Pakistan's Golden Days

[KKF 2.0]

Elegant, graceful and somehow very glamorous. Pakistan was a different country back then.

Ayub was quite a gentlemen and the Brits obviously were trying to impress him with pomp and circumstance.

 

[Kaptaan]

President Ayub Khan was probably one of the best leaders Pakistan ever had with exception of the present Prime Minister Imran Khan [both Pakhtuns I might add] and did much for Pakistan. In 1960s Pakistan was a differant place.

With the Queen

President Ayub Khan taking aim with a rifle during a hunting trip on the outskirts of Moscow during his official visit to the erstwhile USSR from April 3 to 11, 1965.

President Ayub Khan [the big boss] and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in animated conversation at a dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of State Conference in London in June, 1965

President Ayub Khan and US First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy smiling as they disembarked from a helicopter in Washington DC, after a trip to the Kennedy country estate in Middleburg, Virginia, on September 27, 1962.

President Ayub receiving President Johnson in Karachi, ca 1967.

President Ayub with President Kennedy in Washington D.C., ca. 1961.

What is catching about this image? The Queen of the British Empire being driven through streets of Pakistan in a open car, waving along with President Ayub Khan and hardly any security. This tells you how safe the country was then. This is long before terrorism was even a word most Pakistani's had heard of.

Ayub Khan giving ‘slapping’ to the most powerful man in the world US President Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[Deliorman]

Religious extremism and Wahhabism are like cancers that destroyed Pakistan.

 

[Null/Void]

President Ayub Khan was probably one of the best leaders Pakistan ever had with exception of the present Prime Minister Imran Khan [both Pakhtuns I might add] and did much for Pakistan. In 1960s Pakistan was a differant place.

View attachment 10545

With the Queen

View attachment 10546


View attachment 10547

President Ayub Khan taking aim with a rifle during a hunting trip on the outskirts of Moscow during his official visit to the erstwhile USSR from April 3 to 11, 1965.

View attachment 10548

President Ayub Khan [the big boss] and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in animated conversation at a dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of State Conference in London in June, 1965

View attachment 10549

President Ayub Khan and US First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy smiling as they disembarked from a helicopter in Washington DC, after a trip to the Kennedy country estate in Middleburg, Virginia, on September 27, 1962.

View attachment 10550

President Ayub receiving President Johnson in Karachi, ca 1967.

View attachment 10551

President Ayub with President Kennedy in Washington D.C., ca. 1961.


View attachment 10552

What is catching about this image? The Queen of the British Empire being driven through streets of Pakistan in a open car, waving along with President Ayub Khan and hardly any security. This tells you how safe the country was then. This is long before terrorism was even a word most Pakistani's had heard of.

View attachment 10553

Ayub Khan giving ‘slapping’ to the most powerful man in the world US President Lyndon B. Johnson

I get really angry when the past looks so much better than the present

 

[Philip the Arab]

Religious extremism and Wahhabism are like cancers that destroyed Pakistan.

Are u Turkish? I look whiter than u bro.

 

[dani92]

Iranian revolution and Wahhabism along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ruined Pakistan

 

[Nilgiri]

If Ayub Khan era was really a golden era of some sort, it would hold up in some basic numbers and facts past the veneer (this is a separate longer topic).

It doesn't. Especially when you account for what it lost in terms of Jute export from its Eastern Wing, earnings of which that it unfairly diverted to itself (and how that Eastern Wing has now turned out without the western wing psyche burdening them and putting them at major conflict with a huge country near them).

Combine with fact he usurped power illegally (setting major precedent for later) and then broke the peace with India (knowing size differential but underestimating that esp for the long term).

It means you can filter through a few pictures and videos, but the basic root of problem for Pakistan was largely gestated here to add on top of what Jinnah originally did for majoritarian-political expedience by using religion.

Near complete opposite of what Ataturk did.

Ataturk's Turkey in fact is secular and based on ethnicity + language....much more like Bangladesh today.

Yet so many Pakistanis claim to respect him and look up to Turkey today....without understanding (to put it mildly) this key difference.

