What kind of video is it?

[SekrutYakhni]

I urge people to watch this video!

Senior members please enlighten..

 

[SekrutYakhni]

 

[Indestructible]

I'd like some explanation from senior members too :S

 

[Creder]

look guys bottom line, we won the war on the ground but we lost everything we gained at tashkant or kent however you wanna pronounce it

also you guys might wanna read into operation grand slam and all, it really provides in depth analyses of the 65 war

 

[arslan_treen]

Omg its on you tube must be true ..!! wow my eyes have just been opened !!

 

[sparklingway]

History cannot be summarized in 8 minutes even by the greatest of eloquent historians. While much of what he states is true, but it is entirely wrong to summarize the entire decade within eight minutes. I'm expecting one liners from many members, for most people are so convinced in their opinion that they believe a single line of rhetoric is enough to summarize complex economic, social and political achievements.

Everybody should reach his own conclusion as to whether the economics of the "decade of development" were exploitative or not, whether '65 was our own responsibility based on our hegemonic ambitions, whether '65 was a military and/or diplomatic win, what were the reason for '71 and who were responsible for the dissolution of the state.

People who try to blame everything on one person are committing mistakes as well.

One thing I agree in entirety is that the Ayub regime under pressure to give East Pakistan a bigger representation went for the most idiotic of all possible political solutions, One Unit. I remember reading a book where a former general claimed that One Unit was the best solution, clearly portraying the mentality with which the state was ruled. Dictators cannot expect to rule by de centralizing power, they federalize the state and this was witnessed in the periods of all military rulers.

Ayub's regime economic dependence on US aid, I have already proven in early debates.

Adjusted for Inflation :-

Per capita aid in 1964:- 69.03 USD
Per capita aid in 1980:- 37.61 USD
Per capita aid in 1997:- 4.639 USD
Per capita aid in 2002:- 17.77 USD

And this is non military aid. It is evident that the Ayub regime was like a drug addict and needed huge aid grants to keep it running. The Ayub regime's economic performance and planning models can be best studied in the critical analysis done by Pakistan's most famous and perhaps the world's leading development economist Dr. Mahbub ul Haq. His book "The strategy of economic planning: a case study of Pakistan" is an excellent read and his opinions published in newspapers of that day shed light on the economic performance of the Ayub era. It is Dr Haq who presented for the first time the height of accumulation of wealth within the infamous "22 families" around 1968.

Bhutto, no doubt used India and Islam to keep his fame in the skies and invigorate the masses with a sense of pride. He used Islam politically whenever he had the choice, from the ban on Ahmadis to the late '77 move of banning gambling and consumption of alcohol. He failed to destroy the unholy alliance between the state and Islamist elements, rather he strengthened it.

In hindsight, everybody has polarizing opinions about the era. Some worship Bhutto, others hate him with equal ferocity, some love Ayub and believe that he brought economic liberalization (going to mention the myth of South Korea mimicking our 5 year plans) while to a leftist like me it becomes clear how deep the feudalistic capitalistic alliance was and how it become the root cause of ever rising income inequalities in Pakistan.

Many people hate Najam Sethi, but in my opinion he is mostly unbiased (not in the case of NS as he hates NS for putting him in jails) and tries to view history objectively.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

This video is not to undermine any institution like army or political structure. However, it sure undermines the capabilities of individuals sitting in the "higher offices."

The sole purpose of this thread was to tell Pakistanis about the mistakes we did (if any)...

It is better to learn from the mistakes rather than hiding history.

This video will only help us not to commit those mistakes which we did in the past.

---------- Post added at 05:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 AM ----------

Thank you Sparklingview for your time.


There are many things to think upon.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

We have not decided that either we want to be an Islamic (religious based) or secular state. Ideological difference between people (Pakistanis) always back fired us.

One leader wanted to impose Islam and the other wanted a secular state.
One Pakistani wanted an Islamic state and the other wanted secular one.

I mean the difference always existed in every society but by large our society is not a uniform one.

Class difference including ideological difference doomed us in every way.

 

[qsaark]

Well Saad, Sparklingway has already explained it very well and I largely agree with him. On the video, all I want to say is, things were not as simple as Mr. Sethi tried to portray them, but as sparklingway said, how well you can explain things in eight minutes? Jinnah's death was a terrible blow to Pakistan as if he had not passed away so soon, people like Iskander Mirza, self-proclaimed FM Ayub Khan, and mentally and physically retarded Malik Ghulam Muhammad would have never come into power and today's Pakistan would be a different Pakistan.

As far as East Pakistan is concerned, I do not agree with Mr. Sethi that only Islamabad was responsible. The seed for the East Pakistan's separation was sown soon after the United Pakistan came into being and the credit (or discredit) goes not to West Pakistan (Jinnah was still alive) but to the hyper-nationalistic, oversensitive Bengalis. The issue raised on the national language was totally, I repeat, totally unnecessary and demand of making Bengali as the second national language was absolutely unjustified, illogical and childish. Now I do agree that West Pakistanis did not handle the situation wisely and the formation of the one unit was perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the East Pakistan.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Well Saad, Sparklingway has already explained it very well and I largely agree with him. On the video, all I want to say is, things were not as simple as Mr. Sethi tried to portray them, but as sparklingway said, how well you can explain things in eight minutes? Jinnah's death was a terrible blow to Pakistan as if he had not passed away so soon, people like Iskander Mirza, self-proclaimed FM Ayub Khan, and mentally and physically retarded Malik Ghulam Muhammad would have never come into power and today's Pakistan would be a different Pakistan.

As far as East Pakistan is concerned, I do not agree with Mr. Sethi that only Islamabad was responsible. The seed for the East Pakistan's separation was sown soon after the United Pakistan came into being and the credit (or discredit) goes not to West Pakistan (Jinnah was still alive) but to the hyper-nationalistic, oversensitive Bengalis. The issue raised on the national language was totally, I repeat, totally unnecessary and demand of making Bengali as the second national language was absolutely unjustified, illogical and childish. Now I do agree that West Pakistanis did not handle the situation wisely and the formation of the one unit was perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the East Pakistan.

Exceptional piece of work.

 

[sparklingway]

The seed for the East Pakistan's separation was sown soon after the United Pakistan came into being and the credit (or discredit) goes not to West Pakistan (Jinnah was still alive) but to the hyper-nationalistic, oversensitive Bengalis. The issue raised on the national language was totally, I repeat, totally unnecessary and demand of making Bengali as the second national language was absolutely unjustified, illogical and childish. Now I do agree that West Pakistanis did not handle the situation wisely and the formation of the one unit was perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the East Pakistan.

I disagree, almost in entirety. West Pakistan was the ultimately responsible arm in the break up of the state and the PA ruled for 13 years after which the state broke up. The main accused is in front of us.

I'd like not to go on this debate further as I have posted long essays in other threads, time and again and most have resulted in not-so-productive debates.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

I disagree, almost in entirety. West Pakistan was the ultimately responsible arm in the break up of the state and the PA ruled for 13 years after which the state broke up. The main accused is in front of us.

I'd like not to go on this debate further as I have posted long essays in other threads, time and again and most have resulted in not-so-productive debates.

I am not the one who can possibly debate with you more effectively (as I am not that good) but still I think that West Pakistan cannot be solely blamed for everything. Geographical location was not in favour including language and culture. Politicians including generals from West Pakistan were not capable to handle the situation which was a catalyst in the reaction.
Misunderstanding between people of both sides should be kept in mind.

 

[sparklingway]

I am not the one who can possibly debate with you more effectively (as I am not that good)

No need to downplay yourself. You do a great job on PDF

West Pakistan cannot be solely blamed for everything.

I didn't use the word "solely" because like all major events there's a milieu of social, political, economic and ideological factors involved. I meant to say that there were a large number of factors but the prime factor which shared the biggest responsibility and blame was the attitude, crimes and policies of the West Pakistani military, civil and political oligarchy (in decreasing orders).

Geographical location was not in favour including language and culture. Politicians including generals from West Pakistan were not capable to handle the situation which was a catalyst in the reaction.
Misunderstanding between people of both sides should be kept in mind.

Indeed.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

No need to downplay yourself. You do a great job on PDF


I didn't use the word "solely" because like all major events there's a milieu of social, political, economic and ideological factors involved. I meant to say that there were a large number of factors but the prime factor which shared the biggest responsibility and blame was the attitude, crimes and policies of the West Pakistani military, civil and political oligarchy (in decreasing orders).



Indeed.

Thank you for the kind words.

Personally, I think that people from East Pakistan were not "really" interested to be the part of West Pakistan as we (West Pakistanis) had leadership crisis, economic crisis etc. Hence, we could not provide East Pakistanis a better life. Same goes to the people of Balochistan.
East Pakistan crisis started as our leaders (West Pakistanis one) added fuel to the fire by their incompetency.

Organizations like Mukti Bani and others had an influence on East Pakistanis to an extent because of the economic failures and depression people suffered from. If the central government in Islamabad could provide East Pakistanis a better life than I am sure that they would have resisted any foreign interference. Anyways, people at that time were divided. Some were in favour of Pakistan while others wanted a separate country.

Now going little off topic here.

Economic packages for Balochistan is all BS. I mean the problems of the locals should be solved immediately. I am afraid that BLA becomes the voice of all Balochis. Than we will blame BLA for all of the things they did and will not look over our mistakes.
The best way to fight the war against BLA and to stop locals from sympathizing is to give local people employment and a solid school system for the children. Meanwhile, Armed Forces should give one last chance to BLA and if they disagree than death should be the answer.

^^ I wanted to post this here as we should not repeat the history of East Pakistan.

 

[desiman]

Very nice video, the guy must be applauded for speaking the truth and not saying the same old conspiracy theory's that are repeated endlessly.