Pakistan, 50 years ago

[MilSpec]

I have a pakistani immigrant friend , and her family is very liberal. They immigrated from Karachi in the late 70's and her father was telling me about this very posh urban outlook of pakistan which seemingly got curbed by political and social changes in the outlook of the Pakistani society. I have heard very same kind of story about Tehran, from my professor and mentor.

It might be possible that larger geo-strategical issues forced the urban-islamic world to distance itself from pro-western outlook and adopt a more archaic line for social amalgamation with the larger rural and traditional populace to build a stronger state based on religious unity.

Pakistan's top leader, M.A Jinnah also was known to have fondness for European aristocracy, all Pakistani commanders have inherited western styled mannerisms passed down by the royal army.. so why does policy makers that guide the nation try to drive the country towards conservative and "religious fundamentalism" (for the lack of a better word to exemplify the perception).

I would really like to know what triggered the change in Pakistans perspective towards the west?

 

[nForce]

I have a pakistani immigrant friend , and her family is very liberal. They immigrated from Karachi in the late 70's and her father was telling me about this very posh urban outlook of pakistan which seemingly got curbed by political and social changes in the outlook of the Pakistani society. I have heard very same kind of story about Tehran, from my professor and mentor.

It might be possible that larger geo-strategical issues forced the urban-islamic world to distance itself from pro-western outlook and adopt a more archaic line for social amalgamation with the larger rural and traditional populace to build a stronger state based on religious unity.

Pakistan's top leader, M.A Jinnah also was known to have fondness for European aristocracy, all Pakistani commanders have inherited western styled mannerisms passed down by the royal army.. so why does policy that drive the nation try to drive the country towards conservative and "religious fundamentalism" (for the lack of a better word to exemplify the perception).

I would really like to know what triggered the change in Pakistans perspective towards the west?

They just wanted an identity of their own which is in tune with the reason for creation of the state.

 

[MilSpec]

They just wanted an identity of their own which is in tune with the reason for creation of the state.

Agreed , understand all anti-India stuff.. but why.. no western stuff.. Headscarf on TV..no long hair.. Controlled Media.. Sharia laws and stuff... It seemed like at one time, Pakistan was supposed to be modeled along something in the lines of Singapore or Hong Kong , thats what i was told.. but in the middle of it, good policy makers were either subdued or driven out of the country...

I understand that military had the reigns for long.. and with centralized power its easy to change the direction of the nation.. but when these people could have easily changed the direction towards a more Pro-western styled liberal country, why did they choose to look towards religious fundamentalism as a nation building tool.
These military leaders did not have any opposition or coalition to appease off.. they could have had a huge success by conducting reforms in education and Judiciary.

 

[Hulk]

sir all that you mentioned and more is currently available in pakistan! BUT all behind closed doors! all hotels still serve alcohol! "diamond market" is still there in lahore! secret underground clubs exsist in karachi!

however, the problem is polarization! not so well of children go to MADRASSA's and the rich man's child goes to grammar school or ST.MICHEALs!

we divide our youth and there experiences from a very early age!

So those with money still enjoy beer and the poor chaps are kept high and dry in the name of religion. I got to know the same thing from my Pakistani friends. If you want to ban something it should be banned for all. The policymakers themselves are not following the policy.

The big shots like Zardari, Kiyani etc enjoy all benefits, while the middle class vows to protect what the high class has sold them.
Basically I am not for ban, I believe controlling it makes more sense.

 

[bc040400065]

The only thing saddens me is the loss of economic growth and pace that we had in the 50's and 60's. We were one of the leading asian economies at that time. i think Bhutto and some General's 65 war decision really hurt us because that was the time our decline started and it hasn't stopped after that.

 

[Pride]

Study of Pakistan's history gave me few interesting facts.
Pakistan was on loss during 1947 as it really lacked on good political leaders (except M.A. Jinnah) and buereucrates who needs to run country on proper basis. This damaged democracy in Pakistan at early age and then Army took over became frequent. Indulging on war at multiple front (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999, Afghan war, War on Terro) not only damaged economy of the country but also damaged it socially and culturally. While the world was on being liberal, Pak supported Taliban made Afghanistan a country of ages ago. This cultural infusion started taking place in every aspect of life and then people who were not required for religious outlook started showing up.

The only way to resolve all this problem is to change course of studies and keep religion disjointly at early stage of schooling. Hardliner supports should be crushed by ignoring them rather than fighting on the same.

 

[Solo Monk]

I have a pakistani immigrant friend , and her family is very liberal. They immigrated from Karachi in the late 70's and her father was telling me about this very posh urban outlook of pakistan which seemingly got curbed by political and social changes in the outlook of the Pakistani society. I have heard very same kind of story about Tehran, from my professor and mentor.

It might be possible that larger geo-strategical issues forced the urban-islamic world to distance itself from pro-western outlook and adopt a more archaic line for social amalgamation with the larger rural and traditional populace to build a stronger state based on religious unity.

Pakistan's top leader, M.A Jinnah also was known to have fondness for European aristocracy, all Pakistani commanders have inherited western styled mannerisms passed down by the royal army.. so why does policy makers that guide the nation try to drive the country towards conservative and "religious fundamentalism" (for the lack of a better word to exemplify the perception).

I would really like to know what triggered the change in Pakistans perspective towards the west?

Karachi has always been home to the Muhajirs who, in their great majority, were the Central India's Islamic elite; so they were, before migrating to Pakistan, some kind of 'bourgeoisie', different from the rest of the population, and characterized by a totally foreign cultural paradigm. They're, and were, a minority.

The majority of the then Pakistan was not in the same bracket, and, in fact, as Alexquis de Tocqueville, French visitor to a nascent United States, has shown, the middle-class is always politically conservative: so even if you have so-called middle-class peoples who love Hollywood and/or American culture, they'll take Zaid Hamid as their leader (just see Ali Zafar, rock musician.)
So, the soldiers you're talking about were more from the middle-class than the 'bourgeoisie'/Central India Islamic elite, like Field Marshall Ayyub Khan, graduating from the prestigious Sandhurst and speaking better English than many Americans, have always been Western only in appearance. The general sentiment towards the West always being: we take the Hollywoods and Eminems, but not the whole America.

Also, I think that we need these kinds of Ayyub Khans: even if he was not pro-democracy, I can't think of any other flawless Pakistani politician.

 

[Malik Usman]

Pakistan can never go back to what it was , owing to the growing religious intolerance over there. Whole generations are being corrupted by fundamentalist thoughts. Once this reaches completion, there will be no way to reverse the deteriorating situation.

Who said to you that whol nation is corrupted by fundamentalist....................Check your words think before you speak or write..........don't write and show your hate against Pakistan....if you don't have knowledge....................If you are talking about Talibans and exterm factors..........they are from Northern Areas........and that area has only 2% population of Pakistan...........and out of that 2%.................Point some percent are exterm............

 

[AmberDutt]

The only thing saddens me is the loss of economic growth and pace that we had in the 50's and 60's. We were one of the leading asian economies at that time. i think Bhutto and some General's 65 war decision really hurt us because that was the time our decline started and it hasn't stopped after that.

Mate, The British achieved what they wanted to. Kabhi na Bhool, Divide and Rule... The partition was meant to serve the western powers by curtailing the growth of an Asian economy (British India) and it did...

 

[MilSpec]

Karachi has always been home to the Muhajirs who, in their great majority, were the Central India's Islamic elite; so they were, before migrating to Pakistan, some kind of 'bourgeoisie', different from the rest of the population, and characterized by a totally foreign cultural paradigm. They're, and were, a minority.

The majority of the then Pakistan was not in the same bracket, and, in fact, as Alexquis de Tocqueville, French visitor to a nascent United States, has shown, the middle-class is always politically conservative: so even if you have so-called middle-class peoples who love Hollywood and/or American culture, they'll take Zaid Hamid as their leader (just see Ali Zafar, rock musician.)
So, the soldiers you're talking about were more from the middle-class than the 'bourgeoisie'/Central India Islamic elite, like Field Marshall Ayyub Khan, graduating from the prestigious Sandhurst and speaking better English than many Americans, have always been Western only in appearance. The general sentiment towards the West always being: we take the Hollywoods and Eminems, but not the whole America.

Also, I think that we need these kinds of Ayyub Khans: even if he was not pro-democracy, I can't think of any other flawless Pakistani politician.

Central India's Islamic elite; were major players in creating pakistan including L.A. Khan, Ex- PM. Ayubs Khan was primarily responsible for moving away from federal system and centralizing the power in West Pakistan, so didn't he do more harm than good to pakistan in terms of social development.

There is a huge resentment towards political and social conservatism around the world but in pre-dominantly Muslim countries it is seen as something to be proud of. Isn't the society supposed to liberalize more with time passing by.

Agreed majority of Pakistani was not int the same bracket as Urban elite, but that doesn't mean to walk backwards towards archaic social norms.

I don't buy that anyone in his sane mind can take a antisemitic lune like Zaid hamid as a leader...

I am not saying that overnight .. the state policy would be promoting rock n roll and mini skirts.. but why the entire borrowed wahhabi styled outlook, why promotion of the Mullah-military Alliance... and why the entire anti non-muslim educational system in Zia's time.

 

[T-Faz]

Don't forget that His era was Golden era of Pakistan, Don't even forget that he is real father of Pakistani Islamic Bomb.. Also don't forget that He wanted to improve Pakistan and make it equivalent to Turkey (A muslim dominated Democracy)

Though his greed for power divided country in two (Mujibur rehman won more seat than him in national assembly).

The Golden Era of Pakistan was under Gen. Ayub, it was all undone by Bhutto's economic policy of nationalization.

Bhutto reversed all the progress of the 60's when he changed all the policies and expansion in place.

Bhutto cannot be accredited alone with the makings of the bomb, Dr Salam, Dr Munir and most importantly Dr Khan were the key instruments of it.

How can he improve Pakistan when it was already better than Turkey in the 60's, Gen. Ayub had successfully turned Pakistan into a progressive and modern Muslim state. All that was lost when Bhutto entered the leadership role.

 

[Mo12]

The Golden Era of Pakistan was under Gen. Ayub, it was all undone by Bhutto's economic policy of nationalization.

Bhutto reversed all the progress of the 60's when he changed all the policies and expansion in place.

Bhutto cannot be accredited alone with the makings of the bomb, Dr Salam, Dr Munir and most importantly Dr Khan were the key instruments of it.

How can he improve Pakistan when it was already better than Turkey in the 60's, Gen. Ayub had successfully turned Pakistan into a progressive and modern Muslim state. All that was lost when Bhutto entered the leadership role.

Well its unfair to compare then, as Pakistan was only 7-15 years old then and havent left its own stamp on new Pakistan, with all remaining infrastructure was left by the British.

 

[T-Faz]

Well its unfair to compare then, as Pakistan was only 7-15 years old then and havent left its own stamp on new Pakistan, with all remaining infrastructure was left by the British.

I could not understand your post, please rephrase.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I would really like to know what triggered the change in Pakistans perspective towards the west?

We must understand that the socio-political mobilization against India had to be rooted in an Islamist narrative. Thus, the distancing from the west was inevitable.

 

[pak-marine]

50's pakistan sounds much nicer than what we have now