Pakistan – No Longer A Living Monument Of The Quaid?

Digg del.icio.us Facebook Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Tweet This 

Yeh Mera Pakistan Hai, Yeh Tera Pakistan Hai
Yeh Mera Pakistan Hai, Yeh Tera Pakistan Hai
Iss Par Dil Qurbaan Iss par Jaan Bhi Qurbaan Hai

Yeh Meray Quaid Ki Jeeti Jagti Tasweer Hai
Hazrat-e-Iqbal Ki Khwabon Ki Taabeer Hai
Yeh Watan Pyaara Watan Sarmaya-e-Iman Hai
Iss Par Dil Qurbaan Iss par Jaan Bhi Qurbaan Hai

The above is a popular Pakistani patriotic anthem (YouTube recording here) which could be (very poorly) translated as:

This is my Pakistan, this is your Pakistan
This is my Pakistan, this is your Pakistan
On it we are ready to sacrifice our hearts and lives

This Land is the living monument of my Quaid
The realization of the dreams of Iqbal
This Land, our Beloved Land is the investment of Faith
On it we are ready to sacrifice our hearts and lives

The First line of the Second Verse talks about Pakistan being the “Living Monument of my Quaid” (Quaid being an Urdu word for Leader) and refers to “Quaid-e-Azam” (The Great Leader) Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, is the man who was the face of the movement for an independent Pakistan. A statesman who dedicated his life to the cause of obtaining a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian Sub-continent, he is to Pakistan what George Washington was to United States (and more).

The photo of the Quaid is seen in every Government office as a mark of respect to our Founding Father. This has been the tradition since the independence of Pakistan and one that is deeply ingrained in our society. Unfortunately, it seems that the days of that respect is over. Far from being a “Living Monument of The Quaid” it seems that even a picture of the The Quaid is no longer deemed necessary.

The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, hosted a dinner at the official residence in honor of the Pakistani Cricket Team for winning the Cricket Twenty 20 World Cup recently. The following photo (provided by Associated Press of Pakistan) was taken at the event.

Where Is The Quaid?

For those who are unable to see it properly in the picture above, the four photos in the background (from left to right) are as follows:

President Asif Ali Zardari (co-Chairman of Pakistan People’s Party)
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (Chairman of Pakistan People’s Party)
Benazir Bhutto (Former Chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party)
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Founding Chairman of Pakistan People’s Party)

What a deplorable state our nation is: The photo of our beloved Quaid has been replaced by the those of leaders of the ruling political party. I am sure The Quaid is turning over in his grave as I write: to be replaced by a Twenty Year old College Student or a person with the dubious nickname of Mr. 10 Percent. Has our nation fallen to this level? Have we taken the leaders of our political parties to be of importance above and beyond the Father of Our Nation? Why are there photos of PPP’s leaders in President’s house anyway? The right to be up there is not for any political party or dynasty but for the men who struggled to provide us this nation. It should not be Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto up there but Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal. It should not be Benazir Bhutto up there but Madr-e-Millat Fatima Jinnah. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari should not be on the walls but rather Choudhary Rahmat Ali. It is indeed a sad day for Pakistan and its legacy.

The Entire Nation should protest against this travesty.

Digg del.icio.us Facebook Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Tweet This 

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Pakistan – No Longer A Living Monument Of The Quaid?”

  1. “I bow to your superior sense of internet patriotism …and I pity the fact that it has immunized you to rationale thinking.”
    Sarcasm. You’re doing it wrong.
    Indeed nothing says rationalism like resorting to petty insults/second guessing my intentions.

    “As the leader of Pakistan it was not his job to criticize, condemn or go against the army. ”
    Didn’t he once promise to rid the army of ‘fat bottomed generals’?

    Go back and read my posts. I don’t think ZB was the sole architect of 1971, I said he had an important political role and that the ‘problems of East Pakistan started with Partition.’

    (a) I never elevated anybody to the level of the Quaid.”
    I very clearly outlined that the Quaid and ZAB were different people, at different time periods in history, with different sets of challenges to deal with. The only ‘equating’ seems to be going on in your head.
    >>>> “Pakistan still stands today, it is as much because of ZAB as it is because of the Quaid.”
    That doesn’t qualify as elevating ZB to the level of Quaid?

    What statistics [produced by an NGO] did you provide as proof that ZB’s rule was so utopic or that ZB was so selfless? You’ve merely cited policies the government implemented, not what happened after the implementation.

    I never implied that there was no unrest, no dissidence during Jinnah’s time…
    Could you stop putting words in my mouth? I said he did do a lot of good things and one of the things I’ll always remember/admire him for is giving us nuclear power even if it meant pissing off America. He should be honoured, he should be remembered but side by side and in moderation. If there’s a picture of ZB in the Presidents Lobby, there could very well be a picture of the Quaid

    How do you know my intention was to show what a patriot I am? How do you even know I’m a patriot and/or Pakistani?
    This is the Internet – I could be Charles Manson with a laptop, what do you know?
    My intentions weren’t to nominate myself for Patriot of the Year – I saw an opinion and I politely offered mine. I see this nothing more than a good discussion and if you want to opt out, say so. Don’t resort to trying to second guess my intentions or insulting me. You could have chosen to ignore me right from the start especially if my agreement/disagreement was so ‘irrelevant’ to you.
    On another note, this is a public blog. , If you wanted only your old acquaintance to adderess your views then you should have emailed him or something. Don’t post comments on a public blog if you don’t want other people to read/reply to them

    Like

  2. ” Sarcasm. You’re doing it wrong.”
    Lack of practice. I do not like sarcasm, therefore I do not indulge in it and therefore I am not really good at it. You on the other hand seem to excel at it.

    ” Indeed nothing says rationalism like resorting to petty insults/second guessing my intentions.”
    Yeah…and nothing says patriot like your very first post which was laden with petty insults, accusations, distortions and half truths. Now kindly re-read my reply to that post. You will not be able to find a hint of sarcasm, personal accusations or hyberbolic distractions. I addressed your questions and politely replied point by point. And for that I was rewarded with a second post with even more petty insults, sarcasm and accusations.
    So now if I AM being sarcastic, if I AM responding to your insults with insults of my own, then you really should not be surprised. You are simply getting what you asked for. For every action there is a reaction.

    ” Didn’t he once promise to rid the army of ‘fat bottomed generals’ ”
    How does that equate to ‘publicly condemning the army’ or ‘going all out against the army and criticizing them’ (these were your words).
    Did the entire Pakistani army participate in the crackdown? Nope… only a fraction did.
    The generals are a numerically small part of an army. Tarnishing the entire army with the same brush because of the screwups of few ‘fat bottomed generals’ would have had a devastating impact on the morale of our jawans…especially those who played no part in the tragedy of 71. Like I said, ZAB’s job as a leader was to re-build, re-arm and re-energise the Pakistan Army, not to bring it down.

    ” Go back and read my posts. I don’t think ZB was the sole architect of 1971, I said he had an important political role and that the ‘problems of East Pakistan started with Partition.”
    No. You shifted to that position ONLY after I pointed out that “The history of 1971 does not start at 1971″.

    ” “Pakistan still stands today, it is as much because of ZAB as it is because of the Quaid.”
    That doesn’t qualify as elevating ZB to the level of Quaid?” ”
    This seems to be the biggest bee in your bonnet so let me squash it once and for all. After the nuclear tests of Pokhran II, our ‘peaceful’ neighbour started making statements threatening to capture Azad Kashmir, breakup Pakistan etc etc etc. We were being told to learn to live with our heads down because there was a new order of power in the sub-continent. After we responded with the Chagai nuclear tests, all of those threats seized.
    Now imagine if ZAB had not initiated our nuke program. Imagine if he had bowed to the West because of the threats to his life. The fact that our external security is strong today, the fact that we have not been overun, the fact that we have achieved power parity with a hostile neighbour multiple times our size, is a validation of my statement that ” if Pakistan still stands today it is as much because of ZAB as it is because of the Quaid. ”
    Now you’ve taken that and re-interpreted it as an ‘equating of greatness’ and an ‘elevation of ZAB to the level of the Quaid’. I have repeatedly told you that they existed in separate times in history and faced separate challenges and that therefore there is no such comparison.
    There are a lot of other things which ZAB initiated, the benefits of which we are still reaping. Nuclear power is a small part of his legacy.

    ” What statistics [produced by an NGO] did you provide as proof that ZB’s rule was so utopic or that ZB was so selfless? ”
    (a) ZAB’s rule was not utopic…nor did I imply that it was.
    (b) I used absolutely no statistics whatsoever to prove my point. How many did you use to prove yours? None? Then why bring it up? You seem absolutely determined to make a fool out of yourself.
    (c) Statistics are easily manipulated. You cannot prove anything using statistics least of all whether somebody was ‘selfless’ or not.

    ” You’ve merely cited policies the government implemented, not what happened after the implementation.”
    I fail to understand what you are implying here but tell you what, why don’t you fill in the gaps by telling me what happened after the nuclear policy was implemented, or the policy of friendship with China, or the policy of exporting our labor, or the policy of rearmament, or any other policy listed in my first post. A word of warning though…you are about to shoot yourself in the foot.

    ” I could be Charles Manson with a laptop”
    That really would’nt surprise me 🙂

    ” My intentions weren’t to nominate myself for Patriot of the Year – I saw an opinion and I politely offered mine”
    (a) There was nothing polite about the way you offered your opinion.
    (b) I admire your sense of patriotism Komal but it should not blind you to facts, nor should should it induce needless bias in your analysis.

    ” I see this nothing more than a good discussion and if you want to opt out, say so.”
    I can keep doing this till judgement day. However if you don’t drop the sarcasm, half truths and irrelevant diversions, I will simply stop responding to your posts.

    ” Don’t resort to trying to second guess my intentions or insulting me”
    Despite your sarcastic first post, I was perfectly polite in my first reply to it. But you persisted in your insolence. Like I said, for every action there is a reaction.

    ” On another note, this is a public blog. , If you wanted only your old acquaintance to adderess your views then you should have emailed him or something. Don’t post comments on a public blog if you don’t want other people to read/reply to them”
    My issue is not that you replied to my post and challenged my point of view. It was the manner in which you did it.

    Lastly, I apologize for any insults you may have felt but you really were asking for it.

    Like

  3. Sarcasm means saying something but meaning the complete opposite. I was sarcastic in the earlier posts – using it as a finishing touch to a point but it wasn’t a personal attack. If you think that my arguing style has hints of aggressiveness/sarcasm, that may be so but I’m no academic or historian – I can’t couch my terms in neutral language all the time. But I haven’t made any ‘petty insults’ on you specifically. If you’re calling my arguments ‘half truths and distortions’ – I could very well argue the same thing and say you’re distorting the truth in order to present Bhutto in a more than just favorable light. History is subjective and people interpret it differently.

    I don’t care if you’re sarcastic but I resent your making it personal. You repeatedly call me a patriot (and most of the time, I don’t think you mean it as a compliment) despite my insistence that I’m not one and then after replying two times, you turn around and say my agreement/disagreement is irrelevant. Also, I think you and I have a very different definition of insolence/rudeness – because I keep re-reading my old posts and I don’t see where I’m being rude. I’m being rude towards ZB but not you.Yes, in my last post, my last paragraph was rude. Like I said, I found the sudden inclusion of how this was intended for an acquaintance/agreement or disagreement odd. Frankly, if you thought I was being rude or if you resented my sarcasm so much , you could have said so earlier.

    Having nuclear power is spiffy but even if Pakistani scientists endeavored to produce it in 3 years, what was the point of it? The programme was intended to be peaceful but using nuclear power as an alternative means of energy was never considered.

    Also, I’d like to clarify: I don’t think ZB was the one who’s solely responsible for 1971 and nor did I imply that. In my original post, I referred to 1971 and the ‘breaking legs’ quote. The two other things did not reference Bhutto. The difference in our opinions is that you believe he was idid not have much of a say until it was too late in the tragedy, I believe that he did have a important role.He was a part of the reason like Yahya Khan, the Awami League, the political marginalization of East Pakistan, the Boundary Award etc etc but not the entire reason itself.

    Some of his policies were unsuccessful. The nationalization of all flour, rice and cotton mills caused major losses for the treasury and the people. The land reforms Bhutto introduced, still protected feudals. I don’t see the OIC as a very successful organisation, they gave Pakistan aid then and all it does now is condemn various happenings, pass resolutions and perhaps give more aid.

    My aim in this discussion wasn’t to ‘convert’ you to my opinion and make you a member of my top-sekrit Bhutto hating cult (which btw really doesn’t exist). I do admire Bhutto just like I admire the original Muslim League but I have issues with both. But I see Bhutto just like I see any other Pakistani leader, they all made contributions, they all made mistakes.

    Like

  4. also, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. It was unintentional. Just because your opinion is different from mine, doesn’t justify rudeness.

    Like

  5. ” I was sarcastic in the earlier posts – using it as a finishing touch to a point but it wasn’t a personal attack.”
    (a) Sarcasm is ALWAYS a personal attack, not to mention a very rude, insolent and underhanded tactic in any debate.
    (b) If your arguments are strong, then you don’t have to resort to sarcasm ‘as a finishing touch’. Matter of fact, it only detracts from your point of view by showing a personal bias.

    ” I’m no academic or historian – I can’t couch my terms in neutral language all the time.”
    Yes you can…anybody can if they try. Its actually much simpler than being sarcastic and gets much better results.

    ” If you’re calling my arguments ‘half truths and distortions’ – I could very well argue the same thing and say you’re distorting the truth in order to present Bhutto in a more than just favorable light.”
    Please go ahead and argue that if you must. It won’t work with me. It has’nt so far.

    ” and then after replying two times, you turn around and say my agreement/disagreement is irrelevant.”
    YOU made them irrelevant by resorting to sarcasm, distractions and hyperbole. These tactics work in a high school debate, but not against someone who knows what he is talking about. I hope this has been a learning experience for you.

    ” Frankly, if you thought I was being rude or if you resented my sarcasm so much , you could have said so earlier.”
    Frankly, sometimes the best way to deal with certain people is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

    ” Having nuclear power is spiffy but even if Pakistani scientists endeavored to produce it in 3 years, what was the point of it? The programme was intended to be peaceful but using nuclear power as an alternative means of energy was never considered.”
    (a) Our nuke program was never meant to be solely for civilian power production purposes. Matter of fact, that was a secondary concern. ZAB’s primary concern was to achieve strategic power parity with our neighbour (which had gone nuclear in 1974) as quickly as possible and thereby ensure the security of Pakistan.
    (b) Using nuclear power for alternative energy means was considered by ZAB, but only as a secondary concern. It was also repeatedly considered by both Mohtarma and Nawaz, but the political musical chairs being played in the 90’s ensured that no coherent longterm nuclear policy could be formulated. I think this may be changing with Zardari.

    ” Some of his policies were unsuccessful. The nationalization of all flour, rice and cotton mills caused major losses for the treasury and the people.”
    (a) Post 71, a lot of ZAB’s policies were formulated with control in mind e.g. price control, distribution control etc etc. He had seen the price fluctuations caused by middlemen and profiteers and was determined to stabilize food prices for the poor. He also wanted to make sure that Pakistan’s food security could not be tampered with.
    (b) The nationalization caused losses for the owners of those mills…that is true. The tax loss to the treasury however was balanced out by the subsidized cheap food (and clothes) that our poor were able to get for quite some time. So some people suffered losses, but definately not the masses. Not everything can be measured with money.

    ” The land reforms Bhutto introduced, still protected feudals.”
    (a) ZAB’s initial land reforms were limited in scope and achieved mixed results. At best, they put a theoretical limit on the amount of land a landlord could own, but I know for a fact that there are ways around that limit.
    (b) It was a small first step in a long journey that ZAB was unable to finish
    (c) I do not consider ZAB’s land reforms as having any significant long-term impact (due to a lack of follow through), which is why I never included it in my list of successes (see first post).

    ” I don’t see the OIC as a very successful organisation, they gave Pakistan aid then and all it does now is condemn various happenings, pass resolutions and perhaps give more aid.”
    (a) The OIC was a means to an end for ZAB and he achieved those ends. One of those ends was to bring together every muslim country under one roof. ZAB’s main purpose however, was to establish a very close and lasting relationship with the Saudis and he used the OIC to do that.
    (b) The aid we get from the Saudi’s is EXTREMELY significant. Without their financial support we would never have been able to launch our nuke program, beat the Soviets in Afghanistan, aquire sophisticated weaponry or keep our economy going under harsh sanctions from the West. The Saudi’s may treat individual Pakistanis badly (and that is despicable) but they have been extremely generous towards Pakistan as a whole.

    Like

  6. There is an interesting story in Stanley Wolpert’s book titled ‘Jinnah of Pakistan’. Apparently, Quaid-e-Azam was offered a knighthood by Viceroy/Governor General Reading but the Quaid declined saying that he preferred to be just “plain Mr Jinnah”.
    Keeping that in mind, I wonder what the Quaid would make of this whole portrait replacement episode and the resulting outcry.

    Like

  7. (a) Sarcasm is ALWAYS a personal attack, not to mention a very rude, insolent and underhanded tactic in any debate.
    I disagree but since you resent it so much, I won’t use it in debating with you.
    Though your criticism of my showing personal bias is amusing.
    Bias isn’t always negative, it can be positive & you’ve called him ‘saeen’ atleast twice. Crudely translated, isn’t ‘saeen’ a respectful term for someone in a position of authority?

    “ZAB’s goals were to pick up a nation misruled and mismanaged for a decade, bankrupted and broken by war, disillusioned by defeat and to look that nation dead in the eye and tell them that they are a great people with a great future ahead of them. His goal was to breath life back into our country and to lay the foundations for a new future. As for him ruling ‘only’ for six years, when you are sincere with your people, and when you love them as dearly as ZAB did, then six years is all the time you need to do the things which are necessary to safeguard their future.”

    This isn’t neutral, couched language. Its emotional and evocative. You’re not detached from the subject and that detracts from your point of view too.

    “Frankly, sometimes the best way to deal with certain people is to give them a taste of their own medicine.”
    Like I said before, thank you for the apology but if you think I deserve what I got then why did you apologize?

    The nationalization of the mills meant that small-scale owners were rendered unemployed. Bhutto may have wanted to stabilize food prices for the poor but why send more people to the lower strata while doing so? Wouldn’t that slow the productivity of the economy further? Also, regardless of his intentions, state intervention in the economy was accompanied by widespread bureaucratic and political corruption. Also, I don’t understand why a leader who promised better living conditions for the masses, would treat using nuclear power as an alternative source of energy as a secondary concern. Maybe I’m being simplistic but had the previous governments explored alternative energy means, perhaps the electricity problem would be non-existent or atleast less in its severity.

    Bringing Muslim countries under one roof has achieved little during or after Bhutto. Like I said, all they do is pass resolutions. Their definition of terrorism has been criticized by various human right organizations for its vagueness. They shake their fists at Israel and condemn it but that is all that do. So I don’t see the point of bringing Muslim countries under one roof and I don’t see it as successful. Even if they gave us aid, was the implementation of the aid fully transparent?

    “The Saudi’s may treat individual Pakistanis badly (and that is despicable)” Saudi Arabia has always been harsh towards immigrants, women and religious minorities. But then the two latter criticisms could easily applied to Pakistan.

    Regarding the Stanley Wolpert anecdote, there was an article in Dawn magazine a couple of years earlier about how Jinnah would feel walking down in contemporary Karachi. Pakistan would have been very different under Jinnah and elaborating on that statement is honestly pointless.

    PS Can we take this elsewhere? Because I doubt anyone is reading this besides us and I’m getting tired of the spam blocker blocking me. My email is (removed for privacy reason – sent to Shuqaib)

    Like

  8. Our leaders were given certain sects of circumstances.. and they did what they cud with that. what’s sad is that all this time we were and still are not ready to accept the fact and see the true history..

    otherwise Yes ! we can go on and on and on till judgment day… while someone else keeps reaping the benefit of it all.. 😦

    Like

Comments are closed.