Latest news with #YahyaKhan
Express Tribune
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Why Awami League banned again
Awami League, the majority party in the December 1970 general elections in Pakistan, was banned on March 26, 1971 when President General Yahya Khan refused to transfer power to the party. The banned League launched freedom movement and succeeded in carving the state of Bangladesh out of Pakistan. Thus, Awami League emerged as the founder party of Bangladesh, but ironically Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rehman in January 1975 banned all political parties including, Awami League, and established one-party system in the newly-established country under Baksal party. Years after Mujib's assassination in August 1975, his daughter Sheikh Hasina revived Awami League and managed to come to power in 1996. Later, in 2009, Hasina assumed power for a second time and continued to lead the country till August 2024 when she had to escape to India due to a popular movement against her government. In May 2025, the interim government of Dr Muhammad Yunus banned the League. Despite Hasina's autocratic and repressive rule spanning more than 15 years, Awami League still has its support base in Bangladesh. Thus the ban on the party might be counter-productive. In its May 12, 2025 issue, The Diplomat writes, "Bangladesh's interim government has banned all activities, including the online presence, of the Awami League (AL), led by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, until the ongoing trials for crimes against humanity and genocide involving its leaders - these relate to the party's deadly crackdown on the July uprising of 2024 - are concluded." Why has the interim government banned Awami League and how will it impact the polarised politics of Bangladesh? Will Awami League resurface under the new name? What will be the implications of the ban? When banned in March 1971 by the military regime in Pakistan, Awami League faced charges of sedition. Banned for the second time, in May 2025, the party is fighting allegations of extrajudicial killings and corruption for which its leaders, including former PM Hasina, are under trial. The Diplomat further writes, "The decision, which came nine months after Hasina's ouster from power by students-led mass protests, has been taken under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was enacted by the AL back in 2009. The interim government banned the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), the AL's notorious student wing, under the same act on October 23 last year. The ban on the AL marks a significant escalation in Bangladesh's turbulent political landscape. It also raises questions about the efficacy and implications of banning political parties in a country with a history of such measures." A few weeks ago, a massive demonstration held outside the residence of Dr Yunus by the newly formed National Citizens Party (NCP) and Jamaat-e-Islami demanded that Awami League be banned because of its role in crushing the student movement of July-August 2024 in which more than 1,400 people were killed. Surprisingly, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) also welcomed the ban on Awami League even though it had opposed it in October last year. New Delhi has also, quite understandably, criticised the ban, saying it undermines democracy and is meant to promote an exclusive mode of politics. Despite the fall in Hasina's popularity, particularly due to her taking refuge in India, Awami League is not at all a dead horse and its role in Bangladeshi politics cannot be dismissed. The vacuum left behind due the ban on the League cannot be filed by NCP, Jamaat or BNP. The League will not remain under Hasina's influence forever, and a new leadership will emerge and try to restore its vote bank. As The Diplomat aptly remarked, "The ban on the AL has major implications for Bangladesh. Its removal from the political arena leaves a vacuum in the ideological space once dominated by Bengali nationalism. Since before the country's independence, Bengali nationalism has been the AL's ideological cornerstone and a unifying political tool to justify its regime and marginalize opposition voices, especially those promoting religious or ethnic identity politics." The ban on Awami League will have three major ramifications: One, the credibility of the caretaker government will dwindle because it has neither the mandate nor the legitimacy to take major policy decisions. Banning Bangladesh's founder party and attempting to erase Sheikh Mujib from the minds of people - by removing his picture from the currency notes - will not work. Furthermore, taking a decision under the influence of NCP or Jamaat reflects how fragile the caretaker government is. The reports that Dr Yunus wants to resign as the interim chief executive of the country also reflect how vulnerable the caretaker government has become due to the growing resentment against his failure to hold national elections. Two, Awami League still has a network that is collaborating with India. It's because the decades of the League rule had deepened New Delhi's influence in Bangladeshi bureaucracy, judiciary and civil society. The League-RAW nexus is no secret and India's reaction to the ban on the League is understandable. Economic predicament of Bangladesh and the growing restrictions by New Delhi on trade shipments from Indian ports will have negative fallout on Dhaka. With Bangladesh surrounded by India from three sides and having to grapple with a colossal Indian influence on its media, civil society, bureaucracy and judiciary, the caretaker government of Dr Yunus will be unable to fully protect the sovereignty of Bangladesh. Hundreds and thousands of patients from Bangladesh seek medical treatment in Indian hospitals which may not be possible anymore because of the growing visa restrictions imposed by the Indian missions. China and Pakistan cannot be a substitute to Bangladeshi nationals in the context of medical treatment. And three, the reports of a rift between the Bangladesh army chief and the caretaker chief executive reflect growing schism between the two pillars of power. The army chief is perturbed over the growing influence of Islamists in Bangladesh under the alleged patronage of the caretaker government. While BNP is demanding general elections this year, there are suspicions that the caretaker government wants to prolong its hold on power. In that case, Bangladesh will plunge into another phase of chaos and disorder.
