No country for brave men
- Thread starter fatman17
- Start date
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Another video, showing 'criminals' being hanged publicly by Zia and apparently PPP political works being punished in public.
Written by brave Faiz Ahmad Faiz, this is still a haunting and inspiring Ghazal.
Aaj Bazar Mein...
YouTube - Aaj Bazar Mein -- Faiz Ahmed Faiz
Written by brave Faiz Ahmad Faiz, this is still a haunting and inspiring Ghazal.
Aaj Bazar Mein...
YouTube - Aaj Bazar Mein -- Faiz Ahmed Faiz
F86 Saber
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,087
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
No dude he never said that. in fact he said that the one who commits such a crime should be punished but the current method of convicting a person of Blasphemy should be revised (he gave an example that currently two people and a Mullah can go to an SHO and convict anyone).
Mabs
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 911
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Solomon, I am finding it awfully difficult to keep my civility intact while having a debate with you, and I am not really sure why. Is it because of your condescending tone, or your knack of passing judgments like you are God? Maybe, it's because you assume, twist, and take facts out of context to suit your own needs or maybe the fact that, you have never been to Pakistan in your entire life, but still understand all of its problems, and have all the answers. I will not engage with you in a discussion anymore, at least not in the couple of threads that we already debating on, because I have already replied to all your queries in a very sufficient manner. All you have to do is stop being myopic, and try to look at the other side of the coin as well.
Stay Safe.
Last edited:
Murshad
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 0
Majority of the people know actual story. Religious mafia is exploiting the situation. Look at the character of Mullah Diesel as soon as his ministers kicked out of govt, he started campaign in favor of 295C. Unfortunately our media stalwarts are either playing their own game or they are spineless.
Few had couruage to condem this act of brutality. Only Abbas Ahther and Ayaz Amir had balls to come openly against religious mafia.
Just watch the following links and see how 295C is used in religious bullying
YouTube - Column Kaar 8th January 2011 part 1
YouTube - Column Kaar 8th January 2011 part 2
YouTube - Column Kaar 8th January 2011 part 3
YouTube - Column Kaar 8th January 2011 part 4
Last edited:
Dance
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Messages
- 4,850
- Reaction score
- 0
FACT: Jinnah would have been murdered like Taseer by the Mullahs today
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Some Mullah websites are now once again spinning old lies about Jinnah vis a vis the Ilamdin case. They say if you do not counter a lie, it becomes the truth but I will come to that in a second. First let us review what Jinnah, as a member of the select committee, had to say when 295-A came up for the discussion in the Indian Legislative Assembly. 295-A was discussed and enacted in response to Rajpal case. Bear in mind 295-A is a much more lenient law than 295-B and 295-C. This is what Jinnah had to say:
“We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.”
In other words the founding father of the nation was asking for a right to criticise religion and ascertain the truth. This is much more than what Salman Taseer said and was killed for.
Now coming to the scurrilous lie about Jinnah, I wrote an article which was reproduced on PTH in the past as well but which requires repetition and therefore I am reproducing it below. Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. He did not ask Ilamdin to change his plea. Contrary to the myth Ilamdin always claimed he was innocent and wrongly framed!!! Nor did Jinnah do the case without a fee as it was alleged. The only case that Jinnah did for free in his career was for Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
For Jinnah Ilamdin case was a question of best defense for his client. Bear in mind as a lawyer Jinnah also defended the murderer Sardar Anandrao Gangaram Phanse who was a co-conspirator in the murder of Abdul Kadar Bawla and attempted murder of his companion dancing girl the “Hur of Indore” Mumtaz in the famous Bawla Murder Trial. Jinnah had managed – in the words of H M Seervai- to get the death sentence changed to life sentence. Does that mean we should allow murder in society as well- well because Jinnah defended a murderer? Would Jinnah the legislator, Jinnah the statesman agree with that proposition?
The Lahore-based-Hindi newspaper Pratap said that taking the case would lower Jinnah’s prestige in the eyes of Hindus. In retrospect it has much more damage to Jinnah’s own ideas of what Pakistan should be as the uneducated and semi-literate fools have made a mockery of the Quaid-e-Azam in Pakistan.
Here is my article:
VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah —Yasser Latif Hamdani
In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.
The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”
The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.
Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.
We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?
Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.
There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”
The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at Pak Tea House | Pakistan – past, present and future and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Some Mullah websites are now once again spinning old lies about Jinnah vis a vis the Ilamdin case. They say if you do not counter a lie, it becomes the truth but I will come to that in a second. First let us review what Jinnah, as a member of the select committee, had to say when 295-A came up for the discussion in the Indian Legislative Assembly. 295-A was discussed and enacted in response to Rajpal case. Bear in mind 295-A is a much more lenient law than 295-B and 295-C. This is what Jinnah had to say:
“We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.”
