From Family Discipline to National Defence

Pakistan has never lacked economic advice. Since independence, successive governments have experimented with socialist planning, import substitution, nationalisation, structural adjustment, privatization, fiscal decentralisation, value added taxation, documentation drives, digital governance and, most recently, artificial intelligence in tax administration.  Almost every reform has been presented as the missing ingredient that would place the country on the path of sustained prosperity. However, Pakistan continues to oscillate between balance-of-payments crises, external dependence, fiscal instability and repeated recourse to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This persistent failure raises a more fundamental question. Is Pakistan’s crisis primarily economic, or are economists asking the wrong questions? For decades, the dominant explanation has remained remarkably consistent. Pakistan is said to suffer from a narrow tax base, inadequate domestic resource mobilisation, weak public institutions, poor governance and inconsistent implementation of otherwise sound policies. According to this view, if taxes were broadened, exemptions withdrawn, administration digitalised and markets allowed to function efficiently, sustainable growth would eventually follow. There is much truth in these observations. They identify many of the symptoms. But they do not fully explain why technically sound reforms repeatedly fail in Pakistan while producing very different outcomes elsewhere. The reason, as suggested in earlier writings, is that Pakistan cannot be understood through the conventional assumptions of public finance alone. Economic policy does not operate in a constitutional vacuum; it reflects the incentives created by the political and legal institutions within which governments function. Orthodox economics generally assumes a constitutional order within which governments seek, however imperfectly, to maximise public welfare. Fiscal policy, taxation and expenditure are analysed as instruments for correcting market failures, financing public goods and promoting economic growth. Political constraints are acknowledged but usually treated as external distortions rather than integral components of economic analysis. Pakistan presents a different reality. Here, constitutional arrangements, political incentives, strategic considerations and informal institutions have shaped fiscal outcomes as much as, and often more than, economic policy itself. Taxation has frequently reflected the distribution of political power rather than principles of efficiency or equity.  Public expenditure has often been determined by strategic imperatives rather than developmental priorities. External assistance has repeatedly substituted for difficult domestic reforms. Elite bargains have preserved privilege while transferring the burden of adjustment to documented businesses, salaried individuals and ordinary consumers. These outcomes cannot be adequately explained by models that assume an impartial state pursuing coherent economic objectives. The analytical framework itself, therefore, requires reconsideration. This series proceeds from a simple but powerful proposition: before analysing taxes, budgets or debt, one must first understand the constitutional rules that shape political incentives. This is the central insight of Constitutional Political Economy (CPE).  Unlike conventional public finance, CPE begins not with taxes or budgets but with the constitutional rules, institutional incentives and political structures that determine how economic decisions are actually made. It asks a prior question: Who designs the rules under which economic policy operates, whose interests do those rules serve, and how do they shape incentives for both governments and citizens? Once that question is asked, many of Pakistan’s recurring puzzles begin to appear less mysterious. Why do technically sound tax reforms repeatedly fail? Why do successive governments rely on indirect taxation while avoiding politically influential sectors? Why has documentation remained elusive despite extraordinary advances in digital technology? Why does every external crisis quickly become a fiscal crisis? Why has debt expanded despite repeated stabilisation programmes? The answers lie not merely in economics but in the constitutional and political environment within which economics operates. This series proposes a different approach. Rather than examining taxation, debt or fiscal federalism as isolated subjects, it will analyse them as interconnected manifestations of Pakistan’s constitutional political economy. Future parts will explore how colonial legacies, post-independence constitutional choices, geopolitical dependency, elite capture, federal arrangements, judicial interpretation and administrative incentives have combined to shape Pakistan’s economic trajectory. The purpose is not to reject orthodox economics. Public finance remains indispensable. Sound taxation, efficient expenditure and macroeconomic stability are essential for any modern state. However, these instruments cannot achieve their intended objectives when the institutional environment within which they operate generates incentives that systematically frustrate reform. Pakistan’s crisis is not simply a fiscal crisis. Nor is it merely a crisis of governance. It is, more fundamentally, a crisis of constitutional political economy. Unless that deeper reality is understood, technical reforms, however well designed, will continue to produce disappointing results because they address the symptoms rather than the constitutional incentives that generate them. In the next part, we shall examine why the assumptions of orthodox public finance differ fundamentally from those of constitutional political economy, and why that distinction matters profoundly for understanding Pakistan. [To be continued]  ____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), holds an LLD in tax laws. He was full-time journalist from 1979 to 1984 with Viewpoint and Dawn. He also served Civil Services of Pakistan from 1984 to 1996. 

