ANYONE who had met General Ziaul Haq — no matter how lowly the status of the person, no matter how antagonistic he was to the general’s views, no matter what he thought of military dictatorship, could not help being impressed by Ziaul Haq’s courtesy, patience in hearing views diametric to his own and a disarming humility.

One could almost say anything to his face, even publicly without rousing his dander.

Once at a press conference a callow journalist said to him, “Sir, the difference between you and Mr Bhutto is that he would lie when in his cups but you lie between your teeth.” Zia replied, “You may be right but remember if you had said this to Mr Bhutto, you would not be sleeping in your bed tonight. Be assured, however, you will sleep comfortably tonight.”

The president’s office since the time of Ayub Khan was located in a premise owned by the company that I work for. Soon after Ziaul Haq took over, I received a call from his military secretary: “I have been instructed by the president to seek your permission to build a small mosque in a corner of the premises. The president has asked me to emphasise that you should not feel obliged to accept this request. Feel free to accept or reject.” I was flabbergasted. Mr Bhutto had built a humongous office block in the gardens and a cinema to boot and other construction with no thought of any permission. The permission for a small mosque was granted with pleasure.

My first meeting with the general was in 1983. An invitation was received out of the blue to meet him. My feelings were anti-Ziaul Haq. The earlier public floggings of people on petty misdemeanour was extremely distasteful, the laws on prohibition had virtually closed down my business, and above all, I was vehemently against the hanging of Bhutto, not that I held Bhutto innocent of his crimes; I favoured exile, besides I was and remain against capital punishment.

With trepidation I entered his office. General Zia said: “Governor Jilani has recommended your name to be my adviser on minorities affairs, do you consent?” I replied, “Sir, I am not a minority and therefore unable to accept your kind offer.”

General Zia: “But I am told you are a Parsi”? “Zoroastrian, I am, but not a minority, if we go by the Quaid’s speech of August 11, 1947.”

“Ok,” he said, “I invite you to accept this post as a member of the majority.” “I accept.” It fitted my criteria. I demanded a salary of one rupee and no perks. (It was never paid). I found working with Zia friendly and congenial. I was the junior most at the cabinet table. Never did he close a discussion without hearing my point of view; he gave me the same time as he gave to Mr Ghulam Ishaq, the senior member at the table. He always responded to my telephone calls. One other incident prior to my appointment as his adviser influenced my decision.

Soon after the Bhutto hanging, Mr Khushwant Singh arrived in Rawalpindi as my house guest. The evening before he was to meet Zia, Khushwant railed against Zia in the most vehement and severe terms. But after the meeting he came back a changed man, “He is as different from Bhutto as can be. I was swept away by his humility, patience and charm”, said he and added prophetically: “He is set to rule for many years; but I predict, his end will be violent.”

These anecdotes apart, Zia today is villified by the religious right of different schools and liberals for different reasons — but I shall attempt an objective assessment of Zia rule.

Zia came to power just as the high winds of Islamic political power was about to sweep Iran. The overthrow of the Shah by Imam Khomeini set the trend for decades to follow in Muslim lands. This high wind was a fit for Zia’s psyche. His faith in Islam was strong. He probably had little understanding of Islamic theology. But his self-perception was that of a soldier of Islam.

The two big issues that confronted him was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how to keep Pakistan out of it; and the other, to deal with Bhutto. The Soviets, aware of the US arms pipeline to the Mujahideen via the ISI, were making threatening noises to attack “terrorist camps” in Pakistan. A very fine line was tread by Zia. He managed to keep the Soviets and the KGB at bay and armed the Mujahideen, who were regarded as ‘heroes’ and even received at the White House. Alas, we mortals are not blessed to peer into the future. That the ‘heroic’ Mujahideen turned out to be more cruel and blood thirsty than the Soviets towards their own people is another story. With six million Afghans pouring over the Durand Line, the Pashtun-Pakistan equation had to be delicately balanced.

