In Praise of Zia

[parijataka]

Aakar Patel, again... . Loves to live in Bangalore but heart is in Pakistan, jai ho!

In Praise of Zia

This past week marked two anniversaries, that of Pakistan's birth and that of President Ziaul Haq's death.

Zia is a strange figure. Reading about him in Pakistan's English press one would think that he is hated by most Pakistanis. Daily Times, in its editorial of August 15 said: "So-called Islamisation, starting from Zia's era, has reduced the state and society to being entrapped by religious intolerance and lack of direction."

This is typical and Zia tends to pick up the blame for conditions in Pakistan's society.

But the fact is that the Hudood laws remain on the books. Pakistan Studies and Islamiat also remain in textbooks.

Why? The answer is that Ziaul Haq gave Pakistan what it wanted.

Liaquat Ali Khan and the Muslim League gifted Pakistan the Objectives Resolution, committing to align law with Sharia. Ayub Khan wrote the law restricting non-Muslims from becoming president. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto stopped non-Muslims from becoming prime minister. His law on Ahmadis need not be referred to other than to remind readers that it was both democratic and unanimous. All elected and unelected Pakistani leaders have generally moved in the direction that Zia also did. But he did it less hypocritically than others.

After his death, a hagiography ("Shaheed-ul-Islam Muhammad Ziaul Haq") was published by Zia's friends. The contribution from Nawaz Sharif, which I suspect was written by Husain Haqqani, praises Zia for being like Allama Iqbal. Zia believed in the reconstruction of religious thought, writes Sharif, though I think that's doubtful. In the same book, Zahid Malik writes that though seen as a nuclear hawk, Zia was willing to sign the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). His conditions were: 1) South Asia be declared a nuclear-free zone, 2) India and Pakistan sign simultaneously, 3) The two also sign a bilateral non-proliferation treaty, 4) The two allow international inspectors to check each facility and 5) The two renounce the use of nuclear weapons.

I think this was a wise proposal, even if Zia was saying this to escape the United States' pressure on signing the NPT. If India had accepted, we would have a less unstable subcontinent today.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the problems India faced in Kashmir with the rise of the mujahideen, came in the first reign of Benazir Bhutto. Zia did not indulge in that sort of mischief and Indians exaggerate the support of Pakistan to the Sikh separatist movement of the 1980s. Zia was friendly towards India and surprised the world by announcing he was coming to Indira Gandhi's funeral. He is the man who invented cricket diplomacy, springing it on Rajiv Gandhi.

Zia may be disliked by English editorial writers but 10 lakh people came to Zia's funeral, wrote his deputy, General Khalid Mahmud Arif, showing his popularity.

Zia reminds me of Aurangzeb. Zia had his rival Bhutto executed judicially for the murder of a complainant's father, exactly like Aurangzeb did away with Murad Baksh.

The slogan for the emperor was "Alamgir, zinda pir". Zia was "mard-e-momin, mard-e-haq".

Both men had a false modesty, made much of being reluctant to wield power (see Aurangzeb's letters to Shah Jahan), and had a general dislike of Shias. Newsweek in its obituary said Zia was "incorruptible". Another similarity.

His court chronicler Saqi Must'ad Khan said Aurangzeb's bedtime reading was Imam Ghazali. Zia read Maudoodi and not much else. General Arif says Zia "could not get down to reading bureaucratic situation reports and files".

The big similarity is of course the laws they introduced. Jaziya, the penalty for being born Hindu, went after Aurangzeb died because the Syed brothers of Barha were not bigots. The laws of Zia will remain longer.

Fundamentalists have their softer side. Aurangzeb liked quality chinaware. He liked woodwind instruments played with the pakhavaj more than vocal music. But because the former was haram, he gave up listening to all music entirely.

Zia was fond of Bollywood movies and Hindi music, and played squash, tennis and billiards.

The words 'silent majority' are often used when Pakistanis writing in English refer to Zia's laws or their fallout, such as the shooting of Salmaan Taseer.

The truth is that the laws that remain on the book unchanged through dictatorial and democratic governments are there because they are popular.

There is no silent majority in Pakistan, only a minority that doesn't grasp reality.

The Quaid-e-Azam and Ziaul Haq were two leaders who knew what Muslims wanted and gave it to them.

Eid mubarak to all readers of The Express Tribune.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 19th, 2012.

 

[Dovah]

What a douche.

 

[Daredevil]

Actuall he wrote some stuff that will put some mirchi behind the Paki Elites

 

[Oracle]

Why are we posting crap from extremist sites?

 

[parijataka]

/\/\/\
one of his earlier articles in tribune was on how pakistanis were from martial race and indians of bania race - liked obviously in puke land.

link

 

[aragorn]

Why are we posting crap from extremist sites?

he posted the same on First Post

 

[Oracle]

/\/\/\ Both of you guys are new in here, so let me tell you. All these mental farts from extremist minded Pakis are to be posted in either the Jokes section or the Members section. Don't waste space in other sections. These pakis are but AIDS.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This traitor needs to be sent to Pakistan. Zia was the one who had Pakistan go nuclear after
Bhutto decided the people can eat grass.

 

[Bhadra]

What do Gen Zia and Gen Beg have in common? Apparently little. Zia overthrew the constitution and ruled dictatorially for eleven years; Beg is expected to retire as schedule on August 16. Where Zia seized the first opportunity to propel himself to naked power, Beg studiously refrained from following in Zia's footsteps. Zia had no patience with politicians and openly despised them. Beg, however, appeared to endure their improprieties, pulling powerful strings behind the scenes.

Significantly, however, the two generals manifested differing approaches to the world of real-politik and international relations. Zia flogged Islam as a legitimising ideology and knowtowed to the Americans' Beg articulated an appearing ideology of 'nationalism', backing it up by a doctrine of 'strategic defiance' of the USA. Zia prostrated himself before the Saudis while Beg has tended to look towards their nemesis, Iran, for Pakistan's strategic requirements. Where Zia could afford to ignore the signals of changing new world order, Beg has reacted peremptorily to a perceived US role in South Asia. AT a personal level, Zia all but sidelined Beg. Gen Beg, however, has lived uncomfortably in the shadow of Zia's mysterious death three years ago.

More important, it is pertinent to ask which of the two legacies and styles, Gen Zia's or Gen Beg's, might conceivably be followed by Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua in time to come. Or will the new chief, perhaps, fashion a completely new logic on the collective will of the armed forces?

Take the domestic front. Gen Zia despised politicians and representative institutions. Although he reluctantly allowed them some political space, he closed the narrow corridor not long afterwards. Before he died, he was in a real fix because his system was patently unworkable. Gen Beg's approach was markedly different. he nurtured a system of government in which politicians held formal office while effective power remained with the army. In retrospect, however, this approach divided and weakened civil society and eroded the social contract between the rules and the ruled, between state and nation, no less than Gen Zia's. Will Gen Janjua be tempted to follow in Gen Beg's footsteps, propping up certain parties and undermining others, for dubious short-term gains? Or will the new chief lend his shoulders to institutionalising fair play and consensus?

On the international front, Gen Beg's legacies may be no less consequential. For forty years, while many emerging nation-states jealously guarded their sovereignty by joining the Non-Aligned Movement and cleverly playing off one superpower against the other, ruling establishments in Pakistan progressively narrowed their options by blindly lining up behind the Americans. Now, paradoxically, with the cold war over and a considerably reduced number of viable options on the horizon, Gen Beg's Pakistan seems in Western eyes to be on the verge of defying the global compulsions for a new, more orderly world based on economic rather than military strength. Will Gen Janjua try to enlarge the scope of his predecessor's doctrine of "strategic defiance" and fly in the face of new realities created by the West? Or will he, like the new leaders of the USSR, Eastern Europe, Middle-East, South Africa and even China, help dismantle the violent legacies of the past and build on economically dynamic and politically democratic country that is able to speak with honour among the new comity of nations?

The armed forces under the new chief must face the issues squarely. One side of the Pakistani coin is hunger, disease, unemployment, population growth and illiteracy. The other is national security. Neither can be ignored except at great peril to the other. An ideal situation would, of course, be one in which a suitable military deterrent could be effected with India which allow us to divert resources from military expenditures to the social sector. Gen Janjua has the unenviable task of presiding over a resolution of the Kashmir conflict with India and the nuclear stalemate with the US without dragging the country into a disastrous war with our neighbour or isolating it (like Burma) as a pariah in the world community.

Neither Gen Zia's nor Gen Beg's legacies may be of much help in the complex and formidable tasks ahead. A nation up in arms against itself, against a powerful neighbour and against an aggressive superpower is primed for trouble. What is needed is democratic consensus at home and determined diplomacy abroad. There is absolutely no reason why we should not succeed in reconciling the demands of national security with those of national prosperity. As a matter of fact, the two go together and we have no choice. But if Gen Janjua is to emerge as the man of the hour, he must have the courage and foresight to be able to distinguish between an unacceptable policy of laying down arms from the necessary policy of bidding a farewell to arms.

Read this analysis

 

[parijataka]

This traitor needs to be sent to Pakistan. Zia was the one who had Pakistan go nuclear after
Bhutto decided the people can eat grass.

Well said.