S. Haider Mehdi
Pakistan’s troubled history has suffered repeated tragedies: military dictators seized power, gathered all authority into their grubby hands, paralyzed democratic institutions, crushed dissent, and made reckless decisions whose consequences proved destructive for both the people and the state.
The first—and perhaps the most debilitating—example in this series is General Muhammad Ayub Khan, whose 11-year rule (1958–1969) changed Pakistan’s destiny, laid the foundation of political decline and institutional collapse, opened the door to military dictatorships, and in the end, caused the breakup of the country.
1. The First Imprint of Military Interference (1951–1958)
In 1951, Ayub Khan became Pakistan’s first local commander-in-chief. This was the turning point from which the army’s intervention in politics began.
In the same year, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan—who was the only popular leader and possessed a national vision—was killed in a mysterious conspiracy. A transparent investigation of this murder was never conducted, and all circumstances and indications point toward the involvement of Ayub and the Pakistan Army. This tragedy removed the last barrier to unchecked bureaucratic and military domination.
In 1953, Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad, with Ayub’s backing, dismissed Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin (who was from East Pakistan) even though he had a parliamentary majority. From 1954 to 1958 Ayub, while still in uniform, sat in the federal cabinet as minister of defence and minister of the interior and erased the boundaries between civil and military spheres.
In 1954, the provincial government of East Pakistan established by the United Front—elected with a full 99% majority—was dismissed. This was an early step of centralist despotism which caused great alienation among the Bengali majority.
By 1958, Ayub had imposed Pakistan’s first martial law, and thus the formal beginning of military dictatorship took place.
Destruction of Merit and the Rise of Loyalists
Ayub Khan’s rise also marked the beginning of the destruction of professional merit in the Pakistan Army. He began appointing loyal and obedient individuals, instead of capable, talented, and professional officers, to high positions. The most prominent example of this was the appointment of General Muhammad Musa as Commander-in-Chief—an officer whose mediocrity was well-known. On September 6, 1965, news of India’s attack was conveyed to him not by his own staff but by the Air Chief.
By overlooking more competent and senior officers, Ayub institutionalized a culture of obedience over excellence. This poison has permeated the military institution ever since, where the criterion for promotion is the chief’s pleasure rather than capability, character, and understanding.
2. Subservience to America and western powers
Ayub Khan linked Pakistan with the United States. He joined military pacts such as SEATO and CENTO and gave the United States the air base at Badaber near Peshawar, from where later U-2 spy flights were carried out against the Soviet Union. This bond turned Pakistan into a US pawn in the Cold War against China and the USSR. Sovereignty was mortgaged in exchange for temporary military and economic aid.
Who benefited?
Outwardly Pakistan looked prosperous, but the actual benefit was reaped by a tiny elite class. In 1968, the economist Mahbub ul Haq revealed that only 22 families had seized control over the dominant share of Pakistan’s industry, banking, and insurance. This was all a product of Ayub’s authoritarian “guided capitalism.” East Pakistan—which had the majority population—was continually ignored in investment and representation.
Attachment to America brought dollars in the short-term but it created long-term dependence, deepened economic discrimination between East and West, and mortgaged Pakistan’s sovereignty to the interests of the Cold War.
3. Systematic Discrimination and the Seeds of Division
In Ayub’s era, East Pakistan faced systematic discrimination in every field, including political representation, economic investment, civil service, and military appointments. Among Bengalis the feeling took root that West Pakistan was a colonial master, not a partner in the federation. The policy of crushing dissent and gathering power at the center eventually bore fruit in the form of the separation of 1971.
4. Destruction of State Institutions
To maintain his grip on power, Ayub weakened every democratic institution. The judiciary was kept under control and weakened. The civil service and police were politicized and their impartiality ended. The electoral process became a joke. His so-called “Basic Democracies” system was a deception of public participation which, in reality, ensured the complete grip of the presidency.
5. Rigged Elections and Character Assassination
In 1964, Ayub massively rigged the presidential election against Fatima Jinnah, sister of the founder of Pakistan and affectionately called the Mother of the Nation. His regime defamed her by accusing her of being a “traitor,” an “Indian agent,” and even an “immoral woman.”
The insult to the moral authority of the Quaid’s family was, in fact, a declaration of the death of political and social ethics in Pakistan. Under today’s Army Chief Asim Munir this degradation has reached new lows. Many historians have raised serious questions about the role of Ayub and state institutions in Fatima Jinnah’s mysterious death in 1967.
“But the economy was good in Ayub’s era, No?”
Supporters cite roads, dams, and factories as evidence of “development.” But the “Decade of Development” was anchored by foreign loans and aid—not domestic productive capacity or inclusive prosperity for all. This rise was numerical, not structural.
It deepened inequality, further deprived East Pakistan, and gave birth to a dependent economic model whose fruits were shared by a few industrial families close to the dictator. Development without democracy hollowed out the institutions and gave rise to the very arrogance that paved the way for the 1971 disaster.
The temporary feel-good prosperity that Ayub sold became the very model later repeated by two other military dictators: Zia and Musharraf. The deception of “feeling good” for a while was at the price of sovereignty, justice, and freedom. Ayub’s so-called prosperity was a mirage standing upon foreign dependence and internal injustice.
He weakened the professional reputation of the army, turning the institution into a politicized corporate class that is loyal to its chiefs and to privileges rather than to the state and the constitution.
What he called modernity was, in reality, moral decline. The price of this “development” was the break-up of Pakistan and the normalization of military rule. This poison still circulates in Pakistan’s body politic.
6. Throwing Pakistan into a Destructive War in 1965
Between January and September 1965, Ayub’s army provoked India multiple times, until on September 6, 1965 India launched a full frontal assault across the international boundary. This war—waged to increase Ayub’s popularity—proved to be a national tragedy. It wasted countless lives and resources but no objective was achieved. The fabricated “victory” narrative generated afterward destroyed the public’s trust in leadership and established a dangerous precedent for future militarized nationalism.
7. The Rise of Political Opportunists
Ayub’s despotism gave birth to selfish political opportunists, especially Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who served as his foreign minister for many years. Independent and principled politicians were pushed against the wall, thrown into prison, or removed from the way. Bhutto learned the politics of playing with public emotions and of authoritarian control under Ayub’s tutelage.
8. The Beginning of the End
By the end of the 1960s, disaffection of East Pakistan had become complete. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Six Points demanded autonomy, fair distribution of resources, and political authority—that is, a loose federation to escape West Pakistan’s domination. Ayub’s obstinacy made this gulf unbridgeable.
In 1969 Ayub was forced to resign under mass public protests. But in violation of his own constitution, he handed over power to the Army Chief, General Yahya Khan, instead of the Speaker of the National Assembly. This single act was enough to prove that the army considers the state of Pakistan its private estate, not a constitutional republic.
9. Result: National Tragedy and the Country’s Breaking Apart
Ayub’s 11-year dictatorial rule (1958–1969) created deep division, institutional hollowness, moral famine, and political instability. He laid the foundation for future generals—Yahya, Zia, and Musharraf—to follow the same pattern of deception, manipulation, and destruction. The break-up of Pakistan in 1971 was not a freak of history but the direct result of Ayub’s misgovernance, unchecked power, dictatorial arrogance, and open discrimination.
In short, Ayub’s era was the beginning of a cycle of the absolute rule of one man and his unchecked decisions that destroyed the country. His decisions demolished the foundations of democracy, unity, and justice and put Pakistan on a path that continues to afflict it to this day.
The army gets itchy fingers whenever there is political turmoil in Pakistan. Will the current impasse lead to another martial law?
Production of this issue of Crescent International has been considerably hampered by the fact that it has coincided with the series of one-d...
Pakistan turns 72 this month. We examine how it has fared during this time and whether it has realized its true potential. If not, who is re...
Life has become intolerably difficult for the vast majority of people in Pakistan because of skyrocketing prices, endemic corruption and the...
