Assignment 3

Name: Sahibzada Arham Anwaar Bugvi

Roll Number: 20L-1204

Section: E1

Ayub Era
Article 1:
The article is written by Asad Rahim Khan, named, “Ayub the First”, published on January 2020
on Dawn News.
The first thing the author discusses is progress, that even though the era of Ayub was dubbed
the decade of development, it was a desperate slogan from 1968 when the government was
dying. Most Pakistanis were living absolute declines, and the named development was only for
the idle rich. Per capita food-grain intake fell, as did industry real wages. Foreign aid changed
from grants to loans and increased from 4% in 1960 to 34% by 1971.
Some of this could work if the industrial elite in Pakistan were not so bizarre as well. Ayub's
patronage, however, saw the increase in a rent-seeking class of cartels, which still thrives in
new ways today—unproductive sugar and car and wheat meal vultures.
According to him, Ayub's unquestionable victories like the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and
the Indus Waters Treaty were overshadows by big-ticket plans, the land reform and population
planning which he never tried to make seriously.
The second thing is politics. He was the first one to rip up the constitution, a felony that has not
been sanctioned even today. Hasan Nasir's first torture-murder was committed during 1960 by
a political prisoner in the Lahore Fort and coincidently accusations of corruption in finance also
came from the House Ayub, which reads that family members "mysteriously took a leadership
role in the business sector in a very short era" in the British High Committees' cables for
Gandhara Industries.
He says that Pakistan's first direct elections were rigged. “They call her the Mother of the
Nation, then she should at least behave like a mother” said Ayub about her political rival Fatima
Jinnah. Ayub's goons were to brutalized the muhajir supporters of Fatima and cause the first
racial riots of Karachi, in celebration of their robbed victory. A rhetoric from the author closes
the paragraph, what if Fatima made President, entirely supported in East Pakistan by Mujib?
Ayub said in his last address, “It is impossible for me to preside over the destruction of our
country” to which the author replied, “though he already had; it’s time to accept that
destruction, so that the past can start informing Pakistan’s future”.
Article 2:
This article is written by Murtaza Haider which was also published on Dawn News, on
November 2016, named, “What they never tell us about Ayub Khan's regime”.
The common discussion of the Ayub period of economic development, stability and Pakistan's
increasing stature on the global stage (1958 - 1969).
The economic realities of the day are therefore far less glamorous, if not unfortunate.
An objective study of the policies and actions of General Ayub Khan shows that he was primary
in sustaining and prolonging his reign when his government sowed the seed and washed the
plant generously, leading to Bangladesh's separation years ago.
Economic development, which many cite as its particular accomplishment, encouraged income
inequality, leading to the rise of 20 powerful families which controlled the resources of the
nation and accumulated wealth, leaving the rest poor, hungry and rash.
Hate for the public:
General Ayub had been resentful of the public and the democratic process since he took office.
The population was too illiterate for him to depend on the franchise of adults.
Thus, he formed an electorate of a few miles, of which 95% chose the General as their
representative.
That Pakistan's same illiterate and poor people were wise enough to vote with their hearts,
minds and feet to establish a new republic, raising the same General as the military
commander, was insufficient to gain general confidence in adult franchise.
General Ayub Khan blamed politicians for the "chaotic internal situation," accusing them of
being prepared to trad the country "for personal gains."
In East and West Pakistan, he was keen to imprison leading leaders.
The military dictators who followed him kept politicians in equal disregard.
Bangladesh Issue:
A frequently quoted accusation of ex-Premier Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) was that he
orchestrated a sequence in Bangladesh to prevent the demographically powerful East Pakistan
from sharing or even worse from losing control.
General Ayub's years of favorite West Pakistan care, however, have irksome East Pakistanis and
he cannot disregard the continued rebukes by having three of the largest legacy plans, i.e. the
building of the new capital (Islamabad) as well as the two major hydroelectric projects (Mangla
and Tarbela) in Western Pakistan.
Moreover, General Ayub never kept an East Pakistani confidant, as all the King's men were
West Pakistan's.
Bad implementations:
Land reform was a pillar of General Ayub's socio-political reengineering, which limited land
ownership by maximum size to promote more equal land and resource distribution through
landless farming.
But the agricultural reforms did nothing to restrict land ownership and the political impact of
the landed gentry. In the hands of the infamous 20 families, power and richness instead
concentrated still.
The Ayub regime agreed to restrict land ownership to five hundred acres of grown land, one
thousand acres of dryland and 150 hectares of verdant groves. The newly established
thresholds, owning 7,5 million acres, were surpassed by more than 6,000 landowners.
However, the landlords outsmarted the regime by selling the land beforehand to family
members so that possession of the landed house would remain. Not much land was then
transferred to landless farmers.
Global views about Ayub Khan:
Western leaders praised the economic development of Pakistan from de Gaulle of France to
President Johnson of the United States.
Even Robert McNamara, the president of the World Bank, declared Pakistan to be "one of the
world's biggest growth achievements under General Ayub."
However, experts quickly pointed out that de Gaulle, Johnson, McNamara and others
concentrated exclusively on development, ignoring the distribution of wealth, resulting in
income discontent and conflict, which caused East and Western Pakistan to break.

Analysis:
Reading both articles, it seems that even though on paper it might look like the Ayub era was a
beneficial one, it actually was not. There is deep seated hate from the general public towards
him for his actions and things he did that were not accounted for.