Understanding Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

#133 by Ras

ZAB`s portrayal as a megolomaniac was nothing but character assassination. The simple fact that he had agreed on re-election on the disputed seats speaks volumes before the military stepped in.

As I said before, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s judicial murder is the biggest tragedy to befall the Pakistani nation in its history, and indeed the third world, and one whose shadow will be cast for a very long time to come in the nation`s collective psyche.

A complicated genius and certainly one of the best minds that Pakistan has ever produced.

Here is another sampling of what people have said about him:



Farhan Bokhari in The News International wrote:

“Mr Bhutto remains a memorable figure, not least because he was victim to an unpopular military regime. On the contrary, if it would have only been a matter of a tie up between two men, perhaps Pakistanis would have forgotten the tragic event of Mr Bhutto’s hanging and reconciled themselves to a new era of politics.
But to many, the clash between a towering popular politician and a harsh General was the consequence of the transition seen by Pakistan in the 1970s. Left in the ashes of Pakistan’s worst defeat after the fall of East Pakistan, all under the watch of a group of former Generals who were never made accountable for their deeds, Mr Bhutto gave Pakistanis a message of hope which brought about a badly needed healing touch.
Soon, Mr Bhutto’s rallying cry driven by previously untested notions such as ‘awamiat’ (populism) and Islamic socialism brought a large mass of Pakistanis under the banner of renewed hope. But in the process of transforming Pakistan from a defeated country to a forward moving one, was the late prime minister’s empowerment which brought upon him the wrath of the traditionally arm flexing military Generals? That compelling question lurks in the minds of many, even at a time when the country is ruled by a military figure, though one who appears much too benevolent by comparison to any of his predecessors.
It’s a matter of record that the Pakistani military which subsequently oversaw Mr Bhutto go to the gallows, owes the late prime minister a significant and perhaps still unpaid favour. Without his dose of populism meant to overcome the pain of a tragic loss, the agony of defeat and the embarrassment over the capture of the largest number of Pakistani officers and jawaans ever to be taken captive in enemy hands, would have just lingered on for years to come.”


By ALTAF AHMAD QURESHI

From The Nation Newspaper Lahore, Pakistan
“As an enthusiast student of Russell, I wrote three letters to Lord Bertrand Russell to seek clarity on some of his philosophical writings boggling my mind during my university days. It was his greatness that he responded to my questions.
In those days Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had just resigned from the Ayub Cabinet and had gone to Europe and like thousands of young Pakistanis, I was also enchanted by him because of his role at the UN Security Council during the 1965 Pak-India war and the resentment he showed and the resistance he had put up at Tashkent summit.
Just out of love for Bhutto, I wrote a letter to Lord Russell requesting him for his analysis of the socio-political situation of the Subcontinent and his assessment and judgment of the role of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
I was sure that Russell would not make any comment on Bhutto. But to my great astonishment and pleasure, I received a letter from Lord Russell saying that his detail analysis of the socio-political situation of the Sub-continent and his assessment of Bhutto was being sent to me in a separate envelope which I never received as it might have been ``eaten up`` by the censorship authorities.
However in his letter which I received, he wrote three lines about Bhutto saying ``I know Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and had had discussions with him for more than once. He is a knowledgeable man and possesses the qualities of a national hero. He is able and brave and can act to change the fate of the people of Pakistan and the Third World countries.``
“Mr Bhutto said that the campaign of calumny instigated by the junta was a reward for all his efforts to strengthen the armed forces at great sacrifices imposed on the country.
The reason for their desire for revenge was difficult to discover, but their effort to insult and humiliate him had crossed all bounds. But the greater the slander, the more the love he got from the people. His self-respect became bound with that of the masses, because he symbolised their yearning for a better life.”


Wajid Shamsul Hassan on 25 years after Bhutto

For Pakistan Bhutto was the harbinger of colossal changes. He harnessed socio-economic forces for challenging the status quo, unshackling the masses and their empowerment. His sense of direction not only gave him the strength but also a popular support to consolidate the edifice of the state on an egalitarian program seeking for his people roti, kapra and makkan. Besides, he awakened the masses, making them realize they were the legitimate fountainhead of political power. He deeply cherished democracy and viewed military rule as a negation of the very genesis of the country that came into being as a result of a democratic process and a vote. Bhutto had believed that the army could only protect its professional competence as an institution by keeping out of politics. He said clearly: ``The Pakistan Armed Forces cannot afford a moment`s deviation from their real responsibility. For the sake of Pakistan`s integrity, they simply cannot afford to get involved or absorbed in the political life of the country. Those soldiers who leave barracks and move into Government mansions lose wars and become prisoners of war as happened in 1971.``




25 years ago today Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became history
A Nation Editorial 4-4-04


The shadow still looms

TWENTY-five years ago to this day, near dawn, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister and murder convict, was hanged in Adiyala Jail, Rawalpindi. The jail has since come down, a generation has passed, but Bhutto’s legacy still remains, and his shadow still looms large in our national politics. Bhutto was designed by the Almighty larger than life. In few men are mixed so many amazing virtues, so many disturbing flaws. A psychoanalyst might make much of the inner tensions which made Bhutto what he was, both good and bad, and perhaps speculate how these may have helped him achieve so much. Even his worst opponents would agree that Bhutto was a great man, if not necessarily a good one

Khalid Hasan in the Daily Times wrote on General Musharraf’s Book:
I can take issue with several things written in the book about Pakistan’s first popularly elected Prime Minister, but I will confine myself to the assertion that had Mr Bhutto not “rejected” the Polish resolution in 1971, East Pakistan may not have seceded. This absurd and baseless charge continues to be made against Mr Bhutto despite documented evidence to the contrary. I, for one, have written about this several times but to no avail it seems. Gen Musharraf should not have allowed this canard to appear under his name and, I hope, being a civilised person, he would acknowledge his mistake and express regrets for the injury caused to Mr Bhutto’s and Pakistan’s good name and reputation.


Bushra Agha in Dawn:

Here it has to be said that Bhutto as a human being had his share of weaknesses. His stubborn nature was never appreciated by anyone. Most of his policies were controversial, something that`s part of politics. However, there are some complaints against him that hardly seem logical.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto not only lived, but also died for his country. He was a courageous man, who fought audaciously against dictatorial forces till he breathed his last. He will remain alive in our memories.

And now the Big Shocker of a finale…


Bhutto was sincere leader: Prof Ghafoor
Staff Report

KARACHI: Speakers at a seminar on the “Role of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in political history of Pakistan” here on Tuesday paid tribute to former prime minister Z A Bhutto who was executed during the martial law regime of Gen Ziaul Haq.

Qaim Ali Shah, provincial president of the PPP and former Sindh chief minister, presided over the seminar. MMA Senator Prof Ghafoor Ahmed, Meraj Mohammed Khan, parliamentary party leader of the PPPP in the Senate Raza Rabbani, Justice Rashid A Rizvi, chief of the People’s Study Circle Prof N D Khan and divisional president of the PPPP Karachi Rashid Rabbani also spoke at the seminar.

Qaim Ali Shah clarified in his key-note address that the late Z A Bhutto had not served as civil martial law administrator on his own but the opposition had requested him in writing to do so because there had been no constitution at the time.

Prof Ghafoor of the Jamaat-e-Islami/Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, who had been Mr Bhutto’s political opponent during his government in the 1970s, admitted that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto played a historic constitutional role. He was referring to the 1973 Constitution, which was drafted with national consensus and unanimously approved by the parliament during the Bhutto-led government.

He said Mr Bhutto was an intelligent and sincere political leader. He added that as a prime minister his attitude towards the opposition was friendly and generous. He said Mr Bhutto had listened to the opposition

Re: # 131 by majumdar on December 7, 2006 11:01pm PT

---

I am just recounting the examples of what has happened in India. Dravidian parties once supported secession and spouted anit-Hindi rhetoric. But 40 years hence, secessionism is gone

---

Well! We are talking about the same thing then!

If I understood you correctly, here is the 5 step approach (according to you and other Hindians) that was used in Democratic India.

1. Some nutcase made secessionists or anarchist noises.
2. Indian government beat the crap out of them using police, BSF, and army
3. It took years to wipe out the top level of secessionist leadership (read bhindranwalay)
4. The remaining low level leaders are rotting in jails or part of some relatively benign political group.
5. This method of beating the crap out of secessionists didn`t work on all the groups e.g. Kashmir, Nagas, Nexils etc.


Here are the 5 steps used in less than democratic Pakistan

1. Some nutcase made secessionists or anarchist noises.
2. Pakistani government beat the crap out of them using police, rangers, and army
3. It took years to wipe or Kick out the top level of secessionist leadership (read Altaf)
4. The remaining low level leaders are rotting in jails or part of some relatively benign political group (MQM, Jiay Sindh).
5. This method of beating the crap out of secessionists didn`t work on all the groups e.g. Balochis, Bengalis etc.).

So Maujumdhar sahib, Indian democracy is using the same 5 steps to deal with secessionists. We both have our successes and failures. Clearly you are in no position to give us lectures in democrazy.

Warm regards

Taiko,

(You sound more like the village mai (old woman) talking about her no-good drug-addict son. She wants to marry him off to some poor girl, hoping that family pressure will force this druggie to wisen up. )

No I am not trying to be another Mukhtaran Mai. I am just recounting the examples of what has happened in India. Dravidian parties once supported secession and spouted anit-Hindi rhetoric. But 40 years hence, secessionism is gone and the aniti-Hindi rhetoric has been toned down. Same way with Akali Dal. Now, unfortunately if the drugged boys (not that DMK/SAD can be described as junkies) have sudhrofied after getting married (years of governance, practical politics) maybe the Mai (Mother India) should be given some credit.

(Analyze impact of Indian style democrazy on Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, Nexal anarchy.)

India is by no means a perfect democracy, there are lot of flaws that need to sorted out, particularly securing economic freedom for people, making justice available to the weak and dispossessed, having acceptable security for its citizens from internal and external danger etc. The problems in J&K and Nagaland have in fact arisen partly becuase the democratic process there has often been perverted for short-term political gains.

And you are dead wrong about Punjab. Punjab is a fully functioning prosperous society and some tough policing as well as resumption of normal political process has made it one of the most peaceful of Indian states. A far cry from the turmoil of the 1980s.

(Look don`t try to blame Pakistan.)

Now if there is no democracy in Pakistan, who should I blame but Pakistanis themselves. But of course if your contention is that there is no need for democracy, then Pakistanis are not to be blamed anyways.

Btw, do you believe that Pakistan should not be a democracy? If that is the case what is the system of governance you have in mind.

Regards

#129 by majumdar on December 7, 2006 8:52pm PT

---

Taiko,

There was a difference between Pak situation in 1970 and what is prevailing in India.

---

Bhai Majumdar Sahib,

Obviously we can`t have exact match in this world. There was only one E. Pak and now there is one BDesh.

My comparison to 10`s of other situation is not enough for you. The reason is that most people live in ``main na maanoo`` (I am not going to accept whatever you say) world. That`s OK if you are living in a world that wants to reduce anarchy, instability, and ethno-religious chauvinism.

---

First, you have to consider what led to the situation in the first place an almost continuous denial of democracy to the people of Pakistan since independence.

---

Look don`t try to blame Pakistan. Analyze impact of Indian style democrazy on Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, Nexal anarchy. This clearly points out that demo-crazy based analysis is not valid for South Asian region.

It boggles my mind that you guys talk about Mujib`s love of democracy while completely ignoring his 6-points. The summary is given below for your quick review.

---

had Mujib been allowed to form the government, practical considerations of forming and running the government would have forced him to mellow down.

---

You sound more like the village mai (old woman) talking about her no-good drug-addict son. She wants to marry him off to some poor girl, hoping that family pressure will force this druggie to wisen up.

That may be true, and some dalit girl gets dragged into this scheme.

However the mai should not expect that a brahmin will marry his educated girl off to this druggy.

---

(Islamic brotherhood gets a lot of seats in Egypt, would you give them the helm of Egypt? )

If they get a majority of seats, they should certainly be allowed to form the government.

---

I beg to differ. Hitler and Nazis were elected. I hope that German army had guts to kick this midget out of Germany. That one action may have hurt the democrazy a bit, but it would certainly have saved 35 million deaths.

Hindians love to parrot ``democracy`` as some new incarnation of Krishna or Lakshami etc. The new ``moorty`` (beautiful idol) is good for pooja (worship), but it does not bring food to the table for millions of Dalits. Recent burning and looting by Dalits is a clear indication that the goddess of democracy is not helping out.

The real issue is to implement free market policies and allow people to go after opportunities. Ideally democracy helps in this sort. However leftist anarchist democracy would never allow free market. This particular aspect has been addressed much better by dictatorships of Sout Korea, Singapore (early on), and China. While democrazy of Iran has been horrible for its people as well the whole region.

Whatever you and say, democracy is for true democrats (small D) and Mujib was no democrat. In fact Bengalis are smarter than you Hindians. They got rid of the whole Mujib clan pretty quick. The leftover daughter is creating so much anti-democratic trouble these days.

If Bengalis can butcher their Bhudoo, then praise W. Pakistanis to keep Mujib safe and turn him into a leader. Learn from Bengalis! Learn from Bengalis! They knew the druggie boy Mujib was no good.

Taiko,

There was a difference between Pak situation in 1970 and what is prevailing in India.

First, you have to consider what led to the situation in the first place an almost continuous denial of democracy to the people of Pakistan since independence. Had Pakistan remained a democracy, Mujib may never have had to put forward a 6 point agenda.
Secondly, unlike J&K and Nagaland E Pak was non continguous and made up over half of Pakistan`s population. The situations cannot really be compared.

Finally, had Mujib been allowed to form the government, practical considerations of forming and running the government would have forced him to mellow down. In India, the Akali Dal (SAD) had come up with something called the Anandpur Sahib resoultion, I don`t remember the exact details (you may page the resident constitutionalist Manto mian on this) which envisaged very extensive state autonomy, later during the Khalistan phase actually many Akalis recommended secession. But later the same SAD formed Punjab Govt 2-3 times and also part of the Central Govt. and no one has heard of the said Resolution anymore.

(Islamic brotherhood gets a lot of seats in Egypt, would you give them the helm of Egypt? )

If they get a majority of seats, they should certainly be allowed to form the government.

Regards

Re: # 127 by CoolAL on December 7, 2006 3:38pm PT

---

Re: # 126
What part of Awami league won 169 seats out of 310 in united Pakistan are you having difficulty comprehending? Once that happened, Mujib should have been made the PM. No ifs,ands or buts. Get it?

---

Mujib used 6 points plat farm to win 169 out of 170 E. Pak seats. 0 (big fat zero) in the W. Pak. .

Six points of Mujib clearly show that he was secessionist rather than a uniter. Here is how:

1. Change the constitution (to achieve the following)
2. Feds deal with only Defense and foreign affairs
3. Separate currencies and or separate reserve banks
4. Separate taxes for E. Pak
5. Affirmative action (i.e. more money) for E. Pak than W. Pak.
6. Separate military force for E. Pak.

Tell me O! democratic Mullah would you ever classify any Hindian as democrat if he puts forward 6 points like Mujib?

If so, why won`t you implement the likes of 6 points in Kashmir, Nagaland, and for Nexalites.

The answer is simple. You can`t talk democracy from your mouth, and and shoot 6-pointed f@arts from your behind unless you are Fundoo.

Get it?


If you are still not convinced here is the stuff straight from horse`s (Mujib`s) mouth.


1. Mujib is reported to have said that the six Points “charted a path where Bengalis had to break the bondage of Pakistan”. {Safdar Mahmood has listed some of Mujib’s statements in his book: “Pakistan Divided” (Pages 72-72)}

2. Mujib also confessed in a TV interview with David Frost that he had been “working for Bangladesh since 1948”.

3. Mr. Sultan M. Khan, a former foreign secretary of Pakistan, has disclosed in an article that during an RCD meeting in Dhaka soon after the 1970 elections, foreign ministers of Turkey and Iran called on Mujib, with our government’s approval, and he told them that he would “rather be the Founding Father of Bangladesh than the Prime Minister of Pakistan”.

4. Mujib said: “Budruddin Bhai, Suhrawardy Sahib was a great man. He was an all-India leader of the Muslims, and later an All-Pakistan leader. I am a very small man, I can only be a Bangladesh leader”. {Dr Aftab Ahmed, Joint secretary of the central ministry of information in Dhaka, 1969}

If someone talks like a separatist, walks like one, then most likely Sh. Mujib.

Get it?


****E. Pak in the 1950s had 46% budget as that of W. Pak
****BDesh in 2005 has 41% budget as that of Pakistan (but BDesh has 1.5 times the deficit).

So Mujib`s shouting about money to W. Pak was all hoax as well.

Get it?

Re: # 126

We are not talking about Egypt. However, The Islamic brotherhood may win a lot of the seats, but does it have a majority in the National Assembly in Egypt? Nor are we talking about Sri Lanka. Tamil Tigers win big in the the North but do not control the National Assembly.

What part of Awami league won 169 seats out of 310 in united Pakistan are you having difficulty comprehending? Once that happened, Mujib should have been made the PM. No ifs,ands or buts. Get it?

Re: # 124 by CoolAL on December 7, 2006 3:08pm PT

---

Re: # 50

The point everyone can`t see is that if Mujib was allowed to become PM of united Pakistan, why would he need to truncate it? He would have addressed the bengalis` grivences. It would have given some backbone to Pakistani democratic institutions. After all, the only way to kick Mujib out would have been to defeat him at the ballot box.

---

Islamic brotherhood gets a lot of seats in Egypt, would you give them the helm of Egypt?
Hindu Tamil tigers win majority in their areas, go tell Sinhala Bhuddists to give a Tamil the top job.

Man you all hindooi fundoois live in a la la land, just like the Islamist fundoois across the border.

Re: # 51

Indeed, just remember Mujib and the awami league won 169 seats in the national assembly and had absolute majority.

Why do you guys lie to yourselves like this? Can it somehow alter reality? I am simply amazed at this.

Re: # 50

If the Kashmiris win 273+ seats in the Lok Sabha, then there is nothing anybody can do to prevent them from legally getting what they want. That is effectively what Mujib and the Awami League achieved in 1971.

The point everyone can`t see is that if Mujib was allowed to become PM of united Pakistan, why would he need to truncate it? He would have addressed the bengalis` grivences. It would have given some backbone to Pakistani democratic institutions. After all, the only way to kick Mujib out would have been to defeat him at the ballot box.

Fat Nazi???

Regards

Re: # 121

``And you know my views on both the old goat and JLN to believe me capable of belitttling anyone just bcos he had a few nasty things to say about the duo. ``

That is true... but wanted to put it on record for the fat nazi lurking about.

Manto mian,

(It is quite sad to see you belittling the achievement of H M Seervai. Not only is he revered by the Indian legal fraternity (hardly anyone knows him in Pakistan) but his magnum opus on Indian Constitutional Law is ranked amongst the finest in the world. )

(which pointedly tainted Gandhi and Nehru with the real responsibility of partition is no reason to belittle his legal achievements.

Chill. I caught the article on HMS on TOI this morning and just wanted to have some harmless fun at your expense.

I do not intend to belittle any one, it is just that on chowk, you are the only one ( and certainly not me) who has any interest or any understanding of Constitutional Law beyond what is taught in Class X civics textbook.

And you know my views on both the old goat and JLN to believe me capable of belitttling anyone just bcos he had a few nasty things to say about the duo.

Regards

PS: As the saying goes....

The greatest misfortune of the subcontinent was that the Hindu casteist racist fascist Gandhi was born in it... and the greatest fortune of the subcontinent might just be that if another like him is born, good people of India Pakistan or Bangladesh burn him alive.

Stuka

I was referring to the fact to your comments about Pakistan Movement introducing communalism ... You may read comments again in that light.


Majumdar,

It is quite sad to see you belittling the achievement of H M Seervai. Not only is he revered by the Indian legal fraternity (hardly anyone knows him in Pakistan) but his magnum opus on Indian Constitutional Law is ranked amongst the finest in the world.

Just because H M Seervai dared to speak the truth and expose the truth about partition of India which pointedly tainted Gandhi and Nehru with the real responsibility of partition (something which is now accepted by most historians studying that period impartially) is no reason to belittle his legal achievements.


BJKumar,

Come on man. You know Mohandas Karamchand ``Mahatma`` Gandhi was a lawyer in the very American sense of the word and on top of that Hindu bigot that he was he was a lawyer without scruples. There is no comparison with Jinnah, who was a legal practitioner in the very victorian sense of the word, Jinnah who stood for justice and fairplay... values that Gandhi pointedly rejected as unHindu (I for one believe Hinduism is a much better religion than Gandhi made it out to be...)

That you have taken to abusing Jinnah`s mother shows that deep down you know that you are defending a Hindu fascist racist casteist bigot i.e. ``Mahatma`` Gandhi who was the biggest fraud known to mankind.

I just wish you give up this drama of abusing people and just accept facts for what they are: Mohandas Gandhi was an exclusivist Hindu fascist racist casteist bigot who believed caste system was god`s gift to humanity and the natives of Africa were subhuman.


Here is a picture of the biggest fraud in human history (aka Gandhi)