A chapter from history, that to me, turned Pakistan’s fate completely from the road to progress to the road to hell.
Then Commander-in-chief Mr. Zia threw away democratic elected PM Mr. Bhutto, promised election in 90 days, stayed for 11 years, hanged the PM, nurtured racial division, shia-sunni conflict, feeded religious extremism and hence threw Pakistan far away backwards.
What do you think about the effect of this day?
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Zia created fasad in Pakistan… so he is Waldul Fasad… we are still seeing harmful fruit which he seeded in 80s in the name of Afghan Jihad…
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Irony is that the actions that Zia took were initiated by Bhutto himself if only to prolong his rule after 1977. He was the one who declared qadyanis kaafir when there was no grassroots movement in Pakistan for such actions.
I don’t know how a hosni mubarak or qadaffi type Pakistan as bhutto envisioned with his rigging, mass arrests of opposition, dubious dismissals and military operation in balochistan would have fared today. His nationalization and purging of competent civil servants from bureaucracy to loyalists / incompetent quota walas started the path to where we are now.
It is like muqawee said in the past that zia rule wasn’t that bad as his own army officers used to drink in front of him and the press opposed him. I think that the generation back then was more tolerant for many things which the madarsa educated crop now isn’t in today’s Pakistan. As they say, you reap what you sow so the crop planted in the eighties is bearing fruits now. Of course, the lost decade of the nineties where the so-called democratic set up was too busy pulling down each other’s trousers instead of arresting the decline didn’t help matters.
All in all, it is like blaming Trump for America’s decline, if he turns out to be our Nero, when the rural urban divide and circling of the wagons started much before his presidency. He was genius enough to strike while the iron was hot.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Forty years ago General Ziaul Haq seized power and put the country under its third and longest martial law.
Over the next decade, he decisively transformed what was left of Jinnah’s dream of a secular democratic Pakistan into an almost completely theocratic polity.
His handiwork has survived more than three decades and appears unlikely to be replaced with another political structure in the foreseeable future.
In order to understand Ziaul Haq’s success in redefining Pakistan and the survival of his scheme we have to examine the genesis of ‘the Pakistan idea’ because he drew upon the tussle between two groups of people over what Pakistan was meant to be.
Pakistanis today live not in the country envisaged by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah but in the country practically shaped by Gen Zia, who drew on a tussle from its founding moments.
The Lahore Resolution of 1940 offered a constitutional scheme as an alternative to the one embodied in the Government of India Act of 1935.
In his address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam also described the creation of Pakistan and Partition as the only solution of India’s constitutional problem.
This would imply that the movement for Pakistan was a purely political struggle unrelated to any religious objective.
However, the new constitutional scheme advanced for two parts of the British Indian territory was based on the fact that these were Muslim-majority areas and, after the failure of the Muslim leaders to secure adequate safeguards to which they were entitled as a large minority, the All-India Muslim League had won considerable support for the Two Nation Theory.
This theory defined the Muslims of India as a nation completely different from the majority (Hindu) community and one entitled to a state of its own.
The grounding of the Pakistan demand in the religious identity of the people for whom a state was being demanded gave rise to the idea that Pakistan could be an Islamic state.
Jinnah did not advocate a religious polity but he did not completely disown the religious motivation either. He ignored Gandhi’s offer of persuading Congress to concede Pakistan if it was not demanded on the basis of religion.
Jinnah often maintained that he was asking for a democratic state and that was what Islam stood for. The only people who believed Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic state were the ulema, with rare exceptions.
The elections of 1945-1946 revealed a significant division in the ranks of Pakistan’s supporters.
While the League leadership continued demanding Pakistan without disclosing in detail what Pakistan was going to be (like, religious slogans were raised especially in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).
Although the slogan ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha il-Allah’ was not the battle cry, it was frequently raised at some places.
Other religious slogans, such as ‘Muslim hai tau Muslim League mein aa’ [If you are a Muslim join the Muslim League] and ‘Pakistan mein Musalmaanon ki hukumat hogi’ [Pakistan will be ruled by Muslims] were freely used.
