"Pakistan’s Political History & Constitution | Complete Guide from Hamid Khan" explain in Urdu Hindi

0:00 First of all, an important announcement. On this channel we talk about different books and thoughts. Our aim is only to convey knowledge and not to hurt anyone's feelings. The book has not been described word by word but its components have been explained in simple words. If there is something different from Islam in any book, then we mention it only for information. I do not support it. The voice over is entirely done using AI. Therefore, there can be a mistake in understanding the status of a commodity. Like calling a man a woman and a woman a man. My effort is to provide you with scientific knowledge so that you can know different viewpoints and form your own opinion. Khushamdid on Learn with Mahmood Sultan channel.

0:47 Today we are talking about a very important book. Hamid Khan Sahab's legal and political history of Pakistan. This is the book whose name you must have heard often. Especially if you are interested in the political and legal history of Pakistan. You can call it a basic status. Yes, it is definitely considered a common work on this topic. And its scope is also quite vast. Starting from the independence of Pakistan, where does it go? Lived almost till our time. It covers important events from almost till the present time. Well, and the topic is obviously that if it is a legal history then there would be laws. Yes, how constitutional governments were formed, how they were broken, all those stories, military interventions, the journey of democracy, all these

1:34 things, yes, all these important topics are included in it. But I'm told this is not just a list of sentences. The Tajiya in this is very deep. That's exactly what's special about him. It does not just tell the incident that first this happened, then that happened. Take the law for example. Acts of 1956, 1962, 1973. Our books not only tell us what was written in them but also under what circumstances they were made. Why and how were changes i.e. amendments made in them? Good. And then the intellectual problems which arose because of them have also been examined in depth. Political movements are also similar, so what you are saying is deep Tajiya or another word is used, little review.

2:21 How is this practically in the book? Yes. Is this what makes it special? Especially for students like civil services or law students. Yes, I think this is its speciality. Just understand the meaning of critical review that the author is not just telling what happened. Correct. But they also shed light on why it happened. What were its different aspects? What did the results turn out to be? Well that means context and analysis. Just like for example, if there is any legal amendment, then it is not just about what the amendment was? Rather, what were the political reasons behind it? What was the debate on it and what were its long term effects? I understood all this. So that is why for those civil service

3:07 aspirants like CSS, PMS or law students this is not just a history book. Goya is a tool. Yes, it is a refreshing tool. It teaches them how to look at historical events and how to examine them from different perspectives. Which is very important for these exams and fields. is a must. This is not only a book which helps you to memorize the facts, but it is also a book which explains the meaning of these facts. To tell the story behind them. Good. So it was revealed that the book does not just narrate the history but also provides a framework to understand the history and to interpret it. A detailed and insightful look at the entire legal and political journey of Pakistan goes

3:53 far beyond the surface of this incident. Correct. And from here an important question comes to mind, which perhaps the audience might also want to think about. An attempt has been made in this book to understand the legal dilemmas and political struggles of mother ji and especially to take a critical look at them. How can understanding all this help us understand the political debates and challenges that are going on in Pakistan today, i.e. in our current times? Very interesting question. That is, what lessons can we learn from the experiences of the past for the present ? How much can the history of Yes Modi and its critical analysis help in understanding today's politics ? This is an important point to

4:40 think about. Greetings. Today we are starting our discussion in the light of Hamid Khan Sahab's book 'Indian and Political History of Pakistan'. Greetings to you too. Yes. Our first topic is the initial legal difficulties and challenges that occurred immediately after the formation of Pakistan. Darpesh Ji, our main purpose is to understand what basic legal problems the country faced in the very initial days of independence. Look, the thing is that we got independence on 14th August 1947 but we did not inherit a complete readymade legal structure. Well, it seemed like there was a void. Yes, there was a big financial loss. So, in order to

5:25 run the country, the Indian Independence Act 1947 was implemented as a new law with some amendments to the Government of India Act 1935. That means this was a one time arrangement. Absolutely. This was not a permanent solution. There was only one Uburi framework. Until a new law is made. So among the basic issues which were inherited, one was this legal gap. Then the Idare also, I mean, they were not that strong. Yes, the institutions were weak. He was not capable of bearing the burden of a new state. There was also a lack of experience, bureaucracy and political leadership because of the partition. Yes, he was not being consistent. Many people remained in India. So the question is,

6:12 how was the country's administration running in these circumstances ? So as I said this Uburi Ain i.e. Indian Independence Act was the basic legal framework. Good. This Act gave extensive powers to the Governor General. He was the administrative head. And the power to make laws, legislation and most importantly, to make new laws was given to that Customary Assembly. So there were two Markazis of authority. Governor General and Assembly. Yes, that is what it was in practice. Well, the first Governor General of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was not only the Governor General but also the President of the Customary Assembly. Yes, his personality was unique. This maintained a balance.

6:57 So did the situation change after his death in 1948 ? The post of Governor General. Yes. The situation changed after the death of Quaid-e-Azam. The Governor Generals who came after him were Khawaja Nazimuddin and then Ghulam Mohammad, under their rule the post of Governor General gradually became more powerful. well why? See, Quaid-e-Azam's political stature card was very high. Perhaps the political leadership that came after him was not so strong, so the office of the Governor General started exercising more powers. So all the rights will be collected at one place. Yes. And this exercise of authority, i.e. the administrative head having so much power, later became the reason for many legal crises in Pakistan.

7:44 For example, the dismissal of the Prime Minister etc., this was definitely the result of the exercise of that very power. Well, another big challenge was the area of native princely states. Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Swaad, Kalat all of them. Yes, this was also a very big and immediate challenge. These princely states were semi-autonomous under the British rule, and their annexation was not easy. no way. Every princely state had its own condition. It was my date. Some attained salvation early. Like Bahawalpur and some like Kalat, the case of Kalat remained very complicated. The discussions lasted long. The methods of Ilhad were also different. At some places only the Instrument of Accession was signed. There were further agreements elsewhere. So this implementation was quite long and complicated. Yes, it was

8:30 legally and politically complicated and it took a lot of time. He put further pressure on the governor of the new state. So if we look at all these initial challenges together, the law is not being made. Such a huge issue of Muhajireen, lack of resources, weak institutions, and on top of that, the tension of Kashmir. Yes, it was all together. So what was the combined effect of all this on the country? The impact was very deep. See, all these issues together slowed down the process of strengthening the foundations of a new state. That means the establishment could not come quickly. Yes. Because of the lack of trust in the law, weakness in the administration, pressure from the outside and challenges from the outside, dealing with the problems immediately became the first priority.

9:15 So making long term plans became difficult. Absolutely. Building infrastructure, strengthening democratic institutions, these things went into the background and we saw their effects in the subsequent years as well. So if we talk about today's discussion, then we will talk about the legal gap at the time of independence, changes in the existing laws, the increasing role of the Governor-General , the complicated issue of princely states, the migrants, lack of resources and the issue of the weak Kashmiri administration. These were all the initial challenges. Yes. This was the foundation on which Pakistan started its journey. And finally, a point to think about, which may not be mentioned exactly like this in the book, but arises from these circumstances. Did these initial weaknesses in the Constitution, the lack of balance in powers and the delay in formulating a unified law,

10:11 lay the foundation in the very beginning of the future political stability and the repeated obstacles in democratic practice? This is indeed an important question that must be continued to be considered. Yes absolutely. This question holds central importance for understanding the legal history of Pakistan. Khushamdid in our series legal and political history of Pakistan Azhad Khan, today we are talking about the second lesson. This lesson is about the journey of civilisation that began immediately after the formation of Pakistan. Think about it; a new nation has been formed. There are challenges everywhere. And the biggest task is to make the law of the country. So it was not easy at all. Today we will take a look at how this first Dastur Saaj Assembly came into being? What were the major hurdles it had to face and

11:00 why is that agreed objective which is mentioned so much considered so important? So let us go a little deeper and try to understand this initial phase. First of all, this first Dastur Saj Assembly was formed on 10th August 1947, that is, four days before independence. Its job was not just to make laws. This was also the Uburi Parliament in a way. Hameed Khan's book tells us that most of the people in it were the same people who were members of the pre-partition Hindustan Assembly. That means they were experienced people. But the question is, was that old experience enough for a completely new country where there were no ideological foundations and the issues were also new? This was a big question.

11:45 Absolutely. And this is where the real problems begin. See, Hameed Khan Sahib specifically emphasizes that the Assembly had to start its work from scratch. There was no pre-prepared draft. There was no mutual framework. Nothing. What is interesting here is that the challenges were not just from Aini Noiyat. On the one hand, there were heated debates on the division of powers between the centres and the provinces. Especially in bigger states like Bengal and Punjab, they were demanding more power for themselves. Good. On the other hand, the issue of representation between East and Western Pakistan was a big one. The East has more population but it was very difficult to agree on this in the West which was the centre of power. Above us and all these people, the issue of Muhajireen had

12:31 come upon millions of people. They had to be settled, the village was in a ruinous state and the treasury was empty. So these issues badly divided the attention of the assembly. Though the amendment was important, the immediate problems were greater. In such a situation, the first Prime Minister of the country Liaquat Ali Khan tried to give some direction to the law and he took a step which is considered historic. Presented the agreed objectives in the Assembly. This is where things get really interesting. Because it wasn't just an agreement. This was, in a way, an attempt to determine Pakistan's ideological stance. Yes absolutely. It was approved in March 1949. Its basic idea was that the law of Pakistan would be made on Islamic principles, democracy and

13:18 social justice. That means the lordship of Allah will be accepted. But the authority will be exercised by the elected representatives of the public. This was an attempt to identify the country. Sure. And if we look at it from a larger perspective then the agreed upon objectives were indeed together. It is important in many ways. Firstly, it has given you a conceptual framework of the future as to what would be the foundation of the state. Correct. Secondly, as you said, he tried to combine divine authority and public representation. This imagination is the responsibility of Allah. But it will be implemented through the public. This was very important. Thirdly, there was an attempt to bring together the Islamic teachings and the modern democratic values, basic rights, protection of minorities,

14:06 freedom of minorities, that is, an attempt to establish a balance. Yes, a balance. Although Hameed Khan's book indicates that establishing this balance was not easy and there was a lot of debate on it both inside and outside, but such an important agreement was accepted and an ideological foundation was found, yet the process of making the law did not accelerate. The speed was very slow. So what does all this mean? Was it not enough to get a ideological foundation ? It seems it was not enough. The real challenges were probably deeper and more practical. The political differences did not decrease but perhaps increased. The issue of Subai's own power became more complicated.

