Gen Ayub, Zia, Musharaf, whose policies were better

[Silent observer]

dear PDF memebers

we all know the accomplishments of our pakistani political leaders (none).

In pakistan history, i think we had 3 very strong generals/presidents of pakistan.

Gen ayub khan - 27 October 1958 – 25 March 1969 (as president of pakistan)

Gen Zia-ul-haq - September 16, 1978 – August 17, 1988

Gen pervaiz Musharaf - 12 October 1999 – 21 November 2002 (chief executive), then till 18 August 2008 as president

all 3 have different personalities, vision and achievemnets attached with their names which do not require any introduction especially on this forum. they were all good and their is no question about their capabilities but even after;

Can i request the opinion of my fellow members about:

whose policies were better for the country (not only army) and if possible, what is the reason of chosing him?


i think it will be interesting for the junior memebers (like myself) to know the reasons of our senior memebers (since i think some of our senior memebers have the honor to work with all 3 of them)

thanks in advance

regards

sincerely

 

[Silent observer]

my vote is with Gen Zia-ul-haq.

i think his policies and decisions (when Russia was in afghanistan) and handling of US, were comendable. we were able to push a super power back due to his (and his colleagues) strategies (a marvelous achievemnet) and on the other hand he equipped our forces with the modern weapons.

regards

 

[third eye]

Zia's action & policies have done the most & longest lasting damage to pak whose effects the nation is feeling today.

 

[Silent observer]

Zia's action & policies have done them most & longest lasting damage to pak whose effects the nation is feeling today.

but if you look at the achievements of armed force during his tenure (pushing Russia back and modernization of army etc) make him the best out of the 3, in my humble opinion.

in gen musharaf s tenure, we are fighting a war as US ally again and still we are not able to get that good aid in terms of equipment as we were able to get in zia s tenure.

regards

 

[ek_indian]

but if you look at the achievements of armed force during his tenure (pushing Russia back and modernization of army etc) make him the best out of the 3, in my humble opinion.

in gen musharaf s tenure, we are fighting a war as US ally again and still we are not able to get that good aid in terms of equipment as we were able to get in zia s tenure.

regards

I don't know who was best for but think it was Gen. Zia who was worst of all.
Also I repeat your statement.
whose policies were better for the country (not only army)...

 

[pak-marine]

none as they all were dictators

 

[zawaib]

In my opinion Gen Zia's policies were better than other two. But he could had done better i.e asking US to get rid of external debts just like Egypt did...

 

[Patriot]

Gen Zia like third eye is the reason we are have people today who are fighting for state thinking they're implemnting islam.None of them were good.Nothing can justify coup against a democratic government.There is no reason for coup unless the government is handing over nukes or something like that and even in that case elections should be held again

 

[graphican]

Why is there no option for NONE OF ABOVE? Why one of them HAS to be good? Who ever General has conquered Islamabad is equal. No doctor can run a bank and no banker can be a dentist. Why the heck you think a warrior is the best governor of a country? He is NOT and it has been proven times an again.

Go study GOOD TO GREAT, the research book that revels success pattern of organizations and institutions. Understand what is importance of right men at the right job and no matter how good Musharaf, or Zia or Ayub has been in army, they were failures as dictators and none gave Paksitan an element that we could enjoy today. If Democracy is piece of $hit, get the Khalafat Back but this dictatorship is of no use and we have reached this conclusion times and again.

 

[Ababeel]

First of all here the topic is related to policies and the discussion is not about dictatorship.
General Zia's period was longer of the three. In my opinion he was a mujahid. Only a mujahid can stand against all odds against a super power with the military or economic sources with him no match to Russian super power.
He was also proved his political leadership in dealing with US and modernised Pak armed forces cleverly.
He was also a devout muslim as well as non-corrupt personality. Also having a big share in development of Atomic bomb as his period of 10 years or so was most crucial time for nuclear technology development of Pakistan. He cleverly kept USA attention diverted towards Russian invation and accelerated nuclear program, got military as well as economic aid without losing anything.

 

[Kompromat]

Dictator is a dictator but if you want me to think at that micro level i would say the half eyed dictator among all of those blind ones is Musharraf .

Tough i hate him but during his time Pakistan became the 3rd fastest growing economy.

He has his own goods and bads , still mushii is better.

 

[Silent observer]

Why is there no option for NONE OF ABOVE? Why one of them HAS to be good? Who ever General has conquered Islamabad is equal. No doctor can run a bank and no banker can be a dentist. Why the heck you think a warrior is the best governor of a country? He is NOT and it has been proven times an again.

Go study GOOD TO GREAT, the research book that revels success pattern of organizations and institutions. Understand what is importance of right men at the right job and no matter how good Musharaf, or Zia or Ayub has been in army, they were failures as dictators and none gave Paksitan an element that we could enjoy today. If Democracy is piece of $hit, get the Khalafat Back but this dictatorship is of no use and we have reached this conclusion times and again.

Dictator is a dictator but if you want me to think at that micro level i would say the half eyed dictator among all of those blind ones is Musharraf .

Tough i hate him but during his time Pakistan became the 3rd fastest growing economy.

He has his own goods and bads , still mushii is better.

my friends i am not in favor of dictators running the country but in the history of pakistan you will see these 3 generals who ruled for a long time and have big impact on Pakistan due to their policies.

my point is simple and that is whose policies were better for the country, it has nothing to do with the dictatorship, it is just simple policies for the country (not only army). i hope you get my point.

anyhow thanks for your opinion and participation.

regards

 

[FreekiN]

Musharraf, because he was a balance between military and civilian needs.

 

[third eye]

The larger Q is that do any of the dictators worldwide realise what they do to to the finest orgnisations most nations have - the armed forces ?

By their short sighted, often petty & always greedy & power hungry ambitions they ruin the force they lead, leaving ideas ( always the wrong ones ) for those who follow . Not to mention leaving the nation in a mess.

Post No 8 & 9 are a refreshing read coming from a Pakistani and very apt too.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/28143-dictators-military-discipline.html

 

[Hammy007]

ayub khan was he best among the three, i would rank zia second

musharraf US relation was like a master and a servent