We must never forget Ziaul Haq

[Awesome]

Zia in his day had plenty of support. He managed to keep India and the Russians at bay.

Priorities were different back then. The country had recently been dismembered (due to the sloppiness of his predecessor, Mr. Bhutto), and Russia was at our doorsteps. Striking his name off is a childish thing to do.

 

[VrSoLdIeRs]

2ndly cutting off the title wont change things, would it??

why arent they doing same to mushy, he did way more damage then zia.. perhaps our leaders are afraid of having their tails on fire by americans!!!

 

[VrSoLdIeRs]

2ndly cutting off the title wont change things, would it??

why arent they doing same to mushy, he did way more damage then zia.. perhaps our leaders are afraid of having their tails on fire by americans!!!

 

[ameer219]

Zia was a good guy I guess?I am bad in history on National Politics, but I guess by learning from your opinions, than I can know what type of person he was

 

[sparklingway]

Indeed we could and should have bargained for more, but a reminder is suffice that during eleven years of Zia's tenure, Pakistan's foreign debts remained less than $15 Billion, however successive democratic musical chairs managed to accumulate another $20 Billion in less than 10 years between them.

Besides political instability bringing an economic mess, bad economic management and infighting, it is I'd say a crime to neglect the sanctions on trade and discontinuation of economic and military assistance carried out under the Pressler Amendment. You've isolated all other major factors and neglected that Zia, like Musharraf, was at the helm when opportunity struck.

1991-2000: But even while Pakistan was serving a strategic Cold War purpose, concerns persisted about the country's nuclear ambitions. That gave President George H.W. Bush an easy out from the massive funding commitments in 1990, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Aid over the next decade withered to $429 million in economic assistance and $5.2 million in military assistance, a drop-off Pakistanis still cite bitterly, accusing the United States of leaving them high and dry during the decade.

Adjusted for Inflation:- Economic : 592.47 Million USD and Military 7.18 Million USD

Per Year economic assistance :- 59.24 Million USD

As for the point of total foreign debt, as you can see in the figure below, our external debt has been on almost a linear rise ever since Independence, with some jumps and drops in the '90s owing to unexpected policy changes due to frequent political changes.



ODA (Official Development Assistance) is shown in the graph below, without adjustment to a singular value of the USD or as a percentage of GDP.


Grants at the start of the '90s are prominent but significant drop from '94 to '00 is clearly visible, thanks to sanctions and trade restrictions.

And here is an important table. Aid as percentage of Gross Capital Formation and as a percentage of goods and services is clearly extremely high during the '80s.



Adjusted for Inflation :-

Per capita aid in 1964:- 69.03 USD
Per capita aid in 1980:- 37.61 USD
Per capita aid in 1997:- 4.639 USD
Per capita aid in 2002:- 17.77 USD
Data based on Paper values above, population according to Statistics Division GOP and Inflation adjustment for USD according to US Bureaus of Statistics
Figures of course do not include backhand money exchange for the Afghan War.

The menace of the drug trade has a checkered history, it basically originates in Afghanistan, and if Colombian and Mexican Drug cartel can land on the White House lawns, then expecting Pakistan to eradicate this lucrative trade i must say is a tall order.

Moral justification anyone?

 

[FireFighter]

As i said elsewhere, successive governments of the day implement their policies as they deem fit. Albeit it may have transpired during his tenure but entirely blaming Zia for the so called Kalashnikov or Heroine culture is unjust as these were a snow ball effect after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If anything we should remember him as the man who ensured for Pakistan to cross the nuclear threshold while the world's attention was diverted towards Afghanistan and also for his cricket diplomacy with India and the verdict he delivered upon Rajiv Gandhi.
He was also the leader, who after decades of sanctions, managed to secure the release of American Arms including the first batch of F-16s much to Indra Gandhi's disappointment.

Word.

Once upon a time to get on in Pakistan religion did not matter. On the other hand, a criminal record did not help. Today, by the looks of it, one can have a criminal record and still actually occupy sensitive positions in government or industry. Religion, though, continues to be immaterial; mostly because there is only one religion in Pakistan, the others are extinct, except statistically. But what does count is sect, so much so that one's livelihood, nay, life, may depend on it.

I'm not sure how to take your post seriously because your post starts off with the biggest lie attributed to Pakistan's history. Religion was the primary reason for the creation of a Muslim state. Not the other way around.

It has always mattered. Even Bhutto radicalized the youth as he tried to bring together Islamic countries and initiated the OIC which is pretty dead today due to incompetent and corrupt political leaders in the Muslim world.

From courageous and outspoken publications that dot the media landscape, amidst much trash, we learn that there are as many as 269 sects and sub-sects in Pakistan. And that since 1989 sectarian disputes have thus far accounted for 5,400 killed. We owe this malady to the fundamentalism injected into our politics by Ziaul Haq and his Salafist backers. It is not only Shias and Sunnis killing each other but, more so, sub-groups within sects that are likewise engaged in slaughter.

Ever wonder why these courageous and outspoken morons selectively choose to blame Zia for all the ills in the country and put a total blind eye to other political figures such as ZA Bhutto's policies which led to separation of Pakistan?

The root of the Sectarian violence in Pakistan begins with the Iranian Revolution and nefarious attempts of the Iranian Shiitte Mullahs to convert the neighbouring Sunni muslim countries into theocratic Shia states ruled by the Shitte Mullahs. There was sectarian violence not only in Pakistan but also in Oman, UAE, and even Saudi Arabia where they attempted to take over Makkah. Remember the hostage crisis?

Their continuous invasion and intrusion into the neighbouring states really angered the Arabs. Hence unleashing Saddam's wrath upon the Iranians.

Point to be noticed is that during Shah's rule in Iran, relations with neighbouring countries were fine, but when the Mullahs took over, relations with ALL neighbouring overwhelmingly Sunni states deteriorated.


PPP propaganda warfare wing it seems is in action once again, the corrupt dogs have once again been freed and back to their old work to distract away the laymen in the streets ...



Zafar Hilaly in The News

Zia, like all humans, is not 100% good or bad. He did what he felt was necessary to secure Pakistan's interests at the time. In order to encourage more youth to fight the Red Army and to unite Muslims he encouraged fundamentalism. It did serve its purpose for the time, resulting in the defeat of the Soviets, the acquisition of US military hardware and successful implementation of a nuclear program

But the long term consequences of radicalisation were not assessed properly. Zia was too preoccupied with his short term goals. And the fallout of his shor-term policies is harming Pakistan now.

Erasing Zia from history books will accomplish nothing, apart from Pakistani youth forgetting the negativities of short-term policies, dictatorship and radicalisation.

Building statues on the other hand, is used to honour individuals, not as a reminder of tragedy. A statue of Zia will be mistaken as honouring him.

Best policy is to teach the youth about Pakistani history, and show them the harm Zia did. But also show them his achievements, so that they know that what they learned is the truth, not a perception.

Absolutely agree with your views above. The irony is that Zia has done many amazing things for Pakistan which are totally disregarded by corrupt politicians like the current PPP regime, who have no credibility themselves.


And I agree with you that dictatorship is really unhealthy for societies in the long run. In short run they produce many good results but in the long run those gains cannot be sustained, as state policies require the input and will of the masses which comes through democratic means.

 

[sparklingway]

The root of the Sectarian violence in Pakistan begins with the Iranian Revolution and nefarious attempts of the Iranian Shiitte Mullahs to convert the neighbouring Sunni muslim countries into theocratic Shia states ruled by the Shitte Mullahs.

The sectarian violence aimed at Ahmadis in 1952?