The Pakistan Paradox: Why civilian rule was doomed from the start

Produced by: Manoj Kumar

Military from Day One

Pakistan’s army was central to the state’s power from the very start, unlike India, where the military remained firmly under civilian control.

Bureaucracy Over Politics

Pakistan’s civil servants, trained in colonial “steel frame” governance, grabbed political power early on, sidelining political parties and public representation.

The Rawalpindi Conspiracy

In 1951, Major Akbar Khan’s failed coup and Ayub Khan’s later dictatorship set the tone: military men would always overshadow politicians.

Punjab’s Militarised Legacy

Historically a battleground, Punjab’s culture of militarism made it the power center of Pakistan, blending civil, military, and political authority into one ruling nexus.

Aligarh Dream, Pakistan Reality

Pakistan’s founding elite came from UP’s Aligarh—not from the lands they sought to govern—causing a disconnect between rulers and the ruled.

Weak Nationalist Roots

Unlike India’s mass-based independence movement, Pakistan’s Muslim League had shallow political roots, relying on elite-driven politics till the very end.

Jinnah’s Authoritarian Blueprint

By choosing to be Governor-General, President of the Assembly, and sidelining political parties, Jinnah inadvertently centralized power in undemocratic ways.

Perpetual Security State

Born in conflict with India, Pakistan’s focus remained on military defense, justifying the army’s oversized role in governance and national identity.

Civil-Military Nexus Sealed

By the 1950s, bureaucrats and generals had already cemented their control. Politicians never really got a chance to wrest power back.