Late General Zia-ul-Haq: Was he a usurper or great benevolent dictator?

[The Bald Eagle]

Zia ul haq has a mixed legacy. He help Afghanistan achieved a victory against Soviets. Also kept Soviets away from shore of Pakistan. He made objective resolution a formal part of Constitution. Also his islamization policy somewhat preserved the culture of Pakistan that had become westernized before. But at the same time, he imposed martial law in Pakistan, derailed democracy for 10 years and sent Bhutto to gallows. So whats your thoughts on him.

 

[Stewie]

I think we all know the answer to that but the bigger question is: Has the interference of the military establishment in the internal affairs of the state ethical and justified?

Zia is/was a part of a bigger issue, one that has plagued Pakistan since its birth.

 

[Stewie]

A dictator, or someone who usurped the elected people’s government can never be benevolent!

 

[RexRex]

He murdered your elected head of state and you call him benevolent ?! I know of only one benevolent dictator and that is the late Lee Kuan Yew.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

A dictator, or someone who usurped the elected people’s government can never be benevolent!

Agree with your thoughts bro. But don't you feel his follies overshadow his great works. He also kept India in its place.

Indira Gandhi was also afraid of her. That's why she never opened the second front against Pakistan despite several Soviet requests during Afghan War.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Unfortunately Pakistan has always seen better times in dictatorship likewise i have witnessed tenure of Pervez Musharaf in which country was growing considerably.

So in my opinion dictatorship is better than democracy.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Unfortunately Pakistan has always seen better times in dictatorship likewise i have witnessed tenure of Pervez Musharaf in which country was growing considerably.

So in my opinion dictatorship is better than democracy.

The thing is Zia's era was also fine but what he did to Bhutto was completely ridiculous and insane.

 

[Hassan A]

No pakistani prime minister has ever completed his tenure in the history, either ousted or assasinated, guys it has always been a dictatorship behind the scenes.

Ofc his contributions are in the nation, but negative ones off sets anything good he did.

Bhutto was also no saint, his nationalization policy killed the economy of Pakistan.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

guys it has always been a dictatorship behind the scenes.

Hahha.. bro be careful Hafiz sb may be noting your comments here.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

The thing is Zia's era was also fine but what he did to Bhutto was completely ridiculous and insane.

What bhutto did with East Pakistan was even more ridiculous so he got what he deserved... no sympathy for him!

 

[The Bald Eagle]

He murdered your elected head of state and you call him benevolent ?! I know of only one benevolent dictator and that is the late Lee Kuan Yew.

No bro, not downplaying that crime but just taking consideration of his whole legacy.

Infact, he himself died in a tragic plane acident so does not that even that out.

 

[big_gamer007]

Isn’t he the one who changed the path of Pakistan as a nation towards a more hardcore religion path?

The effect of his change in policy took decades to show once the population born before his period died.

He is one of the main reasons why you guys are suffering extremism and are in your current hole.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Isn’t he the one who changed the path of Pakistan as a nation towards a more hardcore religion path?

The effect of his change in policy took decades to show once the population born before his period died.

He is one of the main reasons why you guys are suffering extremism and are in your current hole.

Can't blame him entirely for extremism. It was actually mismanagement of Afghan groups post Zia's demise that budded the extremism. He Infact was dealing really well with Jihadist factions in Afghanistan.

 

[FearlessRoar]

He was the worst thing that happened to Pakistan ever. He has destroyed our cultural values, traditions, and changed the whole dynamics of Pakistan. He has thrown acid on the roots of Pakistan. And I'm afraid we can never come out of it.

 

[KB]

Zia ruled with a heavy and harsh hand. He left Pakistan in a worse state - political development was retarded, and socially Pakistan was left more divided, more violent and more intolerant. At the same time Pakistan’s problems did not begin entirely with Zia. Nor can we fully understand the impact of Zia without placing him in a wider context. Below is a copy of a post I made previously on this forum, with minor changes:

In Zia’s time, guns and heroin abounded. Islam was viewed through a narrow legalistic lens and reduced to a set of proscriptions. Sectarian and ethnic distinctions sharpened. Authoritarianism reached a new level under Zia. The army’s influence over the economy and bureaucracy became even further reaching. The political process was distorted by the effort to ‘localise’ politics and by the implementation of the eighth amendment.

However, tempting though it might be, we should also avoid ascribing all of Pakistan’s contemporary problems to the influence of one person or to one regime.

The shift to a more stridently legalistic interpretation of Islam was made possible partly as a result of the failures of Islamic modernists to govern effectively. A reliance on top-down messaging and a failure to create institutions and resources that could educate and cultivate a ‘modernist’ base in society left their vision of Pakistan vulnerable to attack. Nor should we ignore the ability of ‘Islamists’ and ulama in building an infrastructure and constituency in society, that operated independently of state initiatives, and was hospitable to their own understanding of religion. Even before Zia took over power it was in fact the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) which had called for Nizam-e-Mustafa. In addition, the emergence of a new middle class that was attracted to visible displays of piety, the impact of migration to the Gulf, and international events (the Afghan war and the Iranian revolution) also contributed to the bolstering of a conservative constituency. Politically too, the politics of local power, the scant respect for the rule of law and centralising tendencies have a long, pre-Zia era, history.

