Corrupt Politicians of Pakistan

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Hatred and Condemnation, are two different scenerios. :slight_smile: Though, I admit ZAB could have done better but to single out one guy for the fall of Decca, is absurd.

I am not singling him out! Fall of Dhaka involved many factors of which ZAB’s hunger for the Prime Minstership. Again my apologies if it seems like I have singled him out but due to limitations of time, I can defend my opinions for one person at a time. If you want to discuss only 1971, then that could definately be done at a later time.

**Hmmm, I think the real reason behind ZAB regisnation from FM was because of Taskent Agreement. Anyone willin’ to back me on this, please do so. **

Again we are at a disconnect here. No one denying his reasons for resignation, but rather his advisory role in 1965. I will be looking forward to anyone bringing proof that ZAB was not involved in the offensives in Kashmir..just for the record he was the F. Minister!

Fairness of General Elections split the country!

Brother, you can call it whatever you wish. The fact remains that Sheikh Mujib could have formed the government without a coalition. Are you refuting that? I mean, after '71 was over PPP emerged as the majority in West Pakistan so he did have his goals accomplished.

**I can’t bank on what Cowasjee said. Yahya was a power hungry. Period!
Yahya Motta: WWW[Wealth, Wine, Women]
**

Fair enough..Cowasjee is lying. Let’s try the “Story of Pakistan” source that you have used in your message.

Source: http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P018

*Unlike other military rulers who ruled Pakistan, Yahya Khan was not interested in prolonging his rule. Immediately after taking the charge of the country, Yahya Khan started looking for the options through which he could hand over power to the elected representatives. On March 29 1970, through an Ordinance, he presented an interim constitution: The Legal Framework Order. The Legal Framework Order was actually a formula according to which the forth-coming elections were to be organized. It goes to the credit of Yahya Khan that the first general elections in the history of Pakistan were held during his regime during December 1970. *

Do you care to disqualify the very same source that you have used?

**In this thread, Zakk included a link from a DAWN newspaper, which is no longer valid anymore, denying Bhutto raised a slogan of Idhar Hum, Udhar Tum. I’m sure you’ve read it as you have replied to thread more than me! **

I honestly don’t remember the article, however I will take your word for it. It is still puzzling as to why it took so long for the parlimentary sessions to begin, please don’t tell me that Bhutto didn’t buy time to delay the formation of the first Bengali controlled gov’t of Pakistan.

**RF yara, Bhutto isn’t the only one to blame for downfall of Decca. Mujib played the equal role! Did you know flags of Bangladesh[Made by India] were flew all over East Pakistan on the Republic Day, March 23 1971? Mujib was the real power hungry politician. Soon after Independence, it was Mujib, who wanted M.A Jinnah to declare Bengali as a National Language of Pakistan besides Urdu. Why? Because there were more Bengali speakin’ than Urdu. After that, Jinnah did accept it but not Decca as a Capitol of Pakistan. **

Let’s be honest here. Even if we accept the premise that Mujib was power hungry his party’s 167 seats still allowed him to form the govt. So let’s get this striaght: Both are power hungry, one has the mandate of the voters, who is morally justified to lead?

I agree with you on the Urdu issue. I think the language issue was different from the elections. Having Urdu as the national language was to begin nation building, where we can argue our positions elections are more clear cut issues, majority prevails to form the government.

Bhutoo winning as a majority from West Pakistan, not East Pakistan. Both sides didn’t reach agreement over ‘Six Agreement’ as a part of the Constitution of Pakistan. ZAB was correct 101% in the rejection of it. Then, ball came in the court of Yahya. He broke all the records!

First off, do you know that Awami League could create the constitution on it’s own on account of it’s parlimentary power? The only reason they went for a negotiation approach was to continue the rtraditions of the constitutional conventions. Just to be clear they did not need PPP to create the constitution. The Six points could have been discussed in the convention and concessions could be made, or maybe the Awamis may not have conceded anything, we don’t know! The 6 points argued for autonomy of the federating units, something many Pakistani politicians and people call for to this day. Even I believe that the federalist structure has created many problems in the federating units, although I do not believe in autonomy=secession.

Is it really? How? United Nation doesn’t give a jack about Kashmir. It’s policies run by the United States; and the Uncle Sam won’t solve problem rather than making money from both Pakistan and India. We as a Pakistanis have got to be careful on that as we have already spent 75% of our budget on defence.

Agreed and Agreed. No doubt about it!

**He did suceeded for the release of POWs. Whether Tashkent, Simla Agreement or Lahore Declaration with India, all invain. **

Shimla Agreement makes no mention of POWs. You can read the full text:
http://safdic.southasiafoundation.org/saf/doc/india_pak/agr_26.htm

You still have not refuted his statements regarding the POWs.

