Category: The History and Culture of Pakistan

What were the causes and consequences of the War of Independence 1857 – 58?

How important was the uprising of 1857 to the future development of Pakistan?

By the 1850s the British were confident that their control over the Indian subcontinent was secure. But in 1857 British authority was challenged by a violent uprising. Although this attempt at revolution failed, its legacy was to inspire later generations to seek independence for their own countries.

There is a lot of disagreement about the causes and importance of the revolt. Historians cannot even agree what to call it: the British call this event, the Indian Mutiny; Pakistani and Indian historians call it the Great Revolt, the Indian Revolution, the National Uprising, the Great Rebellion of 1857 or the War of Independence.

The activities of the Christian missionaries were the main reason why the War of Independence broke out. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [14]

Many Indians feared that Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism were under threat from British rule. The British always denied this, but they were not believed. It was probably not the case, but it was true that Christian missionaries came to India to convert the local population as well as set up schools. In these schools, missionaries taught Christianity and expected locals who worked for them to give up their religion and follow the Christian teachings.

However, historians have identified other reasons also which contributed to the outbreak of the war. For example, Lord Dalhousie’s use of the ‘Doctrine of Lapse’ was particularly unpopular. The seizure of many states including Oudh (Awadh) in 1856 convinced many Indian leaders that the British were simply greedy land grabbers.

At a lower level in society, there was also resentment at the lack of opportunities for native Indians in the civil service. Added to this, English had replaced Persian as the official language of the administration and as the language in which education would be given.

The British also followed a practice of imposing high taxation to ensure that they exploited India’s wealth to the full. Peasants and small landowners, in particular found it difficult to pay the increasing taxes and resentment grew. At the same time as they were imposing high taxes on India, the British were also keeping the salary of sepoys (infantry) low, causing more resentment.

Although the revolt started over the issue of ‘greased cartridges’, there were more deep-seated reasons for discontentment amongst members of the armed forces. Most of the soldiers in East India Company’s army were Indian. The sepoys (سپاہی) and sowars [(سوار) cavalry] were almost exclusively Indian, but the officer class was almost exclusively British. This caused great resentment. There were also regular rumours that Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers would be forced to convert to Christianity and that they might be sent to fight abroad, which was unacceptable to the Hindus. The use of Indian troops in Afghanistan had also proved unpopular as Hindu soldiers did not want to leave ‘Mother India’.

This short discussion suggests me that although there was resentment over many issues, the war actually broke out because the sepoys were discontented with the British rule and over greased cartridges some sepoys defied their seniors and were court martialed. They further committed acts of treason and ran away to gather further support for themselves; this gave rise to the sepoys’ revolt.

What was the Cawnpore massacre? [4]

At Kanpur (Cawnpore), the troops joined the revolt and killed their officers and any Europeans that they could find. They were led by Nana sahib, who had personal grievance against the British for stopping a large pension he had been receiving. A British force managed to hold on to a defensive position for three weeks. Eventually, having been given a promise of safe passage of the area, the British surrendered. But tragically, Nana Sahib opened fire on the barges taking them down the river. Almost every soldier was killed together with 300 women and children. The survivors, four soldiers and 100 women and children were kept as prisoners. When British reinforcements arrived, Nan Sahib had his prisoners killed.

Why did the uprising of 1857 fail?

Although resentment of the British was a single cause to fight for, the Indians were not coordinated or united in what they hoped to achieve. There was no general plan and no attempt to work together. In different places, different groups fought for different reasons. Although the Mughal Emperor as something of a figurehead, most Indian princes didn’t really want to see imperial power restored. No was there any real sense of national patriotism. India as too divided for such a feeling.

It seemed that the only real uniting force in the war was Islam. However, any degree of unity amongst the Muslims alarmed the Hindus and Sikhs who were not prepared to fight to restore power to the Muslim Mughal empire.

Perhaps the major reason for the failure of the Indians was that the British were too strong. Britain was on of the most powerful nations in the world at this time and its troops were experienced in warfare and highly trained in modern methods of fighting. They also had a good reputation for discipline on the battlefield.

Do you agree that the British defeated the Indians in the war because the Indians were not united? Give reasons for your answer. [14]

Although resentment of the British was a single cause to fight for, the Indians were not coordinated or united in what they hoped to achieve. There was no general plan and no attempt to work together. In different places, different groups fought for different reasons. For example, Nana Sahib fought because of a personal grievance against the British. Although the Mughal emperor was something of a figurehead, most Indian princes did not really want to see imperial power restored. Nor was there any real sense of national patriotism. India was too divided for such a feeling.

Perhaps the major reason for the failure of the Indians was that the British were too strong. Britain was one of the most powerful nations in the world at this time and its troops were experienced in warfare and highly trained in modern methods of fighting. They also had a good reputation for discipline on the battlefield.

The only hope the Indians had to defeat the British was that there should be general uprising across most of India and for the Indian troops to act together. As it was, the British kept control in more than three quarters of their possessions. They were skilled diplomats, and they were also well aware of Indians’ collective weaknesses. So, they found it easy to play the various groups off against each other.

I partially agree with the question statement but will add a more important factor which was the highly efficient British military machine that defeated Indians.

What was the impact of the War of Independence 1857?

The failure of the war confirmed the British as masters of India. It had been intended to loosen the yoke of British control, but instead it tightened it.

After the war, the East India Company was abolished. Now the British government (in Britain) would take full responsibility for all matters in India. A member of the British Cabinet, the Secretary of State for India, was given responsibility for the government of the country. However, the direct responsibility was in the hands of the Governor-General, now called the Viceroy.

After the war, Bahadur Shah was put on trial and sentence to life imprisonment. Later in January 1877, the British Queen, Victoria, was appointed Empress of India. The British considered that the Muslim community was largely to blame for the war, and it was to be many years before they once more began to trust Muslims. The Muslims lost their political, social and economic importance. In contrast, the Hindus soon found favour with the British by adapting themselves to the new rule.

Chapter 16: How important has Pakistan’s role been in international affairs since 1947?

Pakistan India Relations

India Pakistan relations began with a multitude of problems which included violence of 1947 claiming about a million lives on both sides of the border, controversial distribution of assets and high handed accession of three princely states.

After two months of independence both countries found themselves fighting in Kashmir. A ceasefire was arranged on January 1st, 2022. But this war defined relations of both countries forever. They fought more wars e.g. in 1965, 1984 and 1999 for controlling this territory. Another war was fought in 1971 which collapsed the eastern wing of the country.

Both countries blame each other of hosting and funding separatists and terrorists e.g. in Kashmir, East Punjab, Balochistan and elsewhere. Even Indira Gandhi’s assassination was also linked to Pakistan’s alleged support for the Khalistan Movement.

The issue of Kashmir has been so deep rooted that it has not let both nations have person to person contact like normal neighbours. They even arrest fishermen and trespassers across the border and treat them like spies. Being close and comparatively industrially developed countries they both benefitted from each other significantly; however due to volatile relations they sometimes imposed trade bans which affected their economies.

They got involved in an arms race which later developed into a nuclear arms race. Not just that but both countries spend millions of dollars on defense which denies basic needs of the common man and more than 20% of their populations live below the poverty line.

Despite these lowest points in relations, the countries have at times attempted to improve them. On January 1st, 1949 a ceasefire was arranged by the UNO and a referendum to decide the future of Kashmir was also proposed. In 1950, Liaquat Nehru Pact (Minorities Pact) was signed to regulate the migration of refugees. The Canal Water (river water) dispute was finally resolved in 1959 as Indus Water Treaty.

Simla Agreement of 1972 may be regarded as an achievement; however it was a solution imposed on Pakistan as a defeated party. Pakistan was stripped of its right to take the Kashmir issue to an international forum. In 1987 an imminent war was avoided due to Gen. Zia’s cricket diplomacy. In 1988 Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan and signed an agreement on not attacking each other’s nuclear installations. In February 1999, the Lahore Declaration was signed as peace initiative.

Over all relations between the two nations are not successful; as they are based on political and ideological differences.

Pakistan US Relations

Pakistan and United States’ relations have been based on many factors including Pakistan’s economic difficulties which forced the country to look for donor nations, technological and cultural advances and above all Pakistan’s military weapons requirements.

Since the beginning, US had been more interested in India than it was in Pakistan for establishing diplomatic relations and some strategic alliance against the communist USSR and China. Pakistan kind of forced the US to enter military alliances in 1954 and 1955 (Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, SEATO and CENTO). Pakistan was hoping that by signing these agreements the country would get support from the allies, America in particular, in the event of a war with India. However, when Pakistan actually fought India in 1965 and 1971, it did not receive any support from the US despite being an important ally.

When Bhutto came to power, the relations were at low ebb as he was more inclined towards USSR and China than US. Relations reached rock bottom when Zia deposed Bhutto and imposed a military rule. An attack on the US Embassy in 1979 further deteriorated the relations.

In December 1979, Pakistan’s position changed overnight. It became a frontline state in the war against Communism in Afghanistan. America expected Pakistan to support the US in the Afghan War. A marriage of convenience took place in 1981 which lasted till 1988; during this period Pakistan became the most important US ally in the region. It received monetary, diplomatic and political support from the US and was not only able to improve its economy, modernize its army but was able to develop its nuclear weapons program also.

But when the (Afghan) War ended, Americans blocked aid to Pakistan. America also stopped the sale of 28 F-16 fighter jets which Pakistan had ordered and paid for. Relations reached the lowest points when in 1991, the USA came closer to declaring Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and placed economic sanctions on the country.

Later when President Bill Clinton came to power, relations improved and some military assistance (worth $388 million) was approved. The thaw in the relations was further highlighted when First Lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, visited Pakistan in 1996. In 1998, when Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, US imposed trade sanctions on Pakistan for a brief period.

Collectively the relations between Pakistan and US have been satisfactory however they are totally based on strategic and military needs of both countries.

Pakistan USSR Relations

Pak Russia relations are a saga of mistrust. There are three main periods in which a trust deficit was triggered between the two countries. The first period began in the 1960s when Pakistan decided to help the USA against the USSR by providing the former with intelligence and airbases for spying on the latter. The U2 incident marked this period when a Lockheed U-2 Spy-plane was shot down in the Soviet airspace in May 1960.

Secondly, Pakistan’s attempt to facilitate a rapprochement (reconciliation) between the USA and China in the 1970s can be identified as the second period. This highly offended the USSR which consequently signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with India, guaranteeing Soviet help if India went to war with Pakistan. This low point of relations with the Soviet Union coincided with the Civil war and the breakaway of East Pakistan in 1971.

Thirdly, the Pak US alliance to counter the USSR following its invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s further added to mistrust. Although Zia visited Moscow in 1984 for the funeral of Andropov he got a cold reception. Later that year the Soviet Union began bombing raids on Pakistan. Hostile relations continued until 1988, when the Soviets finally withdrew from Afghanistan.

History shows that when the USA left Pakistan, the latter resorted to Russia. It leaves a negative impression on Russia because it suggests Russia is less important to Pakistan than the USA. On the contrary, Russia always attempted to join Pakistan as a supportive ally. In 1963, it loaned Pakistan ₤11 million and in 1963 it shifted from its previous open support for India over Kashmir to a neutral stance. In April 1965, Ayub Khan paid an official visit to the Soviet Union and further agreements on trade and oil exploration were reached. In January 1966, the Soviet Union hosted a peace conference between India and Pakistan at Tashkent. In 1968, when the Americans decided to close their airbase at Peshawar, the Soviet Union began to supply arms to Pakistan. In 1972, Bhutto visited the Soviet Union and began to build friendly relations again. It was at this meeting that the Soviet Union agreed to build a steel mill in Pakistan. In April 1999, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif paid an important state visit to Kremlin. Though no breakthrough was made, it was probably the beginning of a new era of Pakistan Russia relations.

In a nut shell, Pakistan – Russia relations have been through difficult times with more failures than successes.

Pakistan China Relations

With the creation of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949, Pakistan became the first Muslim country to recognize China and the Communist regime led by Mao Zedong. On 21 May 1951, formal diplomatic relations between Pakistan and China were established. With Chinese participation in the Korean War (1950), Pakistan’s response by not taking any position against China proved to be a rational decision.

The 1960s was arguably the milestone decade elevating Pakistan – China relationship to a new level. In north a 400 miles border of Pakistan’s side of Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region connects with Xinjiang province of China. In December 1962 an agreement was signed between Pakistan and China for the settlement of location and alignment of Pakistan – China boundary.

In the same decade a series of trade agreements were announced; China granted Pakistan a $60 million interest free loan, air service began between the two countries, China supported Pakistan’s policy in Kashmir and Pakistan supported China’s entry into the UNO. During the 1965 war with India, China supplied military aid to Pakistan and applied diplomatic pressure on India to prevent it from attacking Pakistani positions.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Bhutto and Zia visited China; loans were converted to grants and a nuclear cooperation treaty was signed. When Pakistan was facing sanctions due to the Pressler Amendment in 1985, China was assisting in Pakistan’s nuclear program. Karakoram Highway was opened in 1978 to connect the two nations in a stronger bonding.

To modernize Pakistan’s military, China began a joint venture to develop Pakistan’s ballistic missile program, manufacturing of tanks and fighter jets (JF-17 Thunder aircraft in 1999).

I see only one low point in Pakistan China relations which occurred in 1971 when India and Pakistan fought a war; China was not able to support Pakistan as it did in 1965 due to its only security reasons. Otherwise Pakistan China relations are the best relations Pakistan has ever had with any country.

Pakistan Iran Relations

There are strong links between the peoples of Iran and Pakistan. Not only are they neighbours, but the Urdu language also shares much with Persian.

The border, stretching 590 miles between the two countries, was fixed by the British over 100 years ago. An early dispute between Iran and Pakistan, over ownership of Qila Sufaid, led to violence. Fortunately, this and other disputes were solved quite amicably.

