Syed1.
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 6,306
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Yes you are learning now good job son.
The fact won't change that PTI government started Mohmand, Dasu and Basha.
Ayub Khan vs Imran Khan (Development Era)
- Thread starter AZ1
- Start date
The fact won't change that PTI government started Mohmand, Dasu and Basha.
Gorgin Khan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Yes you are learning now good job son.
The fact won't change that PTI government started Mohmand, Dasu and Basha.
Keep dreaming , Tchao ...
Cliftonite
BANNED
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 2,746
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Maryam Apa ke pair dabao jaake chalo shabaash.
Syed1.
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 6,306
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Atleast I don't have to dream like you that one day Maryam Safdar will be PM...
Maybe your dream will come true in 2050... Umeed rakh meray jawaan
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
In the long dead Pakistaniat.com website, there was a survey about the greatest Pakistani leaders--I think then Ayub Khan and Zulfi Bhutto came almost neck to neck; on the bottom were Benazir Bhutto or Zia ul Haq. Zia ul Haq should be the real bottom because, by 1988, he had the absolute rule of Pakistan's 1/4th history till then. 1/4th!!!!! But that's for another topic.
Coming to the topic. Ayub Khan was the best gift to Pakistan ever after M.A. Jinnah. There are accounts about him taking personal interests in various development projects of Pakistan. There is an account by someone that Ayub even spent days in a tent working with a local official to oversee work on barrages (or some other project, I am sorry, don't recall) in Sindh; such projects were great for Pakistan and are still great for Pakistan. Ayub Khan was the best Pakistani leader after M.A. Jinnah!!
As to Zulfi Bhutto. You guys REALLY need to get over his role in the breakup of East Pakistan!!!?? There is no 'B' as in Bangal or Bangladesh in 'Pakistan'. It was never meant to be. Ayub had called them '4 foot tall men' in a pejorative way, years before the breakup. That was the mentality of the West Pakistanis for the most part. It was a 'Divorce Written in Heaven'. I wish them well from a distance. Bhutto was an opportunist, a tyrant and a demagogue. But he did not break Pakistan.
Great people are NEVER without fault!! Ben Franklin, MK Gandhi, Churchill, M A Jinnah... all of them. Zulfi Bhutto could claim to join such men as far as Pakistan is concerned.
Bhutto did a LOT of good for Pakistan during his capacity as a member of Ayub Khan's cabinet. The Chinese still credit him for bringing Pakistan and China closer when Pakistan was very firmly in the American camp. It was a tightrope walk but Bhutto did it. To the Americans by early 70s, China was the super Al Qaida of the World and yet Bhutto bridged the gap. And he many other things for Pakistan. Of those are notably outfoxing Indira Gandhi during Simla Agreement. That has enabled Pakistan considerable diplomatic room while still getting thousands of prisoners of war back and thousands of miles of Pakistani territory lost in the 1971 war back--not a small feat, is it?? Bhutto also reached out the rich Gulf Arab states and in exchange for a token help in the Israel-Arab war of 1973, won over tens of billions of $$ in labor import concessions and investments into Pakistan.
The bottomline is that: Don't look for angels in your midst. You will never find them. As I see Imran Khan--I see perhaps the most pacifist Pakistani Prime Minister since at least someone from the 1950s. As far as his achievements---he doesn't have the American largesse and the security umbrella that Ayub had. Ayub KNEW that he could station and fly spy planes on Pakistani soil on the Soviets and yet somehow Pakistan wouldn't face real consequences... and Pakistan didn't. Imran Khan doesn't have that kind of luxury of action-at least as far as I can see. And maybe that's good for Pakistan.
Coming to the topic. Ayub Khan was the best gift to Pakistan ever after M.A. Jinnah. There are accounts about him taking personal interests in various development projects of Pakistan. There is an account by someone that Ayub even spent days in a tent working with a local official to oversee work on barrages (or some other project, I am sorry, don't recall) in Sindh; such projects were great for Pakistan and are still great for Pakistan. Ayub Khan was the best Pakistani leader after M.A. Jinnah!!
As to Zulfi Bhutto. You guys REALLY need to get over his role in the breakup of East Pakistan!!!?? There is no 'B' as in Bangal or Bangladesh in 'Pakistan'. It was never meant to be. Ayub had called them '4 foot tall men' in a pejorative way, years before the breakup. That was the mentality of the West Pakistanis for the most part. It was a 'Divorce Written in Heaven'. I wish them well from a distance. Bhutto was an opportunist, a tyrant and a demagogue. But he did not break Pakistan.
Great people are NEVER without fault!! Ben Franklin, MK Gandhi, Churchill, M A Jinnah... all of them. Zulfi Bhutto could claim to join such men as far as Pakistan is concerned.
