Bhutto had prophesied that he, alive or dead, would rule this country for decades
- Bhutto was physically eliminated but Bhuttoism – his adulatory bond with the multitude – survived, and defeated Ziaism
- Since his execution, the Pakistani politics remained divided into two opposing camps – pro-Bhutto and anti-Bhutto
By Ambassador M. Alam Brohi
Notwithstanding his political and economic blunders, Bhutto remained the most popular leader of the country. He successful repaired bilateral relations with the super powers, and renewed afresh strong bonds with the Muslim countries culminating in the holding of the OIC Conference in Lahore in 1974 with a resounding success. With all these political and diplomatic successes, Bhutto’s political stars were high in the sky. He was fully confident to win the next general elections. The opposition was divided and didn’t have a leader of the standing of Bhutto to lead. Khan Abdul Wali Khan and Baloch political stalwarts were incarcerated in Hyderabad and were facing trial by a Special Tribunal. This also played as a key factor in Bhutto’s decision to hold elections in March 1977 which he announced all of sudden to surprise the opposition.
He didn’t know that the opposition was watching his moves. With the announcement of the General elections, the opposition sprung a surprise by forming the Pakistan National Alliance of 9 political parties, the main parties among them were the Jamiat ulema e Islam, Jamaat Islami, Tehrik e Istaklal of Air Martial Asghar Khan, National Democratic Party of Sherbaz Mazari, Jamiat ulema e Pakistan of Shah Ahmed Noorani and Pakistan Democratic Party of Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan. Though all these parties were fighting the election from PNA platform on one election symbol – Plough – and under one banner, the alliance came to be known ”Nau Sitare” in Urdu. The alliance had a few areas of electoral influence including the cities of Karachi and Hyderabad. Bhutto plunged in a serious and strenuous election campaign leaving nothing to chance. His public rallies and meetings drew huge crowds. However, these crowds lacked the luster and enthusiasm of 1970. The keen observers of the election even cautiously predicted PPP to have a comfortable edge over the Alliance.
The elections of March 1977 held by Bhutto after five year rule, were marred by allegations of rigging. The allegations, true or false, added a deadly weapon in the armory of Pakistan National Alliance in the charged political atmosphere to launch crippling protests. Bhutto made monumental mistakes in handling the situation. He accepted the opposition’s demands in piecemeal and prolonged the talks and the signing of the final agreement with his opponents. This convinced the anti-democratic forces of the vulnerability of Bhutto. The praetorian forces struck in the wee hours of 5th July 1977under Zia ul Haq.
Bhutto was arrested on the charges of murder of a political opponent. In disregard of the normal judicial practice, he was directly tried by the Lahore High Court under Moulvi Mushtaq Hussain, a known anti- Bhutto. Under the watch of Prime Minister, Justice Mushtaq Hussain was superseded by Justice Riaz Hussain. General Zia appointed him as Chief Justice to head the bench for the trial of Bhutto. He sentenced him to capital punishment. Both his appeal and review petitions were rejected by the Supreme Court in a split decision of 3-4. The execution of Bhutto on split decision shocked the nation and jurists abroad. The pain and humiliation inflicted on Bhutto by military junta and the custodians of law and justice were a tragic leaf plucked from the wretched oppressive human history. He suffered but never beseeched for comforts. He preferred to go to the gallows than lamenting and wailing before his tormentors and, then, living in shamelessness and effrontery.
Bhutto deserved a fair and gentlemanly treatment. But his nemesis was a small, spiteful and vindictive man. His hatred for Bhuttos knew no bounds. He was seized with fear of Bhutto. His fear was fueled by the politicians around him. They proved to be men of straw, narrow, small, shortsighted, and equally fearful of Bhutto. They wanted to see Bhutto physically eliminated. No point of naming the leaders who counseled the revengeful General to eliminate Bhutto. It seemed the pulpit, politicians, Generals and Justices all had banded closely to extinguish the life of this man who had been involuntarily radiating revolutionary light and hope among the poor masses. They could not foresee that Bhutto fallen would be stronger than Bhutto erect. He would rule Pakistan from his grave.
Bhutto knew the sword, pulpit and politics were in solemn fraternity to blow off the flame of his life. He had reawakened the people and stirred their dormant power to the peril of ossified politicians. His tale signified the defeat of genius by the unholy alliance of the obscurant forces, of light by darkness, of freedom by tyranny, of enlightenment by dogmatism, of progress by obscurantism, of advancement by regression. Bhutto was liberal, secular, progressive and involuntarily revolutionary. His foes steeply enmeshed in religiosity, dogmatism, regression, were voluntarily counter revolutionary, and determined to extinguish the light that Bhutto had diffused over our land.
Glory does not stem from sword. The ideals of a leader rise in the mien of triumph and defeat the tyranny of the sword that has always killed freedom, right, justice and truth. After all, the Bhuttoism and Ziaism were two contrasting phenomena. One was leading us to enlightenment and modernity, the other to obscurantism. Bhutto was set on the throne by vote; his tormentor usurped it by force. So, one was radiating hope and the other spreading terror. And the nation suffered from his terror for long 11 years and is still paying dearly.
