Can Imran Khan reverse and undo the economic policies of Bhutto and the extremist policies of Zia?

[Savak]

Bhutto kickstarted the religious extremism in our society with his desperate attempts to quell the opposition in 1977 over the rigged elections with his decleration of making Ahmedi's non muslims, outlawing alcohol shops in Pakistan, closing down the Casino's. The biggest Damage Bhutto did to Pakistan was with the nationalization policies which completely eroded everything that was achieved during Ayub Khan's Industralization and Capitalism era and we have yet to recover from it. Our economy would have been in a much better state without the sick units, government take over of all national institutions which just spread corruption like a plague to every state institution.

Zia on the other hand is the man responsible for the religious extremism, secretarianism, terrorism, Klashelnikov, Drugs culture we see in Pakistan today. He totally wrecked our entertainment industry and the saddest part is at one point in time our film/entertainment industry was at par with India's if not better. Undoing Zia's policies for me is the far bigger challenge. Can the Pakistan Millitary ruthlessly crackdown on all the religious extremist and terrorist groups in Pakistan? Can we bring about some much needed liberal tolerance in our society again. Why can Pakistan not have an open liberal environment like Dubai where you just let the people decide for themselves with regards to what sort of life style do they live? Legalizing Alcohol stips rather than making it a black market thing would be a better idea than encouraging an underground black market economy.

I believe the way IK and the PTI govt has dealt with the India situation, the foreign investment deals they have signed. I believe we can safely say that Pakistani's in general have developed some faith in their new leadership and some confidence that the country is now going in the right direction.

 

[moghul]

Absolutely, Bhutto and Zia were the two worst things happened to Pakistan.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Short answer is no. Neither Bhutto nor Zia happened in vacuum. As long as the society retain the characteristics that led to the rise of Bhutto and Zia, there will be no reversal of the direction the country is going.

 

[Syed1]

Bhutto was far worse than Zia. Yeah Zia was BAD, but Bhutto completely killed every single institution we had and brought our country to her knees (even if you ignore how he was DIRECTLY responsible for succession of Bangladesh).

During Ayub Khan's era, the same bureaucracy managed to pull off massive industrialization and infrastructure projects, but Bhutto came and inducted all his matric pass jiyalas in the civil service and in the education system and since then we have not recovered. Mainly, because the rulers that followed Bhutto were absolutely incompetent or looking to make a quick buck.

 

[Pak Warrior]

I hope and believe that he will be able to help on both fronts. Bhutto policies for economy were the most damning, and crippling. I think he will be able to change that before he can bring some change in the extremist hold over the country. But I hope we dont lose our religion and conservative beliefs that keep us different from America and India even. I would ideally want to see economic progress whike holding on to our religious morals and traditions.

 

[Zhasan]

Zia's supposed extremist policies were actually initiated by Bhutto. Islamization started under Bhutto and using non-state proxies were also initiated by Bhutto. Hikmatyar and Masood Panjshiri were recruited in the early 70's to counter pukhtunistan movement under Bhutto's administration.

Zia for all his fault was a pragmatic and very effective leader who excelled at governance. He kept KHAD, KGB, and RAW's three pronged subversion and terrorist attacks relatively under control. Zia was also able to pacify Balochistan following an utter disaster presided over by Bhutto.

Zia was fighting a two pronge war against Soviets and ever-belligerent India and was able to deal with both of them quite effectively. Cricket diplomacy, Operation Brass Tacks, Kashmir liberation movement, Khalistan movement and Afghan Jihad are all Zia's master strokes. Zia was able to maintain Pakistan's importance and dominance in regional and Islamic spheres. There is a very famous video of him scolding Arab leaders at OIC conference for removing Egypt from the Arab League in the aftermath of Egypt/Israel peace treaty. And it is due to his efforts Egypt's membership was restored to Arab league.

Pakistan's economy grew and fastest during Zia's 11 years than it did at any other period in it's history.

I'd take Zia's rule over all other ruler of Pakistan with a possible exception of Ayub's. Imran Khan's tenure is not fully realized and I hope he surpasses both Ayub and Zia. I am afraid he lacks political nous and shrewdness of the former to be truly successful, but I hope to be proven wrong.

BTW, Bhutto was by far the biggest and most profound disaster to have befallen on Pakistan. Most of the problems we have today in Pakistan can all be traced back to Bhutto, corruption, nepotism, political thuggery, provincialism/racism, economic stagnation, terrorism, to name a few.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Zia's supposed extremist policies were actually initiated by Bhutto. Islamization started under Bhutto and using non-state proxies were also initiated by Bhutto. Hikmatyar and Masood Panjshiri were recruited in the early 70's to counter pukhtunistan movement under Bhutto's administration.