Bhutto did a LOT of good for Pakistan during his capacity as a member of Ayub Khan's cabinet. The Chinese still credit him for bringing Pakistan and China closer when Pakistan was very firmly in the American camp. It was a tightrope walk but Bhutto did it. To the Americans by early 70s, China was the super Al Qaida of the World and yet Bhutto bridged the gap. And he many other things for Pakistan. Of those are notably outfoxing Indira Gandhi during Simla Agreement. That has enabled Pakistan considerable diplomatic room while still getting thousands of prisoners of war back and thousands of miles of Pakistani territory lost in the 1971 war back--not a small feat, is it?? Bhutto also reached out the rich Gulf Arab states and in exchange for a token help in the Israel-Arab war of 1973, won over tens of billions of $$ in labor import concessions and investments into Pakistan.
The bottomline is that: Don't look for angels in your midst. You will never find them. As I see Imran Khan--I see perhaps the most pacifist Pakistani Prime Minister since at least someone from the 1950s. As far as his achievements---he doesn't have the American largesse and the security umbrella that Ayub had. Ayub KNEW that he could station and fly spy planes on Pakistani soil on the Soviets and yet somehow Pakistan wouldn't face real consequences... and Pakistan didn't. Imran Khan doesn't have that kind of luxury of action-at least as far as I can see. And maybe that's good for Pakistan.
Enigma SIG
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,593
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Come election time people won't care. All they'd know is the narrative that the opposition spun up and he'll end up on the losing side..
WarKa DaNG
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 2,446
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
IK hands are tied, He is a good person but the people around him are all chor and dakoos and he cant do shit about them
IK hands are tied, He is a good person but the people around him are all chor and dakoos and he cant do shit about them
IK hands are tied, He is a good person but the people around him are all chor and dakoos and he cant do shit about them
IK hands are tied, He is a good person but the people around him are all chor and dakoos and he cant do shit about them
IK hands are tied, He is a good person but the people around him are all chor and dakoos and he cant do shit about them
POPEYE-Sailor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,886
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
AZ1
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I agree with your sentiments about Ayub Khan but I cannot discount his mistakes.
Some of his follies include:
He set the ball rolling for foreign aid dependance and foreign intervention (read:American) in our state matters.
He set forth the system of media censorship and dampening of free speech.
He derailed the organic system of democracy. Had he not taken over, we would have reached a national consensus about governance in a decade.
He, like most benevolent dictators, was highly wary of intellectuals and leftists. Yet for any healthy state, a sprinkling of leftist activists is needed.
His worst folly; he introduced the fascist Bhutto into the political machinations of the state and gave him undue power which he went on to abuse.
AZ1
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
What good this Freedom of Media has given to this country so far?
If there is some shortage of any kind of sugar or wheat, this media make sure that none should be available on market.
Media should not be free, if you want any country to go down. Free their media and see the result.
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
I agree with you that there should be all kinds of voices in a healthy society, including those of liberals and leftists. But Ayub was never the kind of media muzzling guy as Zia ul Haq was.
To appreciate Ayub's work, one must go to the 1950s where so many Prime Ministers were being replaced. The rulers were busy knocking each other out, rather than governance. That's one of the main reasons Afghanistan is a basket case even now!!!
Pakistan was very unstable until 1958 and under threat. India had not wasted time after Jinnah's death to start its expansionist agenda--the capture of Hyderabad Deccan.
What Pakistan and any other new country initially needed was stability, which Ayub provided. And Ayub Khan really laid the foundation of Pakistan's industrialization, agriculture reforms, strengething of defense, reaching out to China (a ZAB success, actually) despite American disapproval, building dams/canals.
I dare say, had Ayub not ruled between 1958-69, Pakistan would be in much worse situation. And that's the reason, despite some dissenting voices now, most people appreciate Ayub Khan now. And American assistance played a big role in Pakistan gaining strength. Let's not ignore that.
As for 'organic democracy'. Yes, a complex society like Pakistan cannot function without a functional democracy. And I am pleased to say that Pakistan is firmly on that road since at least 2008...
The issue with dictatorships is they take you to great heights but when they fall, they leave you high and dry flat on your arse.
Ayub's years were gold but as soon as he abdicated, the country fell into a turmoil which eventually led to 1971. I wonder if he had conceded for Fatima Jinnah, could the fall of Dhaka been averted?
Then Zia's years were good, but after his death, the tumultous decade of 90s began, which left Karachi in ruins and massive unparalleled corruption by BB and Nawaz
Likewise with Musharraf, as soon as he abdicated, the country plunged into terrorism, gangwars and political game of thrones.
I firmly believe that the system of democracy needs to be strengthened organically for the country to move in a concerted way. It may take some years but we seem to be on a due course now. Even the army has realized that.
A country's governance system is like a child learning to walk. If everytime he falls, you put him up in a stroller (read:dictatorship), he will never learn to walk.
Similar threads
