What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience
Pakistan was born as the creation of elite Urdu-speaking Muslims who sought to govern a state that would maintain their dominance. After rallying non-Urdu speaking leaders around him, Jinnah imposed a unitary definition of the new nation state that obliterated linguistic diversity. This centralisation - 'justified' by the Indian threat - fostered centrifugal forces that resulted in Bengali secessionism in 1971 and Baloch, as well as Mohajir, separatisms today.
Concentration of power in the hands of the establishment remained the norm, and while authoritarianism peaked under military rule, democracy failed to usher in reform, and the rule of law remained fragile at best under Zulfikar Bhutto and later Nawaz Sharif. While Jinnah and Ayub Khan regarded religion as a cultural marker, since their time the Islamists have gradually prevailed. They benefited from the support of General Zia, while others, including sectarian groups, cashed in on their struggle against the establishment to woo the disenfranchised.
Today, Pakistan faces existential challenges ranging from ethnic strife to Islamism, two sources of instability which hark back to elite domination. But the resilience of the country and its people, the resolve of the judiciary and hints of reform in the army may open a new and more stable chapter in its history.
Concentration of power in the hands of the establishment remained the norm, and while authoritarianism peaked under military rule, democracy failed to usher in reform, and the rule of law remained fragile at best under Zulfikar Bhutto and later Nawaz Sharif. While Jinnah and Ayub Khan regarded religion as a cultural marker, since their time the Islamists have gradually prevailed. They benefited from the support of General Zia, while others, including sectarian groups, cashed in on their struggle against the establishment to woo the disenfranchised.
Today, Pakistan faces existential challenges ranging from ethnic strife to Islamism, two sources of instability which hark back to elite domination. But the resilience of the country and its people, the resolve of the judiciary and hints of reform in the army may open a new and more stable chapter in its history.
688 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2014
63 people are currently reading
916 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
July 31, 2020
A well-written unbiased book that tells all about the creation and the present state of affairs in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Read the complete review here https://wp.me/p6rxcY-1a.
September 5, 2018
The book was good. However, there are some historical mistakes that need to be taken into account.
First of all, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, was shown in somewhat positive light. Although Liaquat was a moderate, liberal politician for most part of his life, he made some pathetic blunders that Jinnah would have never made or even allowed Liaquat to make. The book says that Liaquat was forced by the Mullahs to pass the objectives resolution and he was stuck between two worlds while the reality is that Liaquat was helping the Mullahs just because they were helping him. Liaquat had no constituency of his own in Pakistan so he tried to create one by appeasing Mullahs, throwing the newborn state into a chaos that it never recovered from.
Secondly, the author was somewhat over-critical of Pakistan. He didn't take into account the Pakistani version of things. He looked at Pakistan from where Pakistan is seen by outside world. I don't have a problem with negative portrayal but just want to warn others who'd read it that it is not the complete picture. A completely opposite understanding of Pakistan would be Anatol Lieven's 'Pakistan - A Hard Country'. However, it can also be termed overly positive, justifying some of the key policy blunders Pakistan's establishment has made over the years.
The book (Pakistan Paradox) is heavily referenced though and the writer definitely has driven his point home, bringing to the light some past events that are hardly known to anyone or are seldom discussed.
First of all, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, was shown in somewhat positive light. Although Liaquat was a moderate, liberal politician for most part of his life, he made some pathetic blunders that Jinnah would have never made or even allowed Liaquat to make. The book says that Liaquat was forced by the Mullahs to pass the objectives resolution and he was stuck between two worlds while the reality is that Liaquat was helping the Mullahs just because they were helping him. Liaquat had no constituency of his own in Pakistan so he tried to create one by appeasing Mullahs, throwing the newborn state into a chaos that it never recovered from.
Secondly, the author was somewhat over-critical of Pakistan. He didn't take into account the Pakistani version of things. He looked at Pakistan from where Pakistan is seen by outside world. I don't have a problem with negative portrayal but just want to warn others who'd read it that it is not the complete picture. A completely opposite understanding of Pakistan would be Anatol Lieven's 'Pakistan - A Hard Country'. However, it can also be termed overly positive, justifying some of the key policy blunders Pakistan's establishment has made over the years.
The book (Pakistan Paradox) is heavily referenced though and the writer definitely has driven his point home, bringing to the light some past events that are hardly known to anyone or are seldom discussed.
August 13, 2021
Excellent book, A thorough, detailed account of Pakistan, from the country's independence to the second decade of the 21st century.
Christophe Jaffrelot has written a very informative, revealing book that is meticulous in details, and eloquent in style.
The author defines the 70 odds years of Pakistan's history in 3 Paradoxes, hence the book is structured into 3 parts.
The first of the paradox is about the country's integration through one language Urdu, or the unitary system of Pakistan, a centralized authority that Pakistan founders and then later on successive leaders chose for the integration of its nation against the ethnolinguistics regional provinces sovereignty.
The second paradox is about the power politics, the tussle between two forces, the civilians and the military, each wants to exert its authority over the Pakistani society, and the military succeeded heavily in this cause. This part talks about Pakistan in the years when it was ruled by the Military, and about the years when it was ruled by civilians.
The third paradox is that related to its religion, which revolves around the idea of Pakistan, being a Republic, Or Islamic state.
The three-way structure of the book is the very equivalent of the symbol of Pakistan, that is the Unity, Faith, Discipline.
I liked this book for several reasons, first, it has covered everything, seconding it is unique as it has discussed meticulously events such as 71, Bhutto's trial proceedings, the period of 88-99, and lastly but more importantly its brilliant account on the rise of sectarianism, and Jihadism in Pakistan, and then the details accounts on American war on terror, the Taliban, and TTP in the context of Pakistan.
Christophe Jaffrelot has written a very informative, revealing book that is meticulous in details, and eloquent in style.
The author defines the 70 odds years of Pakistan's history in 3 Paradoxes, hence the book is structured into 3 parts.
The first of the paradox is about the country's integration through one language Urdu, or the unitary system of Pakistan, a centralized authority that Pakistan founders and then later on successive leaders chose for the integration of its nation against the ethnolinguistics regional provinces sovereignty.
The second paradox is about the power politics, the tussle between two forces, the civilians and the military, each wants to exert its authority over the Pakistani society, and the military succeeded heavily in this cause. This part talks about Pakistan in the years when it was ruled by the Military, and about the years when it was ruled by civilians.
The third paradox is that related to its religion, which revolves around the idea of Pakistan, being a Republic, Or Islamic state.
The three-way structure of the book is the very equivalent of the symbol of Pakistan, that is the Unity, Faith, Discipline.
I liked this book for several reasons, first, it has covered everything, seconding it is unique as it has discussed meticulously events such as 71, Bhutto's trial proceedings, the period of 88-99, and lastly but more importantly its brilliant account on the rise of sectarianism, and Jihadism in Pakistan, and then the details accounts on American war on terror, the Taliban, and TTP in the context of Pakistan.
August 31, 2018
A masterly scholarly work by Christophe Jaffrelot, who exhibits himself undoubtedly as a doyen of scholarly tradition and studies of South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. He analyses and exposits in detail the growth and evolution of the Idea of the Land of the Pure and it's eventual birth which gave rise to a number of contradictions which had infact its roots in the pre-Partition events. At the same time, the emergence of Pakistan as a hotbed and fulcrum of terrorism has also been explained and it has been shown how the forces of sectarianism, Jihadist and Talibanism have created almost a low-intensity civil war in Pakistan. The fallacy of gaining 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan has turned over its head and the goal to 'bleed India' has brought debilitating consequences for the originator itself.
I started reading this book last year but halted and only chanced upon it after almost an year. Despite the fact that I had to go back time and again to get the context, the author has done well to remember when the reader needed a reminder about some issues to understand the context of the particular narrative.
Overall, this book has been a rewarding experience and in a review, I can't do justice to the variety of issues and aspects the author has studied. Infact, I deliberately leave some of them out such as the ethnic configuration of Pakistan or the influence of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with the intention to leave more room for perspective in a curious reader.
Without any doubt, I would include this book as one of the most enriching and insightful reading experiences I have had. However, a limitation of this book is that in analysing recent events within the last chapters around the growing instability and violence, the narrative is replete with facts which sometimes downplays the analyses and ends up confounding a reader, alien to this topic, amongst different names and organisations. It came to a point that I was rushing through the last two chapters and in the event was confusing between various leaders and the organisations they belonged to. Ironically, this reflects in some way one of the tragedies of Pakistan polity that there is a thin and blurred line between the Army, Islamists and the civilian leadership. Further, aspects such as democratic ethics, sustained political loyalty and ideological coherence amongst most leaders are conspicuous by their absence.
I started reading this book last year but halted and only chanced upon it after almost an year. Despite the fact that I had to go back time and again to get the context, the author has done well to remember when the reader needed a reminder about some issues to understand the context of the particular narrative.
Overall, this book has been a rewarding experience and in a review, I can't do justice to the variety of issues and aspects the author has studied. Infact, I deliberately leave some of them out such as the ethnic configuration of Pakistan or the influence of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with the intention to leave more room for perspective in a curious reader.
Without any doubt, I would include this book as one of the most enriching and insightful reading experiences I have had. However, a limitation of this book is that in analysing recent events within the last chapters around the growing instability and violence, the narrative is replete with facts which sometimes downplays the analyses and ends up confounding a reader, alien to this topic, amongst different names and organisations. It came to a point that I was rushing through the last two chapters and in the event was confusing between various leaders and the organisations they belonged to. Ironically, this reflects in some way one of the tragedies of Pakistan polity that there is a thin and blurred line between the Army, Islamists and the civilian leadership. Further, aspects such as democratic ethics, sustained political loyalty and ideological coherence amongst most leaders are conspicuous by their absence.
April 27, 2023
“As early as 1949, the elected representative of minorities to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan protested against the Islamic dimension of the Objectives Resolution. They then were obliged to accept a system of separate electorates that they opposed. It was the Muslim majority in West Pakistan who had asked for this system in an endeavour to pursue the two-nation theory. It was intended to protect them from the Hindus (who were often seen as India’s fifth column)”
That sums up Pakistan - the land of the pure (Muslims) - perfectly.
If that doesnt end the nonsense that “minority Muslims feared the Hindu majority in British India”, nothing will !!
A thorough examination of the state of Pakistan, rich in information - too detailed actually like a string of Wikipedia pages and I ended up skimming some parts. The writing style was dry like a school textbook.
What surprised me was that Dr.Jaffrelot considers anything that is not a formal theocracy like ISIS (ok I give him Taliban too) as secular :P His notions of secularism are so messed up !!
So, Pakistan is secular, and so is Saudi Arabia ? Leftists can be quite stupid and totally blind to their biases and echo-chambers. The good thing is that facts were not tampered with (AFAIK). So, readers can ignore the bigotry of the author and draw their own interpretations.
And the first thing I have done now is remove all books by him from my to-read list. Except for compilations edited by him.
PS:- He totally left out the massive genocide done by West Pakistan in East Pakistan (1971).
——————————
Edited to add later :- Just listened to a debate between the great atheist Christopher Hitchens and the Islamist Tariq Ramadan. The latter called Muslim-majority countries of Africa and Middle East as “secular autocratic” countries. Hitchens calmly rebutted unlike the author Jaffrelot who blindly seems to have accepted their narrative.
That sums up Pakistan - the land of the pure (Muslims) - perfectly.
If that doesnt end the nonsense that “minority Muslims feared the Hindu majority in British India”, nothing will !!
A thorough examination of the state of Pakistan, rich in information - too detailed actually like a string of Wikipedia pages and I ended up skimming some parts. The writing style was dry like a school textbook.
What surprised me was that Dr.Jaffrelot considers anything that is not a formal theocracy like ISIS (ok I give him Taliban too) as secular :P His notions of secularism are so messed up !!
So, Pakistan is secular, and so is Saudi Arabia ? Leftists can be quite stupid and totally blind to their biases and echo-chambers. The good thing is that facts were not tampered with (AFAIK). So, readers can ignore the bigotry of the author and draw their own interpretations.
And the first thing I have done now is remove all books by him from my to-read list. Except for compilations edited by him.
PS:- He totally left out the massive genocide done by West Pakistan in East Pakistan (1971).
——————————
Edited to add later :- Just listened to a debate between the great atheist Christopher Hitchens and the Islamist Tariq Ramadan. The latter called Muslim-majority countries of Africa and Middle East as “secular autocratic” countries. Hitchens calmly rebutted unlike the author Jaffrelot who blindly seems to have accepted their narrative.
September 14, 2018
The voluminous book talks about the three paradoxes Pakistan is beset with as a country: an ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous country trying to become a nation on the basis of a common religion; the discontinuity of democracy that has been partly perpetuated by the democratic elite themselves; and wanting to become a progressive Islamic country but still flirting with religious extremism at the state level to address its regional security imperatives. Some of the author's observations and conclusions are quite apt, others not that much. Personally, I get bored reading halfway through the political histories of Pakistan, because often they sound repeating the obvious for a native reader like myself.
November 15, 2025
To write about Pakistan is to confront a country whose very creation contained a tension between vulnerability and ambition, between the fear of domination and the desire for centralised power. Christophe Jaffrelot’s The Pakistan Paradox proposes that Pakistan is less an aberration than the predictable outcome of foundational contradictions: Pakistan’s crises are not episodic but structural, produced by paradoxes that have shaped every decade of its national life.
The paradox at Pakistan’s core is a viceregal state, with centralisation as a means to hold together a society formed out of conflict and a fear of India, in a region defined by profound diversity. Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan saw uniformity—linguistic, ideological, political—as the bedrock of national survival. Urdu, mother tongue of a minority, was elevated as the national language. Islam was affirmed as the state’s cementing ideology. But these choices rested on a misreading of Pakistan’s constituent regions. Punjab, Sindh, Bengal, Balochistan and the Pashtun belt possessed older, deeper identities than the Muslim nation imagined by the League’s North Indian elite. The push for uniformity generated the very provincial resentments it sought to suppress.
The civil-military compact formed another paradox. This, however, was not a simplistic binary: Pakistan’s issue was not that generals thwarted democratic rule. Rather, civilian elites were themselves deeply authoritarian—agrarian magnates, bureaucratic dynasties, and urban notables whose interests aligned closely with those of the military. Pakistan’s cycles—civilian rule, breakdown, military intervention, controlled democratization—become intelligible once one sees them not as ruptures but as negotiated elite settlements. Ayub’s technocratic authoritarianism, Zia’s theocratic vigilantism, and Musharraf’s managerial militarism differ in style but not in substance: all ruled with civilian collaboration.
Pakistan’s Islamization has been traumatic. Its course, though, is complex and goes beyond a narrative that blames Zia alone. Political actors—including Bhutto, a secular populist—mobilised religious sentiment to secure short-term advantage. The result was not a pious society but a politicised Islam that empowered clerics, weakened minorities, and sharpened sectarian divides. In Pakistan, Islam functions not simply as creed but as a language of legitimation for an insecure state—its purpose less spiritual than strategic.
Pakistan’s Muslim society, often presented as egalitarian in contrast to India’s caste-ridden order, turns out to be structured by its own hierarchies: tribal authority west of the Indus; caste-like distinctions among Syeds, Sheikhs, Pathans, and mercantile sects; and a colonial legacy that privileged Punjabi landholders above others. The British decision to reward Punjab for its loyalty in 1857 produced a military and agrarian dominance that independent Pakistan continues to reproduce. Rivalries between Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Muhajirs, and Bengalis did not merely destabilize the state—they shaped its administrative and ideological priorities.
Judiciary and press as Pakistan’s democratic safeguards, have, in the main, turned out to be myths. The courts validated every military takeover using the “doctrine of necessity” and absorbed the elite’s anxieties into law. Justice Muhammad Munir, for example, ruled military dictatorship as a constitutionally legitimate action. Press and civil society oscillated between fierce independence and comfortable co-optation. Heroic moments—such as the lawyers’ movement of 2007 led by Justice Ifthikar Chaudhry—appear as exceptions rather than the rule.
