“If Pakistan had been able to produce a Constitution as quickly as India it might have followed the same road. Its leaders had. Ilowever a much more difficult task. It took over only three complete Provinces. Sind, Baluchistan and the North-West Fortier. It also had the larger slice of the Punjab including the capital city, Lahore, in Last Bengal, which contains more than half the population it did not even have the Provincial capital. Completely new administrations had to be built up in Karachi and Dacca. Even in Peshawar, Lahore. Hyderabad and Quetta, however, large numbers of public employees had been Hindus who migrated to India as soon as partition occurred. The new Central and Provincial administration had to be built up from a miscellaneous collection of local people and refug from other parts of the subcontinent. What is more, while these organizations were being established extensive rioting broke out in many cities and all along the new frontier with India. The police were disorganized and there was no Pakistan army, for the battalions of the pre-partition Indian army had, as a matter of policy, been mixed racially, so that a battalion stationed at, say, Rawalpindi might contain a company of Muslims and companies of Dogras and Sikhs as well.
“The first year, therefore, had to be occupied in organization, and at the end of it Mohammad Ali Jinnah, whose position in the Muslim League was even more powerful than that of Nehru in the Congress, died. There was nobody of his status left in the League, but Liaquat Ali Khan kept the machine working until he was assassinated in 1951. Theoretically the Muslim League continued to dominate; but its lack of outstanding personalities, and the conflicts which arose among the lesser men, made it a mere shadow of what it might have been in the East Bengal election of March. 1954 it was practically wiped out and it became plain-even before the League failed to obtain a majority in the second Constituent Assembly elected in June. 1955 that Pakistan would follow a different road from India. It would not have two strong parties, as in Britain, nor one strong party with a variety of Opposition groups, as in India, but a handful of competing groups”.
41. The dearth of leadership in our country, referred to by Sir Ivor, was due to a chain of adverse circumstances that hampered our progress in the past. After 1857, the Muslims of this sub-continent had to face hardships as it was thought by the government of the day that, unless they were put down ruthlessly, there might be another mutiny. This policy completed the degeneration of the Muslims, which had already started after the break-up of the Mughal rule. As long as Persian was the court language, Muslims had occupied high offices, but with the introduction of English they were at a disadvantage, as they would not learn anything that came from a foreigner who had crushed them, whereas the Hindus forged ahead in education and business and, in course of time, came to occupy almost all the best places in the administration and the professions which were open to Indians. Though the advance in education was confined to the higher castes amongst the Hindus, yet the progress made by that class was phenomenal, and ideas of self- government spread and the Nationalist movement gathered momentum. The Muslims did not join the Ilindus in their movement not because they had no desire for independence, but because they feared domination by the Hindus. This apprehension was fully justified
