There will be blood
 |
|
The Dead Bhuttos |
Benazir Bhutto’s elegant, nose-jobbed mug was all over U.S. news today. She was attractive, vain, and spoke elegant Anglicized English. It was the perfect storm: terrorists’ media whoring met the Cable Fluff Network and Fox ‘News’ fetish for attractive women in trouble. The story of her assassination turned into the Natalee Holloway of world news. I wouldn’t be surprised if Al Qaeda began kidnapping little JonBenets.
In some countries, the only way out of politics is in a casket. Countries with a history of assassinations don’t have peaceful, democratic transitions of power or free avenues for political expression. Assassinations are the relief valve, the alternative to civil war. They’re virtually the only way to turn over political leaders on the subcontinent, which fixates on dynasties and never seems to move on. Like Dubya, like Hillary, Bhutto leaned on the political value of her maiden name. It’s strong incentive not to educate your populace.
It’s not like Bhutto and her blood-soaked family tree didn’t know the attack was coming. It was a cocktail regimen, the same as the blast a scant two months ago: bullet, vest bomb, or c) all of the above. Musharraf is a hardened former commando, and he’s escaped more than one bomb in Rawalpindi. He would not have exposed himself out a sunroof without donning a bulletproof vest. Benazir did not know security, and she was forced to campaign person-to-person after Musharraf drowned the news media.
Who killed Bhutto? The simple answer is it’s likely a NWFP-based terrorist pulled the trigger, with at least the tacit consent of the fundie-infested ISI. A deeper answer apportions blame like a liability settlement. All politics are local. It’s as hard to get people motivated about faraway wrongs as it is to get them to read policy blogs rather than celebrity news. Terrorists draw support from populations unhappy with their own governments. In this case, Pakistan’s military repression is funded by U.S. taxpayers — you and me — and by Saudi oil wealth.
Bhutto’s political ascent, like Hillary’s, centered on her surname, but not her gender. In a sense, the assassination paid the highest compliment to feminists. No one suggested Bhutto was assassinated for being a woman, though some claimed her gender angered fundies. She was killed because she led the anyone-but-Musharraf vote. Had the elections been rigged poorly, she was once again in line for the throne. It was Benazir who they were gunning for, not her husband Ten Percent. As immoral as it was, with the deaths of not only Bhutto but 200 innocents, let the killing be remembered as a genuflection to a politician who merely happened to be female.
on Thursday, December 27th, 2007, 11:53 pm in Media, Pakistan, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Good analysis.
Big question: What role if any did Mushie play in this?
damn hot write up vij
you are right Manish, even I felt the same way. She knew there were threats to her life, why did she expose herself through that sunroof car to wave to people.
dynasties sell..gandhis, bhuttos, kennedys…people overlook merits or demerits of candidates and give value to family name still and it continues even today…and look at all these countries which had dynasties continuing for generations..all those have histories of assasinations…
but I felt gender also worked for both bhutto and hillary along with big family names…it had its disadvantages for bhutto as well as advantages..all the crowd who came to listen to her were young men who are fascinated by this western educated muslim women and listened to her because of her family name..at the same time being a woman was a disadvantage for her and just recently some terrorist group issued a statement that they will not allow a woman to rule the country..she went for an arranged marriage and I read somewhere that she did it because in pakistan single women cannot rule and dont get that much respect as married women.
When she ruled pakistan there were corruption charges, her hubby was involved in some murder case..so she was not that perfect either.. Her hubby was corrupt she should have stopped him and put him through trial during her regimen, educated in oxford u would expect her to be different but she was not that different…in politics no one is clean..
mushariff is getting tons of money from US to capture terrorists yet pakistan is still a breeding ground for terrorists..Benezir was a good alternative prowestern anti terrorism but she is known for corruption..but now pakistan has no choice with her death…so mushariff probably willl continue the same way…we have to wait and see …but all this is turning pakistan into a highly volatile dangerous country and that is not good for the world or for US..
I am writing a few additional points that media is not discussing.
() Bhuttos are shias…Like thats not an issue? Especialy considering the Talibans Sunni domination
()PPP has recently been portrait as a force representing democratic ideals.
PPP wasnt internaly democratic. Benazir dad was its chairman for life, and so was she.
In Julfikars reign bengali democraticaly election results were kharijed.
