In an interview that is likely to infuriate his countrymen in Pakistan whilst being warmly welcomed in India, one of Pakistan’s foremost political scientists, Ishtiaq Ahmed, has bluntly said that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, is primarily to blame for the fact Pakistan has failed to become a credible democracy and has, instead, suffered from outright military dictatorship along with decades of behind the scenes effective military control.
In a 40-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Ahmed, who is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Stockholm, said that Jinnah was “to blame” because he had “no vision” for the country. He said Jinnah is no doubt the architect of Pakistan and without him Pakistan would never have been created but, very importantly, after creating Pakistan Jinnah had no vision for the country. Worse, Ahmed said, he was “a very autocratic head of state who usurped the powers of the prime minister.”
In the interview, Ahmed refers to a 1945 statement by Jinnah where he claims that democracy, constitutional rights, the economy, etc. all flow out of the Quran. Ahmed said that with this sort of statement, whether meant literally or intended as a tool to enhance Jinnah’s powers, there was no way Pakistan could become a modern secular democratic country.
In a particularly outspoken part of the interview, Ahmed said that after Jinnah the second obstacle that has prevented Pakistan becoming a credible democracy is the fact that it has become a theological state. He said it would have to cease to think of itself as a theological Islamic state if Pakistan wants to develop into a meaningful and credible democracy.
After the death of Jinnah, Ahmed said the people who came to power in Pakistan – Liaquat Ali Khan, Khwaja Najimuddin, Mohammad Ali Bogra, Mohammad Ali, Suhrawardy and Feroz Khan Noon – had been transplanted into the four provinces that created Pakistan but had no roots there. As a result, they lacked the confidence to hold elections or function democratically out of fear they could lose power.
Ahmed also addressed the question why Pakistan’s army, which has the same origin and tradition as the Indian army, and, prior to independence, was trained to respect civilian rule and civilian masters, so frequently grabbed power for itself. In this context, Ahmed explained what made former army chief of Pakistan Ayub Khan – who was a contemporary of Indian army chiefs like K. M. Cariappa, Rajendrasinhji Jadeja, Satyawant Mallana Srinages and Kodandera Subayya Thimayya – different from his Indian counterparts.
Finally, in a special question asked at the end, Ahmed makes clear that Pakistan is not a fundamentalist country and its people are not religious fanatics. That may be true of the government or politicians or the education system but it’s not true of the people. He also made clear that the people of Pakistan have enormous goodwill and affection for India, adding that he has experienced the same in reverse whenever he’s come to India.
