Whenever a new country comes into existence, it requires a vision to determine direction, a  definite programme  to build a system and an intellectual base to develop traditions.  If the vision is defective, it leads the country to confusion and disorder. Keeping in view this concept of history, when we analyse the present situation of  Pakistan, we find a country  where there is lawlessness and disorder and where the state has lost its credibility and power to govern. The burden of the taxes makes the lives of the people miserable.  Heavy defence expenditure leaves meagre amount for social development.  Reactionary forces such as Fundamentalism and sectarianism involve different religious groups in killing each other.  Corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, and inefficiency prevail in every department of government causing demoralising effects on the people. Failure of democracy, imposition of martial laws, and the political use of religion in Pakistan has disillusioned people from the politics. When they see no alternative, they  question the very existence of the country.

Pakistan has reached this stage because of lack of vision and political maturity  of its leaders. From 1947 to 1958 was the period when the bureaucracy had upper hand over the politicians. To perpetuate its rule, it discredited the politicians and humiliated them in the eyes of the people. Governor General M.A Jinnah, two weeks after the creation of Pakistan dissolved the Provincial government of NWFP, simply to strengthen the central dominance. Seven months later he dismissed Sindh’s Chief Minister M.A Khuro, and finally the Punjab Provincial Government was toppled.  These steps were justified under s92a in the Government of India Act 1935 which was introduced by Jinnah to erode provincial autonomy and to establish a direct rule by the centre and the effective control of the administration of the provinces by the Civil servants. The precedent set by Jinnah was shortly followed by the Governor General Ghulam Muhammad in 1953 who dismissed the ministry of Khawaja Nazimuddin. The provision of discretion to the Governor General in the 1935 Act was used by him. Thus the role of the Legislature as the maker and sustainer of  the government was undermined. In 1954 when the Constituent Assembly attempted to limit the powers of the governor general, Ghulam Muhammed dissolved the Constituent Assembly. This act of the Governor General was upheld by the Supreme Court which made  the role of the Bureaucracy supreme and the politicians lost their case. Henceforth, in  the absence of the democratic process, intrigues and manipulations by the Bureaucrats played an important role to grasp the power.

 In 1956 the first Constitution was promulgated but it remained ineffective because on the eve of the elections in 1958, Ayub Khan imposed the martial law. The period from 1958 to 1971 formalised the military- bureaucratic rule over the country. In 1962 Ayub promulgated his Constitution which was presidential and stipulated indirect election of the President and assemblies. During this period all political activities were banned; students and trade unions were ceased and censorship was imposed. It was the first martial law under which people experienced the rule of a dictator. On the one hand it depoliticised the society and on the other hand it created a spirit of resistance among the students who launched a campaign and ousted Ayub’s government after the 1965 war with India. It was a victory of people’s power over military dictatorship which failed to coerce the spirit of freedom and democracy.

The significant aspect of the period (1947-71) was that religion was never associated with the State, Bureaucracy, and the Army. They were adamant not to allow religion play determining role in developing the State institutions and government policies. Ayub’s family laws were based on secular concepts. At this stage the concept of Ideology of Pakistan was non- existent. 

 The year of 1971 was critical in the history of Pakistan. There was Civil war between East and West Pakistan which resulted in the separation and emergence of Bangladesh. The separation was the result of the uneven economic development of both parts of the country, exploitation of the resources of East Bengal and the colonial like behaviour of the Pakistani Bureaucracy towards the Bengalis. There was a vast difference between the attitudes of the two wings: the West Pakistanis had feudalistic mentality tinged with arrogance, haughtiness and roughness, while the East Pakistani politicians and bureaucrats belonging to the middle classes were mild, polite and submissive. They made sacrifices for the West Pakistan whenever it was demanded. However, in 1965 when they realised the weaknesses of their defence, they demanded provincial autonomy. In 1971 the Awami league won the majority which threatened the feudal politicians, army and bureaucracy of the West Pakistan. They could not come to terms with the idea of physically weak and mild Bengalis ruling them. Thus they chose Z.A Bhutto to defend their interests.

 The military junta adopted the old policy of coercion rather than negotiation. The military action was taken against the East Pakistan which was followed by massacres, bloodshed, intervention of India and subsequently the surrender of the Pakistan army.

 When Bhutto came to power he used Islam to mobilise the popular sentiments in order to build his own image and to establish his personal rule. He raised the slogan of  Islamic Socialism, set up a ministry of religious affairs, declared the Qadiyanis as non-Muslims, banned alcohol, gambling and nightclubs by declaring them un Islamic. He announced Friday as holiday and introduced Islamic study and Pakistan study as compulsory subjects in all educational levels.

 Moreover, he revived the role of the army which was badly shattered after the war of 1971. He extended the army, granted it more privileges and used it in Baluchistan against the nationalists. To please the top army officers he exempted them from his land reforms. He relied on the ISI and set up a political cell to check the activities of his opponents. By his reliance on the army he lost the popular support. . He was impressed by the model of the twentieth century dictators and dutifully followed their footsteps. Like his demi gods he had a tragic end, but it paved the way for Zia.

 Under Zia military played a role of an ideological vanguard for a theocratic state. He fully utilised the process of Islamisation which was initiated by Z.A Bhutto and Islamised the administration, judiciary, banking, trade, education, agriculture, industry, and foreign affairs. By introducing the Hudud Ordinance, the rights of women granted in the Constitution were taken away. His version of Islam encouraged sectarianism and violence against the non- Muslims minorities and women. His support of the Afghan war introduced the drug and Klashnikov  culture in Pakistan. The distortion of the Constitution and the Eight Amendments made the dissolution of the assemblies a piece of cake for the President.

 Though his death renewed the process of democracy, the successive martial laws and amendments in the 1973 Constitution crippled the basic democratic structure. The army emerged as a strong and stable institution leaving no space for the growth of any other institution. The result is that on the surface there is a civilian rule but behind the curtain, army controls everything. Benazir and Nawaz Sharif both failed to liberate themselves from the clutches of the army and to build a popular support to counter it.

The  reason for the failure of democracy in the political vicissitude is the over centralisation of the state and the deprivation of  the provinces from participation in the functioning of the country. Thus, people forgot their loyalties to the state and became more attached to their provinces and their heritage. Later when the ruling classes tried to mobilise the people towards national integration, the extreme feelings of provincialism took over and the people were held to be regionalists and prejudicial.

 The feelings of provincialism after the partition is similar to the sentiments which were experienced in the undivided India when the Muslims feared the Hindu majority. Initially Punjab feared the Bengali majority and a temporary solution was made in the shape of one unit and the principles of parity. When the Bangladesh gained independence the other three provinces expressed the same fear against the Punjab. In the shape of democracy they virtually see only the rule of the Punjab.

 In the undivided India, the Muslim leaders opposed democracy on the plea that the Muslims were illiterate and backward and unable to compete with the Hindus. The same argument was adopted in Pakistan from a different angle. Since the majority of the people in Pakistan are illiterate and politically inexperienced it was said that the democratic institutions do not suit them. Thus, declaring the majority as politically immature, frequent efforts were made to bring in a type of democracy in which the ruling classes could manage their stronghold. In their efforts for the purpose we sometimes find Ayub’s Basic Democracy and sometimes Zia’s Majlis-e- Shoora. They were not only labelled as democratic institutions but it was also claimed they represented the people.

 When the ruling classes in Pakistan cut their links with their people and became deprived of their strength, they needed some other power to maintain a stronghold. British had lost its status as a world power after the second world war therefore they sought American support. For their own ulterior motives they fully protected the American interests, and the American aid helped in consolidating the position and the institution of the ruling classes. It has created roots of American Imperialism in Pakistan and they have become so powerful that every ruler of Pakistan comes to power with the instructions and blessings of the American.

The political parties have also failed because their leadership is commanded by the feudals. These political parties are more interested in taking over the reign of government rather than solving the problems of the people. Their party organisation is also undemocratic and the leaders of the parties consider the organisation as their personal jagirs. There has never been any tradition to take workers into their confidence or consult them in their decision making process. The political parties have never tried to maintain any research cell nor do they care for the intellectuals to advise them on matters of national and international importance. Therefore, the term ‘politics’ generally meant fraud and cheating only.         

 The result is that successive failure of the democratic government has disillusioned the people. They have lost faith in the State and its institutions. They are disappointed in the performance of the politicians. They suffer of poverty, diseases, and lack of security. Instead of solving their problems, the successive military and democratic governments resolved to form the ‘Pakistan Ideology’ to protect their interests. Much emphasis is given on the ideological character of Pakistan. The state propaganda machine is active in instilling the feelings of patriotism. To thrust such a patriotism on the people various instruments and devices are employed. For example, more and more heroes are created, social and cultural myths are fabricated, false pride and dignity is imbued by writing national songs and anthems and by propagating them through the media.

 Today when political, social and economic conditions are deteriorating rapidly, the nation is forced to rely on the achievements of the heroes and the greatness of the past and present leaders. Consequently the number of the heroes in Pakistan is greatly increasing. Now there are two types of heroes: national and regional. Both are required to fill in the empty lives of the people. Similarly attempts are made to celebrate the memorable days such as the 14^th of August as Independence day and 23^rd of March as the Pakistan Day.

 In the earlier period of Pakistan March 23^rd had no significance and there was no celebration on this day. The Day became important after the Independence of Bangladesh, a development that brought the two nation theory in question and seriously challenged the Ideology of Pakistan. At this juncture the ruling elite of Pakistan used all sorts of methods to justify the concept of the Two Nation Theory. One step in this regard was the official celebration of March 23^rd. With time the process of constructing memorials and the celebration of National days   accelerated and to legitimise their rule the politicians erected buildings and national importance was thrust on them.

 After fifty years of its existence, so far there is no prospect to assess, analyse and evaluate the history objectively. Mere celebration is not enough to teach any lesson. Courage is needed to recognise the past mistakes and to reconstruct the country. The Pakistani leadership lacks this courage.