There were therefore longer-term trends. It is however undeniable that the Zia era left Pakistan with a particularly baleful legacy.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

However, tempting though it might be, we should also avoid ascribing all of Pakistan’s contemporary problems to the influence of one person or to one regime.

His era possessed great roller coaster for Pakistan. But people don't realize that it was astute diplomacy that helped Pakistan develop nuclear arsenals under the radar and nose of USA.

Every body has some failures in life so was the case with zia. But he had some victories too for Pakistan.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

This shows why late Zia ul haq was a bogeyman for India.

 

[Stewie]

Agree with your thoughts bro. But don't you feel his follies overshadow his great works. He also kept India in its place.

Indira Gandhi was also afraid of her. That's why she never opened the second front against Pakistan despite several Soviet requests during Afghan War.

“Great works”?
lol. Is this a joke? And no Indira Gandhi was not scared of him. She was scared of the Americans who were backing us due to our help fighting the soviets in Afghanistan.

Zia brought a lot of evils to our country, stuff we are still paying for dearly

 

[Stewie]

Unfortunately Pakistan has always seen better times in dictatorship likewise i have witnessed tenure of Pervez Musharaf in which country was growing considerably.

So in my opinion dictatorship is better than democracy.

I would question that statement. We never had democracy. A dictator or a group of dictators was always running the show.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

“Great works”?
lol. Is this a joke? And no Indira Gandhi was not scared of him. She was scared of the Americans who were backing us due to our help fighting the soviets in Afghanistan.

Zia brought a lot of evils to our country, stuff we are still paying for dearly

Bro, we did make detonation in NS era but in actual Pak's nuclear arsenal were prepared under Zia's oversight. And for most probably this action he was blown away by foreign agents in collusion with some Pakistani traitors.

Unlike Musharaf He fully backed the mujahiddins in Jammu and Kashmir. He would have done great service there too may be liberated it if there had not been an early demise for him because he had already sandwiched India thru Khalistanis, Chinese and Kashmiri Mujahiddins. He had to just deliver one knock out blow to Indian military that he could not deliver.

This shows why late Zia ul haq was a bogeyman for India.

And bro if you still believe that indians were not afraid of him then watch this above short clip.

 

[Major]

He killed an elected PM of the country and took over forcefully.

One of the worst things that happened to Pakistan. On top of that he socially destroyed the country which we cannot fix even today.

 

[Major]

This shows why late Zia ul haq was a bogeyman for India.

Bro, we did make detonation in NS era but in actual Pak's nuclear arsenal were prepared under Zia's oversight. And for most probably this action he was blown away by foreign agents in collusion with some Pakistani traitors.

Unlike Musharaf He fully backed the mujahiddins in Jammu and Kashmir. He would have done great service there too if there had not been an early demise for him.


And bro if you still believe that indians were not afraid of him then watch this above short clip.

Wrong.

The ground work for the nuclear was laid done by Bhutto, who had bought in people like Munir Khan and also realized that uranium enrichment would have to be done at home instead of importing it.

Zia only got funding for the bomb through USA.

Also the video you are posting, isn't that guy some property dealer who acts as if he is some intellectual based on one viral video of his?

After Bangladesh and than the Shimla agreement on Kashmir, there was never a reason for India to be scared of Pakistan

 

[Major]

His era possessed great roller coaster for Pakistan. But people don't realize that it was astute diplomacy that helped Pakistan develop nuclear arsenals under the radar and nose of USA.

Every body has some failures in life so was the case with zia. But he had some victories too for Pakistan.

Sorry but again no.

You cannot brush aside the fact that he killed the sitting Prime Minister, did a coup and than abolished the constitution. These are major crimes.

He than allowed the ISI to make a political party, fund it, and than let them run havoc till today.

He is the reason why army officers were allowed to directly get seats in the bureaucracy.

There were no victories under Zia. Corruption took place under the name of Mujahideen War, gave out weapons to Muajhideens/taliban who than attacked us later on. And than the Ojri camp missile fiasco. On top of that, he was trying to destroy PPP and created PMLN and also allowed scums like Hamid Gul to do whatever he wanted. Plus he allowed secretarian violence on Shias.

He internally destroyed the country. There is nothing good from Zia, no victories.

I disagree with everything that Imran has done, but it no way justifies what Asim Munir is doing by placing him in Jail and controlling the politics.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Sorry but again no.

You cannot brush aside the fact that he killed the sitting Prime Minister, did a coup and than abolished the constitution. These are major crimes.

He than allowed the ISI to make a political party, fund it, and than let them run havoc till today.

He is the reason why army officers were allowed to directly get seats in the bureaucracy.

