If you are going to reply to this, I would ask that you challenge the points I make on their own merit, individually, opinions are no good anymore at this part of the debate.
And random articles with bits and pieces highlighted would not suffice, pick at the points and disprove them or the logic.
Well then we didnt have good enough doctors to find it and do the surgery, eh?
Meaningless this part seems to me. There's no question or ambiguity in what I was hinting at there I hope. To change the perception and way of thinking of a population, makes any easy solution to problems therein, out of the question, unattainable.
In our case, the extremism problem was around well before the Taliban, the sectarian symptoms can be seen in the 70's and especially in the 80's. Now it has permeated into the very deepest crevices of our society and we'll find no success in trying to gloss it over as we've been attempting halfheartedly.
But according to this article he didnt create them, they had started before he took over? The years dont lie!
Times were not perfect before him, and Islam was always part of the Pakistani identity, even the most liberal of Pakistanis cannot deny this. The process of indoctrination was started shortly before him, but how then do you propose to absolve what he did thereafter?
Zia basically used Islamism to save and prop up his dictatorial rule, he effectively used the Afghan crisis to kill two birds with one stone, got the West on his side, and solidified his hold at home by using the military-mullah cocktail he devised for the entire country. He was heavily involved with JI, and used their ideology for his purposes and applied them in his rule.
Zia replaced our founding father's 'Unity, faith and discipline', with 'Iman, taqwa and jihad'. He made his intentions clear from the very start.
Page 3 of this book, quotes his message to the media on the first of September, first year of his tyranny,
"A presidential form of government closest to Islamic ideology with president or ameer elected by the entire nation was best suited for Pakistan. The president will be checked by a legislature and shall be guided by the consensus of opinion “Ijma” in the “majlis-e-mushawarat” the council of advisors consisting of the ulema possessing unimpeachable character. The president will be counterchecked by the prime minister and the prime minister by the National Assembly "
Zia started his war on educated at this time too, the first of it's kind seen in 1979 by changing the classification system of English medium schools, degrees and promoting certain types of deobandi education courses to the level of HE degrees from elsewhere, which is why these sorts of 'qualifications' if you can call them that greatly increased under him.
Later he had us have the Hudood ordinance, blasphemy law, as well as infecting the ranks of the army with Islamism.
http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/64-4Lau.pdf
There is A LOT I am missing and even more details of which I do not have the knowledge, memory, or patience to trudge through.
But the consequences of this era speak for themselves, because of Zia, we had outbreaks of sectarianism in the 80's.
The rise of lawless groups and extremists, many of SSP, LeJ, SeM we still fight to this day.
The damage he caused by importing Kalashnikov culture, it helped lay waste to our cities, Karachi is a fine example.
His destruction of civilian authority DIRECTLY led to the election of NS, who was in fact working under Zia at one time.
And his work also led to the huge political instability and the lack of ability of the institutions to function properly and cope with challenges.
Under his watch we took in 4 million refugees, and his right wing policies meant we had not the
infrastructure, nor the money, nor even the will to do justice with them and the people of Pakistan. The refugees made ghettos, operated in crime networks, took part in smuggling weapons and narcotics. They were also used for the purposes of waging war back in Afghanistan.
It was under his watch also, that huge quantities of heroin and hashish became regularly consumed in Pakistan, and that the related network of crime thereon infested our cities.
The man was a disaster, through and through. I pray we never meet his kind again.
And again let me point out the changes in the constitution and the changes in the law were placed before him...Time doesnt lie...Historians do!
Sure, and you seem to try and absolve him of all he actually DID do, by diverting the focus to what others also did before him. It is folly!
Also, on constitution, you're missing the point, he violated in the first instance and then again even after amendments. Which brings me on to the point you seem to be weirdly denying.
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historians don't lie either in this case, unless you could be so bold to prove them wrong here.
