Understanding Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

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

#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,

(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

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

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

#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.

Every crime of ZAB including murders, assassinations, torture camps, corruption, loot, bribes, private militia FSF etc. can be forgiven.

However we can never forget what ZAB did to our industry, banks, educational institutions, and our intellectuals.

This commies draped in green Islamic cloth was the biggest curse on Pakistan. May all protect us from commies. Amin.

#135 by taikonaut

we can never forget what ZAB did to our industry, banks, educational institutions, and our intellectuals.

What he did to all of the above was to prevent an elite from hogging not only all the resources, but also the future through the educational system. Look what is happening now. There is a clear elitist dictatorship and the education system ensures the poor can never get ahead. They can`t even go to english medium schools.

Taiko sahib,

The 5-point approach that you have mentioned are not the only response to secessionism or regioanlism in the country. Besides you have still not explained why Mujib with a clear majority in the Pak Parliament was not allowed to form the govt.

Zeemax,

Nationalism of industry, banks and educational institutions does not prevent elitism, it only promotes crony capitalism, loot by netas and babus. If it is of any satsifaction to you, India`s experience with ``socialism`` is as bad probably worse than Pak`s.

(They can`t even go to english medium schools. )

Are you saying that had ZAB been around, the poor would have been going to English medium schools.

Face it ZAB was a murderer and was hanged for a crime he had actually instigated, even though the method was all wrong. He is a good example of a thrid world politican being tried and sentenced for a crime that he had actually committed. Hope a similar experience is repeated in India. Shibu Soren`s life imprisonment is a step in the right direction.

Regards

#137 by majumdar

Majumdar Saheb, let`s examine this principle without the semantics of socialism etc. The principle is `equal opportunity`, which ZAB attempted. If it went wrong, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the rpinciple he fought for and died for was robust. In my opinion that principle was not only robust but the only answer for countries like us.

You ask, ``had ZAB been around, the poor would have been going to English medium schools``, the answer is a resounding YES.

As it is, the fee for an english speaking school in Pak at the primary level is Rs. 3,000 plus per month, when the average wage is about Rs.7,000 per month according to latest surveys. And that fee is for one child. The average family in Pak has three children.

That`s the future we`re talking about. How can Pak prevent children sent to Madrassahs in Quranic education alone (not that there`s anything wrong with it ... but should be only by choice) if modern education is way beyond reach?

The nationalisation of the large schools for the elite was precisely for this purpose.

Zeemax sahib,

If the average cost of good education per child is Rs. 3000 p.m. and there are thre children per family, the total cost of good education works out to Rs. 9,000 p.m. whereas the per family education budget would work out to around Rs. 1,000 p.m. by way of your estimate. So who would bear the remaining Rs. 8,000 p.m. for all families. Would the state be able to bear the entire cost. I think not.

The goal of providing quality eduction to each and every child is laudable but it would take at least 2 generations in any country to achieve such a goal, ZAB or no ZAB.

The principle of equal opportunity that ZAB (or what any third world socliast kleptocrat like Indira Gandhi and many others) were nothing but a cloak for misgovernance, nepotism, corruption and economic waste.

Regards

#139 by majumdar

...who would bear the remaining Rs. 8,000 p.m. for all families. Would the state be able to bear the entire cost. I think not....

And why not? The secondary level education in all civilized countries is FREE ... not even that Rs. 1,000 per family as per your estimate. And not only education, the cost of books, lunch etc as well are borne by the state. The higher education is however very expensive while it is the other way around in Pak. Higher education is cheap (and hence the quality) while secondary education is beyond reach for most people.

It is just a question of allocation of resources.

Z.A. Bhutto in The Myth of Independence (below)...

`` The question before the smaller nations of today is how they should conduct their affairs in such a manner as to safeguard their basic interests; to retain their territorial integrity and to continue to exercise independence in their relationship with the Global Powers as well as with the smaller nations. The relationship between the Global Powers and the smaller countries is on un unequal footing, whereby the former can exact a multitude on concessions without responding in sufficient, let alone equal, measure. No small nations can possibly bring a Global Power under its influence on the plea of Justice or because of the righteousness of its cause. In the ultimate analysis, it is not the virtue of the cause that becomes the determining factor, but the cold self-interest of the Global powers which shapes their policy, and this self-interest has better chances of prevailing in an endless and unequal confrontation between a Global Power and smaller nations.

Should the smaller nations therefore obediently follow the dictates of Global Powers and exchanging their independence for material gains and promises of economic prosperity? The answer is an emphatic `No``. Caught in the nutcracker of the global conflict the underdeveloped nations might in despair conclude that they can only marginally influence the status quo, that in reality they have no independent choice but to trim their policies to the requirements of one Global Power or another. This is an unnecessary pessimistic view, a negation of the struggle of man, expressed through the nation-state, to be free. The force of freedom must triumph because it is stronger than any other force for which man will lay down his life. It is still possible for the smaller nations, with adroit handling of their affairs, to maintain their independence and retain flexibility of action in their relationship with Global Powers.``

Re: # 136 by zeemax on December 10, 2006 10:01pm PT

---

#135 by taikonaut

What he did to all of the above was to prevent an elite from hogging

---

Dunno where you live my dear zee! Your statements about the elite are really misleading. Please try to understand that there are good elites and then not-so-good elites.

However the society needs elites just like it needs workers. In free market, elites take the form of CEOs, inventors, academics, and journalists.

In communist societies, the elite usually are the party comrades.

Bhutto ended up replacing free-market elite with the communist elite. That`s all.
And that`s why commies elite would support Bhutto, while free-market folks would not.

---

There is a clear elitist dictatorship and the education system ensures the poor can never get ahead. They can`t even go to english medium schools.

---

Bhuttos commie nationalization was an ``equal-opportunity-destroyer`` of every aspect of our society.

If you want to talk about schools. Then go back and compare the standard of government schools before commie-qazi attack, and after.

Government run schools suffered more than any other institution. So ultimately the communist dadagiri and budmashi (corruption) hit the poor the hardest. You cry about English medium schools while totally ignoring the utter destruction of urdu medium schools, colleges, and universities.

Sad indeed!

Re: # 141 by Ras on December 11, 2006 8:31am PT

---

The question before the smaller nations of today is how they should conduct their affairs in such a manner as to safeguard their basic interests; to retain their territorial integrity and to continue to exercise independence in their relationship

---

Dear Ras, your essay is based on ``world is in a conflict`` point of view.

An alternative point of view is that every nation, big or small brings some unique set of capabilities to the table. These capabilities (or core competencies) are then traded or bartered among each other. Quality of these capabilities is usually combined with market forces and political clout to determine how many widgets would pass between the nations.

That is why it is utmost important for Pakistan or other nations to focus on the positive aspects of global relations instead of talking conflict. We should try our level best to figure out what we can offer to the rest of the world.

peace.

#142/143 by taikonaut

... We should try our level best to figure out what we can offer to the rest of the world..

Too late for that now. Ras reproduced a very relevant extract in ``Should the smaller nations ... exchanging their independence for material gains and promises of economic prosperity? The answer is an emphatic `No``.

It could be done `then` when ZAB had identified it accurately. It can`t be done now. Globalisation, in effect, is no more than a division of labour amongst nations in line with the value addition capacity of each. Capital will be distributed accordingly and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. Name of the game is `value addition`. Those who have it, will remain ahead. Those who don`t, will remain behind and keep doing the low-end jobs for the high-end nations.

Cheers!