Heres an interesting take by her niece
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,5254789.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Some facts…
Benazir’s two brothers were also killed off. Interestingly, one of her brother’s family has maintained till recently that Benazir herself was behind the killings. That family however made peace today and went to her grave. Nawaz Sharif also visited the Bhutto Mausoleum in spite of having at one point tried his best to jail the Bhutto’s for corruption and for subverting the system to their purposes.
another perspective…
Moni Basu explains why it was important for a woman to see someone like Benazir return to power in Pakistan. This I add just because a woman’s perspective might be different from yours and mine on this subject, and there is a genuine sense of loss with Benazir’s assassination.
The newspapers have been all over this story. Thought I would point out this …
Marcus gee debates the role of the military in Pakistan today [Has quote by Anil Kalhan, I believe a friend to UB].
She survived a bomb attack on 10/18. An attack so powerful that it killed more than a hundred people. Most people who witnessed carnage like that would be so traumatised that they would avoid crowded places for the rest of their lives. The additional knowledge that the bomb was no accident but was meant specifically to obliterate them, would probably make them stay inside their houses surrounded by bodyguards for the next ten years. She didn’t do any of that. She came right out and campaigned in the open. She had family- children, mother, husband - and she must have felt the fear of leaving them behind if she died. She could have chosen to give in to that fear and stop; no one would have blamed her if she did. She didn’t and that takes courage. So much courage that it’s almost impossible to imagine. However it takes no courage, only an abundance of poor taste, to write a post like the one you’ve written.
Which was not just brave, but foolish. Knowing the risks well– hello October blast!– unable to arrange proper security, unwilling to campaign behind a bulletproof bubble like the pope, she got two hundred innocent people killed whom nobody talks about.
From Charlie Wilson’s War the movie
:- “Zia Did not kill Bhutto”
Actually, it’s the terrorists who got two hundred people killed. Blaming Benazir for the killings, is like blaming a rape victim for getting raped. If she had lived, maybe you would have sentenced her to two hundred lashes a la the Qatif girl ?
If I tell you there’s 5 people with the motive and opportunity to kill you, and they’ve made the threats, and then they actually try, and in doing so kill 180 people; then I tell you your security still sucks, and here are another 5 credible threats; and you’re unable to get the security fixed; and you happen to survive the next attack, but another 20 people around you die because of your bad rally design, total lack of security, and unwillingness to campaign via other means– then yeah, you’re a callous jackass with many families’ blood on your hands. But what does it matter to you, Bhutto, they’re only commoners.
If you died in the attack, then you’re a dead, callous…
And many are calling her cavalier.
The quick “dissing” of Benazir by many seems to be due to the appearance that Benazir was the candidate of the West.
People are quick in dismissing Benazir as “power hungry” as if other politicians go after elected positions for “doing good” and not power.
How do you know Manish, that Benazir didnt think that she was doing this to make a difference?? How do you (or Tariq Ali) know that she didnt think her security after the October blast was sufficient??
Benazir could have actually gotten elected and might even have been able to deal with the extremists. How do we know that she didnt?? In the past she colluded with the extremists because the extremists did not threaten to take over Pakistan. It is different now.
Not even admitting that she was brave seems extremely unfair. The first quality of a leader (especially a deeply troubled place like Pakistan) is courage. And I think she had that.
How do you (or Tariq Ali) know that she didnt think her security after the October blast was sufficient??
Benazir complained bitterly to Musharraf and the U.S. that her security was awful. See the news column.
Not even admitting that she was brave seems extremely unfair.
Brave but foolish — see comment 7.
I agree with Manish totally..she knew the threats..oct there was an attach on her..she knew the risks..she knew she was leading the polls..there was no reason for her to take a risk..she was foolish..also Manish is right..she had no right to get innocent people killed along with her twice..
And Bhutto did request pakistan govt for more security or let her hire international security..they didnot let her do either..
If she was that brave and honest she should have arrested her hubby on corruption charges when she was in power and come out clean if he was clean as she says he is..she did not do that either..
I admire her because she was a smart well spoken well educated woman who managed to survive in a male dominated muslim society but she had her share of weaknesses..
The people knew that if they go to listen to her there is a possibility of getting affected by a violent act. People did not even have whatever security Benazir had. They still went to her rallies. I think that shows that people thought that she may be able to make a difference and she may provide an answer. Otherwise why would an average person put his/her life at risk?? They werent even going to get power.
Pakistan is preety close to a Banana republic if not a complete one. So some of the “charges” could be politically motivated.
Let me be clear. I dont think for one second that Benazir is not power hungry and her husband is not extremely corrupt. They are. The reason I think Benazir would have been good for Pakistan is that she WAS the candidate of the west. Since America and India (and even Pakistan) sees extremism as a major threat, a candidate of the west would have worked. She might have been able to get Pakistan from completely become a failed state.
Now it is up in the air (until a messiah comes)