In truth, it was Pakistan as a front-line state fighting a ‘sub-rosa’ war against a superpower. Zia extracted a handsome price from President Reagan. He needed a waiver to enrich uranium to low grade. The Americans knew well that three per cent enrichment which they permitted was an eyewash. Observers reckon that by 1985-86 Pakistan had enriched uranium 235 to bomb grade and had cold tested a nuclear bomb or device by 1987. It was far ahead of the Indians. Yet another ‘sub-rosa’ war was to be fought in the United States to keep its powerful media off-scent. Zia was determined to make the bomb whether he had to beg, borrow or steal. It was a huge project undertaken in utter secrecy. Whether we like the bomb or not, Pakistan’s nuclear capability since the late 1980s has prevented at least two possible wars in the subcontinent.

Much has been said about Zia promoting heroin and kalashnikov culture. Heroin reached our region a year or two before the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It radicalised overnight the millennium-old opium industry. It tripled the price of narcotics for the grower and mega profits for all players in the narcotics chain. Could Zia have stopped it? Ask the West which today occupies Afghanistan which produced the largest crop ever of opium and its derivative heroin, last year.

As for the kalashnikov culture, the Mujahideen factions were to be armed to fight the Soviet occupation. The weaponization of an entire generation was dangerous, but what was the alternative? Consider, the alternative to Islamisation of the Soviet - Afghan war: Pakhtun ethnicity and the fragility of the Durand Line. Let us not second-guess things in hind sight.

Zia’s Islamisation had its genesis in his political isolation: only the religious parties were prepared to support him and the banner that would keep the fractious Afghans together was Islam. Political Islam in Zia’s perception was the cement that would bind not only the different ethnic communities, tribes and peoples together, but would also close the ranks within Islam. His faith was anchored in a globalising mission for Islam to regenerate Muslim peoples the world over.

He saw Pakistan as an ideological state with the Pakistan army as the engine that drove the state. His faith was rewarded with some success. Before he died — and by all accounts it was a foreign-inspired assassination — he saw the realization of his two most cherished aims — the forced withdrawal of the Soviet from Afghanistan leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and progress on the building of the nuclear bomb. Without fore-knowledge of the impending clash of civilizations, he provided the scaffolding of the clash to come.

But his vision of Pakistan as an Islamic ideological state was diametrically opposed to the vision of Pakistan’s founder. Little did he realize that the age of ideology was over. Europe up to the 19th century was ruled by orthodox religious ideologies which were overthrown in the 20th century by man-made ideologies such as Marxism, fascism and consumerism. Man’s quest for freedom of thought and action has always overcome the tunnel rigidities of so-called ideologies.

In this respect Zia’s legacy is a baleful one. Religious fanaticism which always lurked below the surface is now plain to see. Sectarianism has run amok. The unsafest place to offer prayers is a prominent mosque, which is sometimes bombed by a rival sect. Hypocrisy, which is a cardinal sin in Islam, is our political flag mast. For example, the new name for bank interest is profit ‘mark up’ which is fiction. For millions of people in the rest of the world the fair name of Islam is now associated with terrorism. It is not known who conjured up the infamous Hadood Ordinances, which have caused untold misery to women. A victim of rape is charged with fornication, as it is impossible for a woman to prove the crime committed under Hadood Laws. No law has defamed Islam as much as the Hadood Ordinances.

Civil society as a whole has taken a backward leap thanks to the so-called Islamisation whereas India has moved many steps ahead on political, social, economic, educational and industrial goals. We continue to reap the harvest of retrograde ideologies’ bitter fruits.

There are many today who would like to hang on Zia’s peg all that has gone wrong in Pakistan in the last decade. There is truth in this. But the same can be said for the Bhutto regime and the regimes that followed Zia’s.

But I can never forget the personal grace and charm of the man. Standing for six hours on Eid days with a word of cheer and a present for cripples, widows and the sick, his simple living and personal honesty. His promotion of the bicycle as refreshingly opposed to the ever prevailing VVIP culture. I was among the very first to challenge in the courts his dissolution of the Junejo government along with Haji Saifullah and others. Yet it did not disturb our personal relationship. His humility was genuine, no matter what his detractors say.

My residence happened to be situated between his office and his home, on a public road. Quite often lie would be walking down street, talking to the common man on the road. Many years later I asked my chowkidar, “Did you ever meet Zia plain clothes?” “Yes”, he replied. “And did he stop and talk to you?” Again the reply was affirmative.

The writer is an MNA murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk