بے نظیر بھٹو کا جنرل ضیاء کی افغان پالیسی پر دور اندیش تبصرہ

STORMTROOPER

MPA (400+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

What she did for Pakistan??

Alot of things..haven't you heard?

She looted the poor of Pakistan to build palaces in the UK:

6K34Lmk.jpg


She introduced massive corruption as a right of the ruling party, something that nawaz built on as well. This resulted in poverty actually increasing in the country (which had gone down during Zia's time)

73R9wAF.jpg

She murdered her own family of course. No shame in killing one's own brother I suppose:

Gt8Vjk4.jpg


She was one of the worst of people to ever grace Pakistan with their presence

'Shaheed' indeed. Even to this day Sindhis are forced to die in her name.
 

freshnkool

Minister (2k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.



Alot of things..haven't you heard?

She looted the poor of Pakistan to build palaces in the UK:

6K34Lmk.jpg


She introduced massive corruption as a right of the ruling party, something that nawaz built on as well. This resulted in poverty actually increasing in the country (which had gone down during Zia's time)

73R9wAF.jpg

She murdered her own family of course. No shame in killing one's own brother I suppose:

Gt8Vjk4.jpg


She was one of the worst of people to ever grace Pakistan with their presence

'Shaheed' indeed. Even to this day Sindhis are forced to die in her name.


in our ruling elite who has not looted pakistan including generals??? i was talking about her vision about afghan policy despite of being young. it was not that i was supporting anyone's corruption.
 

bhutt-dari

Senator (1k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

she has done nothing except kyon kyon every day, and during her time, asif dari became mr ten percent and went on becoming mr ninety person and wiped out all the evidences of documents and witnesses. both of them became the world famous corrupt couple.
 

Will_Bite

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

Maybe someone should have told her that the person who created the Afghan militia in return for puny dollars was none other than her father....and Zia, though I dislike him, was simply continuing a messy policy that he had inherited, and had no choice in retreating from.
 

STORMTROOPER

MPA (400+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.



in our ruling elite who has not looted pakistan including generals??? i was talking about her vision about afghan policy despite of being young. it was not that i was supporting anyone's corruption.

Name me the generals listed in our Panama Scandal. name me the generals that have been reported to own property outside of the country. Name me these officers who have supposedly taken control of our budget.

People like you are funny. I will rub the facts on your face until you became clean.

7whunbh.jpg


If these generals/boogeymen that you refer to ever had the chance to abuse their power, western media would have gone crazy over it. How come we keep hearing of civilians abusing their powers? How come every BBC report refers to a civilian ruler laundering money?Where are these generals and their giant accounts with looted wealth?

As you can see my jamhoor-pasand friend, the facts are clear on who has been abusing the poor in Pakistan.
 

There is only 1

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

بینظر اتنی ہی سچی اور ایماندار تھی جتنا سچا اور ایماندار زرداری ہے
 

raqeebroosia2

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

she was politically astute and her ideas were the best solution for the times. She was self aware that her supporters were uneducated emotional jiyalas enamored with bhutto name. She was either not a good judge of character or due to political expediency kept corrupt people around her. As a person she lacked honesty and dipped into national exchequer for person gains (solid undeniable proof was found in swiss case and her surrey property).
 

Wake Up Pakistan

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

Qabar say nikal kar lai aoo

agar la satay hou

mulk barbaad kar diya in logoo nay
 

Eyeaan

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.



in our ruling elite who has not looted pakistan including generals??? i was talking about her vision about afghan policy despite of being young. it was not that i was supporting anyone's corruption.

The issue is not so simple. Though I'm dead against Zia regime however please do not take my rather longish response as pro one party or the other, but for my feeble rumblings to assess the situation to place her statement in the context of the times and the war.
She is talking at the times when US state department was vocally against Gen. Zia. They wanted a direct agreement with Russians to resolve the issue which Zia opposed, insisting for an exclusive agreement between Pak and USSR.

Gen Zia wanted three things to happen. a) a direct agreement b/t Pak and Russia with future military positions and withdrawals schedule, 2) some accommodation of Mujaheddin in the Najib government as an interim measure during the withdrawal and most importantly and c) the return of refugees from the Pak soil.
It was the last part which was about unacceptable for the West or USSR - both were scared of the war hardened mujahedin. American were interested only to register their win over USSR and further give a way out to their enemy which was in a domestic political turmoil.
The fourth issue, and very close to Pak interests, was the acceptance of Durand Line through a Pak/afghan mutual agreement. Babrak Karmal government had offered for such agreement in return of peace, along with some accommodation with mujaheddin in around 1982. That had led to the fissures in Pak government since that was the key interest of Pak for which she had struggled since the beginning of the nation. Then many in foreign office resigned, (including Agha Shahi who was very close to ZA Bhutto on account of foreign policy) when Gen. Zia missed that opportunity. Zia had argued that first the Karmal regime can not be trusted and second he considered, by 1982, they had already won on the ground. However, as the times proved, that was a huge mistake and a wrong assessment.

At that time US openly campaigned for Benazir in the western media, and lobbied Zia for return of democracy. A similar campaign was carried out for Cory Akino against Markos and they also planned for change of regime in South Korea - there were several aspects to change of American policy in Asia.
In the above interview, Benazir talked against the militancy in those years; however, then the war was almost over and she was selling for a peaceful and promising pro-west agreement to the Western media. (I do not mean she was any helper of the West but that was the politics. Instead, as the later times showed, she rather betrayed the West and aligned her with the military in the interest of the country.)

In any case. Junejo government was led/enticed to agreement which Gen. Zia (and most of the foreign office) did not agree. Junejo could not achieve an agreement on Durand Line nor on the return of refugees. He lost the war in that agreement in return of promises for the lavish funds for refugees. On return, he was dismissed by Gen. Zia. It was clear that Gen Zia was not going to honor the agreement made by Junejo.

ZA Bhutto was a hardliner on account of Afghanistan and India as well.
He had suffered afghan sponsored militancy, bombing and terrorism through years of his rule. He had witnessed the breakup of the country through Indian and Russian collaboration. He, throughout his rule or when he was FM, struggled for an agreement for Durand line. In fact, the revolution in Afghanistan had an immediate cause; Daud government had some change in long-held policy regarding Gurand Line, due to some domestic reasons and pressure/persuasion by Saudis. With the help of Saudi funds and sponsorship, Daud was (perhaps) ready for a comprehensive agreement with Pakistan. At least ZA Bhutto made the main election promise for a peaceful settlement of Afghan issue and resolution of war in Baluchistan.

The policy that Pak will militarily response if Russian moved in Afghanistan was from the start, the same through all governments , and perhaps it was the continuation of the British India policy. - Perhaps Pak had little other choice unless she had a communist and pro-USSR regime. India and Nehru regime had the same policy and had made promises to US in that regard to act militarily. ZA Bhutto started the military training of Mujahedin and funded them through the religious and pro-monarchy parties in afghan. Go through the PM Desai policy in this regard beyond the usual rhetoric to assess the true Indian sentiments abour USSR invasion. Further China, Iran and the Arab regimes (and duel faced India) were, on principle, on the same page regarding military response to a communist regime in Afghan. They, except India, were the first respondents with military, without waiting or vouching for any action from the US because they were the one who were directly threatened by a communist regime. In the initial years, the West's response was lukewarm and they were not really committed to the war until Reagan came into the office. By then, Irani and Pak were already knee deep into that conflict with their full arms on. Keep in mind that those were the times when the communists parties were dis-enchanted with USSR and were realigning. In '73 war, USSR had betrayed Arabs and, except for smaller groups within parties, the left/communists had started to look on USSR as a hegemonic regime; a conclusion the European left had reached to about a decade ago. Further, China had come out as a important player in the left politics. This is mentioned only to emphasize that one may not see the Afghan revolution with the same eye as one might had in 1950's or earlier. The left politics had evolved in the intervening years. The politics were much complex and fragmented in the left's circles.

ZA Bhutto presented his position in a small book/pamphlet 'The foreign Policy: new dimensions', when he was in jail which was published in the name of , if i recall right benazir; and he was for the same response which Zia had adopted and the 'Bhotto's Foreign office' had recommended. Not to forget that Bhutto and People's party were Pro-china socialists and staunchly against USSR. His afghan position had nothing to do with being a pro-West but a pro-Pak/pro-China socialist. In contrast, Benazir had no such ideological positions and often repeated the rhetoric of European left or what was needed for the political gains. One may see to her for a left oriented democrat; but she had no consistency, other than, in my firm opinion, she was into it for the interests of Pak however she understood them. However, one does not needs to turn to her interviews or speeches to understand the politics, the history or the wars other than only to appreciate her commitment and struggle for the democracy.
We had been fed through a great amount of ahistorical political campaign regarding afghan war; and it is the time we start looking it from the eyes of the times than to use it to gain the political advantages - only then we can honestly review the current conflict we are facing today.

We may rather had discussed the conduct and operation of the war however the above is only related to the political aspects. Zia was a general and not a politician (or a horrible politician);- he should rather be judged on the basis of his war strategy for a war that, in my perhaps faulty opinion, was imposed on Pak. You have all rights to disagree with my last assessment or other opinions.
 
Last edited:

taban

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

قرآن کی ایک آئیت جس کا ترجمه هے که خبیث مردوں کے لئے خبیث عورتیں اور نیک مردوں کے لئے نیک عورتیں هیں اب آپ خود اندازه کر لیں که زرداری نیک هے یا خبیث
 

Aliimran1

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

Pakistan Ko Zia nae Nooray gift kiay aur Benazir nae Murdari ----- Thanks to both of them ---- MY God bless their souls ---- Pakistani Awam Ki halat tab tak theek nahi ho gi jab tak hum Khud Ko nahi balain gay.
 

چھومنتر

Minister (2k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

قرآن کی ایک آئیت جس کا ترجمه هے که خبیث مردوں کے لئے خبیث عورتیں اور نیک مردوں کے لئے نیک عورتیں هیں اب آپ خود اندازه کر لیں که زرداری نیک هے یا خبیث


اگر آپ کے اس ترجمےکو تسلیم کر لیا جائے تو پھر بی بی آسیہ کے متعلق کیا حکم ہے؟ کیونکہ وہ تو زوجہ تھیں فرعون مردود کی
 

PappuChikna

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: بینظیر کتنی سچی تھی.

قرآن کی ایک آئیت جس کا ترجمه هے که خبیث مردوں کے لئے خبیث عورتیں اور نیک مردوں کے لئے نیک عورتیں هیں اب آپ خود اندازه کر لیں که زرداری نیک هے یا خبیث

This was stated as an instruction and not as a fact.
ab aap maaf keejeay gaa, lekin wives tou kuch prophets kee bhi momina nahi thein.
 

Back
Top