Journal

Pakistan The Roots of Dictatorship:

Chapter 1:

It starts off with the discussion of the history of pakistan’s mechant groups and feudal lords who had
a great interest in generating profits from Pakistan’s economic system. It describes the fact that these
interests were present ever since pre-partition times. It describes how the masses were exhausted to
serve the purpose of the elite. It argues that the state was sponsoring these merchants so as to
generate as much profit as possible which would help run the state. On the other hand, the army
was being equipped with the latest machinery and training needed to defend a sovereign nation.
Contracts were primarily being signed up with the USA. The aforementioned socio-economic
situation can be classed as ‘’lassez-faire’’. It also talks about the reason why Bhutto introduced social
economy which is the consequence of the economic policies (mentioned above) of General Ayub and
General Yahya during their governorship. To be more specific about ‘’lassez-faire’’ , it was a policy
that ensured protection of the capitalists of the country and the army was the one responsible for
such protection.

To make ‘’lassez-faire’’ a reality, the pre-existing income from agricultural land was used to fuel
industrialization of the economy. In addition to that, the labour class, which represents 90% of the
population, were exploited. They worked extra hard for the little that they did gain. The profits from
the industry would be used in (?)

It also talks about the ‘’loan-taking-addiction’’ of the state since the partition which still continues till
this day. It talks about the (pre?) partition economic system where feudal lords would export
agricultural materials outside the state such as jute and cane. It also talks about the fact that the
government would artificially alter the prices of rupee so that the elite merchants could make more
money. This also explains the reason behind the multiple exchange rate.

We then discuss bhutto’s era, where efforts were being made not only to satisfy the status quo, but
also the lower classes of the society. This was done through primarily the nationalization of heavy
electrical industry and also the various land reform acts that were introduced. It is important to note
that these land reforms did no damage to the feudal lords as the land that was cut off them was
transferred to their relatives. So what Bhutto was doing was trying to do was to please both- the elite
and the poor people. His socialist election campaign sold the poor people the dream of the transfer
of wealth from the elite to them which again, proved very ineffective. Though it did bring a little
benefit to the farmer where they were able to retain quite a lot of land based on the amount of
agricultural innovativeness that they showed. Another development was that this time, the military
‘peasants’ were also given a plot of land. Bhutto’s politics was based on protection of his power, he
even went to the extent of cooperating with the Muslim parties whom he severely opposed. This
shows us his lack of (staying on his principles).

We then discuss the developments of zia’s regime. We discuss the fact that zia used islam only for his
political objective, and how brutal the state actually was during that time. Zia dismantled bhutto’s
socialist moves privatising major companies. Also in his tenure, all major government institutions had
army officers at the top. He made military treaties with the USA. He sought justification of rule from
external powers ,mainly the Saudis and the USA. The USA gave grants to zia to fight the soviets.
Journal

To solve for the economic crises, Dr. Mahbubul Haq was called off. He emphasized import
substitution industries and many policies from the New World Order. The problem of national unity,
class oppression, and poverty remain.

Looking for legitimacy to its throne by proxies, Pakistan was now in a state where it was venerable to
military alliances and battlefield and a loss of sovereignity.

So now we go back and discuss the history of the subcontinent : briefly, it was an area that was
constantly raided by the outside forces including the Chinese, Persians, Arabs, and the Hellenics.
There were however times when the whole area was controlled by our own empires like the
Mauryan, Gupta, and the Mughal Empire. The state of affairs was controlled by a central authority
surrounded by small princely states which had acted more like vassal states. They were to provide
their military services and part revenue generated from the crops of their land to the central
authority – the empire. Initially this system weren’t present, there was only an Asiatic mode of
production where the state owned pretty much everything. But then, as time went by and land of
the empire increased, the emperors granted their lands in exchange for loyalty. This was not wholly
feudalistic nizam, as some of its elements were missing, like the land wasn’t owned by these rulers it
was only granted to them. This was at the time the Mughals came. Before this period, the land was
actually owned by the landlords. Also marked at the Mughal era is the introduction of currency into
the market which again weakens the jagirdarana nizam as the peasants could by food from
elsewhere as they would demand their payment in the form of money instead of crops. The person
who would collect tax for the crops would be called Chaudry some of whom later in British Raj would
be made landlords. In the Mughal era, the Mansabdar would be paid by the Zamindars/Jagirdaars of
the state. Most of the ecomomic activity took place in villages and in a baradari system.

A brief history of Sindh was touched upon before the Islamic conquest where there was a hindu ruler
with buddhist/hindu religion prevailing over the state. The technology was under-developed as
described by Ibn-Batuta.

Then came the British raj: first off, they changed the semi-feudal state into a feudal aristocracy. They
gave full authority of land to notable families, smart but slick merchants, military alliance holders,
and people who could gather labourers enmasse for the British. They also changed the previous
system of giving surplus production to the sultan of Delhi to a fixed produce. They also bettered the
system of communication, transport, and trade in general. They did that so that they can maximum
the outsource of the ‘’fruits of labour’’ of the Pakistani masses. They didn’t allow a complete shift of
political economy to a capitalist framework. This was the state of affairs of Punjab. Meanwhile in
Baluchistan and NWFP , they didn’t install their rule. These areas were treated as buffer zones
against the enemy so developing them was of no use. What was done instead was a reinforcement of
sardars. They were paid money for their (loyalty?). They were given police and military for a more
authoritarian rule over his people. Before it used to be a whole group of him and his tribal chiefs.

Then post-colonial economy is discussed, the fact that when the British left, their were only elements
of capitalist modes of production and not the whole system. Deals with the united states, their new
imperialists, were made. This also meant the infux of US backed businesses which would use our
resources to make more money.
Journal