The Man Who Stooped to Conquer

Everyone has a right to like or dislike a person, dead or alive...a right that was denied to the people of Pakistan by the military dictator.

There is a difference between an ``ordinary`` dead person and a dead person who was responsible for decisions that influenced the course of history in Pakistan. It is a case of postmortem communication.

Agreed that the semi-democratic setup for the last 10 years is not an ideal one, but atleast the effective administrations derive their legitimacy through the will of the people, therefore, there is *always * hope for a change for the better.

A person who caused a major distraction in the newly adopted course of democracy in 1977 (the first genuinely elected government of Pakistan was only five years old when the 3rd martial law was inforced) cannot be forgiven just because he is dead. Even Allah, the Alimighty, has promised a thorough account of one`s deeds after death, then why should we, mere mortals, forget the misdeeds of an illegitimate ruler?

Dr. Mehdi Hasan.

I do not try to deny the facts that relate to governance of Pakistan. What I would like to distingusih is between the man`s personal character and his role as a president / general.

Zia circumvented the democratic process, this is what I agree to. He used Machiavellian strategy to rule Pakistan, again I would have to agree with this.

But at the same time, I look at governments that have been established in Pakistan all have made numerous errors in governance.

Nobody is saying that Zia is the best that happened to Pakistan, but lets not show him to be the worst that happened to Pakistan also. Corruption and nepotisim has been prevalent in Pakistan since its inception. And even after the current run of democracy there is no abatement of corruption and nepotisim. Successive governments have been able to nothing to reduce the level of police state (BB got the Rangers into Karachi, the current government is talking about using force to create a Taliban type of state).

Bhutto nationalized schools, industries, etc. Zia denationalized schools. He tried to create enterpreneural class once again.

I am neither for nor against governments as such what I hope for is a more focused approach towards a government that rational solutions rather than emotional hype.

Good Article

Re: afrasiyab
convincing?!?

there are people around who need to be CONVINCED that zia was bad for pakistan?

[choke] [gag] sputter.... [gag] splrrgm... sigh... nope.... i don`t think i have anything to say. i was going to try and talk about how, growing up, i never knew of anything but to be scared of policemen and loved in fear of my life and limb, and try and talk about police states, freedom (and i am not talking about the freedom to piss on the street here, we have enough of that), of speaking what is in one`s mind, of women`s rights, and salaat committees and whatnot... but i don`t think there is going to be ``much point``.

guess i must be one of the ``already convinced`` ones.

i should go visit ``jabRa chowk`` next time i am in islamabad and meet some more ``unconvinced`` ones, to get a dose of reality i think.

--ababua

I see your point as far as him being a dictator is concerned and I agree that whenever, in the coarse of history, a dictator is faced with a question of choosing between his rule and the other, no matter what ``the other`` may be, he always chooses his rule and fortifies his position above all.

But in Zia`s case and with respect to your article it appears that most of your recollections are hearsay and I don`t see them standing a chance of convincing anyone as borderline as myself, as far as Zia is concerned, let alone someone who staunchly believed in him and today believes in his legacy.

So if you are trying to convince the already convinced then I could congratulate your attempt otherwise I don`t see much point to your article.

For some of us this subject refreshes many old wounds. Though I`m resolved not to get into discussions of politics or religion, this can be classified as `history`, so I`ll put in my nickle.

Its disappointing that people like Amin would rather deny historical reality than learn from it. Zina-ul-Haq was a very rare evil specimen. He is the Oliver Cromwell of Pakistani history. The only difference is that Cromwell, probably, was sincere, Zia was not.

A friend of mine, Captain (now retired Colonel) Moeen Rauf, was his ADC when Zia was a division commander. In the Fall of 1977, one day we were sitting around wondering when the elections will be held. Moeen adamantly claimed that he was absolutely sure that this man will not hold any elections and that he`ll be there even ten years later. ``I know him,`` the former ADC said, ``know one can imagine what a clever man he is. Yeh tu sab ko baych kay kha jyai ga. Buhat bara harami aadmi hey yeh.`` How prophetic.

Zia`s PR skills even exceeded those of Josef Stalin. Stalin always showed lots of face to face courtesy to his would-be victims before putting them through the so called Moscow Trials, the infamous kangaroo court purges of his old colleagues. His cool smile was well known, as was that of Zia.

Some more example:

In 1978 or so, when Wasim Bari was captain of the cricket team, one day we were sitting at a friend`s place where Bari used to come and stay when he visited Lahore. There was a cricket match in Lahore two days later and Bari was reorgainzing the team. There was a new player, whose name I forget, but he was married to a general`s daughter. Any way, Bari had him sitting on the sidelines as an extra. Well guess what, Zia called and, when the host answered, asked for Waseem Bari. Then for the next ten minutes Bari was on the phone and when he hung up he was absolutely baffled and exasperated. He told us that the general (who was the military dictator of the country), was `begging` for a `personal favor` to `please give that boy a chance, for MY sake`. Bari said he was so embarrassed because Zia was thanking him in advance and pleading with him. The team composition was altered.

Another retired army officer, Zubair, whom I met through mutual friends (he works with Merrill Lynch in New Jersey today), worked under Zia when he was a lientenant colonal and commanding his regiment. According to Zubair, Zia knew not only all the officers, but each and every havaldar and lance naik by name. He would go around the barracks and individually engage the men in a one-on-one style. To the credit of the man, this gave him a power over the men that very few COs can ever have. Those same people, to the end, were the ones whom he trusted to provide his personal security.

I read an account by the Hindustani journalist, Khushwant Singh, about when he came to Islamabad to interview the President. According to Mr. Singh when he landed, he was picked up by the presidential limousine from the airport and whisked away to the Army Chief`s residence, where Zia continued to reside throughout his dictatorship. Singh says, he was astonished to note that the man who opened the car door to greet him was none other than the general himself. Then as they sat down in the living room to talk, Zia interrupted and asked for a `personal favor`. He pulled out a bundle of Khushwant Singh`s books and requested an autograph on the inside cover of each. Mr. Singh was quite confounded by all this and, by his own admission, could not take Zia to task during the interview.

As Bhutto languished in jail Zia kept him fed on false hope. His own people would go and tell Bhutto that Zia is too scared of the consequences so he will never have the guts to hang him. All Zia was interested in, the would tell Bhutto, was to humiliate him (Bhutto) by getting him to sign statements that would make him look bad. Bhutto, lulled in this false belief kept being stubborn and made it a lot easier for Zia, when the time came, to hang him.

In 1985, Zia tricked PPP to boycott the elections and shoot themselves in the foot. He called Kausar Niazi and `begged` him to `do me a favor` and somehow convince the party to participate in the upcoming elections because there was too much International pressure on him for that. According to one of the people who were in his personal service at the time, Zia offered Kausar Niazi `anything` he wished (ambassadorship, permits, etc.) in exchange for this `favor`. At the same time, he had the `secret` leaked to the PPP insiders that Kausar Niazi was coming as Zia`s spy to talk them into agreeing to his election plans. He manipulated it with such skill that the PPP thought that a boycott of the elections would weaken Zia`s hand. They did exactly what he wanted without even realizing (they discovered too late) it was his carefully laid trap.

This was the personal side of the man. These were his tricks to disarm his opponents. And they worked very effectively.

However, the enduring legacy of the monster is what he actually did in terms of governing. If he had not inflicted the damaged (Afghan policy, free reign to religious fundos, promoting corruption etc.), we could have swallowed his self-serving antics. But he was an extremely costly blunder of history. He ensured a barren future for the country.

Please forgive me, for I`ve just realized that I am rambling and not going anywhere. But this is not a subject I`ve learnt (as yet) to feel neutral

about.

...SR

BG,

I am sorry, but the author is ``gossiping``. The events mentioned by the Author either had only one individual reporting or were reported by persons who were biased against him (in both cases today the poor dead man cannot defend himself and this is unacceptable both from Islamic point of view and from humanistic point of view.) Such a testament would not even stand in court. So why are we subject to such an inequitable view. More so, why are we willing to accept such a view.

While your experience might not have been one of gratitude, a good size of the nation mourned the death of Zia, and mind you this was not faked. In those days I was in Pakistan and I could see the faces of the people that I met that evening clearly displayed disbelief and grief.

The best of persons have not been able to make radical changes to Pakistan. Mahbub-ul-Haq, the renowned Financial wizard, despite knowing the drawbacks of not having Agriculturist pay income tax, he had to ease the process in. After all democratic process is one of gentle acceptance rather than revolutionary force. If Zia did appease various special interest groups in Pakistan he did nothing different from what is practiced in democracy today.

re amin saleh

i agree that if a person has died, then its best to let them and their evil deeds rest in peace. but i this instance, the dead man, ie zia, did so much long-term to the country, that this generally courteous rule to the dead, does not apply to him. at least, that`s what i think. after all, the author is not really ``gossiping`` after zia`s death, just trying to shed some light on his personal character.

re shahbaz

i dont think the author is arguing that bhutto was somehow better than zia. maybe i missed something?

I am sorry to see such an article on the chowk. I think it is in poor taste and lacks judgement. Examples that were given to show Zia`s character were in poor form and based on hearsay from those that were obviously biased against the person.

Even so, the man is dead and whatever he has done or not done in his private life should be of no concern to the rest of us. We may discuss his strategy related to his public office. As Muslims who are we to judge a persons life.

Keep in mind there is no one that is perfect except God.