PAKISTAN STUDIES NOTES-GRADE 10TH

Chapter # 8 – Political Development in Pakistan 1947-2002

8.2.4 Discuss the Reasons Behind the fall of General Ayub Khan’s Government (General Ayub Khan’s Resignation).

Background

Following independence in 1947, Pakistan experienced periods of political instability and military rule. In 1958, General Ayub Khan seized power in a coup, establishing martial law and assuming the presidency. Ayub’s regime implemented reforms aimed at modernization but faced growing discontent due to political repression, economic disparities, and ethnic tensions, particularly in East Pakistan. Opposition leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman emerged, challenging Ayub’s rule and advocating for democracy and autonomy. By 1969, dissatisfaction with Ayub’s government reached a tipping point, leading to its eventual downfall.

1. Concentration of Political Power: General Ayub Khan’s authoritarian rule centralized power in the presidency, sidelining democratic institutions. This concentration of power eroded public trust in the government and stifled political dissent, creating a climate of fear and oppression.
2. Basic Democracy System: Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracy system was designed to consolidate his power by limiting the influence of traditional political parties. However, it was perceived as undemocratic and elitist, as it favored rural landlords and military officials over the broader populace. This disenfranchisement of the masses fueled resentment and opposition to Ayub’s regime.
3. Disqualification of Politicians: The EBDO was used as a tool to suppress political opposition by disqualifying politicians and banning political parties critical of Ayub Khan’s regime. This move not only undermined the democratic process but also intensified political polarization and alienated large segments of the population.
4. Control of Press and Media: Ayub Khan’s administration tightly controlled the press and media to suppress dissenting voices and maintain its grip on power. Censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression stifled public discourse and prevented the dissemination of alternative viewpoints, further fueling discontent among the populace.
5. Urbanization without Adequate Facilities: Ayub’s urbanization policies aimed to modernize Pakistan but often neglected to provide essential infrastructure and services to growing urban populations. This led to overcrowding, inadequate housing, and inadequate access to basic amenities, exacerbating urban poverty and social unrest.
6. Economic Disparities: Despite economic growth, Ayub’s regime failed to address widening income inequality and disparities in wealth distribution. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a few wealthy families marginalized the majority of the population, leading to widespread poverty and social unrest.
7. Dissatisfaction in East Pakistan: East Pakistan’s grievances stemmed from political and economic marginalization by the central government, which was dominated by West Pakistan. The suppression of Bengali culture and language further exacerbated tensions, eventually leading to the secession of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
8. Strong Opposition: Leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman emerged as formidable opponents of Ayub Khan’s regime, rallying support for their respective political movements. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League tapped into popular discontent with Ayub’s authoritarian rule, advocating for democracy, social justice, and autonomy for East Pakistan.
9. Tashkent Declaration: Ayub Khan’s handling of the Tashkent Declaration, which ended the 1965 war with India, was criticized for its perceived concessions to India. Many Pakistanis felt betrayed by the outcome of the war and blamed Ayub for compromising Pakistan’s interests, further eroding public confidence in his leadership.
10. Withdrawal of Military Support: Budget cuts in 1967-68 weakened Ayub’s grip on power by reducing support from the armed forces, which had been a key pillar of his regime. This loss of military backing signaled Ayub’s diminishing authority and emboldened opposition forces to challenge his rule.