14:51 Good. Then there were different political factions, there were feudal lords, there were religious leaders, there was bureaucracy. Everyone was looking at his own benefit. There was a tussle for power going on. Hameed Khan, while drawing a map of the politics of this period, tells that forming a unanimous opinion was becoming almost impossible. So the result was that it took 9 years to make the first law. Had to wait till 1956. 9 years? Yes. So the bottom line is that today we saw the very beginning and perhaps the most decisive stage of Pakistan's intelligence. The formation of the first Constitutional Assembly, the mountainous challenges that it faced, the issue of representation, division of powers, the huge problems and then the

15:38 coming of the Objective Agreement under the leadership of Liaquat Ali Khan which laid the ideological foundation of the law but there were certainly practical difficulties, political differences and the struggle for power made this journey very long and difficult. And finally one thing, a question that comes to mind to think about. The Agreement of Objections had apparently shown a way to bring Islam and democracy together. But the nine years it took to make the law and the intense differences that existed during this period, do these not point to the fact that perhaps from the very beginning, the most basic and complex challenge for the new country was to find a workable balance between these two concepts of religion and the modern democratic state, which would be acceptable to all. We think this is

16:25 a really deep question. Yes, considering this question may perhaps help in understanding the entire legal and political history of Pakistan. Today we are taking stock of a very important decision-making turn in the early constitutional history of Pakistan. Act of 1956. This was the first attempt, you can say, which tried to show a solid legal path to the country after a long wait of 9 years. Yes absolutely. And it wasn’t just a legal document. This was a hope. It openly called Pakistan an Islamic republic for the first time and chose a parliamentary form of government for the country. But its importance also lies in its brief duration and then in its failure. Which we will definitely talk about.

17:13 Absolutely. So today the topic of our discussion will be what was the basis of this law? What were its special features? Especially that Vifaki and Islamic aspect and what was the reason that it ended so soon. Let us talk about this in detail. Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that we got independence in 1947 but it took 9 years to make the first law. This is a very long time. How was the country running during this time? This was indeed an unbelievable period. Basically, our country was being run by making some amendments to the Government of India Act of 1935. There was an Uburi arrangement. Actually, the implementation of Ain Saji was

17:58 stopped again and again. There were political differences. No collective leadership was emerging. Then there were very complicated issues like representation between Eastern and Maghreb Pakistan. Ultimately, after great difficulties, this law was passed on 23 March 1956. Which was considered a big success at that time. And what structure of governance did this law suggest ? You mentioned the parliamentary system. Yes. In this, parliamentary system was adopted. That is, the character of those who were the leaders of the kingdom was mostly of a ceremonial and symbolic type. Whereas the actual administrative powers were with the Prime Minister and his cabinet. And the body that was supposed to make laws was a national assembly consisting of only one assembly and how was the people to be represented in this system

18:46 ? What was its foundation? A very important democratic principle was adopted. The principle of one individual one vote. This means that the vote of every citizen will have equal importance. Irrespective of the area or class he belongs to. This was a big step towards representative democracy. Islamic democracy was in the name of the law itself. So obviously there will be many Islamic teachings in it too. What is that, yes sir. Many prominent Islamic dafat were included. Like Islam was declared the state religion. It was also said that no such law will be made in the country which is against the Quran and Sunnah. And the existing laws will also gradually be moulded according to Islamic principles. Another important condition was that the Sadar must be a Muslim.

19:32 Good. And for this matter of moulding the laws according to Islamic principles, was any specific organisation created or was any suggestion made ? Yes of corse. For this very purpose there was a proposal to establish an Islamic Ideological Council. Its job was to advise the government and the people on how to adapt the laws to the Islamic framework. This was actually an attempt to find a balance between how to run the modern state and how to maintain the Islamic structure. Ok. Now let us come to the Vifaki structure. How was authority distributed between the Markaz and the provinces? The Law had made three lists of powers. One loyal, one subai and one mushtak. Which were big and important jobs. Like clause, kharja

20:19 policy, currency, muasalat. This was with Wafaq. Some matters like education, health, and industry were given to the provinces and there were some on which both parties could make laws. But if we look at the reality, Markaz had the upper hand. And within this very framework, how was the major issue of representation of Eastern and Western Pakistan resolved? There was a huge difference in the population of both. Yes, this was a very delicate and you can say very controversial aspect later on. Eastern Pakistan had a larger population. But in the National Assembly, both the provinces, i.e. Eastern Pakistan and Magarbi Pakistan, which were one unit at that time, were given equal representations. This was called the principle of equality or parity.

21:07 Equal distribution despite differences in population. Yes absolutely. Apparently the stated objective was that there will be national unity and there will be political balance between the two sides. But this did not reduce the feeling of deprivation in eastern Pakistan; rather, it perhaps increased it in the minds of some people. So why could this law, in which so many things were decided, last only for two and a half years? Why did it fail so quickly? Was there any big reason? There were many reasons for this. The biggest reason was probably extreme political incompetence. Hmm. Just think, in two and a half years many governments have come and gone. There was a crisis of domination. There was no leader who could take everyone along. I

21:52 can implement the law properly. Hmm. Then the provincial relations and the tension that was there between eastern and western Pakistan was also increasing. And did the princely institutions also play any role in this failure? Meaning army, bureaucracy etc. Certainly, when politics is so unregulated, the influence of unelected institutions increases. We especially saw a great increase in the influence and prestige of the bureaucracy and the military. We started interfering in those political matters. What did we end up doing? In October 1958, Sardar Skandar Mirza, himself a former bureaucrat, broke the law. The assemblies were dissolved and martial law was imposed in the country. We, whose command was then taken over by General Ayub Khan, this was

22:38 a very sudden and regrettable outcome of Pakistan's first democratic constitutional journey. So if we summarise the whole thing then the Act of 1956 was definitely an important milestone in the history of Pakistan. The first complete law in the name of Islamic democracy: parliamentary system and the principle of equality. But this could not last long due to political incompetence, lack of leadership and increasing interference in departments. You are absolutely right and this makes us think about a very important question. Especially for the listeners. One point is that this principle of equality was apparently for national unity. Had there been political stability and a true democratic tradition had developed, would the

