What's new

The character of General Zia-ul-haq

Thats a really interesting dialogue there.It will be difficult to prove the authenticity though,but then in these cases all you can do is either go by the account of the bystander or deny it.I choose to do neither.
Let us say,even if Zia did say that,I am compelled to ask one question,"Where were the Pakistani nukes?"
From what we have come to know from the accounts of A.Q.Khan,Pakistan was not in a position to make their own nukes even in the later part of the 80s..Considering the fact that the conversation was happening in 1987,we can very well assume Zia's comments to be empty threats..But then,let us not forget the fact that,India already had nukes at that time having conducted the first test some 13 years ago..
So,in the event of an ACTUAL war,if it exceeds the nuclear threshold,there is a far greater possibility that Pakistan would have been annihilated from the face of the Earth.

It's just as well that those at the helm of the affairs are usually well aware of others capabilities hence the great possibility of ultimate MAD scenario was avoided. During another stand off in 1990, the American Secretary of State, had to cut short his visit to China and head to the Subcontinent.....apparently, an American spy satellite had picked up couple of F-16s parked in a Baluchistan air field, armed with what the American termed as the "Smoking Gun"....... suffice to say, war once again was avoided.
BTW, this happened some eight years before Pakistan officially tested it's long range delivery system.
 
The fact of the matter is that Gen Zia's tenure was one of immense duress and the late general handled it very well. He never capitulated under pressure and the fact that he was 'removed' just goes on to say that his enemies had NO other way of handling him. He and General Akhtar may have made poop load of money but he was not for sale.... yes there is a difference between the two.

The foremost personality trait that made General Zia so formidable was that not for a moment did he let the US call the shots after he successfully lured them into fighting the Russians. He played the KGB, Mossad and CIA as he wished and they could not do jack about it. He manipulated all the above in accordance to how he wanted it, something that his successor Gen Musharaf could not duplicate. And he had India by the balls. Pakistan may or may not have had nukes in the 80s, but the fact that he bluffed Rajiv into buying what he was selling is commendable on its own. Most people could never guess what was on the back of his astute mind behind that humble attitude. Of course Gen Akhtar was also someone that complimented his prowess.

The turbulent times that Zia was faced with had also had him some what of a paranoid individual and in the process he had become increasingly suspicious and wary but you can't really blame a person of not behaving like that given the circumstances. If anything it was Zia's steely nerves that led him to remain calm.

I personally like that fact that he was possibly the only COAS of Pakistan and one of very few generals who abstained from worldly pleasures. He had a vision for Pakistan and the Ummah and it would be unfair to assume that he was an extremist mullah. Had he been given some a few more years, the present day 5h1t fest we see in Afghanistan would have not been.

Zia was able to unite and discipline the quarrelsome Afghans under one banner which on its own is a feat keeping in mind the psyche of the Pashtuns.

He does certainly have his bad points, but then which leader doesn't. He literally milked the US and Israel for all it was worth and that alone blankets all of his negative points.

People say he was a religious zealot while they praise Khomeni for the revolution he brought to Iran. That's hypocritical. No one can deny that Pakistan Military gained its critical strengths during his time.

One must surely go through the following books to start scratching the surface of Gen Zia's enagmatic personality. No doubt he was one of the greatest generals of his time.

1. Ghost Wars
2. The Bear Trap
3. Charlie Wilson's War
4. Silent Soldier
5. The Leopard and the Fox ( even though it doesn't potray Zia with an protagonist)
Case of exploding Mangoes (this is possibly the worst book i have read in a loong time. Im only mentioning it because thanks to the liberalists it has gained undue hype.)

May Allah rest his soul and relieve him from his sins Ameen.
 
The fact of the matter is that Gen Zia's tenure was one of immense duress and the late general handled it very well. He never capitulated under pressure and the fact that he was 'removed' just goes on to say that his enemies had NO other way of handling him. He and General Akhtar may have made poop load of money but he was not for sale.... yes there is a difference between the two.

The foremost personality trait that made General Zia so formidable was that not for a moment did he let the US call the shots after he successfully lured them into fighting the Russians. He played the KGB, Mossad and CIA as he wished and they could not do jack about it. He manipulated all the above in accordance to how he wanted it, something that his successor Gen Musharaf could not duplicate. And he had India by the balls. Pakistan may or may not have had nukes in the 80s, but the fact that he bluffed Rajiv into buying what he was selling is commendable on its own. Most people could never guess what was on the back of his astute mind behind that humble attitude. Of course Gen Akhtar was also someone that complimented his prowess.