On April 1 1976, in a surprise move, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, appointed Zia-ul-Haq as the Chief of the Army Staff. It is interesting to note that five senior Generals were superseded. Bhutto probably wanted somebody as the head of the armed forces, who would not prove to be a threat for him and the best available option was the simple General, who apparently was interested only in offering prayers and playing golf. However, history proved Bhutto wrong, and Zia-ul-Haq proved to be much smarter than he looked. When the political unsuitability reached its climax due to the deadlock between Bhutto and the leadership of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) on the issue of general elections, Zia-ul-Haq took advantage of the situation. On July 5, 1977, he carried out a bloodless coup overthrowing Bhutto’s government and enforced Marshal Law in the country.

Still no explanation for his “other” personal army the FSF. The general Military is not involved in the activities that the FSF was doing at that period, perhaps the ISI wing has some blood on thir hands but not at the FSF level.

**I don’t smell CIA! Deadly Airplane crash of Zia, you bet. CIA was behind on that as US Ambassdor to Pakistan, former CIA director[don’t remember his name] got killed as well. **

No CIA involvement? Then who could it be? Just so you know brother, the American government has liquidated it’s own in order to achieve the greater purpose. I think we both can agree that there was fishy business surrounding the crash and the American investigators have not been forthcoming in their statements to this day.

22

**
Can anyone deny..

-It was sole effort and great tactfulness that today we find Pakistan as a nuclear state.. and the only muslim country to have that honor! and muslims around the globe still remeber his words " Hindus have the bomb, christian have the bomb, jews have it..the only nation that dont have it is muslims - but that time is going to be changed.. "

  • Bhutto for the first time in the histiry of Pakistan brought politics to ordinary people ..

-Created a muslim countries block .. Bhutto was the first international leader we had... with brilliant foreign policy..

-The only period in Pak history 1973-77 Pakistan was away from USA influence..

-When given a chance to get out of country by Zia he preferred to stay and endanger his life- Is this corruption! **

No one has denied it! What and to whom are you trying to prove this to? Again in my first post I stated his achievements. However YOU completely turned a blind eye towards the rest of the allegations! If he was the greatest, why can't you come up with refutations for my statements? Atleast Brothers PT and Spock came up with some refutations. Again evidence rules the discussion the rest is empty rhetoric.

Please don't bother bringing up evidence of his sucess in the Muslim world or the Nuke Program, I to am well aware of them. What do you expect me to say? The man was pure evil? Well he was not. His negatives are much powerful than the positives that we all are aware of, and that is the point.

** In last election PPP still got the highest no of votes was a testamant that Bhutto did one of the amazing thing for Pakistan.. and that was to give dignity to a class of people that had never got recognition as citizens of paksitan even after so many years.. he distributed land to a class of people who had no identity .. I know many people dont know there are very low casted people in Pkaistan who could never buy any land or property even they had money.. since they had no ID's..

But the so called patriots cant see problems of majority of paksitan since they can easily be swayed by dictators by slogans .. what does Webster say about the definition of "see through the eyes of a patriot"?**

Gee thanks for the sappy narrative. A Zia supporter could come up with something similar like he Islamicized the country, gave Afghans refuge, provided rotis to the starving BLAH blah blah...we are not discussing the personality cult, rather we have been in discussion of his performances as the head of Pakistan. My question is that, if he was the benevolent democrat why did he not step aside after the '70 elections? Were they rigged too? I can't wait to hear that!

It is obvious that your relying on personal attachments and emotions to further your arguments rather than facts and realities. Instead of mocking my statements, you should analyze the man without any prejudices.

23

For the record, I think the Bhutto's execution was both illegal and totally unjustified. No one, not even the head of Pakistan deserves death on trumped up charges. But I may say that divine intervention did play a part as the dictotator (Zia) who executed another, met a fate worse than his predecessor. In the end the Nation was the only entity that survived.

24

Brother, you started off with ZAB, not to forget there’s whole liste of Corrupt leaders in Pakistan :slight_smile: No need for apology. We as a human being are puppet of mistakes. :hehe:

RF dear, do you know the reason behind resignation of Ayub Khan in 1969? Do you know who was behind all those protest? Common people of Pakistan, without a shadow of doubt, ZAB supporters because Pakistanis didn’t like Tashkent Agreement at all.

Alright, you got me, RF. Read the next paragraph from the same source.

**The trouble started when the results of the elections were announced. Awami League under the leadership of Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman swept 160 out 165 seats allocated to East Pakistan. However the party failed to get even a single seat from any province of the Western Wing. On the other hand Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party emerged as the single largest party from Punjab and Sind and managed to win 81 National Assembly seats, all from the Western Wing. This split mandate resulted in political chaos where neither Bhutto nor Mujeeb was ready to accept his opponent as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. When Bhutto and Mujeeb failed to reach an understanding about convening a session of the newly elected National Assembly, the ball fell in Yahya Khan’s court. He handled the situation in a wrong way. He used army and paramilitary forces in East Pakistan to crush the political agitation. This resulted in the beginning of the War between Pakistan and India in the winter of 1971. **

Brother RF, I don’t want you to believe whatever I say. I want you to use your brian, open up your mind. The article Zakk mentioned about ‘Idhar Hum, Udhar Tum’ clearly shows how it misled the slogan of ZAB. Journalism in Pakistan has gone nuts! Did you know when Musharraf came in power, people started callin’ him ‘Qadiani’?

To be fair: Yahya Khan should have met ZAB and Mujib personally and resolved the dispute among them, including Six Points or simply he didn’t conduct General Elections. That would have been wise moved from Yahya.

Right there is a problem. How come a one single political party made the Constitution of Pakistan?

Correct! Becausee Racism has played an important factor in the lives of Bengalis. Six Points were based on autonomy of East Pakistan but it didn’t have any credibility to represent the Constitution of Pakistan as Mujib-ur-Rahman wanted to. You’re right about Six Points issue could have been discussed. Yahya Khan could have played his role to resolve the dispute. But he didn’t. He used arm forces against East Pakistan, which was condemend by West Pakistan.

Well, from Story of Pakistan, it does mention base of Simla Summit regardin’ POWs.

In Pakistan there was a growing demand for getting these prisoners released. As a result of this growing demand, a summit conference between Pakistani President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Indian leader Mrs. Gandhi was held at Simla from June 28 to July 2,1972.

How the POWs issue got resolved?

ISI’s involvement started playing its political role in Zia’s era. Zia never trusted Civilian authorities, which is why he used Intelligence Agency. Personally, I’m in a real shocked about FSF. Never thought ZAB could be brutal.

Well, I do agree with CIA involvement regardin’ Zia’s plance crashed but laughs at my butt off over Zia overthrew ZAB because of CIA said so. :slight_smile:

25

First of Eid Mubarak all!

The FSF was an exceptional brutal organisation. I would recommend any Bhutto fans should read Stanley Wolperts book on ZAB. It's very comprehensive showing the good and the bad and his sad death. I always put the what if question about Bhutto. His last act as PM of Pakistan was to sign the agreement with the PNA for new elections. He also had come to an agreement with the AFghan government over the Durand Line question and with the NAP on provincial autonomy. Those are all positive acts and the acts of a democrat. His removal from power revived the PPP who's popularity had declined sharply while in power.

On a note regarding the 1971 and 1965 role. Being FM Ayub did not have to listen to ZAB. He was an Army man and as an Army man he should have known the risks he was taking. Was Yahya forced to call the Assdembly session off? No of course not, he chose not too. You can blame ZAB for his role, but not for the overall responsibility.

In any case, if you go according to length of power the Army and bureacracy have had a far larger role in government (and therefore aceess to corruption) then civilians have had. Military reversals, the 1965 war was during a military government, 1971, and Siachen as well. So why corrupt politicians?
I can list a huge number of corrupt politicians and businessmen, I can also name some very clean politicians and competent politicos who have not been able to establish a presence in politics because they don't have the money or have no connections with the powers that be...in the end politicians have an excuse they are holders of public office and must be held accountable. Who holds the Army or Judiciary or civil service accountable after all they have no excuse they are involving themselves in matters which are absolutely no relevance to them?

26

PT: A very famous statement from Henry Kissinger to ZAB in 76 was that if Pakistan did not drop it's nuclear programme "we would make a horrible example out of you" Most people use that statement as a proof that the CIA helped remove ZAB. Although Kissinger says that statement is false the belief has persisted.

27

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
My question is that, if he was the benevolent democrat why did he not step aside after the '70 elections? Were they rigged too? I can't wait to hear that!

[/QUOTE]

step aside! was he holding any post then? was there any constitution to transfer power to anyone? After 1962 constutution was abrogated there was no legal standing for elections in 1970 so Yahya had to make a interim constitution under Legal Framework Order (LFO). After elections all political parties had to sit and propose new constitution and after that power to new Govt had to be transferred according to new Constitution.. so Bhutto's stepping aside is a strange term!

Awami League had won elections under Mujeeb solely on 6 points which was just autonomy of West Pakistan! East Pakistanis were brought to this ugly situation due to inefficiencies and planning of our leaders right in 1947... ur talking bout benovelent democracy lets see what would be scenerio if we had that great term inplemented in 1947..with 55 % of poulation of east Pakistanis..

  • Dhakka would had been Capital instead of Karachi.. with all business and revenue center being Dhakka.. elite jobs going to bengalis and west Pakistan been rules by west as was the case vise versa..

  • Bengali being National language instead of Urdu as was demanded by East Pakistanis..

-Army would mostly from East Pakistan as leaders be East Pakistanis and appoint top positions to East Pakistanis.. ironically only a very slim % were east Pak till 1970..

-West Pakistan would be given share in revenue instead of having control over it. and spend on dams and other things in East Pak..

I think from the very inception Pakistan should had tried loose confederation with East Wing than try to control it.. at 1970 there had been so much bloodshed and hate and rancor that there was no turning back.. it was inevitable and if someone says that Bhutto could had done anything its a just wishful thinking.. we have to live with the wrong planning early in Pakistans history..

It never came to constitutional stage since Mujjeb insisted on 6 points to be implemented before the session!

