Pakistani Readers discussion
Debates n Discussions
>
How do you view Zia-ul-Haq?
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
ha..ha..!! [GR is empty these days..{no notification(no time)}]
you did not share your own opinion... XD
Aakash wrote: "Genio wrote: "OMG I FINALLY GOT A REPLY!"ha..ha..!! [GR is empty these days..{no notification(no time)}]
you did not share your own opinion... XD"
My opinion is in the second paragraph of the OP.
Mod
ha..ha..!! [GR is empty these days..{no notification(no time)}]
you did not share your own opinion... XD"
My opinion is in the second pa..."
O.o I think that's what other people think about him or maybe my language is too weak.. xD
Aakash wrote: "Genio wrote: "Aakash wrote: "Genio wrote: "OMG I FINALLY GOT A REPLY!"ha..ha..!! [GR is empty these days..{no notification(no time)}]
you did not share your own opinion... XD"
My opinion is in..."
Some do, most don't. Especially those of our parent's generation.
Hey guys, just came here to say: f*** Zia.
Osama wrote: "Hey guys, just came here to say: f*** Zia."Necrophilia much?
Well, if you account for his raccoon eyes you can also count it as bestiality, so that's a win-win!
And if you account for his gender ... woah bro! Absolutely haraam!
Brb, writing a weird gay, zombie, furry romantic comedy about Zia. Warm Molvis.
ooooh fanfiction already! ggHori shet dat name tho..
inb4 blasphemy case on both of us
Zia laid the foundations of Religious extremism , plus he is actual murderer of the minorities rights of Pakistanis like Ahmedi, Shia, Christians .He absolutely had no control over anything except Media and Tv.
His love for drinking and getting out naked from parliamentary lounges, is very famous. He like them big...hahaha(that was personal , sorry uncle zia)
Almost all professors those who appear to be very religious and Jmeat are the by products of Ziaism.
I grew up during Zia's time.Whatever Zia's faults,I have memories of a peaceful country during that era.In educational institutions political activities were banned and the environment was conducive for education.Zia has been dead for nearly 30 years,he can't be blamed for all Pakistan's ills today. However he did rule with an iron fist and crushed all dissent.
Wsm wrote: "I grew up during Zia's time.Whatever Zia's faults,I have memories of a peaceful country during that era.In educational institutions political activities were banned and the environment was conduciv..."A leader is not only measured by what he does but also by what his doings entail. Zia borrowed from the future; you don't borrow from someone who you cannot repay. What say you about a ruler who distributes everything in the public treasury to the public, imposes no taxes, and does everything he can to make the public happy - would he be a wise ruler?
If Zia's peace came at the compromise of the future's peace, then he was anything but a good ruler.
Genio wrote: "Wsm wrote: "I grew up during Zia's time.Whatever Zia's faults,I have memories of a peaceful country during that era.In educational institutions political activities were banned and the environment ..."well placed words
Wsm wrote: "How many good rulers has Pakistan had ?"That question is irrelevant. I cannot justify my abusing my wife by saying, ''My neighbor does this as well''. In informal logic, it's what we call a 'fallacy'. Just because we had all the bad leaders doesn't mean our standard should be to compare every x leader with x-1 and decide whether the current leader is good or bad.
He sowed the seeds. Once we were hooked on Saudi's funding and way of thinking, there was no way back.Pakistan is a poor country, and once infected, it was hard to counter that propaganda. Hell, even a developed country, with highly educated population, would have found it almost impossible.
Before Zia, Pakistan was not perfect but heading in the right direction, and he changed the course. For what? Temporary affection and money of US and Saudi Arabia.
Retardo,your analysis is very simplistic.I don't have the time nor the patience to keep arguing with you.Pakistan's current problems have a number of causes.Zia's era had its own dynamics.I am not exactly a fan of Zia.As I have written above,he was ruthless.He did plenty that was wrong but why single him out for abuse ? His predecessors and successors also have much to answer for.It is all perfectly relevant in the context of Pakistan's troubled history.
Wsm wrote: "Retardo,your analysis is very simplistic.I don't have the time nor the patience to keep arguing with you.Pakistan's current problems have a number of causes.Zia's era had its own dynamics.I am not ..."Singling him out for abuse? The thread is directly asking for our views on Zia. I am sure that Ghulam Muhammad, Bhutto and Iskander Mirza weren't angels but the thread isn't about them. Plus it's really retarded (don't sue me for trademark violation, Genio) to say that the wrongdoings of Zia's predecessors and successors cancel out his evils. No one told him to weaponize Islam and kowtow to the superpowers to earn brownie points. That's on him, not anyone else.
Very good point. Pakistan has no business doing a proxy war against a superpower. We became a useful tool for one superpower to destroy another. In such a scenario the little guy becomes collateral damage.
Osama,it is really retarded to use expletives in forum posts.Learn some manners first.I am done with this topic.
Oh, come on, chill out. Osama used no expletives; at least not to any person if 'retarded' counts as one. Either way, we're talking of someone with whom neither you nor I have, or had, any emotional connection whatsoever. There should be no hindrance in scrutinizing Zia's regime. And in this process, insofar, you haven't provided any strong argument in support of Zia. My analysis wasn't simplistic, it's called 'inductive reasoning'. I beg you to observe laws of logic in this debate otherwise none of us has anything to gain from it.
Hey, guys. Tempers are running a little bit on the hot side here. Sorry if I offended you by my remarks, Wsm. Didn't wanna do that. Thanks for my defense, Genio, you're my knight/knight-ess in shining armor!
I blame you for this, Genio :)Whenever possible avoide discussing politics and religion. If not, heated arguments are inevitable.
All in all, the progressives hate him, the not progressives/laymen/common folk love him. I don't think this is correct. I'd like to see the common folks who love him, apart from the mullah parties and urban trader classes from the religious right who still believe in their delusion that the general tried to implement "Islam" in Pakistan. It's not surprising that no one else, rich or poor, religious or progressive, has anything good to say about him.
What did he do for the common man except sell them empty slogans in the name of Islam? He was the man who used religious rhetoric to further his political agenda and in the process damaged practice of Islam, so much so that with time everything to do with Islam has become toxic in Pakistan. A religion turned into a crypto-fascist ideology!
And he gave us the gun culture in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war in which Pakistan had no good reason to participate. The false alarm that Communists were going to invade Pakistan to reach the now proverbial "Warm Waters" was a red herring thrown us by the Americans and Zia to justify Pakistan's role in the war.
Zia's policies birthed jihadism, terrorism, sectarianism and in general an exponential rise in intolerance. Sure, all the blame for Pakistan's so many ills are not Zia's alone to take, but he sure as hell is responsible for a big chunk of it.
Most certainly and most undoubtedly Zia-ul-haq was a fucking bastard - and I have absolutely no reason to be polite in my language when talking about that swine.
@JibranSurely, he didn't give anything of value to the citizens. But the rhetoric he fed them with through bastardized textbooks and biased media took root among them. I've seen many people who grew during his time admiring him; for the simple reason that he introduced 'Islam'. What Islam? The Islam in Islamiyat textbooks and whatever the Mullahs at that time preached - in other words, Zia's Islam. But that nevertheless ended up being the true Islam for the common man. Hence my statement: Common folk admire him.
Not surprisingly, much of the educated people who then supported him are now bitterly against his policies because the poison his bite left in Pakistan, was a slow one. The ramifications of his regime were seen only after a decade - despite being obvious in his time too.
However, I have to give WSM this: If only Pakistan, from the very beginning, had a strong idea of what it wanted to be, Zia wouldn't have done it all so felicitously. It couldn't be secular while being Islamic. Jinnah sought the Islam in secularism, and those who followed sought secularism in Islam. This is why Pakistan is, by nature, an ambivalent state. So, when Zia came, even those who opposed his policies then couldn't be too sure about their opposition as his policies didn't betray - at least overtly - the desire to make Pakistan Islamic. The same thing we witness now regarding the ''Women Protection act'' and the blasphemy laws.
Bangladesh never went in that direction. Muslims were living in South Asia for hundreds of years and they never went in that direction. We should have followed our forefathers. No need to import another ideology.There were memos, in which it's clear US decided to counter communism by promoting Islamic extremism. Saudi Arabia supported US, and promoted that brand of Islam because they feared Iran and wanted US protection. And also their leaders wanted to keep their dominance at home and in the Islamic world.
@GenioYes, common people were duped by Zia's Islamic rhetoric when he announced his plans. Some educated people also hoped he would do something for a more humane governance hitherto riddled by corruption, legal injustice, predatory culture of the ruling classes etc (it is exactly where we needed Islam to change things, but we got none of it whatsoever). But as they soon found it, it was all a smokescreen to please the mullahs, whose conception of Islam doesn't go beyond a set of legal punishments, wielding AK-47s in the name of jihad, closing down cinemas and music shops, and ordering women to wear dupattas and hijabs. Today it's different. There's are no popular love for Zia anywhere among the common masses.
And I couldn't agree more with all the rest you have written. The confusion that sits at the heart of Pakistan is still not sorted. But I believe things are getting clearer in that the conception of an "Islamic state" that began in the 1970s and remained popular up until now has reached its peak already. Now we will see its slow but inevitable reversal, thanks to the Islamist crazeheads who by their own ideology and actions have discredited themselves as an option to the ills that plague not just Pakistan but the rest of the Muslim world. Not only their alternative is not viable, it is inhumane, unjust, atrocious and anti-people in ever way, despite all the Islamic slogans it has appropriated to itself. Nothing that is based on brute force and murder can survive for long.
On the other hand, journalists, scholars and basically the intellectuals of Pakistan criticize him for stampeding upon Jinnah's (and hence Pakistan's) ideals of Freedom of Speech/thought/religion/so on - any type of freedom actually. Then he is criticized by some scholars to have implemented the wrong 'Sharia' ; they mean to say, in what world Hudud is equal to Harb. Then he is also ridiculed for having, literally, destroyed the Pakistani Education system by coercing his 'propaganda' in subjects like Pakistan studies (so not biased) and Islamiyat (so very useful). All in all, the progressives hate him, the not progressives/laymen/common folk love him.
So, how do you view him?