What's new

OP-ED: How do we remember Ayub Khan?

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
16,514
Reaction score
-4
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan

OP-ED: How do we remember Ayub Khan?
Syed Badrul Ahsan
  • Published at 10:52 pm October 13th, 2021
Photo: COURTESY

Photo: COURTESY

All said and done, he bequeathed a bad legacy for his country

It is once again October. And once again, for my generation, it is a moment when we journey back into the foggy lanes of memory. We recall October 1958, when General Mohammad Ayub Khan, in cahoots with President Iskandar Mirza, placed the state of Pakistan under martial law on day seven of the month.

On day 27, Mirza had been banished and Ayub, the commander-in-chief of the army, took full charge as president and chief martial law administrator.

We were children, indeed no bigger than babies when all of that happened. But as the years went by and we began going to school and getting promoted to new classes every year, the idea was drilled into us that Ayub Khan was a great man in history, that he was Pakistan’s saviour, that had he not stepped in, the politicians would have destroyed the country.

Every time he travelled to Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province, all the students of our school and those of the girls’ school on the other side of the road were made to stand, tiny Pakistani flags in hand, to greet the president, for that would be the route he would be taking from the airport to wherever he would be staying. Now that we recall those days, it strikes us as rather queer that in his own country he was being treated as a visiting foreign head of state.

A forgotten strongman
So how do we remember Ayub Khan today, at this distance in time? He died in April 1974, and was not greatly mourned in Pakistan. By that time, the province of East Pakistan had already become Bangladesh and there was little cause for Bengalis to remember him, save only to go into a recapitulation of everything he did, every blunder he committed in his decade-long grip on Pakistan.

And, yes, at a point early on in his days in power, he promoted himself from general to field marshal. That was pretty intriguing, for perhaps he imagined he was on a par with Rommel and Montgomery. But while the German and the Englishman earned their stars through battlefield engagement, Ayub Khan appropriated them through commandeering Pakistan.

In the decade in which he loomed over Pakistan, Ayub Khan remained in mortal dread of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Indeed, one of the first acts after the proclamation of martial law in 1958 was for the military authorities to place the future founder of Bangladesh in detention. It would be a process that the Ayub regime would continue for 10 years. Through the Agartala Conspiracy Case, Ayub really believed he could put Mujib away, either through execution or life in prison. That did not happen, of course.

A remarkable moment in historical irony has remained captured in the image of a tired, humbled Ayub Khan welcoming a smiling, confident Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the round table conference in Rawalpindi in February 1969.

Ayub Khan surrounded himself with people who in the end turned against him, leaving him in a state of shock. In 1963, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at the time foreign minister as well as secretary general of Ayub’s Convention Muslim League, publicly advanced the notion that the general be made Pakistan’s president-for-life.

Three years later, Bhutto was out of Ayub’s government, launching a campaign to oust his benefactor from power. When Ayub died, Bhutto was Pakistan’s prime minister but did not attend his funeral. A few days later, he and his wife turned up at Ayub’s home, explaining to the family of the dead dictator that he could not be at the last rites owing to security considerations about himself.

In his early days in power, Ayub Khan brought into the public domain a peculiar law he called the Elective Bodies Disqualification Ordinance (EBDO). He thus had politicians emasculated so that they would not challenge his illegitimacy. He did not believe Pakistan’s people were qualified to practise democracy, and so brought into the political arena the Basic Democracy system, with just 80,000 Basic Democrats qualified to elect the country’s president and members of the national and provincial assemblies.

He had a new constitution, in place of the abrogated 1956 one, formulated in 1962. And yet he violated it when, in March 1969, he handed over power not to Abdul Jabbar Khan, the speaker of the national assembly, but to General Yahya Khan, the army chief.

Ayub Khan’s sentiments about Bengalis was rather complex. He told Altaf Gauhar, the bureaucrat he was closest to, that he was building the second capital (today Sher-e-Bangla Nagar) in Dhaka because sooner or later the Bengalis would move out of Pakistan and would need the place for themselves. And yet he lost little time in threatening the proponents of the Six Points with the language of weapons.

In 1961, he listened to a few young Bengali economists explain to him their concept of two economies for the two wings of Pakistan. And then, nothing came of the meeting.

Swayed by Bhutto, a man not trusted by Harold Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Alexei Kosygin, Ayub Khan acquiesced in launching Operation Gibraltar against India in 1965. The war was a stalemate. Ayub was forced to eat humble pie when he travelled to Tashkent for peace talks with Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri in January 1966. Ayub’s ghost-written memoir, Friends Not Masters, were a celebration of himself and a denigration of politicians. He had his sycophants prescribe the book as part of the academic curriculum in the country.

Before seizing power, Ayub Khan served in the governments of Mohammad Ali Bogra and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy as defense minister-cum-army chief. In power, he had Bogra join his cabinet as minister for external affairs; and he had Suhrawardy jailed. Moulvi Tamizuddn Khan, the speaker of the constituent assembly who had defied Governor General Ghulam Mohammad in 1953, became speaker of the national assembly under the 1962 constitution.

