Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Seeking Jinnah’s Pakistan In Zia’s Pakistan

Seeking Jinnah’s Pakistan In Zia’s Pakistan

January 19th, 2011 | 37 Comments

By D. Asghar

Jinnah Sahib’s untimely death and Pakistan’s loss of Quaid’s vision is often debated at this forum. Many Pakistanis, including myself find it quite disheartening that a sound and solid ideology went completely astray after his demise.

It is an irony, that we as a nation never collectively, pay heed to the original ideas and reasons why this country came into being. Agreed that the subsequent leaders who succeeded Jinnah Sahib, were silenced by force and those who were left were not able to put it into a path that Quaid had envisioned.

Arguably, the blood that many gave to reach the Wagah border, hoping to reach their promised land, was shed in vain. The chaos that ensued after one blow or the other, the intrigues that followed and the bitter differences of opinions on form and function of government, led to the military intervention. It is nothing short of a miracle, that this country is, still on the map of this world, despite all the odds.

The often stated and debated role of the military behind our national degradation, is no secret. Their blind lust for power, unabated and ill conceived dictatorship has done the most harm to the ideology of Pakistan. Seemingly, the only institution which supposedly provided “order and stability”, but in fact conspired to make the political and democratic mind set weaker and bleaker in the country.

After Jinnah Sahib, the only leader, with all his faults and blemishes was ZAB, who put the country back on some track. His biggest blunder, legislature’s bizarre power to serve as an arbitrator on people’s faith. Personally, I am a Sunni Muslim, but I certainly do not want the government declaring anyone Muslim or Non Muslim, based on its subjective interpretation. At other forums, I have weighed in on this a number of times. If tomorrow, Shias, Ahmedis, Bohris or Ismaeelis outnumber the Sunnis in population, and declare the Sunnis as “Non-Muslims”, then how would that make the current majority sect feel?

Getting back to this discussion, our political pundits often bring America as the reason why we are in such a mess. Perhaps there is some truth to this, but totally blaming the US for our flight from Jinnah’s vision is at least unrealistic and disingenuous. Bhutto Sahib’s socialist ideas and dreams of Pakistan becoming a modern Islamic Republic, were shattered by a rather timid looking General Zia Ul Haq.

Zia’s “Islamisation project” did the most harm to our country. His proponents argue that he had very few choices. US needed Pakistan to counter the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and Pak military was providing the logistical support to the Mujahideen. The only way he could have assembled the resources from friendly Muslim countries was to give this military campaign a cover called, “Jihad.” What followed later is common knowledge.

A democratically elected government in any such predicament, would have used diplomacy and would have set certain rules of engagement. The reason is plain and simple, a democratically elected government is answerable to the public and constituents. A despot and a dictator is answerable to none. One can assume that a democratically elected government, would have reluctantly joined the campaign but would have put the interest of Pakistan at the forefront. Regretfully, Pakistan’s interest was put on the back burner.

This brought the influx of refugees, that Pakistan did not have adequate resources to handle. Zia Sahib bargained the sovereignty of the country, in the name of “Afghan Aid Dollars.” The religious mantra was repeated endlessly for political purposes and each promise that Zia Sahib made to the nation on July 04, 1977 was reneged.

The political opportunists benefited the most from this 11 years of military rule. The country drifted from its original ideology completely. The state was busy in the business of war and hence the Islamisation suited the agenda of the Khakis. Any and every dissent was brutally crushed and hopes of any democratic elections dwindled.

The religious and political parties demonstrated their undying allegiance to the “Ameer Ul Momineen.” The rather ironic fact is that, in our faith tyranny is considered completely unacceptable. Those who have doubts, must revisit the history of the events that led to the battle of Karbala and martyrdom of Imam Hussain (R.A.H). The grandson of Prophet PBUH who gave his life opposing the unjust rule of Yazeed.

The so called religious parties who were opposed to the creation of this country, played with the dignity of this country under the facade of the faith. The Jinnah’s progressive Pakistan became supposedly the sole saviour of the sanctity of the religion. The nation was divided and subdivided into so many sects and groups that a cohesive nationalistic ideology and vision became completely blurred. Creating “better, pure and pious” Muslims became the primary responsibility of the state. If the August 1988 plane crash would have not claimed Zia Sahib’s life, we would have seen his reign for perhaps another 11 or many more years.

The political parties post Zia, have not been able to come out of the shadows of Zia’s legacy. PML-N was truly a continuation of Zia’s conservative agenda. BB Sahiba’s two terms were short lived and marred by the corruption scandals. Musharraf’s enlightened moderation was the biggest joke, as it was clearly the policy of keeping both, “Ram and Raheem” happy, so to speak. Musharraf Sahib was trying to keep both the US and the conservatives happy. Lal Masjid was an exception, but it was a very poor execution of state’s writ. Again, there is a difference in a statesman and a dictator. Musharraf Sahib clearly was not the former.

The current regime, although is a democratically elected government but very fragile and toothless. It almost seems like it is surviving on the direct blessing of Washington. It does not have any solid vision or agenda to put the country back to any real direction. It is treading on a safe path as it cannot weather any more storms.

Looking ahead we see a potential PML-N led stint in the coming years. Again, PML-N on the surface may have gained some political points in the restoration of the CJ days, but it is ideologically a direct descendant of Zia. It has always used the “Islamic ploy” to tap into its voter base.

The hopes of reviving Jinnah’s ideals are in the hearts and minds of the true patriots. Their struggle is painstaking and laborious and will take many years. The way out of this political use of Islam strictly depends on the building of consensus. It is these visionaries, who would define tomorrow’s Pakistan. The tides of change have started to emerge. The soil will witness the birth of those who will change the course. These people will unite the bitterly divided nation under the flagship of Pakistan. Agreed that it is in a silent minority at the present time, but the seeds of change are being germinated as we speak. A few more years and the change of generation will alter the landscape. The truly promised land for the significant majority of the Sub Continent.

Written by dasghar

D. Asghar is a Pakistani American. A Mortgage Banker by profession who loves to write as well. He blogs frequently at popular South Asian websites. A repository of some of his scribbles is http://dasghar.blogspot.com/. He can be reached at dasghar@aol.com.

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: country, government, Pakistan, political

37 Responses to "Seeking Jinnah’s Pakistan In Zia’s Pakistan"

wonderer says:

January 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm

While I wish Pakistan and its people all the best and hope they will emerge stronger, saner, and united from the present turmoil, I urge everyone to remember the following:

“A nation gets only as good a government as it deserves, and a government gets only as good an army as it deserves.”

The loss of Quid’s vision is acutely felt particularly by the liberal strata of Pakistani society, but perhaps it was because the people in general did not lead their personal life the way Jinnah did; and thus the leader and the followers were not on the same wavelength.
major says:

January 19, 2011 at 6:48 pm

“Seeking Jinnah’s Pakistan In Zia’s Pakistan”

Zia’s pakistan is the logical extension of Jinnah’s pakistan. The author is trying to build a false picture of contradiction between “visions” of zia and that of jinnah – but there isn’t any contradiction really.
Delirium says:

January 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Change is imminent. That’s what we’ve been counting on. But in actuality and contrast, the conditions have been worsening and deteriorating progressively over the years on all fronts such as economic, social, political and foreign affairs.

We do not see much hope until we somehow get rid of the vicious circle. The corridors of power are accessible only by feudals, landlords, ethnic, religious and tribal lords, industrialists, military and bureaucratic establishment. Democracy, in general, has failed to pierce through the well protected and shielded shell, so far.

Rhetoric and tirades are not going to help unless we are able to uproot and relay the strongly fissured and stratified social fabric manifesting serious ethnic, cultural and geographical divide.

Unless there is a collective shift and change in our mindsets and attitudes, whereby we develop the vision and sense to look beyond ourselves, focusing on the bigger national picture avoiding the individualism and short term gains, NOTHING is going to change.

The institutions and systems will not strengthen and develop till the time educated and middle class representation sifts through the ranks paving way for competent and sound leadership to emerge.
Humanity says:

January 19, 2011 at 9:22 pm

@Asghar Bhai – well said and Godspeed!

@wonderer “The loss of Quid’s vision is acutely felt particularly by the liberal strata of Pakistani society, but perhaps it was because the people in general did not lead their personal life the way Jinnah did; and thus the leader and the followers were not on the same wavelength.”

True. The nation stands where it is today due to its short comings and by allowing the extremists to sow the seeds. Unless people take personal responsibility, things can not change. The mindset becomes tolerant, one mind at a time.
Feroz Khan says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:14 pm

@ D. Asghar

I will comment in detail, when I have some time.

All I need to say at this point is when I was teaching Pak Studies at Aitchsion College, Lahore, and started to teach the actual, factual history of Pakistan and why it was created, my students called me anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam. I did not teach from the offically mandated textbooks and in this, I have to thank Mr. Shamim Khan, principal of Aitichsion College. When I started teaching at Aitchison College and reviewed the texts, I went to see the Principal, or the “Prince of Aitchsion” as he was called by the students and told him that the textbooks were an outright lie. To his credit, he told me to teach what is right and which is what I did for 2 years at Aitchison College.

The point is that we cannot hope to change the average mindset in Pakistan unless that mindset is willing, itself, to be changed. I saw a lot of resistence to the idea of change, in the mindset of my students, and I still remember the events in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 when CNN came to campus and interviewed some of the students and they all, to the man, defended Osama Bin Ladin.

Those students are now writing for Express Tribune or Daily Times and are seen as the new faces of a liberal, progressive Pakistan.

ciao
swapnavasavdutta says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:25 pm

” factual history of Pakistan and why it was created,”

Would be really interesting to read this, if you can post it if you have
time and inclination.
Milestogo says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:29 pm

Jehar jo ghul Gaya, use beh Jane de
jo hai masoom abhi, use pak saf aa ne de
Fellow-Pakistani says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:29 pm

@D. Asghar:
The title of your writeup should be:

SEEKING JINNAH’S PAKISTAN IN POST 1974 ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO’S PAKISTAN.
Unless you correct souce of the peoblem, the cancer in Pakistani society will NOT go away. Choice is your!
Major says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:42 pm

Feroz: “told him that the textbooks were an outright lie. To his credit, he told me to teach what is right and which is what I did for 2 years at Aitchison College.”

Yep, that’s exactly what I have said many times – only to hear collective howling from pakis in protest. if you want change in pakiland – start with change in the textbooks…
Major says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:46 pm

Feroz: “Some students and they all, to the man, defended Osama Bin Ladin. Those students are now writing for Express Tribune or Daily Times and are seen as the new faces of a liberal, progressive Pakistan.”

Once again – right on the mark. As I have said many times – what passes for “liberal,progressive” elements in pakistan are really same old islamists albeit with polished interface… and I guess with skills in english language.
libertarian says:

January 19, 2011 at 10:46 pm

@D Asghar: It’s clear you like writing.
Tilsim says:

January 20, 2011 at 12:29 am

D.Asghar wrote:

“The way out of this political use of Islam strictly depends on the building of consensus. ”

I think most commentators on PTH’s website understand the need for change. They may have differing views about the causes for Pakistan’s trajectory but arguing about these causes seldom brings about change. People tend to hold the views they hold in a narrow sense (say their faith), but may be more open to new ideas in a broad sense. That is where consensus can be built.

I have pasted below the extract of an article that provides some thought to the question: how does one bring about progressive social change? What are the steps that we need to take? Where should we focus? It’s important to have a framework to channel frustration into positive actions. I hope it will provide some food for thought:

“So to bring about the level of radical and progressive social change needed, we need to be realistic about where we are currently heading as a society and as a species. We need to be realistic about the fact that extremely radical and progressive change has been achieved before and can be achieved again, and that now – as then – it involves both dedication and commitment by those effecting change and it involves those previously committed to the status quo recognising that their own best interests lie in supporting the changes they previously opposed. Reorientating people’s notions of the politically possible enables us to build unexpected coalitions that can outflank the previous status quo.

Leverage in political change is about: (i) recognising where the possibilities for change are; (ii) bringing coalitions together to make that change real; and (iii) working at several levels. In other words, such change involves working at several levels of effectiveness simultaneously in order to open up cracks that can be used as points of leverage. Such leverage requires not the use of outmoded ideologies that have been shaped by previous constituent conditions but by a responsiveness which links the three levels of:
(i) Firstly, human experience (such as delight in our children playing, horror at children abandoned to sweatshops making cheap goods, empathy for Palestinian children’s experience, etc.);
(ii) Secondly, realistic idealism, which involves negotiating a path between: a realistic engagement with power as it is, and an idealism that can envisage and bring into being a democratic power that those conditioned by earlier constituent conditions only stifle; and
(iii) Thirdly, political action based on disruptive effective engagement.

Such social change may require us to give up on social activism in favour of disruptive effective engagement. To give up on social activism which seeks to effect political change by seeking representation, by asking others to make changes for us, and to instead deepen our engagement in disruptive effective engagement that relies on ourselves and our ability to expand our alliances (including with political representatives) to make the changes we seek.”

Extract from a Paper given at the 2nd International Faslane Academic Blockade, 27th June 2007. 3rd July 2007 by a
Justin Kenrick
Salman Arshad says:

January 20, 2011 at 1:14 am

so many optimists

the only way towards a progressive Pakistan is a completely ruined Pakistan. A Pakistan that rises not because a minority wants it to, but because there is no room for a compromise on the idea of rising up.

Right now there is too much momentum towards downfall. Right now imagining a better Pakistan is like the minority of Christians in Pakistan dreaming of the country as the “Vatican of the East” one day, or Hindus dreaming of painting the Faisal Mosque saffron. Strictly no offense implied to anyone.

The effort of liberals today is not more than that of “diya jalaye rakhna” and will no doubt be the reason of a rising up whenever it has to.

But this effort would not be any more than that today and in the times to come, the only uphill task will be to keep the “diya” from being put out.
azhar aslam says:

January 20, 2011 at 2:05 am

A monority is all that is needed. Masses follow. But it has to be a vocal minority. committed and dedicated.
Tilsim says:

January 20, 2011 at 2:38 am

There are lots of strands of opinion amongst Pakistanis. Some religiously minded conservatives, not socially or otherwise liberal, are not comfortable with the turn of events either. Their voices are not necessarily heard on a forum like PTH. Effective coalition building is necessary for change. At the moment, the tendency is for people to be arguing amongst themselves across the board rather than identifying areas of agreement.

To quote again, it involves both dedication and commitment by those effecting change and it involves those previously committed to the status quo recognising that their own best interests lie in supporting the changes they previously opposed.

Debate is useful but developing a new consensus along a limited set of non-negotiable values is where it’s at.

The various factions of Islamists are already there in terms of coalescing on some narrow points. They have now taken up violence. That is why they are dictating the agenda and seem unstoppable.

Time to wisen up on how political change is brought about.

Salman is right. Things will get worse and it will take ages but there is no better time to straighten one’s thinking than the present.
libertarian says:

January 20, 2011 at 2:42 am

@Salman Arshad: so many optimists
the only way towards a progressive Pakistan is a completely ruined Pakistan.

Hope is not a strategy. But then neither is despair.

Pakistan had the chance post 1971 – Bhutto wasted that crisis. When the next existential crisis occurs, an international receivership – like Macarthur in Japan – might be the best option for the vast majority of Pakistanis.
bciv says:

January 20, 2011 at 3:06 am

@feroze khan

“To his credit, he told me to teach what is right and which is what I did for 2 years at Aitchison College.”

it would have been very odd indeed if bacha khan’s grand-nephew had insisted you teach the official ‘nazari e pakistan’ BS.
Humanity says:

January 20, 2011 at 3:37 am

@Tilsim “Things will get worse and it will take ages but there is no better time to straighten one’s thinking than the present.”

How much longer should the oppressed plan to be crushed under the idols of ignorance and avarice? How much more innocent blood will be spilled for the crazy experimentation of turning the time back to 7th century? The world won’t wait endlessly, allowing the crazy get crazier. Is the nations is adamant on keeping status quo, then some outside body will be forced to take action. At no cost will the nukes be allowed to fall into the hands of the fanatics.

People need to acknowledge loud and clear that the single biggest blow that put this nation into the self destructive trajectory was dealt with the JI ideology based on hatred and bigotry. ZAB succumbed to the JI blackmail. Zia, himself, was an staunch JI soldier and was brought into power strategically to poison the stream at its source . Zia is gone, leaving behind a wretched cesspool. The need of the hour is to expose JI and its ilk to the world to expose how they have preached and practice murder in the name of Islam, calling it jihad.

The cancer must be cured by removing the tumor from its root. The JI books and other hate filled literature should be exposed and banned. Otherwise, men should plan to let the beards grow wild and women should take refuge under tent like burqa. Sorry, it is not a pretty picture.
Tilsim says:

January 20, 2011 at 4:09 am

@ Humanity
I sympathise with what you are saying but we have to channel our frustration effectively into positive action along many fronts. It has to start in a practical sense and one where as many people as possible can be brought into the fold. The things that you suggest are difficult to impose in the current political reality of Pakistan. The rhetoric of both liberals against liberals (that they are too few to count) and the rhetoric of Islamists that liberals are overly powerful and evil needs an effective counter.

Some suggestions:

1) The message of those opposed to the Islamist onslaught has to be based on core values that resonates with a broad audience and can counter the messaging of the Mullah i.e liberals are extremists, foreign stooges, Godless, immoral, secular conspiracy, anti-Islam, Islam in danger, perverting Islam (e.g Ghamidi) etc etc)

2) Focus on the practical problems and unfolding evidence of chaos associated with the Mullah’s stance, rather than the stance itself. Focus on the extremists close link with terror. Focus on their sectarian violence. Focus on their total inability to manage an economy. Focus on the international isolation they are creating. Focus on their immorality towards women and children. Focus on what the Islamists don’t talk about.

3) Focus on delivering on the needs of the poor socially and economically.

4) Coalesce the message along willing partners within the army, bureacracy, universities and the law. After all this is the effective tactic of the Islamists.

5) Eventually a coalition can bring about changes to the national curriculum or oppose further inroads. Not at the moment.

The reality is that these violent Islamists will deliver Pakistan into a war with it’s neighbours and the wider world just like the chaos they are creating in Pakistan. There are enough Pakistanis, not necessarily liberals or Islamists but in positions of power, that need to recognise the danger. If they can start checking these forces rather than the total carte blanche they have currently given them, things will begin to change. It may be too late but better to try and fail than not to try at all.
Humanity says:

January 20, 2011 at 6:56 am

@Tilsim
I apologize for sounding angry and frustrated. I realize that the decay that took decades to get to the roots will take a long time to eradicate

When the president of a country seeks foreign security personal for his personal security, one can hope for the best, but any residual optimism must be kissed good bye. Pakistan has run out of time. The game is over for the marginalized and the minorities. An yet life will go on and chaos will give rise to order from within this sea of 180 million people

I agree whole heartedly with the proposed course of action. I also don’t believe in giving up till the last breathe. Life may be snuffed out of those who dare to stand up for their rights. The ideals of a just, tolerant human society are immortal. We must hold on to our values with patience and work for peace in whatever way we can. I have faith in Allah and His help for those who love humanity. Some thing good will come from the trial of the nation, inshAllah.
Andy Martin says:

January 20, 2011 at 7:49 am

A Pakistani Muslim female friend, a teacher in a school told me that Pakistan was created to maintain Muslim identity in India. But I am curious when India has more Muslims than Pakistan and there is constant flow of Muslims from Bangladesh into India (that is what my Indian friends tell me), do you think this Muslim identity need to be secondary and the first one needs to be Indian. So the question is Should Pakistan Survive? It is sane for it to disappear and Indian Muslims should proclaim that they are Indian First and Muslim Second.

“Pakistan had the chance post 1971 – Bhutto wasted that crisis. ”

What do you mean? Close to 3 Million were massacred and 500K rapes happened according to London Times. Most of the deaths and rapes were of minority Hindus. Do you think Bhutto should have apologized and compensated the kith and kins of the people who lost family members or got raped? Do you think he should have punished the culprits from the army?
Germany allowed that to happen after the defeat and so it could rise up again.
Salman Arshad says:

January 20, 2011 at 11:49 pm

@ libertarian:

Pakistan has never had an existential crisis. And I doubt it will soon. 71 was more like good riddance. There was no remorse and none even now.

Being “resilient” is one of our qualities we take pride in.
Tilsim says:

January 21, 2011 at 12:25 am

@ Salman Arshad

When one has no courage, there is always “resilience” to fall back on.
Salman Arshad says:

January 21, 2011 at 12:54 am

@ Tilsim:

I agree, some coalition can be made, but there are some serious hindrances to the way things are at the moment.

liberals can do almost nothing positive right now except to take uncompromised stances. Any compromise, and there will be no one to listen to them, they are so few. An uncompromised, but politically non-threatening stance is what liberals must stand on. Only then they will be one of the many voices. Sadly, thats not the case right now. They are ever ready to compromise. Compromise makes liberals irrelevant.

The non-violent religious conservatives, that you refer to, cannot be friends with liberal Muslims. Their women would prefer an Aamir Liaqat, if at all, to a Ghamidi. Their men might not support a burqa, but would highly appreciate submissive women doning a dopatta on the head. Muslim liberals are mostly the kind of Imran Khan and firmly believing that Hip-hop Sharia would solve all problems. These two groups don’t mix.

Non religious liberals, or the traditional “left” can actually build coalition with the non-violent conservatives. The commonality among them is the way they think about their ideological principled stances. That quality is deemed respectable in both these groups. These same religious conservatives that you talk about appreciate Jinnah for his principles for example, and not for his wish for an “islamic state”, like the hardliners.

The group who appreciates Ghamidi, and is Muslim by faith, unfortunately doesn’t have a mature discourse to fall back on when questioned. Ghamidi as a lone wolf can do that on his own, but thats it. This group can certainly try to influence the younger generation though, if they try harder. This group has a major drawback, which is a real deal breaker, and that is its tendency to compromise and state a muffled stance.

I’ve seen hip hop Sharia lovers stating that they would like a blasphemy law to deter people from blaspheming but the punishment should not be death because oh-that-is-not-Islam, Islam is a peaceful religion. No theological basis, whatever hardline stance causes them emotional offense is not Islam, and when asked what is Islam, its simply the compromised form of the hardline stance!! This is the group that will NOT be taken seriously by anyone.

As for the liberals and the non-violent conservatives to come together, the liberals will have to lead, just like Jinnah. The reason is that liberals do and can understand how to communicate with the conservatives on a positive tone, but that is not possible the other way round. Religious conservatives don’t seem to be “passionate” enough to lead probably by virtue of their very ideology. But they are loyal supporters.

Liberals, I believe are reactionary in a way, “not conservative” so to speak, so they already understand conservatism. The only challenge for them is to assimilate the dichotomy.
Salman Arshad says:

January 21, 2011 at 1:03 am

@ Tilsim:

“When one has no courage, there is always “resilience” to fall back on.”

haha.. good one.
Milestogo says:

January 21, 2011 at 1:10 am

You can not erase mullahs line
but you can draw a bigger line next to it

you can not close madrassas
but you can invite china to open Beijing institute of technology in peshawar

you can not change mullah’s mindset
but you can break the cycle by teaching science to mullah’s children
Tilsim says:

January 21, 2011 at 4:22 am

@ Salman Arshad

Fascinating dissection of different strands of opinion, in particular”hip hop Sharia lovers” (!).

You said: “Compromise makes liberals irrelevant.” Probably, but hope that’s not referring to the compromise that the ruling classes are making continuously which is not the same thing. The Islamists are using a clever tactic to paint liberal commentators and the “ruling classes” and “corrupt elites” as one and the same. They don’t want the non-violent religious but worried folks to get swayed by the liberals’ arguments so clear attempt is going on at lumping them together. As you say a liberal’s stance is differentiated by it being a principled one. I agree that this can find a common voice with other shades of principled opinion and that liberals have to lead.
The Only Normal Person Here. says:

January 21, 2011 at 6:01 am

Bhutto gave shelter to radical islamists like Hekmatyar, Shah Massoud and Burhannudin Shah. Bhutto made arabic mandatory in primary and secondary school, madrasas set up were increased rapidly in his regime, Bhutto declared islam as an official religion of Pakistan and named Pakistan, the ISLAMIC republic of Pakistan and what not.

And we never broach that and jump on Zia’s blame game bandwagon.
Salman Arshad says:

January 22, 2011 at 1:41 am

@ Tilsim:

Well I think the ruling classes are not really separate, and the elite are liberal and corrupt at the same time. The reality is that by and large the whole society is corrupt. So liberals are too. They however happen to be a majority among the elite.

You are right about the intentional maligning being done to equate liberal with elite and corrupt simultaneously. Most conservatives I have come across talking about Salman Taseer cite his “extreme corruption” as the background of why he was disliked in general, apart from his life-style which most people rather envied. And I’ve tried to challenge that notion with different people who do that and asked them to highlight in what way he was corrupt and they have no answer accept some vague association they have linking him with Zardari and his corruption and the “mulk ko kha gaye hain saaray” idea. That perception is being developed, no doubt.

What is relevant is that liberals really ARE corrupt. The majority of them really are. The majority of Islamists are too, but that is irrelevant and no excuse. And I would rather not differentiate socially liberal and intellectually liberal.

Better to put them into “intellectually corrupt” and “intellectually honest” groups. There are those who are liberal because they like to drink, and then there are those who drink because they are liberal. These two are not very difficult to spot. The latter are very few however.

Maligning the opposition and subsequent clarifications from the opposition are the games corrupt people play, and are all they are worried about.

Very wishful, but even if a small group of people with honest, principled stances, who walk their talk, don’t play games, and know how to not be dragged in the games of others, exist in Pakistan, can do the work that is “required”. Courage, as you pointed out is the element still missing.
Salman Arshad says:

January 22, 2011 at 1:56 am

@ The Only Normal Person Here:

Its not Bhutto’s alliance with the mullahs that has led to the problems in Pakistan. Bhutto had used his democratic standing. That is fair enough.

If Mullahs come into power through the democratic process, it is always possible to reverse the situation, because, well it was brought about democratically. Democracy would force Islamists to come into power ONLY if they can win the majority vote through consensus, and not because “Allah says so”.

Zia destroyed that democratic legacy. And gave Mullahs the license to use physical force against anyone voicing an opposing opinion. What we are witnessing today is Zia’s legacy not Bhutto’s.
Humanity says:

January 22, 2011 at 2:30 am

@Salman Arshad
“What we are witnessing today is Zia’s legacy not Bhutto’s.”

Bhutto was the one to crack open the Pandora’s box. Bhutto was the one who enabled excommunication of a sect and thus set the rift into motion. But then in the end, the ultimate responsibility of the melt down lies with the majority who gloated and glorified themselves as if they had won a crusade. When it comes to their belief, the righteousness of the majority is supreme. They are he chosen ones. Nothing can trump either the ‘hip, hop sharia law supporters’ or their more conservation models in giving any concession to a different school of though. That possibility is blasphemy.
Salman Arshad says:

January 22, 2011 at 2:49 am

@ Humanity:

If you are angry at Bhutto, your only right is to not vote for him, make alliance with people like-minded, and work to build a consensus and prove Bhutto’s decisions as wrong.

