Why blame Zia for every ill in Pakistan?

[Dubious]

By Salman Zafar3 hours ago

General Ziaul Haq, Pakistan’s former army chief of staff, seized power in July 1977 and became president in 1978. PHOTO: REUTERS


On the eve of Ziaul Haq’s 27th death anniversary, his name still generates an animated response from Pakistanis. Browse around social media or the English press, and one gets the impression that there is no leader more disliked than him. He was brutal. He was un-democratic. He was authoritative. He destroyed Pakistan’s moderate socio-political fabric and turned the country into the fragile fundamentalist haven it is today.

Or did he?

Zia was an apolitical figure, or so Zulfikar Ali Bhutto thought, when he was appointed Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) in 1976. He ended up taking control of the country in the political chaos that ensued following the 1977 elections, and stayed on till the end of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1988 when he died in a plane crash.

With his span of influence beginning in 1976 as COAS, why does it appear that he is the poster boy of blame games around every ill in Pakistani society today?

Let’s go over some facts.

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.

Zia did not initiate this.

The Doctrine of Necessity was adduced by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir in 1954, to validate the dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. It set the precedent for numerous extra-judicial actions by state actors in order to justify politically motivated steps.

Zia did not initiate this.

The One-Unit program was introduced in 1954, merging the four provinces of West Pakistan into a single province, just like East Pakistan. It fuelled ethnic tensions which were already running high in East Pakistan, marking the start of the erroneous narrative that promoted ‘One Pakistan’ over the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in the country.

Zia did not initiate this.

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.

Zia did not initiate this.

The first of Pakistan’s three coups took place in 1958, setting a precedent for military interventions in the future. President Iskander Mirza declared martial law following political turmoil in the country that saw four different prime ministers in the span of two years. He approved the appointment of General Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law Administrator, but then attempted to dismiss him within a matter of weeks, only to subsequently be dismissed as Ayub Khan became president himself.

Zia did not initiate this.

The Constitution of 1962 established the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) back then as the Advisory CII. This is the same council that states that child marriages are not un-Islamic, speaks out against the domestic violence bill and does not support seeking consent from the first wife when it comes to a second marriage.

Zia did not initiate this.

During 1965-70, Bengali nationalism was further fuelled by the economic disparity between East and West Pakistan. Despite having over 60 per cent of the country’s total population, East Pakistan received only 30 per cent of the total spending. The notion that Bengalis were not “martially inclined” unlike Pakhtuns and Punjabis was still common in West Pakistan, and the India-Pakistani War of 1965 only added to these problems, as Pakistan’s military presence in the Eastern Wing was extremely weak with only one infantry division and a limited number of combat aircrafts without tank support.

Zia did not initiate this.

The West Pakistani civilian and military leadership refused to acknowledge the legitimate right of the East Pakistan based Awami League to form the government following its victory in the 1970 elections. The Bangladesh Liberation War followed, and witnessed war crimes by West Pakistan on its Eastern counterpart, ranging from ethnic cleansing, rape and mass murder, all culminating in one of the bloodiest genocides in modern history.

Zia did not initiate this.

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.

Zia did not initiate this.

The charismatic Bhutto, left-leaning originally, but sadly opportunistic towards the end, was found guilty of Mohammad Ahmad Kasuri’s murder in a shambolic trial and hanged in 1979, two years after Pakistan’s second military takeover in 1977.

Zia orchestrated every part of this.

Zia deserves a lot of blame for policies undertaken during his time, and rightfully so. But let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that all was honky dory before he came along, or that things would have been better if he had not taken over. If it was not him, it would have been someone else. Our history started sowing the seeds for a Zia from the very beginning. He was just there to take advantage of an already messed up state of affairs.

Using Zia as a scapegoat for our problems is easy, and extremely convenient. But the fact is that our country’s demons go much deeper into history than we might like to admit.

Why blame Zia for every ill in Pakistan? – The Express Tribune Blog


The very fact that not a single party/ "leader" had managed to stop Pakistan spiralling into crap or even fix any of the previous crap left by Zia's 27 yrs of death is EQUALLY to blame!

