I do not intend to add anything new to the debate today. It is the 29th death anniversary of Zulfi Bhutto and the questions that I had raised in one of my past columns have not been answered yet. That is why I am posting that column here that was originally published in the Pakistani press. While it is natural that some friends may have read it in the past I am sure my international audience will find it indeed interesting. So here is the article for your perusal.

Why was Bhutto hanged?

Originally published on 03/12/2006

“We have no intention of any witch-hunting. It is up to the next lot of elected representatives of the people, or the people themselves, to take action against the politicians. The courts are still functioning and we have not stopped anyone from going to the courts to take the politicians to task. Then why do they want me or the military or the armed forces to hang a few politicians? Why should I? Isn’t it as much of a concern of the public as it is mine? It should be done by them, if it is to be done.” This is what Ziaul Haq told the press corps on July 14, 1977.

While he kept insisting that it was not his job to try or execute Bhutto and that his sole aim was to conduct the next elections and leave, between the lines he was already inviting the aggrieved ones from the Opposition’s ranks to move the courts to seek Bhutto’s death. July 14 is important because it was the same day chosen by our deposed hedonistic and charismatic prince Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to write two highly confidential letters to the Soviet and Chinese ambassadors. In these letters he made no bones about his intention to go ahead and pull Pakistan out of the US-sponsored anti-communist Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). Indeed, much before Bhutto’s removal from the throne, many of the pro-West stalwarts in the establishment including men like Agha Shahi had expressed great concern over the Prime Minister’s non-aligned, or in their words, pro-Soviet ambitions.

Bhutto remains to this date the most charismatic, the most enigmatic and the most controversial leader of our recent history. If some consider him a national villain, many worship him as a visionary, at times a seer, and indeed a martyr. There is no doubt that he had his strengths and weaknesses. In plain words, he was neither a god nor a devil. He was an interesting ripple in the still waters of this nation muddied by the colonial legacy that was mistaken by the brown sahibs of the establishment as a whirlpool. He is blamed by many to have choreographed the fall of East Pakistan. Yet, it is difficult for any of us mortals to substantiate such a claim because in General Niazi’s own words, it was the refusal of the Pakistan armed forces led by Yahya to own the eastern wing of the country. Bhutto was an outright proponent of a radical shift in our foreign policy and a nationalist who literally wept at the news of the Quaid-e-Azam’s death. If he had a true tragic flaw, it was his weakness to judge the character of his chosen associates. Had he been free of this weakness, he would have known that he was embracing the most treacherous of the lot. On one side, he chose pygmies like Mustafa Khar, Masood Mahmood and Afzal Saeed Khan who became ready ‘approvers’ of his excesses, on the other he overlooked the dark secrets of Zia’s military career. It was Zia who as a brigadier in 1970 had spearheaded genocide against the Palestinian refugees in Jordan in a humble service to the American agenda in the region. Bhutto, however, could not see that such a person would be highly incompatible with the non-aligned foreign policy he was propounding.

Bhutto’s hanging is equally controversial. In fact, in 2004 the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan was moved for the registration of an FIR of murder against one of the members of the bench that tried him, Justice (retired) Naseem Hassan Shah, who later became the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The petition was based on two interviews of Shah in which he confessed that the bench was indeed influenced by Zia and that justice was possible had Bhutto not offended the bench members during the course of the trial. This clearly reflects upon the state of justice in this country. That the case of Kasuri’s murder was a damp squib from the very start is clear from the fact that his son not only joined the Pakistan People’s Party immediately, but also sought the party ticket for the 1977 elections. When the ticket was denied and Bhutto removed from power, he approached the courts.

Why was Bhutto hanged then when in third word countries rulers get away with much more heinous crimes? The question remains to this day unanswered. Bhutto in his book, If I am assassinated, tried to find reasons of his own. On one side, he highlighted his decision to quit CENTO as a major reason, on the other he also recalled how Henry Kissinger had threatened him with dire consequences if he continued with his nuclear plans. Kissinger, now partially deaf and blind in one eye, vociferously denies the charge. We would have believed in the dead man’s words had we not known that his overthrow and hanging did not take place during Kissinger’s stay in power. In 1977, President Carter had taken over in Washington and his new man on the global and anti-communist strategy was Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski and not Kissinger. However, had Bhutto survived for a few more years he would have known that the explanation for his displacement could only be found in the future clash of the two superpowers in Afghanistan. Brzezinski, in order to outshine Kissinger, had planned some serious manipulations in the Soviet backyard and the presence of an unpredictable leader in Islamabad could hardly serve the cause. Hence, a General known to the US for his services was allowed to topple an elected government.

It is my belief that Bhutto could have been spared from his tragic fate had there been any possibility of his not returning to power. Yet, his charisma and popularity were enough to bring him back once the coterie of the sycophants that had really corrupted his rule had been dislodged in one way or the other by the military coup. Bhutto’s hanging is among the saddest chapters of our history when some people for their ambition and greed do not hesitate to slay their own mentors. There is a saying in the lower cadres of the army officer corps. It is said that the US for its interests nurtures potential coup makers in the army from their very budding in Pakistan. Thus far, nothing has been found to disprove this assessment.

—–
And since you have read it please do read the following article by a fellow columnist and intellectual reviewing my above column:

Confederation of the elite!

Published on 10/12/2006

Muhammad Ahsan Yatu

‘Why was Bhutto hanged?’ is the title of an article (The Post December 3, 2006) by Farrukh Khan Pitafi. He has touched the most disturbing side of the tragedy. I myself tried so many times to write about Kasuri’s rejoining of the PPP, but couldn’t. Kasuri applied not only for the PPP ticket but also declared emotionally that Begum Nusrat Bhutto was like his real sister. A few years later, he got his sister’s husband hanged. Whenever I remember those years I throw up at the vile side of human nature.

Besides the hanging of Bhutto, many similar and saddening political questions arise: ‘Why was the Quaid’s speech of August 11, 1947, blocked?’ ‘Why were the Bengalis killed on the question of national language?’ ‘Why was the Objectives Resolution passed in an era of enlightenment?’ ‘Why was Karachi made the capital city of Pakistan?’ ‘Why was accession of a Hindu majority state of Junagadh with Pakistan accepted?’ ‘Why was war in Kashmir started?’ ‘Why was the Red Shirts’ government in NWFP dismissed?’ ‘Why was accession of Balochistan obtained at gunpoint?’ ‘Why didn’t Liaquat visit Moscow?’ ‘Why did the army start intervening in state affairs from the very beginning?’ ‘Why was feudalism and tribalism not abolished?’ ‘Why was the majority of Pakistanis, the Bengalis, not given their share in political and economic matters?’ ‘Why was a constitution not made?’ ‘Why was Liaquat Ali murdered?’ ‘Why was a mentally deranged person like Ghulam Muhammad made governor general of Pakistan?’ ‘Why was a bureaucrat having no political experience made prime minister?’ ‘Why was One Unit made?’ ‘Why was the Constitution of 1956 made while violating all the norms of constitutionalism?’ ‘Why was martial law imposed?’ ‘Why was the capital shifted to Islamabad?’ ‘Why was martial law imposed again?’ ‘Why did the army and the administration receive in all the budgets much more funds than the people of Pakistan?’ These questions must be raised if we want to know why Pakistan was divided through a military defeat in 1971. It must be done if we want to save the remaining Pakistan from further tragedies.

The post-1971 era raises more questions: ‘Why did Bhutto raise the numerical strength of the army when the country was reduced to half?’ ‘Why did a ‘socialist’ Bhutto give a conservative Constitution?’ ‘Why was the Objectives Resolution kept intact?’ ‘Why was the issue of provincial autonomy not solved?’ ‘Why were the governments of NAP removed in Balochistan and Frontier?’ ‘Why were the Baloch killed?’ ‘Why were curricula Islamised?’ ‘Why were the militant Afghan leaders brought to Islamabad in 1975?’ ‘Why was the fatal anti-Soviet policy pursued by Bhutto so vigorously?’ ‘Why did Bhutto not tolerate even a weak opposition?’ ‘Why did Bhutto start the nuclear programme despite knowing that he was leading an illiterate and extremely poor nation?’ ‘Why did Bhutto give the army the budgetary funds more than any other ruler did?’ ‘Why did Bhutto not solve the Kashmir problem at Simla?’ ‘Why did Bhutto make General Ziaul Haq the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) when he knew that he had killed thousands of Palestinians and was also a sympathiser of the Jamaat-e-Islami ( JI)?’ ‘Why did Bhutto not enter into a deal as Nawaz Sharif did?’

Each day of Pakistan’s history has its own questions. Before more questions, a few more lines on the question raised by Mr. Pitafi. Bhutto was no doubt a politician full of momentum. No other politician could match him in this regard. He was also the only Pakistani politician who was not racist. He was Sindhi by birth only. The rest of his person was a composition of Allama Iqbal’s poetry. He was an Islamist to the core and a Pakistani by all those definitions that the intellectuals from Lahore - the torchbearers of the ideology of Pakistan - wanted to see in their leader. He was a believer in a strong Centre and a strong Ummah. This was his political vision and it helped him win Punjab. This was his weakness also. Poetry can never replace political science.

Bhutto was hanged not because he had murdered somebody or had differences with the army and the bureaucracy or that he was anti-American or making Pakistan nuclear or neutral. He was killed because the army and the bureaucracy believed, and rightly so, that he would keep on winning elections after elections and that was not to be tolerated. Mr. Pitafi has also given this last reason. And it is no ordinary reason. It meant that the provinces were likely to get financial autonomy someday. The army and the administration, as long as they were in their acquired shape and strength, would never allow it. They surrendered half of Pakistan to save their interests. They would not take any chances, no matter what it would cost. It is simple mathematics. It is the politics of the usurpers, the internal imperialists and the colonisers. It is not poetry. It is pragmatism. Bhutto did not make a deal because he was not offered one. Perhaps his only crime was that he was not really part of the establishment, and hence he could not be trusted.

Coming to the remaining important questions, ‘Why did Bhutto ban liquor and gambling?’ ‘Why did an equally Islamist Zia lift the ban on gambling within the first week of his takeover (he allowed horse races and betting)?’ ‘Why did liquor consumption rise by 500 percent in Islamabad in Zia’s Islamised era?’ ‘Why did Zia’s sons and daughters go to schools and colleges while the sons of the poor were sent to a slaughterhouse called Afghanistan?’ ‘Why did Pakistan jump into the Afghan furnace?’ The way Zia’s death happened too is a question, but it is like all those questions that originate in mid-air crashes.

The questions that arose during the Benazir and Nawaz eras are known to all. Ten years of the Pakistani nation were lost due to the ISI’s patronisation of a polarised, corrupt and policy-less politics. Again the aim of the army and the administration was to keep the country in turbulence so that no one could raise the question of fiscal decentralisation. During the second Nawaz era, the question of provincial autonomy did arise and that meant the mighty Nawaz would have to leave earlier. Musharraf replaced him for no other reason. Kargil and corruption were foolish excuses. No one believed Musharraf. No one questioned him why he came. No one wants to ask him why he is staying. Now the people are simply asking only one question: for whom was Pakistan made? They know the answer.

In a country where everyone but the upper five percent is poor and housing capacity is six persons per room, the people ought to know the answer. Still, I very humbly dare to add a bit more to their knowledge. A few days back, 46 federal secretaries hosted a dinner in honour of the honourable prime minister of Pakistan, who is by profession a banker and a dollar millionaire. The venue was the Prime Minister’s House. President Musharraf, who is by profession an army man, also attended. The congregation of the secretaries wanted to thank the prime minister who had been kind enough to allot each of them a plot measuring one kanal in the most prestigious D-12 sector of Islamabad.

http://thepost.com.pk/Previuos.aspx?dtlid=72348&src=Muhammad%20Ahsan%20Yatu&date=10/12/2006

Posted on April 4th, 2008 under General • Tags: Democracy, Judiciary, Zulfikar Bhutto. •  Print This Post •  Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback