PAKISTAN’S POLITICAL ILLS, A BRITISH LEGACY?

Few imperial powers were able to have such a long-lasting impact on the people who
were under their rule as the British did in South Asia. pakistan beame an independent
nation on 14 august 1947, however merely one year after the country lost its founding
father and so began its agonizing struggle for political stability and good governance. Its
initial decades saw frequently alternating military and civilian governments, weak
institutions. It would be unfair to hold its colonial masters and their policies responisble
solely but they certainly had a major part to play.

Feudalism:provinces of pakistan still very much practice feudalism and rely on it for
various reasons. A few landlords have more power than the existing government which
they exercise in a repressive manner and are ready to go through all lengths to sustain
it. They neither follow the laws of the state, nor belief in our justice system, they
purposefully discourage education to so as to strengthen their hold on the masses.
However this feudalism is a vestige of Pakistan’s colonial past. Before the arrival of
British our region did not have landlords but chieftains, ho appointed mansabdars to
collect revenue from designated areas, and they were evaluated every year. British
converted all the pro-British mansabdars into hereditary landlords. This changed the
earlier feudal system into one that was controlled by a network of landlords and under
them, there developed a network of bureaucracy, the deputy commissioner and the
landlords. Governance was handed over to the landlords, who settled disputes, kept law
and order, financed agricultural production, and maintained the rural infrastructure and
were under the deputy commissioner . The people who lived in the erstwhile
subcontinent found it to be the only system they know and hence it is followed still.
feudal lords have maintained a powerful influence on culture and politics.
Government of india act 1935: After independence the Government of India Act 1935,
passed by the British Parliament, was made Pakistan's interim constitution The
governor-general, according to the interim constitution, had enormous powers of control
over the provincial governments, such as the authority to choose, summon, and dismiss
provincial ministers.

The governor-general, according to the interim constitution, had enormous powers of

control over the provincial governments, such as the authority to choose, summon, and
dismiss provincial ministers. This act remained in force for the initial 9 years of our
independence. The first constitution of pakistan in 1956 was also largely based on this
Act. Thus this Act defined the discourse of pakistan’s political and constituional history
for a long time.

Centralization of system: Pakistan is a state with a highly centralised governance

pattern that serves a few families rather than the masses. For the last seven decades,
Pakistan’s bureaucratic system has remained superior to democratic institutions, with
elected officials serving merely as advisers rather than policymakers. Every prime
minister has surrendered to civil and military bureaucracy and Pakistan has been under
direct military rule for almost half pf its life. The reason for such imbalance of power and
interference of the military establishment in the politics is also to a large extent a
mistake of our former masters.

British decision to withdraw from the subcontinent was a decision made in haste, which
resulted in subsequent territorial disputes and large-scale rioting. The British withdrew,
one year ahead of their original plan, after the rioting had already started. Moreover, the
division of territory between India and Pakistan was controversial and the British also
did not amicably settle the issue of princely states, which resulted in conflict between
the two countries immediately after independence.Pakistan and India went to war over
Kashmir in 1947-1948, which merely exacerbated the fears of the Pakistani leadership.
The state had to allocate huge resources towards defense Pakistani leadership gave
the military complete independence and did not try to meddle in their affairs. Military
leadership also communicated to the civilian leadership that in order to defend Pakistan,
it needed complete autonomy.

The complete freedom and high priority given to the military quickly transformed it, not
only in terms of capability but also created its corporate and institutional identity. Once
the army became a powerful political stakeholder, its role and position became
entrenched due to path dependency. And the argument given is that if civil institutions,
due to legacy or incompetency, do not get anchored in the polity, then the army and civil
bureaucracy, due to their better discipline and competency, end up managing the civil
affairs as well.