27 yrs not a single man could fix Pakistani politics, sectarian crimes, stupid laws and amendments yet everyone is all high to jump on Zia but not the 27 yrs of failed politics

 

[Musafir117]

He was the munafiq e Azam of his time, under the name of Islam he fool the nation like no one else, Jehadis factories to Kalashnikov culture, introduce heroine and bring VCR and list go on, in simple a general (Zia) is responsible in the mess we are in and another General(Raheel sahib) trying hard to pull up us from that filthy mess.

 

[waleed3601]

Before Zia, Pakistani politics was dominated by leftists, progressives, and at the time they were able to lead the country very effectively; post-Zia, our country saw a huge increase in right wing conservative parties springing up all over the country, patronizing the radical Islam school of thought in our gullible masses.

 

[M.SAAD]

Cause he was a ******.

 

[Xenophon]

Typical pro iran mentality only do that . we achive lots of things in his era . but what about bhuttos ? They delivered Nothing literally nothing.

 

[Jungibaaz]

The very fact that not a single party/ "leader" had managed to stop Pakistan spiralling into crap or even fix any of the previous crap left by Zia's 27 yrs of death is EQUALLY to blame!

27 yrs not a single man could fix Pakistani politics, sectarian crimes, stupid laws and amendments yet everyone is all high to jump on Zia but not the 27 yrs of failed politics

Of course, causing a mess is far easier than fixing it, especially if whatever cancer befalls a country has time enough to metastasize. The problems he created have taken root deep within the civil society of Pakistan, such that even while we're at war with ourselves, these problems don't look set to go anywhere, some very nice examples can be seen on this very forum.

Zia oversaw one of the most damaging eras in our history, the acute damage did not give us a proper indication of the chronic consequences, we still suffer those today.

Plenty of leaders have come and gone, being accused of incompetency, corruption, mismanagement and incorrect economic policy, and so on. Zia can be accused of all that, and accredited with treason, yes treason, multiple unholy violations of the constitution of Pakistan, his fair share of murders, he also can be given credit for destroying the very social fabric of Pakistan, uprooting all forms of civilian competency, indoctrination of millions of his countrymen, to the detriment of all, as is clear today.

It is no use trying to defend him.

 

[al_asad_al_mulk]

Of course, causing a mess is far easier than fixing it, especially if whatever cancer befalls a country has time enough to metastasize. The problems he created have taken root deep within the civil society of Pakistan, such that even while we're at war with ourselves, these problems don't look set to go anywhere, some very nice examples can be seen on this very forum.

Zia oversaw one of the most damaging eras in our history, the acute damage did not give us a proper indication of the chronic consequences, we still suffer those today.

Plenty of leaders have come and gone, being accused of incompetency, corruption, mismanagement and incorrect economic policy, and so on. Zia can be accused of all that, and accredited with treason, yes treason, multiple unholy violations of the constitution of Pakistan, his fair share of murders, he also can be given credit for destroying the very social fabric of Pakistan, uprooting all forms of civilian competency, indoctrination of millions of his countrymen, to the demise of all as is clear today.

It is folly trying to defend him.

I am totally agreed with you, im my personal opinion Mr. Zia mostly criticized for making Taliban but when he left the world every thing is well under controlled i can say the leader who came after his regime are incompetent to handle such a lethal force. i believe if we Zia or Zia's like leaders continued till today India long back found herself in many pieces.

 

[Dubious]

Of course, causing a mess is far easier than fixing it, especially if whatever cancer befalls a country has time enough to metastasize.

Well then we didnt have good enough doctors to find it and do the surgery, eh?

The problems he created have taken root deep within the civil society of Pakistan, such that even while we're at war with ourselves, these problems don't look set to go anywhere, some very nice examples can be seen on this very forum.

But according to this article he didnt create them, they had started before he took over? The years dont lie!

Zia can be accused of all that, and accredited with treason, yes treason, multiple unholy violations of the constitution of Pakistan, his fair share of murders, he also can be given credit for destroying the very social fabric of Pakistan, uprooting all forms of civilian competency, indoctrination of millions of his countrymen, to the detriment of all, as is clear today.

It is no use trying to defend him.

And again let me point out the changes in the constitution and the changes in the law were placed before him...Time doesnt lie...Historians do!

Before Zia, Pakistani politics was dominated by leftists, progressives, and at the time they were able to lead the country very effectively; post-Zia, our country saw a huge increase in right wing conservative parties springing up all over the country, patronizing the radical Islam school of thought in our gullible masses.

But the article CLEARLY shows all these changes you accuse Zia of WERE done b your so called effective leftists leaders!

As for the part in blue...Honestly speaking I am yet to see him as in his era being the cause for the change...EVERYTHING was already in placed before he took over...GIVE the article a read, will ya?!

Of course, causing a mess is far easier than fixing it, especially if whatever cancer befalls a country has time enough to metastasize. The problems he created have taken root deep within the civil society of Pakistan, such that even while we're at war with ourselves, these problems don't look set to go anywhere, some very nice examples can be seen on this very forum.

Zia oversaw one of the most damaging eras in our history, the acute damage did not give us a proper indication of the chronic consequences, we still suffer those today.

Plenty of leaders have come and gone, being accused of incompetency, corruption, mismanagement and incorrect economic policy, and so on. Zia can be accused of all that, and accredited with treason, yes treason, multiple unholy violations of the constitution of Pakistan, his fair share of murders, he also can be given credit for destroying the very social fabric of Pakistan, uprooting all forms of civilian competency, indoctrination of millions of his countrymen, to the detriment of all, as is clear today.

It is no use trying to defend him.

Can you show me a single seed that was NOT ALREADY SOWN before he came to power? Just 1 of the many things he is blamed of can it really stick to him or are we blaming a dead man coz we dare not blame our "leaders" or their party or the province they hail from?

 

[Faiez]

Why not ?



But seriously, Z. A. Bhutto is seriously under-blamed for his actions :

-break pakistan into 2 due to his ego...
-destroy economy by nationalization...

Just these two are more than enough...

By comparison, creating taliban or islami parties etc or what ever is nothing really....

 

[nForce]

Zia was a charismatic leader, no questions about that. Good or bad, black or white is a matter of perspective..

 

[[Bregs]]

firstly he was a dictator and secondly his policies helped transform moderate Packston society into radical one rather its stands on the cross road today

On a positive note during his rule Pakistan had best of relations with US led NATO and its economy was doing pretty well too that time

 

[Dubious]

I remember once I was just browsing through the people who had taken over Pakistan's throne (that is what it seems like)
For Zia's part this was on wiki:


How much success Zia had strengthening Pakistan's national cohesion with state-sponsored Islamisation is disputed. Shia-Sunni religious riots broke out over differences in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) -- in particular, over how Zakat donations would be distributed. There were also differences among Sunni Muslims.

In the year or two before the coup, Zia's predecessor, leftist Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced vigorous opposition united under the revivalist banner of Nizam-e-Mustafa ("Rule of the prophet"). According to supporters of the movement, establishing an Islamic state based on sharia law would mean a return to the justice and success of the early days of Islam when the Islamic prophet Muhammad ruled the Muslims. In an effort to stem the tide of street Islamisation, Bhutto had also called for it and banned the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims, nightclubs and horse racing. Less than two years after the coup, Pakistan's Shia neighbor, Iran, saw a very unexpected Islamic revolution, overthrow its well-financed pro-Western, secular monarchy. Although a rival in doctrine and geopolitics to the Saudi kingdom, the new Islamic Republic of Iran also believed in the necessity of Islamic sharia law for Islam to survive and prosper, and the need to spread this doctrine to other Muslim states.

On coming to power, Zia went much further than Bhutto, committing himself to enforcing Nizam-e-Mustafa,i.e. sharia law

In his first televised speech to the country as head of state he declared that

Pakistan which was created in the name of Islam will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of [an] Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country.

While in the past, "many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam," he would not.

Unlike in Iran, Islamisation in Pakistan was politically conservative, working against, not with leftist forces and ideas. Zia had little sympathy with Bhutto or his populist, socialist philosophy—captured in the slogan, "Food, clothing, and shelter". General Zia explained in an interview in 1979 given to British journalist Ian Stephens:

The basis of Pakistan was Islam. ... Muslims of the subcontinent are a separate culture. It was on the Two-Nation Theory that this part was carved out of the Subcontinent as Pakistan.... Mr. Bhutto's way of flourishing in this Society was by eroding its moral fiber. ... by pitching students against teachers, children against their parents, landlord against tenants, workers against mill owners. [Pakistan has economic difficulties] because Pakistanis have been made to believe that one can earn without working. ... We are going back to Islam not by choice but by the force of circumstances. It is not I or my government that is imposing Islam. It was what 99 percent of people wanted; the street violence against Bhutto reflected the people's desire ...

—General Zia-ul-Haq, Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan:Between Mosque and Military; §From Islamic Republic to Islamic State. United States: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (July 2005). p. 136. ISBN 978-0-87003-214-1.


While Zia initiated the Islamisation programme, he came under attack from conservative Sunni forces who considered his process too slow. He distanced himself from some of the ulama in 1980, and in 1983 religious opponents spread the rumour that Zia was an Ahmadi. Zia was "forced to deny this allegation publicly and denounce the Ahmadis as kafirs (infidels)".

firstly he was a dictator and secondly his policies helped transform moderate Packston society into radical one rather its stands on the cross road today

Can you name such policies?

As per the articles many of the changes which led to the so called policies were ALREADY announced / in place before he took over!

On a positive note during his rule Pakistan had best of relations with US led NATO and its economy was doing pretty well too that time

Economically speaking Pakistan was at its peak WITH A FOREIGN policy which made it stand out!

By comparison, creating taliban or islami parties etc or what ever is nothing really....

And the 27 yrs of endless igorance to the plight of the everyday man and not to mention the unlimited loot maar from our politicians is always pushed sideways when bashers come for Zia

 

[Faiez]

And the 27 yrs of endless igorance to the plight of the everyday man and not to mention the unlimited loot maar from our politicians is always pushed sideways when bashers come for Zia

People are stupid. They credit Pakistan's economic boom in mid 2000s to musharaf. Blame Zia for taking the only option that was available (take america's side and fund a mujahideen force). The other option was to sit there and do nothing while the soviets formed a union with india and sandwich pakistan from both sides and most likely take over after taking afghanistan....

But even after knowing the effects of bhutto's nationalization, think of it as a good thing (are these people retarded?) and COMPLETELY forget that it was HE alone who was responsible for the partition of pakistan into two pieces....

Even Imran Khan once in his famous speech in lahore praised bhutto.....what the **** was he thinking ?

 

[Side-Winder]

Lets just say Zia took things to a whole new level beyond the point of no return.

 

[[Bregs]]

I remember once I was just browsing through the people who had taken over Pakistan's throne (that is what it seems like)
For Zia's part this was on wiki:


How much success Zia had strengthening Pakistan's national cohesion with state-sponsored Islamisation is disputed. Shia-Sunni religious riots broke out over differences in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) -- in particular, over how Zakat donations would be distributed. There were also differences among Sunni Muslims.

In the year or two before the coup, Zia's predecessor, leftist Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced vigorous opposition united under the revivalist banner of Nizam-e-Mustafa ("Rule of the prophet"). According to supporters of the movement, establishing an Islamic state based on sharia law would mean a return to the justice and success of the early days of Islam when the Islamic prophet Muhammad ruled the Muslims. In an effort to stem the tide of street Islamisation, Bhutto had also called for it and banned the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims, nightclubs and horse racing. Less than two years after the coup, Pakistan's Shia neighbor, Iran, saw a very unexpected Islamic revolution, overthrow its well-financed pro-Western, secular monarchy. Although a rival in doctrine and geopolitics to the Saudi kingdom, the new Islamic Republic of Iran also believed in the necessity of Islamic sharia law for Islam to survive and prosper, and the need to spread this doctrine to other Muslim states.

On coming to power, Zia went much further than Bhutto, committing himself to enforcing Nizam-e-Mustafa,i.e. sharia law

In his first televised speech to the country as head of state he declared that

Pakistan which was created in the name of Islam will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of [an] Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country.

While in the past, "many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam," he would not.

Unlike in Iran, Islamisation in Pakistan was politically conservative, working against, not with leftist forces and ideas. Zia had little sympathy with Bhutto or his populist, socialist philosophy—captured in the slogan, "Food, clothing, and shelter". General Zia explained in an interview in 1979 given to British journalist Ian Stephens:

The basis of Pakistan was Islam. ... Muslims of the subcontinent are a separate culture. It was on the Two-Nation Theory that this part was carved out of the Subcontinent as Pakistan.... Mr. Bhutto's way of flourishing in this Society was by eroding its moral fiber. ... by pitching students against teachers, children against their parents, landlord against tenants, workers against mill owners. [Pakistan has economic difficulties] because Pakistanis have been made to believe that one can earn without working. ... We are going back to Islam not by choice but by the force of circumstances. It is not I or my government that is imposing Islam. It was what 99 percent of people wanted; the street violence against Bhutto reflected the people's desire ...

—General Zia-ul-Haq, Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan:Between Mosque and Military; §From Islamic Republic to Islamic State. United States: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (July 2005). p. 136. ISBN 978-0-87003-214-1.


While Zia initiated the Islamisation programme, he came under attack from conservative Sunni forces who considered his process too slow. He distanced himself from some of the ulama in 1980, and in 1983 religious opponents spread the rumour that Zia was an Ahmadi. Zia was "forced to deny this allegation publicly and denounce the Ahmadis as kafirs (infidels)".


Can you name such policies?

As per the articles many of the changes which led to the so called policies were ALREADY announced / in place before he took over!


Economically speaking Pakistan was at its peak WITH A FOREIGN policy which made it stand out!


And the 27 yrs of endless loot maar from our politicians is always pushed sideways when bashers come for Zia

I remember once I was just browsing through the people who had taken over Pakistan's throne (that is what it seems like)
For Zia's part this was on wiki:


How much success Zia had strengthening Pakistan's national cohesion with state-sponsored Islamisation is disputed. Shia-Sunni religious riots broke out over differences in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) -- in particular, over how Zakat donations would be distributed. There were also differences among Sunni Muslims.

In the year or two before the coup, Zia's predecessor, leftist Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced vigorous opposition united under the revivalist banner of Nizam-e-Mustafa ("Rule of the prophet"). According to supporters of the movement, establishing an Islamic state based on sharia law would mean a return to the justice and success of the early days of Islam when the Islamic prophet Muhammad ruled the Muslims. In an effort to stem the tide of street Islamisation, Bhutto had also called for it and banned the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims, nightclubs and horse racing. Less than two years after the coup, Pakistan's Shia neighbor, Iran, saw a very unexpected Islamic revolution, overthrow its well-financed pro-Western, secular monarchy. Although a rival in doctrine and geopolitics to the Saudi kingdom, the new Islamic Republic of Iran also believed in the necessity of Islamic sharia law for Islam to survive and prosper, and the need to spread this doctrine to other Muslim states.

On coming to power, Zia went much further than Bhutto, committing himself to enforcing Nizam-e-Mustafa,i.e. sharia law

In his first televised speech to the country as head of state he declared that

Pakistan which was created in the name of Islam will continue to survive only if it sticks to Islam. That is why I consider the introduction of [an] Islamic system as an essential prerequisite for the country.

While in the past, "many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam," he would not.

Unlike in Iran, Islamisation in Pakistan was politically conservative, working against, not with leftist forces and ideas. Zia had little sympathy with Bhutto or his populist, socialist philosophy—captured in the slogan, "Food, clothing, and shelter". General Zia explained in an interview in 1979 given to British journalist Ian Stephens:

The basis of Pakistan was Islam. ... Muslims of the subcontinent are a separate culture. It was on the Two-Nation Theory that this part was carved out of the Subcontinent as Pakistan.... Mr. Bhutto's way of flourishing in this Society was by eroding its moral fiber. ... by pitching students against teachers, children against their parents, landlord against tenants, workers against mill owners. [Pakistan has economic difficulties] because Pakistanis have been made to believe that one can earn without working. ... We are going back to Islam not by choice but by the force of circumstances. It is not I or my government that is imposing Islam. It was what 99 percent of people wanted; the street violence against Bhutto reflected the people's desire ...

—General Zia-ul-Haq, Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan:Between Mosque and Military; §From Islamic Republic to Islamic State. United States: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (July 2005). p. 136. ISBN 978-0-87003-214-1.


While Zia initiated the Islamisation programme, he came under attack from conservative Sunni forces who considered his process too slow. He distanced himself from some of the ulama in 1980, and in 1983 religious opponents spread the rumour that Zia was an Ahmadi. Zia was "forced to deny this allegation publicly and denounce the Ahmadis as kafirs (infidels)".


Can you name such policies?

As per the articles many of the changes which led to the so called policies were ALREADY announced / in place before he took over!


Economically speaking Pakistan was at its peak WITH A FOREIGN policy which made it stand out!


And the 27 yrs of endless igorance to the plight of the everyday man and not to mention the unlimited loot maar from our politicians is always pushed sideways when bashers come for Zia

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