Ayub Khan’s actions against politicians under EBDO or how to wipe out an entire political class
Facts about Elected Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO) of 1959, compiled from “The Separation of East Pakistan” by Hasan Zaheer and “Bangladesh Past and Present” by Salahuddin Ahmed
When Ayub Khan took power in 1958 one of his main priorities was the destruction of the existing political order. In this connection, he abolished political parties on 7 October 1958. Politicians who were especially targetted and charged under security laws and martial law regulations were from the National Awami Party and the East Pakistan Awami League since both these parties were opposed to One Unit.
In August 1959, Ayub Khan passed the Elected Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO). Under this, 75 leaders were disqualified for participating in political activities for 8 years (until December 1966). Under the EBDO, Ayub Khan primarily targetted East Pakistani politicians from the Awami League while leaving the Muslim League largely untouched.
Under Article 5 of EBDO:
a) public servants who had been removed from service on any charge other than inffeciency;
(b) persons who had ever been served with an order underr the Secuity of Pakistan Act or a similar law relating to an act prejudicial to the defence, external affairs, or the security of Pakistan;
(c) persons found guilty by the Federal Court or High Court or a tribunal under PRODA; and
(d) persons convicted of any offence, and sentenced to more than two years imprisonment stood debarred from being candidates or members of an elective body, until 31 December 1966
It was estimated that about 6,000 persons, half of them from East Pakistan, were disqualified under Article 5 of EBDO.
Article 7 or 8 of EBDO was used to go after senior party leadership who escaped disqualification via Article 5:
Under Article 7, any person served with a notice could opt to retire from politics until 31 Dec 1966, in which case further proceedings against him were dropped. In case this option was not exercised by the respondent, an inquiry would be instituted under Article 8 and if found guilty, he would be disqualified up to December 1966. (from Separation of East Pakistan)
A further 78 politicians were disqualified under article 7 and 8.
Prominent politicians disqualified under these three articles of EBDO were the top leaders of the East Pakistan Awami League including Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy. Maulana Bhashani was also arrested.
On 30 January 1962 Suhrawardy was arrested in Karachi under the Security of Pakistan Act which authorized his detention without trial for a year. It was an irony that a politician who was the Prime Minister of the country was accused of activities “fraught with such danger to the security and safety of Pakistan that one could fairly describe them as treasonable” which was [obviously] the biggest shock of his life” (from Bangladesh: Past and Present)
When a habeas corpus petition was filed in Lahore High Court challenging his illegal detention, Ayub Khan conveniently promulgated an Ordinance suspending the habeas corpus rights of those detained under the Security of Pakistan Act.
See also, A Corrupted Debate by I.A. Rehman in Dawn, Dec 10, 2009.
Rabia: I like the second title, i.e., how to wipe out an entire political class. Let us hope that the “new” Supreme Court of Pakistan will refrain from (once again) indulging in the historically lopsided onslaught against “corrupt politicians”, while remaining oblivious to the real culprits, i.e. men in uniform.
Or, is the Supreme Court’s decision against the NRO and reference to the Ziaist Articles 62 and 63 a continuation of the notorious EBDO? Old dogs, old tricks….
Comment by email:
NRO Phobia
Author: M. Amjad Rashid
There is great noise in media about NRO. The real issue is not NRO but President Asif Ali Zardari (the elected democratic President of Pakistan). After recent events, any sensible persons can understand that this NRO phobia is due to the presence of PPP’s man in president house.
The Following persons who were with IFTIKHAR CHAUDHARY in the movement to restore judges including Chief Justice are also against the decision against the decision taken by the Supreme Court on NRO.
ALI AHMAD KURD
ASMA JAHANGIR
AITZAZ AHSAN
The Chief Minister of Sind Syed Qaim Ali Shah said that Media should remain in its limits. Media have no right to destroy democracy. Further Qaim shah said that propaganda against Democratic Government should be stopped.
WE MUST NOT FORGET
… that the first ever NRO in Pakistan’s history was the Supreme Court’s decision about MAULANA MODOODI in 1954, and that decision was to forgive the Maulana Modoodi and to cancel the Death Sentence of Maulana Modoodi.
THAT WAS THE REAL NRO.
Why this NRO is not challenged in court and why IFTIKHAR CH. didn’t take any ACTION against it?
And from that point, there are number of real NROs in our history and which are not considered by the IFTIKHAR Chaudhry Court.
The real problem is Asif Ali Zardari.
The media campaign against Zardari is showing no result to the establishment and political actors (i.e. clowns in TV talkshows).
The proof of PPP’s popularity is that recently the candidate of PPP Tahir Mehmood won the elections in PB1 Quetta.
He got 6818 votes against his competitive AMANULLAH SAWANZAI who got only 287 votes.
The FATA leader Munir Khan Orakzai confirmed total confidence in Asif Ali Zardari with his FATA members of parliaments.
ASIF ALI ZARDARI is determined that every challenge will be faced against PPP and democracy.
—
M. Amjad Rashid
amjadrashid111@gmail.com
More “Pearls of Wisdom and Patriotism” from our Khaki Saviours” –
Ayub Khan frustrated with slow pace of negotiations with US during his visit to Washington went to Henry Byroad’s office and told him, ‘I didn’t come here to look at barracks. Our army can be your army if you want us. But let’s make a decision’.