Pakistan is not a failed state but an over-centralised one; not a country lurching between chaos and crisis, but one cycling predictably through elite bargains and institutional reinventions. Its dysfunction is orderly, almost ritualistic. Pakistan’s geographic position continues to render it a device for the use of the super-powers, with no immediate break-out visible.
In all of this there remains hope. Military takeovers have not (other than Zia’s elimination of Bhutto) been purgatory, and civilian rule has returned, each slightly more robust than the previous. Civic resistance in the form of the lawyer’s movement, and women’s rights campaign speak to a standing up to authoritarianism. Transition is likely to be slow, and punctuated – but that in the end is what the people of the country can hope for.
Together with Anatol Lieven’s Pakistan: A Hard Country and Christopher Snedden’s Kashmir: The Unwritten History, The Pakistan Paradox maps out a more complete intellectual geography of Pakistan: a state born of elite insecurity, held together by social networks, and defined at its borders by unresolved questions of identity and allegiance.
September 3, 2024
The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience by Christophe Jaffrelot is a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of Pakistan’s complex political and social landscape. Jaffrelot, a renowned political scientist and expert on South Asia, presents a detailed account of the paradoxical nature of Pakistan—a nation that has faced chronic instability since its inception but continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience.
The central theme of the book revolves around the internal contradictions that have shaped Pakistan's history. Jaffrelot identifies three major paradoxes: the ideological tension between Islamism and secularism, the power struggle between central authority and provincial autonomy, and the conflict between military dominance and democratic aspirations. He deftly explores how these competing forces have fueled both Pakistan’s political instability and its surprising endurance as a state.
Jaffrelot traces Pakistan’s historical trajectory from its creation in 1947 to its present-day challenges. He examines the role of key political figures, the influence of Islam on state identity, and the central role of the military in Pakistani politics. The author also dives into the regional dynamics, such as the longstanding rivalry with India, the rise of jihadism, and the complex relationship with the United States, all of which have shaped Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies.
What makes the book stand out is Jaffrelot's in-depth analysis of Pakistan's ethnic and provincial diversity, particularly the tension between the dominant Punjab province and other regions like Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He argues that the centralization of power in Punjab and the military establishment has led to ongoing regional grievances and insurgencies, further complicating the country's unity.
Despite the challenges, Jaffrelot highlights Pakistan's resilience, attributing it to the adaptability of its political system, the pragmatism of its leaders, and the strength of its civil society. He suggests that Pakistan’s survival, despite its numerous internal contradictions, lies in its ability to navigate and manage these crises.
The Pakistan Paradox is well-researched and highly detailed, drawing from a wide range of historical documents, interviews, and academic sources. While the book’s depth and academic rigor may be overwhelming for general readers, it is an essential text for anyone seeking to understand Pakistan’s intricate political dynamics.
Overall, Jaffrelot offers a balanced and insightful perspective on Pakistan, acknowledging its flaws while recognizing the remarkable tenacity that has allowed it to endure. The book is an invaluable resource for scholars, policymakers, and readers interested in South Asian geopolitics and the complex story of Pakistan’s nationhood.
The central theme of the book revolves around the internal contradictions that have shaped Pakistan's history. Jaffrelot identifies three major paradoxes: the ideological tension between Islamism and secularism, the power struggle between central authority and provincial autonomy, and the conflict between military dominance and democratic aspirations. He deftly explores how these competing forces have fueled both Pakistan’s political instability and its surprising endurance as a state.
Jaffrelot traces Pakistan’s historical trajectory from its creation in 1947 to its present-day challenges. He examines the role of key political figures, the influence of Islam on state identity, and the central role of the military in Pakistani politics. The author also dives into the regional dynamics, such as the longstanding rivalry with India, the rise of jihadism, and the complex relationship with the United States, all of which have shaped Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies.