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
PT: A very famous statement from Henry Kissinger to ZAB in 76 was that if Pakistan did not drop it's nuclear programme "we would make a horrible example out of you" Most people use that statement as a proof that the CIA helped remove ZAB. Although Kissinger says that statement is false the belief has persisted.
[/QUOTE]

Eid Mubarrak to you, Zakk :)

Yes, I heard this statement countless times from ZAB's supporter. But that doesn't make any sense. CIA involvement in ZAB's overthrew from the Govt. No no, not at all. ZAB wanted to make the Constitution of Pakistan, Presidential like Ayub did. Or in other words, he wanted Zia to be his puppet likewise Gen. Iskandar Mirza to Ayub. In the end, the guy ZAB trusted most slapped him just like Ayub did to Iskandar Mirza.

Remember what Henry Kissinger said: *It was because of America, West Pakistan survived; and yes I remember how America helped us out in 71. Yeah yeah, Aid is comin', Aid is comin' *

How these all leaders met their fate? RajputFury got it nailed:

For the record, I think the Bhutto's execution was both illegal and totally unjustified. No one, not even the head of Pakistan deserves death on trumped up charges. But I may say that divine intervention did play a part as the dictotator (Zia) who executed another, met a fate worse than his predecessor. In the end the Nation was the only entity that survived.

29

** Brother, you started off with ZAB, not to forget there’s whole liste of Corrupt leaders in Pakistan :slight_smile: No need for apology. We as a human being are puppet of mistakes. :hehe: **

Brother PT, your very correct regarding the list of corrupt leaders in Pakistan. Maybe I should have started an honest politician thread :slight_smile:
The only reason I brought up ZAB as my choice was due to his impact on Pak. from the mod 60s to late 70s. I will be the first to admit my mistakes :smiley:

**RF dear, do you know the reason behind resignation of Ayub Khan in 1969? Do you know who was behind all those protest? Common people of Pakistan, without a shadow of doubt, ZAB supporters because Pakistanis didn’t like Tashkent Agreement at all. **

I sure do. Not only Tashkent but a greater reason was Ayub’s attempts to subvert democracy through massive rigging in his elections against Fatima Jinnah. The last five years of Ayub’s rule was absolutely hated by the people of Pakistan and they were justified.

**Alright, you got me, RF. Read the next paragraph from the same source.

**The trouble started when the results of the elections were announced. Awami League under the leadership of Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman swept 160 out 165 seats allocated to East Pakistan. However the party failed to get even a single seat from any province of the Western Wing. On the other hand Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party emerged as the single largest party from Punjab and Sind and managed to win 81 National Assembly seats, all from the Western Wing. This split mandate resulted in political chaos where neither Bhutto nor Mujeeb was ready to accept his opponent as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. When Bhutto and Mujeeb failed to reach an understanding about convening a session of the newly elected National Assembly, the ball fell in Yahya Khan’s court. He handled the situation in a wrong way. He used army and paramilitary forces in East Pakistan to crush the political agitation. This resulted in the beginning of the War between Pakistan and India in the winter of 1971. ** **

Fair enough. My point here was that Yahya did not hold any intentions of staying in power. No has absolved him of the blame, but the question keeps on coming up: If Mujib had the mandate (the majority) why was his formation govt obstructed by ZAB? You and I both know why-- it was because all W. Pakistanis did not want to be “ruled” by Bengalis, ZAB capitalized on this feeling by ensuring his rise to power. That whole “parity” between East and West wings was totally a West Pakistani defensive measure thus it held no moral basis. When I speak of majority, I refer to the majority in the Parliament. Having the “majority” from either wing is an argument that has been applied many apologists for ZAB, but let’s put the facts where they are-- ZAB’s W.Pak. majority would have been ineffective against Awamis (who held the true maj. in Parliament), ZAB knew that, West Pak., and certainly you and I know it.

Did you know that the one unit in W. Pakistan had been dissolved. That “parity” argument DID NOT hold in the '70 elections it was based on “on man, on vote” (population). To argue, Bhutto having the majority does not stand as there was no such thing as “West Pakistan” as it had existed under the one unit. The only majority that ZAB had was in Sindh/Punjab or had the govt been formed, PPP would be the majority in opposition.

Brother RF, I don’t want you to believe whatever I say. I want you to use your brian, open up your mind. The article Zakk mentioned about ‘Idhar Hum, Udhar Tum’ clearly shows how it misled the slogan of ZAB. Journalism in Pakistan has gone nuts! Did you know when Musharraf came in power, people started callin’ him ‘Qadiani’?

Again I said earlier I take you word for it, brother. I am not trying to underhanded here, so there is no reason for me to reject what you have said.

**To be fair: Yahya Khan should have met ZAB and Mujib personally and resolved the dispute among them, including Six Points or simply he didn’t conduct General Elections. That would have been wise moved from Yahya. **

He DID meet them, according to him, both decieved him. There is no doubt in my mind that Mujib wanted an independent Bangladesh nor is there doubt, that ZAB wanted to be the leader of Pakistan.

Right there is a problem. How come a one single political party made the Constitution of Pakistan?

It is a problem. The Awamis knew it, that is why they had attempted to co opt W.Pakistani parties from NWFP/Baluchistan in discussions not to mention the PPP.

**Correct! Becausee Racism has played an important factor in the lives of Bengalis. Six Points were based on autonomy of East Pakistan but it didn’t have any credibility to represent the Constitution of Pakistan as Mujib-ur-Rahman wanted to. You’re right about Six Points issue could have been discussed. Yahya Khan could have played his role to resolve the dispute. But he didn’t. He used arm forces against East Pakistan, which was condemend by West Pakistan. **

And do you sincerely believe that ZAB held no influence with Yahya or the GHQ?

**Well, from Story of Pakistan, it does mention base of Simla Summit regardin’ POWs.

In Pakistan there was a growing demand for getting these prisoners released. As a result of this growing demand, a summit conference between Pakistani President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Indian leader Mrs. Gandhi was held at Simla from June 28 to July 2,1972.

How the POWs issue got resolved? **

The POWs were like White Elephants for India, plus China’s coercive power in the UN played a huge role.

ISI’s involvement started playing its political role in Zia’s era. Zia never trusted Civilian authorities, which is why he used Intelligence Agency. Personally, I’m in a real shocked about FSF. Never thought ZAB could be brutal.

ISI was active although not as much as in Daur e Zia. Bhutto didnt trust ISI thats why he had the FSF.

**Well, I do agree with CIA involvement regardin’ Zia’s plance crashed but laughs at my butt off over Zia overthrew ZAB because of CIA said so. :slight_smile: **

Brother PT, ZAB was the closest thing to getting all the Muslim countries to unite. He talked about the “Islamic” Bomb. I think it is plausible to consider CIA involvement expicially during that era when the CIA had toppled many govts.

30

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
On a note regarding the 1971 and 1965 role. Being FM Ayub did not have to listen to ZAB. He was an Army man and as an Army man he should have known the risks he was taking. Was Yahya forced to call the Assdembly session off? No of course not, he chose not too. You can blame ZAB for his role, but not for the overall responsibility.

[/QUOTE]

Zakk, Eid Mubarak to you and all Guppies!

I take exception to your statement. I think it goes into the assumptions of 'would have' or 'should have.' You and I know ZAB's proximity of power and in both instances he created his "own" military factions to support him. His cunning methods in both instances were employed to further his political ambitions.

I have never absolved A. Khan or Y. Khans of their responsibilities, however ZABs role in both instances as well as the Baluchistan repression, do justifiably render him guilty on REPEATED occassions. There was no Ayub during the 71 war nor was Yahya there in the Baluch operation, and you know who was there? Bhutto only he emerges as the dark horse in the turning points of our nations history. That is why the blame heaped upon the 2 generals is doubled for ZAB.

31

ZAB was very power hungry, but again it's q

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
ZAB was very power hungry, but again it's q
[/QUOTE]

brother Zakk thank you for understanding my position. I don't speak as a person supporting Bhutto's enemies rather a person who cares about the average person of Pakistan.

33

Nuts this is the third time I am typing this message!!

Anyway I'll try to be short this time:

1) Yahya Khan was the first and only leader who did not leave office with crores distributed for his family. He was never given a chance of defence and his son was hounded out of his job. He also kept his word and held what is considered the closest thing to a fair election in Pakistans history. He was unfortunately the absolute wrong person to be allowed into power. He probably would never have become a General if the Army hadnt gotten into politics.
2) The way the Army command structure works is simple the buck stops at the top. In the end nobody told Yahya or Ayub to listen to ZAB, he wasnt even considered a threat till the eletions showed his popularity.
Political mistakes like the 65 war and others are different from corruption. In pure corruption forms, Zia ul Haq probably did more to damage the fabreic of Pakistani society, lets not forget his personal role against the Palestinains in 1970 and against the SIndhis in the early 80's. that culture of munafiqat is the most terrible gift that Zia gave us..whatever Bhutto was ..we all knew what he was. Zia till his last day never compromised on anything good for Pakistan.
3) Nawaz Sharif took the cake though, at least in Bhutto's case we could say the man was a evil genius but a genius nevertheless. In NS's case we didnt even have that!!!!

thats about all I can type now..sooo I am sending this before I lose it again!!!

34

**
step aside! was he holding any post then? was there any constitution to transfer power to anyone? After 1962 constutution was abrogated there was no legal standing for elections in 1970 so Yahya had to make a interim constitution under Legal Framework Order (LFO). After elections all political parties had to sit and propose new constitution and after that power to new Govt had to be transferred according to new Constitution.. so Bhutto’s stepping aside is a strange term! **

I really think that you dont READ what write and then assume thing that I NEVER stated. When I said step aside it meant for Bhutto to let the Awamis – the TRUE winners take the lead in negotiations. Please don’t tell me that PPP had majority in W. Pak because I have dealt with that issue earlier. Bhutto’s choices were: either join a coalition with the Awami league or sit in the opposition. An interesting article from Cowasjee referring to a book on Bhutto:

Source: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20000910.htm

*“After the election the situation changed drastically. Bhutto now saw that Mujibur Rahman with his majority of seats could form a government even without support from West Pakistan. And yet he was not the man to play second fiddle. With control of only two provincial governments out of five, he saw his position as far from assured.” [As for playing second fiddle, I myself have heard him say: ‘I’d rather be the top dog of half of Pakistan than an underdog of the whole of Pakistan.’] *

more,

On Bhutto’s speech made on February 28, 1971, at public meeting at Lahore, where he offered Mujibur Rahman a carrot in the form of three alternatives - agreement on three of the Six Points, or postponement of the National Assembly meeting, or a waiving of the Legislative Framework Order.

“After the carrot, he them threatened the stick. The latter part of his speech was possibly the most belligerent he had ever made. He threatened a strike from the Khyber Pass to Karachi - ‘not a single shope would be allowed to remain open.’ He promised that the people of Pakistan would take full revenge from anybody who attended the Assembly session when they returned from Dacca, or, as he expressed himself, he ‘would break their legs’. In spite of Bhutto’s three alternative conditions, Sheikh mujibur Rahman refused to budge.” *

*Awami League had won elections under Mujeeb solely on 6 points which was just autonomy of West Pakistan! East Pakistanis were brought to this ugly situation due to inefficiencies and planning of our leaders right in 1947… ur talking bout benovelent democracy lets see what would be scenerio if we had that great term inplemented in 1947..with 55 % of poulation of east Pakistanis.. *

I presume that you will call Cowasjee a liar or attempt to discredit him so lets see what the Library of Congress Country study had to say:

Source: Bangladesh Emerging Discontent, 1966-70 - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

First they speak of the evil Yahya Khan:

  • Yahya assumed the titles of chief martial law administrator and president. He announced that he considered himself to be a transitional leader whose task would be to restore order and to conduct free elections for a new constituent assembly, which would then draft a new constitution. He appointed a largely civilian cabinet in August 1969 in preparation for the election, which was scheduled to take place in December 1970. Yahya moved with dispatch to settle two contentious issues by decree: the unpopular “One Unit” of West Pakistan, which was created as a condition for the 1956 constitution, was ended; and East Pakistan was awarded 162 seats out of the 300-member National Assembly. *

Then the actual election:

  • Yahya announced plans for a national election on December 7, 1970, and urged voters to elect candidates who were committed to the integrity and unity of Pakistan. The elections were the first in the history of Pakistan in which voters were able to elect members of the National Assembly directly. In a convincing demonstration of Bengali dissatisfaction with the West Pakistani regime, the Awami League won all but 2 of the 162 seats allotted East Pakistan in the National Assembly. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party came in a poor second nationally, winning 81 out of the 138 West Pakistani seats in the National Assembly. The Awami League’s electoral victory promised it control of the government, with Mujib as the country’s prime minister, but the inaugural assembly never met. *

So have deferred my statements to the sources. I have so many different sources regarding Bhutto that displaying all of the would be information overload. If you will note that I have not used any Indian, Bengali sources for their biases and rarely used Pakistani ones unless they were of repute. Interestingly I uncovered a copy of the NY times magazine from 1971, I have the paper copy in my libraryand it has been verified. Read what was said about Bhutto:

Source: http://sahmed.sixbit.org/1971/media_articles/New_York_Times/NYTM_71-05-02.html

*Mr. Bhutto, a smooth, nimble-witted, ambitious lawyer
and wealthy landowner, formerly foreign minister in the
“guided democracy” regime of Field Marshal Ayub Khan
that preceded the Yahya Government and a long-time
friend and drinking crony of the President charged the
Awami League program would lead to the disintegration of
Pakistan. He insisted that he and Sheikh Mujib should
agree on basic points for a constitution and other
arrangements for sharing power acceptable to both before
the Assembly met.

Four days before the scheduled Assembly session he said
that the meeting should be postponed to allow for these
prior agreements, or else the 120-day time limit set for
adopting a constitution should be lifted to permit
prolonged, indefinite consideration of constitutional
issues. If his demands were not agreed to, he threatened
to call for strikes and large-scale civil disobedience
in West Pakistan.

President Yahya Khan’s indefinite postponement order in
effect bowed to Mr. Bhutto’s demands. To nationalistic
East Bengalis it looked like a blockage, dictated
indirectly by Mr. Bhutto, of their hopes for the
national system and the autonomy that their majority
votes would automatically have given them if the
Assembly had met on schedule.*

Having established the fact that Yahya Khan held no political ambitions, all of his actions were guided by patriotism (arguable?) and Bhutto, who DID hold political ambitions. It is interesting that Bhutto’s majority even in W. Pakistan was limited to Sindh and ‘Fortress’ Punjab, so how fitting it would be later when he would dismiss the non-PPP governments of NWFP & Baluchistan, further alienating them. In case of baluchistan, his DIRECT (who will you scapegoat there?) orders to murder and maim Pakistani citizens of Baluchistan were executed. To his credit, Bhutto may be the only politician that played the army effectively until ofcourse his serious miscalculation regarding Zia’s promotion.

**

  • Dhakka would had been Capital instead of Karachi.. with all business and revenue center being Dhakka.. elite jobs going to bengalis and west Pakistan been rules by west as was the case vise versa..

  • Bengali being National language instead of Urdu as was demanded by East Pakistanis..

-Army would mostly from East Pakistan as leaders be East Pakistanis and appoint top positions to East Pakistanis.. ironically only a very slim % were east Pak till 1970..

-West Pakistan would be given share in revenue instead of having control over it. and spend on dams and other things in East Pak.. *

If what you say is true, would you accept it? Would you let democracy reign supreme or Autocracy to be the order of the day?
*
I think from the very inception Pakistan should had tried loose confederation with East Wing than try to control it.. at 1970 there had been so much bloodshed and hate and rancor that there was no turning back.. it was inevitable and if someone says that Bhutto could had done anything its a just wishful thinking.. we have to live with the wrong planning early in Pakistans history..

It never came to constitutional stage since Mujjeb insisted on 6 points to be implemented before the session! **

Yes we all know what you are saying and it’s true..let me add further that Mujib’s intentions weren’t exactly good and E. Pakistanis have many faults which I am not going to get into right now. However I am forced to uphold the Awamis or the E. Pakistani position because of the virtue of democracy. How shameful was it to subvert the first and only (until then) free elections in Pakistan? The people had spoken and the silencing of their voice was totally unjustified. The silencer was Bhutto who duped the W. Pakistanis for his personal gain.

35

saying "corrupt politician" is an oxymoron (if that's the term I am seeking). all politicians in all places are bloody good for nothing crooks. why you think many of them have lawyer degree? so that they learn how to break law and ge away with it. after finishing law degree half of them become ambulance chasers and other half become politicians!

36

RajputFury

I can copy post 100 articles in favor of Bhutto and against him since there are so many who love and hate him.. and its a never ending story.. to say it bluntly the decisions Bhutto had to take were fully endoreced by Pakistanis in east Pakistan.. as we have seen since 1971.. Bhutto is a the only factor that has made PPP successful in so many elections.. and it was a miracle that PPP won elections in 1988 after 11 long years systematic repression by Zia.. Bhutto had predicted that PPP would win one elction due to him after his death but PPP won 2 and even grabbed maximum votes in 2002 elections!

There is a time for everything and I wrote earliar that benevolent democracy as u say it should had been implemented in 1947.. Mujeeb just got votes for his 6 points that was just a separation from Pakistan.. and he was not agreeing anything less than those 6 points.. there was no question of majority or opposition since there was no constitution ..

Lets see the scenerio that Bhutto agrees withgout any constitution framework..

  • First thing Mujeeb would do is to hang all top generals for killing thousands of Bengalis.. then slash majority of army and replace them with east paksitanis.. and this would never had been tolerated by army resulting in a full fledge civil war and more bloodshed..

  • Mujeeb would had shaked up the whole bureaucracy which was responsible for a lot a moral crimes in East Pakistan.. and retired a lot of them.. a thing not imagined by bureacracy at all..

Therefore Bhutto didnt had support of these two powerful pillars of Govt.. along with the poupulation of West Pakistan who would never had imagined that Bengalis could be in command.. so until a constitution that sanctioned balance between 2 wings wasnt in place West Pakistanis were not ready for all this..

Just saying that it was a case of majority or minority issue is fooling oneself.. its painful but its truth that these 2 wings of pakistan so apart could never be run due to such polarization.. so the inevitable occured which was due long back.. unfortunately it took so many lives in the end..

37

*RajputFury

I can copy post 100 articles in favor of Bhutto and against him since there are so many who love and hate him.. and its a never ending story.. to say it bluntly the decisions Bhutto had to take were fully endoreced by Pakistanis in east Pakistan.. as we have seen since 1971.. Bhutto is a the only factor that has made PPP successful in so many elections.. and it was a miracle that PPP won elections in 1988 after 11 long years systematic repression by Zia.. Bhutto had predicted that PPP would win one elction due to him after his death but PPP won 2 and even grabbed maximum votes in 2002 elections! *

Lets call a spade a spade…you say you can “post 100 articles in favor Bhutto” why don’t you refute the MANY MANY allegations against him? Failed policies in pushing for '65 war, Shameless power grabbing in '71 leading to the breakup of the country, brutal repression of a province, terrorizing political and other opponents through the FSF. You have yet to EVEN adress the issues beyond 1971! Atleast brother PT came up with counter arguments with many supporting articles.

You made your contempt for me clear by mocking my statements earlier, what credibility would you place in what I say? None, so I brought in a wide variety of individuals, more qualified than I, many who witnessed his rule, care to disqualify them also? Convenient tactic on your part by playing the game of discrediting a wide variety of sources. But where are your people, sources? NONE! Silence is damning..the best you can muster up is probably the PPP website: http://www.ppp.org.pk where he is elevated to a demi-G-d status. Here I am arguing this alone, and the rest of the folks supporting your positions, yet no one took the issue head on.

You conveniently divert the attention to the PPP-- the party, while the discussion is about Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto! I am talking about the man not his party or even his daughter. If you can’t take the heat get out of the fire because by now you have exhausted all your arguments.

There is a time for everything and I wrote earliar that benevolent democracy as u say it should had been implemented in 1947.. Mujeeb just got votes for his 6 points that was just a separation from Pakistan.. and he was not agreeing anything less than those 6 points.. there was no question of majority or opposition since there was no constitution ..

First off, I was mocking the “benevolent democrat” ZAB, if you recall that message. Secondly, don’t avoid the topic by referring back to 1947, because we all know it was the denial of the choice of Bengal-- the Awami league, that broke the camels back..previously I have made the case for Bhutto’s responsibility on the subject and you come back with 1947!

The 6 points as well other issues would have been up for discussion…but to argue that is to talk about wouldves, couldves and the like. Everthing that you or I would project IS fantasy or wishful thinking, now lets talk reality.

There is no question of “majority” “minority”? What the hell is 160 of 300? Forget the politics IS THAT A MAJORITY MATHEMATICALLY OR NOT? That was the most absurd statement I have read on this thread! My patience with your arguments is wearing thin, you have had ample time to come up with a rebuttal, instead you have engaged in nothing but nitpicking on the issues, mocking my words..

*Lets see the scenerio that Bhutto agrees withgout any constitution framework..

  • First thing Mujeeb would do is to hang all top generals for killing thousands of Bengalis.. then slash majority of army and replace them with east paksitanis.. and this would never had been tolerated by army resulting in a full fledge civil war and more bloodshed..

  • Mujeeb would had shaked up the whole bureaucracy which was responsible for a lot a moral crimes in East Pakistan.. and retired a lot of them.. a thing not imagined by bureacracy at all..

Therefore Bhutto didnt had support of these two powerful pillars of Govt.. along with the poupulation of West Pakistan who would never had imagined that Bengalis could be in command.. so until a constitution that sanctioned balance between 2 wings wasnt in place West Pakistanis were not ready for all this.. *

More fantasies? Why don’t you talk about reality! ZAB did not let the assembly convene THATS REALITY. E. Pakistan was in flames after denying them representation, THATS REALITY. West Pakistanis being manipulated by the power monger ZAB THATS REALITY. Oh sorry not all W.Pakistanis fell for it, Baluchis did not and they were persecuted for it THATS REALITY. Political Murder and sabatoge of democarcy by the FSF THATS REALITY. Talk about what happened not what “could” have happened, talk about what did.

*Just saying that it was a case of majority or minority issue is fooling oneself.. its painful but its truth that these 2 wings of pakistan so apart could never be run due to such polarization.. so the inevitable occured which was due long back.. unfortunately it took so many lives in the end.. *

If talking about minority or majority is fooling oneself then WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? The voice of the people is embodied in democracy and if enough people agree with you, THAT IS MAJORITY. 9 out of 10 chances say that your sitting in a western democracy telling me it is isnt a majority, minority issue…that Sir is truly rich of you.

Polorization or no polorization, in the end history will never forget that ZAB denied the voice of the majority both in numerical and electoral terms. Bhutto acted in self interest, let the country be damned if he couldnt be head of Pakistan.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Xenophanes: *
saying "corrupt politician" is an oxymoron (if that's the term I am seeking). all politicians in all places are bloody good for nothing crooks. why you think many of them have lawyer degree? so that they learn how to break law and ge away with it. after finishing law degree half of them become ambulance chasers and other half become politicians!
[/QUOTE]

Very true. However in Pakistan the contempt for the rule of law exihibited by the politicians and those heads of state is so brazenly shameless that boils the blood of any patriotic Pakistani.

My apologies for this thread turning into an Anti- Z. Bhutto thread but folks like Degas have challenged my assertions and I have responded time and time again. There have been many instances where I have taken unpopular stances and argued them alone, both here and in real life, and I won't ever stop :)

39

ZAB

I think Rajputfury does not to be reponded about ZAB. But I have question. Even today their are million in europe who hate jews people. Many christain believe that jew are reponsible for death of Jesus. Hitler was popular on this hate philosophy. After Arab do not have oil how important israel would be for USA or Germany.

40

RajputFury

I tried very hard but ur stuck with majorioty issue.. the simple fact is Pakistan's army (99 % from East Pakistan), almost entire bureaucracy and the whole population of East Pakistan (present Pakistan) were against giving power to Mujeeb since it was automatic breakup of Pakistan with Mujeeb's 6 points implemented! Mujeeb wasnt interested in session but pre-conditioned that 6 points be implemented.... Vast majority of present day Pakistan and me agree with what Bhutto did in that circumstances.. how could Bhutto was so popular if we assume ur allegations in west Pakistan till 1977..If u still insist that Bhutto break up the country and the 2 wings were eager to live together then thats ur fantacy.. can u give me examples after breakup of Pakistan how many people of present day Pakistani rose against Bhutto whom u assume break up east wing! Whatever u say peopel of Pakistan were behind Bhutto and believed in his leadership..

Bhutto infact took shattered Pakistan in 1971 and gave the first comprehensive Constition in 1973, forged great foreign policy, made Pakistan first nuclear State among muslim countries under difficult conditions..