LEGACY: Tryst with destiny
By Shahzad Raza
Benazir
Bhutto’s life was a rough journey. But she was a
tenacious person — courageous and committed, for which
credit must go to the way Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed
had trained his daughter.
“No!
The scream burst through the knots in my throat. I
couldn’t breath, I didn’t want to breathe. Papa! Papa! I
felt cold, so cold, in spite of the heat, and couldn’t
stop shaking. There was nothing my mother and I could
say to console each other.”
That is how the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed
describes in her autobiography her feelings at the time
of her father’s execution on April 4, 1979.
Twenty eight years later Benazir Bhutto might have again
uttered the word ‘Papa’ while breathing her last. Her
neck was drenched in blood. The killers had done their
job, and left the whole nation in mourning.
Ever since then different quarters have made
contradictory claims. The government has held an Al
Qaeda commander, Baitullah Mehsud, responsible for the
killing. But he has denied the charge. Eyewitnesses and
People’s Party leaders agree it was a suicide attack.
But moments before the blast, they claim, Benazir was
hit by a few bullets. They say the wound on the neck
proved fatal.
Benazir Bhutto’s life was a rough journey. But she was a
tenacious person — courageous and committed, for which
credit must go to the way Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed
had trained his daughter.
“I am 50 years old and you are exactly half my age. By
the time you reach my age, you must accomplish twice as
much as I have achieved for the people,” wrote Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto Shaheed from the gallows in June 1978 in My
Dearest Daughter. And his daughter did not disappoint
her father. A woman of substance, she endured what’s
perceived as the judicial murder of her mentor and
father. Her two brothers died unnatural deaths. She
herself faced brutal confinements, hostile martial law
regimes, countless intrigues, dissolution of her
government(s), exile, etc. But she said she was
committed to return to her country for the sake of her
people and to fulfil the promises she had made to her
father.
Born in 1953 and educated at Harvard and Oxford, Benazir
Bhutto, like her father, was a popular leader. The fall
of Dhaka and the issue of 92,000 Pakistani soldiers
captured by India in 1971 were the real challenges for
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed. In 1972, he embarked upon
his famous visit to Shimla and Benazir accompanied him.
It was the most important learning experience for her as
a teenager.
“In a corner of the drawing-room, Benazir was perched on
what seemed like a divan. First, the president teased
his daughter with that typical smirk of his, about how
she was giving interviews to Indian papers and taking
the limelight away from him,” writes a distinguished
journalist HK Burki, in 1996, in a column.
But a tumultuous time awaited the Bhuttos. It all
started when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed’s handpicked
General Ziaul Haq backstabbed his benefactor. Zia, who
was appointed Chief of the Army Staff by Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto Shaheed, preferring him over several senior
generals, ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed in a coup
in July 1977. In April 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed
was executed through what is generally believed a
judicial murder. A real test for Benazir had begun.
She was imprisoned just before her father’s death and
spent most of her five-year jail term in solitary
confinement. She was allowed to go abroad for medical
reasons and returned to Pakistan in 1986, attracting
huge crowds to her political rallies.
General Zia died in a plane crash in 1988 and Benazir
Bhutto became the first woman prime minister of a Muslim
country. She was just 35 years old. Her first government
was prematurely dismissed at the behest of the
establishment by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. She
returned to power in 1993, but again met with the same
fate, this time at the hands of her handpicked
president, Farooq Leghari.
Her government was dismissed on charges of corruption on
both occasions. But the last two governments (of Nawaz
Sharif and Pervez Musharraf) failed to prove any such
charge against Benazir and her husband Asif Ali Zardari.
Before the dismissal of the Sharif government in October
1999, Benazir went into self-exile. She was barred from
taking part in the 2002 elections, but her party bagged
the highest number of the total votes polled.
For years after the formation of the PML-Q government,
President Musharraf made frequent statements, saying
Benazir Bhutto had no role to play in the 2008
elections. He did so to appease those politically
handicapped groups which needed the crutches of the
establishment. But there are no permanent friends or
foes in politics. Mr Musharraf realised that without a
moderate leadership support he could not successfully
continue the war against terrorism. Benazir Bhutto was
the perfect choice, but she never accepted him as a
legitimately elected president.
After her return to Pakistan she publicly took on the
extremists -- something Musharraf did not dare do all
this time. Now no political leader is capable enough to
fill the void that her death has created. To many, she
was matchless, she was Benazir.
The lady had nerves of steel, and a gentle heart. “She
was an art lover,” describes noted poet and former
director-general of the Pakistan National Council of
Arts (PNCA), Kishwar Naheed. “She inherited that love
for art and culture from her parents, especially her
mother, Begum Nusrat Bhutto.”
Benazir was the one to approve a site for the PNCA right
in front of the presidency in Islamabad. Security
agencies and civil bureaucracy strongly opposed the idea
of having the artist community so close to the corridors
of power, but Benazir rejected the argument.
Many considered her a woman with an aristocratic mind
who did not like to be criticised. Journalist Nusrat
Javeed doesn’t buy that. He had countless interactions
with her and always found her extraordinarily patient.
According to him, she was the only prime minister who
tolerated the worst kind of criticism.
Benazir perhaps had foreseen her death. She knew her
absence would lead her party to disarray. She left a
will, according to which her spouse Asif Ali Zardari
would lead the party after her death. The PPP high
command has accepted the last wishes of their beloved
leader. But Zardari has entrusted the responsibility to
their son Bilawal, who has now changed his name to
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
The critics of dynastic politics always complain about
the Bhutto family’s domination in the People’s Party.
However, others argue that only the Bhuttos have
sacrificed their lives, not only for People’s Party but
also for the country.
“I give you the gift of my feelings. You will fight the
fight better than me. Your speeches will be more
eloquent than my speeches. Your commitment equally
total. There will be more youth and vitality in your
struggle. Your deeds will be more daring. I transmit to
you the blessing to the most blessed mission. This is
the only present I can give you on your birthday…”
Benazir was just 25 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed
wrote these lines to her. Now Bilawal, who turned 19
just a couple of months ago, is faced with a somewhat
similar situation. (This column is published in daily
dawn of Pakistan on 6th January 2007)
By Kaiser Bengali
BENAZIR
Bhutto is dead, martyred by a hired assassin’s bullets
in the cause of the struggle for the rights of the
people and in challenging the hegemony of a coterie of
vested interests that is feeding itself off the sweat
and blood of the people.
State minions have blamed the attack on Baitullah Mehsud,
the Taliban Amir in Pakistan, a charge that has been
duly denied. Clearly, one side is lying and, under the
circumstances, the Musharraf regime’s spokesmen do not
command any more credibility than Baitullah Mehsud’s
spokesmen.
However, it cannot be disputed that it is the duty of
the state to protect every citizen. And the state failed
to protect a citizen who a vast multitude of people
regarded as their leader and saviour and who was under
threat — by official accounts as well. To this extent,
at the very least, the Musharraf regime is responsible
and liable. However, the direct responsibility of state
functionaries cannot be ruled out altogether. The
pattern of attempts at concealment, diversion,
contradictions and concoction in the official responses
to the October carnage at Karsaz in Karachi and the
subsequent murderous attack at Liaquat Bagh in
Rawalpindi constitute disturbing pointers.
One clear case of concoction is perhaps discernable,
namely the transcript of the ‘conversation’ between
Baitullah Mehsud and his ‘maulvi’ field commander.
Technology exists to trace calls to its location within
seconds. Israel routinely uses such technology to locate
Hamas freedom fighters and surgically target the
particular vehicle, even while it is moving. It appears
that the Pakistan military possesses this technology, as
shown by its ability to pick up the ‘conversation.’ That
they were not able or willing to locate either the
‘maulvi’ or Baitullah Mehsud during their alleged
minute-long conversation smacks of incompetence or
connivance.
Incompetence and/or connivance has now emerged as a
hallmark of the Musharraf regime in different areas of
policy. Most recent is the case of Mullah Fazlullah in
Swat. Media reports of the operation of an illegal radio
station by the mullah had been appearing for more than a
year. No attempt was made to jam the broadcasts,
although the technology to jam radio signals — used even
during the Second World War — was available to Pakistani
authorities. Possession of this technology is now
proved, given that such radio signals have been jammed
since the launch of the military operation in Swat. The
question arises: is the Swat episode indicative of
incompetence or connivance?
Earlier, Pakistani forces battled militants entrenched
in the Lal Masjid/Masjid-i-Hafsa complex, suffering
several casualties and causing between several score to
several hundred deaths among the students. The Lal
Masjid episode too simmered for more than a year before
coming to a head. The question that arose then, and
which no state functionary has cared to answer to date,
is: how is it that the Ghazi brothers were able to amass
sophisticated weaponry in the heart of Islamabad — a
city where it is said that the number of intelligence
operatives outnumber the total number of janitors,
gardeners and taxi drivers combined? Once again, the
question arises: is the bloody Lal Masjid episode
indicative of incompetence or connivance?
Earlier still emerged the affair relating to Dr Abdul
Qadeer Khan’s clandestine international operations in
smuggling contraband nuclear equipment and material. The
exposure of his illicit activities was made not by
Pakistani authorities but by the United States. The
official Pakistan explanation was that he was alone in
running the smuggling ring and that Pakistani officials
were neither involved nor aware.
Dr Qadeer Khan was a high-value national asset,
protected by more than one high-powered security agency.
Those who have experienced even one day of police escort
know that the facility is double-edged. While the escort
ostensibly provides protection, it also deprives the
protected individual of a degree of privacy. That the
nuclear scientist was able to carry out an international
operation involving highly sensitive material — and
allegedly use Pakistan Air Force C-130 planes to freight
his wares around the world — without drawing the
attention of his ‘escorts’ is inconceivable. Once again
the question arises: is the Qadeer Khan episode
suggestive of incompetence or connivance?
The issue of both, incompetence and connivance is of
critical importance. If incompetence is attributed to
the above three cases — and they are by no means
exhaustive — the implication is that the country has
crossed the threshold of what defines a failed state.
The government is unable to enforce its writ; it is
unable to control illegal broadcasting stations; it is
unable to stop the accumulation of weaponry at any
location; it is unable to control individuals engaged in
smuggling of dangerous materials; it is unable to
protect the life and property of the citizens. By
inference it should be considered unable to carry out
the assigned task of assisting the United States in its
war against terror.
Attribution of connivance is more worrisome. If the
events of Swat, Lal Masjid and nuclear smuggling have
been allowed to simmer or continue with the connivance
of state functionaries, the implication is that there is
a coterie of powerful individuals within the corridors
of power who consider themselves above the law —
national or international — and unaccountable to any
principle or institution save their own definition of
interests.
The demand for an international investigation into
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination needs to be viewed in
this context. It would be irresponsible to suggest that
extra-legal operations are carried out under formal
governmental auspices. However, the repeated and
prolonged suspension of constitutional processes and the
rule of law have created extra-constitutional and
extra-legal power centres. These shadowy centres,
embedded within and around the state apparatuses, have
spawned a wide network of criminal and terrorist cells.
This is an extremely dangerous situation. If the state
allows itself to be manipulated outside the bounds of
law, the implication is that it has allowed itself to be
criminalised. If such a state closes its eyes to some of
its functionaries — or those outside but close to power
centres — collaborating with international or local
smugglers, criminals, militants or terrorists, it can be
suspected that this collaboration will at some future
date extend to a wider range of criminal and terrorist
activities in the country and abroad. The dangers
inherent for civilised society in Pakistan and for the
world community at large need to be recognised.
Clearly, substantive remedial measures are called for.
If the murder of Benazir Bhutto is attributable to
incompetence, there emerges an urgent imperative for
correcting the failed state syndromes. If it is
attributable to connivance, the corridors of power need
to be cleaned up. In particular, the cobwebs shrouding
sinister Ziaist forces in secret cells have to be
cleared and the extra-constitutional and extra-legal
power centres dismantled.
Full restoration of the rule of law is in the interest
of the political community and civil society in Pakistan
if other political or civic leaders are not to be
subjected to the threat of elimination. It is in the
interest of the international community to help the
people of Pakistan restore the rule of law if Pakistan
is not to become the focal point for lawlessness,
criminality and terrorism worldwide.
(This column is published in daily dawn of Pakistan on 6th January 2007)