News Opinion

Death of Benazir Bhutto - An Alternate Viewpoint

Usman Khalid, Pakistan, Sunday 30 December 2007

A week is a long time in politics, it is said. But sometimes a day is a long time. December 27 was one such day. In the morning Benazir met President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. The beaming smiles and the doting eyes were too obvious to miss. She was introduced to him as the future Prime Minister and her self-confidence in the inevitability of her becoming the Prime Minister was rising by the minute. But fate had the final say. Her joyous address to the people of Rawalpindi at Liaqat Bagh was to be her last public engagement. This was the very same place where another Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was shot dead. Looking for parallels of 'history repeating itself' is a common journalistic practice but often a sterile exercise. But it is impossible not to admire the raw courage of Pakistan's assassinated leaders, which is matched by the cool brutality of their assassins. This is something to lament. More important, it is something to understand.

Each assassination was different. Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan became unpopular when he agreed to a 'cease fire' in Kashmir just as Pakistan Army was poised to win. A precedent already existed. India had invaded and captured the State of Hyderabad disregarding the wish of its ruler to stay 'independent'. India asserted it was a Hindu majority state and the wish of its Muslim ruler was of no value. Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and the wish of its Hindu ruler was likewise of no consequence. But India sent in its troops when Maharaja's forces had been routed by the people of Kashmir and tribal lashkars. Liaqat Ali Khan was accused of betrayal. The person who shot him dead was not driven by that betrayal but the public looked at it as 'Divine justice'. Since the political class continues to write the history of Pakistan; the peoples' verdict is not a part of our official view of history.

Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was assassinated by persons well known with motives equally well known. Mr Bhutto wanted to make the political class sensitive to the hopes and aspirations of the ordinary working people. He re-built the morale shattered by the defeat in 1971 but also upset the erstwhile privileged classes – the clerics, the feudals and the bureaucracy. By themselves they were ineffective; they sought the blessing of the USA who wanted to punish Mr Bhutto for his nuclear programme started in the wake of India's nuclear tests in 1974. The USA got its protégé – Zia ul Haq – appointed as the COAS and used him to overthrow Bhutto Government. This time the Army had overthrown a popular leader. General Zia had to have law on his side. He used the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court to send Mr Bhutto to the gallows. Thus started a new chapter of history in which the Judges and the Generals became accomplices in violation of law and the Constitution.

Musharraf came to power in a coup d'etat in 1999 after four successive administrations over ten years - Benazir and Nawaz Sharif each elected twice - failing spectacularly. It appeared like normal succession - bloodless and joyous. Then Musharraf decided he must perpetuate himself in power. A concern for law and the Constitution, for public hopes and aspirations, evaporated not only from the political class but also the military brass. Politics became a game to be played in tandem with the military or the super-rich; even support from the enemy – India – came to be seen as kosher.

That is when the judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry came to take suo moto notice of gross violations of law. TV channels in the private sector, driven by demand, started to provide factual information and a class of credible commentators came to the fore. It suddenly became clear that without 'rule of law' and 'free media' democracy was impossible. The quest for restoration of democracy has become linked in the public mind to the resumption of broadcast by Geo TV and the reinstatement of the judges who refused to take oath on the PCO on 3 November. Significantly, neither the US Government nor Benazir attached any value to this link. Is it because the free media is seen by the US as a threat to its war on terror? Perhaps not! It is more likely that America sees 'fair judges' and 'free media' to be a threat to their protégé – Musharraf. One thing, however, is quite clear and certain; the ministers of Musharraf were quickly exposed to be incompetent liars. There was a need for an articulate and charismatic leader as spokesman.

Benazir Bhutto was world class in charisma; one just wanted to believe her. With her support to the US war on terror, the war just might be won. She took the bait and might have been seen to be making headway. But the 'resistance' speaks the language of bombs and bullets. The Afghans have always fought outsiders and driven them out. There are three times as many Pashtun in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. They are one people. They see NATO forces as occupiers and President Hamid Karzai as their collaborator. Benazir condemned all resistance. Unlike Musharraf, she had the ability to nuance her comments. She did not have to condemn all fighters as terrorists; most of them constitute genuine resistance to occupation. She paid a heavy price for her lack of care in choice of words. Would leaders in the West and the Muslim World learn a lesson?