Remembering Benazir Bhutto
Raza Rumi retraces the bittersweet legacy of Benazir Bhutto (published in the Friday Times)
It was only yesterday that we were mourning for the loss of an icon of our times. The much loved, and passionately hated Benazir Bhutto whose tragic murder in broad daylight was the greatest metaphor of what Pakistan has turned into: a jungle of history, ethnicity and extremism. Little wonder that Bhutto’s worst enemies cried and lamented the loss of a federal politician whose life and times were as unique as her name. The populist slogan – charon soobon ki zanjeer (the chain of the four provinces, literally) could not have been truer than the most tested of axioms. As if her death were not enough, the state response was even more brutal. Why did she participate in public rallies? On that fateful day of December 27, 2007, why did she invite death by sticking her neck out – literally and metaphorically? This was tragedy compounded by invective and betrayal. After all, had she not received a tacit understanding from the then military President, General Pervez Musharraf?
The official machinery then went to work in a super-efficient frenzy. Within hours, the murder scene had been washed away, right opposite the Liaqat Bagh in Rawalpindi where Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was also shot dead. If anything history repeated itself with a bang – only to restate that Pakistani Prime Ministers are dispensable accessories of the power game. The misogynistic thirst for blood-letting once quenched, patriarchy dictated that the autopsy of a woman became an issue of honour, confusion and violation of the law. How telling, that the laws of the land remain subservient to the imperatives of culture and tradition.
Within a day, Pakistan shook and the world also felt the tremors from an already stinking cesspool of violence, terror and global mischief. Many Pakistanis think these labels are of imperialist manufacture, reeking of hogwash. But the case has been made: Pakistan is a rogue and failing state and no one is safe.
The year that followed this ‘Himalayan’ tragedy has also witnessed bitter ironies of our times. An election was held in February after all, returning BB’s party to power and her husband ascended the throne of Islamabad with the smaller provinces fully backing him. While all of this political capital has been realised by her party and its semi-autonomous government, the investigation of the murder has remained suspended by fear of facing the demons within Pakistan’s body politic and by a classic passing of the buck to the United Nations, an unwilling, doubly inefficient and disinterested investigator.
Perhaps this is why the cult of Bakhtawar, the brave Sindhi peasant woman, has been reinvoked in Sindh and the dispossessed rural poor relate to this plight of an otherwise, rich, glamourous, and famous leader. The last moments of her life with a hand waving gesture frozen in time, have added to the cultural premium on martyrdom. That BB was passionate and good-hearted is not the point. She was more endowed with emotional gusto and courage than many male politicians. Three political phases defined her career: a decade of struggle against the dictator General Zia ul Haq in the 1980s, another decade of power, ignominy and isolation; and the last decade of exile, re-emergence and populist redemption. All these phases share a common trait: her steel-nerved nature and commitment to sticking to her guns. Even when the world told her that her nearest and dearest had destroyed her image through dubious deals, she remained pretty steadfast in her position and rarely backtracked from it. But it was the deeply embedded tragic flaw, a trait shared by mythical characters, of finding and defending misguided friends and allies that ultimately booted her out of power.
Or at least that was the excuse. As we well know, there is an embargo on politicians thinking of, less plotting, systemic change. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s fate at the hands of the military was there for all to see. But even normally quiescent and occasional challengers like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were not tolerated as assertive Prime Ministers. So Ms Bhutto compromised and compromised some more and became an adept player at realpolitik. By 2008, the progressive elements of the middle class, the urban constituencies of the Pakistan People’s Party had moved on from the PPP – for some Nawaz Sharif became the symbol of urbanity and modernity, and for others, the lawyers’ movement was the ultimate panacea for Pakistan’s unjust structures. In addition, many young men veered off towards the folds of extremist ideologies for a sense of identity and in search of livelihood and survival in an anarchic society.
