That politics is a dirty business goes without saying..but when the army gets involved in it ..it becomes a lot dirtier, simply because civilians for all their flaws can be reigned in by the people whereas a military dictator only understands the threat of force.
As far as rationality is concerned, you are invoking nazaria zaroorat: the doctrine of neccessity as a reason..and pragmatism as a need. To that I can only answer one thing: the ultimate pragmatist is a prostitute; i prefer idealism because the ultimate idealists are saints and statesman.
Hain jee!!!...India occupied large chunks of West Pakistan???? It is one thing to sing praises of ZAB as the most diabolically intelligent leader in South Asia's history, it is one thing to invent events/incident that did not occur in history and make him a mythological hero figure of those fantacies...
It would be a stretch for even Bhattu himself to think he saved the country, when he was the biggest reason for the country to be in the dire situtation in the first place...
It is well known that Quaid-e-Azam had little time for party politicians and their machinations, which is why he exercised an executive influence over the government. He found politicians a must untrustable bunch of people, mostly people who had jumped on the Pakistan bandwagon once it was apparent that independence/partition was a certainty i.e. traitors who had become turncoats Even back in the 1950’s politicians would queue up outside the military chiefs or Governor General/President’s offices begging for them to take action against the incumbent government. It was these type of politicians that first brought the military (Ayub) into government, a behaviour cycle repeated in the late 70’s and in the 1988-99 period. Thank God Musharraf does not give up his uniform or else hypocritical politicians will start the same over again, and keep on dragging the military into their dirty games.
The primary reason was people demonstrating on the streets majors and generals came latter. In case of ZAB the demnstrations were far more wide spread and damaging but the tiger did not budge…
^ again untrue..he had clinched a deal with the opposition for fresh elections and a caretaker arrangement in the time before the elections. Zia knew of the deal and declared martial law before it could be implemented. All the opposition people involved at the time who are still alive have long since admitted to that..
But you are missing the point, he clinched all the deals he wanted but when he was removed he was removed from power that he held so dearly, I am sure if it was not Zia his kursi would have been very mazboot untill some other khaki came along and did the right thing. Bhutto should not have been in power in the first place. As a little boy I still remember the kind of demonstrations and the famous saying of beardos.. “nho sitaray bhai bhai bhutto teri moat aye”
mo I've met people who opposed Bhutto and suffered for that..not one now thinks his removal was an achievement. Even many Jamaati leaders who suffered some really inhumane torture at his party's hands don't think it was the right thing. If he was going to be punished it should have been by the people and the courts should have decided (and not been forced to decide)..he was in any case already ill by 1977 he may have lived for another 6 or 7 years at the maximum.
Zia did not kill Bhutto to avenge the people who suffered at the PPP's hands, he did it because he wanted power far more than Bhutto did..
p.s: estimates of the amount of west pakistan territory lost in the 1971 war have been put at anything upto 4000 square miles. Indians put it higher and some even blame Indira Gandhi for not having forced pakistan and Bhutto into giving more concessions on Kashmir.
There was nothing cowardly about it. Victory was impossible, and the options available were surrender and save 90,000 lives or keep fighting and throw away lives for no purpose. There is no glory in futile last stands unless they help towards victory.
Its a matter of perception, maybe. Some prefer to die and some to surrender and thus opt for a life full of disgrace and shame..
Oman donated Makran, part of Oman's territory, to Pakistan, as you helpfully pointed out in your post.
It was neither a donation nor any kind of a secret settlement between the two countries. Pakistan had paid a huge amount of money for the transfre of Gwadar to Pakistan.
Kargil was lost to India during an offensive in November 1948. The Bengali civilian Governor-General Kwaja Nazimuddin oversaw this defeat, being Pakistan's de facto head of state (King George VI being the legal head of state at the time).
Get you facts straight! Kargil was first captured by indians in the 1965 war but they had to return it under the Tashkent Agreement. But in 1971 they snatched it and retained.
Democratic institutions were wrecked by the civilian Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who through cutting the power of the President destroyed Pakistan's democracy by removing all checks and balances to the power of the Prime Minister.
No wonder this gem was discovered, cut and polished by an another military dictator. Nawaz was the head of IDA at that time, which was essentialy a military creation. Right? Anyway, the real protagonists will remain the four military dictators.
**The dramatic escalation in sectarian violend, drugs, and jihadi organizations after the Afghan war can be directly traced to the civilian Benazir Bhutto's government support of the Taliban. Without Bhutto's 1990s support for the Taliban, continued by Nawaz Sharif, the Taliban would be nothing but an insignificant rural militia.
Campaign against traitors in Balochustan and the FATA are a trait common to both democratic and military goverments in pakistan. It was Zulfikar Bhutto who unleashed the army on the Balochs in 1974. Military campaigns in the FATA go back to the 1950s, under civilian rule as well.
And what has the military done against "thousands" of Sindhis?**
Read some good books. You whole post seems to be kinda "just for arguments sake"...
Yes, sadly (because BB brings shames to the Bhutto name) you are correct about her government actively encouraging and supporting the Taliban. She has publicly admitted that fact.
NEWSWEEK: The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan while you were prime minister of Pakistan. Why did you support the Taliban?
Benazir Bhutto: The Taliban were actually students in university who decided to go back to Afghanistan after the Russians left. My reports were that the Taliban were being welcomed by the people and that they were building peace. Initially we thought the Taliban was a stabilizing force. My government was keen to establish ties with Central Asia, so we were quite pleased and we encouraged them initially… We wanted to import wheat and export cotton to Central Asia and wanted a route that would give us access to Central Asia through Kandahar [where the Taliban is headquartered]. We were trying to bypass Kabul and establish an enclave in the south. The Taliban were supposed to give us safe passage.
What did the Taliban stand to gain?
**Initially we gave them political and diplomatic support. We also gave them fuel, food, communications, transportation. The Taliban rose up and were embraced by us because we saw them as the ticket to our own economic interests regarding Central Asia. **
What happened to the trade route?
We inaugurated the road and had one or two caravans go. But the fighting was continuous.
How much control did you have over the Taliban?
They listened to us. They did depend on our blessing so they didn’t want to annoy us.
Its a matter of perception, maybe. Some prefer to die and some to surrender and thus opt for a life full of disgrace and shame.
If you prefer letting people you are responsible die rather than saving their lives, that’s just the way you are. I would not want to live with so much as one futile, pointless death on my hands, let alone thousands.
**It was neither a donation nor any kind of a secret settlement between the two countries. Pakistan had payed a huge amount for the transfre of Gwadar to Pakistan. **
And you think Pakistan got nothing in exchange? In spite of all that China has done for Pakistan since then, you think Pakistan got nothing in exchange?
Get you facts straight! Kargil was first captured by indians in the 1965 war but they had to return it under the Tashkent Agreement. But in 1971 they snatched it and retained.
My facts are straight, it is your facts that are twisted. The 1948 ceasefire was enforced a month after India captured Kargil.
Before Partition in 1948 Gilgit/Baltistan and Ladakh (Kargil and Leh districts) was a single region sharing a common geography, language, culture, religion, history and waters. The area covered 1, 45,565 square kilometres out of the 2, 22, 230 sq. km of the princely State of Jammu & Kashmir – making it much bigger than the rest of Jammu & Kashmir lumped together. After Partition Ladakh fell to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in India, while Gilgit/Baltistan became part of Pakistan and has since been given a deservingly ambiguous nickname, “Northern Areas”, under direct administrative control of Islamabad.
In another article,
In another instance, the father of a friend of mine came to Skardu from Kargil to buy salt and got stranded when the war broke out in 1948. He could not meet his (first) wife and children over the next 55 years. His wife waited for him, and never remarried. He died last year.
If Pakistan controlled Kargil from 1948 to 1965, then why was a man who came to Skardu from kargil in 1948 unable to return there? Please, do answer this question. And if you cannot explain it because your facts were wrong, then please assist me by pointing out which of your other claims were false as well. For otherwise I’m afriad that I may have to waste yet more of my precious time in researching them to get down to the truth.
No wonder this gem was discovered, cut and polished by an another military dictator. Nawaz was the head of IDA at that time, which was essentialy a military creation. Right? Anyway, the real protagonists will remain the four military dictators.
And Nawaz Sharif was just following in the footsteps, not of the military, but those of yet another civilian dictator and underminer of democracy, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
*Initially Bhutto put a deaf ear to the demands of P. N. A. and debunked opposition’s charges that his landslide victory was a result of rigging. He used police and F. S. F. against Alliance’s activities and its top leadership was arrested and put behind the bars. Martial Law was enforced in three main cities of Karachi, Lahore and Hyderabad. Curfew was imposed in the rest of the big cities of the country and Army was called to maintain law and order. *
Arresting the top leadership of the opposition is indeed condusive to upholding democracy, is it?
In the beginning of May, Bhutto changed his policy and started to explore the option of a dialog. Some P. N. A. leaders were released and brought to Sihala for negotiations in the first week of June. Bhutto showed his willingness to hold elections in November 1977, and offered five ministries to the P. N. A. candidates during the interim period. But P. N. A. team insisted on 50 percent representation in the Cabinet and demanded elections before August 14. Bhutto eventually accepted almost all the demands of P. N. A. and the stage was set for a compromise. **Signing of the agreement was held in abeyance as he went abroad for a tour of Saudi Arabia, Libya, U. A. E., Kuwait and Iran. His tour was termed as dilatory tactics and again there seemed to be a deadlock. **
It was in these conditions that Chief of the Army Staff, General Zia-ul-Haq, imposed Martial Law in the country on July 5, 1977, and sent Bhutto behind the bars. General Zia said, “Had an agreement reached between the opposition and the Government, I would certainly never have done what I did”.
Read it yourself...
*The whole area of Kargil belonged to Pakistan. It was captured by India in the war of 1965, but restored to Pakistan under Tashkent Agreement. In the 1971 war, Kargil was again occupied and retained by India by dint of force.*
And if you cannot explain it because your facts were wrong, then please assist me by pointing out which of your other claims were false as well. For otherwise I'm afriad that I may have to waste yet more of my precious time in researching them to get down to the truth.
My claims are not false, though your arguments are lame. If you think you can satisfy people with such arguments.
"And you think Pakistan got nothing in exchange? In spite of all that China has done for Pakistan since then, you think Pakistan got nothing in exchange?"
Your article is written by an individual identified only as Zul Kifl, about whom we know nothing, posted on a strongly patriotic Pakistani site that accepts articles written by general members of the public. Mr. Kifl makes broad general statements without giving any specifics, such as claiming that Pakistan controlled Kargil bfore 1965,
My article is from one of Pakistan’s prominent newspapers, written by a man, one Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khan, who is identified by the newspaper as being not only an analyst from the region neighbouring Kargil, but also the Asian representative to the Board of Directors of an organisarion dedicated to mountain ecosystem development. A claim you can verify for yourself at http://www2.mtnforum.org/rn/apmn.cfm
Mr Khan recalls specific cases from his own experience demonstrating that Kargil was lost to India in 1948.
Judge for yourself which writer is likely to know more about the matter.
Look, the Jamaatis are also telling the same story here:
The whole area of Kargil had been with Pakistan. India had occupied it in the war of 1965, but it was restored to Pakistan under Tashkent Agreement. In the war of 1971, India again occupied it. Under the Simla Agreement of 1972, which was negotiated by Pakistan under duress, Kargil was retained by India by dint of force and the cease-fire line was re-named as the Line of Control.
Mr Khan recalls specific cases from his own experience demonstrating that Kargil was lost to India in 1948.
I didn't read your article but as far as I remember the indians had tried vainly to capture it in 1948, I'm not sure though. I've to go now, will write more on this topic later.
Pakistan never ceded the Aksai Chin region to China. No Pakistani government has ever claimed that portion of Kashmir for Pakistan. Pakistani government, both civilian and military since 1947, have simply refused to challenge China’s claim.
As for the second part of Kashmir, the inhospitable Trans-Karakoram Tract, transferred to China in 1963. The terms of that transfer make it clear that it is a temporary act and is subject to a final resolution on Kashmir between Pakistan and India. In otherwords, Pakistan and India can together decided to restore the land to Kashmir once the conflict is over.
The transfer brought with it immense Chinese goodwill for Pakistan. Within 2 years, the amount of Chinese military assistance was such that Pakistan’s 1965 war material losses were all but completely restored.
Thats a hypothetical, all the books and interviews by people involved in those fateful days ..agree on this much, an agreement had been struck, Bhutto had conceded to new elections. As far as the quote by Zia is concerned, off course he would say that..he also said he’d hold elections in 100 days and step down. It’s a similar story with Ayub and Yahya, in Ayubs case Iskander Mirza wanted to avoid the pro non-alignment opposition’s electoral victory in the 1959 elections. While Yahya ousted Ayub just as he had conceded to genuiane reforms with the opposition.
The biggest mistake Pakistani leaders have made (both military and civilian) is to on occassion choose loyalty over merit when appointing Army Chiefs, from Ayub Khan to Musharraf; competent, non-political and straight talking generals were sidelined for generals who were less intelligent and seemed more loyal (Mush, Ayub et al).
Pakistan never ceded the Aksai Chin region to China. No Pakistani government has ever claimed that portion of Kashmir for Pakistan. Pakistani government, both civilian and military since 1947, have simply refused to challenge China's claim.
Where did I claim that Aksai Chin conceded by Pakistan to China? Why did you bring Askai Chin into this discussion?
*As for the second part of Kashmir, the inhospitable Trans-Karakoram Tract, transferred to China in 1963. The terms of that transfer make it clear that it is a temporary act and is subject to a final resolution on Kashmir between Pakistan and India. In otherwords, Pakistan and India can together decided to restore the land to Kashmir once the conflict is over.
The transfer brought with it immense Chinese goodwill for Pakistan. Within 2 years, the amount of Chinese military assistance was such that Pakistan's 1965 war material losses were all but completely restored.*
One doesn't need to be a genius like Plato to understand the basic principles of geopolitics. What if the relations between these two countries change from pak-cheeni brotherhood to severe enmity? Will China restore this territory to pak then? Call a spade a spade, Pak has lost 5000 square km of its territory for good.
And China would have surely aligned itself with Pakistan over Kargil only if those army generals had ceded more territory to China. Alas! The generals were not farsighted.