Gen Ayub Khan accused Muhtarama Fatima Jinnah of being an Indian/American agent
amirbutt last edited by
They call her the Mother of the Nation," sniffed Pakistan's President Mohammed Ayub Khan. "Then she should at least behave like a mother." What upset Ayub was that Fatima Jinnah looked so good in pants. The more she upbraided Ayub, the louder Pakistanis cheered the frail figure in her shalwar (baggy white silk trousers). By last week, with Pakistan's first presidential election only a fortnight away, opposition to Ayub had reached a pitch unequaled in his six years of autocratic rule.
The Big Stick. White-haired Miss Jinnah, 71, the candidate of five ragtag and usually disunited opposition parties, was picked mainly because she was the sister and confidante of the late revered Mohammed Ali Jinnah, father of his nation's independence. But Pakistan's response to her razor-tongued attacks on Ayub's highhanded ways has surprised and shocked the government. Students throughout the nation staged angry protest marches against the regime, and at least one demonstrator was killed by police in Karachi. DOWN WITH THE AYUB DICTATORSHIP, cried posters in the East Pakistan city of Dacca, where students enthusiastically proclaimed Miss Fatima Jinnah Week. In Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city, student unrest prompted the government to close all the schools indefinitely.
Most legal groups in Pakistan have come out for Miss Jinnah, and were denounced by Ayub as "mischiefmongers." In reply, the Karachi Bar Association overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging "the party in power to get rid of the notion that wisdom, righteousness and patriotism are the monopoly of their yes men." The usually complaisant newspaper editors defied the regime's attempts to make them endorse a restrictive new press law.
To Ayub's claim that he is trying to develop "basic democracy," Miss Jinnah replied: "What sort of democracy is that? One man's democracy? Fifty persons' democracy?" As for Ayub's charge that the country would revert to chaos if he is defeated, his rival snapped: "You can't have stability through compulsion, force and the big stick."
Running Scared. Actually, Ayub has been a reluctant and benevolent dictator, who has vastly improved the stability of a country that was paralyzed by squabbling politicians before he took over. Considering Pakistan's backwardness and poverty, the Ayub-designed electoral system is not half bad, giving the vote to 80,000 middle-and upper-class electors. While that is a tiny percentage in a total population of 110 million, most of those millions are not only illiterate but totally ignorant of political issues. With heavy support in rural areas, where many Moslem electors particularly disapprove of a woman's candidacy and where Ayub's economic reforms have helped more than in the cities, Ayub is still expected to win the election by some 60% of the vote.
Nonetheless, he is running scared, because Candidate Jinnah has managed to focus every form of discontent in the country. To brake her bandwagon, he abruptly decreed that elections would be held Jan. 2, instead of March, as originally scheduled. Explaining lamely that the situation is "a little tense," the government also rescinded a law specifying that political rallies must be open to the public. At closed meetings with groups of electors, Ayub answered practical questions sensibly enough, but kept lashing out at the opposition with growing anger. Countering Miss Jinnah's repeated charge that he had been unable to restrain the U.S. from helping Pakistan's No. 1 adversary, India, he set out to portray her as pro-Indian and pro-American. Ayub's campaign, in fact, was turning increasingly anti-American.
Though U.S. aid (about $5 billion since 1951) is vital to the nation's wretched economy, a leading member of Ayub's party cried: "America never was our friend and never could be, because as a nation aligned with the anticolonial movements, we are at cross-purposes with America." As for Ayub, he plainly regretted ever calling elections in the first place. For after six years of insisting that Pakistanis were not ready for democracy, the campaign had shown that Mohammed Ayub Khan probably isn't either.
This is a blast from the past. Sheikh Mujib Ul Rehman (bengali gaddhar and Indian agent) ran the political campagin of Muhtarama Fatima Jinnah in East Pakistan in this presidental election. Why did the guy who ran the political campagin of Muhtarma Fatima Jinnah in East Pakistan asked for a new country?
makram-khan-niazi last edited by
Victimization of Pakistan and Pakistan Army By Dictator Ayoub.
Martial Law of 1958.
By implementing Martial Law in 1958,by Generals, Dreams of Muslims of subcontinent were buried under their boots, and irreparable loss to this nation occurred by those power lusty Generals, The Details of which are as follows.
Loss of status of a Democratic state.
Due to Implementation of Martial Law, Democratic rights of nation were lost, and Pakistan lost the status of a democratic nation, a right and status on the basis and principles of which Pakistan was created
Loss of status of a Nonaligned Nation.
Due to Military Generals and their lust for Military Packts, Pakistan was gone completely in USA camp, against Soviet Union, while in fact there was no conflict between Pakistan and Soviet Union, and Soviet Union was our neighboring country and was having Huge Muslims populations in its Central Asian states, it was very convenient by using these factors for developing strong and durable friendship with soviet Union, as that of China we have developed. Due to wrong policies of Military Generals, Soviet Union became enemy of Pakistan, and which later on proved very fatal.
Damage to Unity of Pakistan.
As per constitution of 1956, it was decided that each Province will be represented either by Prime Minister or President of the country. But General Ayoub violated this principle and ruled the country as a dictator for about 10 years, this created sense of deprivation in East Pakistan, for which 100 % Military Generals were responsible.
Advantages to India:
Military Dictator Ship in Pakistan and due to loss of status of a democratic state, these things were very favorable for India for damaging the Interest of subcontinent Muslims and Pakistan, and full advantage was taken by India of the foolish acts of Pakistani Generals.
• Being itself under Military Dictatorship, Pakistan demand for right of self determination for Kashmir was weakened.
• Although, Military Dictatorship in Pakistan was highly beneficial for India, India superficially showed as India is against dictatorship, to give impression to patriotic Pakistanis as Military Dictators were highly beneficial for Pakistan.
• By developing bad relationship with Pakistan, India kept at a distance its Muslims Population from developing any people to people contacts with Pakistan.
• By developing good relationship with Russia, India forced Afghanistan not to develop close relationship with Pakistan.
• India used Hindu minority and ethnocentric Bengalese of East Pakistan as their lever, for making propaganda for Bengali Language and Economic and Political Exploitation of Bengalese by West Pakistani Generals.
For promoting Indian agenda on above mentioned points, Foolish Generals of Pakistan Army in fact helped India in its conspiracy to divide Muslims of subcontinent and to harm Pakistan as much as possible.
War of 1965.
Due to Military Dictator ship, India instead of giving right of self determination to People of Kashmir, selected to take the advantage of non democratic government in Pakistan, therefore tried to use military force to solve that problem for ever, although desire of Kashmiri and Pakistani nation to liberate the Kashmir was very high, but due to military dictatorship in the country it was impossible for Pakistan to gain any thing by that conflict.
India was a six times larger country than Pakistan, due to being only single huge nation for Hindues,it was quite clear that its Hindu population will be highly motivated and devoted for the defense and interest of India, therefore in such situation it was completely out of question to liberate Kashmir with any military operation, therefore decision of liberation of Kashmir by war in 1965 was completely against the wisdom and knowledge of warfare, by that war Pakistan economy was seriously damaged and useless loss of army personnel’s and equipments was occurred .
Incapability of Dictators.
In 1965 war when with the sacrifices of Pakistani soldiers Indian defense line was totally broken, and Kashmir valley was laying in front of Pakistani army, Dictators again failed to show their competitiveness and confidence and instead of moving forward they stopped the army forward movement. Which resulted in the wastage of sacrifices of soldiers and Pakistani nation.
Transfer of Power 1968.
General Ayoub instead of handing over power to Speaker of National Assembly handed over power to another General by this he showed no respect for his oath for sacrificing his life for nation, as a compromise for his life he surrendered to other Generals.
zia-m last edited by
Ayub rigged the elections against Fatima Jinnah.She had the support of all Pakistanis even Maudoodi (who was against a woman head of state) made an exception and supported her.
I hold Ayub responsible for the split of Pakistan.
Dictators have done the most damage to our country, still there are some people who try to defend the dictator of their choice.
javedsheikh last edited by
@ Zia m,
Right. "Dictators have done the most damage to our country"
- Democracy at its worst form is better
than the best form of Dictatorship.
- Even Dictatorship needs the canopy of Democracy for its survival.
In 1958 there was no justification for Military Intervention as the Election Campaign of Muslim League under Abdul Qayum Khan and Awami League under H.S. Soharwardi and Bhashani was running smoothly and in a decent democratic way.
Republican Party under Sikandar Mirza was expecting and facing defeat in the forth coming Elections.
He played the card of Martial Law to perpetuate his tenure with Military's help.
That was a cold-blooded murder of Democracy in Pakistan.
zingaro last edited by
May I take this opportunity to request for the definition of Dictatorship and its dimensions?
Ayub Khan was another colonial style general. He was a also a habitual drinker and womaniser. He ravaged the country badly like other army generals. He wasted the financial resources of the country on the development of Islamabad instead of paying attention to badly needed development of East Pakistan. Resultantly, the nation had to suffer from the tragic incident of 1971 shameful surrender by playboy general Yahaya Khan and paper tiger general Niazi.
sweettruth last edited by
All military rulers have been total disaster for Pakistan; they have done more (lot more) damage than civilian rulers. It is shameful Ayub called sister of Jinnah a traitor; anyone who disagrees with military rulers or molvi mafia can easily be labelled as traitor and kaffir.
Gen Ayub first laid foundation of creation of East Pakistan which resulted in shameful surrender under the "able and dynamic" leadership of his depurty Gen Yahya.
The things to be given priority were educational network, industrial networks, railway networks, road networks, hospital networks, but the dictator's priority was the development of a beautiful capital city for snobbish bureaucrats.
I have heard Doctor Zakir saying.There is hadith which tells, " ''A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!'' Even if Fatima Jinnah had been selected as president.. Would she be able to create a pakistan established on the principle of Quid... I don't think so... what do you say about his..
anasyounus last edited by
There is always an Issue with Dictatorship that they usually only benefit from the Wisdom of a Single man ignoring the collective Wisdom, and in most cases prefer the benefit of one (or few) over the benefit of masses, the dictatorial rule usually becomes a tool to fulfill the ambitions of a single man, 1965 war is an example of that, that happened only because of the Sense of superiority that existed in Ayub’s and some of his general’s minds; and for most part both world wars happened because of the ill placed ambitions of a few.
Economy-wise it was one of the better periods for Pakistan, but the benefits of it didn’t reached all creating disparity.
The lack of representation of Bengalis, the disparity and a treatment like 2nd grade citizens created disillusionment in them which eventually led to creation of Bangladesh
Fatima Jinnah was a woman. A woman is not considered to be state head even in the West. Rarely, any women are given chances in Europe to head their respective states. However, Ayub Khan was too wicked to be a better replacement of Fatimah Jinnah. Indira Gandhi ruled India for about 17 years. During her rule, India transformed into a strong country in terms of education, military power, economy,industrialization ,,etc.. What would happen to India if a corrupt person like Ayub Khan ruled over it?
India transformed into a strong country in terms of education, military power, economy,industrialization ,,etc
Indra Gandhi contributed to the virtual collapse of indian nation.... It was a process of long term decay..
Was Indira's performance for India worse than that of Ayub's for Pakistan? The political party that she headed for 17 years is till the most popular political party of India. If her performance were poor in the eyes of the Indian populace then Congress Party would face a downfall.
Offcourse, Ayub's performance is much better than indira's performance.. During his Ayub's regime, Pakistan created into a progressive country and much of the development was done to the Industrial Sector. How ever he couldn't eliminate basic problem... No one could...In his last radio address 1969, he said, "I cannot preside over the destruction of my country"
Indira is considered to be a heroic personality by Indians, whereas Ayub and his son Gohar Ayub are not considered to be any heroic personalities by the majority of Pakistanis. She accomplished an honourable victory for India and a shameful defeat to Pakistan in the war of 1971. Gohar Ayub was infamous for collecting money with illicit methods.
Are you refuting the Hadith,
''A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!''
See Indian as majority are not prosper... On the other hand Pakistani are also not prosper because of Benazir Bhutto... If we see both of these government in light of Hadith.. Fatima's jinnah presidency would make pakistan worse..
I am not refuting any hadith. What I mean to express is that a good woman may not be worse than a wicked man. How is Zardari to Pakistan? How was Indira to India?
Dear Brother Hussain farooqi
There is mention of good or bad woman in the hadith...
adonis last edited by
We should not quote Hadiths out of context.
The Prophet (PBUH) said that particular sentence when he was given the news of Princess Puran Dakht's accession to the throne of Persia. There was a big struggle for throne in the Persian royal family and Puran Dakht could not remain long on the throne. This saying appears to be in the context of Persia at that particular time and does not constitute a universal "hukm".
This is why so many Sahabas fought under Hazrat Ayesha's leadership during the battle of Jaml. Had there been a "sareeh hukm" about the leadership of women, of course these sahabas would have been aware of it.
This is why so many Sahabas fought under Hazrat Ayesha's leadership during the battle of Jaml.
Against whom, They fought against their own brothers.. The hadith is correct in every context... In that fight against Hazrat Ali (r.a)... Hazrat Ali (r.a) was on Haq (truth)... and what was outcome of that leadership... The fight created a spilit in Jammat of Momineen..