The Race of Constitution Making
What were the political and geopolitical factors that can explain why Pakistan was not able to form a constitution until 1956, a decade after its independence as compared to India who formed a constitution in 1950, within 3 years of independence, given the common history of colonial rule for both countries?
Why this question?
I have always been interested in the comparative study of Pakistan and India. I had previously explored the economic, social, and political aspects of both countries. The different trajectories they both have followed since independence has intrigued me quite a lot. I had questioned whether partition was even necessary since the issues before and after the partition are more or less the same in both countries and have surfaced and resurfaced overtime.
Nevertheless, since now partition has happened, and the process of state making had to be started with urgency. This was necessary as both were weak states initially and the invasion from Soviets, a strong communist state, was feared. Yet, Pakistan took 8 years to draft a constitution and India took 3, why? If India could make it in less time, why could not Pakistan? Were the Pakistani leaders so inefficient and lazy? Their personal conflicts were more important than state formation? Was India so united, politically, and geopolitically, that they made a constitution in no time?
Hence, to get answers to these questions, I chose the topic to get to the root cause of the disparity between both.
What I learnt during the development of this project?
Firstly, it made me realize one basic thing that despite having the same history, the real time interactions with other countries, with their own people and measures they take to enhance their institutions after the ‘others’ have left, shape the actions of the country. I realized that I cannot expect them to follow the same trajectories after the partition. Because before partition, their priority was to have a separate state but when it was done their priorities shifted to state formation. Now the entities think according to their own interests, geographical location and where they will find the most benefit. This thinking that they have the same after-partition history is just absurd.
Secondly, I found this a very challenging task particularly because of the extended research required for it. Coming up with a problem on your own, framing it as a question and then narrowing it down took a lot of effort. Not only this but also that the research required for relevant articles and the different viewpoints discussed in those led me to think along those lines and to gauge whether I would agree with it or not.
Nonetheless, it was a very fruitful learning experience throughout as I primarily learnt the basic research skills and how to know if the article is relevant to my project. Also, this increased my general knowledge, and I learned some new things and unlearned some of the old ones. I got to see both sides of the story rather than one. To learn where Pakistani leaders lacked, and Indian leaders succeeded. This was particularly important as what I have learnt since childhood proved to be a disguise and was just to keep us rooting for the nation-state we are living in today.
What I learnt in this course?
In this course, I learnt that the basic concepts of Political Science do exist in today’s world but how they work in different contexts. For example, authoritarianism in the Middle East and China differs on the scale of the coercive apparatus they use, how they censor their media and how people are policed. Same goes for the concept of democracy and other types of regimes.
Also, the analytical approach in this course has overall improved my comparative skills. Since it is thought provoking and not something one could easily find on the internet. Further, the application of theoretical concepts to the real world is quite a difficult task for me but nonetheless I am learning to get a better understanding of how it is done, especially the assignments we were given, for example the state-making by Charles Tilly.
Annotated Bibliography:
i. Choudhury, G. W. “The Constitution of Pakistan.” Pacific Affairs 29, no. 3 (1956): 243–52. Accessed October 29, 2020. doi:10.2307/2753474.
Choudhury writes that the factors of the conflict between Ulemas and the experts of Islam, the disagreement between the East Pakistan and West Pakistan’s leaders over the details of federal organization became complicated, the power distribution between central and provincial governments and the dissolution of Constituent Assembly in 1954, are mainly responsible for the delay in the making of the constitution of Pakistan.
Nonetheless, this article is particularly important to my topic as it highlights the political and geopolitical factors that caused the delay in constitution. It proved to be a useful starting point for my research.
ii. Callard, Keith. “The Political Stability of Pakistan.” Pacific Affairs 29, no. 1 (1956): 5–20. Accessed October 29, 2020. doi:10.2307/3035454.
Callard writes that before the creation of Pakistan, everyone wanted to have a separate country for Muslims, but nobody had a clear vision of how it would be organized. She argues that this was the main reason which sowed the seeds for the political unrest which followed the creation of Pakistan.
Keith’s argument adds a bit of nuance to my research. The problem of constitution did not come with the making of Pakistan but was present even before it was born.
iii. Jaleel, Sabahat, Dr.Shuja Ahmad Mahesar, and Dr. Naureen Talha. “IMPACT OF BUREAUCRATIC ELITE ON CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN PAKISTAN (1947–1956).” Journal of Grassroots 50, no. 1 (January-June 2016). Accessed October 29, 2020.
This research article explores the impact of the bureaucratic elite on the constitution development of Pakistan from 1947 to 1956. It investigates the causes of emergence of bureaucracy as the strong ruling authority that prevented Pakistan from framing its constitution in the given period. It nonetheless assumes that the bureaucracy did not have any check and balance from whatever other strong or weak institutions have been developed in the meantime. Detailed analysis has been done on the setup and impact of the dominant bureaucratic role in Pakistan’s constitutional development.
This article is a very solid base for one of my arguments for Pakistan not having a constitution until 1956. The question of how the bureaucratic elite became so powerful can be contested but the role it played in creating hurdles for Pakistan’s constitution is huge, nonetheless.
iv. Barua, Benu Prasad. SOME ASPECTS OF TEE RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PERIOD 1919–1956. Master’s thesis, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1967. United States: ProQuest LLC, 2017. 128–80.
In this thesis, Prasad draws a comparison on the constitutions of different countries like Turkey, France, Japan, Pakistan, and India. He discusses the Constitutional and Political ideas of Hindu and Muslim thinkers in detail analyzing if there thinking was coherent in establishing the independent states of India and Pakistan. He also analyzes the factors that have shaped the constitution of both India and Pakistan.
This comparative analysis supports the research I am doing and can be used as a strong source of evidence for my claims which I will be making in the essay. Also, the factors for India’s constitution framing given in the thesis gave me a direction in the case of looking for factors for the early development of Indian Constitution as compared to Pakistan.
v. Furber, Holden. “Constitution-Making in India.” Far Eastern Survey 18, no. 8 (1949): 86–89. Accessed October 29, 2020. doi:10.2307/3021298.
In this article, Furber writes about the various factors why India was successful in making a constitution. He says that since India has inherited much of the workings and machinery of British, it does not need to establish a national capital, or a government as compared to Pakistan who did not inherit much. Further, he mentions that India has opted for a secular state and thus has a strong bill of rights to protect all the citizens of India.
Although this is a dated article from 1949 but it gives the real time insights of India on the pathway of making a constitution. This article proved to be a starting point for my essay’s part where I will write about the political factors that led India to make a constitution much before Pakistan.
vi. RAJU, K. H. CHELUVA. “Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR AND MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION: A Case Study of Indian Federalism.” The Indian Journal of Political Science 52, no. 2 (1991): 153–64. Accessed October 29, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855548 .
Here, Raju demonstrates the crucial political role played by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended the constitution at various instances which helped national integration of the Indian federation.
This directly relates to my project in a way that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a political figure that has worked hard for the framing of constitution, forming the basis of yet another political factor that has led to India’s success in constitution making. On the other hand, in Pakistan political disunity was seen, unlike India, and no political figure or party took the charge of constitution neither Pakistan had experienced people like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to politically unite the politicians and the people.
vii. Chaturvedi, Sanjay. “”Indian” Geopolitics: Unity in Diversity or Diversity of Unity?” Ekistics 70, no. 422/423 (2003): 327–39. Accessed October 29, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43623374.
In this article, Chaturvedi analyzes the geo-historical perspective of India before the colonization, during the colonization and after it. He also discusses the legacies of British rule and examines how the dominant geopolitical discourse, during the colonial role, plays out in the post-colonial state of India. He says it is rather a myth to say that post-colonial India was geopolitically united to form a constitution.
I can use this source in my project as it explains the geopolitical disunity of India like Pakistan, during the constitution making years but India still managed to form a constitution.
viii. Samuel P. Huntington, “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics, Vol. 17, №3 (1965), pp. 386–430.
In this article, Huntington argues that rapid modernization leads to political decay rather than political development. To make his argument clear he discusses the aspects of political development as modernization, political development as institutionalization and then shifts to discussing the difference between modernization and institutionalization.
This article directly relates to my research in a way that it helps me compare the nature of the political development that has taken place during the constitution making years for both India and Pakistan.
ix. Alfred Stepan, and Cindy Skach, “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism,” World Politics, Vol. 46, №1 (1993), pp. 1–22.
In this article, both the authors analyze different data to correlate the democratic consolidation with parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. They argue that the parliamentary system proves as being more interactive than the presidential system because politicians have more degrees of freedom and majorities can implement their desired programs in parliamentarianism.
This helps in providing a detailed concept of constitutional workings which is the central theme of my research project.
x. Barkey, Karen and Parikh, Sunita, 1991. “Comparative Perspectives on the State.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, 523–549.
Here, the authors examine the important concepts which lead to formation of a state, its role in economic development and ethnic identity formation. They also maintain that the relations between a state and its society, however they may be, shapes the actions which a state may take.
The concepts they discuss which lead to formation of a state is central to my main argument for both India and Pakistan. Although the ethnic identity formation part directly speaks to my research especially in the case of Pakistan where there was a divide between, not only the language but the culture, lifestyles and social activities, the East and West Pakistan which hindered the framing of constitution to a great extent.
xi. Tilly, Charles, 1985. “War-making and state-making.” In Bringing the State Back In, Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol (eds.). London: Cambridge University Press: Chapter 5
In this Tilly argues that the sense of fear that instills war and order into a society leads to state making.
This directly relates to my project as the constitution making for both India and Pakistan were necessary. State had to be formed since there was a fear of invasion from the great powers at that time as they were weak states. Taking over weak states was very easy for the big powers as they could not retaliate owing to the minimal resources they had at their disposal which was barely enough to cater to the needs of the people.