This is why there were such histrionics about the alleged deals with the US and General Musharraf in 2007 aimed at securing her safe return to Pakistan. We still don’t know the truth. But if author Ron Suskind is to be believed then the deal was pretty much a low bargain for poor BB. She urged Vice President Dick Cheney time and again to urge the Musharraf administration to provide a credible security cover. Apparently such exhortations went unheeded and the guarantees and guarantors filled in the jigsaw of a betrayal game. Or was it the alarming naiveté of a towering woman with a sharp mind that she believed in them, in the first place? Historians will have a hard time figuring this out, given the mess of history, politics, and imperialism, not to mention the complex personality of the late Benazir Bhutto.
Ultimately what needs to be recognised is that BB was a Pakistani politician who had to be understood and judged within her own context. For decades, especially since her return to Pakistan in 1988, millions of people projected their idealistic and unrealistic political expectations on to her persona. As if somehow she were above and beyond the troubling confines of Pakistan, as if she were a myth in her own lifetime. In the end, she was a flesh and blood character with strengths and flaws; her charisma, naiveté and astute political sense, her quest for power, all jostling within the same personality. On that incredible morning of December 28, 2007, when the realisation of a Pakistan without BB struck the minds and hearts of Pakistanis, did it begin to sink in what she had meant to us. There was a wave of unprecedented mourning – far greater than bestowed upon her father, whose death was celebrated by many sections of Pakistani society. Benazir had been part of the lives of Pakistanis for three decades. And whatever her record in governance, there was always the hope with millions of Pakistanis that she could redeem her promise. All that, and her outstanding courage in the midst of adversity, her humanity (she was not vindictive like her father), her frailty and the barbarity of a country that cuts down its most gifted in the prime of their lives, is what united Pakistanis in a surge of grief. It was as if we had lost part of our history.
But what are we to make of her legacy? Her critics had always imagined her to be outside the mainstream parameters of Pakistan, since hers was a political existence shaped by patronage, ethnicity, corruption and an all-powerful establishment. BB’s fundamental identity and relevance stemmed from the fact she was Pakistani at the end of the day. For better or worse, she kept herself relevant and central until there was no option but to kill her. This is why Tariq Ali’s unkind cuts, Darlymple’s complaint of her being a feudal are all understandable if viewed within the larger context of her hydra-identity. She was a woman, a pragmatist like every male politico in Pakistan, a feudal and an urbanite, a Westernised woman as well as the daughter of a small Sindhi village called Garhi Khuda Bux, which she now rests in peace.
On the record of her governance, there was much that could have been avoided. Her inexperience in her first stint of twenty months and her calculated deference to the military in her second term left many Pakistanis disappointed. None of this was lost on her because, as far as her ego would allow it, she made oblique reference to ‘mistakes’ in the final years of her life. Nevertheless, five years in power in a political career spanning three decades is way too short a time to make definitive assessments. On the negative side, she gave up too easily on the structural changes that her party stood for; and her inability to contain corruption in her governments was glaring. On the positive side, the creation of the successful First Women’s Bank, her outreach to India in her first term, her tolerance for a free press and her support for General Musharraf’s Women’s Empowerment Bill are well known. Also well known is the fact that she was a bulwark against the forces of darkness, a truly federal democrat and a non-vindictive power-wielder. But assessments of BB will remain partial and incomplete until we achieve a collective emotional distance from those lost years of the 1990s when the establishment undid the civilian order and laid the foundations of today’s dysfunctional Pakistan, and brought it to the brink of failure. There will come a time when such assessments will be made without cavil, for even if Benazir Bhutto agreed to work with the national security imperatives of governance and was willing to compromise time and again, the unraveling of Pakistan can be dated as commencing from her death at the hands of a suicide bomber on December 27, 2007.
All My Posts, History, On Pakistan, Politics, Published in The Friday Times, Sindh
A good article….today I remember again that fateful day a year back….DEspite never having been a PPP supporter, I admire her courage and am sad at her death because it was a foul murder of a woman who was a mother and a fighter in the male-dominated world of politics.