Where would have Turkey gone if it continued the Islamic caliphate basis that its predecessor Ottomans had? To make every issue of the world its own (and add to it confrontation with far larger neighbour by this principle too) as long as it was "Islamic" in some way, no matter the basic good/bad analysis for the actual people of its country.

It is uncomfy subject for 99% of Pakistanis (at least online) to get into, a whole bunch of things get upturned foundationally if they do explore it rationally and neutrally enough.

Everything else "problem wise" evolved downstream (including the takfiri supremacy he would see the political, moral and economic consequence of regarding the other wing..... nearing end of his life, though he was out of power at that point...and arguably worse demagogues had stepped in to accelerate all the worst tendencies in almost no time at all).

If you can think yourself your way into this mess and put major blood and cost on the line in the past, its very hard to think yourself out of it. You feel you owe something always to see it through, whatever it is and whether it actually be good or bad.

@VCheng

 

[Indos]

Are u Turkish? I look whiter than u bro.

It is because you are mix with White

 

[Indos]

Iranian revolution and Wahhabism along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ruined Pakistan

I dont think you can blame Wahhabism. Wahhabism strain being endorsed by Saudi is kind limit freedom of making our own interpretation or ijtihad and they just want to listen to ancient Ulama as reference and kind of avoiding in making new interpretation, actually similar behavior is also found in Traditional Islam. In order to have a progressive society I think Muslim country needs more Modernist Islam. We actually have the movement since 1920.

Just like how we see Catholic countries vs Protestant countries in Western world. Freedom of expression and thinking and always being critical instead of believing what ever Ulama said will make better and competitive society. So the main issue is not like what @Kaptaan suggestion as secularism vs religious society which I said as a very wrong simplification (too black and white of thinking, not deep)

-----------------------------------

Muhammadiyah (Arabic: محمدية‎, followers of Muhammad; full name: Persyarikatan Muhammadiyah) is a major Islamic non-governmental organization in Indonesia.[1] The organization was founded in 1912 by Ahmad Dahlan in the city of Yogyakarta as a reformist socioreligious movement, advocating ijtihad - individual interpretation of Qur'an and sunnah, as opposed to taqlid - the acceptance of the traditional interpretations propounded by the ulama.[2]

Since its establishment, Muhammadiyah has adopted a reformist platform mixing religious and secular education,[3] primarily as a way to promote the upward mobility of Muslims toward a 'modern' community and to purify Indonesian Islam of local syncretic practices.[3] It continues to support local culture and promote religious tolerance in Indonesia, while a few of its higher education institutions are attended mostly by non-Muslims, especially in East Nusa Tenggara and Papua provinces. The group also runs a large chain of charity hospitals,[1] and operated 128 universities as of the late 1990s.[4]

In 2008, Muhammadiyah was considered the second largest Islamic organization in Indonesia with 29 million members.[2] Although Muhammadiyah leaders and members are often actively involved in shaping the politics in Indonesia, Muhammadiyah is not a political party. It has devoted itself to social and educational activities.

Muhammadiyah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[VCheng]

If Ayub Khan era was really a golden era of some sort, it would hold up in some basic numbers and facts past the veneer (this is a separate longer topic).

It doesn't. Especially when you account for what it lost in terms of Jute export from its Eastern Wing, earnings of which that it unfairly diverted to itself (and how that Eastern Wing has now turned out without the western wing psyche burdening them and putting them at major conflict with a huge country near them).

Combine with fact he usurped power illegally (setting major precedent for later) and then broke the peace with India (knowing size differential but underestimating that esp for the long term).

It means you can filter through a few pictures and videos, but the basic root of problem for Pakistan was largely gestated here to add on top of what Jinnah originally did for majoritarian-political expedience by using religion.

Near complete opposite of what Ataturk did.

Ataturk's Turkey in fact is secular and based on ethnicity + language....much more like Bangladesh today.

Yet so many Pakistanis claim to respect him and look up to Turkey today....without understanding (to put it mildly) this key difference.

Where would have Turkey gone if it continued the Islamic caliphate basis that its predecessor Ottomans had? To make every issue of the world its own (and add to it confrontation with far larger neighbour by this principle too) as long as it was "Islamic" in some way, no matter the basic good/bad analysis for the actual people of its country.

It is uncomfy subject for 99% of Pakistanis (at least online) to get into, a whole bunch of things get upturned foundationally if they do explore it rationally and neutrally enough.

Everything else "problem wise" evolved downstream (including the takfiri supremacy he would see the political, moral and economic consequence of regarding the other wing..... nearing end of his life, though he was out of power at that point...and arguably worse demagogues had stepped in to accelerate all the worst tendencies in almost no time at all).

If you can think yourself your way into this mess and put major blood and cost on the line in the past, its very hard to think yourself out of it. You feel you owe something always to see it through, whatever it is and whether it actually be good or bad.

@VCheng

It is very simple actually. For something on a steady decline, the past does appear to be better than the present, and a crutch to avoid looking at the bleakness of what is to come.

 

[Kaptaan]

It is very simple actually. For something on a steady decline, the past does appear to be better than the present, and a crutch to avoid looking at the bleakness of what is to come.

10/10. @Nilgiri you won't be disappointed. He came. He did the needful. He left. With dropping left behind. Moaning Minnie.

 

[Jackdaws]

Meanwhile bhakts be like - "These are our golden days" -

 

[Kaptaan]

Where would have Turkey gone if it continued the Islamic caliphate basis that its predecessor Ottomans had?

I think you know I utterly abhor the Islamists. I also think religion has no place in running of a state. However few points to note -

Turkey with Islam [Ottoman Empire] did infintely better than a Hindu India. When you guys were tasting a the boot of the latest Muslim conqueror for ten centuries the Turks built a empire that covered three continents. So it is fair to assume the Turks even with Islam would have done better than Hindu India. Even if that "better" would have been less stark.

Pakistan in the 1960s was on cusp of change. It was going in the right direction and if it had stayed on course the reforms being instituted by Ayub Khan would have consolidated.

Combine with fact he usurped power illegally

You make the assumption that AK took power from those who held it legitimately. I challenge you demonstrate to me that the clique he replaced had elective mandate or was legitimate?

Jinnah originally did for majoritarian-political expedience by using religion.

The product Jinnah made by using the expedience of religion or even 'excuse' if you want is no way differant from the expedient use of British soldiers in the making of India that you regard as 'yours'. British India was built on the expedient use of British military power to kil the natives, subjugate the natives to build a empire. This is actually not to far from how Nazi Germany built the short lived Third Reich that clobbered together dozens of nations and regions as far way as Africa. At one point Libyans, Latvians were all living in Pax Germania.
You seem to have big issues with Jinnah's expediency but gloss over the British use of bayonets in the making of India. Seems ever so convenient. I could go on but I don't want to crowd out the discussion and will for now leave for you to reply to the points I raised.

 

[Nilgiri]

Turkey with Islam [Ottoman Empire] did infintely better than a Hindu India. When you guys were tasting a the boot of the latest Muslim conqueror for ten centuries the Turks built a empire that covered three continents. So it is fair to assume the Turks even with Islam would have done better than Hindu India. Even if that "better" would have been less stark.

It is something I would rather chat with the actual Turks about. They actually have an old name in History you see.

Void (establishment + psyche wise) countries between Persia (space tier achieved) and India (space tier achieved)....meh.

Too much downstream babble....like the Qasim canon in schoolbooks (unthinkable concept in Ataturk's Turkey, Persia and India). But that kind of thing probably gets a thumbs up in Ottoman era, which is why it ended up as it did in the modernizing rationalizing era.

If you all want to discuss anything regarding that broader (proving you have moved on to something bigger as a people), well you can all work to fix the Qasim canon to begin with taught to your youngest minds first.....so if they do get to Salam-level intelligence they dont need to abscond for majority of their productive life and then have a defaced grace to show for it when they do return.

Otherwise its just Quixote stuff, though it entertains when you charge your lance into the karachiwallah rancour.

It all adds up to entrenched 7% savings trust in the country it can't dig itself out of now....and just relies on succession of sugar daddies to brochure and gift wrap cocooned narratives with.

Pakistan in the 1960s was on cusp of change. It was going in the right direction and if it had stayed on course the reforms being instituted by Ayub Khan would have consolidated.

