Adil Najam
On the first death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto we had carried a post asking “What if she had not been killed?” Today, on the 22nd death anniversary of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) it may be a good time to ask the same question about him.
On previous anniversaries of ZAB’s death we have asked you to comment on Mr. Bhutto and his legacy and about the rationale and reasoning given for his death by his nemesis, Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. This time let us think a little about what his death meant for Pakistan – and, thereby, for all the rest of us.
Of course, one expects a lot of naara baazi from both his supporters and his detractors. That is merely to be expected. But beyond the black and white slogans there was the man and the legacy of the man that has clearly impacted much of what has happened since his death, especially because of the nature of his removal.
Indeed, one could suggest that there are at least two separate questions here: What might have happened had Zia Ul Haq’s coup not happened and if Bhutto had lived on? And, what might have happened if Bhutto had not been hung after the trial?
How might have the PPP evolved in either of those cases? What would these have meant for Pakistan’s politics as a whole? And Pakistan’s economy and foreign relations? Pakistani institutions?
I am not presupposing any answer, nor am I suggesting that these are questions that can be logically answered precisely. But they may be questions worth thinking about today; not just to speculate about how might have happened, but much more important to think about how our acts of political expediency today can have long and deep shadows – nearly always unintended, quite often consequential, and sometimes historically disastrous even for those who orchestrate them.
I agree with HaroOn, “..The key event was not the death of Bhutto, it was the rise of Zia’s evilness.” however at the same I cann’t wait for a similar post dedicated to Asif A. Zardari.
Thousands of senseless killings in last 30yrs from sectarianism, terrorism, regionalism and religious bigotry surely would have been avoided..these were deliberately incited in order to decrease Bhuttos popularity and eliminate him from history…
In your first scenario, if Zia had not intervened then – no matter what (good or bad) – Pakistan would not have gone down the path of fundamentalism and violence it is in now. The key event was not the death of Bhutto, it was the rise of Zia’s evilness.
Simply put, our economy has yet to recover from nationalization. Regardless of ZAB’s other attributes, that single act set us back one generation at the very least. Developing countries need investment. Chasing away our business families and rattling foreign investors was disastrous. Pundits forget, institutional investors do not. Fact.
… then he would have died a natural death at some point in time.
naakaam-e tamanna dil iss soch mein rehta hae
youn hota to kya hota, youn hota to kya hota