ZAB's Nationalization of 1972 and the Pakistan Before That

[War Historian]

Before Zulfiqar Ali bhutto

After Bhutto nationalization

 

[Jango]

Did far better than Amir ul Mominoon Nawaz Sharif who had run Pakistan's economy to the ground. Between Oct. 1999 and Sept. 2001, before any American 'aid' arrived after 9/11, Musharraf had already started to reverse the decline of Pakistan's economy.

Debatable, but for this I would say that the 90's in Pakistan weren't really something that fostered economic growth, due to multiple reasons (some of then including the shenanigans of the army).

Secondly, low hanging fruit? The sanctions also played a part in the whole scenario.

I don't think there is much of a difference in foreign policy between Bajwa and Asim Muneer. The pillars of Pakistan's foreign policy are to never alienate China, keep trade with the West going, and don't displease, in fact, milk the rich Arabs. What am I missing? Imran-Bajwa tussle was about some extension or for power politics.

It is worlds apart. India, KSA, UAE, Israel, the only continuity of policy is with China and USA, but the US policy is being looked at hard from what I hear.

Drastic situations require equally drastic measures.

Had this been an unprecented scenario in the history of the world, sure. But right now our case is of simply doing the basics of governance right, where you let an electorate choose their representatives free and fair, not by political engineering.

Fauj kay hath main to Balochistan bhi hai 2 decades say, what have they done there?

 

[El Sidd]

Good point. To add to that, from my personal experience, though I was very young then, textile mills of very close relatives shut down due to workers' strikes. Large mills which literally employed hundreds if not thousands, in Karachi experienced breakdowns in the 1970s. They were mothballed!! Sealed. We kids used to go there for fun but couldn't anymore. Some close family members, who built great wealth using the money they brought from India during the Partition, still haven't recovered from those days. My own family's textile mill managed to survive and still bears my dad's writing in a concrete block when the foundation was being laid, saying '1951'.

Karachi's neglect and subsequent destruction is simply a matter of the city losing the capital status. By the end of 1970s a new cadre of civil bureaucracy had a stranglehold over affairs in Pakistan. That's one more thing you can attribute to the flawed genius of noble dictators found dime a dozen in that era.

 

[Meengla]

It is worlds apart. India, KSA, UAE, Israel, the only continuity of policy is with China and USA, but the US policy is being looked at hard from what I hear.

There has been a wish to move away from America forever but realities dictate otherwise. People don't know what kind of economic damage a flick of American President's pen can cause to Pakistan; just the expulsion from the SWIFT program would be huge. But I don't think Pakistan has burned its bridges with America and will not do so into the foreseeable future. If you watch the whole video I posted above. Mr. Shami is praising Pakistan for keeping its longstanding relationships intact.

Karachi's neglect and subsequent destruction is simply a matter of the city losing the capital status. By the end of 1970s a new cadre of civil bureaucracy had a stranglehold over affairs in Pakistan. That's one more thing you can attribute to the flawed genius of noble dictators found dime a dozen in that era.

Yes, losing the Capital status has caused Karachi a lot of problems. But Pakistan created a beautiful alternative in Islamabad which is the envy of many people. And even in case of Karachi, it was quite a livable city into early 1980s. I attribute Karachi's problems with the huge influx of Afghan refugees, the rise of the terror of MQM, and general population explosion in Karachi. The basic issue of Karachi is that it is city with multiple govts at odd with each other. PPP and MQM/Urdu-Speakers have to sort it out.

 

[Jango]

There has been a wish to move away from America forever but realities dictate otherwise. People don't know what kind of economic damage a flick of American President's pen can cause to Pakistan; just the expulsion from the SWIFT program would be huge. But I don't think Pakistan has burned its bridges with America and will not do so into the foreseeable future. If you watch the whole video I posted above. Mr. Shami is praising Pakistan for keeping its longstanding relationships intact.

Wait, who is saying become a North Korea to the US? Or Iran?

 

[El Sidd]

I attribute Karachi's problems with the huge influx of Afghan refugees, the rise of the terror of MQM, and general population explosion in Karachi. The basic issue of Karachi is that it is city with multiple govts at odd with each other.

Easy to blame Afghan or Bangladeshi immigrants but the city was doomed when her transition from federal to provincial resulted in what can only be described as a turf war.

 

[SaadH]

Easy to blame Afghan or Bangladeshi immigrants but the city was doomed when her transition from federal to provincial resulted in what can only be described as a turf war.

Ethnocentricism and xenophobia...

Afghan immigrants put a gun to PPP and MQM politicians as well as their patrons in GHQ to run this city into the ground by making them do massive extortion, kidnappings, robberies, target killings, terrorism and china cutting.

 

[Tamerlane]

I pretty much agree with @Meengla about Ayub Khan’s reign being good for the economy. That was the best time in Pakistan’s history for economic development.

It is also true that Ayub Khan laid the foundation for East Pakistan’s war of independence. And he created a monster who destroyed Pakistan’s economy, Bhutto. Ayub also established the military’s permanent control over Pakistani politics. He deliberately caused race riots, murdered Fatima Jinnah and shifted the capital out of Karachi.

For the economy Ayub Khan was good. For almost everything else he was a disaster.

Bhutto was a megalomaniacal madman. He lost the elections in 1970 and still became the PM. He did thing like getting political opponents sodomized in jail.

Because Karachi didn’t vote for him he developed a burning hatred for the city. He used Karachi’s industrial development as a political weapon, turning the rest of the country against businessmen and industrialists. The bulk of his nationalization was concentrated in Karachi. He took over industries, banks, schools, universities, and banned the people of Karachi from jobs in provincial and national government.

Bhutto built a casino in Clifton, Karachi. I remember being told as a teenager that Bhutto said that he’s going to turn the women of Karachi into whores for the Arabs. Zia took over before the casino was completed and it was eventually demolished.

Not only did Bhutto destroy the economy, he also destroyed banking, education and the bureaucracy. He killed merit and set the precedent of stuffing everything with jahil political appointees from the villages.

Ayub Khan set the precedent of military control and Bhutto set the precedent of feudal control. To this day Pakistan is controlled by these two groups.

 

[Jango]

I don't think there is much of a difference in foreign policy between Bajwa and Asim Muneer.

Watch this if you can, alludes to what I hinted towards, and this guy knows much more than I do.

 

[MastanKhan]

But question is did he nationalized because he wanted it or was it the military who wanted to do it?

Tough to know..
Regardless potential doesn't matter
Nigeria has unlimited oil one of the smartest people I know still poor !

Country as a whole is still confused..

still confused on whether to follow a consitution or not ..

still confused what system they want.....

still confused about capitalism vs socialism ...

still confused about corruption and rule of law..

Hi,

Mustafa Jatoi put his pistol in the ribs of pakistan's commander in chief of that time---I believe it was Gen. Gul Hassan--- on the ride back from the prime ministers house and told him---resign---accept ambassadorship or go to your grave from here---.

He chose ambassadorship---. Military had no say in thing at that time---. East pakistan fiasco---pak military command was in shambles---.

Jatoi was a Gangster---just like our interior minister---.

 

[Meengla]

Not only did Bhutto destroy the economy, he also destroyed banking, education and the bureaucracy. He killed merit and set the precedent of stuffing everything with jahil political appointees from the villages.
Ayub Khan set the precedent of military control and Bhutto set the precedent of feudal control.

Agreed with the quoted part except Pakistan was always feudal. Always. And still is except for Urban Sindh and some urban Punjab places. Repressive, tribal, feudal, misogynist. Even the Founding Fathers, especially from West Pakistan, were mostly feudal and/or colonial masters.

PS. From personal experience, my primary school in Karachi in the 1970s, which used to have proper benches in classroom, witnessed benches being destroyed/not replaced, to rugs to sit on, to even the rugs turned to rags--literally!!!--and we kids would fight to find place to sit on the ragged-rugs where it wouldn't be the bare-floor.

 

[ProudThamizhan]

Nothing matters consideration when the cardinal sin is committed.

Ayub Khan and Musharraf both committed the cardinal sin.

Those coups (and the others) established Pakistan as a military with a country, its goals, strategem, religion and policy all determined with military as prime. Those coups pushed pople, economy, science, education and justice all to sewer.

Those coups gave raise to generations (including the current one) of youth that are clueless about history, devoid of modern human experiences and that hold religious and pseudo military considerations as clutches for explaining away continued failure.