Doubt it. Remove the Jute (and it would be removed for good just a few years later by takfiri dumbness), remove the CENTO/SEATO....and you look at stark numbers and facts...and its same old story (regarding socioeconomics). It just hadn't tasted the major defeats and utter relative stagnation yet....so its glorified now.

Common trend worldwide in human psyche though, just the flavours are different and particular.

You make the assumption that AK took power from those who held it legitimately. I challenge you demonstrate to me that the clique he replaced had elective mandate or was legitimate?

You can chat with saiyan sometime about it. We can all go into why Iskander got salty (about Suhrawardy) and asked ayub to intervene...yada yada yada. Like the yada yada yada later with <insert tinpot khaki guy here>

Something functioning cringey, immorally and illegally before, doesnt excuse more illegality (of far larger kind)....and setting the precedent. The solution would have been for the people in power to use their brains (of which I am told there is no paucity back then in a golden era) and stay within legal bounds they created and enshrined and swore oaths on.

What was the spit and a handshake between Ayub and Yahya about anyway later for example?

Then I remember you complaining about mushy using that precedent too, simply coz he's a Muhajir Delhi boi and kargil'ed downstream? But ayub gets a pass for the grandslam gibraltar'ing upstream that set all that kind of nastiness into the cake?

These are all issues of no relevance to actual nation-states with some semblance of a higher evolved ethos....that dont need musical chairs games...and actually entered well into double digit savings trust rate for their country at large to get from A to B to C of actual consequence.

The product Jinnah made by using the expedience of religion or even 'excuse' if you want is no way differant from the expedient use of British soldiers in the making of India that you regard as 'yours'. British India was built on the expedient use of British military power to kil the natives, subjugate the natives to build a empire. This is actually not to far from how Nazi Germany built the short lived Third Reich that clobbered together dozens of nations and regions as far way as Africa. At one point Libyans, Latvians were all living in Pax Germania.
You seem to have big issues with Jinnah's expediency but gloss over the British use of bayonets in the making of India. Seems ever so convenient. I could go on but I don't want to crowd out the discussion and will for now leave for you to reply to the points I raised.

The only real reason to bring Nazi Germany into all this is their genocide (that ended up being "THE" reason they lost) that Pakistan establishment did to lose half of its country as well in the end. When really after Nuremberg, every civilised society in the world ought to have taken stock of red lines on what never to allow another do, much less do themselves.

I am not excusing the British empire (that needs a whole multitude of threads to analyse)....but their evil and greed w.r.t colonisation is simply not on the ultra-fascist totalitarian scale....and neither is it some equivalent analysis in some political cohesion objective/legacy way with the reich if you look at Generaplan Ost and stuff like that (as to the before, during and after of Reich control regarding other countries later splintering from them by bloody liberation).

A liberation from occupation during intense manufactured war of few short years is fundamentally different from a revolution built up by far longer time and reasons of colonisation. Similarities w.r.t psyche driving it (some notion of supremacy) are cursory at best for what actually materialised and in what span of years it involved.

What would the population level of the British Raj finally been (say after 100 years) if there was sustained lebensraum campaign set out by the Brits? Do the extrapolation of industrial scale murder the Reich did in just a few short years.

It would have been impossible for the Brits to do in first place even if they desired it....but thats another story.

@Joe Shearer comments on this thread would be appreciated.

 

[Raptor]

Turkey with Islam [Ottoman Empire] did infintely better than a Hindu India. When you guys were tasting a the boot of the latest Muslim conqueror for ten centuries the Turks built a empire that covered three continents. So it is fair to assume the Turks even with Islam would have done better than Hindu India. Even if that "better" would have been less stark

How exactly are you comparing the two things?
Are you comparing ancient hindu India to medieval ottoman empire or medieval hindu India to medieval ottoman empire?
If you're comparing 1st one,undoubtedly ancient hindu India wins,hands down,not in building so called "empire" but flourishing economically.

 

[Kaptaan]

ancient hindu India

Is that the land of mythical names, land of mythical fables, land of make believe where you prepare a set like it's a Bolywood movie?

 

[Jackdaws]

Is that the land of mythical names, land of mythical fables, land of make believe where you prepare a set like it's a Bolywood movie?

You are getting confused between the nation-state of India and the civilization of India.

 

[Raptor]

Is that the land of mythical names, land of mythical fables, land of make believe where you prepare a set like it's a Bolywood movie?

Well the "hindu-india" which existed pre-islamic era.
The mauryans,gupta times is what I am talking about.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is something I would rather chat with the actual Turks about. They actually have an old name in History you see.

Void (establishment + psyche wise) countries between Persia (space tier achieved) and India (space tier achieved)....meh.

Too much downstream babble....like the Qasim canon in schoolbooks (unthinkable concept in Ataturk's Turkey, Persia and India). But that kind of thing probably gets a thumbs up in Ottoman era, which is why it ended up as it did in the modernizing rationalizing era.

If you all want to discuss anything regarding that broader (proving you have moved on to something bigger as a people), well you can all work to fix the Qasim canon to begin with taught to your youngest minds first.....so if they do get to Salam-level intelligence they dont need to abscond for majority of their productive life and then have a defaced grace to show for it when they do return.

Otherwise its just Quixote stuff, though it entertains when you charge your lance into the karachiwallah rancour.

It all adds up to entrenched 7% savings trust in the country it can't dig itself out of now....and just relies on succession of sugar daddies to brochure and gift wrap cocooned narratives with.




Doubt it. Remove the Jute (and it would be removed for good just a few years later by takfiri dumbness), remove the CENTO/SEATO....and you look at stark numbers and facts...and its same old story (regarding socioeconomics). It just hadn't tasted the major defeats and utter relative stagnation yet....so its glorified now.

Common trend worldwide in human psyche though, just the flavours are different and particular.



You can chat with saiyan sometime about it. We can all go into why Iskander got salty (about Suhrawardy) and asked ayub to intervene...yada yada yada. Like the yada yada yada later with <insert tinpot khaki guy here>

Something functioning cringey, immorally and illegally before, doesnt excuse more illegality (of far larger kind)....and setting the precedent. The solution would have been for the people in power to use their brains (of which I am told there is no paucity back then in a golden era) and stay within legal bounds they created and enshrined and swore oaths on.

What was the spit and a handshake between Ayub and Yahya about anyway later for example?

Then I remember you complaining about mushy using that precedent too, simply coz he's a Muhajir Delhi boi and kargil'ed downstream? But ayub gets a pass for the grandslam gibraltar'ing upstream that set all that kind of nastiness into the cake?

These are all issues of no relevance to actual nation-states with some semblance of a higher evolved ethos....that dont need musical chairs games...and actually entered well into double digit savings trust rate for their country at large to get from A to B to C of actual consequence.



The only real reason to bring Nazi Germany into all this is their genocide (that ended up being "THE" reason they lost) that Pakistan establishment did to lose half of its country as well in the end. When really after Nuremberg, every civilised society in the world ought to have taken stock of red lines on what never to allow another do, much less do themselves.

I am not excusing the British empire (that needs a whole multitude of threads to analyse)....but their evil and greed w.r.t colonisation is simply not on the ultra-fascist totalitarian scale....and neither is it some equivalent analysis in some political cohesion objective/legacy way with the reich if you look at Generaplan Ost and stuff like that (as to the before, during and after of Reich control regarding other countries later splintering from them by bloody liberation).

A liberation from occupation during intense manufactured war of few short years is fundamentally different from a revolution built up by far longer time and reasons of colonisation. Similarities w.r.t psyche driving it (some notion of supremacy) are cursory at best for what actually materialised and in what span of years it involved.

What would the population level of the British Raj finally been (say after 100 years) if there was sustained lebensraum campaign set out by the Brits? Do the extrapolation of industrial scale murder the Reich did in just a few short years.

It would have been impossible for the Brits to do in first place even if they desired it....but thats another story.

@Joe Shearer comments on this thread would be appreciated.

Maybe later today. It is an interesting thread, especially since I have been binge-watching TV serialisations of the Ottoman imperial history from Suleiman the Magnificent (aka Suleiman Qanuni) onwards.

But I have spent my day's internet energy already, and this needs a lot of detailed response. So, later, por favor.