What's new

Ayub Khan vs Imran Khan (Development Era)

.
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...
Plz explain the capture o Hyderabad, didn't know that
 
.
It may take some years but we seem to be on a due course now. Even the army has realized that.

I think you and are on the same page. That 'some years' is exactly the combination of military dictatorship and quasi-civilian rule provided for Pakistan.

But every country is different. Afghanistan suffered/suffers from no single strong force to stabilize it. But Singapore and China had/have pretty autocratic systems but still progressed. Same with Pakistan. The bottom line is that political stability is the mother of a society's growth! I'd go even as far as to say that better be a North Korea than an Afghanistan.

And in case you all think I love Pakistani Army's role in politics, here is a blast from the past I give on this forum: Shortly after graduation from Karachi University in late 1980s, in the (informal) graduation book remarks where all of us graduates gave our inputs, there were a couple of questions that I still recall:

1) Who do you hate the most in Pakistani politics?
My answer: I hate the Pakistani Army Generals the most!
2) What is the best religion in the world?
My answer: Islam--but other religions also teach peace and harmony.

Mind you--those answers were not that easy to make then. Barely 1-2 years ago, General Zia had died and Pakistan was turned into a theocracy to a large extent. Answer to #2 could land me in trouble: Jamaat e Islami was very strong in Karachi then and the air of religious intolerance was thick. The answer to #1 was rooted in disgust to General Zia's rule. Those of us who lived through both ZAB and Zia days clearly saw how Pakistan was turned into a nightmare place under Zia.

But, over the year, after having studied what a chaotic political system brings, what Gorbachev brought to the Soviet Union, and the successes of the Chinese/Singaporean systems, I have come to accept that the stability provided by the Pakistani Army between 1958-2008 was very good for Pakistan. Now Pakistan, though not completely a democratic state like, say, Sweden, is firmly on a path to the rule of law and the will of the people. That's the only way forward for a complex, large population, strategically challenged, ethnically fault lined country like Pakistan: The collective wisdom.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom