NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES

TOPIC: The Creation of PAKISTAN and its Initials

problems
SUBMITTED TO: Sir Azhar Abbasi

SUBMITTED BY: Tabinda Khalid

SUBJECT: Muslim Struggle

PAPER: Term Paper

CLASS : B.S PAK STUDIES

DEPARTMENT: Department of Pakistan Studies NUML

Islamabad
OUTLINE
1)Administrative Problems

2)Political Problems

3)Economic Problems

4)Defence Problems

5)Accessions of States

6)Juna garh

7)Hyderabad Deccan

8)Jammu and Kashmir

9)Moral Problems

INITIALS ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

THE PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTIONS:

Pakistan was totally a new state that had no

admnistrative structure,no government offices and no constitution.The Quaid-e-Azam guided

his nation in all these affairs.A constitution is of pivotal importance for manging the state

affairs.At the time of partition,owers were transferred to both the countries under the

Government of India Act 1935.However, they could make appropriate amendments into it.The

Quaid-e-Azam of making appropiate amendment in the Act so thst it could become practicable

for the government of Pakistan.Thus, a provisional constituition was formulated. It was federal

in nature with East Bengal,Punjab,Sindh,Balochistan and the NWFP as the federating units.It
also had the scope for the inclusion of other state such as Bahawalpur,Deer abd

Swat.Parlimantry form of government was retained in the country.

THE NEW FLAG BEARING THE STAR AND THE CRESCENT

The beloved flag of the Muslims of the Sub-continent,having the star and the crescent,

became the national flag of Pakistan, was added into the green glaf of the Muslim League.

Under Mountbatten`s suggestion the moon was curved at an angle of forty - five degrees and

as such,it came closer to the original form of the newly risen moon

THE NEW CAPITAL

KARACHI: Karachi was chosen as the capital of Pakistan. The reason was the Frontier Province

was still under the Congress government .Punjab and Bengal were still passing through the

painful process of partition.Sindh was the only province that had a Muslim League

government.Thus, Karachi, with its moderate climate ,its sea link with the East Bengal , and its

international airport,was rightly chosen as the first capital of Pakistan.The military barracks

were not fulfilled,make shift tents were erected to serve the purpose.The furniture and

stationary for the offices which were to be given to pakistan,had not yet arrived from

india,However , the Quaid-e-Azam summoned all the members of the sindh cabinet and

ordered them to deal with the situation. With their co-peration and help,all these problems

were over-come.
POLITICAL PROBLEMS

THE ATTITUDE OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT:

The main problem faced by Pakistan at the time of its inception was the hostile behaviour of

the British and Indian governments. Britain was at that time, ruled by the Labour Party, which

was strongly oppossed to the idea of the partition of the Sub- continent .The British politicians

were proud to be fact that they had held together under one flag the whole of india which had

never been united under one government.They wanted to perpetuate their

achievement.However,the reality was that inspite of living together for centuries the hindus

and Muslims could never become a part of a unified Indian nation. The gulf between them

continued to widen.According to the Hindud, the Muslims were untouchable while the Muslims

were never ready to adopt the pagan civilization of the Hindus. Despite all these facts,Prime

Minister Atlee and other labour officials were keen to preserve the unity of india.However,the

address of Prime Minister Attlee,while prenting Indian.Independence act in the parliment, is

fully reflective of the british thinking.

EGOTISICAL NATURE OF THE MOUNTBATTEN

In addition to this acrimonious attitude of the British government, the last Viceroy of India

Mountabatten also tried his utmost to become the joint Governor General of the countries

but both the Quaid-e- Azam and the Muslim League were strongly opposed to this idea.

This infuriated and outraged Mountbatten to such an extent that he left no stone uturned

to damage Pakistan. In the word of Zaggler, "Mountbatte's Vnity though child like, was

monstrous, his ambition unluvidled"(3) studying the period of Lord Mountbatten, the readers

must keep in their minds that he was exceptionally proud and egotistical. During a meeting

with the Quaid-e-Azam, on July 2, 1947, he proposed that he should be made the joint.

Governor General of bith the countries. The Quiad outerightly rejected the proposal

Mountbatten angrily asked "We will have to pay its price in crorers from our

assets".Mountbatten angrily remarked,"Its price can be all the assests and the future of

Pakistan".Saying this, he walked out of the room FURY

Econominc Problem:

If productive capacity grows, an economy can produce progressively more goods, which raises

the standard of living. The increase in productive capacity of an economy is called economic

growth. There are various factors affecting economic growth. The problems of economic growth

have been discussed by numerous growth models, including the Harrod-Domar model, the

neoclassical growth models of Solow and Swan, and the Cambridge growth models of Kaldor

and Joan Robinson. This part of the economic problem is studied in the economies of
development.

Defense Problem:

The overriding concern of Pakistan's national life is security, both internal and external ie country's

defence from inimical forces from within and without. It goes without saying that Pakistan is a peaceful

country. Pakistan actively seeks a peaceful international order. It has firmly adhered to the terms of the

UN Charter and UN Declaration of human rights. It adheres to the principle that any territorial

acquisition by force is totally inadmissible. It has always sought and upheld peaceful settlement of

regional and international disputes. Despite this policy of peace inherent in Pakistan's ideology and

orientation, the fact is that in the first quarter of its existence the country has been the victim of

aggression three times. The first war Oct 1947 to Nov 48 was over Kashmir. India took the issue to the

UN Security Council, which resolved that Kashmir problem be decided by a plebiscite under UN auspices.

Having agreed to the implementation of UN Resolution, India resiled from its obligations, and having

consolidated its military hold over Kashmir, claimed that UN resolutions were outdated and that Jammu

and Kashmir was its integral part. The 1965 war was also over Kashmir. Kashmir is the core issue because

Indian military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir contravenes, violates and defies the principles and

basis of the division of India, ie Muslim majority area will become part of Pakistan. India has denied the

right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir, which was given by the British to the people of

India, and is inherent in the UN Charter and UN Resolutions on Kashmir. Massive Indian troops

deployment (700,000 troops) in Jammu and Kashmir poses a serious military threat to Pakistan's national
security. Imperatives of national defence require that rights and aspirations of Kashmir people for self-

determination be restored, Indian brutalities stopped and UN Resolutions implemented. Indian troop

withdrawal from Kashmir is vital to prevent another Indo-Pak war. Vacation of Kashmir by India is a

crucial imperative for Pakistan's defence, and Pakistan's national security will remain threatened as long

as Indian troops remain in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. In 1971 having carried out intensive subversion

in East Pakistan, India exploited the opportunity of the century to forcibly dismember Pakistan. These

events are an unforgettable part of the nation's history, and have a bearing on peoples' psyche.

Normalization of relations with India is desirable, but unlikely in the present scenario. Indian hostility,

intentions and attitudes, and enhanced military preparations have a direct bearing on Pakistan's national

security.

Accessions of States:

With the withdrawal of the British from the Indian subcontinent, in 1947, the Indian Independence Act

provided that the hundreds of princely states which had existed alongside but outside British India were

released from all their subsidiary alliances and other treaty obligations to the British, while at the same

time the British withdrew from their treaty obligations to defend the states and keep the peace. The

rulers were left to decide whether to accede to one of the newly independent states of India or Pakistan

(both formed initially from the British possessions) or to remain independent outside both.As stated by

Sardar Patel at a press conference in January 1948, "As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcy

every Indian State became a separate independent entity."

Only two rulers acceded to Pakistan in the first month of its independence, August 1947, while the

others considered what to do, but most of those states with a Muslim majority population had acceded

to Pakistan within a year, prompted in several cases by the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.
The Instruments of Accession made available for the rulers to sign transferred only limited powers to the

Dominion of Pakistan, namely external relations, defence, and communications; in most cases signing

was believed to leave the states in the position they had under the suzerainty of the British Crown. The

Wali of Swat commented that the states' accession "did not change very much". However, within a

generation all of the princely states had lost their internal autonomy. The last to fall were Hunza and

Nagar, in October 1974.

States of Pakistan in order of accession

Umerkot
In 1947 Umerkot, or Amerkot, was a small state, with an area of 48.6 km2 (18.8 sq mi) and a population

of some 12,000. Although it had a Hindu majority, it was surrounded on all sides by the Sind Province of

British India, which was to become part of Pakistan on 15 August 1947, and the nearest part of the new

Union of India was 400 kilometres (250 mi) away across a desert. Arjun Singh Sodha, Raja of Umerkot,

who was himself a Hindu, saw little choice about whether to accede to Pakistan, and indeed had

previously joined the Muslim League. In 1946, Nehru had himself visited Amarkot to invite the Rana to

join the Congress Party, but he declined, as his state had long been associated with the Muslim rulers of

the region. He chose to align himself instead with the Muslim League, contesting the decisive 1946

elections as an All India Muslim League candidate.

Bahawalpur
On 3 October 1947, after some delay, the Nawab (or Ameer) of Bahawalpur, Sadeq Mohammad Khan V,

acceded his state to Pakistan, becoming the first ruler to do so successfully. As tens of thousands of

Muslim refugees flooded into the state from the new India, the Ameer of Bahawalpur Refugee Relief and

Rehabilitation Fund was instituted to provide for their relief. In 1953, the Ameer of Bahawalpur

represented Pakistan at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. In 1955 he signed an agreement with the
Governor-General of Pakistan, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, under which Bahawalpur became part of the

province of West Pakistan, with effect from 14 October 1955, and the Ameer received a yearly privy

purse of 32 lakhs of rupees, keeping his titles.

Chitral
The Mehtar of Chitral, Muzaffar-ul-Mulk (1901–1949), stated his intention to accede to Pakistan on 15

August 1947. However, his formal accession was delayed until 6 October. He died in January 1949. His

son, Saif-ur-Rahman (1926–1954), had been exiled by the Government of Pakistan and a board of

administration composed of Chitrali noblemen was to govern the state in his absence. In October 1954

Saif-ur-Rahman was allowed to return from exile to take charge of Chitral, but he died in a plane crash on

the way home, leaving his four-year-old son Mohammad Saif-ul-Mulk Nasir (1950–2011) as ruler.

On 28 July 1969, President Yahya Khan announced the full integration of the states of Chitral, Dir, and

Swat into Pakistan, and the dispossessed young ruler, Mohammad Saif-ul-Mulk Nasir, then aged

nineteen, agreed to take up a diplomatic career.

Hunza
Hunza, also known as Kanjut, was a small princely state to the north of Jammu and Kashmir, and had

been subject to the suzerainty of the Maharajah of Kashmir since 1891. In 1931 its population was

reported as 13,241.Once under Chinese protection, after the departure of the British from the

subcontinent in August 1947 Hunza received approaches from the Republic of China, which wished Mir

to return to Chinese protection. However, on 3 November 1947, the Mir of Hunza, Mohammad Jamal

Khan (1912-1976), who had been ruler only since 1946, sent a telegram to Jinnah stating that he wished

to accede his state to Pakistan. This action came one week after the decision by Hari Singh, Maharajah of

Kashmir, to accede to India, following the invasion by Pashtun Mehsud tribals, backed by Pakistani
paramilitary forces, in October 1947 under the code name "Operation Gulmarg" to seize Kashmir. On 27

October Indian Army troops had moved into Kashmir. Hunza's formal accession took place on 18

November. On 25 September 1974, following local protests, the Mir's rule came to an end when Zulfikar

Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, abolished the Mir's government and annexed the state to the

Northern Areas of Pakistan, under the federal government. Two years after his forced abdication the Mir

died.

Juna Garh:

Muhammad Sher Khan Babai was the founder of the Babi dynasty of Junagarh in 1654. His descendants,

the Babi Nawabs of Junagarh, conquered large territories in southern Saurashtra.

However, during the collapse of the Mughal Empire, the Babis became involved in a struggle with the

Gaekwad dynasty of the Maratha Empire over control of Gujarat during the reign of the local

Mohammad Mahabat Khanji I. Mohammad Khan Bahadur Khanji I declared independence from the

Mughal governor of Gujarat subah, and founded the state of Junagarh in 1730. This allowed the Babi to

retain sovereignty of Junagarh and other princely states. During the reign of his heir Junagarh was a

tributary to the Maratha Empire, until it came under British suzerainty in 1807 under Mohammad Hamid

Khanji I, following the Second Anglo-Maratha War.

In 1807, Junagarh became a British protectorate and the East India Company took control of the state. By

1818, the Saurashtra area, along with other princely states of Kathiawar, were separately administrated

under the Kathiawar Agency by British India.

In 1947, upon the independence and partition of India, the last Babi dynasty ruler of the state,

Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III, decided to merge Junagarh into the newly formed Pakistan. However,

the Hindu citizens, who formed the majority of the population, revolted, leading to several events and

also a plebiscite, resulting in the integration of Junagarh into India.

Hyderabad State

(pronunciation also known as Hyderabad Deccan, was an Indian princely state located in the south-

central region of India with its capital at the city of Hyderabad. It is now divided into the state of

Telangana, the Hyderabad-Karnataka region of Karnataka, and the Marathwada region of Maharashtra.

The state was ruled from 1724 to 1857 by the Nizam, who was initially a viceroy of the Mughal empire in

the Deccan. Hyderabad gradually became the first princely state to come under British paramountcy

signing a subsidiary alliance agreement. During British rule in 1901 the state had an average revenue of

Rs.417,00,000, making it the wealthiest princely state in India. The native inhabitants of Hyderabad

Deccan, regardless of ethnic origin, are called "Mulki" (countryman), a term still used today.

The dynasty declared itself an independent monarchy during the final years of the British Raj. After the

Partition of India, Hyderabad signed a standstill agreement with the new dominion of India, continuing

all previous arrangements except for the stationing of Indian troops in the state. Hyderabad's location in

the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's

annexation of the state in 1948. Subsequently, Mir Osman Ali Khan, the 7th Nizam, signed an instrument

of accession, joining India.

Jamu & Kashimir:

Jammu and Kashmir was a region formerly administered by India as a state from 1954 to 2019,

constituting the southern and southeastern portion of the larger Kashmir region, which has been the

subject of a dispute between India, Pakistan and China since the mid-20th century. The underlying

region of this state were parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, whose western

districts, now known as Azad Kashmir, and northern territories, now known as Gilgit-Baltistan, are
administered by Pakistan. The Aksai Chin region in the east, bordering Tibet, has been under Chinese

control since 1962.

After the Government of India repealed the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article

370 of the Indian constitution in 2019, the Parliament of India passed the Jammu and Kashmir

Reorganisation Act, which contained provisions that dissolved the state and reorganised it into two union

territories – Jammu and Kashmir in the west and Ladakh in the east, with effect from 31 October 2019.

At the time of its dissolution, Jammu and Kashmir was the only state in India with a Muslim-majority

population.

Khanate of Kalat

The Khanate of Kalat, which covered the substantial area of 139,850 km2 (53,995 sq mi), was reported in

1951 to have a population of 253,305.[31] It remained fully independent from 15 August 1947 until 27

March 1948, when its ruler, Ahmad Yar Khan (1904–1979), finally acceded to Pakistan. On 3 October

1952 it entered into the Baluchistan States Union with three neighbouring states, Kharan, Las Bela, and

Makran, and with the Khan of Kalat at the head of the Union with the title of Khan-e-Azam. The Khanate

came to an end on 14 October 1955, when it was incorporated into West Pakistan.

On 20 June 1958, Mir Sir Ahmad Yar Khan Ahmedzai, the Khan of Kalat, declared Baluchistan

independent.[32] On 6 October 1958, the Balochistan police captured the Kalat Palace and arrested the

Khan for sedition. The next day, Iskandar Mirza declared martial law, which led to disturbances in

Balochistan lasting about a year.[33] The Khan was eventually forgiven and released.
Makran

Also on 17 March 1948, Makran acceded to Pakistan, and on 3 October 1952 it formed the Baluchistan

States Union with Kalat, Kharan and Las Bela. Makran was dissolved on 14 October 1955, when it was

merged into the province of West Pakistan. In 1970, the area of the former state was organized as the

Makran District (later the Makran Division) of the province of Baluchistan.

Kharan

With an area of 47,940 square kilometres (18,508 square miles) and a population reported in 1951 as

33,833, Kharan was one of the princely states of Baluchistan which retained their independence for

several months. Its last Nawab was Habibullah Khan Baluch (1897–1958), who was in power from 1911

until 1955.

The state acceded to Pakistan on 17 March 1948, which was accepted on the same day. On 21 March

1948, the rulers of Kharan, Makran, and Las Bela all announced that they were acceding their states to

the Dominion of Pakistan.

Las Bela

Las Bela's ruler Ghulam Qadir Khan (1920–1988) acceded to Pakistan on 7 March 1948, and the

accession was accepted by Pakistan on 17 March. The state was a member of the Baluchistan States

Union from 3 October 1952 to 14 October 1955, but it retained its internal autonomy. That came to an

end in 1955, when Las Bela was incorporated into the new West Pakistan province and became part of

the Kalat division. In 1962, Las Bela was detached from West Pakistan and merged with the Federal
Capital Territory to form Karachi-Bela. In 1970, it became the Lasbela District of the new province of

Balochistan.

Dir

The Nawab of Dir, Sir Shah Jahan Khan, sent troops to support Pakistan in the First Kashmir War of 1947,

and he signed an instrument of accession to Pakistan on 8 November, but it was not until 8 February

1948 that his state's accession was accepted by Jinnah as Governor-General. In 1961 Yahya Khan exiled

Jahan Khan and replaced him as Nawab with his son Mohammad Shah Khosru Khan, who was a Major

General in the Pakistan Army, but the real control passed to the state's Political Agent. On 28 July 1969,

Yahya Khan announced that the states of Dir, Chitral, and Swat were being incorporated into Pakistan.

Nagar

Nagar was another small valley state to the north of Kashmir and shared the language and culture of

Hunza. In 1931 it had a population of 13,672, much the same as that of Hunza.On 18 November 1947 its

ruler, Shaukat Ali Khan (1909–2003) joined his neighbour in acceding to Pakistan

In 1968 Syed Yahya Shah, a politician of the valley, demanded civil rights from the Mir of Nagar. On 25

September 1974, not long after the Pakistan People's Party under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had come to power,

the new government forced the last Mir of Nagar, Brigadier Shaukat Ali Khan, to abdicate his power, as

with the Mir of Hunza, and like Hunza, Nagar was merged into the Northern Areas, although the Mir of

Nagar was left with some of his purely ceremonial role.

The last Mir, Shaukat Ali Khan, ruled Nagar from 1940 until his powers of administration were taken away

in 1974.
Moral Problems:

‘MORALITY’ is a tool often used by undemocratic forces to snub democratic values and promote self-

serving alternatives. Particular victims of this lethal weapon are democracies in transition which must

make their way largely without challenging the so-called moral standards crafted by anti-democratic

forces.

As the political temperature increases in Pakistan, the issue of morality is once again taking centre stage.

The Panama Papers have given another direction to the debate where opposition parties are trying to

maximise their political gains through challenging the moral credentials of the rulers.

Political oppositions everywhere in the world act like this with a view to upholding transparency and

accountability in governance processes; they also try to capitalise on the opportunities presented by

moral debates to form a government.

But countries like Pakistan, where democracy is still fragile, remain under constant threat and pressure

from the security establishment. The literature of political science is replete with examples where

undemocratic forces employ ‘moral’ reasoning to justify interventions. Basically, they challenge

parliament and its procedures that are supposed to evolve a code of ethics for the functioning of state

and society. Parliament can be undermined when ‘moral’ attitudes not in sync with democratic norms

are adopted.
Morality is a multi-edged sword that does not require much skill to wield effectively. It can be used to

hurt or challenge the interests of a particular group — there are so many adversarial combinations ie

morality vs legality, morality vs rights, morality vs governance, morality vs accountability, morality vs

values etc. It all depends on what one’s goals are, what one expects to achieve by wielding this sword.

The dynamics are not difficult to understand as authority is what defines moral values. Authority itself is

subjective and varies from case to case and class to class. Power elites, including the security

establishment, religious, social and business elites, act as authorities in their own spheres and they have

a variety of moral standards amongst them. Their domains are defined and in most cases these interest

groups do not challenge each other’s authority unless their interests clash. The clergy in Pakistan has

virtually unchallenged authority in the religious, ideological and social discourse. Their moral standards

are very rigid. The common man may not completely rely on their vision but still largely believes in their

insights into religious issues. In functional democracies, the judiciary is the institution which defines the

legal and constitutional boundaries without interfering in the domain of morality. In Pakistan, the

judiciary has a mixed record and has usually avoided challenging the authority of those with power. The

media in Pakistan is also a participant; a major segment of it promotes the ‘moral’ standards of the most

powerful in the country.

The civil bureaucracy has assumed a silent role in power equations. It manoeuvres situations according

to its institutional or elitist interests. It usually remains successful both in democracies and dictatorships.

Pakistani society has its own parallel moral standards based on traditions and cultures. Different

segments of society continue to follow regressive ‘norms’ such as ‘honour killings’, swara, vani etc —

their own definition of ‘moral’. The state does not challenge the traditional jirga or panchayat systems,

where people continue with their own ideas of justice, because that does not hurt the interests of the

power elites.
True, politicians are expected to be moral creatures. But in Pakistan, their image has been distorted in a

way that their ‘morality’ appears tainted. This is a difficult situation for them because they have to fight

not only to keep the political process intact but also to maintain their moral credentials, especially when

it is easy for everyone to degrade them and tag them as corrupt, incompetent, and even label them

traitors.

Those who define patriotism and morality hold the real power, and those among politicians, media, and

power elites who want to share these powers act as destabilising agents. Some also try to project

themselves as moral. Imran Khan is a perfect example of the stereotypical ‘clean’ man. But when the

democratic process gets weakened, personalities take over the political process. Personalities survive on

the illusion of charisma, where process becomes irrelevant and political parties are transformed into

cults.

There is also an argument that the establishment keeps checks on the democratic process in good faith.

This argument is based on the notion that the political leadership lacks the qualities required to manage

the state of affairs. But the establishment does not give political leadership space to prove this notion

wrong. They know that if this space is provided, the political leadership will establish its ‘moral’

credentials.

Politics is all about restructuring disciplines according to human nature, and societal values — both

religious and cultural. Democracy’s natural path leads it to procedures and a code of ethics. The latter

regulates the state’s power structures. Parliament is the institution which regulates this process. Political

forces can construct a code of ethics in or out of parliament. In both cases, they need the people’s

endorsement.
The PPP and PML-N attempted this and agreed on a political code of ethics when they signed the Charter

of Democracy in 2006. However, both failed to engage other political parties in the CoD; in fact, they

themselves have not adhered to the spirit of the charter.

Despite their failure to do so, there is still a sense that the common political interest must be secured.

But this sense is not strong enough to provide a shield against interventions. The biggest challenge is

that politicians are not the only political actors in Pakistan

Political instability is neither in the interest of the country, the establishment or the opposition parties,

nor is it in the interest of the country’s in-transition democracy and economy.