Zia for all his fault was a pragmatic and very effective leader who excelled at governance. He kept KHAD, KGB, and RAW's three pronged subversion and terrorist attacks relatively under control. Zia was also able to pacify Balochistan following an utter disaster presided over by Bhutto.

Zia was fighting a two pronge war against Soviets and ever-belligerent India and was able to deal with both of them quite effectively. Cricket diplomacy, Operation Brass Tacks, Kashmir liberation movement, Khalistan movement and Afghan Jihad are all Zia's master strokes. Zia was able to maintain Pakistan's importance and dominance in regional and Islamic spheres. There is a very famous video of him scolding Arab leaders at OIC conference for removing Egypt from the Arab League in the aftermath of Egypt/Israel peace treaty. And it is due to his efforts Egypt's membership was restored to Arab league.

Pakistan's economy grew and fastest during Zia's 11 years than it did at any other period in it's history.

I'd take Zia's rule over all other ruler of Pakistan with a possible exception of Ayub's. Imran Khan's tenure is not fully realized and I hope he surpasses both Ayub and Zia. I am afraid he lacks political nous and shrewdness of the former to be truly successful, but I hope to be proven wrong.

BTW, Bhutto was by far the biggest and most profound disaster to have befallen on Pakistan. Most of the problems we have today in Pakistan can all be traced back to Bhutto, corruption, nepotism, political thuggery, provincialism/racism, economic stagnation, terrorism, to name a few.

Bro what was Zia's success in operation brass tack. In fact it was some sort of failure of military intelligence as they should have been aware of Indians provoking measures.

One more thing you I think missed to write was Pakistan lost Siachen & this was another military intelligence failure in fact to me it was the biggest intelligence failure in country's history. There would have been some traitors in military whom should have been penalized.

I am not against afghan Jihad but the consequences of that jihad were/are horrible & even after 30 years we are seeing its after effects. Afghan refugees, drugs, weapons and religious extremists are the gifts of afghan jihad.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

There is also a myth that Pakistan's economy growth is relatively higher during army generals tenure. To me it's all due to those American peanuts which we were given to carried out American plans. It was the case during Ayub, it was the case during Zia & it was the case during Musharraf. The economic bubble busted as soon as Americans stop giving us peanuts.

 

[Greenstorm]

There is also a myth that Pakistan's economy growth is relatively higher during army generals tenure. To me it's all due to those American peanuts which we were given to carried out American plans. It was the case during Ayub, it was the case during Zia & it was the case during Musharraf. The economic bubble busted as soon as Americans stop giving us peanuts.

Ayub initiated numerous projects from which we are still benefiting. The rest basically did nothing to improve economic growth.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Ayub initiated numerous projects from which we are still benefiting. The rest basically did nothing to improve economic growth.

May be but you know Ayub was the man to whom M A Jinnah said that I don't want to see this man again bcz he was the political soldier. M A Jinnah ordered to transfer him east Pakistan just to kept him away from political lobbies. As far as it is related to the economic boom of that era, I admit that there was an economic boom but he promoted the income inequalities resulting in the rise of the 20 influential families who controlled the nation's resources and amassed ill-gotten wealth, leaving the rest poor, hungry, and resentful.
Besides this he was the first ruler who brought religious radicals to come into play against late Fatima Jinnah and the most shameless part is that he referred Late Fatima as an Indian agent.

 

[szundercover]

May be but you know Ayub was the man to whom M A Jinnah said that I don't want to see this man again bcz he was the political soldier. M A Jinnah ordered to transfer him east Pakistan just to kept him away from political lobbies. As far as it is related to the economic boom of that era, I admit that there was an economic boom but he promoted the income inequalities resulting in the rise of the 20 influential families who controlled the nation's resources and amassed ill-gotten wealth, leaving the rest poor, hungry, and resentful.
Besides this he was the first ruler who brought religious radicals to come into play against late Fatima Jinnah and the most shameless part is that he referred Late Fatima as an Indian agent.

Very interesting indeed.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Very interesting indeed.

Should I add a little more...
Once when Ayub was asked by someone that why M A Jinnah hates you & in reply Ayub said that M A Jinnah hated me bcz he (Jinnah) thought that I have been in an affair with prices of patyala whereas he knew that Jinnah would be the last man in SC who will ask something on someone's personal life.

Our history from 50 to 71 was as filthy as main drain. Aisay he nahi toota yei mulk.