What makes the book stand out is Jaffrelot's in-depth analysis of Pakistan's ethnic and provincial diversity, particularly the tension between the dominant Punjab province and other regions like Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He argues that the centralization of power in Punjab and the military establishment has led to ongoing regional grievances and insurgencies, further complicating the country's unity.
Despite the challenges, Jaffrelot highlights Pakistan's resilience, attributing it to the adaptability of its political system, the pragmatism of its leaders, and the strength of its civil society. He suggests that Pakistan’s survival, despite its numerous internal contradictions, lies in its ability to navigate and manage these crises.
The Pakistan Paradox is well-researched and highly detailed, drawing from a wide range of historical documents, interviews, and academic sources. While the book’s depth and academic rigor may be overwhelming for general readers, it is an essential text for anyone seeking to understand Pakistan’s intricate political dynamics.
Overall, Jaffrelot offers a balanced and insightful perspective on Pakistan, acknowledging its flaws while recognizing the remarkable tenacity that has allowed it to endure. The book is an invaluable resource for scholars, policymakers, and readers interested in South Asian geopolitics and the complex story of Pakistan’s nationhood.
July 15, 2025
Great analysis of the historical foundations and development of Pakistan. The book even manages to correctly predict the state necessitating to institute proper tax reform for the first time after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
While the book breaks down its analysis on three fronts: regional nationalism and the states centralizing drive, the oscillation between military and civilian administrations, and the role of Islam in the state, what becomes clear is that all of these antagonisms are generated by the unchanging class makeup of the ruling class and their policies which benefit the rural elite (and the urban elite as a byproduct). The growth in islamism is an offshoot of a lot of things but very importantly is a symptom of the states vehement destruction of the left.
The future seems unclear. The country still desperately requires what it needed at its birth: comprehensive and bloody land reform. The influence of the rural landowners which in part drove the birth of the nation, has meant a completely halt in development - the country is still not even close to full literacy and a significant portion of its workforce is in a retarding informal sector. Where china had considerable blood letting in the 50s and 60s to permanently end the rural landlordism, the subcontinent instead gave that class the keys to the state, which in the long run has doomed the subcontinent to every increasing irrationality and greater loss of life over the last 70 years. Really the only way forward has to be the old marxist demand: a completely reorganization of society to rationalize it. And it starts with a state sponsored decimation of the rural elite.
While the book breaks down its analysis on three fronts: regional nationalism and the states centralizing drive, the oscillation between military and civilian administrations, and the role of Islam in the state, what becomes clear is that all of these antagonisms are generated by the unchanging class makeup of the ruling class and their policies which benefit the rural elite (and the urban elite as a byproduct). The growth in islamism is an offshoot of a lot of things but very importantly is a symptom of the states vehement destruction of the left.
The future seems unclear. The country still desperately requires what it needed at its birth: comprehensive and bloody land reform. The influence of the rural landowners which in part drove the birth of the nation, has meant a completely halt in development - the country is still not even close to full literacy and a significant portion of its workforce is in a retarding informal sector. Where china had considerable blood letting in the 50s and 60s to permanently end the rural landlordism, the subcontinent instead gave that class the keys to the state, which in the long run has doomed the subcontinent to every increasing irrationality and greater loss of life over the last 70 years. Really the only way forward has to be the old marxist demand: a completely reorganization of society to rationalize it. And it starts with a state sponsored decimation of the rural elite.
October 9, 2025
I have finishes reading this book almost a week ago from now. It was a great read. I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the book, especially the writing style and how the tone was reader friendly.
But the second and third part did not appear to be the same. It almost felt like there was a lot of information available and using that information, the writer intended to create some narrative. At so many places I found the narratives and storytelling rather ambiguous. Perhaps, it could be about my comprehension of the book content.
I think, it's good to have details, numbers & names and narrating the events, but having a lot of them only makes the content appear more of a filler and unclear. Sometimes, whilst reading I was trying to understand what possible narrative author or editor is trying to shape.
Also, there have been a lot of words with suffixes -ism, -tic, -tions etc. At times I felt the excessive use was unnecessary and they were not quite reader friendly for lucid understanding of text.
So, the first part was quite informative, second and third seemed more of a filler.
