A revenger's tragedy
The intelligence services and religious extremists were behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto,
By Ziauddin Sardar Published 03 January 2008Pakistan has a new political leader barely out of nappies. Bila wal Bhutto, 19, has become the new chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), after the assassination of his mother, Benazir Bhutto. The teenager, who has hardly spent any time in Pakistan and speaks virtually no Urdu, will share the responsibility of leading the most powerful political party in Pakistan with his widower father, Asif Ali Zardari, who has become co-chair of the PPP. This is what Benazir has bequeathed to the party and the nation.
Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the PPP did not even consider holding an election to find a new leader. There are devoted PPP politicians who could have assumed the mantle of leadership - from Makhdoom Amin Fahim, who managed the party during Ms Bhutto's exile, to Aitzaz Ahsan, the brilliant lawyer who led the agitation against President Pervez Musharraf yet was marginalised by her because of his immense popularity. But quite simply, at no time during its existence has the PPP actually practised democracy.
Though she was seen as liberal and west-leaning, Bhutto based her political power on the feudal tenants of her ancestral lands in Sindh. For all that she proclaimed the need for democracy, the PPP, of which Bhutto appointed herself "chairperson for life", is another autocratic fiefdom. It is a family, dynastic business; a Bhutto can only be succeeded by another Bhutto - even if he has to return to Oxford to finish his studies. Ms Bhutto was fully aware of her husband's reputation for authoritarianism and corruption. During her two terms as prime minister, he was known as "Mr Ten Per Cent". Still she appointed him as successor in her will.
"Democracy is the best revenge," Bilawal quoted his mother as saying at his first press conference. In Pakistan, however, this mantra is not as positive as it appears. Politics has become a revenger's tragedy in its regular oscillation between civilian and military rule. Each painful transition creates an agenda of animosity and scores to be settled. When politics begins with the unfinished business of old wrongs, genuine development takes a back seat. The groundwork for another round is evident in the bizarre argument about how Bhutto actually met her death. Did she die from an assassin's bullet, as the Bhutto camp claims? Or from a skull fracture after hitting her head on the lever of her car's sunroof, as the government suggests? Then comes the question of who instigated the murder.
The government claims Baitullah Mehsud, a leader of the Pakistani Taliban, was behind the assassination. It produced in evidence a telephone transcript in which Mehsud, speaking in Pashto, congratulates a lieutenant on the operation. Yet Mehsud has denied any involvement. "It is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman," his spokesman declared. "This is a conspiracy of the government, army and intelligence agencies." The Bhutto camp endorses this view.
Bhutto herself pointed the finger at Musharraf. "I have been made to feel insecure by his minions," she wrote in an email to her friend and confidant in Washington Mark Siegel. "There is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides could happen without him." People's Party stalwarts also believe that "remnants" from the period of President Zia ul-Haq, who executed Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, intended to kill her. She talked of a state within a state, of around 400 people attached to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) who saw her as a threat and would stop at nothing to remove her.
Quite what motivation Musharraf's government would have for assassinating Bhutto, it is hard to discern. He expected her to provide legitimacy for his presidency. Indeed, the very fact that she was eager to participate in the elections put a democratic sheen on his clinging to power. Her death not only weakens Musharraf's position further, but may actually write the final chapter of his rule.
Security experts in Pakistan have little doubt who is behind the assassination. "I am convinced that the intelligence services were involved," says Ayesha Siddiqa, author of the highly acclaimed book Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy. Only through the collusion of the security services could both a gunman and a suicide bomber have got so close to Bhutto, she says. Other analysts agree. There seems to be a general consensus that renegade current and former members of the ISI are working with religious extremists to spread a reign of terror.
Benazir Bhutto is the highest-value victim so far, but it is not just the PPP that is being targeted. Almost all Pakistani politicians are under threat. Hours before Bhutto's assassination, an election rally organised by the Muslim League, the party of the other former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, was attacked by unknown gunmen. Four party workers were killed. The Muslim League blames a pro-Musharraf party, the PML(Q), for the incident. But Musharraf allies are themselves under attack.
On 21 December, the day of the festival of Eid ul-Adha, a suicide bomber attacked a mosque in Charsadda District, near Pesha war, during Friday prayers. The intended victim, the former interior minister Aftab Sherpao, escaped unhurt but the blast killed more than 50 people. Even religious politicians, such as Maulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Islamic Party of Religious Leaders), who has close ties with the Taliban, have received death threats. "The truth is that anyone can be bumped off in Pakistan," says Imran Khan, the former cricketer and leader of the Movement for Justice Party, and it can simply be "blamed on al-Qaeda".
The real function of these threats, attacks and assassinations is to strengthen the hand of the religious extremists and undermine all vestiges of the political process in Pakistan. The intelligence services want to ensure that power remains not just with the military, but with its hardcore religious faction. "Anyone or any institution that can possibly undermine this goal is seen by them as a threat," says Siddiqa. Bhutto was targeted because she was capable of uniting the country against the military as well as the religious extremists. Indeed, most of her criticisms during the campaign were directed towards the extremists and the security services.
Paradoxically, it was Bhutto herself who unleashed these forces. It was under her second administration that the Taliban came into existence with the aid and comfort of the ISI. While she was the first woman to lead a Muslim nation and was seen as secular, moderate and imbued with the liberalism and western approach of her Harvard and Oxford education, Bhutto fostered the politics of elective feudalism in Pakistan.
Under her leadership, the PPP became a vehicle for righting the wrongs of the past - specifically the overthrow and execution of Benazir's beloved father - rather than an institution generating policy and debate about the changing needs of Pakistani society and maturing a new generation of political leaders. Her brother Murtaza Bhutto was killed when he challenged her leadership of the party. His whole family, including Benazir's mother, believes she was behind the murder. Her terms in office were characterised not just by corruption and nepotism, but also by revenge and human rights abuses. She had the largest cabinet in the history of Pakistan; she even made her unelected husband minister for investment, which was generally seen as an open invitation to corruption. A common joke during her second term was that the infant Bilawal had been awarded the portfolio of minister for children.
Musharraf in the balance
These democratic deficits stop the PPP from becoming anything other than a dynastic, feudal institution. Yet such deficits are common throughout the political scene. Most politicians in the country, including the spotless Imran Khan, are feudal landowners. Increasingly, Pakistani politics has become sectional, sectarian and regional, tending to spin the country apart rather than offer a vision of a united and hopeful future. Politicians appeal to tribal, regional loyalties and to their feudal "vote banks". Few, if any, escape being tarnished in the eyes of much of the population.
As a consequence, Pakistani politics and governance have totally failed to resolve the basic dilemmas the country has faced since its creation: what is Pakistan as a nation, as an idea? In Pakistan religion has always been a factor. But is that all there is to Pakistan? How should religion find expression in the life of the nation? There must be more to Pakistanis and their deep attachment to Islam than being swept along on the tide of jihadi ideology and the violence and terrorism it breeds. But how can Pakistan develop an alternative vision of itself as a viable state? When can such a vision become the bedrock of public life? These questions cannot be asked, let alone explored, in the current political climate.
The assassination also leaves the future of President Musharraf in the balance. The former general must be seen as a figure of declining utility to western interests. The armed forces, now one of the most hated institutions in Pakistan, are no longer a monolith. They display the same fissiparous tendencies as Pakistani society as a whole. Pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathies have taken root within the army, the only agency Musharraf supposedly controlled and could use to combat terrorism. His room for manoeuvre was always limited. After Benazir Bhutto's murder, his chances of delivering on any of the hoped-for initiatives in the "war on terror" have evaporated. The last vestiges of US strategy have been destroyed by the gunman and the suicide bomber.
As long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan will be unstable, continually teetering on the edge of chaos. Further US or British manipulation of the country's politics will only make matters worse. Even those who would never support religious extremism and are determined to oppose the growth of terrorist sympathies have an intense dislike for US involvement in Pakistani politics. Opposition to the course of US foreign policy since the 11 September 2001 attacks has hardened antipathy and made countering the rise of religious extremism ever more difficult.