Calling the majority consensus, whether bad or worse, a Pandora’s box, is mistrust in the democratic system, and disrespect for the majority who stood by him.

What he achieved was that register and declare that Mullahs (like him) could come into power only through the power of the vote, thereby establishing that he could go away and be defeated too by the same power of the vote. He established a level playing field for all parties to rise up in building a consensus and do what they want, giving respect to the people, who should feel are the ones in power.

Zia destroyed that legacy.

We can disagree and work against Bhutto’s decisions, but we do not have the right to disrespect the “demo-” in democracy.
Tilsim says:

January 22, 2011 at 3:32 am

@ Salman Arshad
“Compromise makes liberals irrelevant.”
I am not sure if I am following part of your subseqent reply. By “compromise”, did you mean to imply that it’s corruption which makes liberals compromised? I took it to mean that they should not negotiate away from the principles which they hold dear? Perhaps I mistook what you said.

As the ruling classes don’t have too many cherished principles, other than their self-interest and self-preservation, I cannot agree that they would know what liberal political theory meant even if it fell off a shelf and hit them hard on their heads. They keep on talking about the need to protect the ‘system’.

I also do not accept that the majority of the ruling elite is socially liberal any more, in a westernised sense. A small minority is. This is another false picture that is being painted.

Power in Pakistan is democratising. The present lawyers and administrative system come from socially conservative backgrounds. The 60s are long gone.
Salman Arshad says:

January 22, 2011 at 5:42 am

By “compromise”, did you mean to imply that it’s corruption which makes liberals compromised? I took it to mean that they should not negotiate away from the principles which they hold dear?

I like to view it as both the cases being manifestation of the same thing. The liberal elite class was not oblivious of genuine liberal theory, ever. They have actively abandoned political liberalism, to support their self-preservation. Their families have known and participated with active progressive-minded people throughout the sub-continent’s history, for some families, it goes a long way back, if not for others.

When one compromises on a principle one holds dear, it is always corruption. It is always about self interest on the cost of the principle. I don’t see them as separate.

I also do not accept that the majority of the ruling elite is socially liberal any more, in a westernised sense.

Ok. this is something that could be very subjective. The majority ruling elite, has been the westernized one since the times of the British. Now, they have chosen to show a different public face. In the power struggle, the Army has been able to raise up an affluent right wing as well, and the westernized elite has gradually lost a good deal of its control on resources.
But they are still clearly different from the right wingers, and the right wingers hardly own the larger share of resources yet. The Army seems to be more keen on regularizing the amount of resources it wants to give to the right wing, probably so that they remain under control, and too divided. Take the largest business families, or the largest political stakeholders, there are very few from the right wing. The right wing just has the backing of the Army, which is the only reason they are having a good time. They don’t own the resources, on a level, that they can steer the country wherever they want to, yet.
The left leaning elite still can.
M.AKRAM KHAN NIAZI says:

July 6, 2011 at 10:27 am

” Success of Jinnah and Zia in Pakistan and Failure of Others.”
In view of present scenario, when Pakistan is suffering from violent conflict between Pakistan army and Islamic Fighters and both are cutting throats of each other and killing each other mercilessly, and no one is there to stop them from this bloody madeness,infact some ethnocentric parties and India are enjoying this bloody film continuously, and are trying to pour more fuel on this fire. In such condition it is the responsibility of Intellectuals of Pakistan to try to stop this blood shed and to analyze the past history of Pakistan and find out that why Pakistan was stable in the era of Quaid-e-Azam and General Zia, and was a most stable and strong country of the region in spite of all adversaries and enemity of British Empire, India and Soviet Union and why it has become so much unstable in the era of General Musharaf and Mr.Zardari in spite of support of World Super power USA,NATO and other nations..
Pakistan Needs Leader Like Quaid-e-Azam.
Quaid-e-Azam was a leader who united whole the populations of Muslims of subcontinent on one platform in spite of all their weaknesses due to illiteracy, ethnocentrism, regionalism, provincialism and conspiracies of Indian National Congress and British rulers, From each sentence of his speeches it is evident that he was the most caring and sincere leader for Muslims and for their interests. His speeches are full of words like Muslims, Musalamans and Islam, He very strongly proved that he is a well wisher of Muslims and will never compromise against the best interests of Muslims.
This was the reason that Muslims of subcontinent have thrown all their differences and were united under his leader ship without any reservation. For the cause of Muslims his family life was destroyed, his sister never married, her daughter was separated from him, For the cause of Muslims he lost his personnel home in Bombay, India, For the cause of Muslims he refused to accept the Premier ship of India and due to his hard work for the Muslims his health was destroyed but till his death he continued to work for welfare of his peoples. These were the characteristics of Quaid-e-Azam due to which even his enemies like him and have praise for him.
Pakistan Needs Leader Like General Zia-ul-Haq.
After separation of East Pakistan in 1971 a critical change occurred in the demography of Pakistan and ratio of Muslims Population increased from 85% to 98%.General Zia was the first leader who comprehended this change and used this phenomena for the strength and stability of Pakistan. Due to his apparent commitment with Islam and Muslims, he was able to rule the country like an Iron Man till his death. During his era Pakistan was the Island of piece in whole region, his devotion for Islam and Pakistan made him the most successful ruler of Pakistan, Although he was a military dictator he was having a very effective influence both socially and religiously on people of Pakistan, and people were having trust on him, due to his policies there was no anti state or separation activities except that of Al-Zulfiqar by brother of Mrs. Benazir Bhutto.
Afghan Jihad: Although General Zia was supporting Afghan Jihad against Soviet Union his relations with Soviet Union were surprisingly good, and Pakistan Steel Mill in Karachi was completed with the help of Soviet Union.
Collapse of Super Power Soviet Union:
Due to General Zia support for Afghan Jihad Soviet Union was broken into pieces of more than dozen countries and Pakistan was able to take the revenge of separation of East Pakistan from Soviet Union in which Soviet Union was nakedly involved .
Due to General Zia policies so many countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia were liberated from the claws of Soviet Union and both East and West Germany were reunited.
He refused to accept any pressure with reference to Nuclear Program from USA.
India:
In the era of General Zia ,India was highly frightened from stability and progress of Pakistan and lost all its credibility and diplomatic respect due to support for Soviet Union for invasion in Afghanistan and Indira Gandhi a foolish leader of India who was involved in aggression and terrorism for taking the advantage of foolish acts of General Yahya Khan in 1971 in East Pakistan , was totally failed in controlling the affairs of East Punjab due to her foolish policies and in fact lost her life in that crisis.
Blunders of Non-Religious Leader Pervez Musharaf.
KARGIL WAR.
Even before becoming the dictator, just for lust of his personnel fame, he was responsible for the adventure of Kargil war, which was having following draw backs.
• As both India and Pakistan were nuclear armed at the time of Kargil war, it was simply foolish idea for staging such an adventure.
• In case of extension of Kargil war, even the survival of both India and Pakistan were at stake, because in nuclear war no one will be victorious.
• Kargil war has given the message to world as Pakistan was interested in the land of Kargil and not in the liberation of Kashmiri peoples.
• It was told to the world as Mujahideen are acting in Kargil while infact they were the personnel of Pakistan army, and in fact it was great betrayal with those soldiers who were officially sent by their Generals in Kargil.
• As a General Pervez Musharaf failed to take the help of Air force, which also indicates that how much capable General was he.
• In Kargil Pakistan army personnel who were denied even by their Generals as their soldiers, were fighting against two forces of India i.e. Indian army and Indian Air force, it was a simple analysis that it will be impossible for one force to win a war against two forces. Which clearly indicates, that General Musharaf was not well aware of the basics of warfare?
• Pervez Musharaf was solely responsible for the deaths and injuries to soldiers in this conflict and damage and malignment of the nation due to his foolish adventure just for his personnel fame.
Musharaf Dictatorship.
After Kargil expecting that he could be court martialled for his misdeed, Therefore by violating the best interest of the nation when enemies of Pakistan were waiting for opportunities to overthrow Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and to annihilate Kashmir libration movement and to surgically remove nuclear arms of Pakistan, by having no care of the above mentioned interests of the nation ,this dictator staged the coup against a Prime Minister who was having two third majority in the parliament, at that time only a civilian government was in best position to solve all above challenges but foolish dictators were having no care of interests of the nation.
Kashmir;
Due to Dictator Ship in Pakistan, liberation movement in Kashmir was seriously damaged; more dust was poured on that weakening movement by foolish suggestions of this dictator. This is the reason that even after giving so much sacrifices, still Kashmiries are waiting for freedom.
Damage to Integrity of Pakistan:
As the survival of any nation depends on the basic ideology of that nation, as Pakistan was created on the name of Islam and for the welfare of Muslim populations of Different areas, but this dictator was having no respect for the traditional, religious. Democratic
and justice values of society, he was not in line with the mentality and thinking of the nation, nation was thinking in one direction and he was having mind of opposite direction, which caused serious damage to unity and integrity of Pakistani nation.
War against Afghanistan:
After 9/11 When he was waiting for help of USA for strengthening his dictatorship, he helped those enemies of Pakistan who were having desire to overthrow Islamic Government of Afghanistan, while in fact that was a golden opportunity for convincing to USA and world that solution to the problem of extremism in Afghanistan should be left to both governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and at other hand it was a convenient opportunity for creating a union between Pakistan and Afghanistan for countering terrorism for the purpose of avoiding the war in the region. but due to his dictatorship these goals were not possible, specially when India the main enemy of Muslim unity in South Asia pressurized Pakistan, by giving unnatural offer of Air bases in India to USA for aggression against Afghanistan while in fact by this offer it was not possible for USA to attack Afghanistan, by this offer, India just aim was to force Pakistan to become an ally of USA against Afghanistan, so that a hatred may be created between Pakistan and Afghanistan, This foolish General was unable to comprehend this policy of India, due to which so much civilian atrocities are going on in this region even today and this region has become the most destabilized region of the world.
War against Afghanistan was opposed by civilian, military intellectuals, Corps Commanders and people of Pakistan, but dictator was having no care about that. and was interested in his personnel interest
War against Afghanistan has caused a huge destruction in Afghanistan and large number of Pakistani civilians and military personnel’s have been killed.
Destruction of Pakistan.
War against a neighbor Muslim country, has seriously damaged Pakistan Islamic Ideology, and it is simple that without adherence to ideology, no country in the world can survive, this is the reason that now Pakistan is facing serious problem in each and every sphere of life, Institutions of Government and Military, Parliament and Judiciary are now facing serious problems as all these pillars of state have been seriously damaged by dictatorial policies.
Damage to Army:
Due to operations against its own population, Pakistan Army has lost all support of people, this is the reason that due to policies of this dictator, daily so many soldiers and Police personnel’s are loosing their lives, Instead of protecting and helping to each other, Army and people of Pakistan are cutting throats of each other, Due to operation in FATA, Balouchistan, and operation of Lal Mosque, serious damage to image of army has occurred. This dictator did not know that only relation and link between different areas and sections of people of Pakistan is that of Islam, All energy and motivation of Pakistani nation comes from Islam, without that even survival of Pakistan is simply impossible, but this dictator was having no care of that, This is the reason that army and security forces have lost all motivation, and anti social elements are committing freely their crimes.
Damage to Judicial system:
This under graduate General has caused serious damage to Judicial system of Pakistan, He was not knowing that in history when a dictator throw away any judge on street due to fair practices of justice then that Judge becomes the greatest judge of history, In Karachi on 12-05-2007,so many civilians were killed just to damage and abuse the
Judicial system of Pakistan.
Damage to Parliament:
This dictator for the lust of power in 1999 removed a prime minister who was having Two Third majority in Parliament and a fake referendum was held to validate his dictatorship in which he showed that he was having support of 98 % of people, while in fact in history even in a single constituency of Pakistan it is simply not possible for any candidate to win so much support. He re-elected himself as a president for next five years, being a government employee wearing Military Uniform, while as per Pakistan constitution it is not allowed to compete elections being in job of Government, moreover from a parliament which already has elected him president once, and was going to complete its life just in next few months.
Violent Poilicies of Non-Religious Leader Mr. Zardari..
Policies of Mr. Zardari are just concentrated on the central Idea of taking the revenge of her wife from the people of FATA and NWFP, Mr.Zardari is an incompetent person for the post of president, he has become president of Pakistan, just due to greed and selfishness of the members of Parliament, as his own party was not having even simple majority in the Parliament and Mr. Zardari is taking the revenge of her deceased wife from people of FATA, and his policy is just killing and more killing of religious people of FATA and NWFP, Thousands of civilian peoples and army soldiers have been killed but there is no tears in his eyes he wants more deaths more attacks and more violence, therefore instead of making any effort for peace he is just saying that he wants victory he want to kill extremist Taliban, he say there is no option except war, he is desiring War in his own country with his fellow country men. , on one side he is using Pakistani security forces for killing tribal’s area people and on other hand helping and persuading USA to kill these tribal’s people, so that tribal’s people in reaction will do violent protest and attacks on USA and Pakistan Security forces in reaction and then Mr.Zardari will be able to claim that these are terrorist. By this vindictive policy Mr.Zardari Just want to satisfy his sense of revenge of the death of her wife, it is true that her wife was killed by some extremist due to her irresponsible statement that she would allow USA troops in FATA for operation against Talibans but now it is not correct to kill all religious people of FATA and NWFP in reaction to death of Benazir Bhutto, it will be justified to judicially penalize to those who have killed Benazir Bhutto.
Reasons for Success of Religious Leaders and Failure of others:
All success of Quaid-e-Azam and General Zia-ul-Haq were due to trust of Pakistani Nation on them due to their commitment with Islam, Muslims and Pakistan, in proving that commitment both were very proactive while present rulers are devoid of such characteristics, due to which today tribal people who have helped Pakistan in liberating 1/3 of Kashmir, and Mujahideen who helped Pakistan in Afghan Jihad are now attacking Pakistan security forces and national assets.
Due to Quaid-e-Azam commitment and support for Islam and Muslims,he was able to compete both British Empire a World Super of that time and India second largest country of the world. In the same manner General Zia was able to give the defeat to Soviet Union a world super power,just by sensing the psychology and religious culture of people of Pakistan.
While recent non-religious and ethnocentric rulers such as Musharaf and Zardari nor have any Ideology and neither have any courage to go in masses and are even unable to control the affairs of the Capital of Pakistan,Islamabad and the city of Rawalpindi where the General Head Quarter of Pakistan Army is located, because these rulers have chronically failed in proving their sincerity with Islam, Muslims and the people of Pakistan ,Which was proved on the day of Death of Benazir Bhutto,when workers and supporters of these non-religious leaders committed each and every crime against the innocent and peaceful citizens of Pakistan, both Musharaf who was in power at that time and Zardari who was the successor of Benazir chronically failed in protecting the assets and citizens from their violent supporters, therefore now how people of Pakistan can support and trust such selfish and deceptive leaders.
It is the responsibility of world leaders specially western nations to analyze the situation scientifically, because even for Western Nations Jinnah and Zia , were more beneficial while it is quite obvious that Musharaf and Zardari who are just using guns to gain their objective will just fail, and Musharaf already had failed and the situation is highly volatile at present, therefore it is the need of time to encourage those people to come forward who can solve the crisis of Afghanistan and Pakistan peacefully with Ideological Warfare and not with deceptive politics and Guns.
Written By: Muhammad Akram Khan Niazi.
Karachi,Pakistan.,
observer says:

July 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm

to and about M.AKRAM KHAN NIAZI

Any pakistani who still worships Jinnah or Zia – and here we have one who worships both – is infantile. He has no idea of how damaging both have been to the whole of indian subcontinent. Islam-glorification and islamic propaganda/upbringing enforces a compulsive dishonesty and infantile tendency among pakistanis.
Lady Guinevere says:

July 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Mr. Niazi: As my Grandmother would say, “Do go on!” Here, here! Well said!

Lady Guinevere