Adil Najam
The obvious and logical followup to our last ATP Poll is to now ask the question: which of our leaders did the most harm to Pakistan? A number of readers suggested, and we agree, that such a poll should be conducted. We ask only that you please respond to the question with the same care with which it has been structured.
As we had done in the last poll, we have structured the question carefully to focus only the harm that these leaders might have caused (all leaders do bad things as well as good, some more and some less).
Please focus on the negative actions these leaders were themselves responsible for, and not as much on things that might have been out of their own control.
The Question: Focusing primarily on what you consider ‘negative’ actions taken by them during their stint(s) in power, who, amongst the following, do you think did the most ‘harm’ to Pakistan?
As others have suggested, it is not at all necessary that those who got the most votes for doing ‘good’ will automatically get least votes for doing ‘harm.’ Since we have been asking people to focus only on one or the other, it is not entirely impossible that the same person is deemed to have done a lot of good as well as a lot of harm; albeit by a different set of voters – in a society as divided as Pakistan this is not just possible, but even likely.
As in the last poll, the current leadership is not included (although we did conduct a poll grading them recently) and only those whose tenure is now behind us are included, from Ayub Khan onwards. 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 which of their actions you think had the most harmful and lasting impacts on Pakistan’s well-being as a nation.
We eagerly await your views on this, in the poll as well as in the comments.
@Babar Khan. Maybe you should go back and vote in the last poll. Was on who did the most ‘good’. That positive enough :-)
I think it’s fitting that I post here an article written by a grandchild of General Zia:
http://tinyurl.com/nt2a9q
C’mon guys, he’s done some good stuff too!
ATP should think positive and put up some constructive things for comments.
Garhe murde mut okharain
Let dead be in peace
Well I think all 3 dictators stand close by. i think many bloggers here simply hate Zia for his rightist oppressive views ( which i am against too) but then they forget what others have done to Pakistan.
Ayub: He simply wiped all the political players,cancelled 1958 elections, Pakistan became a client state ( op Gibrallter and resultant 1965 war) and became a US dependent. But above all in his time east and west pakistan became poles apart bcz of lack of genuine political players.
Zia: Again did not allow the elctions, hanged bhutto and later on started a psuedo Islamization. He also did not let genuine political players play there role. Afghan Jihad/Heroine and Klashinkov are products of his time but could have been improved by effecient civilian govts that followed.
Musharraf: Once again destroyed all govt. institutions ( Parliament was a mere rubber stamp ,Imported a PM who has nothing to do with Pakistan, what happened to the courts), If Zia’s was a psuedo Islamization then here it was Liberal Fasiscm without any regard to social or cultural norms. Worst was the law and order with so much suicide attacks.
In the end I think we all are part of the same intolerant attitudes that we see in our country’s politics. Who so ever is against our opinion is against us ( an enemy). I hope we elect soomeone by rising above our prejudice and thinking who can serve Pakistan the best……….
1) In my opinion General Zia did the most harm to Pakistan. Hands down! And that is such a large consensus in Pakistan that even Nawaz Sharif has disowned his Zia legacy. Remember NS at Zia’s funeral?
2) Zia ruled for 11 years. Absolute power. He was backed by almost all major powers outside of the Warsaw Pact countries and that translated to some economic gains. But he, in return, made Pakistan the jihadi-infested country that we see now. A society in 1977 where violence was often done by using knives and drugs were limited to limited-use of ‘Bhang’ turned into a society in 1988 where one could ‘rent’ Kalashnikovs rifles and where there were at least 3 million Heroin addicts. In a mere space of 11 years. I won’t even talk about the social repression and new heights of hypocrisy introduced in Pakistan in those years. Can we forget the public hangings and floggins? Can we forget the banning of Urdu feature films on PTV? Or the attempt to force the female newscasters on PTV to stop wearing lipstick? Can we forget the blank columns in newspaper prints due to late night censorship visits? Can we ever forget that Zia had even changed the content of M.A.Jinnah’s 11 August 1948 speech substantially on a plaque at a prominent govt. building (was it the Supreme Court?) to deny Pakistan’s religious minorities due recognition? Can we forget that Zia used to visit Sindhi separatists like G.M.Sayyed in order to counter PPP in rural Sindh? Can we forget that Siachen was lost under Zia and yet he had the audacity to say that “Not even a blade of grass grows there.”
3) If ZAB was really that ‘evil’ then Pakistani Army’s (defeated) Generals would not have called him back to Pakistan after 17th December 1971 and asked to take charge. If ZAB was that ‘evil’ then Pakistani people would not have voted his party back to power in 1977 (yes, despite the 15-20 seats of riggings–Go look up what even Professor Ghafoor says about it).
4) ZAB’s unfortunate capitulation to the Mullahs and his ‘Islamization’ were acts of political expediency but none of them came from any deep-seated faith in those measures and none of those dramatically changed the Pakistani society between 1971-1977; compare that with Zia’s deep-rooted bigotry and how he changed Pakistan between 1977 and 1988. There is a huge difference!
5) Accusing Benazir Bhutto of supporting Taliban creation is a big joke. If, as the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, she was never allowed to step into the Kahuta Research Lab–barely a few miles from the PM House in Islamabad–then she was certainly not allowed to pursue any independent ‘security’ related policies. The Federal Govt. of Benazir–with the active prodding of the military–did support the Talibans INSIDE Afghanistan to bring order to that country starting sometime in 1994 AFTER the so-called Mujahideen butchered untold number of each other and civilians post 1989.
6) The final and ultimate testament to Zia’s rejection by Pakistanis: Despite a grand State Funeral and 11 years of propaganda and all kind of high-handed machinations Zia’s son lost his own seat in his home constituency to a PPP challenger in the 2008 elections. Says enough about what not just blogspace is saying but the ‘common’ Pakistani is saying.
7) Finally, Pakistan was never so dependent upon the West all the way upto 1977 as it was after that year. And today, thanks to Zia, the Road to Islamabad has to go Through Washington.