Civil society
A great deal of hope is being pinned on the coming elections. Bhutto's death has brought the opposition parties together. All political parties will now participate in the elections, including the Muslim League, the second major party, which had decided to boycott them after the assassination. However, it would be wrong to assume that a PPP victory, based on a sympathy vote, would greatly reduce the underlying, simmering tensions. The extremists and their supporters in the ISI are not through with Pakistan quite yet. The polls will undoubtedly be rigged in favour of Musharraf's party. If his supporters lose power, the scene would be set for further, and open, confrontation between the president and the newly elected government. Far from resolving anything, the elections, which were expected to be delayed until next month, may actually perpetuate the crisis.
The only sign of hope lies in the diverse character of Pakistani society, in which comment, opinion, ideas and debate are vibrant and thriving, powered not least by the emergence of satellite and cable television stations. A civil society exists, which stands apart from politics and the military. Neglected, yet robust, that civil society is the unexplored pole of all the sectional interests in Pakistan. It was elements from this sector - the judiciary, lawyers, human rights groups, news media, non-governmental organisations, students and minor parties - whom Musharraf had to restrict and destabilise to ensure his survival. They offer the prospect of a fresh departure from which a healthier, more sustainable and enduring politics might emerge.
Although the agencies of civil society are themselves still in disarray, they may yet rescue Pakistan from the motley crew of Musharraf, the military, feudal politicians and religious fanatics. Bringing a country where the political process becomes ever more discredited and hostage to violence back to sanity will not be easy, painless or swift: Pakistan is poised to endure a great deal of pain and suffering for the foreseeable future.
the Bhuttos by numbers
4 suffered unnatural deaths (Zulfikar, Shahnawaz, Murtaza, Benazir)
5 studied at Oxford (Zulfikar, Benazir, Murtaza, Shahnawaz and now Bilawal)
$8.6m fine imposed in 1999 on Benazir and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, over corruption charges (later overturned)
$1.5bn estimated profits from kickbacks made by Bhutto family and associates, according to 1996 investigation
0 pieces of major legislation passed by Benazir in first term as prime minister
10 per cent Zardari's nickname, on account of dubious business dealings
Research by Alyssa McDonald
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

24 comments
re the Frost interview, Benazir had a bunch of names ready to mention, and just came out with the wrong one: she obviously meant to say Daniel Pearl. Omar Saeed Sheikh - a man with close links to both bin Laden and the ISI (and, according to Musharraf, MI6) - was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing Pearl. The idea that bin Laden's "special son" killed him beggars belief anyway.
Not that anything will stop the conspiracy theorists....
well, I am not a politician nor I have any such deeper understanding. But being a pakistani, I know what has happened and what happening in my country. What is very surprising to see is that people from societies, which are responsible for investing so much in pushing my country deeper in such situation, .... people from those societies are worried about it ..... What I have seen is that the rule was almost always in the hands of those who are not sincere.... not to the country and not to the people at all .... but those are supported more by outside nations for their interests .... now its a point where an average person with common sense knows that politics is a game in which the elite plays with the nation and the country.....
Pakistan going to break or collapse .... well, I think its the cycle of history ..... I hope people from EU knows their history ... the way they travelled to this point ... same as the people from Muslim world remember their boom .... Pakistan and india came into existance by a planned which included the collapse of pakistan ASAP .. a country with no army, no reserves, no infrastructure, nothing at all ... but SURPRISINGLY it survived for a long time ......
Western interests are pushing pakistan towards worst conditions .... People like the AUTHOR of this article quote from sources which THEY LIKE .... they wana earn their living EVEN if the earning is not an HONEST earning .... still we, people from pakistan, face everything with inside and outside the country, with the hope that we will one day realise what choices we have and what choice is the best for whole nation .... right now, everyone is thinking very limited .... and this is also the result of the financial problems .... made more problematic by wealthy INDIVIDUALS of wealthy nations ....