That religion did play a role in the movement for Pakistan was confirmed by the request made by Congress campaign organisers in Punjab to their high command to send some Muslim scholars to help them.
Thus the Pakistan supporters were divided into two camps; one may be loosely defined as the group that swore by democracy while the other was vaguely attached to the concept of a religious state.
The roots of Zia’s Pakistan lay in this division.
With the creation of Pakistan there was a reshuffling of posture by both groups.
The Quaid-i-Azam realized he no longer needed the religious card.
Three days before Pakistan’s emergence as a new state he said goodbye to the Two Nation Theory and called for the formation of a new nation on the basis of people’s citizenship of Pakistan.
The religious parties that had opposed the Pakistan demand did a complete volte-face and called for making Pakistan an Islamic state.
Pakistan supporters were divided into two camps; one may be loosely defined as the group that swore by democracy while the other was vaguely attached to the concept of a religious state. The roots of Zia’s Pakistan lay in this division.
Two factors guided them: They had opposed Pakistan because they had no hope of its becoming an Islamic state; in the Pakistan the League had demanded, the Muslims were going to be in a nominal majority and declaring it as an Islamic state would have been almost impossible.
The partition of Punjab and Bengal changed the situation. In the new Pakistan’s population of 65 million, non-Muslims were only around 20 million, and most of them were in the eastern wing.
The ongoing riots could further reduce the non-Muslim population.
Besides, the religious parties had seen in the elections the strength of the religious slogans.
These two factors had brightened the prospect of declaring Pakistan an Islamic state.
Maulana Maududi was among the first ulema who decided to benefit from this situation.
He migrated to Pakistan, deleted the anti-Pakistan thesis from his major publication ‘Musalman aur Siyasi Kashmakash’ [Muslims and Political Struggle], accepted the Punjab government’s invitation to lecture the bureaucrats on Islamic values and broadcast similar messages on the radio.
However, he soon lost the government’s goodwill when he declared that Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir was not jihad as the state was not Islamic.
Within a few months of Pakistan’s creation, in February 1948, the ulema of various shades of opinion presented the government with a charter of demands containing steps required to establish a religious state.
They were put off with promises of favourable consideration of their demands.
But the government was rattled by East Bengal’s demands for acceptance of its cultural rights and tried to face these demands by raising the standard of Islamic solidarity.
Eventually, it took refuge under the Objectives Resolution of March 1949, which displayed a variety of wares to suit different sections of the population.
The most important feature of the resolution was a declaration that sovereignty belonged to Allah. The ulema were jubilant.
The slogan-walas had defeated the Jinnah lobby.
The Jamaat-i-Islami now declared Pakistan an Islamic state.
The most telling observation on the Objectives Resolution came from a Congress member of the assembly who warned the house that the resolution had cleared the way for the emergence of an adventurer who could claim to be God’s appointee.
And General Zia behaved exactly like that.
Thus we find that between 1947 and 1953 the ‘religious slogan group’ acquired a toehold in the political arena, thanks to the failure of the ‘democratic ideals group’ to honour Jinnah’s advice to keep religion out of politics and also its failure to promote democratic norms.
Further, it made the grave mistake of resisting democratic demands by seeking refuge under a religious canopy.
The ‘religious slogan group’ took an exaggerated view of its strength and challenged the government by launching the anti-Ahmadi agitation in 1953.
It lost because the state services, especially the army, had not abandoned the colonial policy of denying religious/sectarian elements any accommodation at the cost of law and order.
But this was the only victory the ‘democratic ideals group’ was able to achieve against the ‘religious slogan group’.
Between 1953 and 1958 the ‘democratic ideals group’ had to contend with a new challenger — a civil and military bureaucratic combine that had scant respect for the democratic facade that had hitherto been sustained to a certain degree.
Neither party paid much attention to the ‘religious slogan group’ that was left to lick the wounds it sustained in 1953.
However, while preparing the country’s first constitution, the civil bureaucracy gave considerable concession to the religious parties by calling the state the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, reserving the presidentship for Muslims and creating an Islamic board to advise the government on its religious duties, including the task of ‘Islamisation’ of laws. These provisions were later to be used as the foundations of a theocratic state.
The Ayub regime tried to crush both the ‘democratic ideals’ and ‘religious slogan’ groups.
The former were Ebdo-ed out of the political arena (Ebdo was the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order which threatened prosecution of politicians for ‘misconduct’ unless they promised not to participate in politics for seven years). The latter were controlled by putting mosques under the Auqaf department.
Further, Jamaat-i-Islami was subjected to a propaganda campaign in addition to the detention of its leader. When the regime brought in its constitution in 1962, it dropped the word “Islamic” from the state’s title. (It also dropped the chapter on fundamental rights.)
However, the Ayub regime was responsible for strengthening the religious parties’ place in national politics.
After most of the politicians had been sent into the wilderness, mosques were the only platforms left for any agitation.
When the opposition parties got together to set up their candidates to contest the 1965 presidential election, the alliance had as many religious parties as the quasi-democratic ones and they gained in terms of popular support while campaigning in favour of Fatima Jinnah.
The anti-Ayub agitation was a secular, democratic movement and therefore Yahya Khan concentrated on removing the people’s political grievances by accepting the ‘one-man, one-vote’ principle, and undoing the one-unit.
He did not think of pandering to the religious lobby till his attempt to issue a new constitution on the night of surrender at Dhaka but these parties’ support to this draft constitution was of help neither to Yahya nor to themselves.
The religious parties benefitted a great deal from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s attempts to win them over to his side.
The constitution of 1973 declared Islam as the state religion and invested the Council of Islamic Ideology with wide powers.
In February 1974, Bhutto joined King Faisal’s efforts to counter the forces of Arab nationalism with Islamic nationalism and organised the Islamic Summit.
About six months later, his government had the Ahmadis declared non-Muslims. All this did not help him.
And after the mishandling of the 1977 election by his advisers, the religious parties spearheaded a movement for his ouster under the slogan of Nizam-i-Mustafa, which called for Islamic laws to be implemented in the country.
Further concessions to the clergy — such as imposing of a ban on the sale and consumption of liquor and declaring Friday as the weekly holiday — did not help Bhutto because Zia had already decided to overthrow him.
Now it can be said that the Bhutto government of 1971-1977 provided Zia with a broad enough platform to launch his plan to redefine Pakistan. And he went about this task with the zeal and confidence of a neo-convert.
Between 1978 and 1985, Zia took a number of steps to complete Pakistan’s transformation into a theocracy of the medieval variety.
A Federal Shariat Court was created for enforcing religious laws, striking down laws it found repugnant to Islam, and with some power to make laws.
The state assumed the power to collect zakat and ushr.
Ahmadis were barred from calling their prayer houses mosques, from possessing and reading the Quran or using the Muslim ways of greeting one another, using Islamic epithets or naming their daughters after women belonging to the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) family.
The Penal Code was amended to provide for punishment for desecration of the Holy Quran and for punishing blasphemy with death or life imprisonment (later on the the Shariat Court made death for blasphemy mandatory).
The parliament was designated as the Majlis-e-Shura, and an arbitrarily amended Objectives Resolution — used hitherto as a preamble to the constitution — was made its substantive part.
Furthermore, an attempt was made to subvert the system of democratic elections by holding party-less polls.
In addition, Zia amended the constitutional provisions relating to qualifications for membership of assemblies and disqualification of members to make them suggestive of respect for religious criteria.
He also subverted the education system, firstly by facilitating the growth of religious seminaries (while extension and improvement of general education were neglected and books on rights and democracy were burnt) and increased religion-related lessons in textbooks at all grade levels.
Further he tried to consolidate his measures through a constitutional amendment (the ninth amendment) but it was not adopted.
He was also unable in his attempts to create morality brigades to enforce the system of prayers and puritanical regulations.
Many factors helped Zia to impose his belief on the people including measures that lacked Islamic sanction. He fully exploited the political advantages the religious parties had won from poorly performing quasi-democratic governments.
And the conflict in Afghanistan yielded him enormous dividends. He was able to convince a large body of people that through his Afghan policy he had brought glory to Islam.
That Pakistan today is what Gen Zia made it into cannot be denied and the reasons are not far to seek.
First, it has not been possible to undo the changes made by Zia in the constitution and the laws. Every bit of change made by him is treated by the religious lobby as divinely ordained.
Some of the parties that are not included among religious outfits are unabashedly loyal to Zia’s legacy — those that are not are afraid of taking on the religious mobs.
The secular elements lost the streets to the hordes controlled by the clergy, especially by the madressah authorities, long ago.
The judiciary, never keen to rule against religious extremists, has often declined to touch Zia’s amendments on the grounds of their having been endorsed by elected governments through acquiescence.
The difficulty in interfering with Zia’s disruption of the Pakistan structure can be judged from the fact that his name could not be removed from Article 270-A of the constitution until April 2010 — that is, 22 years and five elections after his death.
Secondly, the religious landscape is dominated by arch-conservative elements who do not allow any intra-religious discourse and those who can challenge them dare not stay in the country.
Further, the ouster of left-of-centre parties from the councils of influence and power has made the so-called mainstream parties hostages to the orthodoxy.
In this situation, there is little hope of relief from exploitation of belief in the interest of an unjust and oppressive status quo.
The curse of the Zia legacy will continue to bedevil the state and the people for quite some time till ordinary citizens realize it has nothing to offer them except for unmitigated misery.
Published in Dawn, EOS, July 2nd, 2017
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
[RIGHT]5 جولائی 1977 کے کامیاب فوجی تجربے کے نتیجے میں پیدا ہونے والے ٹیسٹ ٹیوب بے بیز میں سے سب سے لمبی اور کامیاب سیاسی عمر ملک کے حالیہ وزیرِ اعظم نے پائی۔ وہی جنہوں نے ضیا مشن سے وابستگی کا علم بلند کرتے ہوئے 90 کی دہائی میں بھٹو کی بیٹی کا ناطقہ بند کیے رکھا اور انہیں کبھی کسی کی ایماء پر سیکیورٹی رسک کا لقب دیا تو کبھی کرپٹ قرار دیا۔[/RIGHT]
https://external-sin6-2.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDXmyFlGQmLpGp6&w=476&h=249&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dawn.com%2Fmedium%2F2017%2F07%2F595ca08d5d4d5.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&sx=0&sy=0&sw=500&sh=262&_nc_hash=AQB6fRs4250Jd3wU
[RIGHT]5 جولائی 1977 کے سیاسی ٹیسٹ ٹیوب بے بی
5 جولائی 1977 کو ہونے والی فوج کی کارروائی جسے “آپریشن فیئر پلے” کا نام دیا گیا کوئی اچانک اور غیر متوقع اقدام نہیں تھا۔[/RIGHT]
ضیا کےتسلسل کےظلم وستم کےاندھیرےسائےاسوقت تک منڈلاتےرہیںگےجبتک عام شہری کواحساس نہیں ہوتاکہ اس تسلسل نےسوائےمصیبتوں کےاورکچھ نہیں دیا۔
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Ohh the irony, Zia’s grandson writes in NYtimes about his trip to → HOOTERS
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/opinion/going-to-hooters-and-seeing-america.html
Going to Hooters and Seeing America
JULY 4, 2017
On Campus
By MOHAMMAD ZIA ADNAN
It sounds like the beginning of an uncomfortable joke: Four brown kids of Pakistani descent — from Karachi, Dubai, London and Augusta, Ga. — walk into a Hooters on a recent Saturday afternoon.
They order cheese fries, mozzarella sticks and a plate of fried pickles that will later give the Londoner (me) a wild bout of indigestion. Waitresses in the company’s trademark orange shorts flit about, taking orders and smiling at families with children. Burly men in baseball caps clink pints of gold libation. Football plays on one flat screen TV, but is muted for the golf tournament that plays on another.
In truth, this expedition wasn’t a joke, but more of a fascinating ethnographic adventure. My friends and I didn’t plan on eating at Hooters initially. We go to Princeton, where two of us are international students, and that Saturday, we craved the spicy curries and fluffy flatbreads of our pre-college lives. A new biryani joint had opened up at a strip mall not far from campus, so we took an Uber over to check it out.
Across the parking lot, we spotted a branch of the famous restaurant chain, complete with a Hooters owl and a sign in the window that read: “Delightfully tacky, yet unrefined.”
“Let’s just go in for appetizers,” one friend suggested, lingering by the entrance as she looked longingly at a hamburger through the glass. “We have to eat here at least once before we graduate. It’s so American.”
As children, we were reared on American TV: chick-flicks, Disney and coming-of-age dramas from the early 2000s. We knew all about Fourth of July barbecues and fireworks set off in red, white and blue. We wanted to see this world — the America of a country song.
Our afternoon at Hooters was, therefore, strangely rewarding. We marveled at the awkward dates, flannel shirts, frosty beer steins and greasy mozzarella sticks. John Denver played over the speakers. The atmosphere was flirtatious but also, paradoxically, mundane. This was quintessential America, we thought, straight out of the movies — a star-spangled feast for the senses. And we had found it mere miles away from our ivy-covered campus.
At Princeton, international students attend a separate orientation on acclimating to life in the United States. We were given logistical information and taught some cultural know-how, but the thing that stuck out most to me was a flowchart graphic that depicted the lulls and peaks of how we might experience the novelty of this country.
Those who are freshly arrived experience the highs of an initial honeymoon period, when everything from the Dunkin’ Donuts in the dining hall to clothes dryers (not as common where I grew up) are inspiring and exciting. Then there are the lows of homesickness, when international students inevitably long for familiarity — and, in my case, samosas.
Adapting to life at Princeton was generally smooth for me. Aside from the standoffish immigration officers that stamp my passport with raised eyebrows, and East Coast winters that still do not agree with me, I am in a state of relative bliss in the United States, tucked between leather-bound stacks at the library, immersed in the luxury of reading and thinking. Of course, it’s not like I live on an island divorced from reality. In today’s political climate, my international friends and I are all constantly confronted by the harshness of the news cycle. As a young Muslim, as a non-American, I know that the comforts of a college campus like mine cannot be underestimated.
These are strange times we live in, but mostly, you wouldn’t really know it from inside the academic bubble, and fortunately so. I love my campus — its pretty pathways lined with orange leaves in the fall, its creaky chairs and Gothic windows in the lecture rooms, its embrace of everything intellectual and of diversity. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the America of loud Fourth of July parties, a country that, like Hooters, is both crass and, oddly, family-friendly.
Now when I want to get away from Locke or Voltaire, I know where to go. That afternoon at Hooters, slightly nauseated from the deep-fried pickles, I had one thought running through my mind: Here I am, finally. America.
Mohammad Zia Adnan (@mziaadnan) is a rising junior at Princeton.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
5th July… BBC record first News bulletin , Tamil Tiger attacked on Sri lankan Army, Elvis Presly recorded his song. Cameron in Germany took charge of country… Martial Law, Law of return by Israel, US secret agency came under govt. Venezuela and Philippine got freedom…
aur pany han… sahafi bradari ki shamait, khu kush hamlon ka number 1 elaqa, singers ki shamat, zia ka bhutto ko phansi lagana jamhoriat ka qatal, pakistan main basny walay logon ki shamat.. ISI ka gov’t sanbhalan, aur Pakistan ka phir sya ghulami main chaly jana…
in sab shikwon kay bad… apki hooter wali bachi bari tight piece lag rah ahia… :cobra:
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Pakistan ki tarikh ka sub se manhoos lamha. Pakistan is still struggling to overcome Zia-ul-Haq’s mantra of fraud Islami Nizaam.
Restored attachments:
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
اپنےبچوں کوضیاکی بدروح سےبچاکررکھیں،دفع بلیات کی دعائیں پڑھ کران پرپھونک ماریں،کمبخت جس میں گھس جاتی ہےاسےخودکش بمباربنادیتی ہےاسکاپھٹنےکودل کرتاہے
Know more
#BlackDay](https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackDay?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A882717468426424322)
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Bhutto never did any rigging - he was overwhelmingly voted each time.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Bhutto was extremely popular - this is why so many people support ‘Bhutto’ decades later.
This day the devil took over Pakistan - Zia - and we have been suffering ever since.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
The biggest crime of Zia was to kill Bhutto. If he has not done so, PPP could not keep generations hostage in the name of Bhuttoism.
Zia made himself a spacegoat for Pakistan history. Now every tom, dick and harry blame Zia for his own wrong-doings. Its been 30 years since Zia was killed, but there is no rectifcatory attitude in poiltical parties since then. They now balme Musharraf, but its also been around 10 years, since Musharraf left, but these good for nothing politicians still play their politcis on past marshal laws. Totally a mess.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
It is known fact that there was rigging in 1977 elections.
Now, would bhutto have won w/o rigging and was he personally not involved in it?
That might be true but the jiyala culture that bhutto promoted had his party members acting more loyal than their king. Even a fervent supporter like Nadeem Paracha admits that there was urban dissatisfaction with Bhutto though he explained it all as an urban vs. rural divide. Socialism works for basic healthcare and providing utilities, education like in Cuba, but it doesn’t work as seen in Cuba or the Soviet Union (china learnt its lessons) to centrally plan everything. There is no incentive for progress and growth in a free job as the arabs are finding out now.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
There are no evidences of this so called rigging. PNA’s influence was limited to major cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad etc!
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
That was JI backed by ISI propaganda. He never rigged. His elections were no less than what Yahya conducted in 1970. Even then he agreed with ISI sponsored 9-party alliance for re-elections. Why kana dajjal took over? When ZAB was put illegally in jail, Nusrat his wife was running the campaign of elections on the promise of kana dajjal to conduct elections in 90 days. When army helicopter saw that her jalsa in Jehlum where crowd came out in favor of ZAB, and there was no end to this mammoth crowd spread over miles and miles on that day. This was informed to kana dajjal who immediately postponed the elections indefinitely as he knew ZAB would be back in power with full force. Perhaps you were not born then. I was there.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Slightly disagree. He was man of honor and a real politician. He was smart and intelligent. Had he alive Pakistan definitely would have been at least at par with India. He would still be remembered for many generations to come. And yes Pakistan would have been cleaned from terrorists and suicide bombers. Pakistan would have never been a notorious country leading the world terrorism as world recognize it now. During his time Pakistan then famous and known to the world as “Bhutto’s Pakistan”.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Can you also deny his arbitrary arrests of workers and house arrests of leaders? what about the dismissal of balochistan and Kp (nwfp) govt by him?
There are BBC clips of these actions on youtube.
I know that you have to support him being a leftist but it is basically my word against yours.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
The culture of corruption magnified tenfold when bhutto did his “socialism” experiment. Rajiv ghandi invested in education which I frankly don’t know if bhutto actually did since the govt takeover of education resulted in a worse education system in Pakistan. India finally starting getting away from the hindu rate of growth after liberalization of the economy; i don’t know how bhutto could’ve done it later with everyone at the teet of the govt without an overthrow. All in all, both civilians (mujib and bhutto) that conspired to break Pakistan in 1971 for their own nefarious reasons met very untimely and bloody deaths.
Of course, the downfall wasn’t arrested fully after bhutto’s dismissal as Zia also use “islam” and quota system / erode merit in his term. It is like the jinn of salafism wasn’t stopped after the eighties either by our so-called civilian secular govts or the army itself.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
Bhutto was somewhat chauvinist in his action against the two provinces like he did some action against against Abbasi - his JI opponent in Larkana - he would have won that election without resorting to that.
The fact is that PPP came into power again after 11 years of Zia’s repression in 1988. This proves that there were no mass rigging in the elections of 1977 as claimed by PNA then.
I am not a supporter of Bhutto - indeed as a teenager (13 years in 1977) I was a staunch supporter of PNA and in fact took part in some of the anti Bhutto protest then.
PNA ran a false movement then on false promises and fake claims purporting Bhutto as a non muslim indeed then.
Re: Revisiting the historic day of July 5, 1977
You are one biased liar. Your bloody hatred is obvious for this man, perhaps he was Sindhi. Yahya Khan broke Pakistan, the division was created soon after Urdu was declared as national language in 1948. Later dictators before ZAB completed the division and breakup. Get this downloaded into your ugly hateful brain.