There were no victories under Zia. Corruption took place under the name of Mujahideen War, gave out weapons to Muajhideens/taliban who than attacked us later on. And than the Ojri camp missile fiasco. On top of that, he was trying to destroy PPP and created PMLN and also allowed scums like Hamid Gul to do whatever he wanted. Plus he allowed secretarian violence on Shias.

He internally destroyed the country. There is nothing good from Zia, no victories.

I disagree with everything that Imran has done, but it no way justifies what Asim Munir is doing by placing him in Jail and controlling the politics.

Yep Zia had his hands tainted with Bhutto’s murder and that can never be condoned .Ogiri camp fiasco was another disaster. But extremism cannot be solely attributed to Zia it has more to do with post Zia poor management.

Also as they say give even devil his due, So bro you can’t just ignore his vital contributions for Nuclear bomb development and also purely from American money. The Pressler amendment was passed in 1985 it was Zia’s cleverness that he kept on fooling Reagan to pass waivers for Pak military assistance.

 

[FearlessRoar]

This shows why late Zia ul haq was a bogeyman for India.

How can one determine whether General Zia ul Haq really said that to PM Rajiv Gandhi?

 

[gani999]

Agree with your thoughts bro. But don't you feel his follies overshadow his great works. He also kept India in its place.

Indira Gandhi was also afraid of her. That's why she never opened the second front against Pakistan despite several Soviet requests during Afghan War.

I am not a fan of Indiraji but she was afraid of nobody. Least of all Zia or Pakistan. She handed Pakistan its worst military defeat in 1971.
Indira did not intervene in Afghanistan as the war was between the Soviets and the United States, with Afghanistan and Pakistan being used as pawns in the game. She did not want to get India involved in a dirty game between the two super powers.
Pakistan will attain maturity the day it realises that restraint on the part of a bigger power does not amount to fear or weakness.

 

[gani999]

Coming back to the thread, I think that all his Islamisation apart, Zia was one of the better rulers of Pakistan. Pakistan's economy did well under him, even if a lot of it was because of all the billions the Americans were pouring into the country. He had a 'stick' approach, which more often than not, works well to bring discipline into the largely immature South Asian mindset. He also improved Pakistan's standing among the western powers by strategically aligning with them.
That said, he must have ruffled quite a few feathers even in his own military, going by how he was killed. It takes a very determined internal foe with a lot of reach to be able to plant a bomb on the Presidential plane on home soil.

 

[Hitman]

Here's Syed Muzammil explaining how Zia is the biggest villain in the history of Pakistan.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Coming back to the thread, I think that all his Islamisation apart, Zia was one of the better rulers of Pakistan. Pakistan's economy did well under him, even if a lot of it was because of all the billions the Americans were pouring into the country. He had a 'stick' approach, which more often than not, works well to bring discipline into the largely immature South Asian mindset. He also improved Pakistan's standing among the western powers by strategically aligning with them.
That said, he must have ruffled quite a few feathers even in his own military, going by how he was killed. It takes a very determined internal foe with a lot of reach to be able to plant a bomb on the Presidential plane on home soil.

Yep it was an inside job. Or else such can't happen to your elite commander.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Here's Syed Muzammil explaining how Zia is the biggest villain in the history of Pakistan.

Hahah.. Bro no one gives much attention to Muzammil in Pakistan. So should have come from someone with great authority and credibility.

 

[Hitman]

Hahah.. Bro no one gives much attention to Muzammil in Pakistan. So should have come from someone with great authority and credibility.

It's okay if you don't like Muzammil. But how do you counter his points in the video?

 

[Stewie]

I can’t believe I am forced to write this. I spent my boyhood days through Zia’s era in Pakistan and it’s disturbing and confounding to me that the youth of today has absolutely zero clue about how our country has been systematically destroyed by certain forces from within. I said I earlier I could write pages on this topic. Here are some of the gifts Zia gave Pakistan and some of them are still giving

Klashnikovs
Drugs
Pajero Culture
Radicalism
Annihilation of dissenting voices and complete destruction of any democratic culture in the country
Ethnicism
MQM
PML-N (the sharifs are his surrogate offspring)
Forced disappearances
Over strengthening of the Military Establishment through sheer violence and brutal measures


He turned the whole country on its head. His policies and the forced culture shifts he brought to the country exist even today.

I really don’t understand why we tend to credit him for whatever progress otherwise we made during that time. If it’s the financial gain, that was a result of circumstances. Soviets where in Afghanistan and the Americans needed us. We were the top ally and we reaped significant benefits of it. It was sheer luck or coincidence. It is in fact his failure to not push the world to help us get Kashmir because we were in a position of strength at the time.

Then he courted the mullah and radical extremist factor and promoted it. There was no free speech or journalism at the time. At least today we have some dissenting sections in our media and society. Zia made sure none of it existed. The only TV channel parroted his agenda and the news was simply a description of what Zia did or said on that day. Same with printed press.

He killed or disappeared thousands maybe tens of thousands. Dictatorship before him was different in Pakistan, Zia simply took it to the nth factor. The blueprint he laid out is still in use today. Musharraf was an angel in comparison. Even the nuclear program which he gets some credit for, was in fact backed by Bhutto but really we stole the tech so I don’t think anybody should get credit for except AQ Khan.