The geopolitical partition of the Indian subcontinent in the mid-twentieth century and the subsequent emergence of two sovereign nation-states remain among the most complex and defining chapters in modern global history. Within constitutional studies, postcolonial scholarship, and international affairs, this monumental shift has often been viewed through overly reductive lenses—frequently chalked up to imperial haste, nationalist fervor, or entrenched religious polarization. Yet, evaluated through a critical, detached twenty-first-century historical paradigm, a far more nuanced reality emerges: the creation of Pakistan was neither the product of a singular conspiracy nor a sudden historical accident. Rather, it represented a profound tripartite structural crisis triggered by Britain’s post-war imperial retreat, the Indian National Congress’s persistent anxiety over central authority, and the All-India Muslim League’s long-standing constitutional struggle to secure the political rights, economic safeguards, and existence of the subcontinent’s Muslim minority. To comprehend the foundational tier of this historical watershed, one must first analyze the global political economy and British colonial strategy of the 1940s. The devastation of the Second World War eroded the financial, administrative, and military underpinnings of the British Empire. British India—once celebrated as the crown jewel of the realm—had transmuted into an unsustainable administrative burden for Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government in London. Official imperial correspondence compiled in The Transfer of Power 1942–47 exposes an unmistakable truth: London’s primary objective was no longer to establish an equitable political settlement in South Asia, but rather to execute a swift, low-cost exit that mitigated further economic and military liability. This imperial burnout precipitated Lord Mountbatten’s rushed exit strategy, which abruptly advanced the timeline for the transfer of power from June 1948 to August 1947. The human and spatial catastrophe that followed was exacerbated by the Boundary Commission led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe—a man with no prior familiarity with the subcontinent’s intricate demographic and cultural fabric, tasked with carving borders across maps in a matter of weeks. The chaotic fallout of the Radcliffe Award, the controversial inclusion of Muslim-majority tehsils like Gurdaspur into India, the bloody bifurcation of Punjab and Bengal, and the largest forced migration in human history were ultimately the catastrophic human costs paid by millions of South Asians for a retreating empire’s hasty flight. The second dimension of this tripartite framework involves the political, ideological, and constitutional stance of the Indian National Congress—a position frequently mischaracterized in one-sided narratives as sheer personal hubris or partisan bias. A rigorous, objective historical analysis of the Congress leadership, particularly figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, reveals that their overriding strategic fear was the “Balkanization” of the subcontinent into scores of autonomous, warring princely states. The Congress maintained that governing a vast, culturally diverse land mass under a weak central power alongside sprawling princely domains was fundamentally unviable. They advocated for a highly centralized state capable of driving industrialization, economic cohesion, and geopolitical stability. Consequently, Congress consistently resisted flexible federal structures that granted extensive provincial autonomy, fearing that a weak central government would inevitably lead to the fragmentation of India’s geographical and political integrity. However, the third and arguably most crucial ideological and legal dimension was the constitutional resistance led by the All-India Muslim League under Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a struggle born out of the inherent limitations of majoritarian, “Westminster-style” numerical democracy. In culturally homogenous Western societies, the principle of “one person, one vote” forms the bedrock of democratic governance. Yet in the deeply stratified, multi-religious reality of the subcontinent, strict numerical majoritarianism effectively condemned a twenty-five percent Muslim minority to permanent political subordination under a seventy-five percent Hindu majority. For the Muslim population, this contest was never merely about securing a share of administrative power; it was a fundamental fight for legislative self-determination, economic