PAK: Military Ascendancy & Political Control

FROM THE MOMENT PAKISTAN BECAME A SOVEREIGN NATION, ITS POLITICAL TRAJECTORY BRANCHED OUT VERY DIFFERENTLY FROM THAT OF INDIA. WHILE INDIA, GUIDED BY THE VISIONARY LEADERS, ESTABLISHED THE GROUNDWORK FOR A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC WITH STRONG CIVILIAN INSTITUTIONS, PAKISTAN DESCENDED INTO THE UNKNOWN.

- PIRZADA REHAN

In 1947, two nations were born from the same womb of Partition, but they chose strikingly different destinies. India embraced democracy, civilian rule, and constitutional values, while Pakistan handed over its soul to khaki uniforms and military doctrines. What followed was a story of coups, proxy wars, and a nation imprisoned by its own generals.

From the moment Pakistan became a sovereign nation, its political trajectory branched out very differently from that of India. While India, guided by the visionary leaders, established the groundwork for a democratic republic with strong civilian institutions, Pakistan descended into the unknown. The premature demise of its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, created a power vacuum. Weak democratic structures, internal power struggles, and inexperienced politicians gave the military an opening an opportunity it seized and never let go.

The first overt intervention was made by the Pakistan Army in 1958, with General Ayub Khan taking over the civilian government. This was no common change in leadership; it was a portent of military domination. Ayub established a hybrid military-bureaucratic arrangement, diminishing the relevance of an elected set of institutions. Subsequent generals enacted this same pattern Yahya Khan in 1969, Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, and Pervez Musharraf in 1999. Each time the constitution was suspended, the media muzzled, opposition leaders arrested or forced into exile, and parliaments dissolved.