She Returns
I do have more to say about certain people here who have disappointed me, but I will take a brief detour as I cannot avoid writing about the return of Mrs. Benazir Bhutto and the attempt on her life. Literally and figuratively, it hits close to home.
It’s difficult not to draw parallels with the May 12th incident. On both occasions there were political rallies. On both occasions businesses and schools were closed in anticipation of violence. Both incidents had roughly the same amount of casualties; over 150 dead and several hundred injured. And the violence happened in a similar location, about a 20-30 minute drive from my house. Again, I was relatively safe as I knew to avoid the situation, and really wouldn’t be able to enter the area, even if I wanted to.
Shortly before the bombing incident, I watched Imran Khan, the self-appointed leader of the democracy movement in Pakistan, as he was interviewed in the British media about her return. Here’s the gist of what he said -
She went into self-exile, (she left on her own free-will, it is true) unlike Nawaz Sharif. She sold out the movement by agreeing to a powerful sharing deal with Musharraf. When pressed about whether they can secure Pakistan (which the rest of the world is desperately hoping for) Khan said that terrorism in Pakistan has increased after 9/11, and this is in response to Musharraf’s policies. He talked about how Musharraf is unpopular because he’s used the army to attack his own citizens, including women and children, and many Pakistani soldiers have died because Musharraf is following “the American agenda.”
Khan is right about the increase in terrorism, and I myself am critical of the disappearances and threats to journalists and human rights activists by the Musharraf regime. I don’t want any innocent people to die, even if it means wiping out a terrorist base camp. Ultimately, the blood is on the hands of the militants if they attack the army and then deliberately hide out in civilian areas. They know that if attacked, they can then blame the U.S. and Musharraf for the loss of life. If civilians support the militants, they too share some of the blame. If Musharraf doesn’t use the military to retaliate after they’ve been attacked, as the head of the army, he is responsible for their vulnerability. And let’s get this straight; there is a difference – morally and politically – between accidentally killing civilians, and intentionally targeting them.
Musharraf’s fault is not his use of the Pakistani military against the Taliban, as Khan would have it, but the fact that he supported them in the first. Not only did this happen in the 90’s while America looked the other way, but there is evidence that it continued after 9/11. Biting the hand the feeds you is no way to earn respect or independence. It seems like more than a coincidence that when New Delhi started gaining influence in Kabul there was a rise in Taliban insurgency.
And what exactly is the “American agenda” anyways? Which Americans is Khan blaming? It’s one thing to go after neo-Cons, or even the larger U.S. power structure, but another to resort to xenophobic generalities. Not to presume to speak for all Americans, but if asked, I’m sure most want the same things other people want. They do not want to be constantly attacked or to have to radically alter their lives in response to constant terrorist threats. Further, most Americans would probably like to see an end to terrorist attacks on other countries (and no, I don’t think most Americans want to invade every country under the sun, and no, I don’t think most Americans want the U.S. government to aid state sponsors of terror). So if by the “American agenda” Khan was referring to the sentiments of the majority, then what he is implying is that it’s justified to resist any action aimed at stopping international terrorism.
A man who chose to move to Britain and live a luxurious lifestyle there came back to speak on behalf of the common Pakistani. You can be sure he doesn’t wear a shalwar kamiz in London! He can dress how he likes and live how he chooses, but he is not a champion of democracy if he supports the radical elements trying to force shari’a law on the rest of Pakistan. Let us have the same freedom Khan has to dress how we want, worship how we want, and not have backward mullahs run our lives.
Bhutto spent five hours in an open platform greeting her supporters, many of whom included the disenfranchised looking to her with hope and promise. I really don’t believe that the smiles and tears of joy she displayed were faked. She’s been out of the country for 8 years. This is someone who grew up living under house arrest by the enemies of her father, and they’ve continued to hound her throughout her life.
Now, I do have mixed feelings about Benair Bhutto, just as I do about General Pervez Musharraf. What I like about the PPP are their ideals and their stated agenda(s). But ideals and reality often clash.
Her husband is guilty of corruption, there’s no doubt, and it’s difficult to believe that she wasn’t involved either. Though she is intelligent, well-spoken, and highly educated, she basically inherited the throne from her father. Her father came from a powerful Sindhi family, but he did have to work his way up to get into a government dominated by Punjabis (still, when it comes down to it, feudal Sindhis are not much different from feudal Punjabis). Bhutto uses the typical populist rhetoric of other politicians here, just like Imran Khan does, and spouts the same clichés. Sometimes her statements are quite incisive, and I’m sure she could go head to head with anyone in a debate.
Her administration was not only known for mismanagement, but for infamously aiding the Taliban as they took over Kabul and brought five years of sickness to Afghanistan which, in my opinion, rivaled that of Iran or Saudi Arabia, if not surpassed them.
Benazir Bhutto didn’t create the Taliban, and she has never publicly praised them, but their rise to power did happen, as Reagan would say, “under her watch.” The reasons are complex and best left for another post, but it should be pointed out that she’s not the only politician in Pakistan who colluded with the Taliban. As a champion of human rights in Pakistan, she should have applied the same principles to Afghanistan. Now that the Taliban is making a comeback, and continue to have a cushy relationship with Al Qaeda, she has a lot to answer for. This is not just a problem for those suffering in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but for the stability of many other societies and cultures throughout Central Asia and the Middle East. Sadder still, even if the West did nothing about this threat from now on, the U.S. and its allies would continue to be targets. As long as the most powerful countries in the world are not Islamic, radical Muslims will literally fight to the death. As long as there is a need for oil, money will continue to find its way into their hands. It’s a cycle of stupidity.
Although her father is acknowledged as a superior statesman, I have many issues with him as well. It cannot be denied, however, that he was one of Pakistan’s most popular leaders, and his hanging by Zia ul-Haqq’s military regime still reverberates among idealistic Pakistanis. Bhutto is a symbol of national pride, independence, and democracy in Pakistan. I say, let’s give Benazir another chance; let’s see if Zulfkar Ali Bhutto’s daughter can make us proud.
Am I being naive? We’ll see ….
