rom the outset, the managers of the state of Pakistan were quite ambivalent about the modern notion of sovereignty. One wonders if the term was ever used prior to the Objectives Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949.

Generally speaking, the Muslim political elite had little enthusiasm for the goal of sovereignty. Thus, even after independence, sovereignty was neither defined nor theorised. It was just mentioned in the Objectives Resolution and that, too, in an ambiguous way.

The Muslim political elite, in fact, wanted to get rid of the Hindu domination. Obviously, they had good reasons for opting to tread that path. Therefore, the argument that Pakistan did have its colonial moment has at least some validity. The top echelon of the South Asian Muslims (mostly in north India) hardly had any qualms about the British rule or their presence in the subcontinent. A majority of them had intimate terms with the British.

Colonialism and the travesties emanating from it are not a part of our textbooks even now. That is the reason Pakistan is sometimes described as a neo-colonial state rather than a post-colonial polity. A neo-colonial dispensation is a continuation or re-imposition of the imperialist rule by a state (usually, a former colonial power) over another nominally independent state (usually, a former colony).

The word ‘neo-colonialism’ was coined in 1965 by Kwame Nkrumah, who became Ghana’s first president, to describe the influence of the former imperial nations on their former colonies in the areas of economy, language, culture and political philosophy. The term ‘post-colonial state’ is usually applied to new nation states that emerged out of a process of decolonisation in the post World War II period.

Another term sometimes used is ‘developmental state’. A post colonial state has many features of a colonial state in its political formation. In post-colonial countries the anti-colonial/ imperialist impulse is relatively pronounced. The people in these countries are therefore conscious of their sovereignty: it is tied to public sentiment and its expression.

In neo-colonial polities, sovereignty and freedom hold only a semantic value as major decisions are taken at the behest of the imperialist world.

Pakistan became more of a sovereign country under Bhutto. The same could not be said of his successors. 

When the moment of critical importance came and independence was declared, power was handed to the Muslim League leadership. The political elite was ecstatic for an opportunity to exercise power but shied away from the responsibility that came with authority. They were neither equipped nor willing to discharge the responsibility.

Paranoia soon became a central theme around which the national narrative revolved. Elected leaders of the people were projected as inept, ignorant and too corrupt to steady the faltering ship of the state. A segregation between authority and responsibility came about. Rather than taking the untrodden path of independence (read sovereignty) the non-representative elite chose to align the country with imperialist powers.

From 1951 onwards, such efforts were brokered by Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Chaudhary Muhammad Ali, Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan. In the 1950s, Americans considered these individuals their men, as cited by Altaf Gauhar in his book, Ayub Khan.

Eventually, the SEATO and CENTO treaties were signed without taking the will of the people into account.

The US ambassador kept a vigilant eye on the state of Pakistan. Even ideas like a confederation with Afghanistan and Iran were broached with utmost seriousness to ward off a communist threat.

Ayub Khan didn’t hide his pro-US inclination. He went on to offer the US a base near Peshawar to keep an eye on the USSR. It was only after the 1965 war that the US abandoned him as a military campaign in South Asia did not suit American interests in the midst of the Cold War. Such a conflict could pave the way for the USSR to step in.

Despite the distancing with the Ayub regime, the American involvement in Pakistan remained unabated because of its strategic location. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s tweaking of foreign policy changed things. Bhutto had already been the foreign minister for several years. He tried to consolidate relations with China, the USSR and the Arab world.

His book, The Myth of Independence, speaks of his realisation of the importance of geography in a country’s foreign policy. Pakistan became more of a sovereign country under Bhutto. The same could not be said of his successors.

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore