Ayub Khan's Martial Law days

Martial law days

Published in DAWN on January 7, 2015

Embed from Getty Images

THIS refers to the news item ‘Multi-billion- rupee mangrove forest land grab: the sequel’ (Dec 28). The proposed military courts should begin by trying criminals involved. During the early years of Ayub Khan’s martial law smugglers faced the death penalty and many civilians were given long-term imprisonment and were whipped, sometimes for traffic violations also.

S.L.

Karachi

https://www.dawn.com/news/1155317/martial-law-days

Disband the Council of Islamic Ideology!

Published in Daily Times on March 15, 2014

Sir: This is with reference to your editorial ‘Disband the CII’ (Daily Times, March 13, 2014). It was during Ayub Khan’s reign that the law was made, making it necessary for a man to take his wife’s consent before marrying another woman. This law is also part of the 1973 Constitution, which was approved by all the religious parties after heated debate. Even though scholars like Maulana Maudoodi, Maulana Noorani and Maulana Mufti Mahmood were active politicians at the time, none of them objected to this clause. Neither did Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the Jamaat-e-Islami. And none of them ever objected to the fixing of the minimum marriage age of 18 for boys and 16 for women.

So why has this issue suddenly surfaced? Is it to divert our attention from those who cut off people’s heads to play football with? Or to make people forget that those whom the government is presently appeasing are the very same who were recently bombing girls’ schools? If we allow children as young as five or 10 to get married, what difference is there between us and the pre-Islamic people who also used to kill baby girls at birth? Is that what they will ask us to do next? I have always wondered why some people are convinced that women are the root cause of all evil. Such people definitely need psychiatric treatment.

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Karachi

Strikes should be banned!

The strike mania

Published in DAWN on June 27, 2012

THIS is apropos of your editorial ‘The strike mania’ (June 15), I recall fondly the early years of the 1958 martial law period, when giving a call for a strike was punishable by death.

The nation truly became disciplined in the first two or three years, and even though fundamental rights were suspended, the country did make remarkable progress during Ayub Khan’s 10-year rule.

Unfortunately, he became highly unpopular and had to be sent home, one of the reasons for his unpopularity being the alleged rampant corruption by one of his sons. 

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Karachi

The Family Laws ordinance

Back in 1958, General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan staged a coup and took over the country. He couldn't have made a bigger mistake. As a result of that event, the country was split into two and Pakistan would always be under autocratic rule (even under civilians). One of Ayub Khan's much trumpeted achievements was the promulgation of the Family Laws Ordinance, which prevented a man from taking another wife without his current wife's permission. Now this was not such a major evil that a special law was needed to prevent it. I have so far known only five men who have two wives, although I have no doubt that in the rural areas polygamy is very common. For one thing, no ordinary man can even think of taking a second wife, what with the cost of living going up exponentially after every budget. With feudal lords, of course, this is not a problem, they have all the money they want, and I often wonder why they don't have hundreds of wives (maybe they do, only the "wives" are slave girls).

The thing I find odd about the Family Laws Ordinance is that a man is required to take permission from his wife if he wants to take another one. All mullahs are of course against this law. And the ordinary Muslim would rather kill himself than ask his wife for permission to do anything. I know perfectly normal Muslims who fly into a rage when told that they must ask their wives before they can spend money on anything (like a new car, for instance). It seems Muslims have the divine right to do whatever they want, whether their wives like it or not. As for permission to marry another woman, what if the first wife refuses to give it? The poor woman knows that he'll immediately divorce her (or might even kill her) if she says no. So what's the use of such a law?

Curbs on the media

Published in The News on August 14, 2010

I've noticed that whenever conditions deteriorate so much that the people want the government to resign, the media is attacked. This happened even in the days when Ayub Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were the rulers. Apparently our politicians believe that it's the newspapers and TV channels that are responsible for their predicaments, not their own misdeeds.

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Karachi

The more things change, the more they remain the same

Posted on Chowrangi.com on February 23, 2008 

Those who thought that a new era will begin after the elections will have to think again. Already there is talk of defections and horse trading is sure to follow. If Musharraf doesn’t resign and Nawaz insists that he should go or the judges should be restored, the people may protest in the streets (like they did to remove Ayub Khan and Bhutto).

Whatever happens, one thing is certain: there will be a great deal of uncertainty, inflation will continue, petrol will get more and more expensive and it will be very difficult for the common man to balance the budget. Loadshedding will increase and the people will have to suffer. And no one will demand that those who are responsible for our misery should be brought to justice. The U.S. will bomb the tribal areas to target militants without our permission (they have done it more than once already). People like Sheikh Rashid will now appear on TV to give their views on what the government should do or should have done (or not done). Someone once said, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” How right he was.

Shakir Lakhani

I remember!

Published in Chowrangi blogs on November 17, 2007

I remember the political crisis in the 50’s in Pakistan. Every other month a new government would be formed. One prime minister (I. I. Chundrigar) was prime minister for only thirty days. Politicians used to quarrel like children fighting over candy. I remember President Iskander Mirza proclaiming martial law and being replaced a few days later by General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan. For sometime, the country became normal, and Karachi was declared the “cleanest city in the world” by a German writer (apparently he didn’t go to Lyari or Lea Market to see the filthy conditions there).

I remember taking part in student demonstrations against dictatorship in 1961. I was surprised when the police threw tear gas shells at us and I was rescued from the police by the people living on the ground floor of a building in Burns Road. I remember the massively rigged presidential elections in which Mohatrama Fatima Jinnah was defeated by Ayub Khan. How we hated him after his son took out a victory procession, firing in the air, as a result of which many Nazimabad residents were killed!

I remember the war of 1965. It was very frightening to see Indian planes over Karachi early in the morning. Perhaps that was Pakistan’s finest hour. The nation was united because we had been attacked by an enemy which was five times stronger than us. And how proud we felt when the Indian Defence Minister announced in the Lok Sabha that their army had been forced to retreat from Lahore! In that war, at least, we were undefeated.

I remember the day sugar disappeared from the country. There were rumours that it had all been smuggled to India by influential people (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). And so it began, the movement to oust Ayub Khan. Finally, the old man decided to go, violating his own constitution in the process by handing power to his army chief. I remember the 1970 elections which resulted in the break-up of the country. We, who saw everything first hand, knew that the situation could have been saved if the politicians and the generals had agreed to Mujib (the winner of the elections) being prime minister. But alas, as usual, we didn’t know what hit us. Oh, the shame of it all! The Pakistan of Jinnah was no more. All because we had leaders who were selfish and didn’t care what happened to the country.

Is Pakistan ready for Democracy?

Is Pakistan ready for democracy? Not yet.

For more than half its existence, Pakistan has been under military rule. The first time a coup took place, General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan snatched power in 1958 because the civilians couldn’t run the country without quarreling among themselves. In those days, governments used to fall whenever a demonstration took place. There was one politician (I. I. Chundrigar) who was prime minister for one month only. It is well known that countries where illiteracy is high always prosper under military or autocratic rule. South Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia made tremendous progress under dictatorships. This was the case with Pakistan as well.

The eleven years under Ayub Khan saw Pakistan being heavily industrialized and described as a role model for other Third World countries. Unfortunately for Ayub, his reign ended after allegations of corruption against his sons. After the secession of Bangladesh (another event which was the direct result of politicians not being able to agree on vital issues), we had six years of so-called democracy under a man who was the only civilian martial law administrator in the country (Z. A. Bhutto). As expected, his rule was also riddled with corruption, and he had to pay with his life for not realizing how unpopular he was. Then followed eleven years of prosperity under General Zia, followed again by ten years of corrupt civilian rule. The problem with Pakistan is that it has a very low literacy rate. In a country where half the people subsist on one meal a day, and most men don’t have enough money to send their children to schools, you can’t expect people to elect the right people to lead them. Which is why Pakistan will not be ready for democratic rule as long as its people remain heavily illiterate.