Europe went through wars and feudalism for centuries ... now they reach to a point when they advice and suggest to nations like us ... but history tells a lot of the bloodshed and curroption they went through to get to this point ... Pakistan ( 1947 - 2007) ... still not that long ... still a long way to go ....
Thanks to everyone for their opinion about my country ... I saw many honest comments from the readers ... though the writer is just focused on a single day ..... If some has to understand Pakistan, they should go through the history in details .... its not easy to understand and predict without knowing the history of the land and the people ..... and without knowing those nations and their politics who have deep interests in Pakistan .....
May innocent human be in peace and may those who are blinded with material interests be blessed with vision .... Ameen
Peace be on you dear reader ....
Most people seem to agree that Pakistan is a complex and volatile country, with substantial economic and social problems, and underlying ethnic tensions. It's also a country of 165 million people, mostly peasants, with a dýnamic and restive middle-class, a fabulously wealthy, pro-western, and powerful fuedal elite, and a masssive military caste whose influence cannot be overestimated. A military which is currently receiveing over ten billion dollars a year in US aide, and is a vital element in the war on terror. A military elite that live well and weigh the country down rather than lift it up, and that is yet another problem.
Personally I would be very wary of becoming involved in Pakistan's internal affairs, given its complexity, volatility and history. What concerns me is that our interference in Pakistan is actually making things worse, not better, and creating enromous stresses and strains that appear to be pushing Pakistan towards something close to civil war. Surely this can't be in our interests, let alone in the interests of Pakistan? But, we don't really give a damn about the ordinary people of Pakistan, as long as they keep quiet and follow our interests.
In the West we almost seem to have an obsession with elections, voting, and 'democracy', at almost any cost. I think one can argue that pushing for 'democracy' in 'immature' countries like Pakistan, has the effect of deepening the socio-economic divisions and risks pulling the country apart into chaos, and who knows what chaos may bring?
Perhaps the model for deveopment in Pakistan shouldn't be western-style democracy at all, at least not for now. Later on the people of Pakistan themselves should be allowed to choose what kind of 'democracy' they prefer. Maybe what Pakistan needs is 'development' and 'progress' along Chinese lines? Perhaps China, whether one likes it or not - seen from a western perspective - is the way forward for most developing countries?
First one needs a 'nationalist/socialist' Revolution. The old 'fuedal order' has to be toppled, an order which was incapable of resisting western domination anyway. The elite, in reality, as the history of the Bhutto family shows, effectively became westeners. We liked them, but were these people really what Pakistan needed? Were they really going to 'reform' or destroy a system which provided them with such massive and disproportionate ammounts of wealth and power? I think not!
Then, post 'Revolution' one needs a minimum of twenty to thirty years of strong, centralized government, to establish a functioning state and promote economic development, along Chinese lines. Economic and social nationalism. A Pakistan first policy. Then once a functioning state/country has been created, then one can begin to think about 'democracy' and all its blessings, but first one has to put the cart before the horse. One way or another fuedalism has to be replaced by a modern, nation state, and I'm convinced that history shows this simply doesn't happen through elections alone.
The problem is, that following the Chinese 'model' implies 'Revolution' 'Civil War' ,Chinese style in order to bring it about. The history of the Chinese Revolution was incredibly bloody and destructive, surely nothing to emulate? And Pakistan has atomic weapons!
It's a contradictory postion to hold. On the one hand one thinks Pakistan needs a social revolution, on the other hand the consequences might well be dire and disasterous! Also breaking the power of the Pakistani army risks breaking Pakistan; if the army is, in fact, what holds Pakistan together as a state?
Then perhaps what's needed is a mass mobilization of the people of Pakistan as an alternative to a 'Revolution'? Maybe after free and fair elections the fuedal elite and the military elite will voluntarily give up their power and priviliges, or maybe it will just take another hundred years or more?
radius: what ever you want to believe.lol Bhutto said it as clear as crystal...she made no attempt to correct herself and Sir David MI6 Frost ignored it as well. Of course, we don`t know if this interview went out on air. But if it did, it was seen in newsrooms around the world and ignored. While the assassins name might be incorrect, the idea that the NWO`s most wanted man has been assassinated and some time ago, only to have this blown open by a minor expendable politician must have really wound up the NWO.
I can only imagine that after the first alledged attempt on her life (which wasn`t a serious effort), Bhutto had concluded she`d walked into a NWO trap and had decided to throw her mugs into the sink by stating that Bin Laden had been killed. Now Bhutto is dead.
Its seem the Nazi style of removal has returned, but then again, we do now live under the IV Reich.lol
Reality check on Pakistan.
I just been listening to Bill Richardson, one of the Democratic candidates talking about Pakistain. He talked about the need to 'push Musharraf aside' and form a 'broad-based technocratic caretaker government in Pakistan' until the elections, this was in the interests of the United States.
If one listens to Richardson and the other candidates, he isn't alone in his views, one hears powerful American leaders talking about Pakistan as if they are discussing a backward colony, run by childlike 'darkies', who need western guidance because they are almost genetically unable to rule themselves!
One really wonders about these Americans, they have a explosive cocktail in their heads; a deadly mix of rampant racism, ignorance and imperialism. These people really believe they can 'rule' Pakistan, having won their 'imperial spurs' in Afghanistan and Iraq!
In truth these American leaders are a bunch of deluded and dangerous numbskulls. Listening to them talk about the need to push Musharraf and force him to take resolute action against the 'terrorists' is frightening. Richardson said that Musharraf was terribly unpopular and useless in the figtht against terror, a new man was needed. What Richardson and the other US candiates don't seem to undersand, or refuse to understand, is that it's the 'war on terror' which is unpopular in Pakistan and US policies which are pushing the country towards civil war, by destabilizing the delicate ethnic and political balance in Pakistan.
What's frightening is that the American political class seems to believe their own propaganda and rhetoric about the 'war on terror'. It's not so much that they question the Imperial Project which is about controling Asia and its resources, what they object to is the incompetance of Bush and company in achieving these ends! Vote for Clinton and get an empress that really knows how to rule! With these people in charge we're all doomed.
writeon: the 'revolution' you refer to in Pakistan is indeed on the cards, but it will be an Islamic revolution, not a maoist one.
this actually is a definite improvement however, at least there is a solid corpus of law that the society already has open to it, which will avoid the incredibly horrific circumstances of the Maoist revolution, where the whims of one man could leave millions dead.
it is likely that such a revolution would split Pakistan, as the feudal areas and structures will resist the modernising, democratising and totalitarian Islamic revolution - not least because of the rights such a revolution would bring to the women of these areas.
this is also, i am sad to say, a deliberate policy of some of the Western elite, who not only have laid out that they want to see Islamic states schismed and at internal conflict, but also because the kind of society left afterwards is generally a far weaker one, and economically/scientifically hampered.
unfortunately, if one regards oneself as having a 'divine right to rule', and wish to see that right extended over the whole planet, such policies make complete sense - nevermind that such a belief is a sign of mental instability, or the mind-boggling amounts of suffering it will cause to innocent people.
Quote writeon - 06 January: [i]"Personally I would be very wary of becoming involved in Pakistan's internal affairs, given its complexity, volatility and history. What concerns me is that our interference in Pakistan is actually making things worse..."[/i]
Its already a little late for that, 'writeon'. If Britain and Europe had taken the trouble to ensure the safety and electability of BB, she would have easily solved their own home terrorist problems for them. Now, that can never be done. Propping up the boys' club there (the military) was a fatal mistake. They and the USA are Al Qaeda's paymasters.
People don't like to have other nations running their country. That is where the complexity lies. You also seem to fail to realise that it is Islam, not the army, which holds Pakistan together. Actually, none of your recipes for change are in any way workable although you seem to understand that "western-style democracy" is not really appropriate.