The mock trial and execution of Bhutto
The 4th of April always brings back the painful memories of the farce trial and judicial murder of an iconic son of Pakistan – Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. As earlier mentioned, Bhutto after his exit from the Ayub Cabinet had emerged as the most popular leader after Quaid e Azam in the western wing of the country and, notwithstanding his unfulfilled promises with the masses, had genuinely earned the title of the Quaid e Awam. We were in the Civil Service Academy when the former President and Prime Minister; the savior of the so called new Pakistan; the architect of the 1973 Constitution and the Parliamentary democracy, was sent to the gallows after a mock and dubious judicial trial.
After the execution of Bhutto, the General began betraying his true colours. He tempered with the ideals, ideology and direction of the country. A hell was let loose on the country. Political activists and journalists were arrested, flogged, humiliated and imprisoned; speeches of the Quaid e Azam censored; the history books and school and university syllabuses rewritten; the laws of the country replaced by seven century edicts and the religion was grossly abused and sectarianism promoted to solidify personal rule. The country was turned into a theocratic state and plunged as the frontline state into the American war in Afghanistan. The constitution was mutilated to the extent of unrecognizability.
While reflecting on this consequential phase of our national history, all conscious citizens of this country traverse a stream of shocking, sudden and violent turns of history of Pakistan including the imposition of the infamous One-Unit in 1954 and later the Martial Law of October 1958. The period that followed was considered relatively stable. However, the veneer of the stability and development that was trumpeted by Goebbels of the regime began unraveling with the advent of the presidential elections of 1964 in which the autocratic rule of Ayub Khan was challenged by the sister of the founder of Pakistan, Muhtarma Fatima Jinnah rallying the political forces of the country for the restoration of plural democracy. Unfortunately, in these historic phases of nation building, Z.A. Bhutto was on the wrong side of the history supporting autocracy and enjoying perks of power. Nevertheless, the Presidential election had triggered a movement against the autocracy of General Ayub Khan.
The democratic movement was overtaken by the 1965 war with India and the subsequent talks with the Indian leaders in Tashkent through the mediation of the Soviet leader Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin. The Field Marshal emerged as a weak leader from the Tashkent Agreement gradually losing his grip on the levers of power. The agitational politics that ensued forced him to hand over power to his inept Commander in Chief, General Yahya Khan in March 1969. However, his authoritative rule and biased and myopic policies from October 1958 to March 1969 supplemented by the political blunders of the past leadership had already alienated the Bengali population of Pakistan and heightened the sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces of West Pakistan.
The so called fair and transparent general elections held for the first time on the basis of adult franchise in the country in December 1970 brought a bigger tragedy in their wake culminating in the violent secession of the eastern wing of the country leaving the western part in a thick fog of chaos and confusion. The death of the Jinnah’s Pakistan left the nation in a somber and despairing mood. No one was confident of the survival of the remainder of Pakistan as a country. This was the first time, many Pakistanis cried over the defeat and breakup of the country at the hands of its arch enemy. The cumulative consequences of the senseless political and economic policies pursued by the ruling clique combined with the chauvinism, condescension and hauteur which we used to treat the Bengalis with, had contributed more to the secession of the eastern wing than the military intervention of India. Again unfortunately, Bhutto played a confusing role in this consequential phase of the country.
Notwithstanding his strong popularity, Bhutto, after regaining power, turned to strong-arm politics intimidating and imprisoning his opponents. The country was back on the beaten track of political confrontation, antagonism, palace intrigues and strained civil-military relationships with our able and wise politicians lunging at each other’s throat. Nobody thought of the Constitution, democracy, political tolerance, human rights. Bhutto did a lot to lift the people from the abject poverty while committing grave political mistakes and economic policy blunders to alienate key segments of the population. This provided a Godsend opportunity to a meek, cunning and scheming General to outfox him. The tyranny of the new Martial Law Administrator shamed all the contemporary dictators in the world.
The struggle for the Restoration of Democracy in the mid-1980s incurred the wrath of the Junta. The rural regions of Sindh remained ablaze for months witnessing bloodiest clashes with the security forces. Karachi and Punjab were indifferent to this heroic struggle. The Junta had already sowed the seeds of ethnic division in Sindh encouraging and patronizing the alienated young generation of the Urdu speaking Sindhis to gather into a fascist political organization. Under the Martial Law shadow, the new sons of Karachi amassed heaps of weapons and shamelessly engaged into bloodletting. Ironically enough, the first victim of their militancy was the peace, tranquility and tolerance of Karachi which they claim to be their ancestral property.
The post 1988 governments failed to bring any respite to Karachi or any improvement in the living conditions of the poor and were rather engaged in their desperate struggle for survival. The civilian presidents were breathing over their necks with their draconian powers under the Eighth Amendment. They exercised these powers unscrupulously to send packing home these civilian governments at the behest of the establishment on charges of corruption and incompetence. They would have no shame to compromise and collude with the same maligned politicians to undermine the successive government even before the ink of their earlier proclamation order had dried up.
The overthrow of the government of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif by General Pervaiz Musharraf in 1999 heralded a new political chicanery with mock democracy and powerless Prime Ministers. After the elections of 2002, the Metropolis of Karachi, as a matter of political expediency, was handed over to the MQM to prop up the Federal and the Provincial Governments of the General’s choice in Islamabad and Sindh. The General’s selfish politics overshadowed national interests. The party, weakened by the earlier operations, rapidly regained its organizational strength, street power and militant prowess to the peril of peace and tranquility of the Metropolis. They remained the uncrowned king of the city reining it in a fascist fashion. They continued to have this power during the successive PPP governments in the center and the province holding this vibrant city hostage to their whims. The military rules of General Zia and Musharraf were a curse for Pakistan, and Sindh in particular.
The citizens of this country had harbored aspirations for the development of Pakistan into a modern, moderate and progressive state. Who would not acutely feel the pain and sorrow if in his land, the human rights violations and honour killings are rampant and the forced disappearances on the rise; the religious intolerance has acquired xenophobic proportions; the corruption and violence are endemic; the education in public schools and colleges has collapsed; over 25 million children are out of school; the abuse of children is glossed over; the population growth gallops unbridled; the rural regions inhabited by 70% of the population are devoid of the basic human needs; the heinous crimes like murder, extortion, kidnapping for ransom are taking a heavy toll on the society; the law enforcement agencies have given in to militants, extremists and the powerful elite.
Yes, we have many positive achievements to contrast with this list of failures. We have progressed well in the infrastructural communication, technological and industrial development, and defence technology and prosperity in the upper echelons of the society. All these achievements over a period of over 70 years pale into nothingness as compared to our monumental failures. We have developed the habit of gloating over our minor successes and finding scapegoats for big failures. We have failed to define the nature of the state of Pakistan. We have taken too long a time to decide whether we are going to have a theocratic, garrison or a secular and democratic state of Pakistan. If the destination of a nation is undetermined, it would grope in the darkness pulling and pushing into opposite directions and losing its vitality and vibrancy in the course of this futile exercise. This is what we are doing today.
Like my fellow idealists, I have been waiting for a Kemal Ataturk, a Mahathir Muhammad or a Lee Kwan to steer the wobbling ship of this country to safe shores. Then, I reckon that the saviors do not descend from the heaven. They sprout from the soil of the land. Our soil is not so barren. The alarming proportion that the menacing violence, corruption, ineptness and complacency have acquired in the country today render the need for a savior more acute than ever before. These scourges pose an existential threat to the country. They are eating into the vitals of our society and making it hollow from within.
Thus, there is a pressing need for relentless crusade against these evils by a leader free from fear and timidity and parochial and political expediency; by a son of this land who is familiar with the proud lessons of courage and fired by the ideals that were underlying the birth of this country. He will rise from the wreckage of our failures, hold destiny in his grip and dazzle failures. He will free this nation from militants, extremists, looters and plunderers. This is the Pakistan we all dream of and yearn to leave for our posterity. My today’s idealism would transform into reality, tomorrow. This hope sustains my belief in the strength of my nation and country.
Read- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: A Tragic Hero Caught in the Web of Hubris
Bhutto had a chance to be this savior of the truncated Pakistan. He was popular, had the ability, intelligence and capability of doing so. The establishment had been rendered irrelevant by the military’s defeat in East Pakistan. He took over power unchallenged by any political or praetorian force. He could have put the remainder of the country on the right path of democratic and representative governance strengthening rule of law, equality before law, economic and social equity and justice. He lost the chance and rather paved the way for the military establishment to strike back. He paid heavily for his political blunders. The nation suffered for over a decade from the tyranny of military dictatorship.
The black night of 5 July will remain etched in our memory when the praetorian forces overturned the applecart of democracy; held the Constitution of 1973 in abeyance; arrested the political leadership en mass; clamped Martial Law in the country; usurped senior political positions; restrained the superior courts; gagged the press; garrisoned the cities and towns; established military courts at all levels. In all, the political tumult which preceded the night was quickly turned into a deadening silence accompanied by a thick pall of gloom, an unknown fear, a despairing uncertainty, a strong feeling of disappointment and a deepening disillusionment. It was not the end of Bhutto’s rule. It was a direct attack on the foundations of a modern, progressive and secular Pakistan.
Ironically, we had lost the bigger part of the country just six years ago. We had sustained defeat, humiliation and dismemberment of the Jinnah’s Pakistan. Our military and civilian leadership knew that the main cause of the disgruntlement of the Bengalis was the absence of a participatory democratic rule. The political gerrymandering of the early years and the abrogation of the first Constitution of the country (1956) by Martial Law, followed by a long autocratic rule by General Ayub Khan had sowed the seeds of separatism in the former East Pakistan. After a decade’s effective rule, he handed over power to his Commander in Chief, General Agha Yahiya Khan in violation of his own Constitution of 1962. (Continues)
Click here to read Part-1,
________________
The author is a former member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and has served as Ambassador for seven years.