The turbulent times that Zia was faced with had also had him some what of a paranoid individual and in the process he had become increasingly suspicious and wary but you can't really blame a person of not behaving like that given the circumstances. If anything it was Zia's steely nerves that led him to remain calm.

I personally like that fact that he was possibly the only COAS of Pakistan and one of very few generals who abstained from worldly pleasures. He had a vision for Pakistan and the Ummah and it would be unfair to assume that he was an extremist mullah. Had he been given some a few more years, the present day 5h1t fest we see in Afghanistan would have not been.

Zia was able to unite and discipline the quarrelsome Afghans under one banner which on its own is a feat keeping in mind the psyche of the Pashtuns.

He does certainly have his bad points, but then which leader doesn't. He literally milked the US and Israel for all it was worth and that alone blankets all of his negative points.

People say he was a religious zealot while they praise Khomeni for the revolution he brought to Iran. That's hypocritical. No one can deny that Pakistan Military gained its critical strengths during his time.

One must surely go through the following books to start scratching the surface of Gen Zia's enagmatic personality. No doubt he was one of the greatest generals of his time.

1. Ghost Wars
2. The Bear Trap
3. Charlie Wilson's War
4. Silent Soldier
5. The Leopard and the Fox ( even though it doesn't potray Zia with an protagonist)
Case of exploding Mangoes (this is possibly the worst book i have read in a loong time. Im only mentioning it because thanks to the liberalists it has gained undue hype.)

May Allah rest his soul and relieve him from his sins Ameen.

Well, he may have been a fine man in his personal capacity. However as a head of state one has to think & act beyond personal traits.

He ' lured' the US into Af as mentioned above - to what avail ? Look what it has done to Pak & the region .

He was very religious - good. But did he have to induce religion into all streams of governence & society ? It was after all the existing system that propelled him to the helm. He ended up undermining the nation & the orgnisation he belonged to.

Rarely do Generals make good admistrators unless they are open minded which in this case he wasnt.

Not scumbing to 'worldly pleasures' is a personal trait & preference, running a nation and setting it on a course to last for decades is a collective action that needed vision beyond the immediate.
 
Indians are having cramps because of Khalistan.:D
Sindhi and ppp supporters don't like him because of Bhutto
shias don't like him because he created "lashker e jangvi" and sipae sahaba who stopped the gift of shiaism during Iranian revolution.
liberals don't like him because of his religious reforms.

well people we understand your pain.

may Allah forgive his sins and raise his darajat in jannah.

Well i am sure British and CIA created whabisum forgives mass murderers but unfortunately for you real Islam says other wise people are still dying in Pakistan and Afghanistan today cause of him so yes i am sure he is in appropriate place where most like him go.

Best way to describe him he was a best Mossad agent working for Raw and getting paid by the saudies he did more for these countries in Pakistan then any of there useless agents getting paid by them can ever achieve i just have one question from you Zia lovers i always wonder did he charge the Devil by the hour or flat rate to give him lessons.
 
Well, he may have been a fine man in his personal capacity. However as a head of state one has to think & act beyond personal traits.

He ' lured' the US into Af as mentioned above - to what avail ? Look what it has done to Pak & the region .

He was very religious - good. But did he have to induce religion into all streams of governence & society ? It was after all the existing system that propelled him to the helm. He ended up undermining the nation & the orgnisation he belonged to.

Rarely do Generals make good admistrators unless they are open minded which in this case he wasnt.

Not scumbing to 'worldly pleasures' is a personal trait & preference, running a nation and setting it on a course to last for decades is a collective action that needed vision beyond the immediate.

Being Machiavellian and successfully holding on to a seat.. doesn't entitle anybody to a "good person" title.
And by most accounts.. Zia wasnt personally clean either..
 
Being Machiavellian and successfully holding on to a seat.. doesn't entitle anybody to a "good person" title.
And by most accounts.. Zia wasnt personally clean either..

Couldnt agree more.
 
Well, he may have been a fine man in his personal capacity. However as a head of state one has to think & act beyond personal traits.