Ayub Khan loved being referred to as the De Gaulle of Asia. He was in his element when he addressed a joint session of the US Congress in 1961. All those medals he wore -- Nishan-i-Pakistan, Hilal-i-Jurrat -- were a joy for him. And yet, when all is said and done, he bequeathed a bad legacy to his country.
Three generals after him emulated him in seizing power and making a mess of politics in Pakistan; and two generals in Bangladesh, formerly in the Pakistan army, lorded it over the Bengali republic for a good number of years. The tombstone on Ayub’s grave in his village was vandalized a few years ago.
Thus the chronicle of a lapsed, forgotten strongman named Mohammad Ayub Khan.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is a journalist and biographer.
 
Well I was not alive of course during Ayub Khan's time. He gave us 2nd capital where the National Assembly and Parliament (Jatiya Sangsad) sits, so can't really speak ill of the guy. Chief Architect of this project was a guy from East Pakistan, who was appointed by Ayub Khan Himself.

iu


Ayub Khan's folly (if you can call it that) was trusting people like Bhutto and Yahya too much who in turn appointed people of much lower caliber such as Niazi and other lesser military minds. They together made a mess of things. Bhutto turned against his benefactor Ayub Sb. as well. But this is just my opinion.

From what I heard, ten years of Ayub Khan regime was marked with discipline in Pakistan, I could be wrong.

We need more of Ayub-Khan type discipline today, he distrusted corrupt politicians like Bhutto and their mismanagement. Democracy is over-rated for countries in the subcontinent.

South Korea copied Pakistan's five year plan in the 1950's, wanting to replicate Pakistan's success. They had Park Chung Hee, we had Ayub Khan sb.

Now look at where they are, and where we are. Bangladesh/Pakistan there is not much faraq. Same $hit different day. :-(

In fact, in spite of Bangladesh data fudging, Pakistan may be better off industrially (in more grassroots industrial production), and more diversely so. We can discuss it in a different thread and I will give you reasons in videos.
 
Last edited:
The man truly pushed the alienation of east Pakistan and was a racist self preserving strong man who sidelined the mother of the nation and destroyed the professionalism of the Pakistani military. When a man who abandoned his post in actual conflict and was deemed unfit for promotion by Mohammad Ali Jinnah who in letter and spirit was the founder and leader both the inhabitants of the muslim majority states including Bangladesh followed - you can imagine what he was going to do to the country.

Other than leading Pakistan into a disastrous war and reinforcing racism and elitism leading to not just 71 but later repercussions.. he had little positive to offer. No true military hero and self respecting officer supported him and no true intellectual from either west or east Pakistan wanted him.
 
The man truly pushed the alienation of east Pakistan and was a racist self preserving strong man who sidelined the mother of the nation and destroyed the professionalism of the Pakistani military. When a man who abandoned his post in actual conflict and was deemed unfit for promotion by Mohammad Ali Jinnah who in letter and spirit was the founder and leader both the inhabitants of the muslim majority states including Bangladesh followed - you can imagine what he was going to do to the country.

Other than leading Pakistan into a disastrous war and reinforcing racism and elitism leading to not just 71 but later repercussions.. he had little positive to offer. No true military hero and self respecting officer supported him and no true intellectual from either west or east Pakistan wanted him.
He talked shit about literally every ethnic group of Pak that ever existed including punjabi, Bangali, Urdu-speakers etc
So old school man of a young nation handed way too much power for his own good

He wanted the nation to become strong, knew how to get the economic engines going, I genuinely believe he was a Pak nationalist at heart that's why distain for "ethnic realities" of multi ethnic nation but really lacked the political intelect as expected
Didn't like decentralization wanted to rule people through whips and shape them into a model society (the way he enviosned it atleast liberal, educated, patriotic but under him- he is to remain a strong man rulling a strong nation)

A troubled personality, way too self-obssessed very old school dictatorial style of turning the society into what he enviosned it to be

I wonder if in todays age he had anything to say about the waziris nowing his habit of badmouthing everyone?

It interesting that even he knew

"He told Altaf Gauhar, the bureaucrat he was closest to, that he was building the second capital (today Sher-e-Bangla Nagar) in Dhaka because sooner or later the Bengalis would move out of Pakistan and would need the place for themselves."
 
Well I was not alive of course during Ayub Khan's time. He gave us 2nd capital where the National Assembly and Parliament (Jatiya Sangsad) sits, so can't really speak ill of the guy. Chief Architect of this project was a guy from East Pakistan, who was appointed by Ayub Khan Himself.

iu


Ayub Khan's folly (if you can call it that) was trusting people like Bhutto and Yahya too much who in turn appointed people of much lower caliber such as Niazi and other lesser military minds. They together made a mess of things. Bhutto turned against his benefactor Ayub Sb. as well. But this is just my opinion.

From what I heard, ten years of Ayub Khan regime was marked with discipline in Pakistan, I could be wrong.

We need more of Ayub-Khan type discipline today, he distrusted corrupt politicians like Bhutto and their mismanagement. Democracy is over-rated for countries in the subcontinent.

South Korea copied Pakistan's five year plan in the 1950's, wanting to replicate Pakistan's success. They had Park Chung Hee, we had Ayub Khan sb.

Now look at where they are, and where we are. Bangladesh/Pakistan there is not much faraq. Same $hit different day. :-(

In fact, in spite of Bangladesh data fudging, Pakistan may be better off industrially (in more grassroots industrial production), and more diversely so. We can discuss it in a different thread and I will give you reasons in videos.
Maybe Bangladesh can handle someone like Ayub not Pakistan

It's hard to govern multi-ethnic countries through whips- sure for the time being he was good as he had good ideas (to some extent did it too) of educated, liberal Pakistan
But wasn't sustainable, it just can't be in a multi-ethnic country
 
wanted to rule people through whips and shape them into a model society
what other way is there to deal with the illiterate masses of the subcontinent? current generation is in dire need of a whip-master for a minimum of 25 years to beat the stupidity, greed, corruption, sectarianism, ethnic and zaat racism, nepotism out of them
 
Last edited:
This is why you can't run multi-ethnic through whips
Pashtun chauvinistic pig(like Imran khan but on steroids') that called Fatima Jinnah a bitch and wanted to throw urdu speakers in arabian sea.

Flooded Karachi with sub human trash from tribal areas that have now created transport and criminal mafia in the city. Also encouraged sub human trash to attack urdu speakers and start a ethnic riot.
I like IK more but Ayub was good too
Maybe I just like Pashtun chauvinists...
what other way is there to deal with the illiterate masses of the subcontinent? current genaraion is in dire need of a whip-master for a minimum of 25 years to beat the stupidity, greed, corruption, sectarianism, ethnic and zaat racism, nepotism out of them
Well multi- ethnic nation with complexity that a single man can't understand
 
Pashtun chauvinistic pig(like Imran khan but on steroids') that called Fatima Jinnah a bitch and wanted to throw urdu speakers in arabian sea.

Flooded Karachi with sub human trash from tribal areas that have now created transport and criminal mafia in the city. Also encouraged sub human trash to attack urdu speakers and start a ethnic riot.
@SQ8
why can you not stop people like this? instead of moderating behavior of the members some of you actually join in. any of you who feel the need to abuse Pakistan and its leaders, past or present, should not be moderators
 
He should just be remembered as a dictator... nothing more.
 

OP-ED: How do we remember Ayub Khan?
One my criticisms of Him is that despite Pakistan being one of America's Staunch allies in the cold war like Turkey , South korea , Taiwan Indonesia, Thailand which got US help to improve their economies he failed to exploit it. The US allowed the economies of its allies to grow by opening up the US consumer market to them and providing development aid etc. Pakistan was a western aligned nation against the reds.

Pakistan could have been in a better position than it is now.


I have heard that he mistreated Fatima Jinnah. I dont know much about this.

now there is no point in debating. What is done , cannot be undone.

move on and focus on the now.
 
One my criticisms of Him is that despite Pakistan being one of America's Staunch allies in the cold war like Turkey , South korea , Taiwan Indonesia, Thailand which got US help to improve their economies he failed to exploit it. The US allowed the economies of its allies to grow by opening up the US consumer market to them and providing development aid etc. Pakistan was a western aligned nation against the reds.

Pakistan could have been in a better position than it is now.


I have heard that he mistreated Fatima Jinnah. I dont know much about this.

now there is no point in debating. What is done , cannot be undone.
He did later governments didn't sustain it (they went communist) ..
People criticize him for turning towards west but first it was Liaqat Ali Khan who tilted towards west but Surhawardy just fully got us in the western camp

Reason why we debate is so we can learn from it
 
Last edited:
(they went communist) .
Pakistan was against communism and subscribed to the free market theory.
People criticize him for turning towards west
Turning towards west was a very smart move (at the time) , that's where all the money was. My critique is that he didn't utilise this alignment to get more development aid , help with industrialisation etc. You know that Pakistan lent money to West Germany at the time?
 
Pakistan was against communism and subscribed to the free market theory.

Turning towards west was a very smart move (at the time) , that's where all the money was. My critique is that he didn't utilise this alignment to get more development aid , help with industrialisation etc. You know that Pakistan lent money to West Germany at the time?
Nope I meant nationalization of industry route not like proper cammunist

Yeah but some criticized this foreign policy move- I am saying he wasn't responsible for this change Surhawardy was but he just carried it forward with the same vigour

Contrary to popular belief Ayub didn't give U-2 bases to US (which led to USSR becoming very hostile to Pakistan) it was Surhawardy's deal with Eisenhower
 
Didn't wanna say that but he talks shit about everyone man Shia, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun

In talking crap he is similar to Ayub Khan lol
Like how god how many people are you going to hate?
Hindustanis always end up showing their true colors, regardless which side of the border they are on.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom