
Rethinking Partition in colonial and post-colonial Pakistan: a Gramscian perspective — II
It exposed the decaying authority of the Raj and signaled a potential revolutionary convergence between the military and the masses. For Prime Minister Clement Attlee's government, this was the final blow—a clear sign that Britain no longer had the capacity to dominate India by force.
Faced with the specter of a full-scale, radicalized freedom movement, the British hastily sought to divide and exit. They forged an alliance with the native bourgeois nationalist parties, who were more interested in inheriting state power than dismantling the imperial economic structure.
Partition, then, was not an act of liberation — it was a strategic surgical division, engineered from above, using religion as a scalpel. As Eric Hobsbawm noted, it was a form of 'prophylactic decolonization,' designed to pre-empt revolutionary transformation by substituting symbolic independence for substantive emancipation.
Rethinking Partition in colonial and post-colonial Pakistan: a Gramscian perspective—I
When Nehru and Jinnah pledged allegiance to King George VI as Prime Minister of India and Governor-General of Pakistan, respectively, they did so as heads of dominions—not republics. Their governments, born of imperial fiat, marked the transfer of political power but not economic sovereignty. The subcontinent was not baptized in the blood of revolution, but in the tears and trauma of two million displaced and slaughtered subalterns. The 'tryst with destiny' that Nehru invoked became, for ordinary citizens on both sides of the divide, a descent into nightmare.
What emerged on August 15, 1947, were not liberated states but dominions—nominally sovereign but still enmeshed in the structures of imperial dependency. The term 'political independence' was, at that point, a debatable one; the states may have shed the Union Jack, but they retained colonial institutions, economic policies, and class hierarchies. Dominion status codified British domination in a new form: indirect, economic, and neo-colonial.
III. Postcolonial Caes-arism and bureaucratic supremacy (1947–1958)
The Muslim League, a hollow political entity, quickly collapsed into dependence on its charismatic leader, Jinnah. His decision to bypass the elected Prime Minister in favour of Cabinet Secretary Chaudhry Mohammad Ali marked the ascendancy of the bureaucracy. Thus emerged a new ruling bloc: postcolonial intermediaries—feudals, bureaucrats, and comprador capitalists—who constructed a system of domination from which they themselves could not escape.
This era exemplifies what we may call Postcolonial Caesarism: a fragile equilibrium among competing civilian elites, with bureaucracy as the central force until the military emerged as the decisive 'third force.' Gramsci wrote, 'The bureaucracy is the most dangerously hidebound and conservative force… if it becomes a compact body independent of the masses, the party becomes anachronistic and, in times of crisis, is voided of its social content.'
IV. Oscillations between Bonapartism and Cae-sarism
Pakistan's state apparatus, in its relentless pursuit of capital accumulation, has utilized legal, military, and ideological tools to dispossess its marginalized populations, particularly in Bengal and Balochistan. The state has often presented itself as a unifier only to suppress political contestation and centralize power in a paternalistic elite.
As Gramsci noted, 'The government operated as a 'party'. It set itself above the parties not to harmonize their interests, but to disintegrate them, to detach them from the masses and obtain a force of non-party men linked by paternalistic ties of a Bonapartist-Caesarist type.' Importantly, 'A Caesarist solution can exist even without a Caesar, without any great 'heroic' or representative personality... Every coalition government is a first stage of Caesarism.'
Pakistan continues to oscillate between direct military Bonapartism and Caesarist coalitions. Today's hybrid regimes reflect Gramsci's insight that such systems are led by dangerously unaccountable bureaucracies, dominating without legitimacy. Recent regional conflicts have momentarily revived a sense of hegemonic unity in the dominant province, where capital accumulation has occurred. Yet across the country, the dominant strategy remains accumulation through dispossession.
V. Neoliberal Caesarism in the 21st century
The post-9/11 period ushered in a new era: Neoliberal Caesarism. The Pakistani state, a security-centric, externally-aligned apparatus that prioritizes, surveillance, capital accumulation for the centre, and elite consolidation over mass welfare, gave up even the false pretence of securing the public interest by becoming totalitarian. Temporary hegemonies, bolstered by foreign aid, military partnerships and hitting back the enemy in recent skirmishes, are now being eroded by inflation, discontent, and ideological decay.
Gramsci reminds us that historical blocs are needed to offer paths toward liberation. But in contemporary Pakistan, the formation of such a bloc — a coalition capable of challenging peripheral capitalism and Caesarist rule — remains unlikely, though not impossible.
Conclusion
Rather than liberating the subcontinent, Partition entrenched colonial structures under new guises. Through Gramsci's lens, we understand Pakistan's journey not as a rupture from colonialism, but as its transformation. From Caesarism to Bonapartism, from passive revolutions to neoliberal authoritarianism, the structures of domination have remained intact—only the actors have changed. The crisis consists precisely in the fact that 'the old is dying and the new cannot be born.' The need, as ever, is not just to interpret the world, but to transform it.--
Concluded
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump accuses Kamala Harris of paying Beyoncé and Oprah for illegal campaign endorsements
President Donald Trump has accused Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats of violating campaign finance laws by allegedly paying celebrities for political endorsements during the 2024 presidential election. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that Harris spent millions to secure public backing from prominent figures, including singer Beyoncé, TV host Oprah Winfrey, and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. He asserted that these endorsements were financially motivated rather than genuine. He went on to describe the alleged payments as 'totally illegal' and demanded legal action. 'Kamala and all of those who received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted,' Trump wrote. He warned that if such practices became normalized, public outrage would be inevitable. Trump's latest comments come as he faces criticism over his handling of case files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier at the center of multiple investigations. He has dismissed the scrutiny as politically driven and described the ongoing probe as a 'con job' by Democrats to distract from his presidency. According to The Hill, Trump has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue the release of grand jury testimonies involving Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in response to rising public pressure for transparency—including from his own MAGA supporters. The president made the statements while visiting Scotland, where he played golf at his Turnberry resort alongside U.S. Ambassador Warren Stephens and his son Eric Trump. His visit triggered protests nationwide, with hundreds gathering outside the U.S. Consulate in Edinburgh to voice their opposition. Demonstrators criticized both Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over a new U.S.-U.K. trade agreement. Trump has continued to defend his administration's performance, calling the past six months 'the BEST in Presidential history.'


Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
UK enforces online age checks to protect minors
New UK age verification measures to prevent children accessing harmful online content came into force on Friday, with campaigners hailing them a "milestone" in their years-long battle for stronger regulations. Under the new rules, to be enforced by Britain's media watchdog, websites and apps hosting potentially harmful content will be held responsible for age checks using measures such as facial imagery and credit cards. Around 6,000 pornography sites have agreed to implement the curbs, according to Melanie Dawes, chief executive of British regulator Ofcom. Other platforms such as X, which is facing a dispute over similar restrictions in Ireland, must also protect children from illegal pornographic, hateful and violent content, she noted. "We've done the work that no other regulator has done," Dawes told BBC Radio. "These systems can work. We've researched that," she said. Around 500,000 youngsters aged eight to 14 encountered pornography online last month, according to Ofcom. The long-awaited new rules, which aim to prevent minors from encountering content relating to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, as well as porn, stem from a 2023 Online Safety Act. It imposes legal responsibilities on tech companies to better safeguard children and adults online and mandates sanctions for those who fall short. Rule-breakers face fines of up to £18 million ($23 million) or 10 per cent of their worldwide revenue, "whichever is greater", according to the government. Criminal action can also be taken against senior managers who fail to ensure companies follow Ofcom information requests. The measures are coming into force now after the sector and the regulator were given time to prepare. 'Different internet' Children will "experience a different internet for the first time," technology secretary Peter Kyle told Sky News, adding he had "very high expectations" for the changes. In an interview with parenting forum Mumsnet, he also said sorry to youngsters who had been exposed to harmful content. "I want to apologise to any kid who's over 13 who has not had any of these protections," Kyle said. Rani Govender, of the child protection charity NSPCC, said it was "a really important milestone that we're finally seeing tech companies having to take responsibility for making their services safe for children". Children are frequently "stumbling across this harmful and dangerous content," she told BBC News. "There will be loopholes," Govender noted, insisting it was still "right that we're introducing much stronger rules to make sure that that can't continue to happen". Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government is also considering introducing a daily two-hour limit for children on social media apps. Kyle said he would announce more plans for regulating the sector for under-16s "in the near future".


Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
UN gathering eyes solution to deadlocked Palestinian question
UNITED NATIONS, United States: Fired by France's imminent recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN members meet next week to breathe life into the push for a two-state solution as Israel, expected to be absent, presses its war in Gaza. Days before the July 28-30 conference on fostering Israeli and Palestinian states living peacefully side-by-side to be co-chaired by Riyadh and Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would formally recognize the State of Palestine in September. His declaration 'will breathe new life into a conference that seemed destined to irrelevance,' said Richard Gowan, an analyst at International Crisis Group. 'Macron's announcement changes the game. Other participants will be scrabbling to decide if they should also declare an intent to recognize Palestine.' According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states — including France — now recognize the Palestinian state proclaimed by the Palestinian leadership in exile in 1988. In 1947, a resolution of the UN General Assembly decided on the partition of Palestine, then under a British mandate, into two independent states — one Jewish and the other Arab. The following year, the State of Israel was proclaimed, and for several decades, the vast majority of UN member states have supported the idea of a two-state solution: Israeli and Palestinian, living side-by-side peacefully and securely. But after more than 21 months of war in Gaza, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and senior Israeli officials declaring designs to annex occupied territory, it is feared a Palestinian state could be geographically impossible. The war in Gaza started following a deadly attack by Hamas on Israel, which responded with a large-scale military response that has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. The New York conference is a response to the crisis, with Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa and several dozen ministers from around the world expected to attend. The meeting comes as a two-state solution is 'more threatened than it has ever been (but) even more necessary than before, because we see very clearly that there is no alternative,' said a French diplomatic source. Beyond facilitating conditions for recognition of a Palestinian state, the meeting will have three other focuses — reform of the Palestinian Authority, disarmament of Hamas and its exclusion from Palestinian public life, and normalization of relations with Israel by Arab states that have not yet done so. The diplomatic source warned that no announcement of new normalization deals was expected next week. Ahead of the conference, which was delayed from June, Britain said it would not recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally and would wait for 'a wider plan' for peace in the region. Macron has also not yet persuaded Germany to follow suit and recognize a Palestinian state in the short term. The conference 'offers a unique opportunity to transform international law and the international consensus into an achievable plan and to demonstrate resolve to end the occupation and conflict once and for all, for the benefit of all peoples,' said the Palestinian ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour, calling for 'courage' from participants. Israel and the United States will not take part in the meeting. Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon 'has announced that Israel will not be taking part in this conference, which doesn't first urgently address the issue of condemning Hamas and returning all of the remaining hostages,' according to embassy spokesman Jonathan Harounoff. As international pressure continues to mount on Israel to end nearly two years of war in Gaza, the humanitarian catastrophe in the ravaged coastal territory is expected to dominate speeches by representatives of more than 100 countries as they take to the podium from Monday to Wednesday. Gowan said he expected 'very fierce criticism of Israel.'