5 July 1977: the day Bhutto was removed

Embed from Getty Images

I was young at the time (35), but like almost every Pakistani I was overjoyed when Zia toppled Bhutto (and hanged him later). I have written elsewhere about how much Bhutto damaged Pakistan (https://tribune.com.pk/article/33546/we-will-never-forget-nor-ever-forgive-you-mr-bhutto). Indeed, I still believe that he was responsible for the break-up of the country, by damaging what remained of Pakistan by nationalizing industries and dividing the country by using the Sindh card.

But in hindsight, I believe that he should not have been executed. I still think he ordered many people to be killed, but then, as pointed out by many people at the time, even American presidents had done so. As I grew older, I gradually came to oppose the death penalty, which is why hanging Bhutto was the biggest mistake Zia made. If Bhutto had been freed, he would have won the next elections and hanged Zia (as he'd threatened to do). But of course, Zia could have saved himself by leaving the country, even though it's doubtful if Bhutto would have carried out his threat. 

By killing Bhutto, Zia made the PPP more popular, which lead to Benazir and Zardari getting elected, and the country suffering because of their corruption.

Zia was responsible for radicalization in Pakistan

Embed from Getty Images

Most Pakistanis, even today, are not what you would call religious. In the rural areas of the country, particularly in Sindh, Baluchistan and South Punjab, they think Islam means regular visits to shrines, growing long beards, and forcing women to stay inside their houses.  They think there's nothing wrong in stripping women naked and parading them on the streets if their male relatives have been seen speaking to unrelated women. This kind of thing is very common in Muzaffargarh and other areas of Punjab, where the other day a woman was made to walk naked after her brother was caught talking to a girl of another tribe (or caste). Why do women have to suffer for the sins or crimes of their male relatives? Perhaps it's because most men in rural areas are morons. It's because they are the products of centuries of inbreeding, or marrying first cousins. And over the years I've seen it happening in city-dwellers also. 

About twenty years ago, two female relatives of mine suddenly decided to become fundamentalists, after listening to the fiery lectures of that woman Dr. Farhat Hashmi. They started wearing the all-enveloping burqa. Over the years, more and more women have become like that, which has further encouraged illiterate Pakistani males to advise other unveiled women to dress conservatively. Yesterday, in Lahore Cantonment, a woman wearing a sleeveless dress was told by a bearded security guard to wear what are in his view "decent" clothes. 

So it had to happen. I won't be surprised if one of these days, all clean-shaven men in Pakistan are told to grow knee-length beards. This is what Zia did to Pakistan, even though he was clean-shaven. His constant talk of Islam made most Pakistani men experts on the subject, even though their knowledge of Islam is limited to taking second wives and killing their female relatives for choosing their own life partners. It's very depressing, knowing that my children and grandchildren will be forced to live in a country dominated by illiterate people who think they're the guardians of Islam.

Who damaged Pakisan more: Bhutto or Zia?

I can't decide who was more evil: Bhutto, or the man who overthrew and executed him (Zia). While we can never forgive Bhutto for his indiscriminate nationalization of industries and colleges, which set the country back by 50 years, Zia dealt the death blow to education. The rampant illiteracy we see today is due not only to nationalization of colleges, Zia's so-called Islamization policies have a lot to do with it.

I was talking to a man who proudly boasts of having two degrees, but who can't write a sentence in English. He (being a member of a religious, fundamentalist party), naturally thinks that a man and a woman working alone in an office, do nothing but engage in sexual intercourse all the time. He once told me that this kind of thing happens in multi-storeyed buildings, when most men are at work, and their wives have sex with their unmarried male neighbors. When he saw the picture of men and women having lunch together at a restaurant in Saudi Arabia, he immediately said they would soon be indulging in sexual intercourse right there, now that the veil is no longer mandatory and segregation is no longer compulsory. 

What really got my goat was when he said that he has seen naked men and women fornicating in Karachi's streets at eight in the morning, because now (according to him) there is a law which prevents cops from arresting them. I asked him to go to a lawyer and get a copy of this "law" (which, according to him, was promulgated by Musharraf). I know that he was referring to Musharraf's instructions to the cops not to arrest couples for sitting on a bench in the parks or sitting next to each other in movies. In fact, the other day, the police at Karachi airport refused to allow a woman to travel alone to Saudi Arabia, as they thought it was still mandatory for women to be accompanied by close male relatives. In Zia's days, couples were asked by the police to show their marriage certificates, and were arrested if they were not married. Often the women were taken to another room and gang-raped. 

With such people around, no wonder there are no tourists coming to Pakistan. 

Who killed Zia?

I have heard that classified documents are normally released by the U.S. government thirty years after the events relating to them, yet more than thirty years have passed since Zia and others were killed in an air crash, but no documents about the event have been released or de-classified. 

If you ask anyone in Pakistan who they think killed the president, most of them unhesitatingly say "CIA". Some of them say it so confidently that I'm tempted to ask them if the CIA consulted them before arranging the crash.

Eric Margolis, the Toronto-based journalist, has repeatedly claimed that it was the Soviets (Russians) who did it. As proof, he pointed to the way Chechneyan terrorists were overpowered in a theater in Moscow. Cans of cold drinks were given to them and among the cans there were a few which contained the nerve gas to incapacitate the guerillas. The cans were opened by remote control, the gas was released, and the terrorists overpowered. This was the way the pilot of Zia's plane was incapacitated. 

I read more on the subject and found that the KGB teaches its students Zia's murder as a case study and how the agency arranged for it to happen. A Russian defector to the U.S. also revealed all the details.

But when I tell this to the few intelligent men I know, they refuse to believe it. The most intriguing thing is what I read today in my grandson's text book ("History and culture of Pakistan" by Nigel Kelly). According to this book, an anonymous caller phoned a daily newspaper two and a half hours before the crash and asked if Zia's plane had crashed. I have never heard about this before, and it seems that our children are being told something that is false.

Zia's IQ was greater than Bhutto's!

‘Zia: a counterview’

Published in Dawn, August 29th, 2016

IT’S true Zia did make mistakes. Even the woman politician from Sindh the writer mentions made a mistake in selecting her spouse. But to say that the specimens Zia chose for his shura were “the scum of the earth” is a bit harsh and simply not true. The late Abdul Sattar Edhi was one of them, and surely he was one of the greatest men who ever lived.

When the writer says, “The glass was just shattered. Even today we are trying to sweep the shards off the floor,” he forgets that the country was near economic collapse when Zia took over, and we are trying to sweep the shards of Bhutto’s nationalisation policies off the floor even today.

As for Zia having a very low IQ, it was certainly greater than that of Bhutto, who — despite his superior education — selected Zia to be the army chief over six officers ahead of him on the seniority list.

Shakir Lakhani

Karachi

https://www.dawn.com/news/1280628/zia-a-counterview

So many Hindu and female doctors! What is happening to Pakistan?

Published in The Express Tribune Blogs on February 19, 2014

There are some things you can’t help doing – like talking to fundamentalists. I know many of them and almost all of them are convinced that non-Muslims want to harm Muslims.

One such person, whom I have known for 25 years and who can’t compose a simple sentence in English (despite having two master’s degrees) thinks that since Pakistan was made for Muslims, those who are not Muslims should not be allowed to have jobs (unless there are no Muslims available, as for instance in jobs like cleaning up lavatories).

This man is deeply concerned about the growing number of Hindu doctors in Karachi’s hospitals. He can’t believe that Hindus are more studious than Muslims. He thinks Hindu students get more marks than Muslims in the province because the examiners in colleges and universities are all Hindus. I did some research on this and found that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto once imposed an annual quota on the number of Hindu students allowed to be admitted in medical colleges, to reduce the growing number of Hindu doctors in Sindh.

Strangely enough, it was Ziaul Haq who revoked the quota system and restored the original merit system, whereby only the highest-scoring students are allowed admission (irrespective of their religious affiliation). But, of course, my fundamentalist friend is still convinced that there is a deep-rooted conspiracy to fill Sindh’s hospitals with Hindus

As if one conspiracy wasn’t enough, I got a call the other day from another fundamentalist, a fellow Memon, 75-years-old, with three wives. He’s been running a hospital for a few years now and he’s deeply disturbed at the growing number of female doctors.

“Can you help me draft a petition to the authorities to reduce the number of female students in medical colleges?” he said.

I told him I have no problem with women doctors, in fact it was a female cardiologist who put two stents in me to get my heart back into shape.

“Do you know that if this continues, there’ll be very few male doctors around after a few years?”

So I again did some research and found that he was right. It seems that there used to be a quota system which allowed only a fixed number of girls becoming doctors but the High Court ruled that it was discriminatory (correctly, in my opinion). Girls usually devote much more time to their studies than boys (who usually roam around the streets, looking at girls), and so girls do better.

Of course, this is one of the good things happening in Pakistan, even though for the moment it appears to be confined to Sindh. My fundamentalist friends, however, think it’s another conspiracy by the Indo-Zionist lobby to make Pakistan weaker.

I asked them why they object to women becoming doctors, since they are the ones who’ve always been objecting to women being treated by male doctors. One fundamentalist said women would never become sick if they remained in their houses all the time (meaning that women should not be allowed to work at all).

“What about women who’re pregnant or who are on the verge of giving birth?” I asked.

“No problem”, say the fundamentalists, “there are nurses and midwives who can look after them. In fact there were very few doctors in the country not too long ago and no hospitals either, and women gave birth in their houses.”

How do you argue with such people, who are increasing by the day and who should have been born a hundred years ago?

Shakir Lakhani

A graduate from NED University in mechanical engineering, he has been part of the chemical and petroleum marketing industry in Pakistan and was a visiting lecturer at NED University. He tweets @shakirlakhani twitter.com/shakirlakhani

What's the name of the bride?

In 1970, I received an invitation from people living in what was then a suburb of Karachi (Gizri). The host was a Baloch, and the wedding card did not have the name of any woman on it, not even that of the bride. It simply said that Mr. So and So was going to be married on Sunday, and the parents of the groom would be delighted if I spared some time and attended the festivities. Curious, I asked why the name of the bride was not mentioned on the card. "We're very conservative," said the host. "If some unrelated man knows and says the names of our daughters or wives, we consider it an insult." I heard later that people like him kill their daughters or their wives if some stranger utters their names. In fact, only the other day a Baloch shot another man when he found that his female cousin had exchanged messages with him (he first snatched the victim's cell phone and looked at the inbox to make sure that it was his cousin who was the sender of the messages).

In the lost decade (it's been 33 years since General Zia took over the country and imposed his version of Islam on us), people have changed a lot. The Memons (the ethnic group to which I belong) used to be very liberal once. Now, most of them are heavily bearded and their wives cover themselves from head to toe. And even they have stopped printing their daughters' names on wedding cards. Although when one reads the holy books, one finds that fourteen centuries ago, it was very common for men saying the names of unrelated women while talking to others.

I wonder what's the logic behind concealing the name of the bride. Is it because today's Muslim male is aroused on hearing the name of an unrelated female? Again, what about the Qazi, the mullah who performs the marriage ceremony? He has to say the names of the bride aloud so that all present can hear it. Why doesn't the ban on uttering the bride's name apply to him?

The detestable Z. A. Bhutto

Embed from Getty Images

He was the man who was instrumental in breaking up the country, yet he is loved by millions of Pakistanis who live in his home province. He nationalized banking, insurance, industry and education and ruined the country's economy. Ye his followers think he was a saint, and I have no doubt that the illiterate men and women who throng his tomb think he was a prophet. The fact is, he was a born crook whose only aim was to stick to power at all costs. If he had not been so intransigent and had accepted Mujeebur Rahman as the prime minister, the country would have remained united. In fact, all our troubles today are due to the actions of the autocratic Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who fully deserved to be hanged many times. I have no doubt that he was a mass murderer. One of the men whom he wanted to kill (but killed his father instead) is still alive. Bhutto tried to kill the actor Mohammed Ali as well as a retired judge (Shakil Rizvi) because they were both Shias and he wanted the Sunnis to be blamed for their murders. He arranged massive rigging of the 1977 elections (for which he was ultimately dethroned). The man was also a fool. After being removed from power, he told Zia that he would have him killed for deposing him. Any other man would have compromised with circumstances. He, of course, thought he was immensely popular with the masses, so no one would dare execute him. In fact, to the very end, he believed that his trial and death sentence was a drama to make him beg for mercy. No one came out in his support when he was in jail, nor were there any demonstrations when he was hanged.

In Pakistan, it's the rape victims who are convicted

The late General Zia ul Haq may have done a great service to the country by hanging Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, but his enforcement of Islamic laws has ensured that the guilty go scot-free, while the victims have to suffer. The potential for misuse of Islamic laws is so great that a rape victim dare not go to the police. Since the laws require four male victims to testify that the rape occurred in their presence, the victim is doomed from the start. Once a blind, retarded girl was charged with adultery when she became pregnant after being raped. Recently a Christian nurse in a government hospital was raped by a doctor. She jumped from the balcony to avoid being raped by his friends and had to be hospitalized. At first she did file a report naming the doctor as the rapist, but after a few days (no doubt after being threatened with death by the doctor), she withdrew the complaint. There are rumours that the doctor paid her a couple of hundred thousand rupees (which is equivalent to two years' salary for her)to say in court that she did not remember whether she had been raped by him. And this is the way it will always be, the poor will go on suffering while the feudals will go on raping and plundering.

Sharia-not so bad?

Published in The Friday Times on March 13-19, 2009

If Islamic laws are implemented in the country, would Sharia be applied to try a certain corpulent cleric (the head of a political party) who is popularly known by the name of a fuel? Or to those who have looted the country and have Swiss bank accounts and property abroad? I doubt if our feudals, industrialists or businessmen would ever be comfortable under such a system. I remember the chill which greeted Zia ul Haque’s statement when he said that soon he would make sure that those who stole would have their hands cut, irrespective of their status in society. It’s another thing that no hands were cut in the country during his rule, or ever, under the present setup.

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Directly elected president

Published in Business Recorder on February 4, 2008 

According to the 1973 constitution, the president of the federation is just a useless figurehead. Perhaps the words of the first president under this constitution (Chaudhry Fazl Elahi) sum it up nicely: "No one responds even when I shout abusive words."General Zia, of course, changed the whole character of the constitution by introducing article 58(b), which allows a president to sack the prime minister and dissolve the assemblies. But should an indirectly elected president have such sweeping powers? But then, how to get rid of a corrupt or inefficient prime minister? We have seen how the country suffered in the past. The people are helpless when they see that the government ministers are not interested in bettering the lot of the masses. At that time, one sincerely wishes that there was some way of removing them from power.At that time, a powerful president can do something. But in Pakistan, the president has no moral authority, since he is elected by the provincial assemblies and the senate. Perhaps we should think of amending the constitution so that the president is elected directly by the people (this is the system in the US or France). A president elected directly would be a powerful person, and if he felt that the government was incapable of performing its functions, he could dismiss the prime minister or dissolve the assemblies. At the moment, this seems to be the only answer to the present constitutional crisis

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

A powerful president

Published in DAWN on February 2, 2008

ACCORDING to the 1973 Constitution, the president is just a useless figurehead. Perhaps the words of the first president under this Constitution (Chaudhry Fazl Elahi) sum it up nicely: “No one responds even when I shout abusive words.” Gen Zia changed the whole character of the Constitution by introducing Article 58(b), which allows a president to sack the prime minister and dissolve the assemblies. But should an indirectly elected president have such sweeping powers? How can a corrupt or inefficient prime minister be got rid of? We have seen how the country suffered under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. People are helpless when they see that ministers are not interested in improving their lot at such a juncture, one sincerely wishes that there was some way of removing them from power and so, only a powerful president can do something. But in Pakistan, the president has no moral authority, since he is elected by the provincial assemblies and the senate. We should think of amending the Constitution so that the president is elected directly. A president elected directly would be a powerful person, and if he felt that the government was incapable of performing its functions, he could dismiss it or dissolve the assemblies. This seems to be the only answer to the present crisis.

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Karachi

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.