An Encounter with Benazir

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010409/benazir.shtml

India Today interviews B Bhutto

Exile and Benazir Bhutto are no strangers to each other. Prime minister of Pakistan for two terms, she has also been forced out of Pakistan on two different occasions. First by General Zia-ul-Haq after her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s execution in 1979, and again since 1998, after her rivalry with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif assumed epic proportions. Sharif himself is today in exile but the military government of General Pervez Musharraf shows no desire to have her return home to Clifton in Karachi.

With husband Asif Zardari languishing in jail on corruption charges, the 49-year-old Benazir shuttles between Dubai

and London. Dubai is where her two children go to school and where she spends time with her ailing mother Nusrat.

But London is where she gets active politically, fulfilling her responsibilities as chairperson of the Pakistan People`s Party (PPP) by telephone and e-mail. In an interview to Aaj Tak, she spoke to INDIA TODAY Editor Prabhu Chawla at her sister Samna`s spacious third floor flat in Queensgate, Kensington.

Q. Do you think you can dethrone Pervez Musharraf?

A. Many generals came and were dethroned-Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Ayub Khan. Today Musharraf saheb is in power. But ultimately Pakistan as envisioned by Mohammed Ali Jinnah will succeed, which is a democratic Pakistan, a Pakistan in which the poor will be treated with respect.

Q. From its very birth, democracy in Pakistan has suffered. Why? Do politicians there have no credibility?

A. Is it a question of credibility or of a consensus which did not evolve? In India there are serious differences among political leaders but all the groups agree that India should have democracy, an independent election commission, free judiciary and a free press. It is the opposite in Pakistan. For example, when my government was removed undemocratically, no one raised a voice to say the President should not have such powers.

Q. There have been two types of regimes there. One elected, the other comprising the ISI and the army establishment. Is this true?

A. Yes, we have two regimes. One which is visible and the other which is not. This has caused much damage to our country because the political interests of the invisible regime have been opposed to those of the people. This is also why Pakistan broke up. Now it is being said there should be a legal structure for these invisible forces so that they act within the law.

Q. This seems impossible. Nawaz Sharif who had a two-thirds majority and tried to control this invisible regime was dismissed.

A. This is one perception. The other perception is that Sharif was himself the product of the invisible regime. So the majority which he had was not of the people. If a group of democratic parties gets a majority then I think changes can be brought in the structure so that there is a revolution in the country.

Q. Do you think the gun overrules the vote in Pakistan?

A. It has been so until now. But we are fighting to strengthen the politics of vote. This is not easy but if one has conviction and commitment, as the PPP and its supporters have for democracy, then one has to fight.

Q. In the type of jehad being practised there, arms are being used in the name of religion.

A. Religious groups have been given a free hand there. And after the Afghan jehad, a new jehad has started. When I say jehad I mean a political movement. In the Islamic world there are some groups which say that they have to resort to arms to rule over the world. There also are those who say that the meaning of Musalman is you to your own religion and I to my own.

Q. What do you believe in?

A. I believe that Islam is a call for peace, for tolerance.

Q. Do you support border intrusions in the name of Islam?

A. The Kashmir movement is of two types. One is a political movement, which is under the All Party Hurriyat Conference. We support them. The other is of Lashkar-e-Toiba and armed groups. We oppose them.

Q. Do you think that there is any solution to the Kashmir issue in the light of what is going on there?

A. No solution has come up in the past 50 years and it will not come up in the next 50 years if the people of India, Pakistan and Kashmir follow the path they have followed till now. Both countries have their own perceptions. Pakistan says the right to self-determination should be given.

Q. To whom?

A. To the people of Kashmir.

Q. Which Kashmir? Both of them?

A. Pakistan`s intention is that one Kashmir should be given this right. But if you people exert pressure then both Kashmirs can be included.

Q. Do you agree that both Kashmirs should vote on whether they want to live with India or Pakistan?

A. If India proposes this Pakistan will definitely agree.

Q. But the Simla Agreement ...

A. I think you people are not ready for this.

Q. In the Simla Agreement it was decided that we should respect the LOC.

A. It`s the Indian interpretation. Pakistan`s view is that it will be resolved bilaterally. If it fails we will go to the UN.

Q. What do you think of Vajpayee`s peace initiatives?

A. After Rajiv, Vajpayee is the first leader with farsightedness. He has taken some courageous steps. Pakistan is missing out on this window of opportunity.

Q. The UN is not going to interfere in this issue. Can there be an agreement on the LOC?

A. I think India wants the LOC to be made the international border. But Pakistan wants to politically support insurgency so that a referendum is carried out there. There can be no agreement between these opposing views. We should acknowledge there are differing viewpoints. One should undertake confidence building for that.

Q. This has been tried so many times-the Simla Agreement, Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s bus journey, your talks with Rajiv Gandhi, the contents of which are still secret.

A. We talked about Siachen and East Punjab. At that time East Punjab was a big problem for your people.

Q. It is the perception in India that you people were supporting, arming and financing them.

A. There is a perception that you people were doing the same in Karachi. Maybe we were doing that but we should now talk about our differences. We should build confidence for an open border. Then the new generation will distance itself from bloodshed and hatred.

Q. Vajpayee went by bus but what did he get? Kargil, guns ... A. It was wrong. But he was dealing with an undemocratic leadership.

Q. But it was an elected leadership.

A. How? Farooque Leghari established a biased regime and said, ``I will not allow Benazir to come back.`` We felt the 1997 election was a farce and boycotted it. Only 16 per cent of the electorate voted. The Election Commission of Pakistan claimed that 50 per cent had voted. All your newspapers rightly said that 16 per cent voted.

Q. It seems that votes are polled somewhere else in your country.

A. Yes. There are all sorts of rigging. So there was an insecure leadership. It wanted to please India, please the world, please the army. In Lahore, Vajpayee was being felicitated and the army was being told to take positions. General Musharraf said recently he would go anywhere and talk to India. I think if a military ruler says he is ready to talk then you must understand that our people want peace.

Q. You seem to have a lot of faith in General Musharraf.

A. I have differences with him. He has said that he will use the army against me and will stop me.

Q. When you were dismissed the first time, you said Osama bin Laden had been behind the move and that he had spent money.

A. In 1989, there was a no-confidence vote against me. Bin Laden gave $10 million to remove me. During Zia-ul-Haq`s rule the Afghan jehad had started in Pakistan. Madarsas were established and the children of the poor were recruited and promised clothes, etc.

Q. Were you against that?

A. Certainly. Members of the PPP are not allowed to take up arms. Then why should the mullahs be permitted to do so? This dual law goes against the Constitution.

Q. But did you compromise so that continuity was ensured?

A. Certainly. I did try.

I am not a bog fan of BB abd I hate PPP but I think I understand her point of view about economies. Socialism and or Communisim is a failed system. Noo ne should have the right to stop someone buying factories and lands. What it needs is strict enforced laws on labor.

I suggest why not make every landowner responsible to run a full english medium school in his village. That school should be closely monitored by govt. representative. Now I know you might say hey one can easily buy those ppl but that can be said about any plan. Tax them 40% or tell them build schools. I think in education and in education lies Pakistan`s salvation. Plus in free economy.

I am happy to read this story...To me I am sorry for these so called leaders of Pakistan...

May Allah bless my Pakistan...

Re: Feroz on Madad`s #20

You are absolutely right. Violence and assassinations are not the way to go. However, I`d like to see a neutral and powerful court in Pakistan (wishful thinking? but, of course)that will try all the politicians for gross corruption, extra-judicial killings, political assassinations and crimes against humanity. Most of their crimes would come under the definition of treason which is a capital crime. And since I`m convinced that if tried fairly, most of these politicians will be found guilty, the end result would still be the same, except, only it will be within the confines of the law. How about that?

Rehan.

Re: Maliani post # 21

Whatever our linguistic differences might be, on the choice of the terms ``crime`` or ``a mistake`` to refer to the follies of General Zia-ul-Haq, we still agree that his actions were wrong.

However, the severity of those actions is open to interpretation. My world view may differ from yours and I may not place a similar odium on certain actions as you might do. Does that lend any credence to my point or lessens it? Does that lessen the validity of your arguments? Perception of events is highly subjective and hence, not likely to conform to a particular view point.

