They had the option to support civilian leadership, specifically they could have saved ZA Bhutto but they decided otherwise. You rightly said that “howey tum dost jis key, dushman uska asmaN kyoN ho)
Countries such as USA (or others as well except Pakistan perhaps) have only one option, to protect their national interests at any cost. How they achieve this is of secondary even tertiary importance. Now it is left to the wisdom of the leaders, the civil society, and the people how they deal with superior and much powerful countries. In my opinion, America or any other country can not be held responsible for the judicial murder of ZA Bhutto. It was not America or any other foreign power that threw Bhutto out of power, framed him in a suspicious murder case, and finally hanged him. This credit goes exclusively to General Zia and people like General Chishti etc.
In my entire life, I have only seen people's support for the CJP in March last year. I have seen PPPP workers distributing sweets when NS was thrown out and vice versa. I have also seen statements of support for PA from both NS and BB whenever their opponent was thrown out of power.
I have also seen Shahbaz Shahrif and Ch. Nisar meeting Gen. Kiyani last year even though NS said no to such meetings. My point is that we can't simply blame PA ledaership for all the military rules.
Army has demonstrated again and again that it is the King maker and the real power broker not the people of Pakistan. Politicians have also learnt this from the successive Martial Laws that the source of the real power is the GHQ, so if they have to bring any change, they should look towards the GHQ not the people of Pakistan. This image of power broker and King Maker is carved out not by the politicians but by the Generals so responsibility goes to the Army first, and than to the politicians. Yes, politicians look towards the GHQ, but why GHQ let them look towards itself? Can GHQ not declare itself as neutral and a professional entity, which has no business with the politics and politicians? Shahbaz and Nisar met with Kiyani, million dollar question is, why did Kiyani agree to meet with them?
Same is true for so called elected leaders as well.
It is not what is true for whom, it is, who went outside the constitutional boundaries while calming to be the Messiah yet failed to secure the respect form the masses.
Let me ask you this, Gen Ayub, Zia, Musharaf, whose policies were better?
Ayub did few things good such as industrialization. However, his decisions such as joining up the SEATO/CENTO, allowing US U-2 spy planes on the Pakistani soil, Indus water treaty, Operation Gibralter and consequently Indo-Pak war of 1965, suppression of the Bengalis, all proved nothing but disastrous. Zia played a pivotal role in the nuclear program of Pakistan, and so long our nuclear deterrent is intact, each and every Pakistani will remain indebted of him and his colleagues. However, his decision of fighting a US proxy war in Afghanistan overshadows his otherwise spotless personality. As far as Musharraf is concerned, I have yet to find one thing that he did and it went in the favor of Pakistan.