In May 1960 agreement on the border was finally reached. Iran gave up 95 miles of territory to Pakistan in return the town of Zahidan was given to Iran.

Since independence in 1947 Pakistan and Iran have had good relations and Iran has always promoted Pakistan’s interests to the world community. Defense and trade are important reason for the two countries working together.

Iran and Pakistan had been staunch allies of the US through the Baghdad Pact (CENTO) against communism. The organization was disbanded in 1979 with the overthrow of Pro-American Shah of Iran’s government.

In 1964 both countries became members of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) along with Turkey. The organization was not much successful in other prospective areas except in education and culture. By 1979 the RCD had really come to an end, but in 1985 General Zia revived it. In 1990 this organization was renamed the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO).

In the 1965 war Iran was quick to defend Pakistan and even offered some military assistance. Again in 1973 Iran helped Pakistan tackle the Baloch insurgency. But the Shah of Iran depended very much on the support and goodwill of the USA. When the USA applied pressure, Iran dropped its offer of practical help.

In January 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by a strongly anti-American government led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Pakistan was one of the first countries to officially recognize the new government, but Khomeini was suspicious of Pakistan because of its previous close relationship with the Shah. Iran was also critical of Pakistan for accepting large amounts of aid from the USA.

During Iran-Iraq war, 1980 – 88, it was difficult to achieve any close relationship. During 1980s and further in 1990s there was an export of Iranian revolutionary ideas throughout the Gulf region and Pakistan. The country saw extreme sectarianism which claimed thousands of lives in Pakistan. Relations between the clerical regime of Iran and Pakistan generally remained stern until 1999 while both nations clashed with each other over their Afghan policy too.

How successful were the relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh from 1971 to 1999? Explain your answer. [10]

It was inevitable that the sad events of 1971, with the loss of East Pakistan, caused a great deal of bitterness between the two nations. It would take Pakistan time to reconcile to the loss of its eastern half before it could have formal dealings with the new government.

The three issues that Dhaka has raised with Pakistan are the question of apology of what Bangladesh calls ‘genocide’ of the Bengali population during the military operation in March – December 1971. This is followed by a demand for division of assets and repatriation (return) of stranded Pakistanis or ‘Biharis’. These issues did not settle until 1999.

In February 1974, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto seized the opportunity of Sheikh Mujib’s presence at the Islamic Summit in Lahore and agreed that Pakistan would officially recognize Bangladesh as an independent nation. In return, the few last remaining prisoners held in Bangladesh were returned to Pakistan.

In 1976 ambassadors were exchanged and an agreement reached to cooperate on trade, tourism and the media. By 1986 trade goods moving between the two countries had reached a value of $40 million. In 1985 and 1988 Bangladesh was hit by such severe weather that foreign aid was urgently needed. On both occasions Pakistan was the first country to contribute.

After Sheikh Mujib’s visit to Pakistan in 1974, Bhutto made a visit to Bangladesh in the same year which was followed by General Zia’s visit in 1985 and Bangladeshi President Ershad visit to Islamabad in 1986. In 1998, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited Pakistan. All these meetings helped thawing of relations.

Generally the relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh are not quite friendly; they still need to cooperate in various fields for normalization of relations like good neighbours.

How successful were the relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1947 to 1999? Explain your answer. [14]

Unfortunately a border dispute right from the start caused great difficulties for Pakistan. When Pakistan was admitted to the United Nations in September 1947, Afghanistan cast the only vote against it.

In the 1947 referendum the people of the NWFP voted to join Pakistan. However, some people had wanted to vote for a third option, an independent country to be known as Pakhtunistan. The British would not allow this option to be voted on. Afghanistan, however, had sided with those Pathans who wanted either an independent nation or to join with Afghanistan.

During talks in late 1947 Pakistan offered the Afghans a route through Pakistan. In return, it expected Afghanistan to drop its support for Pakhtunistan. The Afghan government refused and, instead, signed an agreement with the USSR for a transit route through Russia.

During the 1950s the situation worsened as Afghanistan continued to encourage the anti-Pakistan campaign in the NWFP. In March 1955 a mob of Afghans, encouraged by the government, attacked and ransacked Pakistan’s embassy in Kabul. Pakistan immediately broke off diplomatic relations and for five months the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was closed.

In 1956 Iskander Mirza visited Afghanistan but no thawing of relations took place. Afghanistan even refused to join the RCD because Pakistan was a member. However, in the 1965 war, the Afghan government chose to stay neutral.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, President and then Prime Minister visited Kabul only three weeks after taking office. His efforts paid off and by 1976 relations between the two countries had improved considerably. Pakistan permitted Afghan aircraft to fly over Pakistan and Afghan trucks to pass through the country on their way to India.

Before the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the country faced a so called communist revolution and later rebellions. The Soviet-Afghan war divided the Afghan people; Pakistan supported the mujahideen backed by the US throughout 1980s and 1990s. The pro-Soviet Afghan government in 1980s and later the mujahideen’s unstable government remained hostile or unfriendly until the Pakistan backed Taliban Movement came to power in the latter half of 1990s. However, even the Taliban did not recognise the Durand Line.

The above facts imply that the relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have remained problematic throughout the period from 1947 to 1999, mostly due to the Durand Line dispute.

How successful was Pakistan’s relationship with the UK and the Commonwealth in the years 1947 to 1999? Explain your answer. [14]

On achieving independence, Pakistanis were bitter over the way that the British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, had handled the hasty transition to independence. They were unhappy over the way the British had set the boundaries and divided up the resources for the two new nations. Pakistan believed the British were really critical of Pakistan and actually favoured India. On the other hand, the new Government of Pakistan had to rely on senior British officials working for them. For many years they could not afford to lose British military officers. Britain was to remain a major buyer of goods from Pakistan.

During the 1950s and 1960s large numbers of Pakistanis moved to live and work in Britain, cementing even further the link between the two nations. Much of the earnings of these overseas Pakistanis were sent back to their families in Pakistan and this greatly helped the economy.

As a member of the Commonwealth, although Pakistan has a great many differences with other members, they have been able to cooperate on many issues including trade, finance, cultural, and sporting matters. The commonwealth games, held every four years, are second only to the Olympic Games as a major international sporting event.

However, on a number of occasions Pakistan has been disappointed by the Commonwealth. During 1949 – 50, it hoped that Britain would use its position in the Commonwealth to insist on a plebiscite to settle the Kashmir issue. In January 1951, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, even threatened not to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London unless the Kashmir issue was discussed. But Pakistani efforts failed as the UK government and the Commonwealth failed to put pressure on India.

In 1956 Britain invaded the Suez Canal Zone in Egypt. Neither membership of the Commonwealth nor the Baghdad Pact (signed in 1955) stopped Pakistan from supporting Egypt. In 1971, after Britain recognised the state of Bangladesh, Pakistan under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did quit the Commonwealth in protest. Britain had failed to support Pakistan’s position over East Pakistan. It said it was up to West Pakistan and East Pakistan to sort the matter out. Once again British neutrality seemed to favour India.

During the Afghan crisis, Britain supported Pakistan and Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, was the first western leader to visit Pakistan after the occupation of Afghanistan. Britain gave not only political support, but also £30 million aid and a further £16 million to Pakistan for the welfare of the Afghan refugees. During the 1980s Britain remained a highly important trading partner with Pakistan.

Pakistan returned to the Commonwealth in 1989. But when General Parvez Musharraf overthrew the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999, the Commonwealth suspended Pakistan’s membership about a week later as member countries have to have democracy as per the 1991 declaration.

Over all relations between Pakistan and the UK and Commonwealth are quite friendly and successful.

How effective / successful has Pakistan’s membership been with the United Nations Organisation from 1947 to 1999? Explain your answer. [14]

Pakistan has benefitted greatly from its membership of the UN. It has become acknowledged as an important member of the world community and has received a number of loans from the World Bank to assist in economic development. The World Food Programme (WFP) has also played a significant role in helping provide for Afghan refugees after the outbreak of war against the Soviet Union. The WFP has also provided food and healthcare for women and girls to promote primary education in Pakistan’s rural areas.

However, the Pakistani government has not always been satisfied with the intervention of the United Nations in its own affairs:

Despite constant demands by Pakistan in the UN for this plebiscite to take place, the UN has been unable to enforce it. In much the same way, Hyderabad’s complaint about being dismembered by India in 1948, is still before the Security Council.

When civil war broke out in East Pakistan in 1971, leading to war with India, Bhutto was sent to the United Nations to plead Pakistan’s case. Bhutto was most unhappy that the UN considered its role was to bring about an end to fighting rather than accept the justice of Pakistan’s case. He was particularly concerned at the speed with which UN members recognised Bangladesh as an independent country; it has also not condemned India’s invasion of East Pakistan.

In the case of the Canal Water Dispute, the UN played a significant role when the President of the World Bank made a recommendation that it should provide financial and technical support to resolve the disagreement. This proposal formed the basis of the Indus Water Treaty signed in September 1959. The World Bank also provided finance to help establish hydro-electricity and soil reclamation programmes.

Therefore I see that Pakistan’s membership with the UNO has been mostly successful with some failures especially in resolving the Kashmir Issue.

How effective/successful has Pakistan been as a member of world organisations between 1947 and 1999? Explain your answer. [14]

As a member of the UN Pakistan has raised the issue of Kashmir on several occasions and also became the spokesperson for many Asian states who had not gained independence during the 1950s. Pakistan has supported the Palestinian cause and has also contributed to a number of UN peacekeeping forces throughout the world. The downside of Pakistan’s membership of the UN is its failure to gain a solution the Kashmir problem.

Membership of SEATO failed to secure any protection for its problems with India or during the Bangladesh crisis and was mainly designed to prevent communist aggression in South East Asia. Pakistan also failed to secure aid through the organisation as well as a permanent military force to protect its members. As a result, Pakistan left SEATO in 1972.

Its membership of CENTO was treated enthusiastically because many of its fellow members were Muslim countries. However it lapsed in 1979 mainly as a result of the failure of the USA to join the organisation.

Membership of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has reinforced the image of Pakistan as one of the world’s leading Muslim nations and has provided it with much needed interest free loans and grants. This has also been the case through its membership of RCD.

The country has received financial and technical support from the World Bank through the Indus Water Treaty in 1959 as well as finance to help establish hydroelectric and soil reclamation programmes which has been vital for the stimulation of Pakistan’s economy and industries.

Generally, Pakistan has been a successful (effective) member of world organisations since its inception in 1947.

How did Pakistan help the ‘Mujahideen’ to defeat the USSR invasion? [7]

General Zia seized power in 1977 he continued to work with sardar Daud of Afghanistan and an alliance between the two countries was talked of. However, Daud, together with thirty members of his family, was killed in a violent coup, and replaced by a communist administration. This so-called ‘April Revolution’ in 1978, headed by Nur Mohammad Tarkai, was supported by the USSR. The new government introduced a sweeping programme of reform. There was a clash of ideas: Muslims rebelled against the introduction of communist policies. In December 1979, after Taraki was killed by rebels, the USSR intervened with 80,000 Soviet soldiers. Muslims soon organized armed resistance, known as the mujahideen, suing Pakistan as their main base.

President Zia was very willing to assist the USA in channeling assistance to the mujahideen. The Pakistan Army organized the supply of weapons among the various groups. Pakistan’s military intelligence service supplied information and practical advice. As a result of their help, Pakistan became a target for Soviet attacks. Border villages were bombed and a number of explosions carried out by USSR-backed Afghans took place across Pakistan. In the end the USSR, one of the world’s two super-powers, was simply unable to crush Afghan resistance. Humiliated, the USSR finally admitted defeat in 1988 and withdrew their troops. For the USSR it was their ‘Vietnam’, further evidence that even a poor nation, without outside support, could defeat a powerful invader.

What was the SEATO? [4]

In September of 1954, the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO. The purpose of the organization was to prevent communism from gaining ground in the region. By the early 1970s, members began to withdraw from the organization as the organization was not serving their purposes. In 1977 it was formally disbanded.

What was the Baghdad Pact (or CENTO)? [4]

In 1955 Pakistan signed the Baghdad Pact, a joint defense agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. It was intended to deter any Soviet expansion in the Middle East. In 1959, after Iraq quit, the Baghdad Pact became the Central Asia Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and was promoted by the USA although they did not join in. Britain was a member. Pakistan was disappointed that CENTO did not have its own military command capable of mobilizing troops to protect a member against attack. CENTRO gave Pakistan no protection against India. CENTO was disbanded in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran’s government.

What is Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD)? [4]

In 1964 at Islamabad, on President Ayub Khan’s suggestion, Pakistan joined with Iran and Turkey to set up the Regional Cooperation for Development. Ayub Khan saw it as a supplement to CENTRO. Its purpose was to strengthen economic, technical, educational and cultural links between the three Muslim countries. It was hoped that trade would improve. However, it was in education and cultural areas the RCD was most successful.

By 1979 the RCD had really come to an end, but in 1985 General Zia revived it. In 1990 this organization was renamed the Economic Cooperation Organisatioan (ECO) and, apart from the founder countries the newly independent Central Asian States were also inducted as member countries.

How was Pakistan involved in the U2 Crisis? [7]

On 1 May 1960, a Russian surface-to-air missile (SAM) shot down a U-2 plane flying on a spy mission over the Soviet Union. The USA first said that it was a weather plane that had strayed and there had been no deliberate attempt to fly over the USSR. However, the Soviets had also captured the pilot, Gary Powers, who admitted to the Soviets that he had flown from a US based in Pakistan (at Peshawar) over the Soviet Union en route to Norway.