survival, and cultural preservation. A close reading of the subcontinent’s constitutional trajectory demonstrates that the demand for Pakistan did not originate as a call for immediate territorial separation. From the Simla Deputation of 1906 and the constitutional reforms of 1909 to the Lucknow Pact of 1916, Jinnah’s Fourteen Points of 1929, and the Government of India Act of 1935, the primary objective of Muslim leadership was to secure provincial autonomy, separate electorates, and robust constitutional safeguards within a unified Indian federation. As the eminent Cambridge historian Ayesha Jalal highlighted in The Sole Spokesman, the demand for Pakistan functioned for a long time as a sophisticated strategic bargaining chip aimed at securing equal constitutional weight at the center, ensuring minority rights could not be overridden by sheer majoritarian dominance. The pivotal turning point occurred following the 1937 provincial elections. When the Indian National Congress formed unilateral governments across most of British India while sidelining minority representation, its twenty-month tenure transformed the Muslim League’s theoretical anxieties into stark political reality. The final, most promising opportunity for a united, decentralized India was the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. It proposed grouping British Indian provinces into three autonomous tiers, restricting the federal center strictly to defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Demonstrating extraordinary political foresight and statesmanship, Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan despite heavy internal dissent, striving to preserve the geographic unity of the subcontinent while securing constitutional autonomy for Muslims. This fragile compromise collapsed in July 1946 during a press conference in Bombay, where Jawaharlal Nehru declared that Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly “unfettered by agreements” and free to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan. In his seminal work Partition of India: Legend and Reality, renowned Indian jurist and constitutional historian H. M. Seervai meticulously documented how Congress’s rigid insistence on hyper-centralization and rejection of a loose federation torpedoed the Cabinet Mission Plan. At that crucial juncture, the demand for a separate, sovereign state ceased to be an idealistic campaign; it became the sole viable, logical pathway to guarantee political equality, dignity, and constitutional security for millions of Muslims. Underpinning this prolonged political contest was an essential socio-economic reality often overlooked in conventional historiography. In British India, commercial networks, civil administration, and industrial capital were predominantly concentrated within the Hindu middle class, leaving the Muslim agrarian class, tenant

A nation’s destiny is not written by chance. It is written by the choices its people and institutions make in times of both crisis and opportunity. Seventy-nine years after independence, Pakistan stands at a decisive juncture. The country holds immense potential: a population of 241.49 million according to the 2023 Digital Census, strategic location at the crossroads of Asia, abundant natural resources, and a society that has repeatedly demonstrated resilience. Yet potential alone does not translate into prosperity. The path forward requires clarity of purpose and action on the fundamental drivers of national advancement. For Pakistan, five factors stand out as decisive: human capital, institutional credibility, economic diversification, technological adoption, and national cohesion. The most urgent factor is human capital. Pakistan is one of the youngest nations in the world. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 64% of Pakistanis are under the age of 30, and the median age is 20.8 years. This demographic dividend can either accelerate growth or become a liability if left untapped. The World Bank’s Human Capital Index for Pakistan is 0.41, which means a child born today will be only 41% as productive as they could be with full education and health. Closing this gap demands investment that is both broad and deep. Foundational education must be prioritized, technical and vocational training must be aligned with industry, and health and nutrition must be treated as economic inputs, not social expenses. The inclusion of women is non-negotiable. With female labor force participation at 24.1% in 2021, Pakistan is underutilizing half of its talent. McKinsey estimates that advancing