Anyhow, as is mostly the case, all I just wrote is going to have absolutely zero impact because nobody changes their views around here. So Zia worshipping will continue no matter what. lol

 

[Major]

Here's Syed Muzammil explaining how Zia is the biggest villain in the history of Pakistan.

syed muzamil is one of the best youtubers out there. Love the guy

 

[DeadlyVenom]

When we lost Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto we lost Pakistan.

 

[Major]

Coming back to the thread, I think that all his Islamisation apart, Zia was one of the better rulers of Pakistan. Pakistan's economy did well under him, even if a lot of it was because of all the billions the Americans were pouring into the country. He had a 'stick' approach, which more often than not, works well to bring discipline into the largely immature South Asian mindset. He also improved Pakistan's standing among the western powers by strategically aligning with them.
That said, he must have ruffled quite a few feathers even in his own military, going by how he was killed. It takes a very determined internal foe with a lot of reach to be able to plant a bomb on the Presidential plane on home soil.

pakistann's economy did well under every millitary dictator because of funds from US not because of some economic policy.

Stick approach works well in South Asian mindset? No it does not. People were whipped if they supported PPP or liberalism.

He did not improve Pakistan's standing, USA needed us for the Afghan war and thus we were getting fundning and weapons. He even worked with Israel.

Maybe controlling the media and its people works well in India, but dont put Pakistan in the same basket for gods sake.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I can’t believe I am forced to write this. I spent my boyhood days through Zia’s era in Pakistan and it’s disturbing and confounding to me that the youth of today has absolutely zero clue about how our country has been systematically destroyed by certain forces from within. I said I earlier I could write pages on this topic. Here are some of the gifts Zia gave Pakistan and some of them are still giving

Klashnikovs
Drugs
Pajero Culture
Radicalism
Annihilation of dissenting voices and complete destruction of any democratic culture in the country
Ethnicism
MQM
PML-N (the sharifs are his surrogate offspring)
Forced disappearances
Over strengthening of the Military Establishment through sheer violence and brutal measures


He turned the whole country on its head. His policies and the forced culture shifts he brought to the country exist even today.

I really don’t understand why we tend to credit him for whatever progress otherwise we made during that time. If it’s the financial gain, that was a result of circumstances. Soviets where in Afghanistan and the Americans needed us. We were the top ally and we reaped significant benefits of it. It was sheer luck or coincidence. It is in fact his failure to not push the world to help us get Kashmir because we were in a position of strength at the time.

Then he courted the mullah and radical extremist factor and promoted it. There was no free speech or journalism at the time. At least today we have some dissenting sections in our media and society. Zia made sure none of it existed. The only TV channel parroted his agenda and the news was simply a description of what Zia did or said on that day. Same with printed press.

He killed or disappeared thousands maybe tens of thousands. Dictatorship before him was different in Pakistan, Zia simply took it to the nth factor. The blueprint he laid out is still in use today. Musharraf was an angel in comparison. Even the nuclear program which he gets some credit for, was in fact backed by Bhutto but really we stole the tech so I don’t think anybody should get credit for except AQ Khan.

Anyhow, as is mostly the case, all I just wrote is going to have absolutely zero impact because nobody changes their views around here. So Zia worshipping will continue no matter what. lol

Very good post and I would nominate it for POTW ( not sure if there is still a time pass POTW).
Zia made it okay to do all sorts of haram behaviour but smile and pretend to be Islamic. He truly screwed Pakistan.

 

[Stewie]

Very good post and I would nominate it for POTW ( not sure if there is still a time pass POTW).
Zia made it okay to do all sorts of haram behaviour but smile and pretend to be Islamic. He truly screwed Pakistan.

Well, thank you, but I hope your praise is not predicated upon my approval of or silence regarding Bhutto. I could write equally long on the evils he brought to our nation. I realize how some may confuse my post on Zia as a pro Bhutto piece. It is not!

At the end of the day they were all bad and the legacies they have left behind are all evil, bloody, corrupt and we can be proud of none of it. But I don’t want to derail this thread so let us continue to talk about Zia.

 

[Hitman]

syed muzamil is one of the best youtubers out there. Love the guy

I love listening to him as well. A very well balanced guy.

 

[shortbread]

Unlike Musharaf He fully backed the mujahiddins in Jammu and Kashmir. He would have done great service there too may be liberated it if there had not been an early demise for him because he had already sandwiched India thru Khalistanis, Chinese and Kashmiri Mujahiddins. He had to just deliver one knock out blow to Indian military that he could not deliver.


And bro if you still believe that indians were not afraid of him then watch this above short clip.

+1, indians live in fear of Zia even today. The bogeyman Zia stories are used to scare kids who misbehave in the country. It's Zia's foresight and policies that gave Pakistan it's unmatched lead over the arch nemesis.

Zia made it okay to do all sorts of haram behaviour but smile and pretend to be Islamic. He truly screwed Pakistan.

Nah, I instead agree with the OP, the nation getting screwed is a small price to pay for that knock out blow Zia was soo close to delivering on the real enemy!

Imagine what could have been achieved had Zia ruled for another decade?!

 

[Stewie]

+1, indians live in fear of Zia even today. The bogeyman Zia stories are used to scare kids who misbehave in the country. It's Zia's foresight and policies that gave Pakistan it's unmatched lead over the arch nemesis.


Nah, I instead agree with the OP, the nation getting screwed is a small price to pay for that knock out blow Zia was soo close to delivering on the real enemy!

Imagine what could have been achieved had Zia ruled for another decade?!

This is the mindwiped brainwashed mentality. What will happen if somehow we manage a killer blow on India and take Kashmir back?
Does it bring financial and economic progress to the country?
Does it fix the internal culture of corruption in the country?
Does it fix the multitude of other problems plaguing us? Does it bring welfare to us all? Does it eradicate the provincialism, ethnicism, horse trading and sham of political structure in the country? Does it fix the courts? Does it result in the Kala bagh or any of the other intended and much needed dams to construct themselves? Does it give the control of your future back in your hands?

It’s time we stop romanticizing the potential scenario where we destroy India, take back Kashmir and blah blah because no amount of such wins will ease the suffering a select section of our elite put the 99.99% of Pakistanis through. We will continue to suffer.

 

[ElRaja]

murderous, drug peddling, intellectual midget who destroyed Pakistan's inchoate social fabric all behind the veil of Islam.

When we lost Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto we lost Pakistan.

maybe this needs another topic, cos i have had so many dinner time arguments with my father abt ZAB, i find it surprising that you could say that about someone who said "let the pigs go to hell", when giving speeches about bengalis, if there was anyone who did more to destroy what was Pakistan than ZAB and create the conditions that someone like Zia could flourish it was him. Him and Zia are two sides of the same godforsaken coin.

 

[Stewie]

murderous, drug peddling, intellectual midget who destroyed Pakistan's inchoate social fabric all behind the veil of Islam.



maybe this needs another topic, cos i have had so many dinner time arguments with my father abt ZAB, i find it surprising that you could say that about someone who said "let the pigs go to hell", when giving speeches about bengalis, if there was anyone who did more to destroy what was Pakistan than ZAB and create the conditions that someone like Zia could flourish it was him. Him and Zia are two sides of the same godforsaken coin.

Agreed. Bhutto biggest black mark is what he did to our Bengali brothers. He was no different a despot than Zia. Just didn’t have a uniform. But Zia left behind a legacy of evil that most cannot match.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

+1, indians live in fear of Zia even today. The bogeyman Zia stories are used to scare kids who misbehave in the country. It's Zia's foresight and policies that gave Pakistan it's unmatched lead over the arch nemesis.


Nah, I instead agree with the OP, the nation getting screwed is a small price to pay for that knock out blow Zia was soo close to delivering on the real enemy!

Imagine what could have been achieved had Zia ruled for another decade?!

He had some plan identical to afghan jihad for Kashmir. He would have carried it out too. Had he lived long.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@Stewie @ElRaja

I am overall an admirer of Bhutto, but I completely agree that the comments about Bengalis were disgraceful.

I should have been a bit clearer in my post - while I do endorse Bhutto, what I really meant was that the murder of a former PM on trumped-up charges by a dictator is the moment we lost Pakistan.

Bhutto was extremely popular. I don't think a similar leader who captivated the masses to such an extent has existed in the subcontinent after partition. When he was murdered without any repercussions then, politics in Pakistan took a turn that it hasn't yet recovered from. Those in army uniforms know they can get away with anything. The judiciary will bend to their will time and time again, and the public has pretty much given up since then.

Zia in conjunction with the Americans started this slide to the bottom.

 

[ElRaja]

@Stewie @ElRaja

I am overall an admirer of Bhutto, but I completely agree that the comments about Bengalis were disgraceful.

I should have been a bit clearer in my post - while I do endorse Bhutto, what I really meant was that the murder of a former PM on trumped-up charges by a dictator is the moment we lost Pakistan.

Bhutto was extremely popular. I don't think a similar leader who captivated the masses to such an extent has existed in the subcontinent after partition. When he was murdered without any repercussions then, politics in Pakistan took a turn that it hasn't yet recovered from. Those in army uniforms know they can get away with anything. The judiciary will bend to their will time and time again, and the public has pretty much given up since then.

Zia in conjunction with the Americans started this slide to the bottom.

again i dont wanna derail but lets just try to contextualise a few things

1. his popularity, he literally made an us vs them situation and he lost the only legitimate election he fought. at least half the country hated him with a passion. his popularity existed solely in the context of the hate for bengalis he helped to stoke.

2. zia was only in a position to do what he did cos bhutto put him there, not on merit, but because zia recognised the best way to play ZAB was to cater to his psychophancy, he was seventh in line but bhutto made an exception to put him in that position.

3. the only balance to state power that can exist is private wealth, ZAB destroyed the private sector in Pakistan through his nationalisation program with the design to ensure no private party could ever challenge his influence in the country.

I am afraid was it not for Bhutto, there would have been no zia, no centralised power structure which still haunts Pakistani today, and whilst Bangladesh would have probably seceded eventually, it would have been far less bloody. i don't see one fraction of his political or economic legacy which can be described as admirable.

 

[shortbread]

This is the mindwiped brainwashed mentality. What will happen if somehow we manage a killer blow on India and take Kashmir back?

My attempt at sarcasm has failed miserably and blame myself for that.

 

[shortbread]

He had some plan identical to afghan jihad for Kashmir. He would have carried it out too. Had he lived long.

Not everyone on this forum has your foresight, the Afghan jihad is currently an ongoing success story.

 

[Stewie]

My attempt at sarcasm has failed miserably and blame myself for that.

My “bad”. I see now what you did there.

 

[Major]

again i dont wanna derail but lets just try to contextualise a few things

1. his popularity, he literally made an us vs them situation and he lost the only legitimate election he fought. at least half the country hated him with a passion. his popularity existed solely in the context of the hate for bengalis he helped to stoke.

2. zia was only in a position to do what he did cos bhutto put him there, not on merit, but because zia recognised the best way to play ZAB was to cater to his psychophancy, he was seventh in line but bhutto made an exception to put him in that position.

3. the only balance to state power that can exist is private wealth, ZAB destroyed the private sector in Pakistan through his nationalisation program with the design to ensure no private party could ever challenge his influence in the country.

I am afraid was it not for Bhutto, there would have been no zia, no centralised power structure which still haunts Pakistani today, and whilst Bangladesh would have probably seceded eventually, it would have been far less bloody. i don't see one fraction of his political or economic legacy which can be described as admirable.

Private sector was controlled by a few families, socialism was a good move. Only issue was that we did not have an educated lot. Nationalism was a great move, and it was not because of being elected without any opposition but to introduce socialism in the country.

Bangladesh was not soemthing created by Bhutto but by Ayub and Yahyah Khan. Once Mujeeb did his campaign on those points, there was no way Bhutto was going to give in to Mujeeb's demand.

You cannot justify what Zia did, because at the end of the day, Zia removed and killed a sitting PM and abolished the constitution.

The head of state can decide the COAS, that does not justify a coup

 

[ElRaja]

Private sector was controlled by a few families, socialism was a good move. Only issue was that we did not have an educated lot. Nationalism was a great move, and it was not because of being elected without any opposition but to introduce socialism in the country.

Bangladesh was not soemthing created by Bhutto but by Ayub and Yahyah Khan. Once Mujeeb did his campaign on those points, there was no way Bhutto was going to give in to Mujeeb's demand.

You cannot justify what Zia did, because at the end of the day, Zia removed and killed a sitting PM and abolished the constitution.

The head of state can decide the COAS, that does not justify a coup

what benefit has his nationalism brought Pakistan? what was once the formation of a private sector got destroyed, and 50 years later Pakistan has an even more regressive entrepreneurial landscape. every private economy is controlled by a few families initially, but those companies create value, create an eco-system for corporations to enrich people and the pool of capital and its holders broadens.

one of the biggest differences between Pakistan india is that where india moved towards private enterprise Pakistan did the opposite, and the difference is there for everyone to see. india had about 10 billionaires 20 years ago, a number which has increased ten fold over the last twenty years, and they've enriched india as a whole. socialism is a terrible lie sold to the impressionable poor in order to centralise economic and political power, that is exactly why ZAB was in favour of it.

bangladesh was not created by bhutto, but he hammered the most important nail in the coffin of a united Pakistan when he failed to admit defeat in the election, and realising he would have a virtual monopoly on power in west Pakistan was none to sad to see Bangladesh secede.

i am not justifying what zia did, but zia could exist without the mess bhutto made in the preceding years.

 

[Buffet]

He had some plan identical to afghan jihad for Kashmir. He would have carried it out too. Had he lived long.

Radicalizing entire generation for Afghan Jihad had created a multi decade problem for Pakistan. It may last for a few more decades.

It was a huge error.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

When we lost Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto we lost Pakistan.

Yep that was a great tragedy but not like losing Pakistan bro.

 

[Major]

what benefit has his nationalism brought Pakistan? what was once the formation of a private sector got destroyed, and 50 years later Pakistan has an even more regressive entrepreneurial landscape. every private economy is controlled by a few families initially, but those companies create value, create an eco-system for corporations to enrich people and the pool of capital and its holders broadens.

one of the biggest differences between Pakistan india is that where india moved towards private enterprise Pakistan did the opposite, and the difference is there for everyone to see. india had about 10 billionaires 20 years ago, a number which has increased ten fold over the last twenty years, and they've enriched india as a whole. socialism is a terrible lie sold to the impressionable poor in order to centralise economic and political power, that is exactly why ZAB was in favour of it.

bangladesh was not created by bhutto, but he hammered the most important nail in the coffin of a united Pakistan when he failed to admit defeat in the election, and realising he would have a virtual monopoly on power in west Pakistan was none to sad to see Bangladesh secede.

i am not justifying what zia did, but zia could exist without the mess bhutto made in the preceding years.

