Pindi Conspiracy Case
All liberals take the defeat of democracy by dictatorship in the Tamizzuddin case of 1955 as the starting point of constitutional history of Pakistan. However, as the book will argue, the Pindi Conspiracy case can explain how the legal and constitutional institutions in Pakistan respond to class formations, irrespective of whether the country is governed by democracy or dictatorship.
Askar Ali Shah of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan--NWFP[198] disclosed a conspiracy in the military on 19 Feb 1951. Between 4 and 7 March, Major-General Akbar Khan and Latif Khan were dismissed and arrested under Bengal Regulation III of 1818. The charge against all of the accused was a conspiracy to wage war against the King [emphasis is mine].[199] The trial was held in camera in Hyderabad Jail. The accused were found guilty and convicted. The judgment, authored by Justice Abdur Rehman, pronouncing guilt, comprised of 852 pages along with 41 appendices.What was the context for this case, and what was its direct impact? General Gracy, while transferring to Ayub his position as Commander-in-Chief of the Army on 17 January 1951, informed him about a ‘Young Turk’ Party in the army. General Ayub himself had always been suspicious of Major-General Akbar Khan, his ambitions and his ‘political leaning’[200] and hence the conspiracy was about class politics.[201] Zaheer (1998) insisted that the Communist Party was involved in the conspiracy.[202] General Akbar had been under the observation of U.K. intelligence agencies during his training there. He was seen with Andrew Roth, a leading American Communist intellectual.[203] Before his arrest under the conspiracy charges, Akbar Khan met with the Russian Progressive Writers’ delegation between 19 and 20 November 1950.
He was introduced to the delegation as the next Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan.[204] Based on the reports of intelligence agencies, the Communist party lost many of its cadre during partition, but in three years “a powerful party machine had emerged”. The budget of the party was second to that of the ruling Muslim League and had more paid workers than any other party. It had many front organizations in powerful sections of the society, including those for journalists and students. It had an upward mobility with leaders such as Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, who moved into the upper layers of Pakistani society. The Party was remarkable in a feudal and tribal society.[205] This was also the early period of the Cold War.The following legal account will explain how an elected government under one of the founding fathers of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, not necessarily a dictatorship, responded to the class struggle. Prime Minister Liaqat informed the constituent assembly that the conspiracy plan within the military was spearheaded by the support of Communists and revolutionary forces. He argued that the plan involved implementing a communist dictatorship. A bill was put forth in the national assembly on 13 April 1951 and was passed the same day after an intense debate.[206] Provisions of the Act were at variance with prevailing laws. The rights of the accused were abrogated explicitly by relaxing the standard of the prosecution’s evidence and procedural requirements, and ignoring principles of administration of criminal justice. This law set an example of ‘bad governance’ and ‘disregard of fundamental rights’.[207] Under the Act, statements made before the police were admissible and conclusive without cross-examination.
Four main areas violated the norms of natural justice, namely, the right of inquiry was waived, no appeal was allowed, a person’s statement was admissible as evidence without cross-examination and even the statement before an investigating officer was admissible under Section 5(2) of the Act.
The tribunal could convict any person, even if they were not charged on the basis of evidence produced before it. No appeal was allowed under Section 10 of the Act. This removal of the right to appeal was unprecedented in the history of British India.[208] [209]Section 2 of the Rawalpindi Conspiracy (Special Tribunal) Act, 1951, empowered the central government to set up a Tribunal in which to try the accused. Section 4 of the Act gave the Special Tribunal all the powers of a High Court in relation to a criminal trial. But, the Tribunal could not take the bail of any accused person. Under Section 5, the Tribunal could also try offences falling under the Army Act. The Tribunal consisted of Justice Amir-ud-din of the Dhaka High Court, Justice Sharif of the Lahore High Court and Justice Abdur Rahman of the Federal Court (as Chairman) of the Tribunal. Mr. A.K. Brohi, Advocate General, conducted the prosecution.
Through the Pindi conspiracy case, the Communist Party’s underground apparatus was completely devastated due to large-scale arrests of all leadership and sympathizers and the seizing of documents, including records and bills, etc. All mass fronts of the party were also destroyed and the communist influence among the Trade Unions, Progressive Writers’ Association P.W.A. and students decreased sharply. The Communist Party of Pakistan itself was banned in 1954.76
The long-term outcome of the case is even more interesting than the direct impact of the case, and this proves this case to be a decisive turning point in the ‘constitutional’ history of Pakistan. General Ayub strongly disliked defence counsel Suhrawardy’s cross-examination of the army officers, but found himself helpless against a ‘passive court’ at the time. When Suhrawardy was going to be appointed as Prime Minister after the 1954 dismissal of the legislature, President Iskandar Mirza appointed Ayub as a defense minister. Ayub told Suhrawardy that he did great damage to military at the trial. Mirza advised Suhrawardy to negotiate, but never to interfere in the matters of the Army.[210] From Pindi Conspiracy case to the movement against him, Ayub’s major anxiety was the rise of socialism.
Even after the Pindi conspiracy case, the ban of the Communist Party and its fronts, PWA and DSF in 1954, reigning class under the banner of Muslim League could not stop its down fall and needed a reshuffling. This led to the dissolution of non-representative legislature and hence the Tamizuddin case.
2.6