23:24 political history and perhaps even geography of Pakistan have been different today? Did this failed experiment in a way become the foundation for future problems? This is a question that can be considered. Today we are talking about a very important turning point in the history of Pakistan. Martial Law of 1958 and the Tenancy of the Law. Yes, absolutely, and we have taken all this information from Hamid Khan's book 'Indian and Political History' of Pakistan. Especially his lesson number four which is on this topic. Yes. In the light of this book, we will try to understand how all this happened and what were its consequences. So let’s start from where it all began. The law of 1956 was made. It was

24:11 ready. It was the first unanimous law of the country which also declared Pakistan as an Islamic republic, but it could not achieve political stability. It was not at all a dream. The current situation was quite uncertain. Well, what kind of uncertainty it was. Firstly, the Prime Minister was changing very rapidly. Then there was a lot of tension among the provinces, especially in eastern and western Pakistan, over the division of powers. Yes, this is bringing up a big issue. Of course it weakened the central government and then the covert power struggle was still going on. So, it means there was a situation of political crisis. You can say and the head of that time, Isar Mirza, was obviously not happy with the whole situation.

25:00 So what did they do? So you can say that on 7 October 1958, in an unfriendly environment, Sadar Mirza took a big step. What was that? He repealed the 1956 Act which we have just mentioned. O means the first ain has been finished. Yes, the law has been abolished, the national assembly has been dissolved, and martial law and office i.e. military law has been imposed in the entire country. This was a very big initiative. The one who brought the army into politics safely. Absolutely. And the Commander in Chief of the Army, General Ayub Khan, was appointed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator. That is, the administrative head of the country. Yes. And this was the first time in the history of Pakistan that the army had taken over political power in this manner.

25:46 What were its immediate effects? Aain it's over. Look, the first and biggest impact was that the Act of 1956 was abolished. The country once again was left without a mirror. Then how was the country running? Under an Uburi Nizam. Meaning, there was no legal basis and obviously the Jammuri implementation stopped. Political activities were banned. But perhaps the struggle for power was not over yet. No, not at all. The real drama had probably just begun now. well how is that? It had only been 20 days since martial law was imposed. It was installed on 7 October. And on 27 October 1958. General Ayub Khan who was made the Chief Martial Administrator by Sadar Mirza himself. He made Sardar Mirza present.

26:33 What do you mean? Those who imposed it were removed. Yes absolutely. He made it a reality and then expelled him from the country. So in this way the army not only took complete control of the government but also the position of the head of the state. This was indeed a dramatic turn. What were the long term effects of all this on Pakistan? That this sentence caused severe damage to democracy. And perhaps even set an example for the future. Absolutely. You can say that in a way the path has been opened or the door has been opened for future military interventions. The implementation of Ain Saji, which was already slow, got further delayed and civil-military relations would also have definitely been affected. Yes, this had a deep impact. Even in the subsequent editions, the reflection of the events of 1958 is visible somewhere or the other.

27:22 So in the end a question comes to mind and Hameed Khan's writing also forces us to think about this. Was the entire incident of 1958 merely a natural outcome of the intense political tensions of those times or was it also an attempt to strengthen the grip on power ? This is a very important question and it also invites us to consider how vulnerable new democratic institutions can prove to be in the face of internal differences and caste or group interests. These are exactly the questions which need to be considered even today to understand the political scenario in Pakistan. Yes, yes,

28:09 today we are talking about a very important father in the history of Pakistan. The Act of 1962 and the rule of General Ayub Khan. Yes. This was the time when the country adopted a completely new political stance i.e. presidential regime. Absolutely. And the evidence we have shows that after the Martial Law of 1958, what was the basic objective of this new law and system ? Stability and progress: basically this means political stability and rapid economic progress. So let us see what this system was like and what happened next? Ok. So, let us start with the implementation of the law.

28:55 Martial law was imposed in 1958 and then almost four years later, in March 1962, this law came. Yes. And it changed the parliamentary system. In its place a strong Sadarati Nizam was brought in. And a special identity of this period was the system of basic democracy. Yes yes, this was definitely a unique idea of Ayub Khan. According to him, this was more in line with the mood of the Pakistani people. Well, what was this basic concept of democracy ? It means that the people do not elect the Sadar externally, not at all. The people used to elect some representatives at the local level, around 80 thousand. They were called basic Jamuri and

29:40 then these people formed an electoral college and they used to elect the Sadar and the members of the assemblies, that is, the opinion of the people used to go upwards after passing through a filter. In a way, it can be said that the apparent intention was that the authority should reach the lower level and there should be stability, but the results we have seen show that due to this the external representation of the people got reduced. Hmm and the centre of power also came under the caste of Sadar. Yes absolutely. And this takes us to the next point, the powers of the Chief. In the 1962 Act, the President was given a lot of powers. The post of Prime Minister was abolished. Yes, it is absolutely over. The provincial governor was also nominated by the Sadar himself. And dissolving the assembly, imposing emergency, even amending the law, all this is

30:28 in the hands of the president. Yes, all these vast powers were available to the Sardar. So this was a tremendous exercise of authority. It was a very centralized system. Correct. Now see, some people argue that perhaps this was necessary for stability. But this same colonialism was then criticized a lot. Obviously, this would have limited political participation and, especially in smaller states, increased the feeling that decisions were being taken without them. Yes. This feeling was especially deep in eastern Pakistan. But an interesting thing is that on one hand this was the political situation. On the other hand, the initial period of Ayub Khan is also called the golden period of economic progress. Yes, this is the truth. There was much improved progress in the residential area, especially

31:14 in the first half of the 60 years. There were festivals, big dams were built, and the hope of progress was also celebrated. So the situation has really improved. Yes, the count tells us this. There was a significant increase in GDP. But, as often happens, this progress came at a price. We were what? The mess we saw shows that the benefits of progress have not reached everyone equally. Wealth became concentrated in a few families and the feeling of global deprivation became more intense in Eastern Pakistan. Well, this was the contradiction between global progress and increasing political and regional unrest. Absolutely. And then that dream of political stability

31:59 also did not last long. 1965 arrived. War with India. Yes. The war of 1965 became a big challenge for the Ayub government. Although the rumours did subside, the war had a very negative impact on the country. And after the war, the Tashkent Agreement was widely rejected in the country. Yes, the Tashkent issue proved to be extremely unacceptable. The expectations of the public were very high and this issue was seen as a kind of weakness. Good. And then there was a disagreement with Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. separated from the government. And this gave new life to the political opposition against Ayub Khan. So this moment was a turning point in the decline of Ayub Khan's popularity.

32:45 Bilashuba this was a turning point. So, if we look at this entire period, we find a strong central government, experience of basic democracies, initial successes but at the same time political unrest, regional inequality and then the decline of popularity after the 1965 war and the Tashkent Battle. You revealed it absolutely correctly. This period is an important case study in the history of Pakistan. This leaves us with fundamental questions that perhaps need to be considered even today. Is limiting democratic action and public participation really a viable path to progress and stability? This is indeed an important question. The experiences of this period certainly do not make the answer easy. Yes absolutely. The answer is quite complicated.

33:32 Today we are talking about a very delicate and decisive turning point in the history of Pakistan, i.e. the rule of General Yahya Khan and that incident of 1971. We will try to understand this entire matter in the light of the events of Yahya Khan and Dhaka in 1971. Absolutely, this was a time which you can say shook the foundations of the country. Geographic and political. Right, and I think it is equally important to understand these sentences even today. Certainly this is not just a history, it is a part of our national psyche. There is a deep mark. So let's start from March 1969. Ayub Khan resigned and General Yahya Khan

34:20 assumed power by implementing martial law. Yes. One of his early major measures was the abolition of the One Unit. Was this actually a one unit? And why was its elimination considered so important? See, Unit One was built in 1955. In that, the four provinces of Magarvi Pakistan, Punjab, Sindh, Sarhad, i.e. present KP and Balochistan, were combined to form one province. Good. The apparent purpose was that arrangements would be easier and the Middle East would be at par with Pakistan. But in the smaller provinces, especially Sindh, Sarhad and Baluchistan, its implementation was completely rejected. Why? What was the reason? He felt that his provincial identity, his own independence, was coming to an end. So it was

35:07 a big political decision by Yahya Khan to eliminate him. With this, provincial identities were restored and the long-standing demand of provincial self-governance in Western Pakistan was also fulfilled to some extent. Correct. So the provinces were restored. After that Yahya Khan took another big step. The country 's first general election was held in December 1970. Yes absolutely. The first election in the history of Pakistan on the basis of one man one vote. And it seems as if the results of those elections have changed everything. Of course the results were very clear. This means that out of 169 seats in Eastern Pakistan, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Awami League won 167 seats. Except for two defeats, everything else was

35:54 almost a clean sweep and they were fought on the basis of six points. That means the complete Subai himself is independent. On the other hand, here in Magarvi Pakistan, Pakistan Peoples Party of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took 81 out of 138 seats. So, on one hand, Awami League emerged as the largest group in the East and People's Party emerged as the largest group in the West. Yes. And from that the issue arose that the National Assembly was formed. But one group in it had a clear majority, the Awami League. But its representation was only in eastern Pakistan. Correct. And from here again the crisis of transfer of power started. Awami League had got the mandate to form the government and make the law. Yes. But the leadership of Maghreb Pakistan, especially

36:39 Jaray, say that the People's Party was not ready to accept the law based on the six points of the Awami League. Look, it was not just a matter of power. This was a question of the intention of the law of the future. The Awami League was not ready to back down from its six points. And those six boats were not acceptable to the establishment and political leadership of Magarvi Pakistan. In their view he was a threat to the unity of the country. On the other hand, Mr. Bhutto was of the view that being the majority group of Western Pakistan, they should also get a fair share in the power. This was not just a political disagreement. It became an Aini Bohran. Deep Aini Bohra. Yes. How can the majority be given its rights when there is severe tension on its basic demands

37:26 and then discussions took place in Dhaka also but no result came out of it. Yes, several rounds of discussions took place but that confidence kept increasing. There was a lack of flexibility on both sides and perhaps there were some elements who did not want a political solution. He wanted to use force. So finally the force came to power in March 1971, after the failure of the talks on the night of 25th March 1971, Ya Khan ordered a military operation in Eastern Pakistan – Operation Search Light. The aim of this operation was probably to gain control but the results turned out to be completely opposite. This operation severely provoked the feelings of restlessness and alienation that already existed in Eastern Pakistan.

38:16 That means it worked like fuel on the fire. You can say that the Musalla Muzamat has started. Millions of people migrated to India. And that whole situation became a complete food war. This military action, instead of resolving the issue, became the turning point of Eastern Pakistan's isolation. And then India's intervention brought the matter to a fatal conclusion. Yes, India was already helping the Mujamati movement of Mukti Bahini. In December 1971, he joined the war openly. And after just 13 days of fighting. Yes, on 16 December 1971 in Dhaka, the Pakistani Army Commander,

39:01 Lieutenant General Nyayaji surrendered before the Indian Commander, Lieutenant General Aruna. Mashraki Pakistan became a separate country, Bangladesh. So, this whole sequence or Khan taking over the power, the end of One Unit, the election, then the political and legal deadlock, the decision of military operation , Khan's war, Indian intervention and finally the country getting divided into two parts. Bylash is the greatest Sania of Pakistan till date. Of course, this was not just a military defeat or the separation of land. This was also a matter of a perspective, of a dream being shattered. Correct. And these incidents force us to think again and again as to who those people were. It was a failure of political leadership. The

39:49 obstacles that came in the way of democratic practice or the deprivations that the states faced were ignored. There are many aspects to this. So in the end this thought comes to mind and perhaps our listeners may also pay attention to this. Yes. Be it political, ideological or geographical, has anything been done to stop it? Absolutely. And that is the real question. What measures are necessary today to ensure national unity, legislative stability and protection of civilian rights ? This is a question whose answer, in my opinion, we as a debater should continue to search for. Today we are taking a detailed look at a very important chapter of the legal history of Pakistan, the Law of 1973.

40:34 Yes. The material we have is taken from Ain-e-Pakistan 1973 background and importance. So the effort will be to understand why this document was made, how it was made and what is its importance today. Absolutely. And this isn't just any you-say legal book. This is the foundation on which the current political and economic system of Pakistan stands. It tried to give a new SIM to the country. So let's start from the beginning. The incident of 1971, the separation of East Pakistan, was a huge national battle. Yes, this huge country was a victim of severe political and identity-based boredom. So in such a situation, there was a lot of pressure on the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to give a new unanimous law to the country. That was exactly the

41:22 time when it was very important to unite the country and restore the confidence of the people. Bhutto Sahib took this process forward, first as President and then as Prime Minister. The real challenge was to create such a legal framework that would be acceptable to all the states, especially the smaller ones, and all the major political groups. It was very important to learn a lesson from Madi's experiences. Well, so for this very purpose that legal committee was formed. Yes. In 1972, a committee consisting of about 25 members of the National Assembly was formed. Good. Its special feature was that both the government and the

42:09 opposition, i.e. all the parliamentary groups, were given representation in it. The intention was clear that the law should be made by unanimous opinion. And how did this committee work? Was it easy to bring everyone on one platform? There would be differences of opinion. It was not easy, there were certainly differences of opinion. The committee held continuous sessions for several months. There were long debates. The things that were debated the most were basic matters like what should be the system of governance - parliamentary or presidential, then how should powers be distributed between the provinces, i.e. how much autonomy should the provinces have for themselves. These are important questions. And then the guarantee of the basic rights of the city dwellers , the Islamic character of the state, all these were very sensitive. There was a lot of debate and discussion on these matters.

42:59 It is indeed interesting as to what were the basic points on which so many people with different views agreed upon. What were the special features of this law which made it acceptable? Look, the most important thing is that Pakistan was declared a loyal parliamentary democracy. That is, the head of the country will be the President but the actual administrative powers will be with the Prime Minister who will be answerable to the Parliament. This was a big change. The purpose was that authority should not be accumulated at one place. And the case of Subai Mukhtari himself must have been a very painful one after 1971. Absolutely. That is why in the law, the provinces were given more powers than before. Especially

43:48 in departments like education, health, employment, local government. Good. The powers of law making were also divided into loyalty and subai lists. The effort was to ensure that the states do not have any mistaken feeling. Apart from this you also mentioned basic rights and Islamic rights. Yes. The basic rights of the citizens such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, religious freedom and equality before the law were all guaranteed in the law. Correct. It was also decided that the official religion of the country would be Islam and in future no law would be made against the Quran and Sunnah. It was also made mandatory for the Chief Minister and Prime Minister to be Muslims. So this was a kind of tawajun. Yes. This was actually an attempt to establish a balance between different ideological planets.

44:35 So after all these debates and agreements, how was this law accepted? What was the final stage? After months of hard work and negotiations, finally on 10 April 1973, the National Assembly unanimously approved the draft of this law. In all fairness this is a big deal. Yes, it was a date moment. Then on 14th August 1973, i.e. Independence Day, this law was implemented in the entire country. Today, after so many years, when we look back, what do we see as the real importance of this law ? Is this just a book or something more than that? See, its biggest and most important importance is that it is unanimous. This is the only law of the history of Pakistan. Which was

45:21 made and approved by all the democratic dogs together. Wahid ji, Wahid Muttafka Law, in a way it was a new Umarani agreement, a social contract between the opposing provinces and the people. It provided a legal and political foundation for a shattered nation to stand on its feet again. That means it was not just a law but also an attempt at national unity. One sign is that although this law has undergone many changes over time and some amendments have also been made to it, its basic integrity and the importance of its unanimous approval remain intact even today. This reminds us that despite severe differences, consensus is possible for national objectives.

46:07 So it becomes clear that the 1973 Act is not just a legal document but a symbol of national consensus, political maturity and consensus at a very critical juncture in Pakistan. Yes, he laid the foundation of the modern political and economic structure of the country on which we stand even today. Absolutely, and here one point to think about is that in the beginning the law was unanimous but with time it kept getting amended. Yes, I suffered a lot. And sometimes his independent soul also got affected by these changes. So this forces us to think how difficult it is to maintain that initial consensus in any legal system.

47:03 How big a challenge can it be to update it as per the needs of us and the times. How to maintain balance between legal proceedings and istiqah ? This is a question that can be considered. Today we are looking at a very delicate aspect of Pakistan's history. That is, what was the impact of the repeated imposition of martial law in the country on the law and democratic system ? The pus that we have is a kind of disclosure of these events. So let's take a look at this. Yes absolutely. And the purpose is not just to repeat history but to understand how these military interventions repeatedly influenced the legal and political path of Pakistan and what were its real outcomes.

47:50 So the story begins in October 1958 when Sardar Skander Mirza amended the law and handed over power to General Ayub Khan. This was a major turning point in the legal journey of Pakistan. Yes, this was indeed the first big blow. Zarai explains that it established a tradition that legal action can be stopped by force and this was a foundation whose effects were obviously visible later as well. Then General Ayub Khan himself became the Sardar and in 1962 brought a new law, the Sadari Nizam. But here, as you may say, there appears to be a kind of tajad which is also present in the jarai. On one hand, some progressive work took place.

48:35 Absolutely. But on the other hand, democratic action became very limited. Restrictions were imposed on political freedom. Jarray says that the power had come into the hands of just a few people. Which you thought was against the principle of public representation. So he was not in the list. Correct. Then time moves forward and we reach 1977. After the Bhutto government, elections were held, there was a lot of dispute over the results and during this political turmoil, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law on 5 July 1977. This period of ours was somewhat different from the previous military rules. Here not only was the Law amended but many fundamental changes were also made in it according to the law.

49:21 Especially those measures which took place in connection with the implementation of Islamic laws not only changed the legal framework but also left deep and, you can say, long-lasting impact on Pakistani society and politics. Well, that means it was not just a one time political change but its effects were much deeper. And then this sequence did not stop. In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the elected government of Nawaz Sharif. Once again the law was suspended and PCO i.e. Provisional Constitutional Order was issued. The basic purpose of GPCO, as just mentioned, was to make those parts of the law invalid which could become an obstacle to military rule. Later, through the 17th amendment, General Musharraf

50:08 tried to give constitutional protection to his position. Which gave back to the President those powers such as the one to dissolve Parliament which had been curtailed in the earlier Jam'uri amendment. So if we put together all these incidents, 1958, 1977, 1999, what overall picture emerges from these incidents ? Do you see the pattern? Changed the law as per your needs. Electoral institutions like the Parliament were weakened. It put pressure on Adiliya and most importantly, created an atmosphere of total political uncertainty in the country. Jarray repeatedly emphasised that these actions had seriously damaged the public's trust in democratic institutions. So it seems the basic lesson to be learnt from these crimes is

50:54 that whenever the law was deviated from the path of law and force was used, it weakened democracy and ultimately affected the rights of the people. The only way forward appears to be the dominance of law and continuity of democracy. This is absolutely true. All this pus leads to this conclusion. But here an important question arises on which these stories force us to think. What is that? How were the departments affected? But what were those basic signs? What were the circumstances or perhaps the weaknesses that repeatedly provided opportunities for the law to go off track? We think this is a really deep question. That means we have seen the effects but what were their real reasons

51:40 ? Where were the roots? This is the point which this pus leaves in our mind, which perhaps needs to be paid attention to separately. Today we are talking about a very important topic. The material that we have, democratic literature, political stability and means, looks at those democratic newspapers in the history of Pakistan where stability was an issue. Yes absolutely. So let us go a little deeper into this matter and understand what is being said as the reason behind this political non-establishment that is being mentioned. And look, the first thing that this matter brings forward is a bit surprising that the law of 1973 was made and everyone accepted it. Yes, there was some law. Yes, I am happy but despite this the governments continued to

52:26 fall. The Parliament was not able to complete its term and now let us say that there was a constant atmosphere of distrust. So the question is that despite the existence of the law, why does this pus point towards which specific incident or incident ? This article emphasizes certain specific points. Like those were the last days of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Sahib's rule and the way that rule ended. Well, according to Masawad, the concentration of powers at one place and the political tension there became the reason for lack of stability. Correct. Then there is a mention of the period after 1988 when democracy was restored but those were coalition governments, often weak and they could not last long, they could not complete their term at all,

53:12 one government after another came and went and I remember the decade of 90s, which was considered a very irrational period, what does Maawad say on this, yes the decade of 90s was quite tumultuous, you can say, Maawad tells that the political fight between Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto Sahiba was not just on policy, it seemed more like a riot, Maawad says that this continuous conflict did not allow the democratic institutions to become strong, and governments kept getting dismissed again and again, it was not like a game of musical chairs, yes, in a way, it was exactly the same scene, so this whole political instability,

53:58 obviously it must have had its effects. What does pus say about these effects? Was this limited only to the political field? No, not at all. Pus says that the effects were very deep. Look, not only did the politics become weak, but the times were badly affected. We were not able to make any long term plans. Capitalism would stop. Then look at the Kharaja policy. He could not achieve consistency in that also. Correct. And perhaps most importantly, the concept of rule of law has also weakened. How can governments improve governance when they themselves are victims of mistrust? It is a fact. So keeping all these examples and effects in mind, what is this pus

54:43 telling us about the root of the issue? Meaning, what is the central thought behind this? Look, the basic point which this person is presenting is that democracy is not just about conducting elections or making laws. Well, for this to run smoothly it is important that the institutions are strong. There should be political tolerance and most importantly the leadership should have the passion to serve the people. That means the question of intention arises. Absolutely. Maawad says that the real problem starts when political leaders start giving priority to their caste or group interests over the country's interests and national interests. When we take decisions not for the country but to strengthen our position or to score political numbers,

55:30 then the result will be misery. Only Adam will be able to do it. That means, the whole responsibility depends on the preference of leadership. The system is in its place but the one who runs it. Yes, to a large extent this filth forces us to think that one of the major reasons for the repeated obstructions in the democratic journey of Pakistan, at least according to this filth, has been the weakness of our political friend and the preferences of the leadership. So we can disclose that in the light of this malaise, the experience of democratic literature of Pakistan teaches that only electoral action or legal structure is not enough. Yes, rather the strength of institutions and more than that, the

56:15 solidity of political culture, are the key things. Absolutely, and this is where a question arises, which perhaps we should think about. If this lack of stability, as the paper is suggesting, was largely due to the preferences of the leadership. What changes can be made in the future or what system can be helpful in ensuring that national interests always remain superior to caste interests? This is an important point which needs further consideration. So, is democracy in Pakistan just a name for conducting elections or is it a complicated legal struggle from 1988 to 2018 which has

57:02 deeply changed the political administrative structure of the country ? Yes, absolutely, today we will take a closer look at the aspects of Pakistan's legal journey and democratic struggle. Absolutely, and we will see what you say are the major turning points in these 30 years. How the distribution of power changed between the departments in the Centre and the provinces. Hmm. And how have these changes actually shaped today's political scenario ? Correct. So, the purpose is to draw the basic conclusion from these sources. Understand that the Constitution has made a balance of powers between the Parliament and the Chief Minister and the provinces. How did it affect him? And what lessons do we learn from this? So let's get started. Democracy was restored in 1988

57:48 , but it immediately had to face the eighth amendment. Especially that Article 58 to BG and this Article 58 to B, this was not a small thing. This was a permanent sword hanging over the head of the Parliament which gave the President unbridled authority to dissolve the Assembly. We tell you that this gave the form of an institutionalized political establishment. What was the result? In the 90s no government could complete its term. No one did it. Four governments were gone. Yes. And the balance of power also remained tilted towards those non-elected institutions. This was a delicate period indeed. Then in 1999 there was

58:33 military intervention. And the 17th interpretation that came after this has revived the effects of the 8th interpretation. You are absolutely right. The presidential powers were further increased and the parliamentary system was further weakened. We see that this shows that merely getting an election done is not a guarantee of democratic stability. The real need is legal balance and strengthening of institutions. But then, as you might point out, an important change began after 2008. Yes. Democracy also played a role. He who was caught between two big political groups. Of course he had a big role. In creating consensus on democratic principles and parliamentary democracy, the

59:19 biggest manifestation of this consensus was the 18th Constitutional amendment in 2010. It was truly a union. Isn't it? Obviously the 18th revision made many fundamental changes. One and the most important thing is that the authority to dissolve the Assembly was withdrawn from the President. Yes. And the parliamentary system was restored to its original spirit. Secondly, he transferred authority to the lower level. That means the states were given autonomy in important departments like education, health and industry. Yes. He himself gave authority to prepare the laws and make arrangements. Also see filed with Council of Common Interests i.e. CCI. Good. So that there can be consultation and dialogue on important matters between the divisions and provinces.

1:00:07 And this was not just a division of powers. In this amendment, basic urban rights were also provided. Like Article 10A, right to fair trial, 19A, right to access to information, and 25A, which makes education compulsory and free for children between 5 and 16 years of age. Yes. These were concrete changes which were bound to have an impact on the people. And also that seventh NFC Award in 2009, yes that was also very important. He made the provinces more financially independent, which was necessary to give provincial self-government a practical shape. Absolutely. And the new constitutional structure that was created by the 18th amendment and the political consensus that emerged, an important outcome of this was that in

1:00:54 2013, for the first time in the history of Pakistan. Yes. One elected government completed its term and handed over its authority to another elected government. And during this period, the 20th amendment also came in 2012. Which improved the functioning of supervising governments and election commissions. Yes, it also helped in increasing confidence in electoral practice. Then in 2018 another important step was taken. 25th amendment by which FATA was merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Yes, this was a historical, organizational and mirror-based change. A large area was included in the central section of the country. All these were very important matters. But Jaray also says that this journey has not been free from challenges.

1:01:41 no way. Political polarization has become severe. Tensions are also seen from time to time in Seoul's military relations. We obviously have an impact on policy making and governance. And one important point on which both seem to be unanimous in their views is the weakness of local governments. This is an interesting thing. Local governments were acknowledged in the law. After the 18th amendment, Subai himself became the agent of power. But why then could Ikhtiyarat not reach the lower levels in a systematic manner ? See, Jarai gives many reasons for this. Firstly, there is lack of interest among political groups. There is a deficiency of fat. Good. There also appears to be a hesitation on the part of provincial governments in delegating powers down.

1:02:28 That means they do not want to give authority. It seems something like this. The result is that local governments often remain ineffective. Due to which the understanding of public services is affected. The Parliament became stronger, the judiciary fell but the problems of governance remained. So summing up this whole debate, who are the Kili Asabaks that emerge from these incidents ? A few things, in my opinion, are very important. Firstly, for political stability, there is importance of law and its actual implementation. Absolutely. The devolution of the two powers should not be only on paper but should be accompanied by financial and administrative means only then it will be effective. Correct. So consistent democratic action, no matter

1:03:17 how many flaws it has, strengthens the institutions. Whereas undemocratic interference weakens them. And the 98th amendment has played a crucial role in strengthening the economic and parliamentary structure of Pakistan. These are indeed important results. Yes. And finally let us leave one point for consideration. In the light of these views, shouldn't the next strategic stage in Pakistan's democratic and constitutional journey after the attainment of self-governance be to give local governments real power and influence so that governance can be improved? Yes and basic amenities can reach the people easily. This is a great question.

1:04:04 Friends, thank you very much for watching the video till the end. If you liked this video then definitely subscribe to our channel Learn with Mahmud Sultan and share it with your friends. See you with a new informative video. Till then, Allah Hafiz.