Details:US wronged Pakistan for 30 years – Hillary Clinton – 2
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-wronged-pakistan-for-30-years_22.html
Undercover Chaos – Role of Pakistani Armed Forces Intelligence Agencies in Domestic Arena Published Defence Journal, December 2005. Dr. Hamid Hussain is an independent analyst based in New York. Undercover Chaos by Dr. Hamid Hussain http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/03/undercover-chaos-by-dr-hamid-hussain.html
Time for Laughing:)
Major General (r) Ghulam Omar (He was a close confidant of General Yahya Khan, secretary of National Security Council and a key member of the military regime in 1971) with all the hindsight in 1993 has this to say about 1971 crisis, “I swear by God that Pakistan was broken by Bhutto, Mujib, Indira, Soviet Union and America. It was a conspiracy hatched by all of them together” Martial Mind Pakistan Officer Corps thought-process about Defence Columnist Hamid Hussain explores the Pakistan military mind-set. http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/july/martial.htm
The propensity to serve its imperial masters is deep rooted, one could even say it is genetic, in the Pakistan Army. This essential nature of our armed forces goes back to its foundation as a colonial army under the British with the old Indian Army serving as cannon fodder in the various imperial wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. Recall the inglorious role of our own regiments in Iraq and Arabia in the early years of the 20th century. This tradition was continued with the complete alignment with US policies, during the Cold War, of our military and political leaders. Our Army is ready to do the dirty work whenever it is called upon, like for example against the PLO in Jordan in 1970. One must stress that this deep sickness is not just of the military but it pervades our English-speaking ruling political class. Once and Always a Colonial Army March 26, 2004 By Faheem Hussain http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/8842
Late. Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah in one of his book General Zia: His Winged Death And The Aftermath [published by Shah Abdul Latif Cultural Society, Karachi] had written the following about the Pakistan Army and its Establishment:
“All the Martial Law had not only robbed the country of political status and dignity, but had generated a breed of politicians who were nothing but a disgrace to the state without honour, without comprehension and without vision. Martial Law had abundantly and profusely produced politicians who were imposters, clowns and buffons. All national armed forces are on oath for discipline, obedience and the security of the state. What part Pakistan’s Armed Forces had played in their entire history? Perhaps poor soldiers and men did not know the difference between obedience to the officers and allegiance to the state; perhaps poor soldiers and men did not know the nature of state and the relationship between the armed forces and their working under the Generals as the servants of the state.” {P. 24}.
“All national armed forces are sworn to stability and sacredness of allegiance to the state, but what renegades the Generals, the Air Marshals and the Admirals of Pakistan proved. For them the oath, the Quran and God, had no meaning. Perjury is written large on the armed forces heads. It appeared that another oath of allegiance, more secret and compelling than that to Pakistan, had made them tear up all sacred papers and documents with impunity. This secret oath of allegiance appeared to have been stronger than the oath to the state, if not they would not have been manhandling, mauling and massacring its people and sapping the country’s foundations and ravaging its international honour and status. This lunacy had disgraced the poor people of Pakistan in particular and Islam in general; what believers we were, and how had we behaved.” {P. 25}.
“Our military philosophy and operations and ideas are more of treason and of dacoits than of men of peace and progress. Is Pakistan not sufficiently infested with dacoits of every kind enough? All our soldiers and commanders are dacoits, all the millionaire are smugglers and thieves. We have merely to look at the military men and the millionaires and we find the wrath of God clearly chiseled on their bodies, faces and souls “Ludicrous” was the word Johnson used for their faces and visages.” {P. 30}.
“Army is a queer institution. There is no innocence, goodwill and hope in the intentions and actions of the men in uniform. They are least to be trusted. When they pontificate they lie. With them any idea of integrity becomes a falsehood. When a man in uniform lectures and becomes rumbustious, he always talk through his hat. Talking Generals are always ominous intellectual perverts. Chasterton had said, “I would hate to see a man in uniform make a speech, more so, if it is a good speech.” {P. 31}.
‘Sir Walter Scott had said, “However disciplined and valiant a soldier he never be trusted.” H G Wells had said, “A professional military mind is by necessity an inferior and unimaginative mind; and no man with talents willingly imprison his gifts in such a calling.” {P. 31-32}.
Bertrand Russell had said, “All Generals are narcissistic and they have no sense of history.” Bernard Shaw said, “Soldiering is the art of the coward of hitting mercilessly when strong and getting out of the harms when weak.” Tolstoy had said, “The greatest Generals I have met were all stupid and absentminded men”. Napolean had said, “The more vicious the man the better the soldier.” He again said, “I had picked up my Marshals from the mud and gutter”. Johnson had said, Soldiers and priests have been the corrupters of the earth.” {P. 32}.
“Like the Duke of Wellington and Marshall Bluchure, Ayub and Yahyah gave military commissions to the sons of mothers who spent nights or adequate time in their bedrooms. Our army selection boards are scandalous to say the least in their proceedings and methods. I do not want to say anything of the address of General Gul Hassan the Chief of Army Staff to Military Garrison at Malir – the honest confession in the most direct and perverted language of a soldier. After the Great War with the blessings of both General Montgomery and Arch Bishop of Canterbury, England passed the law “Homosexuality among consenting adults in private is permissible.” [P. 66].
Hi,
If I reproduce this piece on my website and distribute it, who should I say is the author?
If it is ‘Rabia’, what is her full name?
Tarek sahib, Welcome to LUBP. The author of this article is Rabia Shakoor, who is a co-editor of LUBP. She also administers Grand Trunk Road. http://www.grandtrunkroad.com
Please keep visiting. We need support from liberal and secular scholars such as yourself.