This is a very balanced writing and let me tell you that not only in Pakistan there are admirer of BB in India. The loss of BB is a great loss not for Pakistan but for both the nation and for the region.
Nice piece but I guess it is tilted to much in favor of BB.
The article also did not shed any light on her life partner’s ‘great’ record. She too bears the responsibility for whatever he has been doing.
Her non-democratic approaches within the party and her America-backed deal with the military regime too are important issues.
Irfan
thanks for the comment.. the purpose of this piece was to remember late BB and not her better half. And the issues that you mentioned have been raised in the narrative. If there was a BB-US-military deal, surely her security would not have been that pathetic leading to the death of the last of federal politicians.
DENIAL or SELF-DELUSION ?
I have read a little about Late. Mr. Z.A. Bhutto and also about Ms. Benazir Bhutto. I have tried to be objective – but certain facts remain that have to find utterance.
The person of Z.A. Bhutto was not right for Pakistan and viceversa. Bhutto (and for that matter, even Mr. Jinnah) were made of clay that was perfect to challenge the hegemony of Hindutva in United India. They understood (in broad terms – forget the technicalities) the ethos of Muslim Civilisation. Their intent was a search for “equality” ! Jinnah was reasonable to the point of “fault” and talked sense. He never said, the British had taken India from the Mughals (read Muslims); and must surrender same to their original owners i.e. Muslims. He understood the principle of “equality” of man., and one-man-one-vote., and always sought for the rightful place for Muslims in United India. Equality… Equality… and Equality. That was what Jinnah sought. He never sought “supremacy” of Muslims vis-a-vis the non-muslim majority of India. It was the “reasonableness” of his demand and his sincere advocacy that led to Pakistan.
Sardar Patel replied to Jinnah’s reasonable-ness with brutality. Ethnic Cleansing has always been a successful tool in politics. Jinnah was taught the lesson that “Ethnic Cleansing” was real politics., by Patel. Jinnah was a Constitutionalist – not a rabble rouser – not one to lead Dharnas – not one to go for Hunger Strikes – and paralyse the Nation. He wanted “peaceful transition”. His counter-parts had OTHER ideas ! Even the worst enemies of Jinnah like RSS could never think or utter that Jinnah could plan communal riots. Jinnah could NOT do that. Jinnah could argue and win… but not use Ethnic Cleansing as a counter.
After Jinnah came Bhutto. Bhutto could not do much because Pakistan was a country with very limited funds and there was no tax-base. He spent 5.5 years in power giving great speeches – laying out policy (a great foreign policy). Fact of the matter is., in Jinnah’s time, there was no one to match his intellectual stature. In Bhutto’s time too., there was no one to challenge his intellectual stature. He fell in love with himself. He was afterall human. He had his flaws – yet – he was a great asset to Pakistan. He was not a person to get rid off. His mastery of Foreign Policy was great. He was embarassing the “mighty”., and a times even outsmarted them. They got rid of him.
Now comes Benazir. She did not have the intellectual stature of ZA Bhutto., yet., among her contemporaries she was outstanding. ZA Bhutto had read extensively. Bhutto truly admired Nehru – and had dreamt of Benazir being another Indira Gandhi. He had those dreams for her. He equipped her for it. ZA Bhutto had nerves of steel. Benazir inherited that quality from her father – but – again the environment was not conducive.
Afterall they were Sindhis., and Punjabis NEVER accepted the Bhutto Surname. Bhutto tried his level best., but could not. Neither his oratory, nor his strong-arm tactics (thru Ghulam Mustafa Khar and Rao Rashid) worked. He bruised the Punjabi egos.
ZA Bhutto was made to be a great Lawyer / head of a think tank / writer / Foreign Policy Expert but not an “Administrator”. Having intellect is one thing – having Administrative Quality is totally another. No doubt Bhutto worked hard and cleared the files in his office same day – he was not loved universally in his country, unlike Jawaharlal Nehru (his idol). In his earlier years, Mr. ZA Bhutto fashioned his life/career on the lines of Mr. Jinnah… and in his last years, he had Nehruvian dreams (esp. when it came to Benazir).
Basically, there was no money. There was no team. There were good people like Rafi Raza – but there was too much international intrigue. ZA Bhutto put too much on his plate and got involved in international intrigues. That undid him. Benazir came to power (limited power i.e.)., and gave speeches etc., but again could not revolutionise Pakistan., simply because IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
Land reform is key. Neither father nor daughter could accomplish it. I am told Bhuttos owned 250,000 acres (some said 100,000) of land. They should have surrendered same to the tenants and set an example. Bhutto Saheb nationalised industries (but not the Jagirdars). He alienated the Capitalists, the Army, the Maulvis, (Mullah-Military+Capitalist Trioka). That brought his downfall. Benazir pacified with the Capitalists., accepted the role of the Army and accomodated it., and even pacified with the Maulvis. Inspite of the 180 degree turn., the rhetoric remained similar.
Pakistan had (has) become too complicated., too contradictory to govern. ZA Bhutto understood it., but he hoped for miracles. He had that great quality which a leader must have. Even Benazir (who was “match-less”); couldnt do any solid ground-work. Both father-and-daughter gifted Pakistan its nuclear capability… armed Pakistan… no doubt a gr8 achievement for a poor country… but they could NOT bring about a societal change. Simply because it was NOT possible. ZA Bhutto and Benazir were the right material to be in politics – but not on the Pakistani Stage. In a United India., they could have excelled.
There was no money. India did exactly what Israel did in Gaza. Silent torture… India’s piling up of arms forced Pakistan to do its part. In this tussle., the big party (India) could somehow arm itself plus pull thru (economies of scale advantage) – but Pakistan was threatened from 14 Aug 1947 up to this day. To match this daily-threat., they had to starve to buy weapons. This is the reason 60 years were wasted. India forced and changed the “dreams” of Pakistanis.
ZA Bhutto and Benazir had great talents – and they were assets – that should have been preserved… atleast for advice… or for their intellectual rigor. They were not people to be eliminated. Even after they are gone., the problems remain. Half of Pakistan (NWFP and Baluchistan) are beyond the Government’s writ. What remains now is Punjab & Sind ! Sind is highly sensitive. What remains is Punjab and Lahore…. so why will the Punjabi and the Army not FEEL his importance and supremacy ? The Law is operational ONLY in Punjab.
Pakistan is simply not working (with or without Bhutto). It has got embroiled in the game of super-power poker. What is the solution now. I think a United India. India-Pakistan-Bangladesh., to be back as one nation. Any plan will do., just merge the 3 countries. (like a corporate merger). Otherwise the hatred manuals of RSS/VHP/DurgaVahini/Bajrang Dal., matched by the Maulvi-Military tie-up in Pakistan., plus the fundamentalist wave in Bangladesh will continue to lead to disasters, one after another.
The whole of SE Asia is fed hatred 24×7. Listen to Zee TV / Star TV / Gujarati newspapers/channels from India., listen to the Maulvi in Pakistan. They are in a rage 24×7 for years. The 3 countries must merge.
PS. The post is about Benazir., but i got swayed., as the canvas got enlarged and got blurred. But the macro world-view is more important than a technicality., hence this flaw.
RR, you wrote to me following this tragic incident and referred to a song that you had heard on one of the Sindhi TV channels. In my opinion, in her death, she has overtaken her father on the popularity scorecard. She has acquired the status of any of Shah’s heroines, wronged by the society, chained like Marvi who yearns freedom longing to be back with her people, like Sassui embarking on a trip to face and lose the battle against unfathomable challenges.
Her face adorns the trucks that I saw on the motorway between Karachi and Gwadar, she has finally come home to rest in our public conscience. The comment about Asif Zardari and his role in her years in office is evidence that even in her death, people would not let it be.
A great tribute on your part. I also loved Zafar Hilaly’s series in the Friday Times in case you missed it