gender parity could add $60 billion to Pakistan’s GDP. Every girl in school and every woman in the workforce is a direct contribution to national prosperity. The second factor is institutional credibility. Prosperity is built where people trust that rules are fair, contracts are honored, and merit matters. Pakistan’s economy has shown resilience despite challenges. The State Bank of Pakistan reports GDP at $341.2 billion for FY2025 with projected growth of 3.6%, and remittances hit a record $35.3 billion. IT exports reached $3.55 billion in FY2025, a 24% increase year-on-year. These gains occurred even with regulatory uncertainty and energy constraints. Imagine the scale of investment and innovation if governance were more predictable. This requires digitizing public services, protecting property rights, depoliticizing key institutions, and empowering local governments with resources and accountability. When a young graduate in Multan or a startup founder in Karachi believes the system will reward effort, they will choose to build at home. Third is economic diversification. An economy dependent on a narrow base remains vulnerable. Pakistan must move beyond textiles and remittances toward value-added exports, modern agriculture, and new industries. Agriculture still employs 36.8% of the labor force but contributes less than 23% to GDP, signaling a major productivity gap. Climate change compounds this challenge, with Pakistan ranked 5th on the 2025 Global Climate Risk Index. Investing in climate-smart agriculture, water efficiency, and agri-tech is therefore both an economic and survival imperative. At the same time, the digital economy offers Pakistan its fastest route to high-value growth. With 142.3 million broadband subscribers and internet penetration crossing 54% as of June 2025, the infrastructure for a knowledge economy exists. Pakistan ranked 3rd globally on the 2024 Online Labour Index. Scaling IT exports toward the $15 billion target by 2030 will require tax incentives, venture funding, and global market linkages for startups. The $23.1 million raised by Pakistani startups in 2024, amid a global funding slowdown, proves that investor confidence exists and can be expanded. Fourth is technological adoption and innovation. The world is being reshaped by AI, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing. Pakistan cannot afford to be a late adopter. The Alternative and Renewable Energy Policy target of 30% renewable share by 2030 must be met to address both energy security and climate risk. Technology must also transform service delivery. Telemedicine, digital payments, and AI in agriculture can bring quality services to remote areas at lower cost. Universities must become hubs of research and industry collaboration. Innovation thrives where there is capital, mentorship, and protection of intellectual property. The state’s role is to create that ecosystem. The fifth and binding factor is national cohesion. Economic policy fails without social trust. Pakistan’s diversity in language, culture, and region is a strength if it is united by a shared commitment to justice and opportunity. Cohesion is built when citizens feel they have an equal stake, when public discourse is grounded in facts, and when achievements in science, sports, and culture are celebrated as national, not regional. A country that trusts itself can make difficult reforms and sustain them. These five factors do not operate in isolation. Better education produces better institutions. Strong institutions attract investment for diversification. Diversification funds technology. Technology creates jobs that strengthen social unity. The absence of one undermines the others. The global context adds urgency. While many nations face aging populations, Pakistan has a 20 to 25 year window to leverage its youth. That window will not remain open indefinitely. Prosperity will not arrive through slogans or external assistance alone. It will come from millions of deliberate acts: a teacher focused on learning, a farmer adopting new techniques, an engineer building solar solutions, a policymaker choosing reform over delay. Pakistan’s history proves that the nation can achieve what seems impossible when it acts with unity and purpose. The factors for progress and prosperity are now clear. What remains is the will to pursue them consistently. If Pakistan invests in its people, strengthens its institutions, diversifies its economy, embraces technology, and unites its society, the next chapter will be one of sustained advancement. The opportunity is here. The responsibility is ours.

Pakistan has entered a crucial phase in its constitutional and administrative journey. With a population exceeding 250 million, the governance model that served the country decades ago is increasingly being questioned. Recent public discussions, including remarks by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi advocating a debate on administrative reforms in light of Pakistan’s growing population, have reignited an important national conversation: Is it time to rethink how Pakistan is governed? In my view, the answer is yes. The real challenge is not simply whether Pakistan should create more provinces. The real challenge is how governance can be brought closer to the people. A modern state cannot be effectively administered through excessive centralization when its population, economy, and urban centers have expanded dramatically over the past several decades. The first and most important reform should be the empowerment of local governments. District administrations, metropolitan authorities, and municipal governments should be given genuine constitutional authority, financial autonomy, and administrative independence. Citizens interact with government primarily through local institutions. Therefore, healthcare, education, sanitation, water supply, transport, municipal planning, and public safety should be managed by empowered local governments rather than through an overly centralized administrative structure. Karachi represents the strongest example of why governance reform has become a necessity rather than a choice. As Pakistan’s largest city and economic engine, Karachi deserves a governance model specifically designed for a modern global megacity. Despite its enormous contribution to the national economy, the city continues to face serious challenges in urban planning, infrastructure, traffic management, public transport, water supply, waste management, and municipal administration. In my opinion, simply placing Karachi under direct federal control would not automatically solve these problems. The federal government already carries enormous national responsibilities, and transferring administrative authority without structural reforms may simply relocate existing governance challenges. Instead, Karachi requires a metropolitan governance model comparable to internationally recognized cities such as New York, where professional city administration, clearly defined institutional responsibilities, strong municipal leadership, effective policing coordination, urban planning, and financial autonomy work together under a comprehensive metropolitan framework. Such a model could improve service delivery while ensuring greater accountability and long-term planning. Governance reform should not stop at strengthening local governments. Pakistan should also seriously consider creating additional provinces wherever there is genuine administrative need, broad public consultation, and constitutional consensus. Smaller provinces can improve administrative efficiency, strengthen regional representation, and make governments more responsive to local communities. More representative provincial structures can also help ensure that the concerns of both urban and rural populations receive greater attention at the national level. Equally important is the devolution of administrative authority to districts and local institutions. Excessive concentration of political and administrative power often limits opportunities for ordinary citizens to influence decisions that directly affect their lives. A stronger local government system would enable communities to participate more effectively in governance while improving transparency, accountability, and public service delivery. This debate should never be viewed as an attempt to weaken Sindh or divide its people. On the contrary, I believe these reforms would strengthen Sindh by ensuring that development and decision-making reach every corner of the province. Whether someone lives in Kandhkot, Larkana, Mithi, Islamkot, Mirpurkhas, Badin, Hyderabad, Thatta, or Karachi, every citizen deserves equal access to quality healthcare, education, infrastructure, clean drinking water, municipal services, and economic opportunities. An equally important aspect of this reform process is public awareness and civic education. Pakistan needs a network of credible academics, constitutional experts, economists, retired civil servants, educationists, and respected members of civil society who can engage directly with communities across Sindh, particularly in rural and underserved areas where access to balanced political information may be limited. Their role should be to explain, in Sindhi and other local languages, the constitutional, administrative, and economic implications of decentralization, stronger local governments, and, where appropriate, the creation of additional provinces. Many citizens hear conflicting political narratives about these proposals. In my view, people should be encouraged to evaluate reforms on the basis of evidence, administrative efficiency, and public welfare rather than fear or political rhetoric. If these reforms genuinely improve representation, accountability, and service delivery, they should be supported regardless of political interests. Ultimately, the objective should not be to benefit any political party but to empower every citizen and ensure that governance serves the people instead of entrenched centers of power. Unfortunately, discussions about administrative reform are often overshadowed by political narratives that generate fear and misunderstanding. In my opinion, governance reforms should be evaluated on their administrative merits rather than through the lens of partisan politics. Citizens should be encouraged to examine whether decentralisation would improve their quality of life instead of viewing every proposal as a political contest. Meaningful reform also requires strengthening independent institutions, ensuring merit-based appointments, improving accountability, and modernising public administration. Whether Pakistan ultimately retains its parliamentary system or chooses another constitutional framework, lasting success will depend upon transparent institutions, professional governance, and effective local administration. Pakistan’s future does not depend merely on drawing new boundaries on a map. It depends upon building a governance system that places citizens—not bureaucracy or political centralization, at the center of public administration. Strong local governments, empowered districts, efficient metropolitan administrations, and, where constitutionally appropriate, additional provinces can together create a stronger federation, a more prosperous Sindh, and a better future for every Pakistani. A prosperous Pakistan will be built not through the concentration of power, but through the fair and effective distribution of power to the people.

Kashi with its rich culture is becoming a hub of tourism, industry. Despite being very close to Pakistan border with Kashi, the aerial trade is being very limited. We are not making a full use of our land link with China. That is not passing a positive impact for the regional economy. Our natural reserves for mines and minerals are one of the biggest resource that we can exchange with China; such as an export for the raw material using the land route, what more specifically if our gov is very vigilant, they can invite the Chinese investors from this region specifically, to extract mines and minerals, but thing that can change the economy of this entire region mainly depends if we can convince Chinese investors to invest in this particular region of Gilgit for the purification of metals. Vice President Pakistan-China Joint Chamber The other best way is the tourism and the hospitality. We need to engage the tourism groups who can be helpful to attract the Chinese people who want to cross over Khunjarab pass to Pakistan. I have noticed many people of this region very much interested to cross the Khunjarab pass to get an access to Pakistan side. Further I want to make you sure that the plateau of the Pakistan side is considered to be one of the most beautiful natural plateau in the world. Culturally this area have been preserved very well, including the ancient buildings such as centuries old. Food is one of the best attraction and the delicacies, it is commonly believed that Ice cream originally started from this region. Similarly, there is a long route which is called the inner wall of the city have a long cue of traditional restaurants with hundreds of options. Paya the lamb foot, is named the same in Kashi language same as pulao, naan, kabab, and many other words. I have never seen a variety of naans in all over sub continent. The same i saw only in Kashi. They also produced a qeema naan (meat) which is one of the delicacy of this region. I conceived an idea that the concept of pizza and spaghettis was stolen by Marco Polo in the 13th century from this region and was taken to Italy. That is why till today spaghettis and pizza is one a famous dish in Italy. But nowhere else in Europe. Bar b que globally I have been to many countries but the best natural taste of bar b que is in this region. Mostly they use lamb, sheep, and beef to make this bar b que. Similarly, pulao was originated from Xinjiang in this region. So, it traveled all the way to subcontinent. The pulao I tasted in Kashi, was one of the best delicacy. It added up with dried grapes. They also love to serve it with the yogurt. Kabab, shawarma have many kind of faces, the region have a lot of shapes for kabab mostly by the meat of sheep. These people like to eat the fats more often Ly than our region. The weather of this area is very harsh as it climbs p to 40 degrees in hot season while drop down to minus -25 in the cold season. Because of this harsh weather the living condition of the normal people have totally been changed. This harsh weather physically converted theses people as a very tough nation. But the other impact of this weather is that this area is mostly dry and even the mountains are mostly barren. Tea is one of a natural product of this area with many kind of teas to be offered. Flower tea is one of the famous tea from this area which is commonly believed to keep a face fresh. But there are multiple kind of teas available in this region. Walking through the streets of Kashi there are hundred of shops, as I mentioned dry fruits are one of the basic product of this region, I have never seen the variety of dry fruits that I found in Kashgar, is indescribable. They are genuine dry fruit lovers providing of hundreds of kinds of dry fruit. The way they preserve it and roast it with the honey, this technology we may need to learn from them. The use of metal and handicrafts especially in the form of brass I have observed are the best in the whole world. Where the use of art work by hand was even more inspiring. Alladin was one of the story that we listen from our childhood, actually this story was also originated in this region. Same as Alibaba, which is one of the oldest tale we always listening from centuries. And who can forget the famous stories of Ali baba with forty thieves. These all stories were originated from the same region. The beauty of this area along with the traditional dresses of the girls that are still very popular in subcontinent. There were a lot of tea houses with a history of more than a hundred years traditionally serving their local tea. Most of the tea houses have the people playing their traditional music and that is so fascinating that you can spend hours to listens that music. The rhythm will really mesmerize you. In my next article I will describe about the traditional restaurants and their dances as performance. To be continued..

These days, one phrase echoes throughout our country: “Pakistan’s system has collapsed.” If we translate the word collapse into plain, colloquial language, it means that our so-called system has completely broken down, gone to ruin, or become utterly dysfunctional. Therefore, the argument goes, the country now needs a new system. This, they claim, can only happen if, instead of the existing four provinces, Pakistan is reorganized into thirty or thirty-two new provinces. Such a restructuring, they believe, would push aside the traditional politicians and allow a new generation of political leaders to emerge. Otherwise, they warn, just as in India, there will be an uprising of the “cockroaches”—that is, the youth—which will force this collapsed, rotten system to surrender. At first glance, these words appear attractive and appealing. They express not only frustration and disgust with our current political situation but also offer hope to the younger generation, particularly Generation Z. It is as if they are saying: “Dear frustrated young people! We are opening the doors to your future. You will rise, dominate the scene, and sweep away all the debris of the past—that is, the traditional politicians—with the force of your determination and enthusiasm.” However, this humble writer sees, behind these beautiful words, not a bright future but the same worn-out and ugly mirage of the past. In reality, those who are truly responsible—the real culprits—cleverly distance themselves from blame, divert the attention of the youth toward others, and then present themselves as the young people’s sympathizers and supporters. In our poetry, it is through such tricks that the beloved murderer becomes an innocent beloved, and the criminal appears as the trusted confidant. But this humble writer calls it what it really is: “the thief making the loudest outcry.” Our national poet, Iqbal, once wrote: There is an outcry that Muslims have vanished from the world; We ask: Were true Muslims ever really present? In appearance you resemble Christians, in civilization the Hindus; These are the Muslims before whom even the Jews would feel ashamed. If, in today’s circumstances, you replace the word “Muslims” with “system,” the verses take on a striking new meaning: There is an outcry that the system has vanished from the country; We ask: Was there ever really a system to begin with? If we were to parody the remaining verses, they might be difficult for some to digest. Suffice it to say that those in power never truly allowed a genuine system to develop here. And whenever, after much struggle, some semblance of a system did emerge, there were always certain “respectable gentlemen” who seemed to have taken an invisible oath—or perhaps a vow of deliberate silence—that it must never be allowed to function. In the eyes of this humble writer, our system truly collapsed on 16 August 1946, when, under the guidance of the British establishment, the Direct Action Day was observed, reducing the foundations of any future system to rubble. From that point onward, the struggle was no longer for a functioning system but for personal rule. That struggle strangled democracy, human rights, liberty, and freedom, and instead built a grand highway of coercion and dictatorship. Anyone who dared to step off that path or disagree with it was labeled a traitor, an enemy of the nation, an Indian agent, or part of the so-called “Fitna-e-Hind” (the Indian conspiracy). These labels were then applied to whomever those in power wished. The first victim was Dr. Khan Sahib’s democratically elected provincial government in the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), which was dismissed within the very first week. Soon afterward, the same authoritarian mentality struck the government of Ayub Khuhro in Sindh. It was also decided that any cabinet member who failed to say “Yes, Sir” to the Governor-General would be considered dispensable. Once the founding generation established such principles of governance, why would later generations lag behind in following them? Thereafter, the race for personal power was inevitable. In the end, victory was bound to go to whoever possessed the greater force—whether the power of the stick or the gun. How could it be otherwise? If, instead of making the Constitution and the rule of law your source of authority, you rely on personal superiority, intimidation, prestige, and the power of office, then someone carrying a gun will inevitably dominate the throne of personal power. And once that happens, the cycle simply continues. It is a law of nature that the bigger fish eats the smaller fish. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ghulam Muhammad, and Iskander Mirza all played their respective roles. Later, when greater power confronted lesser power, the result was the rise of powerful military rulers such as Ayub Khan, Agha Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and Qamar Javed Bajwa. (To be continued)