The Chinese model is not really the one that you imagine. Their revolution started quite successfully with Sun Yat Sen around 1900. It was then derailed by warlordism and Mao's gang of ignorant thugs. Feudalism in Pakistan is no worse than anywhere else. If you think having the peasants running the country is such a great idea, look at the mess Britain has made for itself, uhh.
*Quote Carl Jones - 06 January: "Bhutto said it as clear as crystal...she made no attempt to correct herself and Sir David MI6 Frost ignored it as well. Of course, we don`t know if this interview went out on air..."
It most probabaly did, Carl Jones, because there was a lot of blog comment about it but it was later edited out and the BBC's version on the net no longer has that statement in it about OBL.
Her son will be in a quandary now living and studying in Britain under British protection. He will, in effect, be a hostage under MI6 "protection". How his father pursues things in Pakistan will thus be coloured by that reality - or maybe he's simply safer in Britain?
That "London and Washington are totally relaxed about an unstable nuclear state" is illusory, though. The fact is that they haven't a clue what to do while Russia and China have the game sown up with INDIA. Making an enemy of IRAN was a fatal mistake!!!
*Quote radius - 05 January: "Omar Saeed Sheikh - a man with close links to both bin Laden and the ISI - was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing Pearl. The idea that bin Laden's "special son" killed him beggars belief anyway..."
No, 'radius', she was definite about all those names she mentioned. Omar Sheikh was also a British double agent so he could have quite easily infiltrated Al Qaeda. That means that it has been a fake bogeyman since then.
Additionally, though, BB also mentioned Beth-al-a Massoud (Ahmad Shah Massoud, I presume) who was supposedly assassinated in 2001, was still alive as others had already said, judging by the way she mentioned him as “the Afghan warlord”. She also mentioned “the Pakistan Taleban IN Islamabad...." and "a group IN Karachi...” !!!
In other words, the Taleban are actually behind the show in Pakistan anyway and Mushi is only nominally in control. They can pop him and take over the nuclear arsenal almost any time they wish. It would be the easiest thing for them or Al Qaeda to infiltrate the Pakistani military.
Dear Ziauddin
What is your evidence that pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathies have taken root within the army?
The military and the ISI are, if anything, hardline secularist institutions where no-one displaying any commitment to religion is promoted.
The military and intelligence top brass are not even vaguely islamist and to suggest that they would somehow tolerate a couple of hundred people forming a state within a state and going around assassinating all the country's top politicians is inconcievable.
Yes, the military and the ISI have close connections with islamist and jihadi groups, but only so they can be used to further Pakistani/military/intelligence interests - and therefore no different to any other military or intelligence apparatus.
Bhutto was killed because she had become not only a spent force politically, but had actually become a political liability. She promised to deliver Pakistan to the US and failed miserably. The likes of Aitzaz Ahsan and Amin Fahim were aware of this and that's why they had started jockeying for position.
Bhutto's death allows the military to continue working with the US by removing the US suported thorn in the military's side.
You're right that Musharraf's future is in the balance - all eyes are now on the new Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani to see if he will politely ask Musharaf to step aside and allow a PPP / PML-N alliance to form a government.
Bhutto's death has benefitted the military, the US and the PPP too - in allowing it to select a new leader that isn't as completely unacceptable to the military as Bhutto was.
Nothingbuttruth
06 January,2008
A clarification for Mr. Douglas Chalmer.Baitullah Mehsud who is alleged to be the mastermind of suicidal attack on Benazir Bhutto is different from Afghanistan's Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masood who was slain just a couple of days before the 9/11. Baitullah Mehsud is a warlord and prominent leader of Mehsud tribe in south waziristan. Baitullah Mehsud from his brorther Abdullah Mehsud who blew himself up finding his imminent arrest by the pakistani forces who laid a seige around his hideout in Quetta town last year. Abdullah Mehsud started his terrorist activities soon afrter his return from the guantanmo bay camp where he was detained for four years.