Ammar Khalid . Read the article again and you will know,' what damage?'

RECOMMEND1
KHALEDJUL 06, 2017 11:06AM
@KAMRAN SHabqadarian. what about the house his wife built in E/7 Islamabad, and the plot created /carved
out in a green belt in F/7 for his brother behind the stock exchange building.

RECOMMEND4
KAISERJUL 07, 2017 07:14AM
@Ammar Khalid I am surprised at the utter inability of many people in this country to analyse ,indicating a
generally low I.Q.and rote memorisation system of education, extending into our understanding and practice of
religion which was espouse during the Zia era. Of course there was peace and law and order at the beginning
but then Zia's governance and policies were responsible for the lawlessness as era progressed. Do not forget
the Hatora group, gun and drugs culture and the the total lack of constitutional rule and democracy, rights and
justice . The country is suffering till today.

RECOMMEND3
KAISERJUL 07, 2017 07:23AM
@KAMRAN SHabqadarian Who ever told you that? How well do you know his family affairs? The wealth of
his close associates are legendary. Why are you out to distort facts? Maybe it is just the legendary ignorance
that most people here have.

RECOMMEND2
KAISERJUL 07, 2017 07:30AM
@Adil306 His biggest corruption was that he abrogated the constitution of the country which was passed by
the national assembly and ruling illegally for 11 years. His religious and moral corruption was demonstrated
by his promise at Khana e Kaaba to hold election after 90 days which was not fulfilled. He tolerated associates
whose corruption was huge.

RECOMMEND3

DAWN.COM

Copyright © 2019

Scribe Publishing Platform