In other words the founding father of the nation was asking for a right to criticise religion and ascertain the truth. This is much more than what Salman Taseer said and was killed for.
Now coming to the scurrilous lie about Jinnah, I wrote an article which was reproduced on PTH in the past as well but which requires repetition and therefore I am reproducing it below. Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. He did not ask Ilamdin to change his plea. Contrary to the myth Ilamdin always claimed he was innocent and wrongly framed!!! Nor did Jinnah do the case without a fee as it was alleged. The only case that Jinnah did for free in his career was for Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
For Jinnah Ilamdin case was a question of best defense for his client. Bear in mind as a lawyer Jinnah also defended the murderer Sardar Anandrao Gangaram Phanse who was a co-conspirator in the murder of Abdul Kadar Bawla and attempted murder of his companion dancing girl the “Hur of Indore” Mumtaz in the famous Bawla Murder Trial. Jinnah had managed – in the words of H M Seervai- to get the death sentence changed to life sentence. Does that mean we should allow murder in society as well- well because Jinnah defended a murderer? Would Jinnah the legislator, Jinnah the statesman agree with that proposition?
The Lahore-based-Hindi newspaper Pratap said that taking the case would lower Jinnah’s prestige in the eyes of Hindus. In retrospect it has much more damage to Jinnah’s own ideas of what Pakistan should be as the uneducated and semi-literate fools have made a mockery of the Quaid-e-Azam in Pakistan.
Here is my article:
VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah —Yasser Latif Hamdani
In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.
The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”
The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.
Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.
We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?
Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.
There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”
The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at Pak Tea House | Pakistan – past, present and future and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Sinnerman108
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,994
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Let me re-phrase this as so ...
No country for "Be-Ghairat" men.
Take the definition of "Be-Ghairat" and try to prove otherwise.
No country for "Be-Ghairat" men.
Take the definition of "Be-Ghairat" and try to prove otherwise.
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
@Murshad,
Thanks for the videos. I wish the audio quality was better.
Scary to see that factions of Deobandis and Barelvis using section 295c against each. It was so painful to see clips of Taseer in the first video clearly saying that he does not condone any blasphemy but is against misuse of a law; misuse which happens hundreds of times.
We will mourn Taseer for a long, long time.
Thanks for the videos. I wish the audio quality was better.
Scary to see that factions of Deobandis and Barelvis using section 295c against each. It was so painful to see clips of Taseer in the first video clearly saying that he does not condone any blasphemy but is against misuse of a law; misuse which happens hundreds of times.
We will mourn Taseer for a long, long time.
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Who is 'Be-Ghairat'? Taseer?
Looking at your avatar--the biggest enemy of Pakistan--I presume you mean Taseer, right?
Murshad
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 0
I also wished for good audio quality. Honestly I liked Baelvis bit more just because of their love for Sufis.
But not any more. No sufi has preached hate. I wish I could type the whole saga between Deobandis and Barelvis which happened a year ago. Both logged 295 C FIRs against each other but after a while after compromise they took back claims of 295C or I would say they compromised on Blasphemy. Here this incident is mentioned by one participant.
Dance
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Messages
- 4,850
- Reaction score
- 0
According to Mehmal Sarfraz, Op-Ed Editor of the daily times, "Maulana Ashrafi said that liberals must raise their voice in the Urdu press as well. That's where opinions are formed"
and "Maulana Ashrafi also said that dont be afraid; how many people will these fundos kill? They'll have to stop some day. Be bold and courageous"
And was apparently the first maulvi to write against the attacks on the Ahmedi mosques
Mehmal Sarfraz (Mehmal) on Twitter
More people need to follow this guy.
Sinnerman108
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,994
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I wonder what prompted you to suspect taseer ?
we have all known about his rather "colorful nature"
A staunch supporter of " Basant"
and leaving aside the symbolism ... Basant in the name of throats slit a crying mothers.
We also knew him for his rather childish war with Law Minister ...
vanish here, vanish there ...
Brave men depict that image ? be-ghairat men do ?
Think about it ...
and if you still haven't figured it out as yet ...
Will any man of any moral standing ever support Zardari ? and those who do are..... ?
Last edited:
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Salman,
Come to the point. We are not talking about Zardari here. Taseer is the subject. You may rejoice later when you have killed Zardari as well.
So Taseer is the 'Be-Ghairat' then? If so, why go in round about ways?
Also, what do you say about these two questions:
1) Was the murder of Taseer an act of terrorism to be condemned?
2) Is the assassin a blood-crazed fanatic or not?
I answer 'yes' to both.
Come to the point. We are not talking about Zardari here. Taseer is the subject. You may rejoice later when you have killed Zardari as well.
So Taseer is the 'Be-Ghairat' then? If so, why go in round about ways?
Also, what do you say about these two questions:
1) Was the murder of Taseer an act of terrorism to be condemned?
2) Is the assassin a blood-crazed fanatic or not?
I answer 'yes' to both.
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Since our Pakistani member @Salman here seem to call others a 'Be-Ghairat', which in Urdu is a really nasty word for 'Without Honor', I want the world to know a brief account of two leaders, two funerals, and two elections.
Here it is:
In April 1979 PPP's founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged as result of a 'judicial murder' by General Zia ul Haq (whose avatar graces Salman's account here); it was a judicial murder and one of the presiding judges (Nasim Shah) many years later admitted that.
Bhutto was hanged in the early hours of a rainy morning. It was Martial Law. A brutal one too. As one of the videos above (the Faiz one) will show you that it was not un-common to publicly flog and hang 'criminals' which included even lawyers and journalists. But the military dictator was so insecure that Bhutto's body was flown early morning and hurriedly buried in a simple grave, attended by a handful of people.
That was in 1979. Darkness of Zia's rule was about two years old already.
Fast forward to 1988.
Zia dies up in the air in an accident or act of sabotage. Zia is the president of Pakistan. His political heirs (Nawaz Sharif, M.K.Junejo, Ishaq Khan etc) decided to get some political mileage out of a grand State funeral. Against Islamic customs, Zia's body is not buried within two sunsets. It was more important to look toward some political gain via the funeral. Zia had the grandest of all funerals in Pakistan's history. All kinds of state machinery and electronic media were used to portray Zia as the 'Shaheed' of Pakistan.
Boy, there was at least half a million people there. I watched on live tv. I was impressed but only as one would be impressed by the discipline of some Nazi rally.
Compare so far with what Bhutto got.
So far. Two leaders, two funerals.
Now the final comparison: Two elections.
Fast forward again to 2008.
The general elections. Zia's son could not even win in his home constituency despite being part of the Musharraf regime as a cabinet member. He was beaten by Bhutto's PPP members.
Today, PPP rules from Sindh to Gilgit-Baltistan. Where is Zia's son? May be waiting for another military coup.
So, my friends, this is a tale of two leaders, two funerals, and two elections. In a space of three decades history has slapped Zia and his ideologically with a full blast through the hand of the Pakistani people.
And today, those who call Taseer as 'Be-Ghairat', pay attention to what is coming their way. Taseer was pinned to the ground for six months by Zia and tortured. Zia and his followers--which include this maniac Mumtaz Qadri-- have it coming. Yet again.
Pakistan Zindabad!
Here it is:
In April 1979 PPP's founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged as result of a 'judicial murder' by General Zia ul Haq (whose avatar graces Salman's account here); it was a judicial murder and one of the presiding judges (Nasim Shah) many years later admitted that.
Bhutto was hanged in the early hours of a rainy morning. It was Martial Law. A brutal one too. As one of the videos above (the Faiz one) will show you that it was not un-common to publicly flog and hang 'criminals' which included even lawyers and journalists. But the military dictator was so insecure that Bhutto's body was flown early morning and hurriedly buried in a simple grave, attended by a handful of people.
That was in 1979. Darkness of Zia's rule was about two years old already.
Fast forward to 1988.
Zia dies up in the air in an accident or act of sabotage. Zia is the president of Pakistan. His political heirs (Nawaz Sharif, M.K.Junejo, Ishaq Khan etc) decided to get some political mileage out of a grand State funeral. Against Islamic customs, Zia's body is not buried within two sunsets. It was more important to look toward some political gain via the funeral. Zia had the grandest of all funerals in Pakistan's history. All kinds of state machinery and electronic media were used to portray Zia as the 'Shaheed' of Pakistan.
Boy, there was at least half a million people there. I watched on live tv. I was impressed but only as one would be impressed by the discipline of some Nazi rally.
Compare so far with what Bhutto got.
So far. Two leaders, two funerals.
Now the final comparison: Two elections.
Fast forward again to 2008.
The general elections. Zia's son could not even win in his home constituency despite being part of the Musharraf regime as a cabinet member. He was beaten by Bhutto's PPP members.
Today, PPP rules from Sindh to Gilgit-Baltistan. Where is Zia's son? May be waiting for another military coup.
So, my friends, this is a tale of two leaders, two funerals, and two elections. In a space of three decades history has slapped Zia and his ideologically with a full blast through the hand of the Pakistani people.
And today, those who call Taseer as 'Be-Ghairat', pay attention to what is coming their way. Taseer was pinned to the ground for six months by Zia and tortured. Zia and his followers--which include this maniac Mumtaz Qadri-- have it coming. Yet again.
Pakistan Zindabad!
Donatello
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,531
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
So you want to put him in the same league as Rashid Minhas (shaheed) ??
Kinda not a right thing to do.