India.com
16-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
From Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf.... Pakistan's military dictators met a bad death, last days of their lives were spent in humiliation
From Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf.... Pakistan's military dictators met a bad death, last days of their lives were spent in humiliation Pakistan's infamous military establishment is again back in news and of course for all wrong reasons. General Asim Munir, the present Pakistani chief has been venting out venom against India. In the last 78 years, Pakistan has been in the hands of dictators more than elected government. But these military dictators have met with a terrible fate in the last days of their lives. In Pakistan, Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq and as army chief, Pervez Musharraf seized power through coups and trampled the hopes of the people under their feet. Ayub Khan Ayub Khan was the first indigenous army chief of Pakistan, who held the responsibility from 1951 to 1958. But in 1958 Ayub Khan usurped power by removing the then President Iskandar Ali Mirza. The 1965 India-Pakistan war was Ayub Khan's idea. But after the crushing defeat there was a rebellion against him in Pakistan and he had to resign in 1969. In the 1965 presidential election, he allegedly rigged and defeated Jinnah's sister Fatima. In 1968-69, during the agitation against Ayub Khan across Pakistan, he suffered a heart attack. Then due to a paralysis attack, he became unable to walk and was confined to a wheel chair. Ayub Khan then resigned on March 25 1969 and handed over the command to General Yahya Khan. Yahya Khan After losing to India in the 1971 war, Yahya Khan handed over power to PPP leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto released Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from jail and put Yahya Khan under house arrest. He was forbidden to meet anyone. According to reports, he became mentally unstable along with diabetes and heart disease. General Yahya Khan died on 10 August 1980. General Zia-ul-Haq General Zia-ul-Haq was the second indigenous army chief of Pakistan. When the agitation against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who took power from Yahya Khan, intensified in 1976-77, he imposed martial law in Karachi, Lahore and Hyderabad (in Pakistan) in April 1977. Before Bhutto and the opposition parties could come to an agreement, Zia-ul-Haq staged a coup on 5 July 1977 and remained the martial law administrator until 1978. During the trial of American tanks, President Zia-ul-Haq, American ambassador Arnold Raphael, head of American military mission in Pakistan left for Islamabad by plane. But the plane crashed. General Zia and others died in it. Pervez Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz chief Nawaz Sharif appointed Pervez Musharraf as the chief of Pakistan Army in 1998. But when the relations deteriorated, Sharif tried to remove him on 12 October 1999, but he himself was overthrown. After the defeat in the Kargil war, Musharraf was on target. Pervez Musharraf, who was on the plane from Colombo to Karachi, took along with him the high profile officers of the army as soon as he landed in his country and became the ruler. He first became a military dictator and then a superpower president. Musharraf was afflicted with a rare disease in Dubai in 2023. The military dictator spent the last days of his life in pain and loneliness and died in February 2023.