In an opaque sense, regardless of ones inferences about Zia-ul-Haq, he was an acute person politically and it is interesting to speculate what promises he got in return from the Jordian monarchy for killing those Palestinian?

Re: Madad post # 20

Yes, BB stole a billion dollars from Pakistan and robbed the people of Pakistan blind. Will killing her get Pakistan the money back? No, it will not. Nawaz Sharif has defaulted on huges monies loaned to him by the Pakistan State Bank and through it, inter alia, the people of Pakistan. He has not paid a red cent back. Should we kill him too in order to collect a debt? Who is worse, BB or Nawaz Sharif?

On a more sombre note, we, Pakistanis, have to escape this ``lets kill them all`` mentality, because it is tearing our country apart. How long must we kill each for our sins? ``How long must we dig these trenches in our hearts?`` When will it stop? Will there be anyone left alive in Pakistan when it stops? Why are we so eager to kill as a people and a society?

Pakistani society has reached a point where there is no room in its politics for violence anymore. I agree with your sense of frustration, but killing people we dispise is not the answer to our problems.

Freozk wrote: ``Hanging Z. A. Bhutto was one of the worst mistakes General Zia-ul-Haq ever made.``

Saeen, you amaze me! You think it was a mistake and not a crime. The Kangroo courts that sent Bhutto to the gallows was a ``mistake``. And what about the martial-law, was that a mistake as well? And what about the Palestinians Zia massacared in Jordon, a mistake????????????/

In response to ferozk, for a women who stole more than $1 billion from the pockets of the poor and who allowed to indiscriminate killings of more than 1000 people in karachi, i don`t see how killing her will make her a martyr, however if you were implying that killing her would lead to the unnecessary countless deaths resulting from the clashes between the avid supporters( those would rather die for their politician who is their peer and has reimbursed them with lots of mulla than for Allah ) of the ppp and other parties, then you might have a case otherwise, I would still want to send this so called Oxford graduate who doesn`t even live up to her accredition to hell.

wasalaam

Re: Madad`s post # 16

Just an aside even though, I hope, you were joking; never, ever, under any circumtances assassinate a political leader, because instead of fighing their policies, you`ll end up fighting their memory. You can fight a politican on his ideas, but you can not fight the ideals of a slain martyr. They become more powerful in death than when they were alive. Hanging Z. A. Bhutto was one of the worst mistakes General Zia-ul-Haq ever made.

Re: Zehra`s post # 18

Yes, I like the attention, but that is not the point! The point is...... Perchance, if you know the point, I would love to hear it from you!

Re: Taimur Rehman

Couple of questions. Just of curiousity, did BB maintain eye contact when she would talk with people and if you, by chance, shook her hand, was her handshake firm or feeble. These observations can tell a lot about a politican.

I agree with you that reading Rosseau, de Tocquevill and other political philosophers of enlightenment does not help with the present day reality, but the present system is based on their ideals. I also agree with you that these philosophers have no significance to the ordinary people, but they matter to the politicans and their ideas of democracy, hence ipso facto they influence the common people indirectly.

The only two political works I trully appreciated are books by the British historian A.J.P. Taylor called The British Parliament: A Tradition of Dissent. Reading the dissent by Edmund Burke, against the majority opinion, in favor of why Britian should grant representive rights to its American colonies and on the defense of the French Revolution against the forces of ancien regime is a tour d` force in political reasoning.

Also, this is oblique to the topic, but reading political speeches is another great way to hone one`s political reasoning skills. Once you read Cato`s speeches against Catline, Martin Luther King Jr.`s ``I have a dream`` or Churchill`s scathing attacks against apeasement, it is really hard to underestimate the power of rhetoric.

The other is a book by Marcus Aurelius, a Roman Emperor called The Medidations. It is a humanistic approach to politics, life and religion and reading it, one gains the impression that nothing much has changed in the two thousand years since it was written. My favorite passage is and I read it every morning; today I shall meet ungrateful, wicked, corrupt....men, but I shall not become like them!

So, you worked for the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. Did they tell you and show you where Jimmy Hoffa`s body is buried?! Incidently, you gave me a cardiac arrest when you mentioned the fact that you worked for Teamsters AFL-CIO, because my Republican heart went into a delayed shock! Which reminds me, we need to have a serious talk...just kidding!

hey taimur, glad to see you are well and alive and jumping to your own defense. good job on the name dropping, congrats, yadda yadda..all polisci majors are excellent bullshi *er`s..its part of a requirement. BUT as i said in my FIRST response, your content was good, the writing wasnt. thass all, and also, it wasnt meant to be taken presonally. i hate rousseau and alex d`toqueville and the countless other fatheads i have had to read. i am of the thought that why have dead conservative white men tell me how to think when i was blessed with my own, alive, brown brain? anyhow..tell me about ardeshir cowasjee..big fan here. i would get starry eyed in front of him i think..just read a great article about him in this magazine we expatriates get in the states..its called zameen.

ferozk: dont tell me you dont love having a bulleyes painted on. it so much fun to watch you interact.

regards,

z `the diplomat` rizvi

Its not that I can not write purple prose, far from it, its more that I prefer to use language that is more real and effective in conveying my point. Content before form has always been my motto.

My absence from this rather cozy discussion, which seems to have gotten off the topic, is owing to the fact that I had no idea this article of mine was posted up here. My friend sent it without my knowledge. It was a pleasant surprize. Now that this knowledge has reached me, I have every intention of ``jumping to my defence.``

It might interest you to know Zehra that I have read ``Democracy in America`` by Alexis de Touqueville. And I found, having lived in the United States for four years, worked in labor unions (AFL-CIO, the Teamsters), worked in voluntary organizations (Catholic Worker) with ordinary people, travelled on plane, bus, car, and foot through the country I found that de Touqueville is quite irrelevant today and wide off the mark. The character of US politics is completely changed owing to the cold war and the recent imperial expansion of the US.

Regarding an Oxford University Press book I just finished reading their latest publication ``The British Raj in India`` by Burke.

As for Ardeshir Cowasjee I was having dinner with him just two days ago.

As for John Stuart Mill I think you could not have dropped a poorer name for his work on utilitarianism is given to philosphy freshmen students to tear up by showing logical contradictions (its almost considered a joke). Tangent: I was also a philsophy and music minor

which my friend forgot to mention.

Furthermore, I must also be really desperate for I have read our dear friend Rousseau. I must admit I loved his writing, but he is unfortunately quite dated.

Enough name dropping, my point is how do any of these names or their respective theories relate to what I wrote. As for the article being bad literature, I might agree with you there. But then I never claimed it was literature, it was a simple letter written to my friends; not written for publication. But I appreciate your criticism and I hope you are not offended by the curt tone of my reply.

You should have assassinated her when you had the chance

ok sweetie, friends now. I have so much reading to do!!!

Re: Zehra and AA

C`mon folks why stop now? This was getting good because there always has to be a bit of mud slinging in political debates...!

AA, maybe you`ve already had read these works, but if you have not, I would highly recommend them to you: Common Sense by Thomas Paine; Democracy in America by Alexis de Touqueville for an excellent description of the American political, economic and social scene. For the Pakistani side of commentary, I would suggest browsing through the web site of Oxford University Press for some insightful analysis of the Pakistani political scene.

Re: Zehra

Way to go bud! Thanks for painting that neon red bullseye on my forehead! :)

AA..how much more petty can we get? the only reason i cited that literature is beacause it is very basic political science reading ( yep, it used to be part of my reading curriculum some semesters back). dint mean to come off as patronizing in the least. sorry about that. i just had wanted to also critique taimur`s work like everyone else and give my opinion on it. that said, i dont see taimur jumping to his own defense as you seem to be. the read was good for content but not in his writing. if he wants to get published in any academic journals or publications he has to hand in more than this shoddy job he did. let me apologize once again as comming off as ( and i took this as a compliment of the highest order) an academic elite, and lets let it rest now.

z `must get the last word in` rizvi

zehra, you not only misunderstood what i said, you also sound like an academic elite. I didn`t say this was great literature or the best. It is fine. I don`t need to read all the people you cite to see what good literature is and how this compares. An appreacition of lit maybe subjective. And I don`t understand why you tell me to read these workds. Just because you maybe reading something for your classes doesn`t mean other haven`t read them in their lifetimes.