Yasser Latif Hamdani
Pakistan is mourning. It is not just Benazir Bhutto but the dream of Pakistan itself that is in pieces.
Pakistan was envisaged as a modern democratic homeland for the Muslim minority of British India as a last resort by Pakistan’s founding father Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who had fought for it to ensure the political and economic future of his people. Jinnah‘s Pakistan was to be a land free of exploitation, religious exclusion, bigotry and intolerance. It was this dream that Benazir and her father echoed, though not always consistently, making the Bhuttos immensely popular amongst the people of Pakistan.
Today this dream looks to be coming to an end. Pakistan stands at the threshold of a great tragedy. We are gripped with uncertainty, with Bhutto‘s home province of Sindh ablaze with agitation and violence. The whole country is paralyzed. Benazir was known as the common link and leader who brought all four provinces together behind her, making her the one truly national leader we had at present.
The elder Bhutto had authored in 1967 “Myth of Independence” about Pakistan and its role in the world which definitively shaped Pakistan’s foreign policy especially the way ZAB played a pivotal role in bringing the US and China closer together and cracking open the anti-US eastern bloc and in one smart move creating a counterbalance to India. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto viewed the survival of Pakistan as part of a thousand years struggle of the survival of Muslim community in the subcontinent. His own passionate love affair with Pakistan had a lot to do with how closely the Bhutto family’s fortune had been intertwined with Pakistan from the start. The house in Naudero played host to Jinnah many times during Bhutto‘s childhood and people forget that it was the wily Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto who had managed to get the Junagadh document of accession for Jinnah thereby upsetting several British calculations.
Bhutto himself had played a key role in organizing a successful student strike in Bombay in 1946 for the Muslim League or so Bhutto claimed in his last days. This is why anyone who has read his biography is struck by how far Bhutto went to identify himself in the public perception with the memory of Jinnah. His deeply personalized involvement in the Jinnah propagation project through out 1976 and his distribution of his own photograph in the Jinnah cap was an indication of this. If there was ever a politician who was an ultra-nationalist in Pakistan it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Throughout his career as the foreign minister he subscribed to the idea that India was out to gobble up Pakistan. Remember Bhutto started his career as firmly an establishment man inducted by Sikandar Mirza and retained by Ayub Khan so he furthered the national security thesis which at the time meant extra-reliance on the US but bitter experience in the 1965 war taught Bhutto that Pakistan needed a range of options in foreign policy. The menu Bhutto created included a combo of China and US aimed at Soviet expansionism which he saw as the prime backer of India. It was this reason that forced Bhutto to famously declare that
“if India makes the bomb, then we will eat grass but make our bomb”.
ZAB was a remarkable politician and a diplomat. He was no anti-imperialist though. Whatever his posturing he was at the end of the day a US ally who drove a hard bargain. Throughout his half a decade in power he continued to try and convince the US that he was a more reliable ally than the Shah of Iran. It was Bhutto who started the Afghan insurgency against the pro-communist government there at the US behest. PPP, ZAB and BB were the greatest champions of the Kashmir cause. The Bhutto family had very close ties with the Mir Waizes and this shows in how Srinagar reacted yesterday. Kashmir was a central tenet of the original PPP manifesto.
That ZAB gave the country a unanimous constitution is an undeniable fact. Unfortunately his use of religion was theological and not as a tool of identity formation. In contrast Jinnah had to put theological issues on the backburner to bring shias, sunnis, ahmadis, ismailis, etc on one platform. Bhutto‘s unfortunate action opened up a pandora’s box of theological disputes. That said Ahmadis did not face persecution per se even after their constitutional excommunication. It was Zia ul Haq who tormented us. All in all when one says that BB continued her father’s mission through out her life, the mission was always the preservation of Pakistan and not some undefined imperialist agenda which the elder Bhutto used a political slogan. No one would have said it 10 years ago but Benazir Bhutto as a leader and global figure stood head and shoulders above her famous father. Not above opportunism and manipulation, the mercurial Zulfikar Ali Bhutto banked on cheap popularity and often followed the sentiments of the people (Friday as a weekly holiday, ban on horse racing, alcohol and gambling, all of which he himself enjoyed, and ofcourse the Ahmadi issue being a clear example of it). Benazir was an intellectual of a much higher ability and a leader who was in 2007 finally ready to lead instead of being led
This is why the loss of Benazir Bhutto is greater than that of her father. Her loss is more akin to the loss of Shaheed-e-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, who was assassinated in the same place and whose death remains a mystery. The crisis that followed paved way for people like Bogra and then the Military, who didn’t threaten to go to Moscow, as LAK had done, to derive a greater bargain.
Now the world is beginning to point fingers at Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The difference between all previous such events and now is that Pakistan was strong enough to withstand the sudden eliminations of Liaqat Ali Khan, Bhutto and Zia. But Benazir Bhutto was, as the slogan said, charon soobon ki zanjeer, the true symbol of the federation. The fact that even the Baloch nationalists cried out for her shows how above and beyond Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir had proved to be. Her sudden disappearance from the scene has given many enemies of Pakistan a lot of ammunition with which to destroy the country. Some elements have gone so far as to question the very existence of Pakistan. In this hour of great darkness, we see a resolute Pakistan People’s Party standing committed to the federation. Will this be enough to keep ethnic separatists as well as Pakistan’s international detractors at bay? Only time will tell.
May Bilawal Bhutto Zardari now have the courage to follow in his illustrious mother’s footsteps. His politics must be guided by the fine egalitarian principles that Mahomed Ali Jinnah gave to Pakistan, for which his grandfather and his mother toiled through out their lives.
“Why Benazir is not Aung Sun Suu Kyi”
Agreed. Benazir Bhutto is head and shoulders above Suu Kyi… be it in impact, importance or what she means to her country.
Burma with or without Suu kyi is Burma. Pakistan without Benazir is tragedy.
Even, if, we ignore the way Bilawal has been appointed the chairman, we can not ignore the fact that he has not spent much time in Pakistan and probably he does not have any affiliation to Pakistan apart from that it is a country where his granfather, mother and father (oops) used to rule. The country that his family has looted to live the luxurious life he is living with his family in Dubai’s some 30 to 35 million dirham villa and many other properties.
He has not studied in any school in Pakistan and is now studying in England. The only Pakistan history he has or would have studied from his corrupt and biased parents.
None of the Pakistanis should expect him to come back after completing his studies to change their lives. He will come back only to stash away few more billions of dollars if the country remains by then.
Truely, a huge loss for Pakistan. The Bhutto’s have sacrificied so much for Pakistan, yet they remain so loyal.
Our nation will realise what Benazir meant to us in the years to come.
Pakistan is a dream turned sour, sad, very sad.
Why Benazir is not Aung Sun Suu Kyi
In another democratic move, the daughter and darling of the west, in her will, decided to chose her 19 year old son as the legitimate heir of the feudal dynasty.
Her will clearly shows that even from her grave, she wants to make sure that feudalism thrives in the country and democracy is trampled and crushed under the heels of nepotism and corruption.
Lets stop making an Aung San Suu Kyi out of her because Aung San has been virtually under house arrest by the Burmese military for the past 15 years. Ms Aung was given the option to leave the country to meet her family in Britian with the condition that if she leaves, she would never be allowed to return back. Ms Aung chose to stay back with her people, not meet her family members and sacrifice her family life for the sake of her country. Her husband died of prostate cancer and she was never able to meet him.
http://sjunaidn.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-benazir-i s-not-aung-san-suu-kyi.html
To expect Bilawal Zardari to behave in ‘egalitarian’ manner and thus outside of the culture and norms of his feudal (and therefore necessarily undemocratic) upbringing is to expect a fish to breathe outside of water.
The reason we’re in such a big mess is that we (yes YOU and ME, the “pakistanis”) have a tendency to overlook our own exceptionalism and decry and condemn it only when it impinges on our own interests.
I see no difference in Musharraf saying, “I’m the best man for the job” and nearly all our parties saying the same thing by acting de-facto hereditary institutions. And please, enough with the Gandhi’s . It is no excuse for undemocratic behaviour.
In any case, the cult following of PPP by the poor may be an indication that the poor remember the dream better than those whom they follow, who seem to have forgotten in. Willing party leaderships to their kin in hereditary documents.
Both Musharraf (or any generic generalissimo ) and our current crop of politicians are engaging in self-serving exceptionalism. There is something fundamentally wrong with a political party fighting for democracy not having it within it’s own ranks. Having a cult following is no excuse. People being ‘uneducated’ is no excuse. The role of political parties, and especially a so called People’s party should be to educate people by example.
Democracy is not just a word. It is a feedback mechanism for the organism known as a party, society or nation. Just like a nervous system is a feedback mechanism for an organism. Organisms that don’t have a nervous system, usually get eaten by those which do.
Sad to say, but that seems to be the law of nature.
It is not a coincidence that nations that are strong are the ones who just happen to have this mechanism in place, and the ones getting their behinds kicked just happen to have dictatorships and undemocratic means of governance.
P.S. I’m not a party hack, so please don’t take my comment as a partisan attack on political parties. All are engaging in the same kind of undemocratic shenannigans, and it goes back to the lack of a coherent identity in Pakistanis.