Political transformation of Pakistan

Pakistan 's liberation from military rule, is a momentous step forward to steer an "identity", which is sublime, graceful and the quintessential imperative of our civilised existence. No doubt, the nation stoically endured authoritarian rule with apathy and sense of indignation but the covert "will" for restoration of democratic governance never got impaired, which found its splendid expression on February 18, 2008. It was a reassertion of the implicit faith the nation reposes in "participatory political culture", the hallmark of the struggle for freedom, popularly called Pakistan movement. Our true aspirations, cultural values and norms, congruent to our cherished faith - Islam - could not be achieved in the "Indian model of democracy", where Hindus would have been a permanent majority, whereas Muslims an unalterable minority. Democratic system on the other hand in Pakistan would have no such in-built prejudicial predicament.

Quaid-e-Azam brilliantly fought the constitutional battle, based on the power of the ballot, to establish Pakistan, but it was possible as there existed a symbiotic relationship between peoples' will and Quaid's masterly conceived strategy. A leader is essentially a follower. He cannot transgress entirely from the wishes of the people. Pakistan symbolised a modern liberal democratic polity, the basic inspiration emanating from Islam, the bastion of our identity, adhering to the lofty ideals of piety, tolerance for diversity, and unequivocal commitment to justice. There was no radicalism, fundamentalism, theocracy, or dogmatism.

Liberal values of moderation tolerance, accommodation were the hallmark of the polity - which Quaid-e-Azam had in mind, which only the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan could determine. He never wanted any imposition, as it was repugnant to participatory paradigm of governance. Numerous examples abound how democratic values were firmly internalised in his personality structure. Once Mountbatten wanted a prompt answer as what would be his stand towards a common Governor Generalship, in the event India was partitioned into two dominions for the initial period. He argued that, as Congress had given its consent, he (Mr Jinnah) should also promptly give his decision. To this demand, Quaid-e-Azam did not agree to give an instant reply. He said he would first solicit his party's advisory members' views and only then he would give his final answer. Mountbatten, rather rudely said, "In that event, he [Mr. Jinnah] would lose the demand for Pakistan." Mr Jinnah, promptly retorted: "Whatever must be, must be." Mountbatten had to concede. Mr Jinnah never imposed his decisions, save in situations, where he was empowered to do so.