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 Paki-

stan 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 Con-

gress 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 Rehabil-

itation Fund was instituted to provide for their relief. In 1953, the Ameer of Bahawalpur represented Pa-

kistan 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 administra-

tion composed of Chitrali noblemen was to govern the state in his absence. In October 1954 Saif-ur-Rah-

man 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 pro-

tection. 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, fol-

lowing 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 fed-

eral 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 citi-

zens, 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 sign-

ing 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 Dec-

can, 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 an-

nexation 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 dis-

pute 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 Reorgani-

sation 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 independ-

ent.[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 Do-

minion 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 divi-

sion. 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-serv-

ing 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 ac-

countability 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 undem-

ocratic 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. Parlia-

ment 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 stand-

ards 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 au-

thority 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 bound-

aries 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 def-

inition 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 trai-

tors.
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 them-

selves 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 reli-

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

lates 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.