He ' lured' the US into Af as mentioned above - to what avail ? Look what it has done to Pak & the region .

He was very religious - good. But did he have to induce religion into all streams of governence & society ? It was after all the existing system that propelled him to the helm. He ended up undermining the nation & the orgnisation he belonged to.

Rarely do Generals make good admistrators unless they are open minded which in this case he wasnt.

Not scumbing to 'worldly pleasures' is a personal trait & preference, running a nation and setting it on a course to last for decades is a collective action that needed vision beyond the immediate.

Successive heads/Governments implement their policies as it deems fit for the day....less if it could be predicted, one doubts the likes of Us would have got involved in Vietnam or subsequently invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. More closer to home, had Indra Gandhi known she would pay with her life. would she have risked the assault on Golden Temple.

It's also somewhat scandalous to conclude that he lured US into Afghanistan. Agreed, Pakistan's interests and safety was in question, but it was more to do with Cold war point scoring game plan. History tells us how the Champions of democracy and free world were streamlining into Islamabad to lend support to otherwise a namesake dictator.
 
The fact of the matter is that Gen Zia's tenure was one of immense duress and the late general handled it very well. He never capitulated under pressure and the fact that he was 'removed' just goes on to say that his enemies had NO other way of handling him. He and General Akhtar may have made poop load of money but he was not for sale.... yes there is a difference between the two.

The foremost personality trait that made General Zia so formidable was that not for a moment did he let the US call the shots after he successfully lured them into fighting the Russians. He played the KGB, Mossad and CIA as he wished and they could not do jack about it. He manipulated all the above in accordance to how he wanted it, something that his successor Gen Musharaf could not duplicate. And he had India by the balls. Pakistan may or may not have had nukes in the 80s, but the fact that he bluffed Rajiv into buying what he was selling is commendable on its own. Most people could never guess what was on the back of his astute mind behind that humble attitude. Of course Gen Akhtar was also someone that complimented his prowess.

The turbulent times that Zia was faced with had also had him some what of a paranoid individual and in the process he had become increasingly suspicious and wary but you can't really blame a person of not behaving like that given the circumstances. If anything it was Zia's steely nerves that led him to remain calm.

I personally like that fact that he was possibly the only COAS of Pakistan and one of very few generals who abstained from worldly pleasures. He had a vision for Pakistan and the Ummah and it would be unfair to assume that he was an extremist mullah. Had he been given some a few more years, the present day 5h1t fest we see in Afghanistan would have not been.

Zia was able to unite and discipline the quarrelsome Afghans under one banner which on its own is a feat keeping in mind the psyche of the Pashtuns.

He does certainly have his bad points, but then which leader doesn't. He literally milked the US and Israel for all it was worth and that alone blankets all of his negative points.

People say he was a religious zealot while they praise Khomeni for the revolution he brought to Iran. That's hypocritical. No one can deny that Pakistan Military gained its critical strengths during his time.

One must surely go through the following books to start scratching the surface of Gen Zia's enagmatic personality. No doubt he was one of the greatest generals of his time.

1. Ghost Wars
2. The Bear Trap
3. Charlie Wilson's War
4. Silent Soldier
5. The Leopard and the Fox ( even though it doesn't potray Zia with an protagonist)
Case of exploding Mangoes (this is possibly the worst book i have read in a loong time. Im only mentioning it because thanks to the liberalists it has gained undue hype.)

May Allah rest his soul and relieve him from his sins Ameen.


It was cold Cold war Americans and Russian were at war long before The Devil stole power in Pakistan he didn't bring Americans to Afghanistan Americans came there to fight the Russians.
 
Successive heads/Governments implement their policies as it deems fit for the day....less if it could be predicted, one doubts the likes of Us would have got involved in Vietnam or subsequently invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. More closer to home, had Indra Gandhi known she would pay with her life. would she have risked the assault on Golden Temple.

It's also somewhat scandalous to conclude that he lured US into Afghanistan. Agreed, Pakistan's interests and safety was in question, but it was more to do with Cold war point scoring game plan. History tells us how the Champions of democracy and free world were streamlining into Islamabad to lend support to otherwise a namesake dictator.

Pakistan safety how the Russians coming to Afghanistan had any thing to do with Pakistan's safety that was the B S given to us by the Army had nothing to do with reality only reason Russians entered Afghanistan was to help secure there puppets hold on to power.
 