Nationalization of industries takes time.

The concept was a great one. The land reforms and the socialist policies were good but the issue was we did not have an educated class at the time to take it forward. But the foundations that were laid down were good.

When pakistan had a femine few years later, the economy got saved cause of this nationalization.

Sorry, but 20 families controlling the economy do not create any value for the country or economy. I could care less about the number of billionaires, all i would care about is whether they pay taxes or not.

Socialism did wonders for Canada, and it was the right line that was chosen by pakistan during bhuttos govt.

Bhutto himself was to be affected by the land reforms, thus saying that it was for his own political control makes no sense.

Today, pakistans issue is the economy that has been controlled by provate entities. Pmln has privatizatized everything. They are even thinking about privitizing the govt schools aswell.

Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things.
As for bangladesh, the final nail in the coffin was when yahyah did not bother to send aid when they had the cyclone destroying the land.

Bhutto or some other politician would had never accepted defeat to Mujeeb and RIGHTLY SO.
Why? Because you need to look at the 7 points on which basis mujeeb contested the election.

There was no way you could give mujeeb a seperate currency or army, his demands were ridiculous and was political suicide for anyone to accept it

 

[KB]

Valid and thoughtful points have been made around the policies and the legacies of Zia and Bhutto. But there is a danger in slipping into an exclusive focus on individuals in explaining the trajectory of Pakistan. This is not to deny agency to Zia and Bhutto and certainly not to exonerate them from responsibility for their actions. Individuals and the choices they made of course matter. But it is too easy to ascribe all ills to individual failings and individual failures.

One pitfall is simplism. People often like simple explanatory answers when understanding the past. Nothing is simpler than seeing historical events as the outcome of individual brilliance or talent or incompetence or wickedness. But events are often a product of a combination of complex factors and we should not lose sight of the more subtle and longer-term forces, ideas, prejudices that shape politics, economics, society and culture.

Secondly, individuals are themselves influenced by the times they live in. They not only make history but are made by it. To understand how and why they acted in the way they did, we need to understand the forces that moulded them; the societies which they were part of and the institutions with which they interacted.

Thirdly, we need to acknowledge the intentions of the leader, but we also need to be alert to the constraints that the individual inherits and faces. Leaders do not start with a clean slate. (A well known Irish joke brings out this point: a tourist in Ireland asks one of the locals for directions to Dublin. The Irishman replies: ‘Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here’.) The objectives, the motives, the ideas of the individual need to be set against the external conditions and circumstances that may encourage or neutralise those aims.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Valid and thoughtful points have been made around the policies and the legacies of Zia and Bhutto. But there is a danger in slipping into an exclusive focus on individuals in explaining the trajectory of Pakistan. This is not to deny agency to Zia and Bhutto and certainly not to exonerate them from responsibility for their actions. Individuals and the choices they made of course matter. But it is too easy to ascribe all ills to individual failings and individual failures.

One pitfall is simplism. People often like simple explanatory answers when understanding the past. Nothing is simpler than seeing historical events as the outcome of individual brilliance or talent or incompetence or wickedness. But events are often a product of a combination of complex factors and we should not lose sight of the more subtle and longer-term forces, ideas, prejudices that shape politics, economics, society and culture.

Secondly, individuals are themselves influenced by the times they live in. They not only make history but are made by it. To understand how and why they acted in the way they did, we need to understand the forces that moulded them; the societies which they were part of and the institutions with which they interacted.

Thirdly, we need to acknowledge the intentions of the leader, but we also need to be alert to the constraints that the individual inherits and faces. Leaders do not start with a clean slate. (A well known Irish joke brings out this point: a tourist in Ireland asks one of the locals for directions to Dublin. The Irishman replies: ‘Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here’.) The objectives, the motives, the ideas of the individual need to be set against the external conditions and circumstances that may encourage or neutralise those aims.

Nationalization of industries takes time.

The concept was a great one. The land reforms and the socialist policies were good but the issue was we did not have an educated class at the time to take it forward. But the foundations that were laid down were good.

When pakistan had a femine few years later, the economy got saved cause of this nationalization.

Sorry, but 20 families controlling the economy do not create any value for the country or economy. I could care less about the number of billionaires, all i would care about is whether they pay taxes or not.

Socialism did wonders for Canada, and it was the right line that was chosen by pakistan during bhuttos govt.

Bhutto himself was to be affected by the land reforms, thus saying that it was for his own political control makes no sense.

Today, pakistans issue is the economy that has been controlled by provate entities. Pmln has privatizatized everything. They are even thinking about privitizing the govt schools aswell.

Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things.
As for bangladesh, the final nail in the coffin was when yahyah did not bother to send aid when they had the cyclone destroying the land.

Bhutto or some other politician would had never accepted defeat to Mujeeb and RIGHTLY SO.
Why? Because you need to look at the 7 points on which basis mujeeb contested the election.