I would recommend reading pre-partition part (first part).
Rimshah Rehman
Reader & Writer
Karachi, Pakistan.
October 09, 2025, 01:27 PM.
But the second and third part did not appear to be the same. It almost felt like there was a lot of information available and using that information, the writer intended to create some narrative. At so many places I found the narratives and storytelling rather ambiguous. Perhaps, it could be about my comprehension of the book content.
I think, it's good to have details, numbers & names and narrating the events, but having a lot of them only makes the content appear more of a filler and unclear. Sometimes, whilst reading I was trying to understand what possible narrative author or editor is trying to shape.
Also, there have been a lot of words with suffixes -ism, -tic, -tions etc. At times I felt the excessive use was unnecessary and they were not quite reader friendly for lucid understanding of text.
So, the first part was quite informative, second and third seemed more of a filler.
I would recommend reading pre-partition part (first part).
Rimshah Rehman
Reader & Writer
Karachi, Pakistan.
October 09, 2025, 01:27 PM.
September 12, 2019
Very bulky book with lots of unnecessary and repetitive information. He could have summarized it less than 400 pages.
.
He didn't discuss the role of India in destabilizing Pakistan and continuously regarded Indian threat as subjective fear of Pakistan which I think is intellectual dishonesty.
.
His analysis on some aspects of creation of Pakistan is outright bias which make it hard for reader to continue reading it. Moreover, his bias against Pakistan armed forces is way too louder than it should be. At some places he didn't analyzed the situation but passed verdicts as per his opinion, perspective and understanding.
.
Giving it 2 stars because its a good book if you want to improve your vocabulary.
.
He didn't discuss the role of India in destabilizing Pakistan and continuously regarded Indian threat as subjective fear of Pakistan which I think is intellectual dishonesty.
.
His analysis on some aspects of creation of Pakistan is outright bias which make it hard for reader to continue reading it. Moreover, his bias against Pakistan armed forces is way too louder than it should be. At some places he didn't analyzed the situation but passed verdicts as per his opinion, perspective and understanding.
.
Giving it 2 stars because its a good book if you want to improve your vocabulary.
March 29, 2021
The longest book I've ever read. Took me months to close the past page. Totally worth it in the end. A great book to gain insight of the ideology, history, and quirks of Pakistan. Though the political part can get boring, the beginning and middle were fantastic. What what the intentions and motivations during the formation of Pakistan? What are the root causes of the problems that Pakistan faces today? The author delivers answers to questions like these which must be read by every Pakistani interested in their history.
March 30, 2021
A very well researched, objective and comprehensive book taking us through the journey of creation of world's first religion based republic and the instability it invited along. It dives into the difficulty the nation has faced, giving an account of the political and social evolution of its society. Only down side which can be pointed is the sheer volume of information and excessive details which can make you lose interest after a point.
December 25, 2022
I am thoroughly enjoying this book and finally understanding this wonderful nation that I share roots with.
I borrowed it from the library and whoever borrowed it last tore page 109 and 110. Could somebody send it to me, please? I am as infuriated by this as somebody who is doing a jigsaw and finds a piece missing. Thank you!
I borrowed it from the library and whoever borrowed it last tore page 109 and 110. Could somebody send it to me, please? I am as infuriated by this as somebody who is doing a jigsaw and finds a piece missing. Thank you!
Read
January 12, 2021Although the author didn’t seem as sympathetic to Pakistan as other writers, this is such a comprehensive book.
August 29, 2016
What an amazing book!!! A must read for every Pakistani if they intend to know the truth of their history. Mind boggling revelations have been made by Jefferlot with authentic facts and figures. The book can give everyone a tremendous amount of insight into the why of current Pakistan's situation. Awesome job!!!!
November 24, 2016
Very interesting read, this books hits the issues faced in current Pakistan in the nail with excellent analysis of its origins, the constituents and the various players and factors pulling the nation apart
August 1, 2015
one of my best read of the year so far. beautifully explained the paradox that Pakistan is. the detailing about the various actors in Pakistan state is incredible .
Read
December 4, 2016Quite an incisive read..
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews