Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

An interesting blog by Nzaar Ihsan.

It makes me wonder, has Ziaul Haq become a scapegoat that the media and public conveniently pin all our issues on? Let’s see…
1. GDP growth:
Pakistan had the highest ever rate of GDP growth rate during Zia’s era (stand alone as well as compared to the competition, India). During Pervez Musharraf’s much touted growth era(2000-2008), our average GDP growth rate was 4.7% while India grew at 6.7%. On the other hand, Zia delivered GDP growth (from 1978-1988) of 6.9% as compared to India’s performance of 4.7% during the same period. Our growth rate during this period is ranked 19th in the world (India is at number 46), ahead of 239 other countries.
2. Arts and culture:
Maula Jatt, an icon of Punjabi cinema, came out in 1979. Unforgettable TV shows like Tanhaiyaan, Dhoop Kinaray,* Waris*, and Fifty-Fifty all aired in the early 80s.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan entered the global spotlight in 1985 when he performed for an international audience in London.
Nazia Hassan sang Aap jaisa koi in 1980 and Disco Dewane in 1981.

Alamgir was all the rage in the 1980s.

Abida Parveen received the pride of performance award in 1984.
The Vital Signs released Do Pal Ka Jeevan in 1986. Ironically, the birth of the Pakistan pop music scene that we all enjoyed during the 1990s actually took place in General Zia’s time.
3. Extremism and militancy:
Flashback – the world’s most powerful army had invaded Afghanistan. If we did nothing, the worst case scenario was that the Soviets would annexe the Pakistan coastline to access the warm waters of the Arabian Gulf. Best case, we would have an Indian military ally on our western border. Neither option was acceptable.
Zia used foreign money and weapons to create a fighting force that defeated the powerful Soviet army, with virtually zero Pakistani casualties. We achieved ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, created a second line of defence against any military threat and (as an added bonus) the Kashmiri jihad got the Indian army bogged down in a war of attrition. It was a brilliant solution that almost every Pakistani endorsed. Yes, it back-fired 20 years later. Could it have been managed better? Maybe we should pass the blame around equally on this one and not put everything on Zia.
4. Electricity shortage:
In Zia’s era, ‘load shedding’ took place for 15-30 minutes, once a day, for a few weeks a year.
Need I say more?
5. Conservatism and intolerance:
The objectives resolution first (con)fused religion and state in 1949. We became the ‘Islamic’ Republic of Pakistan in 1956. The first anti-Ahmadi riots took place in 1953 in Lahore. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s 1973 constitution made Islam the state religion, which Bhutto amended in 1974 to classify Ahmadis as non-Muslims.
And for those who wish they could have a Mojito at a bar in Karachi: it was ZA Bhutto who passed laws banning gambling, clubs and alcohol. Once again, it’s ironic that the ‘Islamisation’ of Pakistan that Zia took to great heights was actually born in Bhutto’s era.
6. Crime and lawlessness:
The Afghan refugees came in the early 80s. It’s been 30 years – the Kalashnikovs they brought have rusted! Lawlessness is driven by lack of economic opportunity, fostered by official support to militant and criminal organisations (be it the establishment continuing to support jihadists, or political parties supporting extortionists and gangsters). It’s too old a problem to pin on Zia now.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Zia bashing on account of everything bad he did (killing Bhutto, Hudood Ordinance, encouraging militant sectarianism etcetera). However, it’s equally important that we stick to the facts in our zeal to badmouth the dictator and spread the blame (or credit) fairly.
Blueberry Bakers has since been sold and is now known as ‘Clifton General Store’. I’m sure if we think hard enough we can find a reason to blame that on Zia as well.

Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why – The Express Tribune Blog

2

^^^

1. GDP growth:
Billions pumped in by CIA which made Zia-ul-Haq Amirul-mominin, the recruiter of jehadis. Even a donkey can achieve this after getting so much money for the wrong reasons. He broke the promise of 90-days elections after kicking out legally elected government. The temporary fixing of economy with devastated long run effects was never in the interest of Pakistan and future generations of the country.
**
2. Arts and culture:**
Killed Film industry of Pakistan which produced a number of good films, actors, singers who competed with Indian cinema. Now Indian cinema industry is copying these songs and movies.

3. Extremism and militancy:
He was father founder extremism and militancy to get CIA dollars
**
4. Electricity shortage:**
Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Bhutto did better job, not because they had magic wand but due to enough generation of electricity than demand and less stealing during those times.
**
5. Conservatism and intolerance:**

Hatred with Ahmadi were created long before Bhutto. Don't give wrong twist to the history. It was Maulana Maududi who declared Ahmadis as non Muslims which ultimately became a part of constitution in 1973 signed by all political parties. Zia-ul-Haq went one step further put more restrictions and persecution of Ahmadis. He even did not recognize the only Nobel prize winner in history of Pakistan, Dr. Salam because he was Qadiani.

6. Crime and lawlessness:

Drugs, AK47 and Jehadi culture were creation of this mardood. Pakistan is still suffering.

What Pakistan is facing today the acute problem jehadis and terrorism, was creation of this mardood and he was totally responsible for destruction of Pakistan.

3

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Mahool: Please do not try to sell all what you read in newspapers, especially Pakistani newspapers (like Express Tribune) that can sell their soul to anyone who is willing to pay (or due to political bias of person writing). I would not go into all 6 points you made (as It would be hard to look for references and I do not want to say anything that one can accuse it is speculation) … But I would like to give accurate information on GDP growth rate, using most reliable reference that one can find on the subject, ‘Pakistan Bureau of Statistics’ that is the only true source for references on data concerning Pakistan.

No doubt Pakistan real GDP growth was highest during Zia time but figures given by ‘Pakistan tribune’ is not only inaccurate but biased. Another thing to remember is that, when one looks at well being of people and country, than growth in per capita income matters more than GDP or GDP growth rate.

Pakistani population on average increased @ 3.3 % per year during Zia-ul-haq period … actually, Population increased @ 3.4 % per year between 1980 and 1985 … highest in Pakistan history. On the other hand, Pakistan population on average increased at around @ 2 % per year during Musharraf period … increase was @ 1.8 % or below per year from 2004 onward. Increase in population during Ayub Khan period on average was @2.6 % per year (much higher than Musharraf period). Today, Pakistani population is increasing @1.7 % per year.

[Source: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Pakistan%20population%20growth%20rate]

Overall effect is that, growth in Pakistan average per capita income was highest during Musharraf period than at any time in Pakistan history… and growth in Pakistan per capita income in dollars term also increased at highest rate during Musharraf period (due to stable rupee exchange rate). Actually, Pakistan per capita income in dollars terms more than doubled during Musharraf period.

Actual annual GDP growth rate figures during different period:
(Ref: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics … Government of Pakistan):

[TABLE]

Ruler
Period

Total
years
Overall Ave annual growth rate (%)
Ave pop growth rate (%)
Ave Per cap income
growth rate (%)

Ave growth rate (%)

Zia
1977-88

11
6.59
3.3 %
3.18 %

Ayub
1959-69

10
5.85
2.6 %
3.17 %

Musharraf
1999-08

9
5.15
1.9 %
3.19 %

Yahya
1969-71

2
5.42

BeNazir
1988-90
1993-96
4.69 %
5.34 %
5
5.08

Nawaz
1990-93
1996-99
4.39 %
4.88 %
6
4.64

Bhutto
1971-77

6
4.27

Zardari
2008-13

5
3.02

4

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

^ wow... what a load of BS. Major ECON 101 fail.

It is either GDP growth rate or Per Capita GDP [gdp divided by population] growth ... NOT GDP growth rate divided by population growth rate [an absurd measure]

You cannot compare PBS figures across time since they have been re-based in 1999 and 2005.

On topic: Yes, Zia did a lot of bad things. The article is trying to justify those but is a failed attempt. Zia's period was one of the most suffocating period for our society.

Having said that, He HAS BEEN DEAD for quarter of a century now. We didn't do much to remove his legacy anyways. We should really stop blaming him for every terrible thing that happens in our country and try to see what the people coming AFTER him did. Were they any better?

5

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Zia’s biggest and unpardonable crime is not Economy or any other thing, but it was dividing Pakistani nation on ground of sectarianism and promoting extremist (AK-47) culture.

As for Russia in Afghanistan, to say that if Pakistan did not do anything then Russia would have invaded Pakistan, is biggest Bullsh*t crap full of lies anyone can say. Reason is simple, that is:

Russia did not invaded Afghanistan, but Russia was invited by Afghanistan government to help them develop Afghanistan and fight rebels (who were fighting Afghan government in the name of their misguided Islamic interpretation). Purpose of Russia in Afghanistan was not hot water access in Baluchistan (and if they wanted to, then regardless of what Pakistan has done, they could have taken it anyhow).

Second is that, if Russia wanted hot water access on the coast of Baluchistan, than why Pakistani Baluchistan and why not Iranian Baluchistan? Iran was militarily weaker country than Pakistan and has weaker hold over their Baluchistan area then Pakistani hold on Pakistani Baluchistan (as Iranian Baluchistan is Sunni whereas Iranian government is Shia).

Third thing to remember, that would clearly show that to enter civil war in Afghanistan was not necessary for Pakistan, is that, Zia was not going to inter Afghan civil war, rather he was thinking to keep away from it, and rejected American initial aid that Carter gave, calling that aid as peanut. But Saudi Pressure and increase in price America decided to pay for their dirty work in Afghanistan made Zia jump into Afghan civil war … what he could have done without using Islam, propagating lies that Afghanistan civil war was jihad, and misguiding retarded amongst Muslim and Zombies of Madrassas.

Zia use of Islam, propagating that Afghan civil war is Jihad, using vulnerable Muslims who had retarded mind and using Madrasas (with Saudi money) to produce Zombies providing America an army of brainless men for American's involvement in Afghan civil war, Zia sown the seed of dividing Pakistan into sectarianism that completely destroyed Pakistan, and today we are reaping the fruit of seed that Zia sown.

6

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

.

7

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Yar ... Jahil baton say pahlay kuch parh liya karo.

NO re-basing can change growth figures that are figures in percentage.

Further, PBS figures for Pakistan (other countries have their own statistical department) are THE only figures that are taken as prime reference figures, and all other figures, even world bank or IMF figures, they are secondary ... taken (or derived) from PBS figures.

8

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

They do if measurement methodology is changed.... which was.

and please for my knowledge, reference if there is any economic measure like:

GDP growth rate / population growth rate.

9

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Well ... do you know what re-basing of economy is, what it means, and how it is done?

If you know, explain. :)

(If you do not then it is fine. We all learn from each other. So, please ask, and I will try my best to explain).

10

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

As someone who studied Economics.... I have to agree its rather difficult comparing the different time periods not least due to exogenous factors but also the method of calculation.

Keep it simple, please.

11

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

[quote="Sa1eem, post:107, topic:316350"]

growth in Pakistan average per capita income was highest during Musharraf period than at any time in Pakistan history…

lo ji kar lo gal :)

12

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Your numbers, especially Musharraf’s dont even match up even if we go by your own link…

Source: File

And this might be worth reading for everyone else…

The myth of Musharraf’s ‘economic boom’ needs to die – The Express Tribune Blog

13

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

^^^ Are you serious ... yea, abhi abhi Raiwand say aa rahay ho. :)

Check PBS (Pakistan bureau of Statistics) figures and do some calculation ... if you do not know how to calculate then let me help.

If in year A growth rate was X percent
and in year (A + 1) growth rate was Y percent

and in year (A + 2) growth rate was Z percent than

Accumulative growth over those 3 years would be:
[1 + (X divided by 100)] Multiply by [1 + (Y divided by 100)] multiply by [1 + (Z divided by 100)] = Answer

Take the Answer ... deduct 1 ... then multiply by 100.

... got it?

And do not quote figures from here and there ... when I quoted the figures of PBS, and that is source of all Pakistani figures.

As far as Blog you quoted, if the blog does not belong to you, you may find the writer in Raiwand house ... the grand house of corrupts, liars and B-sh*ters. Though have to agree that some in Raiwand servant quarters are just high on smell of gas generated in guts of HRH after HRH eating Nihari and Payee. :)

14

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Base rate and its effect on real percentage GDP growth rate: Value of currency changes every year. Effect is that, currency of one year is not same as another year. For instance rupee of 2000 is not same as rupee of 2001, and similarly rupee of 2001 is not same as rupee of 2002. Currency value over time depreciates due to inflation … and so on. Let look at simple example.

**
Now if base year is 2000 than:**

If inflation between 2000 and 2001 was 8 % than Rs 100.00 of 2000 = Rs 108.00 of 2001.
If inflation between 2001 and 2002 was 5 % than Rs 108.00 of 2001 = Rs 113.40 of 2002.
If inflation between 2002 and 2003 was 4 % than Rs 113.40 of 2002 = Rs 117.94 of 2003.
If inflation between 2003 and 2004 was 6 % than Rs 117.94 of 2003 = Rs 125.01 of 2004.
If inflation between 2004 and 2005 was 5 % than Rs 125.01 of 2004 = Rs 131.26 of 2005.
If inflation between 2005 and 2006 was 4 % than Rs 131.26 of 2005 = Rs 136.51 of 2006.
If inflation between 2006 and 2007 was 6 % than Rs 136.51 of 2006 = Rs 144.70 of 2007.
If inflation between 2007 and 2008 was 7 % than Rs 144.70 of 2007 = Rs 154.83 of 2008.
If inflation between 2008 and 2009 was 6 % than Rs 154.83 of 2008 = Rs 164.12 of 2009.
If inflation between 2009 and 2010 was 9 % than Rs 164.12 of 2009 = Rs 178.89 of 2010.

If nominal GDP in 2009 was Rs 9000 billion then real GDP (in rupee of 2000) would be Rs 5483.79 billion … as every Rs 164.13 of 2009 would be Rs 100 of year 2000.

If nominal GDP in 2010 was 10260 billion then real GDP (in rupee of 2000) would be Rs 5735.37 billion … as every Rs 178.89 of 2010 would be Rs 100 of year 2000.

Real GDP growth would be (5735.37 divided by 5483.79) multiply by 100 = 4.587 percentage point.

Now let change the base rate from 2000 to 2005 and see what happens:

Then from above figures ... instead of working out value in rupee of 2000, we work out value in rupee of 2005. So … keeping inflation rate same as above and nominal GDP (or 2009 and 2010) same as above.

If inflation between 2005 and 2006 was 4 % than Rs 100.00 of 2005 = Rs 104.00 of 2006.
If inflation between 2006 and 2007 was 6 % than Rs 104.00 of 2006 = Rs 110.24 of 2007.
If inflation between 2007 and 2008 was 7 % than Rs 110.24 of 2007 = Rs 117.96 of 2008.
If inflation between 2008 and 2009 was 6 % than Rs 117.96 of 2008 = Rs 125.03 of 2009.
If inflation between 2009 and 2010 was 9 % than Rs 125.03 of 2009 = Rs 136.29 of 2010.

So, if nominal GDP in 2009 was Rs 9000 billion (as it was in above example) then real GDP would be Rs 7198.27 billion … as every Rs 125.03 of 2009 would be Rs 100 of year 2005.

If nominal GDP in 2010 was 10260 billion (as it was in above example) then real GDP would be Rs 7528.07 billion … as every Rs 136.29 of 2010 would be Rs 100 of year 2005.

Real GDP growth would be (7528.07 divided by 7198.27) multiply by 100 = 4.582 percentage point.

So, you can see the effect of changing base rate from 2000 to 2005. You will notice that real GDP changed (has increased) not because it really changed (or increased), but because the value is now quoted in Rupee of year 2005 instead of Rupee of year 2000 (or value increased by 32.26 percentage point as due to inflation, rupee value of year 2007 was 32.26 percentage lower in value then rupee value of 2000).

But as far as percentage increase in real growth rate is concerned, no changed happened (as change in base rate do not effect percentage increase in real GDP growth rate), because real growth rate is not dependent on base year but it depends on the figure of previous year.

15

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

[quote=“Sachaydino, post:66, topic:316860”]

Bhai, may aap say kaisay behes kar sakta hoon?

I have all respect for you. You are illustrious student of Zardari the Great. Great teacher who graduated (got BEd .. or Bachelor Degree in Education) from ‘Ghost schools’ in London. But then he came from province where we have many Ghost Schools, so graduating from Ghost schools cannot be problem for Zardari. Only problem is that he surprised the world because he graduated from Ghost Schools in London not Sindh … with weird names too.

‘London School of Business Studies’ … and ‘Padinton School’

I live in London, but I could not find any such schools … actually, I could not find even a place called ‘Padinton’. Maybe, in world of Ghost, Paddington is written as Padinton and school must be in graveyard next to harrow road (close to Paddington). Who knows :slight_smile:

Though sometime I feel that Zardari is same person who when visited Quaid Mazar wrote in visitor’s book:

“May gaad give us the strent to save Pakistan”

So … the person who can write
Gaad for God
Strent for Strength

Could also write
Padinton for Paddington. :slight_smile:

It seems, graduating from Ghost Schools effects one’s spelling and sometime brain too, as Zardari claimed he suffer from dementia.

Here is record of Zardari education exploits in London (from ‘The New York times’):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/world/asia/11pstan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

16

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Sorry, did not answered earlier (did not noticed what you asked) so here it is:

You are right that change in measurement methodology can change growth rate figures ... but the effect on growth rate figures are very nominal. Reason is that, any change in measurement methodology with respect to whole economy is very nominal.

For instance ... at time of changing base year, government may include certain sectors of economy in calculation because they were insignificant in past but have developed and became significant in the country. At the same time Government may expunge certain sectors of economy that became irrelevant.

That is the reason, governments should ideally re-base economy every 5 years or 10 years (at most) ... and all prudent governments do.

As for your second part, regarding ratio, here it is:

Real Per capita income growth rate = (Real GDP growth rate) / (population growth rate)

17

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

^ Does anyone else use this ratio or you pulled it out from Shaukat Aziz's bag of magic tricks? It makes ZERO economic sense.

18

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Alright, my previous post to you was very polite and your reply, as usual is atypical of a paid MQMer resorting to silly insults after posting heaps of lies like you always do.

Now to answer your question, I guess you did the calculation the same way you came out with the 350+ seats that Musharraf and his Q croonies were supposed to win in the 2008 elections right?

As for the blog I put a disclaimer that it is meant for everyone else, not someone like you who. Furthermore, it comes from a econ PhD candidate at UMass, not some bhattakhoor/extortionist from 9-0.

19

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

Hmmm … let us do some calculation and check: :)

Standard method:

Country A:

Real GDP per capita growth rate:

Real GDP in 2013 = $ 1000 million
Real GDP in 2014 = $ 1050 million

(1050 divied by 1000) = 1.05

Minus 1 and then multiply by 100 (that is procedure to get % increase … I mentioned that in post I answered to Spock)

(1.05 – 1) multiply by 100 = 5 %

Calculated real GDP growth rate = 5 %

Population growth rate:

Population in 2013 = 1 million
Population in 2014 = 1.02 million

(1.02 divided by 1) = 1.02
Minus 1 and then multiply by 100 (that is procedure to get % increase … as mentioned earlier)

(1.02 – 1) multiply by 100 = 2 %

Calculated real population growth rate = 2 %

So, we get:
In 2013 … Per capita income at constant price = ($1000 m divided by 1 m) = $1000
In 2014 … Per capita income at constant price = ($1050 m divided by 1.02 m) = $1029.41

Real GDP per capita increase in one year … from 2013 to 2014:

(1029.41 divided by 1000) = 1.02941
Minus 1 and then multiply by 100 (that is procedure to get percentage increase … as mentioned earlier)

(1.02941 – 1) multiply by 100 = 2.941 %

That means: Real GDP per capita increased was 2.941 % in 2014 from 2013.

Let us now use the formula I gave above (actually, it is same as above, but short for those who know real growth rate and population growth):

Real GDP per capita increase = (Real GDP growth rate) divided by (population growth rate)

Real GDP growth rate from above was 5 %
Population growth rate from above was 2 %

So, to get real GDP per capita growth rate, what we do is:

1.05 divided by 1.02 = 1.02941

Minus 1 and then multiply by 100 (that is procedure to get % increase … I mentioned that in post I answered to Spock)

(1.0294 – 1) multiply by 100 = 2.941 %

Or Real GDP per capita increased was 2.941 % in 2014 from 2013.

Can you check ... is both same (2.941 %)?

If yes ... then what formula I gave is accurate :)

20

Re: Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why

I am sorry ... but from your post, what I can see is that, you wrote 'My figures' not matching ... and then you gave figures in graph form ... that was not my figures but graph quoted by Mahool's in his first post, that I contested.

All figures that I quoted was PBS figures, not mine. I only did some simple calculation to work out accumulative growth rate at different periods, using growth figures given by PBS.

Since you did not even read my post properly and verify the figures that I gave quoting PBS site, you had no right to question my figures accusing me of lying on figures, blaming that my figures do not match with figures that I quoted (that accusation was clearly to spread misinformation). Worse is that, you gave another figures (given in graph) as if it was my figures. If you did not read the post, at least you could have kept quite.

Since you did, accused me of lying on my figures, I thought that there must be something that caused you to do that ... and since Raiwand Mahal is famous of spreading misinformation, doing propaganda full of lies and baseless accusation, I felt what I wrote.

I am sorry if that was not the case and you made simple mistake of not checking my quote but instead took figures in graphs quoted by Mahool considering that it was me who quoted them.

I do not mind if you correct me, point out my mistakes, or mistakes in my quotes. I am human and no doubt I might miss some points or make mistakes (though i would never write something that I believe is lies, just to misguide anyone).

Anyhow, to make baseless accusations that my figures do not match ... without pointing the mismatch, rather quoting some other figures as if it was mine, that can only happen when one writes without reading post and seeing what I wrote, than that is not right.

And yes, no PhD or whatever could quote Pakistani economic figures that is different from PBS figures, claiming to be true figures, as people who work on ground, collect figures from all sources, do work on those figures, tabulate them, and publish them are government organisations, and when it comes to Pakistan economic figures, that government organisations are PBS and state bank of Pakistan.

So, when it comes to economic figures, if anyone contradicts PBS or SBP figures, than either they are illiterate about figures, or paid to do so, spread misinformation, by Pakistani thugs (something Thugs of Raiwand do a lot),