akistan’s first few budgets were marked by the country’s early struggle to define its economic direction, governance priorities and meeting expectations of the public. Announcement of budgets during the 1950s used to elicit strong reaction from the educated and marginalised sections, particularly intellectuals, workers and students. The response from the disillusioned ranged from resigned disappointment to orchestrated dissent. The budget was viewed as an elitist affair, disconnected from ground realities, making a mockery of the poor and the working class. Most people saw such budgets as favouring bureaucrats, landlords, industrialists and military interests over the poor and the working class.

Urban centres such as Karachi and Lahore in the late 1950s and early 1960s witnessed occasional protests and strikes when prices of essential items such as wheat flour and sugar were raised after budgets. Progressive writers and poets like Faiz Ahmad Faiz and Habib Jalib expressed dissent against elite-friendly budgets. These poets and others criticised the disparity between the rich and the poor, often using the budget as a symbol of injustice and exploitation. Jalib wrote a famous poem that said: Hunger has snatched everything from the people. A stanza from the poem goes:

What will these ministers and advisors do,

When every person is begging for bread?

Hunger has snatched everything from the

people,

Yet they claim we gained something from the

treasury.

In the 1960s, the public reaction towards budget announcements became more intense, politicised and ideologically charged given the regional economic disparities under the military regime of Ayub Khan (1958-1969). While the government often portrayed the budget exercise as development-focused and solidifying the industrial base of the country, the people—particularly students, workers, poets and leading opposition voices—expressed their concerns and criticised government policies. The ‘decade of development’ mantra highlighted agricultural reforms and industrial growth along with infrastructure development, but the farmers and tenants saw little relief in budget allocations. Industrialisation benefited only a few business and financial houses, fuelling Mahbub-ul Haq’s 1968 narrative of 22 families controlling the country’s economy.

After the 1971 war and the economic crisis, people looked up to ZA Bhutto’s civilian government given his promises of socialist and populist policies during election campaigns and later. He raised public expectations with the promise of wealth redistribution, nationalisation and subsidies for the poor. The public response initially was hopeful and supportive, particularly among the workers, small farmers, students and intellectuals. Nonetheless, the support waned as issues of ineffectiveness, inefficiency and politicisation started to be raised. Hence, the 1977 elections and the budget were followed by protests by the people complaining of high inflation. Habib Jalib wrote during the ’70s:

When did we say the throne belongs to the

king?

We consider all people as worthy of the court.

The 1980s were characterised by military dictatorship, institutionalised Islamisation, strict censorship and conservative economic policies. The emphasis was on reversing the policies pursued by the Bhutto regime. Public reaction to budgetary allocations during this decade was mostly an expression of resentment on rising prices of basic commodities, sales tax hitting the poor disproportionately and lack of adequate state spending on health, education and employment generation. However, the criticism found only muted expression due to martial law restrictions and press censorship. Resultantly, popular frustration was expressed more in drawing rooms, tea stalls and private conversations. Student and labour unions—the vanguard of public sphere—were banned. Jalib wrote the following for the Zia era:

Why call darkness light, a storm a breeze,

and a man a god?

Why call a stone a gem, a wall a door, and a

vulture a royal falcon?

The 1990s were a politically volatile era marked by repeated changes in governments, rising public debt, economic mismanagement and the increasing role of the IMF. Budget announcements during this period were subject to tough scrutiny. The public response reflected growing frustration, cynicism and expression of anger over inflated promises and skewed delivery. The structural adjustment programmes coupled with ever increasing borrowing from the IMF and the World Bank resulted in increased foreign debt, currency devaluation and privatisation of national institutions and state-owned enterprises. The nuclear tests of 1998 pushed the country into a new sanctions-regime and economic squeeze. “Budget ka matlab, mehengai ka naya tufaan” became a rallying cry. Literary voices, though not as fiery as earlier, continued to satirise budget policies.

During the Musharraf regime, the public reaction to budget announcements evolved from cautious optimism in the early 2000s to growing discontent by the middle of the decade. This period was marked by economic liberalisation, foreign aid inflow in the wake of 9/11, elite- focused growth and the unprecedented rise of real estate developers and property tycoons. Income inequalities and inflation grew fast. The decade witnessed privatisation, foreign investment, expansion of the telecom sector, growth in banking on one hand and heavy reliance on IMF loans on the other. The press was superficially more open than during the previous military regimes, self-censorship and advice, replacing formal external controls. Some progressive writers and poets highlighted social inequalities, particularly the gap between elite prosperity and hardship of the poor.

The 2010s saw three governments led by different political parties i.e. the PPP, the PML-N and the PTI. The PPP had to struggle with a severe energy crisis, rising terrorism, dependence on IMF loans and intermittent floods. The PML-N launched its flagship CPEC, attempted tax reforms and tried to solve debt concerns. The PTI was caught in the quagmire of Covid-19 and high inflation besides slow economic growth. The expression of dissent by writers, poets, intellectuals, workers and students continued to grow faint and fade. Concomitantly, the quality, content and quantum of parliamentary debate on various aspects of budgetary allocations also waned progressively. The last few budgets have been presented in a noisy uproar of the opposition while lacking substantial debate. This is a worrying trend for the concerned citizens.

The writer heads the History Department at University of Sargodha. He has worked as a research fellow at Royal Holloway College, University of London. He can be reached at abrar.zahoor@hotmail.com His X handle: @AbrarZahoor1