The USSR was furious with Pakistan for permitting the flights, and threatened retaliatory action. In its defense, Pakistan claimed that it knew nothing about spy missions. It told the Americans that they could no longer use the airfield unless the destination of all aircraft was notified in advance. The whole incident showed how close the USA and Pakistan had become.

What is the Commonwealth? [4]

The Commonwealth is an association of free nations that were once part of the British Empire. About thirty percent of the world’s people live in countries belonging to the Commonwealth. It is a way of marinating friendly and helpful relations between large numbers of countries.

Why did many Pakistanis migrate to the Britain? [7]

During the 1950s and 1960s large numbers of Pakistanis moved to live and work in Britain. Britain encouraged this emigration from Pakistan after World War II because of a shortage of workers. There were plenty of jobs in reconstruction and expansion of the economy after the end of the war. There was a need for workers in the textile industry.

The early migrants usually planned to return to Pakistan once they had made enough money. Much of their earnings were sent back to their families in Pakistan and this greatly helped the economy. During the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s such money from abroad was the second largest source of overseas revenue for Pakistan.

Important reasons for this migration were that Britain offered well-paid jobs. Many people displaced by partition in 1947 moved to Britain, so becoming migrants twice. 100,000 people were displaced from the Mangla Dam area in the 1960s. Some used compensation money to travel to Britain and join relatives. Britain’s 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act introduced a voucher system which gave Pakistanis in Britain the opportunity to arrange jobs and vouchers for friends and family.

What is the OIC? [4]

The OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) is the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization after the UN. It is made up of 57 Muslim member states together with three observer states. It was founded at the first Islamic Summit held in Morocco in September 1969. The aim is to promote solidarity and cooperation among all its member states. It also shares the aims of the UN in promoting peace and racial tolerance.

What is the United Nations? [4]

The United Nations (UN) was set up in 1945 and at the end of World War II, with the main aim to bring nations together and prevent further wars. Thus the world has been spared at Third World War, though there have been a number of skirmishes and localised wars. The UN tries to sort out such conflicts among nations with varying levels of success. As well as conflict resolution, it also tries to get nations to cooperate together in tackling poverty, economic problems, and human rights issues.

Key Question 15: How effective were Pakistan’s governments in the final decade of the 20th century?

Why did Nawaz Sharif oppose Benazir Bhutto?

Nawaz Sharif was a political rival of Benazir Bhutto and the leader of a coalition of 9 political parties called Islami Jamhuri Ittehad (IJI). One of the main parties in this coalition was Pakistan Muslim League which was headed by Nawaz Sharif. Benazir dominated in Sindh whereas Nawaz Sharif had his major support from Punjab.

Another important reason for this opposition was difference of political ideology. Nawaz Sharif rose to prominence with the support of General Zia-ul-Haq who was against Pakistan People’s Party. It meant Nawaz Sharif was also a natural rival to the PPP. Bhutto was a believer of socialism and Zia promoted Islamisation in Pakistan. Being the daughter of Bhutto and inheritor of his philosophy, Benazir was against Islamisation.

As a matter of fact, it was a power struggle between the two; they could have come to power only through opposing each other and promoting their own ideologies.

Who was Ghulam Ishaq Khan?

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was the chairman Senate when Zia-ul-Haq died in a plane crash. He was immediately appointed as the president by senior military officers. With the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, allowing a president to dismiss the government, Ghulam Ishaq Khan was in a powerful position. He actually used this power twice to dismiss Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and Nawaz Sharif in 1993.

How did the no-confidence motion in 1989 weaken Benazir’s government?

Benazir Bhutto’s first term was marred by the opposition from Islami Jamhuri Ittehad (IJI) led by Nawaz Sharif. The endless confrontation between the two political rivals undermined her ability to govern.

Since she had formed a coalition government, one of the coalition parties MQM was not happy with the PPP, it broke off the coalition in September 1989 and sided with Nawaz Sharif. At that time (in October) Nawaz Sharif tabled a motion of no confidence against Benazir Bhutto in the National Assembly. The opposition mustered 107 votes in the 237 seat National Assembly, just 12 short of the 119 it needed to force Benazir Bhutto to step down. Although she had defeated the no-confidence motion, her government had been seriously damaged by this affair as it had exposed how vulnerable her coalition government was and it did not survive long afterward.

Why were there differences between Benazir Bhutto and (President) Ghulam Ishaq Khan?

Army under the leadership of General Zia had been against the PPP. When Zia attempted to liberalise his government in 1985, he made sure PPP should not reach the Assembly and form the government. However, due to sudden death of Gen. Zia in 1988, situations changed and Pakistan People’s Party emerged as the largest party in the elections.

Since the president (Ghulam Ishaq Khan) had been appointed in this position by the army, it was natural that Benazir was not a desirable candidate as the PM. The army and the intelligence agencies had extended their support to the Islami Jamhuri Ittehad led by Nawaz Sharif and they reluctantly accepted Benazir.

In the post Afghan war period, Pakistan had lost all financial and most diplomatic support from the west. It meant that an economy depended on foreign aid and loans would not do well and Benazir could not impress the people with a successful economic policy. This weakness of Benazir’s government was used by Ghulam Ishaq Khan to oppose her.

A major area of disagreement was over appointments to positions in the military and the judiciary. Ghulam Ishaq Khan considered that such appointments were the right of the President, not the Prime Minister. He refused to agree to several appointments and dismissals she wanted to make in the military and this caused further tension between them.

Why was Benazir’s first government dismissed?

In the province of Sindh, and especially in Karachi, Benazir Bhutto faced opposition from a former ally, the Mohajir Qaumi Mahaz or MQM (also called Mohajir Qaumi Movement). In December 1988, the PPP and the MQM had agreed on a coalition, however, they both had a very different approach to politics and government. Many MQM supporters did not like working with the PPP. There was frequent violence between the MQM and their opponents. This led to MQM’s getting out of the coalition (September 1989) and siding with Benazir’s rival Nawaz Sharif.

At the same time (October 1989) Nawaz Sharif tabled a motion of no-confidence against the government which greatly damaged it.

Benazir’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari was accused of taking rake-offs on government deals. The tales of corruption further weakened the government.

In the Pucca Qila area of Hyderabad, forty supporters of the MQM, including many women and children, were killed by the police. People were horrified as violence seemed to be out of control.

With growing unemployment and strikes from the opposition, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan took his chance and used the Eighth Amendment to dismiss Benazir’s government. He said his actions were justified because of corruption, incompetence and inaction. In fact, the President and the military had wanted for some time to remove her.

Benazir’s supporters claimed that her government had been deliberately weakened by those whose power and privileges her policies threatened. They also said that she was a victim of those traditionalists who would not accept a woman as head of the government.

Were the challenges facing Benazir Bhutto in Sindh the main reason why she left office in 1990? Explain your answer.

Two explanations, one on the challenges in Sindh and one on another reason are worth 9 marks. Additional explanations awarded up to 13 marks

e.g.

Sindh

• Well educated muhajirs opposed the special rights for Sindhis introduced by Benazir Bhutto and increasingly supported the Muhajir Quami Movement (MQM).

• Sindh was an area of growing opposition to the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and growing support for the MQM.

• Benazir Bhutto tried in vain to gain the support of the MQM to form a coalition government by promising to protect the interests of all the people of Sindh.

Other challenges

• Her government was damaged by an unsuccessful no-confidence motion tabled by opposition parties including Islami Jamhuri Ittehad (IJI) led by Nawaz Sharif.

• President Ghulam Ishaq Khan refused to appoint the judges and military personnel she wished, making it difficult for her to govern Pakistan effectively.

• Promised economic development programmes and social and health reforms did not produce the effects hoped for. The government lost support as unemployment, inflation and population grew rapidly making progress difficult.

• Accusations from political opponents regarding mismanagement leading to the arrest and jailing of her husband Asif Ali Zardari. Further rumours weakened the government enabling President Ghulam Ishaq Khan to use the Eighth Amendment to dismiss the government in 1990.

Write your evaluation / judgment.

To what extent did Benazir Bhutto’s privatisation policy contribute to the government being replaced in 1996? Explain your answer.

Indicative content

May agree that the privatisation policy was the main contributory factor:

• Benazir Bhutto wanted to extend the privatisation of industries

• planned privatisations included banks, power and telecommunications

• she was criticised for doing this by wealthy industrialists and politicians from all sides

• government officials made it harder to privatise nationalised industries

Counter-arguments might include:

• Benazir Bhutto did not introduce the PPP’s social policies

• multiple economic problems including unemployment and inflation

• strikes and protests were organised by the opposition in 1994

• GDP and manufacturing growth rates slowed

• the strict economic policies imposed on Pakistan by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for a loan

• the rupee was devalued

• the USA’s financial and military embargo began to affect the economy

• the government was inefficient

• a lack of unity within the government

Other relevant responses should also be credited.

Write your judgment / evaluation.

How did the failure of financial institutions damage Nawaz Sharif’s first government?

Two serious banking scandals led to many people losing money and criticism of the government. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) had been set up in 1972 by Pakistani banker, Agha Hasan Abedi. It had close links to many prominent people. Nawaz Sharif’s family company, Ittefaq Industreis, was a major customer. Despite being a worldwide bank, it remained essentially a Pakistani institution employing thousands of Pakistanis. BCCI collapsed in 1991 when the Bank of England closed their operations with allegations of massive losses, fraud, widespread criminality, and money laundering. The collapse was a great shock – people simply couldn’t believe it. However, Nawaz Sharif allowed BCCI branches in Pakistan to operate for several months. There were many accusations that Pakistani businessmen and politicians had made huge profits from the bank’s illegal activities. Pakistan also refused to extradite the bank’s founder, Agha Hasan Abedi, to face charges in the USA.

To help businesses flourish, the government cut back on regulations and allowed them more freedom to do what they wanted. However, as the economy grew so did corruption. In 1991 four financial cooperatives in the Punjab, the Pakistan Cooperative Societies collapsed. It was said that government regulation had not been good enough. There were allegations that public money had been misused. More than two million people lost their savings, including some who had invested their entire life savings. Perhaps as much as Rs. 23 billion was lost. Two of the cooperatives were controlled by relatives of Nawaz Sharif. The failure of the National Industrial Cooperative Credit Company was the biggest ever financial collapse in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif’s family company borrowed from these cooperatives. An official enquiry, headed by a judge, Afzal Lone, cleared them of any wrongdoing but it further damaged the sanding of the prime minister.

What happened at Kargil in 1999?

By 1999, after the deaths of thousands of Kashmiris, Pakistan and India appeared again to be on the brink of war. In 1999 Pakistan troops tried to gain control of the mountainous Kargil region of Kashmir. At first Pakistan denied any involvement. The fighters, they said, were Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’. But it was soon apparent that it was a well-planned army action. After early successes, Pakistani forces were driven back. The retreat did not only bring humiliation for the army but the country suffered diplomatically as well.

Why was Nawaz Sharif overthrown by the army in 1999?

Just two months after a bilateral dialogue between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan (February 1999), both nations were on the brink of another war (May 1999) at Kargil (Indian held Kashmir). Obviously it was army’s own decision to cross the Line of Control for a military action through bypassing the prime minister; Nawaz Sharif could not have made such a decision two months after signing a peace agreement with India.

The Army Chief, General Musharraf was angered by the retreat of his forces due to a strong Indian response at Kargil and the loss of diplomatic support for Pakistan from the international community. He was perhaps angrier at the peace agreement (the Lahore Declaration) signed between India and Pakistan without consulting the army. This confrontation between the army and the democratic government led to the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif’s government and an imposition of the 4^th military rule under General Parvez Musharraf on 12 October 1999.

Was the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) the main reason for the government ending in 1993? Explain your answer.

Two explanations, one on the achievements and one on another reason, are worth nine marks. Additional explanations awarded up to 13 marks

e.g.

BCCI

• The collapse of BCCI bank in 1991 led to investors losing huge sums of money harming Pakistan’s finances. This caused the government to lose a lot of political support.

Other

• US had provided support during the Soviet-Afghan war, which was reduced when the war ended causing economic problems;

• US aid was restricted when the USA tried to pressurise Pakistan into ending the nuclear programme causing further economic problems;

• Support for Afghan warlords had led to guns becoming freely available increasing crime, kidnappings and murder. There were also drug problems associated with refugees from the Soviet-Afghan war flooding into towns and cities. Both increased pressure on the government;

• The government lost support over the ‘Cooperative Societies scandal’. In Punjab alone 700 000 people lost their savings when the state cooperative society went bankrupt.;

• The Shariat Bill was unpopular with groups in the alliance who wanted Islam to play an even greater role in government and others in opposition who wanted it decreased

Attempt the following:

How successful were the policies of Benazir Bhutto in both governments?
How successful were the policies of Nawaz Sharif in both governments?
Do you agree that the period 1988 – 99 was one in which Pakistan made little significant progress? Give reasons for your answer.

What were the causes and consequences of the War of Independence 1857 – 58?

Source A

Although Wajid Ali Shah was a capable ruler, the British residents gave exaggerated reports about his incompetence to the company authorities. This gave the East India Company a Casus Belli (cause for war in Latin) to conquer Awadh. On 7th February 1856, Lord Dalhousie ordered to depose Wajid Ali Shah on the account of alleged internal misrule. This was in line with Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse, in which the British would take over a kingdom if there was misrule also. The Kingdom of Awadh was annexed in February 1856.

Taken from a History website

What does source A tell about the British attitude towards Indians? [3]

Source A implies that the British were greedy land grabbers who just wanted to occupy India for its resources. Apparently they had an agreement with the ruler of Awadh but they themselves violated it and took over the kingdom by using a lame excuse and their self-created doctrine.

Source B

A depiction of the Cawnpore Massacre

What is source B referring to? [5]

Source B is referring to the Cawnpore Massacre that took place in 1857. In the picture Europeans/British are shown being attacked and killed. Women and children can be seen which means these were the families of the British forces. Nana Sahib’s forces had an agreement with them allowing them to escape but while they were trying to exit, Nana Sahib’s men attacked and killed them. This massacre showed the hatred of Indians towards the British.

What was the impact of the War of Independence on the Muslims? [7]

The British considered that the Muslim community was largely responsible for the mutiny (the War of Independence) as though symbolically but it was Bahadur Shah II who was leading it and since the British had taken over India from Muslim rulers, they believed that the mutineers attempted to revive the Muslim rule if not the Mughal rule.

The British stopped recruiting men in their army from those Muslim groups who were involved in the war such as from Bengal and Awadh. The Sikhs, Punjabis / Pathans (they were Muslims but supported the British) and Gurkhas were given preference for recruitment.

The British also wanted to keep Muslims backward so the doors of education and employment were shut to them. Funding from Muslim schools was withdrawn. It was an attempt to keep them illiterate.

In contrast the Hindus took advantage of Muslims’ compromised position and filled the space by adapting themselves to the new rule. They accepted British education, learned to speak English and occupied almost all posts offered to Indians. Thus the Muslim community lost its social, economic and political status as a result of the War.

The most important reason why the War of Independence started was the introduction of the Doctrine of Lapse. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [10]

Of course the Doctrine of Lapse was an important reason why the War of Independence started. The Muslim state of Awadh and the Hindu state of Jhansi were occupied along with many others. Both areas showed strong rebellion during the war.

However, mutiny could not have spread fast only due to the above reason. There were other social, political, economic and military reasons too.

By 1857 the Mughal King (Bahadur Shah II) had little power left, but was an important symbolic figure. Dalhousei’s decision to move the royal family from the Red Fort of Delhi to the more obscure Qutub Sahi was seen as a sign of disrespect (of not only the King but his symbolic subjects – the Indians also).

The British were not only imposing their culture and lifestyle upon Indians but they treated them as an inferior race too. Their arrogant attitude coupled with the introduction of a new way of life with its railways, roads and telegraphs (which were actually built to facilitate the British rule rather than raising the standard of living of the people) was unacceptable to many Indians.

It was also true that Christian missionaries came to India to convert the local population as well as set up schools. In these schools the missionaries taught Christianity and expected locals who worked for them to give up their religion and follow the Christian teachings. Obviously it was unacceptable to many Indians.

The British also followed a practice of imposing high taxation to ensure that they exploited India’s wealth to the full. The British were also keeping the salary of sepoys (infantry) low. This economic reason caused much resentment.

Indian sepoys (infantry) and sowars (cavalry) were kept at low ranks despite serving for many years while the officer class was almost exclusively British. There were also regular rumours that Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers would be forced to convert to Christianity and they might be sent to fight abroad which was religiously unacceptable to the Hindus.

Finally the greased cartridges proved to be the immediate reason of the War.In the light of the above arguments, I conclude that the Doctrine of Lapse was not the most important reason why the war started. I think the greased cartridge issue was the most important reason as it alone unleashed the sepoys’ wrath towards the British rule.

*public hanging of Indians who took part in the War of Independence*

Was religion the most important reason for the War of Independence in 1857? Give reasons for your answer. [14]

CAIE MARKING SCHEME:

Two explanations, one on religious and one on other reasons, are worth 9 marks.

Additional explanations awarded up to 13 marks

e.g.

Religious reasons (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

Christian missionaries came to India to convert the local population and set up schools. In these schools, the missionaries taught Christianity and expected local religions to be given up which was resented by the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities.

The British introduced a new gun that used cartridges coated in grease made from cow and pig fat. The soldiers had to rip open the cartridges with their teeth before loading. This caused great resentment as it was contrary to religious beliefs for both Muslim and Hindu communities and united them against the British.

Other reasons (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

The replacement of Persian and Sanskrit by English as the official language in the 1830s deeply upset both the Muslims and Hindus as they felt that their culture was being threatened.

The British imposed reforms on the Indian population such as abandoning purdah / suttee without consultation. This caused much unrest as it appeared that the British were trying to impose their culture on centuries old Indian customs, which was resented. (Purdah / suttee may also be seen as religious reasons.)

In 1852 the ‘Doctrine of Lapse’ was introduced and caused great unrest because any local kingdom not having a direct male heir had their lands taken over by the British.

Judgment

Write your judgement / evaluation.

To what extent were economic reforms the main cause of the War of Independence in 1857? Explain your answer. [10]

CAIE MARKING SCHEME:

Two explanations, one economic reforms and one on other causes, are worth six or seven marks.

Additional explanations on the same two reasons cannot be awarded more than eight marks.

Explanation of all reasons is worth nine marks

e.g.

Economic reforms (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

•The British imposed high taxation to exploit India’s wealth. Peasants and small landowners could not afford this, so many fell into poverty. Resentment grew because of the resulting starvation and suffering;

•The Sepoys were discontented because they did not get a fair deal. Their salaries were very low in comparison with those of the British soldiers and they had little chance of promotion. They were also angry over the lack of payment of extra allowances for service in newly conquered territories like Sindh;

•The East India Company banned the export of cotton (cloth, not the raw cotton) from India in 1800. This had a negative impact on many Indian communities who relied on making and selling cotton increasing poverty and also opposition towards the British.

Other causes (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

•The replacement of Persian and Sanskrit by English as the official language in the 1830s deeply upset both Muslim and Hindu groups as it was a threat to their culture;

•English became the official language making it more difficult for some of the Muslim community to get higher paying jobs;

•All women were forced to abandon purdah, which had been a custom for centuries and was widespread amongst, and strictly observed by Muslim women. This action by the British was unpopular amongst the Muslim community and opposed;

•In 1852 the ‘Doctrine of Lapse’ was introduced without consultation. This policy caused great unrest because it meant that the British could take over any local kingdom that did not have a direct male heir;

•The British introduced a new rifle with a paper cartridge that was coated in both cow and pig fat. The sepoys had to bite the end of the cartridge off before loading. The troops were angered and refused to use these cartridges because the Muslim faith forbade pig fat and the cow was a sacred animal in the Hindu religion.

Judgment / evaluation

Write your judgment / evaluation.

Was an absence of leadership the main reason why the War of Independence in 1857 failed? Explain your answer. [10]

CAIE marking scheme:

Explains one reason for absence of leadership AND one other reason for 6 marks.

Additional explanation(s) up to a maximum of 9 marks

e.g.

Absence of leadership (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

§No single leader e.g. Bahadur Shah was not accepted by most Hindus.

§Many people at the time thought Bahadur Shah did not have strong leadership skills and that he was more of a figurehead.

§Bahadur Shah and the Rani of Jhansi worked alone, and neither would support the other.

Other reasons (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

•Lack of unity and common cause amongst the Indian population

•The Punjab was uninterested in helping the rebellion, sending men and supplies to help the British.

•Some of the Indian princes were more interested in restoring their own powers and this often depended upon the support of the British.

•Muslims were more likely to oppose the British in the war but there was not a sense of unity with Sikhs and Hindus who were less likely to support them in their cause.

•A series of uprisings against the British, the Indians were not as coordinated or strong so the British overcame them.

•The British had modern methods of fighting.

•The British army was well disciplined and supplied by some of the local rulers.

•The British used diplomatic as well as military mechanisms (railways, telegraph etc.) to limit the extent of the conflict.

Judgment

Write your judgement / evaluation.

To what extent were economic reforms the main cause of the War of Independence in 1857? Explain your answer. [10]

CAIE marking scheme:

Explains WHY economic reforms AND other causes were important leading to the War

Two explanations, one economic reforms and one on other causes, are worth six or seven marks.

Additional explanations on the same two reasons cannot be awarded more than eight marks.

Explanation of all reasons is worth nine marks

e.g.

Economic reforms (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

•The East India Company banned the export of cotton from India in 1800. This had a negative impact on many Indian communities who relied on making and selling cotton increasing poverty and also opposition towards the British.

Other causes (Please don’t use headings or bulleted points in your actual answers)

•The replacement of Persian and Sanskrit by English as the official language in the 1830s deeply upset both Muslim and Hindu groups as it was a threat to their culture;

•English became the official language making it more difficult for some of the Muslim community to get higher paying jobs;

Judgment / evaluation

Write your judgement / evaluation.

Why did the War of Independence of 1857 not succeed? [7]

CAIE MARKING SCHEME:

Explains reasons

Five marks for one explanation, six marks for two explanations, seven marks for three explanations

e.g. ·The Indian population were not united in a common cause. ·The Punjab was uninterested in helping the rebellion and actually sent men and supplies to help the British as they did not want imperial power restored. ·This also happened in Kashmir where the ruler sent 2000 troops to help the British as this benefitted his own feudal powers. ·The British had modern methods of fighting and the army was well organised as well as being supplied by some of the local rulers.

To what extent were the different aims of Indian groups in 1857 the main reason why the War of Independence was short-lived? Explain your answer. [10]

Write your answer in 3 paragraphs.

In the first paragraph write your agreement to the given idea in the question that the war was short lived because Indians had different aims.

Use the following points in this paragraph:

•different Indian groups found it difficult to put aside their differences

•there was disunity/absence of a common aim amongst Indian groups/the aims of Indian groups were sometimes unclear

•some Indian groups wanted to restore their old rulers and customs

•some princes were fearful of losing British support

In the second paragraph write counter-arguments (which means you should write other factors which was why the war was short lived).

Use the following points in this paragraph:

·some Indian groups did not have a battle plan or strategy

·some Indian groups had limited leadership and experience in battle

·the British army was experienced in battles

·British troops were well trained and disciplined

·British troops had modern weapons the British army were experienced strategists/administrators/negotiators/ leaders

Now in the 3rd paragraph write your judgment / evaluation.

WHY DID EAST PAKISTAN SEEK AND THEN FORM THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF BANGLADESH

Introduction

The 1940 Lahore Resolution demanded:

Muslim majority regions as in the north-west and eastern zone of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.
Now Bengali Muslims believed that when independence came there would be an autonomous state centre in Bengal
In 1946, the word ‘states’ became ‘state’
And in 1947, Bengal was partitioned again, Calcutta (the financial hub) was gone to India and East Bengalis were governed from Karachi which was over 1000 miles away.

Social and cultural disparity

Urdu spoken by 6% of population, Bengali by 56%
Some in West Pakistan considered their culture to be superior to that of East Pakistan

Economic disparity

Trade with West Bengal had been cut off since 1947
Calcutta part of India now
More than twice as much foreign aid and capital investment went to West Pakistan as East Pakistan
Bengalis believed their earnings from trade in jute were used in West Pakistan
Per capita income rose in West Pakistan, declined in East Pakistan; by 1970 East Pakistan was 40% poorer than West Pakistan
Largest spending by the government was on defense to protect the border with India; mostly the border with West Pakistan
Very less spending on health and education in East Pakistan

Political disparity

East Pakistan was almost always ruled by West Pakistani elites
Less than 20% military officers were from East Pakistan
High level posts in Dhaka were filled by West Pakistanis or refugees from India who had become Pakistani citizens

General Yahya Khan

Commander in Chief of the Army and the Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA)
He announced: (a) Basic Democracy failed (b) There would be a properly elected government (c) One Unit System was a failure (so there should be a return of provincial government)

One Unit Plan annulled (Pakistan’s 4 provinces re-established)
The 1962 Constitution annulled
Yahya was committed to bringing democracy to Pakistan based on ‘one man, one vote’
From January 1970 political activity resumed
The proposed National Assembly was to have 300 members
The Assembly would have 120 days (4 months) to draw up a new constitution
3 days after the National Assembly elections there would be provincial elections
Elections were to be held in October 1970 (due to a natural calamity they were held on 7 December 1970)

The 1970 cyclone

On 12 Nov 1970, East Pakistan was hit by the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded leaving 500,000 dead
West Pakistan was slow to react
This attitude made sentiments of people in East Pakistan very high against the West Pakistan
Elections were held just weeks after the cyclone (it meant election results would be influenced by this incident)

Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman’s Six Points

The Constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the Lahore Resolution, and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a Legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.
The federal government should deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign Affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall be vested in the federating states.
Two separate, but freely convertible currencies for two wings should be introduced; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate Banking Reserve should be established, and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.
The power of taxation and revenue collection shall be vested in the federating units and the federal centre will have no such power on the issue. The federation will be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.
There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the Constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.
East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary force.

Monetary policy is a modification of the supply of money, i.e. “printing” more money, or decreasing the money supply by changing interest rates or removing excess reserves. This is in contrast to fiscal policy, which relies on taxation, government spending, and government borrowing as methods for a government to manage business cycle phenomena such as recessions.

Problematic results

Main parties: the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Pakistan people’s Party led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Awami League won: 160 of 162 seats for NA (all in East Pakistan)
PPP won: 81 of 138 seats for NA (all in West Pakistan)
The Awami League had contested the election on a manifesto calling for political and economic independence for East Pakistan. The League would have a (simple) majority in the National Assembly enough to form the government on its own. Yahya did not want to allow the traditional domination of West to be overturned
Yahya and the West Pakistani politicians were not prepared to allow the Six Points to be put into action; Mujib believed they were negotiable. However, he had little chance to explain this.

The crisis deepens

In February 1971, Bhutto announced that the PPP would not take up their seats in the National Assembly unless Mujib talked with the other parties and reached an agreement about power sharing
On 1 March 1971, just 2 days before it was due to meet, Yahya was forced to postpone the opening of the Assembly without setting a new date
The people of East Pakistan considered that they had been betrayed by Yahya and immediately began a campaign of mass civil disobedience, strikes, demonstrations and refusal to pay taxes
When it became clear that the power of the central government had broken down in East Pakistan, Yahya recalled the provincial governor and appointed General Tikka Khan as Chief Martial law Administrator and the Governor (all it meant was a military solution to a political problem).
From 15 to 25 March, Yahya and Bhutto met Mujib as the last resort, but no agreement was reached

Operation Searchlight

Military operation began against the Awami League on 25/26 March; Bengali intelligentsia, academics and Hindus were treated with extreme harshness
Mujib was arrested, thousands of Bengalis were murdered
Press censorship was imposed, all political activity throughout Pakistan was banned
On 26 March Bengalis announced in a secret radio broadcast from Dhaka the formation of the Sovereign People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Yahya’s measures were supported by all political parties in West Pakistan and Bhutto claimed that Pakistan has been saved. Rather than being saved the reality was millions of Bengali refugees were fleeing across the border to India and civil war was now inevitable
On 31 March India declared its support for the people of Bengal against West Pakistan

Pakistan versus India

The Indian Army began to help and train a rebel Bengali Army, which called itself Mukti Bahini. As a result, relations between India and Pakistan deteriorated rapidly.
By early April army had gained control of most of the major towns
In August 1971, the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Commerce with India. All it meant was a Soviet promise of help for India if it went to war with Pakistan
Pakistan’s own allies China and the USA were much less keen to be involved; they urge Yahya to negotiate an agreement with the Awami League
Yahya believed that army could handle the situation and he could win any war with India
On 21 November, the Mukti Baini launched an offensive on Jessore and captured the town.
Yahya declared a state of emergency and told his people to be ready for war
In response, the Indians began to build up their forces on the East Pakistan border.
On 29 November, the Awami League announced the members of its provisional government

War with India

On 3 December, Pakistan Airforce launched attacks on north India
On 4 December India attacked East Pakistan from air, ground and sea simultaneously
2 days later (6 December) India official recognized Bangladeshi government
Within 2 weeks the Indian forces had surrounded Dhaka
The Pakistan Army tried to divert the Indian army from East Pakistan by launching attacks in Kashmir and Punjab, but they were not very successful
Whilst the fighting was going on, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had been trying to find a solution to stop the war
Bhutto attended UNSC session on behalf of Yahya Khan, on 15 December but refused to accept any of the 2 proposals and left the session.
On 16 December Yahya accepted defeat and ordered the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan to surrender
In Dhaka Mukti Bahini carried out massacres of anyone suspected of having collaborated with the Pakistan Army
It is also alleged that in the final days before surrender the Pakistan Army wiped out large numbers of professional Bengalis to weaken the new country and make it less of a rival to Pakistan
93000 soldiers were taken as prisoners of war in spite of being well supplied for at least a month

Consequences of the war

Defeat brought disgrace for the army and for Yahya
On 20 December he was forced to resign and the Pakistan Army placed Bhutto as the President and (the civilian) Chief Martial Law Administrator
On 21 December 1971 the Republic of Bangladesh was officially declared an two weeks later Bhutto released Mujib from prison
He returned to Bangladesh where on 10 January 1971, he became the country’s first Prime Minister.

Why did Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman present his Six Points? [7]

The Awami League and its East Pakistani supporters believed their province was not politically and economically independent. They complained that although they were a majority in the Constituent Assembly, Governor Generals and Prime Ministers were nearly always from West Pakistan. This was also true of appointments to senior positions in the armed forces (less than 20% of officers were from East Pakistan), to senior government positions and to posts in the civil service. Even high level posts in Dhaka were usually filled by West Pakistanis or refugees from India who had become Pakistani citizens.

The Bengalis also believed that West Pakistan’s economic growth had taken place as a result of transferring resources from East to West Pakistan. They argued that the single largest Pakistani export was jute, which was grown in East Pakistan. Whereas perhaps the largest spending by the government was on defense to protect the border with India. Since most of the border between the two countries lay in West Pakistan, some East Pakistanis considered that spending on the army was really to protect West Pakistan. There was no major border dispute between East Pakistan and India.

With regard to these arguments, Sheikh Mujib wanted to resolve the political problem through a directly elected government (formed by an election using universal adult franchise (suffrage)). To stop the supposed flow of resources, he demanded separate financial policies, separate reserve banks, and maximum provincial autonomy to the extent of freedom to sign their own trade agreements with other countries. Sheikh Mujib’s 6 Points were also endorsed by the Lahore Resolution of 1940 which demanded two sovereign states in India rather than just one. Precisely, the Six Points were calling for a loose federation with East Pakistan as one of the federating units.

How was the Awami League able to win such a huge victory in the 1970 elections? [7]

The Awami League was able to win support by proposing a programme which called for a fairer share of government spending and more power to the provinces. It was able to exploit the sense of frustration felt by the people in East Pakistan towards their Muslim countrymen in West Pakistan. It won their huge victory by campaigning on the basis of the Six Points.

Another credit of this victory goes to Gen. Yahya Khan who all of a sudden attempted to bring democracy back to the country by announcing elections on the basis of direct vote for the very first time in Pakistan since independence.

Apart from the social, cultural, political and economic disparity, the tropical cyclone of November 1970 also influenced election results. This cyclone claimed 500,000 lives. The slow response from the central government for relief operations further pushed East Pakistanis towards Sheikh Mujib’s agenda. Indian reaction to the catastrophe in terms of relief operations created a soft image of India in East Pakistan while anti-West Pakistan sentiments ran high.

Why did the victory of the Awami League cause a constitutional crisis? [7]

The reaction of the West Pakistani (military) establishment to the 1970 election results showed how incompetent and naïve they were in terms of politics and governance. When Yahya Khan allocated 162 seats to East Pakistan and 138 seats to West Pakistan, did he ever anticipate this situation in which East Pakistanis would be able to form a government on their own without sharing power with West Pakistanis in the Cabinet? Why had the Yahya Khan regime not presented a power sharing formula between East and West Pakistan when elections were announced for the country? Yahya Khan and Bhutto were struck by surprise when they saw the election results, which was so wrong. If no power sharing formula had been decided earlier, why it was being imposed upon Sheikh Mujib? If 6 Points were unacceptable why Mujib was allowed to contest the elections in the first place when he had made these points his election manifesto?

Yahya Khan had realized how big blunder he had made by announcing elections without any constitution to guide the formation of government. As per his plan the new Assembly would form the new constitution. This was very illogical rather nonsensical; because the new Assembly itself was going to become problematic.

No doubt, Mujib’s Six Points were scary and damaging to the federation of Pakistan. They were calling for political and economic independence for East Pakistan, in other words they were giving partial independence to East Pakistan, they were also going to begin a never ending tussle between both wings / provinces as they would weaken West Pakistan defense against India when East Pakistan was perhaps signing trade agreements with our archrival simultaneously. In other words, if Six Points were put into action, East Pakistan might have had good relations with India while India would still be unfriendly towards West Pakistan.

However, Yahya and West Pakistani politicians had not realized that Awami League could not have formed a constitution on its own with 160 seats in the Assembly. Therefore fears of a constitution which would allow separation of East Pakistan or weakening of federation were baseless. The most important reason was that they were not willing to accept a powerful Bengali Prime Minister and a Bengali Cabinet. Ayub and Yahya had ruled Bengal for 13 years but their comrades were not ready to live under Bengali rule for a single day!

Why did civil war break out in East Pakistan? [7]

The most important reason was that there was an extremely incompetent leadership imposed upon Pakistan in the form of General Yahya Khan. Pakistan Army was directly responsible for this as it was providing the backing to this martial law regime.

Before Yahya Khan, there was another military general, Ayub Khan who did not allow the country to have democracy in 1958 when he illegally usurped power and imposed his own constitution which negated fundamental human rights to the people. Because of Ayub Khan’s recessive policies, election rigging in the 1964-65 elections, East Pakistan had been totally cornered. The martial law regime’s anti-East Pakistan measures fanned separatism among Bengalis which gave rise to Mujib’s 6 Points. Then Ayub’s mishandling of Mujib turned him into a national leader from a less popular figure.

Finally, when the military establishment and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto decided to reject election results of 1970 elections with an excuse of Mujib’s 6 Points and imposition of some power sharing formula, it made the people of East Pakistan believe that West Pakistan was not willing to give them their due rights. Operation Searchlight put the last nail in the coffin of united Pakistan. East Pakistanis were thus forced into a civil war, as they did not see a better option. At the same time, Indian role cannot be ignored; India fully exploited the situation against Pakistan by training a rebel force of Mukti Bahini as well as supplying necessary equipment for full fledge civil war.

Why did India want to go to war with Pakistan in 1971? [7]

There’s no doubt that India wanted to go to war with Pakistan because the relations between the two countries had been at low ebb and perhaps India wanted to take a revenge of what happened in 1965. Interestingly both times, in 1965 and 1971, Pakistan was under a military dictator. In other words, both military dictators worked to worsen the relations between the two countries instead of improving them. India supported the East Pakistani rebels because it was not a friendly nation.

India had also realized that Pakistan was led by weak leadership which had little acceptance among the people, especially in East Pakistan. Perhaps Indians had also identified the weak areas of Pakistan Army from the 1965 War that almost all Pakistani advance and defense was concentrated in the West Pakistan and East Pakistan was almost unguarded. Therefore when a full scale war began, India neutralized Pakistan Airforce and Navy in East Pakistan and when the army surrendered on 16 December 1971, it was just 90,000 strong, which is a question mark for military leadership in West Pakistan.

India was led by a shrewd politician, Indira Gandhi, who had outclassed Pakistani foreign policy makers by signing a treaty with the USSR against Pakistan and by making sure that China and USA were not coming to support Pakistan in an event of war.

In short, India was quite confident to win a war in 1971 against Pakistan as they believed Pakistan was ruled by incompetent and ineffective rulers who were bound to lose.

Why did Pakistan Army surrender to Indian Army in 1971? [7]

First of all, we know that surrendering on 16 December 1971 was not the decision of the commander of the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan. Rather it was the decision of the Commander in Chief and the President of Pakistan who was based in West Pakistan. It meant that Yahya made this decision based on the reports coming from East Pakistan by the Pakistan Army sources. And Yahya making this decision also meant that he had lost hope for any success in the war.

He knew that Chinese and Americans were not willing to extend any help unlike India which was being aided by the Soviet Union diplomatically and with material support also.

Secondly, the public opinion in East Pakistan was in favour of the Awami League and against the West Pakistani establishment, army in particular. And it had happened because a political problem was mishandled by military generals who had no idea how to resolve such issues. Operation Searchlight had diminished all hopes of reconciliation with the Awami League. The military operation transformed a political movement into Bengali nationalist movement which forced the army to admit that it was not able to fight the people.

Thirdly, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s role was too negative and full of suspicions. It seems he did not want to resolve this issue. He probably facilitated the fall of Dhaka for his ambitions to come true as the ruler of West Pakistan. It was obvious that if East Pakistan had not broken off, Bhutto would never have become the most influential figure in the country. He’s the person directly getting benefited from the crisis and the tragedy!

Fourthly, there was a general incompetence on part of the army and its intelligence as well as the martial law administration. They did not know how to treat people and how to do politics. They just imposed themselves upon people by the backing of military and tried to dictate the masses with an iron fist like the British colonials did. They had forgotten in their arrogance that they were not equal to the British colonials of India in might and intelligence both.

Do you agree that defeat in the war meant Yahya had to resign? [7]

Defeat in the war meant Pakistan Army had failed. It hadn’t only lost in the battlefield but it lost on the political front also. The army had been disgraced. It had no moral courage to face the nation. It had to go in the background and replace its leadership by some civilian figure, at least for a while. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the perfect choice for that.

Bhutto was basically trained as a politician by the quarters of military under Iskander Mirza and then Ayub Khan. He also seemed to be the favourite of Gen. Yahya Khan as he was sent to East Pakistan by Yahya to negotiate with Mujib. He was also sent to the United Nations Security Council in December 1971 by Yahya to represent Pakistan.

Defeat in the war also meant that there were 93000 prisoners of war in the Indian custody that needed to be brought home, as they were adding disgrace to the army and the country with every passing day. The army did not want to send a general to negotiate with Indians over this matter. They needed a civilian to do this job for them. It happened to be Bhutto who signed the Simla Agreement in 1972.

Do you agree that Pakistan lost the 1971 civil war because of Indian intervention? Give reason for your answer. [14]

No doubt, the stated reason is very important as due to Indian intervention East Pakistani rebels were able to receive training and military equipment. However, it should also be noted that India got involved in this matter because of Pakistan’s poor relations with this neighbouring country. Military regimes in Pakistan since 1958 believed Pakistan could prosper by maintaining poor relations with India in the name of Kashmir, they were wrong. Events in 1971 proved that they were wrong. Had Pakistan and India had good relations, India would never have got involved in this issue.

Here we may ask a question. If India had not been involved in this matter, would the Awami League have been able to liberate East Pakistan? This is debatable. Theoretically, Pakistan Army would be able to maintain order in East Pakistan, rebellion would be crushed no doubt. Later on confidence building measures could be restarted. But the impact of denial of due rights to the east and that of the military operation would be long lasting. People of East Pakistan were gifted with political awareness and a passion of Bengali nationalism against Punjabi establishment. They would no more accept West Pakistani domination with an ease.

We could not also ignore the fact that people in East Pakistan had a sense of social, political and economic disparity with West Pakistan. They had started believing that they did not belong to West Pakistan at all. If religion was a uniting factor, then it existed with other parts in the world also in other Muslim countries. Religion alone was not enough to form a nation state in the modern world. The momentum and political heat in East Pakistan which began from Operation Searchlight was most likely to continue until a logical end was met.

On the battle ground there was an important factor going against Pakistan’s armed forces and it was the distance of over 1000 miles between east and west. This distance was affecting troop’s mobilization and their supplies. Fighting an armed resistance is not an easy job. It requires a strong economy to continue with such efforts in a civil war. Given the fact that Pakistan did not have an impressive economy in 1971, it was likely that Pakistan would lose the civil war in the end.