Successive heads/Governments implement their policies as it deems fit for the day....less if it could be predicted, one doubts the likes of Us would have got involved in Vietnam or subsequently invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. More closer to home, had Indra Gandhi known she would pay with her life. would she have risked the assault on Golden Temple.

It's also somewhat scandalous to conclude that he lured US into Afghanistan. Agreed, Pakistan's interests and safety was in question, but it was more to do with Cold war point scoring game plan. History tells us how the Champions of democracy and free world were streamlining into Islamabad to lend support to otherwise a namesake dictator.

Luring US into Af is what some poster mentioned above. Its his POV, I feel nations do not get ' lured' into spending money & troops overseas unless a tangible advantage is in sight.

I do not agree on the underlined part above. To that end not withstanding my pers opinion of Mush I feel Lal Masjid was the right thing to do.He may have been coreced to do it or maybe not ( by the US) but it was the right thing to do. The rule of the state has to be paramount & above that of religion.

Thats what IG did .

We could discuss the hows & whys of Amritsar & LalMasjid till the cows come home but it takes courage as a leader to take hard decsions.

@ the topic , Zia on the other hand wheeled & dealed his way through.
 
Pakistan safety how the Russians coming to Afghanistan had any thing to do with Pakistan's safety that was the B S given to us by the Army had nothing to do with reality only reason Russians entered Afghanistan was to help secure there puppets hold on to power.

There was a lot of talk that the Russians want access to the Arabian Sea,....even without that, it was not comfortable for Pakistanto effectively share a common border with a hostile Russia known for it's Bear hugs.
 
There was a lot of talk that the Russians want access to the Arabian Sea,....even without that, it was not comfortable for Pakistanto effectively share a common border with a hostile Russia known for it's Bear hugs.

Kabul-Moscow agreement of Feb. 28, 1921. It brought under its influence people from every walk of life by different types of deceits and intrigues. During Zahir Shah's reign when Daud Khan was Prime Minister, the Russians were able to prepare the ground for a total change in their benefit by utilizing the means and possibilities left open to them. Zahir sensed the danger. He didn't want to lose his monarchy so soon. Therefore, he forced Daud Khan to resign, and drew up a new Constitution.

But it was too late. The Russians had gotten control of all economic, political and military spheres. The cabinet was shuffled 5 times in less than 10 years. A strange crisis overtook Afghanistan under the name of liberty and democracy. This crisis was created by the Russians for their own benefit. Informed people knew well what a dreadful nightmare threatened Afghanistan. The Russians, who had spread their influence over military and educational systems and had bought up a number of agents, utilized the opportunity offered by the long absence of Zahir Shah. Through officers who were trained for this purpose in Russia, they overthrew the monarchy in a coup d'etat staged under the guidance of Daud Khan who eventually came to power.

Personal complexes of Daud Khan-the mad and ambitious tyrant that he was - and the conspiracies of Russian agents who had gathered around him gave the Russians the opportunity to eliminate a number of talented Afghans inside and outside the army. Thus, the way was paved for their real agents. The Russians used a double faced sword. On the one hand, they wiped out the Islamic and national elements through Daud Khan, and on the other, they made Daud Khan himself hated by the people because of such deeds.

Finally Daud Khan realized it was his turn to be eliminated. Therefore, he tried to save himself by settling the account with his Russian comrades and his coup conspirators. But the Russians did not give him the chance to do so. Once again they acted through their military advisors and Russian trained agents. In a bloody coup d'etat of April 27, 1978 (Saur 7, 1357), the Russians assassinated Daud Khan, and all members of his family. They installed their old-time and trusted agent in power.

In less than two months, the people of Afghanistan realized the true nature of Taraki, and recognized the real coup planners. They rose up and began their Holy Jihad against the puppet government. Because of the anti-human nature of communism, Taraki and his advisors did not hesitate to commit any type of crime and terror in countering this uprising.

Russians learned that resisting the flood of anger and hatred of the Afghan nation was not an easy job. Realizing the situation, they worried about the destruction and down fall of their imposed puppet government,. The Russians called Taraki to Moscow and signed an agreement with him on December 5, 1978. The text of the treaty was not made public but future events as well as the curious remarks made by the Tass news agency, and speeches by Kremlin rulers revealed that the treaty stipulated that Russian troops could enter into Afghanistan in order to break down the heroic resistance of the Afghan people, thus saving the Taraki regime from down-fall.

In the course of these plans and preparations for the occupation of Afghanistan, the Russians decided to play another game hoping to find an opportunity for suppressing the flames of anger and revenge of the Afghan people. They designed a plot for the assassination of Hafizullah Amin. The purpose behind the killing of Amin was to find a scapegoat and blame him for all the murders and catastrophes. Moreover, the Russians wanted to prepare the ground for the return of their old-time spy and genuine slave, namely Babrak Karmal.

Amin. and his criminal band did not hesitate to commit any kind of crime and treason, the truth of the matter was that they acted only within the limits of orders issued by their Russian masters. In fact, they were executioners who received their orders for imprisonment, torture and murders from Moscow.

However, the Russian plot to assassinate Amin failed. The scene of Amin's murder, which was supposed to take place in the presence of Posanov, the Russian Ambassador in Afghanistan, was reversed. Instead of Hafizullah Amin, Taraki himself fell into the trap and was killed a few nights later. The Russians became extremely upset by the failure of their plot. From the very beginning it could be noticed that they would revenge the death of Taraki, and make up for their indignity and humiliation. Sooner or later, Amin's term and life would have been terminated. Amin realized this and tried his best to calm down Russia's anger by pretending to be its loyal and real servant. He tried to raise the slogan of "love of Russia" to the level of "love of motherland" during his term which lasted from September 17, 1979 to December 26, 1979. But Brezhnev was not affected by Amin's servitude and ordered his assassination. Three days before Amin's death, the Red Army with all its arms and ammunitions began to enter Afghanistan. No one knew what was happening. On December 26, Amin was killed in an armed attack directed by General Papitan. The next day Babrak Karmal came to Kabul and was installed as Russia's new puppet.
 
Well i am sure British and CIA created whabisum forgives mass murderers but unfortunately for you real Islam says other wise
don't call them wahabis,they will start arguing with you.call them najdis after that they will not dare to argue.
hope my this statement cleared lot of things.

people are still dying in Pakistan and Afghanistan today cause of him so yes i am sure he is in appropriate place where most like him go.
people are dying because mushy dog and our other blunders like we should not interfere in Afghan internal affairs.we should have treated pashtoons and northern alliance equally.

Best way to describe him he was a best Mossad agent working for Raw and getting paid by the saudies he did more for these countries in Pakistan then any of there useless agents getting paid by them can ever achieve i just have one question from you Zia lovers i always wonder did he charge the Devil by the hour or flat rate to give him lessons.

he is the only leader in the history of Pakistan who openly threaten Israel.lying nuclear waste on dimona.and also the only one whom death is celebrated by his and Pakistan enemies.
 
2 things



a.) we don't need to threaten israel or even think about them....i dont know why some people on this forum feel the need to want to pick fights with a country that is geographically far away; a country which today does not represent an existential threat to Pakistan. We foiled a nefarious plot of theirs some years ago, but since we went nuclear they haven't overtly been a threat to Pakistan. The fact that the indians feel cozy and want to cuddle with them should raise some eyebrows, but nothing to get paranoid about. On soviet eradication from Afghanistan --an Islamic country -- the Mossad was actually on our side, ironically. We quietly allowed them to operate in FATA, under some watchful eye. This is confirmed.



b.) Wahhabism is a 20th Century phenomenon. The Britishers --who were experts at the time at colonizing and screwing much of the developing world - needed Wahhabi movement to pick up pace so as to use them as a Bulwark against the Ottoman Khilafat --which, unfortunately, succeeded. The Brits used emotional and mental games -- promising to give them ''independence'' and an ''end to slavery'' in exchange for their resistance against the ''Osmanlilar''

Ataturk was very smart, and picked up on this early -- as it is, the Ottomans were on their last legs.



Though i dont agree with many policies of the General, and while i DO agree that many of the negative after-effects are being felt today --- I stand by General's decision to support the jihad against the soviets.

Not only did the soviets represent an existential threat to Pakistan --in her backyard; the soviets were instrumental in arming the indians. Pakistan was hungry for revenge, and Alhamdolillah, it was attained satisfactorily when the bear-huggers scurried home and the aggressive empire collapsed.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom