Adil Najam
Back in August of 2006 one of the first ATP Polls we did was to ask our readers which recent leader they thought did the most good for Pakistan? We had structured the question carefully to focus on the good that these leaders did (all leaders do bad things as well as good, some more and some less). It is time to ask the same question again.
In 2006 we had not included Gen. Musharraf since he was still in power. This time including Gen. Musharraf but not Asif Zardari, who is in power now. So, what do you think?
Please do take the question serious and answer it in the spirit asked:
The Question: Focussing primarily on whatever ‘positives’ might have been achieved during their stint(s) in power, who, amongst the following, did the most ‘good’ for Pakistan?
Let me repeat the explanatory paragraph I had included in introducing the question the first time:
The key word is ‘achieved.’ We always have plenty of discussions about what leaders have and are doing wrong, but nearly never talk about what they did right. Interestingly, even when we are trying to make a case for someone, we tend to make it by explaining what is wrong with everyone else. After all, if everyone else is bad (and worse) then our guy must be good, at least in ccomparison and by default. The logic makes a perverse sort of sense but tends to take our political conversations towards confrontations (since they are based on ‘attacking’ the other rather than on ’supporting’ our own). So, here is an experiment to see if we are capable of talking differently about such things.
As before, for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif consider the combined impact of two stints they each had in power. Do also please tell us what you think they did that was most important and lasting to Pakistan’s well-being as a nation. Again, we focus on achievement here not because the ‘bad’ that they did was not important (in each case it was) but to discipline our conversation towards thinking of things that, maybe, we should be doing more of.
Ayub Khan and Yahya may have indeed played a major role in the breakup of Jinnah’s Pakistan, but so did Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was part and parcel of the Ayub Khan regime and his rejection of the 1970 general election results was the final nail in the coffin for Jinnah’s Pakistan.
Additionally after 1971, ZAB ruled as a civilian dictator, he did not even enforce the 1971 Constitution. His appeasement of mullahs and his disastrous nationalization policies further caused grievous harm to the country.
ZAB was as damaging to Pakistan as Zia ul Haq.
Ayub Khan played a major role in separation of East Pakistan.He manipulated the 1965 elections through Basic Democrats thus alienating the Bengalis who were supporting the opposition parties under the leadership of Fatima Jinnah.
Dictators have done irreparable harm to our country.
One of the biggest blots on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s name is the accusation that ZAB was primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for the breakup of Pakistan in 1971. Utter non-sense! But this idea is held by tens of millions of Pakistanis and even in this Poll you found echoes of the charge.
I found a gem of an article TIME magazine–written in August 1971–barely a few months before the tragedy.
The article on the whole is very balanced and a truthful account. Yahya is not exclusively blamed nor demonized. No mentions of the alleged ‘womanizing’ behavior either.
In fact, the main Wiki article about Yahya shows that he was a very accomplished soldier and also fought for Pakistan–something some Musharraf supporters in this Poll like to crow about as if ‘patriotism’ equates with prudence.
Read and ponder. How much of ‘urban myths’ we have swallowed without challenging them.
A quote from the last few lines of the article and then the link follows.
” But he shows no sign of yielding with the Bengalis, whom he reportedly calls macchar
I wanted to add the following to my post above.
1) Indeed ZAB succumbed to the religious Right by declaring the Ahmadis as non-Muslims (under a lot of pressure from the society–not just the Rightwingers) and by other token ‘Islamic’ provisions like banning alcohol etc. But neither he nor his Party were ever into religious bigotry and thus Pakistan was still essentially the same Pakistan on 5 July 1977 as it was on 20th December 1971: A Sufi-oriented Islamic country. Bhutto’s cosmetic ‘Islamization’ steps did not damage Pakistan much. However, Pakistan changed between 1977 and 1988 to a country which had lost a lot of its Sufi orientation thanks to Zia.
2) Bhutto’s Nationalization policies were part of his 1970 Elections Manifesto. There is much more in that Manifesto: Building of the Steel Mill, Kicking out of ‘Imperialism’ from South Asia etc. It is a very fascinating document because it show the Left wing, even ‘revolutionary’ politics of late 60s which gripped the world and Pakistan was not immune to that. The document can be found on the PPP’s official website. Google will help. ZAB cannot be accused of following policies for which the people of W. Pakistan gave him the mandate. Implementation/result is a different matter and I think that is a mixed bag.
@BullsEye,
Yes, BullsEye!
1) Yahya Khan could have decimated the entire PPP leadership in 1970-71 if YK wanted to. It was Yahya who, being the Chief Martial Law Administrator since 1969, was responsible for the tragedy of 1971.
2) Yes, ZAB did contest Mujib’s right to rule. But you know what: Mujib’s 6-Points were a virtual declaration of secession and the entire W. Pakistani leadership and public opinion was not accepting that. ZAB was not alone in that, however undemocratic it sounds and perhaps was. The infamous quote of ‘Idhr hum, udhr tum’ attributed to ZAB is one more out-of-context lies the Rightwing like to quote. Read Jang’s Irshad Ahmad Haqqani to better understand what Bhutto meant by that.
3) Bhutto successfully campaigned to prevent War Crime trials of Army Generals. He also kept the Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report undisclosed–something even Zia did. That tells you why! Because the Generals were the ultimate culprit, even before Yahya Khan’s rule began. It did take several years to reach the point of December 1971 Fall of Dhaka.