There was no way you could give mujeeb a seperate currency or army, his demands were ridiculous and was political suicide for anyone to accept it

Good thoughts @KB and @Major .But now we have a separate thread on ZAB so do share your thoughts regarding him there. Thanks

 

[ElRaja]

Nationalization of industries takes time.

The concept was a great one. The land reforms and the socialist policies were good but the issue was we did not have an educated class at the time to take it forward. But the foundations that were laid down were good.

When pakistan had a femine few years later, the economy got saved cause of this nationalization.

Sorry, but 20 families controlling the economy do not create any value for the country or economy. I could care less about the number of billionaires, all i would care about is whether they pay taxes or not.

Socialism did wonders for Canada, and it was the right line that was chosen by pakistan during bhuttos govt.

Bhutto himself was to be affected by the land reforms, thus saying that it was for his own political control makes no sense.

Today, pakistans issue is the economy that has been controlled by provate entities. Pmln has privatizatized everything. They are even thinking about privitizing the govt schools aswell.

Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things.
As for bangladesh, the final nail in the coffin was when yahyah did not bother to send aid when they had the cyclone destroying the land.

Bhutto or some other politician would had never accepted defeat to Mujeeb and RIGHTLY SO.
Why? Because you need to look at the 7 points on which basis mujeeb contested the election.

There was no way you could give mujeeb a seperate currency or army, his demands were ridiculous and was political suicide for anyone to accept it

so you care about the nominal tax that billionaires pay, not the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands each may employ through their value creation? of course not, because you'd rather have poor people foot the bill of inefficient loss making operations owned and run by the state, cos the monied class wasn't paying taxes, well hows you tax intake now?

no modern developed economy has been built on socialism, socialism is a means of wealth redistribution but you need to build the wealth in the first place and history shows nothing builds wealth like private enterprise.

the Canadian economy is private sector dominant (more so than Pakistan), no Canadian government is going around trying to nationalise their largest companies. Canada has always been significantly more economically developed than Pakistan, and has completely different resource and demographic dynamics, so even if your point had any credence, which it doesnt, it's a pointless comparison anyway.

you cannot reprivatise nationalised entities and claim you are back to pre nationalisation after destroying the class who knew how to run these enterprises, privatisation is not nothing more than reward for political support in Pakistan, and an extension of the political parties who bestow these rewards.

"Atleast when nationalism exists the govt is forced to generate revenue to run things." if you truly believe this, then i it explains everything you've said, lol. it would be one thing to make your claims without the benefit of hindsight, but to double down that it was right despite seeing what a complete failure and mess it was shows you only care about ideological posturing, not practical outcomes.

As for Bangladesh, how did West Pakistan negotiate Mujeeb's inital six points? 4 of them were very valid and should have been enacted from the inception of the country, and as for the rest, there is always wiggle room in politics if you can make it look like both parties have got some wins from the negotiations.

but West Pakistan and West Pakistani politicians did not want to give up on centralised power, or their hegemony over bengali exploitation, and Bhutto was central to legitimsing and spreading this political hatred.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It's okay if you don't like Muzammil. But how do you counter his points in the video?

Yep listened to him,he made some points there but again he showed only one side of the coin not the other.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Well he set the country on the right path after the mess that Zulfiqar Bhutto created so for me he is definitely a superhero.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well he set the country on the right path after the mess that Zulfiqar Bhutto created so for me he is definitely a superhero.

I wont consider him superman as he introduced Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan politics ie the biggest termite to our politics

 

[BouncerGuy]

 

[FearlessRoar]

Ramiz Raja recalls public flogging during Ziaul Haq era cricket match​

Former Pakistan cricketer Ramiz Raja recently recounted an extraordinary incident from the era of former military ruler General Ziaul Haq, when a first-class cricket match in Gujranwala was interrupted by public flogging, drawing an unexpected crowd of 10,000 spectators.

The incident took place during a four-day match, which began in an almost empty stadium. However, as the game progressed, small groups of spectators began to fill the stands. Within hours, the stadium was packed, leaving the players puzzled about the sudden surge in attendance.

"At first, we were shocked. We had no idea why so many people had come to watch the match," Ramiz Raja said during an interview, who was captaining the team and fielding at the time. "Then, we saw the police arrive."

The police approached the captain, asking him to remove the wickets. Moments later, a convict escorted by officers and a flogger entered the field. The convict was bound to a post near the short-leg position, where he was flogged with a whip.

"It was surreal. The flogger took a run-up similar to that of Haris Rauf before delivering the lashings," Ramiz recalled. "The convict waved to the crowd like a hero after enduring the punishment."

The scene was both historic and bizarre, with the crowd dispersing almost immediately after the flogging concluded. The match resumed in a now-empty stadium, leaving players to reflect on the day's unusual events.

Ramiz Raja recalls public flogging during Ziaul Haq era cricket match | The Express Tribune

Former captain says the flogger took a 'run-up' similar to that of Haris Rauf before delivering lashings

tribune.com.pk