However, most importantly, it was Indian intervention which made things happen very fast, and Pakistan lost the war. Therefore I agree with the stated reason only partially that Indian intervention caused this failure.

Operation Searchlight was justified. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [14]

Operation Searchlight was a military operation launched on 25 March 1971 which claimed lives of thousands of Bengalis who were considered a threat to the integrity of Pakistan by the then military government of General Yahya Khan.

From the perspective of the civilised world, it was totally unacceptable because of its legality, scale (thousands of people who were allegedly noncombatants killed), impact (it led to a civil war) and moral justification (a military force can’t be used against citizens of the same country). People targeted in the operation were considered traitors who were working on foreign (Indian) agenda. At this point, the question arises who gave the right to the military government for declaring who was loyal and who was not. If some people were involved in sedition, were they put on trial? If some of them were put on trial, would they be declared as Indian agents? Military operation against civilians also meant that there was no rule of law or the judicial system had failed. If it was true, did Yahya Khan’s government have any justification to exist any further? How come an incompetent and failed government decides that political opposition maybe handled with a military force?

We read that almost all West Pakistani politicians including Bhutto supported Operation Searchlight. The question is if approval from rival politicians could legalise oppression? Were rival politicians equal to judicial system?

Sheikh Mujib had won the election and achieved simple majority. He had all the right to form a government. Yahya’s and Bhutto’s efforts to stop him from doing so were not less than a crime.

The heated political atmosphere could be neutralized through a grand political dialogue between the East and West. West and East Pakistani politicians must have intervened and reached a workable solution to the crisis. Foreign ministry needed to be active and send their missions to talk to the Indian government, even the Soviet leadership so as to stop hostilities. Press and media censorship would be lifted so that common Pakistanis in both wings could be involved in peace keeping efforts. There would be no need of any military option then.

To give a fair analysis, I would also look at the possibility where this operation could be justified. This is true that Sheikh Mujib and his Awami League had publicly displayed themselves as separatists especially when Yahya Khan postponed the inauguration session of the elected Assembly. This behavior could not be expected from a seasoned politician like Mujib especially after winning such a landslide victory in East Pakistan. He must have given another chance and more time to the military government, as by law he deserved to be the Prime Minister of the united Pakistan. But he hurriedly cut off relations with the federation and began his campaign of noncooperation and civil disobedience which was bound to cause violence. Under these circumstances the military government was not left with many options.

If you ask my opinion, I shall never condone the use of military force against own countrymen. It was so unfortunate that East Pakistanis were treated as General Dyer treated Indians in the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre. Actually General Dyer did not kill his own countrymen but General Yahya/Tikka Khan did something worse, they killed their own countrymen after branding them as traitors.

How far did Pakistan achieve stability following the death of Jinnah?

What authority did the Governor General have under the Indian Independence Act?

Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the Governor General (of Pakistan or India) was the representative of the Crown (British monarch) and he had control over the entire field of government activity, but under the control of the Cabinet which included the Prime Minister as well as other Ministers.

What authority did the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan have under the Indian Independence Act?

Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the Constituent Assembly had complete legislative (law making) authority as well as the authority to make a new Constitution.

How was the Governor General able to assert more power in Pakistan?

What was the Basic Principles Committee? [4]

The Constituent Assembly had set up a team of 25 members out of 80 members of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The Committee was to decide the principles on which the new constitution should be based. Its findings were contained in a document called the Objectives Resolution.

Explain why the Basic Principles Commission might have wanted to include each of the six points in the Objectives Resolution? [7]

The references to Islam were placed in the Objectives Resolution because of the ideology of this country which is the Two Nation Theory, which meant the country was created in the name of religion, Islam. It was also to counter the criticism of the ulama that the new government had not made Pakistan a proper Islamic state with a constitution based on shariat.

Religious freedom for all and protection of minorities is also guaranteed by Islam within an Islamic state. Besides, these were promised by Quaid-e-Azam also.

Before independence, people were denied many fundamental rights which the independent Pakistan must provide.

In a colonized nation or under a dictatorship, judiciary is under the influence of the government. The Basic Principles Commission ensured that Pakistan’s new constitution should provide independent judiciary.

What was PRODA? [4]

In 1949 the Public and Representative Office Disqualification Act (PRODA) allowed the government to disqualify persons found guilty of “misconduct,” a term that acquired a broad definition. It was often misused by the ruling elite to silence the voice of the opposition.

Was PRODA a good or bad law for Pakistan? [4]

PRODA would have been good if it had not been misused or at least it had been used by some independent state institution instead of personalities.

Problems arose when nominated (unelected) Governors and Governor Generals like Ghulam Muhammad used it inappropriately causing Constitutional crises. Pakistan suffered from political instability when Prime Ministers and other officials were dismissed through misuse of PRODA.

Prime Ministers like Nazimuddin and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy were ousted.

Civilian dictatorship under PRODA led to military dictatorship which ended up breaking Pakistan in 1971.

Therefore I would say that PRODA was bad for Pakistan as it represented the colonial mindset which denied fundamental human rights and democracy to the people of Pakistan.

Why was much criticism made on the first report of the Basic Principles Committee? [7]

East Pakistan had a much larger population than West Pakistan and rejected the idea of equal representation in the National Assembly. The East Pakistanis also resented having to accept Urdu as the official language, at the expense of Bengali.

Provincial politicians objected to the power being given to the Head of State (President) and to the Federal (Central) Government.

Religious groups complained that the Constitution was not sufficiently Islamic.

What was Rawalpindi Conspiracy? [4]

Some army officers unhappy with the government began to plan a coup to take over the government in 1951. It is called the ‘Rawalpindi Conspiracy’. The perpetrators (conspirators) were arrested, tried and imprisoned. Amongst them was Major General Akbar Khan, Chief of General Staff, and 14 other officers.

How the revised Report of the Basic Principles Committee (in 1952) was a good chance of bringing the country to the right track? [7]

The Revised Report of the Basic Principles Committee in 1952 was introducing parliamentary democracy to the country which meant there were two houses (an upper and a lower house), the Cabinet was to be responsible to the National Assembly (the lower house), not the Head of State. According to the report, the official language issue would be settled by the Assembly.

If the Constituent Assembly and other politicians had agreed to these proposals, Pakistan could have got to the road to democracy at the right time. We could have avoided the negative roles of Governor Generals Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Commander-in-Chief Ayub Khan which led to the breakup of this country in 1971, and collapse of the economy too.

Democracy came too late in 1973; 26 years after independence.

Why did Khwaja Nazimuddin step down from Governor Generalship? [7]

After Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination, Khwaja Nazimuddin, the then Governor General was asked to step down and assume the position of the Prime Minister which he accepted. Ghulam Muhammad, the Finance Minister in the Cabinet, replaced him and became the Governor General.

It is not clear why it happened. However, a general opinion is that Ghulam Muhammad was chosen for this post because he was more assertive and could exercise vice regal powers. Despite his unconstitutional and controversial decisions, he was not dismissed by the British monarch.

Why was Khwaja Nazimuddin dismissed as Prime Minister? [7]

From 1951 to 1953 there was a severed drought in Pakistan. This affected food production and in February 1953, severe food shortages led to rioting in most cities throughout Pakistan. The government was not well-placed to deal with these shortages.

During the Korean War, there had been increased demand for Pakistan’s jute and cotton, to supply the thousands of soldiers involved in fighting but by 1953 demand had declined. This meant that Pakistan making less money just when it needed to buy more foodstuffs.

The rioting also had a religious element. Some ulama had begun a campaign against the Ahmedis. It was only after martial law was imposed and numerous arrests were made that the rioting was brought under control.

On 17 April 1953, Ghulam Muhammad dismissed Khwaja Nazimuddin and three other members of the Cabinet, blaming them for not controlling the economy and the riots. He did this despite the fact that they had received a vote of confidence from the Assembly. However, Nazimuddin decided not to resist against this unconstitutional measure from Ghulam Muhammad.

Governor General Ghulam Muhammad was responsible for two constitutional crises that sabotaged Pakistan’s political environment. What were those?

The first Constitutional Crisis when he dismissed Khwaja Nazimuddin as Prime Minister in 1953 through an unconstitutional act, and the second when he dissolved the entire Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1954.

What was the impact of the 1954/55 Constitutional Crisis?

According to the Sindh High Court, the Constituent Assembly was a sovereign body and the Governor General had no power of any kind to dissolve it. But the higher (Federal) court supported Ghulam Muhammad’s action using the law of necessity which was not any part of the Constitution.

According to a historian, this decision of the Federal Court was devastating to the political structure of Pakistan, as it was referred to again and again by the military dictators while scrapping the constitution, declaring emergency and ruling the country at the gun point.

Because of this decision, Pakistanis were denied their fundamental rights, Pakistan was denied democracy, nation was used to serve the interests of the western countries, economy depended on western aid, and East Pakistan was suppressed and ultimately allowed to break off.

Why was there so much opposition to the One Unit policy? [7]

In Pakistan, the dominant politicians and administrators were from the West wing, in particular, from the Punjab. These leading lights in the Pakistan government feared that the East Pakistanis might soon gain influence at their expense if democracy was adopted. After all, there were 10 million more people in East Pakistan than West Pakistan. By dividing Pakistan into two wings (West Pakistan and East Pakistan) officially and ensuring equal representation in the Assembly, the One Unit Scheme prevented East Pakistan gaining a majority in the Assembly.

The scheme was highly unpopular in East Pakistan and also was opposed in the individual provinces of West Pakistan (other than Punjab). Such was the opposition that President Mirza had to dismiss the Chief Minister of Sindh and dissolve the state assemblies of Bahawalpur and Khairpur.

The scheme was opposed because it was unjustified, irrational and unrealistic, as well as detrimental to the integrity of the country.

What do you think made Ayub Khan take control in October 1958? [7]

First of all, the last two governor generals namely Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza involved him or more precisely dragged him into politics. He was chosen as a Cabinet Minister by Ghulam Muhammad and remained influential under Iskander Mirza. Unfortunately, the judiciary issued controversial decisions which allowed both the governor generals to act in an unconstitutional manner.

The two governor generals dismissed six prime ministers, and by doing so they caused political instability in the country. It happened because both of them were unelected personalities who were backed up by another unelected person in the government, General Ayub Khan.

Constitution making remained the toughest task until 1956 when a colonial style and undemocratic constitution was imposed by Iskander Mirza which gave wide powers to himself as the President. Using the same powers he dismissed the so called Parliament and imposed martial law. The Commander-in-Chief, Ayub Khan was picked as the Chief Martial Law Administrator. This made Ayub even more powerful than the President (Iskander Mirza). Ayub did not lose the opportunity to get rid of Iskander Mirza. He exiled him to Britain and took control as first military dictator of Pakistan.

Was the 1962 Constitution as per the wishes and desires of the founding fathers of this country? [7]

Just after the inception of Pakistan, the country was faced to extraordinary situations. There was a multitude of problems that Jinnah faced in the first year of independence. He died soon; and when it seemed that instability was being achieved, the first Prime Minister was assassinated and then some unelected personalities who were civil and military bureaucrats did not let the people of Pakistan taste the fruit of independence for which 1 to 2 million people had laid their lives and several millions became homeless.

Governor Generals Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and the first Pakistani Commander-in-Chief Ayub Khan used manoeuvring, 6 Prime Ministers were dismissed within 7 years, general elections and democracy were denied to the people and Pakistan saw its first military dictatorship in 1958. The military dictator, Ayub Khan appointed his own experts who were unelected people to formulate a Constitution which suited nothing but his own dictatorship.

Since the 1962 Constitution was not created by any elected Parliament or a Constituent Assembly, it was made as per the desires of a military dictator to serve his own personal agenda, it may not be considered as a Constitution on technical and moral grounds. It was not only opposite to the spirit of the Pakistan Movement but it also denied democracy to the country as well as it changed the political order to presidential system which was apparently borrowed from the US who was a staunch ally of Pakistan’s military regime.

Why did Pakistan and India fight a war in 1965? [7]

Pakistan’s decision to go to war against India in 1965 is a perfect case to prove that military rule is injurious to the integrity, diplomatic relations and prosperity of this country. It also proves that military dictators were devoid of political wisdom and leadership skills. From Ayub through Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, Pakistan suffered immensely in the long term.

In 1962, China fought against India over the positioning of the border between the two countries. Ayub Khan’s regime saw Indian weakness in this war but failed to realise the rearmament of Indian armed forces by the West. In 1965, Ayub regime forced the Indians to accept an independent tribunal to settle a border dispute over the Rann of Kutch on the Sindh/Rajasthan border. Ayub Khan’s ‘political wisdom’ and ‘military strategy’ made him believe that he could have applied the same pressure over Kashmir.

The military dictator began his offensive against India in the Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1965 which failed miserably due to intelligence failure or in short general incompetence. Once again, the military minds ‘believed’ that the war would be confined to the disputed territory. However, Indians used a ‘better’ strategy by attacking Pakistan in response across the international border near Lahore and later in Sialkot sector. So instead of continuing with our offensive, now we were forced to defend Lahore and Sialkot which was made possible only through a heroic act. Otherwise, Ayub Khan’s lack or political and military wisdom had almost doomed our defence.

There’s a possibility that Ayub Khan fought this war against India in an attempt to gain popularity that he had lost due to his alleged rigging in the presidential election of 1964 – 65 against Miss Fatima Jinnah.

Why did Ayub Khan sack Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from the post of foreign minister? [7]

What Ayub Khan did to Bhutto following the Tashkent Declaration was exactly what was followed by other military dictators most probably as a face saving tactic. It’s a well-known fact that military governments in developing countries like Pakistan follow colonial tactics against press freedom and are always up to news censorship. The next tool in a military regime is the use of propaganda through which it puts everything in good light.