Time of India
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Battle of Longewala: When 120 Indians made 2,000 Pakistanis flee in fear
On the cold desert night of 4 December 1971, while most of the country slept, a tiny Indian Army post in Rajasthan's Thar Desert was preparing for a deadly fight. This was the Battle of Longewala , one of the most heroic moments in Indian military history. At the time, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 had begun. India's main focus was on the eastern front, where the goal was to support the creation of Bangladesh. The western front, where Longewala is located, was expected to remain quiet. #Operation Sindoor India responds to Pak's ceasefire violation; All that happened India-Pakistan ceasefire reactions: Who said what Punjab's hopes for normalcy dimmed by fresh violations But Pakistan had other plans. Read more: Cost of conflict: How India and Pakistan spend their money on defence GIF89a����!�,D; Continue to video 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Dubai villas | search ads Get Deals Undo Pakistani President Yahya Khan followed the key strategy of 'the defence of East Pakistan lies in the West". He knew East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) couldn't be defended for long, so he decided to attack western India and capture territory to use as a bargaining chip during peace talks. While most eyes were on the east, just 120 Indian soldiers from the 23rd Battalion of the Punjab Regiment were guarding the Longewala post. They were led by Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri. The post was surrounded by sand dunes and had very little backup. Live Events Then came news of a massive Pakistani force, over 2,000 soldiers with 40 tanks and heavy artillery, heading their way. Chandpuri was given a choice: retreat to Ramgarh or stay and fight. He chose to stand his ground. As the enemy tanks rumbled through the desert, an Indian patrol heard the noise. There was no time to waste. The soldiers quickly laid a fake anti-tank minefield and took up their positions. At around 12:30 a.m., Pakistani tanks opened fire. The sky lit up with explosions. But the Indian soldiers didn't panic. They waited until the tanks were very close, just 15 to 30 metres away, then fired back with recoilless rifles and shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. Two tanks were destroyed immediately. Many others got stuck in the soft desert sand. The Pakistani soldiers saw barbed wire and assumed there were landmines ahead. They stopped and waited nearly two hours to send engineers only to find it was a trick. That delay gave the Indian side precious time to prepare and strategise. Read More: Pakistan's gameplan: Always the aggressor, always the loser With no proper maps and little knowledge of the desert terrain, many Pakistani tanks got trapped. The Indian post sat on a small hill, giving them a clear view and a major advantage. To make things worse for Pakistan, it was a full moon night. When their fuel tanks caught fire, the battlefield lit up, making it even easier for Indian troops to aim. The Indian soldiers were brave, but they couldn't hold on forever. At dawn, help finally arrived, from the sky. Indian Air Force jets, Hawker Hunters and HAL Maruts, flew in. Since Pakistan had no air cover, the jets faced no resistance. A brave air controller flying a small aircraft guided the attack. The jets fired rockets and machine guns at the enemy tanks and trucks. The desert turned into a nightmare for the Pakistani army. IAF pilots later described it as a 'turkey shoot' -- the enemy had no chance. By the end of the six-hour battle, Pakistan had lost 36 tanks, over 100 vehicles, and many soldiers. The Indian side had minimal losses. Reinforcements soon arrived, and the remaining Pakistani soldiers fled, leaving behind burnt tanks and shattered trucks.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
When Pakistan Army plays with fire
Whenever Army chiefs in Pakistan with a strident anti-India posture have precipitated conflict with India, the fallout has been severe on the Pakistani people, not to mention the steep downward spiral in bilateral relations. At every juncture in the past, when democratic institutions and Pakistan's civil society have attempted to seek a dialogue with India, ambitious Generals have usurped power and deepened the India-Pakistan divide. General Ayub Khan started the rot by initiating the 1965 war with India, and his protégé General Yahya Khan took his legacy forward by precipitating the 1971 crisis that dismembered Pakistan and left its military nursing the humiliation of a military defeat. From that humiliation arose the ambitions of General Zia-Ul-Haq, who oversaw the next phase of Pakistan's descent into chaos. Alarmed with the rise of the Bhutto family and putting together a carefully crafted strategy of 'bleeding India with a thousand cuts', Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1978, and it was his regime that executed Pakistan People's Party leader and former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He then went on to systematically and successfully direct both the Pakistan Army and Pakistan's civil society on the path to 'Islamisation' and away from modernity, unmindful of missing the bus of progressive liberalisation that India was about to board. Covert war Dying in a mysterious plane crash in August 1988, Zia did not live to see his strategy of covert and asymmetric warfare against India put into practice beyond stoking secessionist fires in Punjab. However, so profound and deep had been his anti-India impact on a whole generation of Pakistani military officers, particularly from the ISI, that it was only a matter of time before Pakistan's active covert war in Jammu & Kashmir was put into motion soon after his death. The rest, as they say, is history with the covert war waxing and waning for the past three-and-a-half decades and morphing into a hybrid war that has constantly challenged India's national security establishment. After Pakistan experienced democracy for a few years, it was the turn of another ambitious Pakistan Army chief, General Parvez Musharraf. Deeply scarred by his inability to dislodge the Indian Army from the Saltoro Ridge (Siachen) during his tenure there as Pakistan's Brigade Commander in the late 1980s, he orchestrated an ambitious but ill-fated operation a decade later known as the Kargil conflict. Apart from again suffering a bruising reality check at the hands of India, Musharraf had a role in diminishing Pakistan's stature as a responsible state. In fact, it is impossible not to flag the fact that Pakistan's descent towards a 'rogue state' status commenced during his tenure at the helm of affairs in Pakistan at various levels when the attack on India's Parliament (December 2001) heralded the complete embrace of the Jihadis by the Pakistani security establishment. Since his departure from the scene, it has been downhill all the way for Pakistan with analysts suggesting that the day is not far when it could be termed a failed state, notwithstanding its emergence as proxy for a rising China. Multiple challenges Where does General Asim Munir stand in this unenviable list of Generals. Commissioned in 1986, a couple of years before Zia's death, Munir has held several prestigious appointments in the Pakistan Army including that of Director-General, Inter-Service Intelligence, and Corps Commander of the Gujranwala Corps. He took over as Pakistan's Army chief in November 2022 and has since commanded a force that has been seriously challenged for the first time by entities other than the Indian Army in the form of organised Baloch fighters and anti-Pakistan Taliban factions. For the Pakistan Army, which is probably among the few Armies in the world that owns a nation state, this was an unacceptable state of affairs. Was this the tipping point for General Munir's recent inflammatory speech to a congregation of Pakistan's diaspora that raked up anti-India sentiment and placed religion at the centre stage. To add to Munir's problems, Imran Khan too has been creating a ruckus from jail and so were the restless Jihadis in Muridke and Bahawalpur who were facing continued pressure in Kashmir at the hands of the Indian Army. The local Kashmiri population was just beginning to reap the fruits of a democratic process and improved governance. Clearly, the dastardly Pahalgam attack on selected males by terrorists belonging to The Resistance Front (TRF), an affiliate of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), could not have been conducted without a green flag and active support from Rawalpindi. There is little doubt that this desperate attack is as much an attempt to shift focus from Pakistan's western front, which does not grab public attention in Pakistan as much as India and J&K does, as it is to deflect attention from the poor performance of the Pakistan Army in its battles against Baloch rebel fighters and the Taliban. Escalation with India is clearly on Munir's mind and so is probably a grandiose idea that it may also be the right time to seize power in a situation that may be again be projected as an existential crisis for Pakistan when India retaliates at a time and place of its own choosing. It is important, during these troubled times, for India's policy makers to use the post-1988 period as a historical lens to respond to the current situation with assertiveness that goes along with the tag of being a responsible and rising power. General Asim Munir may well be lighting a fire that he may not be able to douse. (Arjun Subramaniam is a retired Air Vice Marshal and military historian, and the author of India's Wars I & II; views are personal)
