Why blame Zia for every ill in Pakistan?

[Dubious]

. kalashnikov culture and emergence of right wingers as major stakeholders in national politics only began during Zia time

Do you mean to say Bhutto didnt have these? Landlords didnt own these already? Dude many here on PDF themselves boast of their own grandparents having it! Mind you that was pre Zia itself!

and also extreme conservative attitude was adopted by govt only under Zia,

However article contradicts this thinking which many Pakistanis harbour!

If you look at the amendments in our constitution and what Bhutto had already started was pre Zia era....

My argument is simple and based on 2 lines:

1) Pre Zia was already paving the way for some shit....Zia didnt take care of it that WAS HIS FAULT
2) Post Zia the 27 yrs of politicians gave it a blind eye THAT is THEIR fault!

Kindly do blame the 27 yrs of rubbish that couldnt fix what had started 27 yrs before!

Blaming an already dead man by people alive was what led us to continue shit! If they had said ok we see a man created a problem and died LETS FIX IT!

No one said LETS FIX IT ...EVERYONE said LETS BLAME A DEAD MAN and get away with our extra burden of crap we added!

Meaningless this part seems to me. There's no question or ambiguity in what I was hinting at there I hope. To change the perception and way of thinking of a population, makes any easy solution to problems therein, out of the question, unattainable.

In our case, the extremism problem was around well before the Taliban, the sectarian symptoms can be seen in the 70's and especially in the 80's. Now it has permeated into the very deepest crevices of our society and we'll find no success in trying to gloss it over as we've been attempting halfheartedly.

However, instead of picking up the issue and fighting it or even making a strategy to soften it we relied on blaming a man dead for 27 yrs?

How is that fair? How is it NOT THE 27 YRS of BS to blame?

Say Zardari screwed the country now if we sit and keep blaming Zardari, will it automatically fix the problem or will we blame the current govt of not doing anything about it? Then how can we ignore a 27yrs worth of people NOT BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS nor formulate any form of strategy?

Do they lack vision? Yes
Do they lack skills? Yes
Would they have been able to do anything? YES if they ONLY had gotten around the blame game...PLUS everyone was too busy to further suck the country dry then to address a problem that was apparent already!

, but how then do you propose to absolve what he did thereafter?

He died 27 yrs ago...Are we gonna keep blaming that he started it or are we gonna man up and solve it or ATTEMPT to start something to solve it?

Can you tell me one country that took a 27 yrs blame game and got somewhere? I can tell you countries that hit peak in 20yrs of working on it!

How long did Japan, Malaysia, Singapore take to peak? Did Japan sit down and balme America? Did Malaysia just cried about British rule?

No they sat down and did something and now are somewhere!

In our case, the extremism problem was around well before the Taliban, the sectarian symptoms can be seen in the 70's and especially in the 80's. Now it has permeated into the very deepest crevices of our society and we'll find no success in trying to gloss it over as we've been attempting halfheartedly.

So you mean to say once it is started it cant be stopped? So lets say Zia started it but no egghead could stop it in the 27 yrs?

Say it as it is....No asshole was interested in stopping it coz each was busy filling his own pockets!

Zia basically used Islamism to save and prop up his dictatorial rule, he effectively used the Afghan crisis to kill two birds with one stone, got the West on his side, and solidified his hold at home by using the military-mullah cocktail he devised for the entire country. He was heavily involved with JI, and used their ideology for his purposes and applied them in his rule.

Zia replaced our founding father's 'Unity, faith and discipline', with 'Iman, taqwa and jihad'. He made his intentions clear from the very start.

How old are you? Were you born during his era?

MOST of this was already done pre Zia era and effective....Read the article to see the timeline before blaming...

We AGAIN reach my points:

So you mean to say once it is started it cant be stopped? So lets say Zia started it but no egghead could stop it in the 27 yrs?

Say it as it is....No asshole was interested in stopping it coz each was busy filling his own pockets!

Later he had us have the Hudood ordinance, blasphemy law, as well as infecting the ranks of the army with Islamism.

http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/64-4Lau.pdf

There is A LOT I am missing and even more details of which I do not have the knowledge, memory, or patience to trudge through.

Can you tell me which law he introduced what IT MEANT UPON INTRODUCTION not HOW IT WAS MISUSED!

I agree the laws were misused...But some of them were not even what the textbooks claim them to be!

But the consequences of this era speak for themselves,

THAT IS THE PROBLEM....Everyone wants to efficiently throw the blame on a dead guy instead of showcasing their own misuse and lack of ability to have done something about it!

Again I repeat

So you mean to say once it is started it cant be stopped? So lets say Zia started it but no egghead could stop it in the 27 yrs?

Say it as it is....No asshole was interested in stopping it coz each was busy filling his own pockets!

His destruction of civilian authority DIRECTLY led to the election of NS, who was in fact working under Zia at one time.
And his work also led to the huge political instability and the lack of ability of the institutions to function properly and cope with challenges.

This one we can blame on him BUT again

So you mean to say once it is started it cant be stopped? So lets say Zia started it but no egghead could stop it in the 27 yrs?

Say it as it is....No asshole was interested in stopping it coz each was busy filling his own pockets!

Under his watch we took in 4 million refugees, and his right wing policies meant we had not the
infrastructure, nor the money, nor even the will to do justice with them and the people of Pakistan. The refugees made ghettos, operated in crime networks, took part in smuggling weapons and narcotics. They were also used for the purposes of waging war back in Afghanistan.

Do you even read what you wrote? How do you wage war back in Afghanistan by rearing refugees who do crime in your own country?

Make sense!

Also, on constitution, you're missing the point, he violated in the first instance

Presented by Liaquat Ali Khan, the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan passed the Objectives Resolution in 1949. It created the union between religion and state, proclaiming that the future Constitution of the country will be drafted according to Islam, and effectively serving as the prime building block towards religion becoming a public matter across the country. Every single non-Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly opposed this resolution, but to no avail.

The Constitution of 1956, active only till 1958, officially made Pakistan an Islamic Republic. Furthermore, it stated that the president of the country must be a Muslim, and no law in the country can be passed that goes against the teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The Constitution also gave the president the right to declare emergency, effectively laying out the red carpet for military intervention into politics.

Following the bloody 1974 Ahmadi riots, the second amendment to the 1973 Constitution took place and declared the Ahmadi community non-Muslim, making Pakistan the first, and to date the only country in the world to do so and in the process giving constitutional cover to the persecution of the community across the country.

Now tell me the year he came into power?

He was following what was already set up for him....The constitution was already amended...If he didnt follow what was already changed he would have been breaking the law and for 27 yrs we would have blamed him for lawlessness of our society and politicians....

i feel Gen. Zia could have done, may be much better if he had been alive to bring about some of the changes, because our knowledge of each other countries is blinded to an extent by biased of media it would not be wise for me to go into details

I dont know what changes he would have brought in coz he didnt really introduce anything much EVERYTHING was already done pro Zia era to lead the country into a spiral of destruction!

Certain things had already started pre his era and he just kind of went with the flow and had to very little to convince anyone for anything not that he did much as many of the bills were already in the parliament either pending or passed and implementation was pending!

 

[Musafir117]

^ someone missing a whole point

 

[Dubious]

^ someone missing a whole point

Blaming a dead soul while overlooking the alive one's failure is a point the whole nation is missing!

 

[[Bregs]]

Blaming a dead soul while overlooking the alive one's failure is a point the whole nation is missing!

lol you are right but this thread is about the man who is no more so what are the options except to talk abt him. now either blame him him or praise him

 

[Solomon2]

Blaming a dead soul while overlooking the alive one's failure is a point the whole nation is missing!

Sure, but as long as a Pakistani embraces that he or she can go on with working every advantage life offers to their own benefit and ignoring any civic, communal, or family responsibility that might involve the sacrifice of time or money. Corruption rules!

 

[Dubious]

Sure, but as long as a Pakistani embraces that he or she can go on with working every advantage life offers to their own benefit and ignoring any civic, communal, or family responsibility that might involve the sacrifice of time or money. Corruption rules!

Kmon man go preach to Israel and tell them to stop killing children

lol you are right but this thread is about the man who is no more so what are the options except to talk abt him. now either blame him him or praise him

Or showcase that the blame isnt entirely his as much as it is of those who werent man enough to stop or minimize the cause/effect relationship!

 

[Solomon2]

Kmon man go preach to Israel and tell them to stop killing children

Shoot the messenger! It feels good but doesn't repel a single enemy soldier.

 

[Dubious]

Shoot the messenger! It feels good but doesn't repel a single enemy soldier.

a Pakistani

I am a Pakistani so your sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever...Typical stereotyping habits!

 

[[Bregs]]

Kmon man go preach to Israel and tell them to stop killing children


Or showcase that the blame isnt entirely his as much as it is of those who werent man enough to stop or minimize the cause/effect relationship!

yes right, well actually to judge a man walking past the history lanes is not an easy task to do

 

[Solomon2]

I am a Pakistani so your sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever...Typical stereotyping habits!

I wasn't stereotyping Pakistanis; I was pointing out a choice available to individual Pakistanis. If you think it's common enough to be a stereotype that's your claim, not mine.

 

[Dubious]

I wasn't stereotyping Pakistanis; I was pointing out a choice available to individual Pakistanis. If you think it's common enough to be a stereotype that's your claim, not mine.

Well saying a Pakistani doesnt depict what you are claiming now!

yes right, well actually to judge a man walking past the history lanes is not an easy task to do

My only beef is the inability to blame the whole timeline and cherry picking a dead man who cant defend himself let alone prob never did 50% of the things thrown at him coz the path had been "lit" before he came to power and he just walked its path....

If some found it wrong then they should have fixed it but instead they thought it was man enough to SIMPLY point out his flaws and shift the blame!

I wasn't stereotyping Pakistanis; I was pointing out a choice available to individual Pakistanis. If you think it's common enough to be a stereotype that's your claim, not mine.

Read this:

Sure, but as long as a Pakistani embraces that he or she can go on with working every advantage life offers to their own benefit and ignoring any civic, communal, or family responsibility that might involve the sacrifice of time or money. Corruption rules!

Now tell me where the pointing at an available choice comes to play!

Can I say an israeli will no sooner kill a child of Palestine or Arab origin than to have talks and acknowledge the old boundary which was given to israel and not the illegally occupied land? Or that an israel will no sooner illegally occupy land on the neighbours side by demolishing their homes than to behave civil and neighbourly?

 

[haviZsultan]

I agree with the gist of the article but not fully. The mullah-cization of Pakistan did not start during the tenure of Zia Ul Haq. In fact it was started by Ayub Khan and to an extent Liaquat Ali Khan who did things out naivity. I am not saying Liaquat Ali Khan was bad necessarily. He barely had any real funds for his family when he died so he was comitted to the nation-by beef with him is over the objectives revolution where he tore apart the secular fabric of Pakistan. As seen later that resolution was the precursor to decades of Mullahcization.

Ayub Khan was a man worse than Zia Ul Haq, standing against the mother of the nation Fatima Jinnah. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto banned drinking even for minorities being the hypocrite drunkard he himself was, he declared Ahmedis kaffir and started another legacy of mullahcratic rule.

Blaming one person in this situation is deflecting blame from other people who carried out such policies. We should, each of us hold ourselves and our various governments responsible for the current situation of Pakistan. @Akheilos what has been hidden most Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttos Islamicization-even though he claimed he was a democrat he was an autocrat who threatened to break the legs of Bengalis who voted, launched useless operations in Balochistan and was by far one of the worst rulers of Pakistan other than Yahya Khan who threw away half the nation.

 

[Jungibaaz]

@Akheilos I'm considering whether to reply to that or not. It seems you're replying for the sake of not going one down in a discussion.

^ someone missing a whole point

It's funny, I'm not even sure where to begin.

I agree with the gist of the article but not fully. The mullah-cization of Pakistan did not start during the tenure of Zia Ul Haq. In fact it was started by Ayub Khan and to an extent Liaquat Ali Khan who did things out naivity. I am not saying Liaquat Ali Khan was bad necessarily. He barely had any real funds for his family when he died so he was comitted to the nation-by beef with him is over the objectives revolution where he tore apart the secular fabric of Pakistan. As seen later that resolution was the precursor to decades of Mullahcization.

Ayub Khan was a man worse than Zia Ul Haq, standing against the mother of the nation Fatima Jinnah. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto banned drinking even for minorities being the hypocrite drunkard he himself was, he declared Ahmedis kaffir and started another legacy of mullahcratic rule.

Blaming one person in this situation is deflecting blame from other people who carried out such policies. We should, each of us hold ourselves and our various governments responsible for the current situation of Pakistan. @Akheilos what has been hidden most Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttos Islamicization-even though he claimed he was a democrat he was an autocrat who threatened to break the legs of Bengalis who voted, launched useless operations in Balochistan and was by far one of the worst rulers of Pakistan other than Yahya Khan who threw away half the nation.

In my opinion, Ayub's problems were elsewhere, and Liaquat Ali Khan, cannot be accredited for what followed his actions, no man could've foreseen what was to come.

You're right, Bhutto started the process, but he did not command the sort of authority that Zia had and eventually obtained, yes, even the charismatic Bhutto's legacy is marred by other big disasters and often overlooked is the fact that Islamisation process started properly under him.

Yet for all that, no-one took it as far as Zia, none could compete with his level of success, and of all discussed, he was the most damaging in this regard, he took us well beyond a point of no return.

The symptoms of Islamisation also started under his watch and continue today, as we know, when battling a cancer, most of the pain is caused by the treatment as opposed to the creeping, silent and sleeping disease. The animal extremists will make much more noise when crushed under our boots, than when they're allowed to live comfortably and freely.

 

[Dubious]

@Akheilos I'm considering whether to reply to that or not. It seems you're replying for the sake of not going one down in a discussion.

My "discussion" is a series of questions to make one think...

If you refuse to think then I cant do much about it...

 

[Jungibaaz]

Blaming a dead soul while overlooking the alive one's failure is a point the whole nation is missing!

There are some factual errors and missing parts to your reply and some flaws in the logic, but I feel it would be hostile for me to reply to those in tone. But on this subject, no-one here thinks it's productive to blame Zia alone and without anything to add.

We all accept the role of other idiots before and after, idiot Pakistanis who've come and gone who've died since, who were participants and victims, and other idiots who are yet to be born.

But what may I ask, was the purpose of this thread, but to absolve Zia a little of his fair share of blame and hate?

If you refuse to think then I cant do much about it...

I hardly ever write lengthy replies these days, I've found that even the people that debate with the best of intentions, end up debating endlessly for the sake of debating and for the sake of not being beaten down and bruising their ego.

I could, very easily correct you, but what for? Will you not reply back in the same tone yet again?
You have not challenged any of the points I made, save one about the constitution, in which in your haste, you misread my point and jumped the gun...

Anyway, there's not much I can say in kind without sounding harsh.