When the war ended, Ayub Khan told the people that Pakistan had won the war. It meant that either Pakistan army had captured key areas of the occupied territory or some international tribunal was about to decide the Kashmir issue in Pakistan’s favour as in case of Rann of Kutch.

As a matter of fact the peace treaty at Tashkent contained no reference to how the Kashmir issue should be settled. Now instead of tending his own resignation for misleading the nation, Ayub sacked Bhutto the foreign minister by blaming him for the failings in the war. This behaviour was followed by other military officials following the defeat in 1971 and failure in the Kargil conflict when Bhutto was once again blamed for the fall of East Pakistan, though the country and the war were not led by Bhutto but the military. In 1999, the Army Chief, General Musharraf blamed the Prime Minister for the failure of Kargil Mission though it was army chief’s own illegal decision by going to war against India without government’s approval.

Why did Pakistan lose the 1965 War against India? [7]

The most important reason for this failure was the lack of political wisdom and military genius in the Ayub Khan regime. The democratic government in India had proved to be more effective than the self-acclaimed field marshal of Pakistan.

There was an open intelligence failure in the occupied territory because the guerrilla infiltrators from Kashmir had failed to begin an uprising. Ayub Khan’s intelligence team had not informed him that following the defeat in the 1962 war, India was pursuing rearmament with western support, and it was not as weak as the military officials had anticipated, actually on the battle ground, India proved to be more powerful than Pakistan.

Ayub Khan was also told by his ‘advisors’ that the war would be confined to the disputed territory (of Kashmir). The field marshal himself had no ability to oversee a danger and completely relied on ‘experts’ like Bhutto. Consequently India surprised the field marshal by attacking Lahore and Sialkot (by crossing the international border). Had there not been the heroic action of first line of defense, Pakistan most probably would have lost Lahore, Sialkot and even Azad Kashmir due to an immature and dangerous plan of Ayub Khan.

The situation got worse when Ayub Khan’s western allies placed an embargo on the sale and service of military equipment to both countries which hit Pakistan more severely as it had imported western military equipment. Thanks to the Chinese diplomatic help, that India agreed to a ceasefire.

Such was the failure of Ayub Khan’s foreign policy that all world powers including the USSR and western allies were not supporting Pakistan against India.

Why did Ayub Khan shift the capital from Karachi to Islamabad? [7]

Instead of focusing on his governance Ayub Khan started a brand new venture of building a new capital which cost more than we earned.

It happened because he probably believed that by moving the capital next to military headquarters would give his government a better support. This was because his government stood on coercion and backing from military instead of direct support from the people.

Karachi city was predominantly inhabited by emigrants who were mostly literate and supporters of democracy like the people of East Pakistan. In 1964 – 65 elections, this city voted for Miss Fatima Jinnah instead of Ayub Khan. Ayub was aware of that, that’s why shifting the capital to Islamabad seemed to have a person reason than any national or economic interest.

Some analysts claim that making a new capital was due to the fact that Karachi was unsafe and was exposed to a naval attack by India. However, if the country’s defence is weak and relations with neighbours are at low ebb, any city including Islamabad is unsafe.

Why did Ayub Khan step down as president? [7]

Following the 1965 War, relations between Americans and Ayub’s military regime worsened. It meant western countries would send less military and financial aid and this directly hit the economy.

After the war, Ayub lost his credibility among the masses; there were country wide protests against undemocratic and iron fisted dictatorship with numerous accusations of vote rigging in the elections for the Electoral College and the presidential elections as well as soaring food prices.

In 1968, Ayub Khan’s chief economist revealed that just 22 families controlled 66% of Pakistan’s industrial assets. The same families also controlled 80% of Pakistan’s banking and insurance companies. So a small, elite group of wealthy Pakistanis had almost complete control of Pakistan’s wealth, thanks to the capitalist economy borrowed by Ayub Khan from his US allies. It did not go unnoticed in East Pakistan that almost all these families were in West Pakistan. In other words, Ayub had focused on West Pakistan for economic growth and was ignoring East Pakistan.

Since Ayub Khan sacked Bhutto, he began campaigning against Ayub, his former benefactor. Staring his career in the undemocratic Cabinet of Iskander Mirza till his role in Ayub Khan’s Cabinet, Bhutto now became a ‘champion of democracy’; he founded Pakistan Peoples’ Party and gave a really tough time to his former President. In East Pakistan similar protests prevailed and by 1969, Ayub Khan had realised that he had not enough support to stay in power. However, instead of resigning as per his own Constitution and calling for new elections to choose another president, he handed over power to the army by imposing martial law.

How did Ayub Khan improve Pakistan’s economy? [7]

Ayub Khan was a military dictator who was in power due to a direct support from western countries especially the United States. Since Pakistan was siding with western powers against communist Soviet Union, it was getting enough aid and soft loans to build its economy.

Along with financial assistance, Americans and the allies provided technical assistance as well. There were foreign experts and advisors who took over planning and execution.

In the field of agriculture, green revolution began in countries like India, Pakistan and Mexico under direct US support which brought crop yields at an all-time record. It should be noted that much of the increased productivity was due to mechanisation which could generally only be afforded by big landowners. Land reforms introduced by Ayub regime also proved successful.

Rapid industrialisation took place in Karachi and Central Punjab which gave rise to the emergency of 22 richest families that controlled 60% of Pakistan’s industrial assets. This new wealth did little to benefit the large numbers of Pakistanis living near the poverty line.

So in reality the economic growth was artificial, as it crashed soon when western aid stopped coming and when East Pakistan got separated from the West.

What were Ayub Khan’s land reforms? [4]

A law was passed saying that no farm could be smaller than 12.5 acres or larger than 500 acres (irrigated) or 1000 acres (unirrigated). This meant that many smaller farmers found their land was redistributed. However, the resulting larger farms did produce a steady rise in food output. Big landowners raised productivity as the tenants and smaller farms were often more efficient than the larger, poorly run farms.

What was the Green Revolution under Ayub Khan? [7]

Three major dams (Tarbela, Mangla, Warsak) were built to help irrigation. Farmers were also loaned money to build (tube) wells to reduce the need for canal irrigation.

These reforms revitalised agriculture and crop yields were at an all-time high. Ayub said that they had brought about a Green Revolution. However, it should be noted that much of the increased productivity was due to mechanisation, which could generally only be afforded by big landowners.

To what extent did Pakistan achieve a new constitution between 1949 and 1973? Explain your answer. [14]

(Two explanations, one on the achievements and one on another reason, are worth nine marks. Additional explanations awarded up to 13 marks)

Able to achieve

• The first attempt to set up a constitution was the Objectives Resolution in 1949, which set out a plan to enshrine Islamic principles in an eventual constitution;

• In 1952 a revised Basic Principles Committee made steps towards an Islamic constitution, stating that the Head of State should be Muslim and appoint a committee of Islamic specialists ensuring all legislation conformed to Islamic law;

• In 1956 the constitution emerged with the declaration that Pakistan was to be an Islamic Republic and that Urdu and Bengali would be the official languages, a conciliatory move towards the people of East Pakistan;

• In 1959 Basic Democracies were introduced by Ayub Khan which was a 4 tier structure of government, allowing elections at various levels. The success of these councils was such that martial law was lifted in 1962 after a new constitution was introduced;

• The 1973 Constitution revived the power of the National Assembly and as a result political parties became more important.

Unable to achieve

• The Objectives Resolution of 1949 was criticised by East Pakistan as Urdu, not Bengali was to be the official language despite its larger population. The death of Liaquat Ali Khan meant that constitutional change had to wait until a new leader could be found and had time to settle in;

• The Basic Principles Committee’s report was criticised because the official language issue was not settled and East Pakistan was determined to oppose the selection of Urdu. Political change meant that further discussions on a new constitution were put on hold until 1956;

• The constitution promised a parliamentary system of government but the President held the power to intervene or even suspend the Assembly;

• The 1962 constitution increased the powers of the ruling elite as the major landlords dominated the elections to the Basic Democracies.

Judgment: Write you judgment / evaluation

How successful was the establishment of an independent nation between 1947 and 1948?

What do you think was the most important reason of violence in 1947? [14]

The most important reason in my opinion was the partition of Punjab and Bengal. I hold the British and Congress equally responsible for this. Muslim League voted for partition of India and Quaid-e-Azam had rightly demanded that Punjab and Bengal must not be divided and Pakistan should be given whole of these provinces. If Quaid-e-Azam’s advice had been followed, violence could have been avoided to a large extent.

The partition of Punjab in particular was more critical than Bengal. It had a sizeable population of the Sikhs who had a history of opposing the Muslims. Partitioning Punjab would definitely have consequences. The British and the concerned parties (the League and the Congress) also did not realise the sensitivity of this issue.

Since British had ruled India for less than 200 years and during this period they had amassed immense wealth from the country which was used to develop and modernise Britain, it was their prime responsibility to make sure partition was safe and secure. The British showed criminal negligence by leaving India immediately, and by leaving Indians at the mercy of circumstances. The British must have stayed back looking after the law and order in the transition period.

Security was not provided to the people in sensitive areas. It wasn’t also provided to the people who were migrating. Indian troops supplied the largest contingent to British Empire. Where were those troops in 1947?

Communal violence had already begun in 1946, and it increased greatly because the British were heedlessly in a hurry to leave India. In the beginning they had announced that India would be partitioned by 1948 but then they forwarded the date by one year. If partition had actually taken place in 1948, and the Boundary Commission had decided the borders in 1947, people would not have panicked that much. They would have had ample time to decide about migration.

In the end I conclude this analysis by establishing that the British were solely responsible for this great violence as they were the rulers of India, they were the in charges of all affairs. They showed a very careless attitude as well as extreme negligence.

What were the reactions of Pakistan and India to the Radcliffe Award? [7]

Muslims in Pakistan were not satisfied by the Radcliffe Award due to a few important reasons.

Ferozpur (in Punjab) was given to India even though it had a Muslim majority. Since Ferozpur had the head-works which supplied water to parts of Pakistani Punjab, it was of a great economic importance. Gurdaspur also had a Muslim majority and it was also given to India. Jinnah was convinced that this was done deliberately to give India a border with Kashmir and allow it to intervene in areas of Kashmir which Jinnah believed were righty part of Pakistan. The Muslims were also very disappointed that when Bengal was partitioned, Calcutta went to India. The city of Calcutta was the capital of the province and its biggest industrial, commercial and educational centre. The raw material which East Bengal produced had to be sent to Calcutta because all factories and mills were in that city.

The Sikhs (in India) were disappointed because they made up a large proportion of the population in the Punjab and had important historical and religious associations with it. They wanted a separate Sikh state if partition was to go ahead. This wasn’t approved. The Hindus too had some complaints about the Award. For instance, they most resented the fact that the Chittagong Hill Tracts were not awarded to India. These had a large Hindu majority and Nehru believed they should become part of India. However, the Tracts were regarded as having a vital economic relationship with East Bengal, so Radcliffe awarded them to Pakistan. Here it should be noted that Radcliffe had ignored this principle of ‘economy’ in the case of Ferozpur and Calcutta.

What geographical problems did Pakistan face as a new country in 1947? [7]

An important problem with the partition of India was that both countries came to exist on the basis of demography or more precisely on the basis of religious affiliation. It meant that the boundaries were not drawn along natural borders, such as rivers, mountains or the sea.

Pakistan was split into two separate parts which were more than a 1000 miles apart. This geographical problems led to disrupted and delayed communications. People to people contact was made difficult by the hostile nation of India between the two parts.

This geographical problem also weakened the defense of the country and it consequently led to the fall of East Pakistan in 1971.

Geography of both countries also caused Canal Water Dispute and distribution of river waters between the two countries. It meant that geography negatively affected the relations between the two nations.

Source

A prominent member of the Constituent Assembly said in 1951:

‘Pakistan is a unique country having two wings which are separated by more than one thousand miles. The two wings differ in all matters except two things: namely that they have a common religion, barring a section of the people in East Pakistan, and we have achieved independence by a common struggle. All other factors, the language, the tradition, the culture, the customs, the dietary habits, the calendar, the standard time – practically everything is different.’

According to this source what problems did Pakistan face in 1951?

The source is highlighting the geographical as well as social problem faced to Pakistan in its early years. Due to the physical distance of over 1000 miles between the two wings of Pakistan, people in the east and the west were socially and culturally different. It meant that ruling such different people required a different approach rather than a traditional one.

Source

In a speech to government officials on 11 October, 1947, Jinnah said: If we are to exist as a nation and give shape to the dream of Pakistan, we will have to face the problems with determination and force. Our people are disorganised and disheartened by the difficulties we face. Their morale is low and we will have to work harder to pull them out of their despondency and galvanise them to action. All this throws a greater responsibility on government servants, to whom our people look for guidance.’

How does Jinnah describe the people of Pakistan this source?

Jinnah is saying that the people are overwhelmed by the problems they are facing. They are disorganized, demoralized and require guidance and support from government officials.

2. What does he see as a possible solution to the people’s problems?

In his view the possible solution was hard work and a sense of responsibility with which the government officials would guide and serve the people.

Source

In a speech to students at the Islamia College, Peshawar, in 1947, Jinnah said: Our duty to the state takes us beyond provincialism. It often demands that we be ready to submerge individual and provincial interest to the common cause for good. Our duty to the state comes first, then our duty to our province, district, town, village and last, ourselves.

To what political problems is Jinnah referring to in this source?

Pakistan was a nascent state, it needed to be established as a viable state. But Jinnah could see provincialism as a problem to the establishment of Pakistan. Provincialism was a hurdle in the nation building process that Pakistan was going through at that time.

2. Why do you think he made this speech?

He made this speech because the audience consisted of students who were prospective leaders of the country. He was trying hard to unite socially and culturally different people as one nation, as Pakistanis.

Why do you think the Kashmir Issue has still not been resolved? [14]

There are many reasons why this issue is still unresolved:

The most important reason is the attitude and general performance of the United Nations Organisation. It was referred to in 1948, and until 1999 it failed to hold a plebiscite in the region in order to allow the Kashmiri people to decide about their future.

Another reason is poor relations between India and Pakistan since their inception in 1947. Both countries have lacked strong leaders who can take bold steps and make a right decision which should be acceptable to all the parties concerned.

Unfortunately India from day one has attempted to dominate Pakistan due to her larger size and better economy. It illegally occupied the states of Junagarh and Hyderabad Deccan in 1947 and 1948, and sent its troops to Kashmir after a controversial accession to India by the Maharaja. Since India was not willing to talk to Pakistan over Kashmir, Pakistan had no chance but to attempt twice or thrice to look for a military solution. In this atmosphere of hostility and intimidation nothing positive can be achieved.

The British government has played a very important role in this issue exactly as it did in the Palestinian issue. Like Palestine, Non-Muslims were imposed on majority Muslim population using different excuses. For example Gurdaspur was unfairly given to India so that it would have access to Kashmir through this only land route. India sent its troops to Kashmir when the British royal family member and the last viceroy of India (Louise Mountbatten) was serving as the first governor general of India. Throughout 1930s, there had been tensions between the Kashmiri Muslims and their Hindu ruler, but the British failed to realize the sensitivity of this matter as it ignored the Sikh demand in Punjab. The British also did not consider what economic importance Kashmir held for Pakistan as all main rivers flowed through Kashmir.

Lastly the main Kashmiri leadership is influenced by either Pakistan or India. It’s important that Kashmiris have their own independent and indigenous leadership who is not directed or guided by any of the rival countries. This lack of good and strong leadership is a very important factor which is needed for the unity of Kashmiris on either side of the Line of Control.

To wrap up this discussion, I must say that all the above reasons are important and are responsible for this issue being alive until today.

Some American and Pakistani politicians claim that Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [14]

This statement shows the sensitivity of the Kashmir issue and that it may lead the two south Asian countries to a nuclear battle. Now this is a debatable question.

Practically, both India and Pakistan became nuclear in 1998 when they officially tested their nuclear weapons. Within a year, the two countries were in the Kargil conflict and they comfortably remained in it without using any nuclear weapons. It should be noted that both the nations have avoided wars since the Kargil war.

There are other reasons why a nuclear war is unlikely between the two countries over any issue including the Kashmir problem. A valid question is what will happen next if both countries fight a nuclear war? They will destroy each other, make peace again and start rebuilding themselves. Is Kashmir worth this heavy price? Absolutely not. I am sure the leadership in both countries is aware of this fact of the matter.

Looking at the warring history of both countries, we see that they always had brief wars, and afterward sat together for a dialogue. It happened because both have other real problems to solve. They have soaring populations with high levels of hunger and disease. They both are developing countries who can’t afford the luxury of a war, let alone a nuclear war.

Human greed has no bounds. Sadly there are some people whose business grow in regional conflicts. They never want peace. Peace does not suit them. Their businesses grow when there’s a high demand of weapons, and coffins. They have better opportunities of business when two neighbours cannot have cheap exchange of goods.

On the basis of the above arguments, I am convinced that even though some people are sincerely hoping that Kashmir issue will be resolved, there are some other people who are just playing with words to serve their own unknown purposes. And therefore, I do not agree that Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint.

How grave was the refugee crisis in 1947? [7]

At the time of its inception in 1947, Pakistan was facing so many challenges. It lacked resources with which to deal with them. For example immediately after partition it was forced to fight a war over Kashmir. This war led to other problems such as the Canal Water Dispute, transfer of financial and military assets. There were other problems too, e.g. the distance between the two parts of the country, challenges for nation building etc. All these were made worse by a weak economy.

When millions moved across the border, the newborn country was faced to challenge of refugee rehabilitation. It was not easy to provide for them a shelter to live, food to eat, and other commodities to utilize. The healthcare, education and security was feeling pressure. Refugee crisis was so grave that it was still unresolved to some extent when Ayub Khan was in power, who had to accommodate 75000 refugees in newly built dwellings of Karachi.

How successful were the religious thinkers in spreading Islam in the subcontinent during the 18th & 19th centuries?

What did Shah Waliullah think were the main causes of the problems of the Muslims? [7]

Since this is a [7] mark question; write 3 factors in 3 paragraphs.

By the time Shah Waliullah returned to Delhi from Arabia (in 1732), the Mughal Empire was in decline and Muslims were vulnerable to attacks on their religion. Marathas had become very powerful and influential. Therefore the loss of the political power was very important.

He also believed that many of the problems of the Muslims resulted from their incomplete knowledge of the Quran and about Islam in general. There was a lack of academic institutions which taught religion to people. Islam being the uniting factor was important for the community.

Another major problem was that Muslims were divided into sectarian groups, such as Sunnis and Shias.

What did he believe was essential to create a good society? [4]

He believed it was essential to follow the moral and spiritual principles of Islam in order to create a good society. Un-Islamic principles were not acceptable in any area of society, whether politics, economics or just the day-to-day lives of the individual Muslims.

Why were the writings of Shah Waliullah important? [7]

Shah Waliullah was a prolific author; he wrote 51 books in Arabic and Persian languages. He also translated Quran into Persian. His books meant to spread awareness of religion in the Muslim community.

Another purpose served by his books was they made him popular among the religiously motivated section of the society. He attained importance and influence which he actually used to mobilise the community against the surge of Marathas effectively in the 3^rd Battle of Panipat in 1761.

His writings were not limited to his time; they were read and followed by the next generations which adopted his ideology in their struggle for independence.

What role did he play in opposing the Marathas? [7]

One of Shah Waliullah’s most important contributions to the Muslim community was his organization of opposition to the Marathas, who were threatening to over-run the Mughal Empire from the south. He realized that the Muslims had to unite to deal with this threat, and that the Sikhs who were attacking in the north.

Shah Waliullah wrote to all the Muslim nobles calling on them to join together to save the Mughal Empire. It was partly his influence which helped to persuade Ahmad Shah Abdali of Persia to intervene. Because of Shah Waliullah’s efforts, Ahmad Shah Abdali joined forces with local Muslim leaders and defeated the Marathas at the Battle of Panipat in 1761.

Due to the defeat in this battle, Maratha dream to establish and all India Empire could not come true.

How did Shah Waliullah influence the next generations? [7]

Shah Waliullah’s struggle to revive the Muslim rule in India revolved around one ideology; which is actually the ideology of Pakistan.

Shah Waliullah wished to unite Muslims in the fold of Islam; Pakistan was also created in the name of Islam using the Two Nation Theory. The theory claimed that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who followed different ideologies; therefore it was not possible for both of them to coexist peacefully under the same system. India was partitioned in 1947 under the same idea.

Shah Waliullah directly influenced reformers namely Syed Ahmad Barelvi, Titu Mir, and Haji Shariatullah who were contemporaries (belonged to the same era). Later reformers like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the founding fathers of Pakistan i.e. Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam, although were not religious like Shah Waliullah, followed the same path and worked to get a state or a governing system for the Muslims.

Why was Syed Ahmad Barelvi a very suitable person to lead opposition to the British? [7]

Syed Ahmad Barelvi was the first person in the British colonial history of India who was able to unite people in the name of Jihad (religion) for an armed struggle against Non-Muslim rule. He had successfully gathered some 80,000 followers who actually gained ground by defeating the Sikhs in early clashes.

His aim was to establish an Islamic state in the areas ruled by the Sikhs and those next to Afghanistan. He probably wanted to create a safe zone for the Mujahideen in the North West from where they could expand their influence. And in doing so they would certainly come into conflict with the British who had occupied the largest part of India by that time.

If he had not fallen into controversies because of imposing his own interpretation of Islam (the Wahabi school of thought) upon the tribals, and if people like Yar Muhammad had not betrayed him, he could have posed a great threat for the British rule in India by collaborating with the Afghans who later achieved comprehensive victory against invading British troops. It was really possible because he was already effectively opposing the Sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh who was undefeated by the British.

What role did Syed Ahmad play in opposing the Sikhs? [7]

Syed Ahmad Barelvi was the first person to oppose the Sikhs after the Mughals. Otherwise Ahmad Shah Abdali’s forces had destroyed only the Marathas in the 3^rd Battle of Panipat.

Before beginning his military campaign, he warned Ranjit Singh of a war from mujahideen if did not allow Muslims freedom of worship. In early clashes he defeated the Sikhs and was able to make a mujahideen force numbered 80,000 strong.

However, he was not able to gain support from the local leaders who not only betrayed him but also took sides with the Sikhs. The Sikhs on the other hand used propaganda against him which actually worked. It happened because he fell into controversies by imposing his interpretation of Islam in a tribal culture which was not accustomed to his ideology. He also made a big mistake by fighting wars with the locals who opposed him. It simply meant that he was not aware of the tribal culture in the North West; instead he should have tried to win the hearts and minds.

I think he was trying to achieve so many objectives in a short time. His military campaigns began in 1826 and he was killed in 1831; which means it was a brief struggle which did not last long.

The Sikhs were successful in the end, undefeated by the Mujahideen. They were defeated only after the death of Ranjit Singh when the British forces beat them in battle.

Jihad Movement is regarded by many historians as the forerunner (precursor) of the Pakistan Movement in India. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [10] or [14]

Jihad Movement is regarded by many historians as the forerunner of the Pakistan Movement in India. Syed Ahmad’s efforts were an inspiration to all Muslims in defending their religion, their culture and their freedom. Those Muslims who later campaigned for their own homeland saw Syed Ahmad as an example of a Muslim fighting for the Muslim cause in much same way, since he too wanted to see a state which was based on the principles of Islam.

To differ from the above view, one can say that the first person who actually gave the ideology of Pakistan in its early form was Shah Waliullah. He also professed Jihad and partly due to his efforts Muslims fought against the Non-Muslim domination in the 3^rd Battle of Panipat.

There is one more contrast of the Pakistan Movement with the Jihad Movement that the former was not totally led by religion or religious personalities. Pakistan’s struggle was ‘largely’ made on the basis of ‘western democracy’. India was partitioned because there were elections, people had cast their votes, and Britain decided to partition India due to the pressure of Muslim representatives who had been elected and who did not want to live under united India. Pakistan’s founding fathers had gained education from western schools and universities and not religious seminaries.

For the same reason, since the inception of Pakistan in 1947 until today, the country has not yet adopted an Islamic system of governance which was the aim of Syed Ahmad Barelvi.

How much Pakistanis follow the ideology of Syed Ahmad can be seen from the condition of his resting place, compared to the tombs of Allama Iqbal and Jinnah.

Therefore my conclusion is that the Jihad Movement was not actually the forerunner of the Pakistan Movement. It only served the purpose of Pakistan’s ideology to this extent that Muslims in the subcontinent could not live under Non-Muslim domination.

Why did Haji Shariatullah declare India as Dar-ul-Harb? [7]

Though the Mughal rule was not purely Islamic but it still allowed Muslims to practice their religion freely. However, when the Mughals declined, the country gradually fell to the Non-Muslims namely the Marathas, the Sikhs and the British who interfered with the religion of Muslims, promoted Un-Islamic practices and oppressed the Muslim community in general.

Haji Shariatullah wanted to officially declare that India was under the Non-Muslim rule as Muslims were being denied their political, social, economic and religious rights by the Non-Muslim rulers (Hindu zamindars and their British masters). As a religious leader of his community, he announced that India was Dar-ul-Harb i.e. a land ruled by Non-Muslims; and therefore Muslims should stop offering Friday and Eid prayers which according to his interpretation are obligatory only under Islamic or Muslim rule.

It was undoubtedly an attempt to spread social and political awareness in the Muslim community. This actually worked and the Sepoy Mutiny started from Barrackpore (West Bengal). In the beginning of the next century, political leadership of Bengal sat together in Dhaka and founded All India Muslim League which won independence for the Muslims in the east and the north west of the subcontinent.

Why did Hindu landlords (zamindars) drive Haji Shariatullah out of East Bengal? [7]

Bengal had been under Muslim rule for quite a long time. It fell to the British when East India Company defeated Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah in 1757 and then a joint Muslim force in 1764 at Buxar. The company rule entrusted local management to the Hindu landlords who were rich and influential. These landlords had hired Muslim peasants in their lands.

When Haji Shariatullah began his Faraizi Movement, it spread his influence and Muslim cultivators started getting united against religious and economic oppression which alarmed the landlords who were not willing to grant these rights to the Muslims. They collaborated with their British rulers and drove Haji Shariatullah out of the region to Nawabganj in Dhaka district.

Why did the British imprison Mohsin-ud-Din? [7]

Haji Shariatullah was causing trouble to the influential Hindu landlords, so he was driven out of the region in order to make him ineffective. He died but his mission was carried on by his son, Mohsin-ud-Din who introduced important economic measures.

He divided East Bengal into areas and appointed in charges to look after the social and spiritual welfare of the people in their area. he helped the peasants to oppose the excessive taxes imposed by the Hindu and British landlords. this opposition to the payment of taxes led to unrest in East Bengal, but he went even further and threatened to declare a jihad against the British government.

The British had colonised India, and they were not willing to give people their due rights. So they arrested Mohsin-ud-Din, a troublemaker for them, and put him in prison.

	sheharyarqureshi on 1971 war: Witness to hist…
	Sufi on The Environment of Pakistan /…
	Sufi on What were the causes and conse…
	Sufi on What were the causes and conse…
	Hunza on The Environment of Pakistan /…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: