Dishonest politicians, like lawyers, never present the whole view of a situation. They highlight only what suits them. They will never mention any fact that goes against them. Include also biased historians among them.
We hear that Yahya Khan, Z.A. Bhutto and Mujibur Rahman were mainly responsible for the separation of East Pakistan. We are told that the problem arose only after the general elections in December 1970 when Awami League was not allowed to form the government on the basis of its majority. Nobody even mentions what happened before the elections when the road to separation was actually paved.
President Ayub Khan saw it coming during his last days. He wrote on February 26, 1969, in his diary (published recently), "I am worried about the future of the country. It seems that parliamentary system is about to be restored. If it occurs,
East Pakistan will demand maximum autonomy, which may end at its separation. They [East Pakistanis] will also encourage the separatists in West Pakistan. The central government will become weak. Such thoughts have been worrying me since the creation of Pakistan."
The politicians were so keen for the restoration of parliamentary system that they supported the abrogation of the Constitution (because it was based on presidential system) and even the imposition of martial law in March 1969. They also did not object when Yahya Khan ended the parity between the two wings that gave them equal seats in National Assembly and introduced one-man-one-vote, which meant that East Pakistan would always have a majority in Parliament because of its larger population. By persuading a few small parties in West Pakistan to join it, the majority party in East Pakistan would always be in power.
Those who dominated politics in those days cheerfully accepted whatever Yahya did. (Neither the People's Party, nor the Awami League was much of a party in early 1969.) Led by Nawabzada Nasrulla Khan (of hukka-topi fame), the politicians were ecstatic that, with parliamentary system back, they would enjoy once again wheeling and dealing, intrigues, corruption, blackmail, palace coups, destabilisation of whoever was in power, the things that had brought martial law in 1958. (After the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, there were six Prime Ministers in seven years' without there being any election.) It did not matter to them what would happen to the country. They are still at the same game.
What would have happened if politicians had not supported the abrogation of the constitution and the imposition of martial law? The presidential elections were due just 10 months later, in January 1970. Ayub Khan had already announced that he would not seek re-election. Somebody new would have been elected for five years. Neither Bhutto nor Mujib would have succeeded without substantial support from the other wing. There would have been no question of not handing over power to the successful candidate, no agitation for separation, no army action in East Pakistan, no Indian invasion and no Bangladesh. Now decide who was responsible really for the separation of East Pakistan.
The present politicians also claim that parliamentary system alone can save the country from instability when it is quite the opposite in reality. They conveniently ignore the fact that under this system Punjab will always dominate.
No leader from any other province will ever come into power without the support of the majority party in the Punjab. The smaller provinces will always complain of Punjab's domination. There will be coalition governments most of the time, making it impossible to take any major decisions. What else is political instability?
Under the presidential system, no candidate can afford to annoy any province while any outstanding person from any province has good possibility of success.
He will stand on his own merit and track record and seek votes directly, going over the heads of political parties. It will not be necessary that he belong to or have the support of the party that has more than 172 members in the National Assembly. Since no politician today may succeed as a presidential candidate, they want parliamentary system, under which anybody can find (or buy) his way to power.
Now you know why politicians love parliamentary system, even though it led to the separation of East Pakistan and is causing political instability today.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.