Pakistan After Benazir's Assassination
By Stefania Maurizi
08 January, 2008
Repubblica.itAn interview with Pervez Hoodhoy
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto
assassination. Today, international media remind
us she was the first woman to become the PM of an
Islamic country, she was a democratic leader,
etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal
family, which was primarily responsible for
making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known
for the authoritarian control of her party.
Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high
school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge
(Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her
assassination. But, although the international
media paint her as someone who could have led
Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very
different. Her two tenures as prime minister were
a nightmare of autocratic government and
mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign
aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money
laundering in 2003. Ms. Bhutto owned mansions
and palaces across the world. She even tried to
steal land from my (public) university to feed
the rapacious appetite of her party members.Even during school days, Benazir thought she had
been born to rule. More importantly, she made not
the slightest effort to change the feudal
character of Pakistani politics and society. The
Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in
Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she
promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after
returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that
for a few table scraps she would be happy to team
up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly
absurd US plan to give our military government a
civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples
Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as
"chairperson for life". Reflecting the mindset of
a feudal princess, she even named her successors
to be male members from her family: her 19-year
son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing
about Pakistani culture, as well as her
phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as
Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she
showed that a woman could be the head of a
conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is
hard to see what she wanted beyond personal
power. Although she said that she was fighting
for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out
what they were. She certainly did nothing for
Pakistani women during her two stints in power
and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws,
according to which a rape victim needs to produce
4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she
could be punished for fornication). Nor did she
try to overturn the Pakistani blasphemy law that
prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those
convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or
his companions. As for democracy: she had been
desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled
over her head the many corruption cases that she
was charged with. But he proved too clever for
her and she was forced into the opposition.In foreign policy, she played footsie with the
army. It could do whatever it liked, including
making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants
into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of
Afghanistan by the Taliban. In 2002 she regretted
having signed the document authorizing funds for
the funding Taliban forces for seizing Kandahar.
Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her
death she will doubtlessly play a more positive
role than
when alive.Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto
assassination. However, many people hated her:
Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which
in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had
replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented
the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was
really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto?
Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?A: There are different possibilities and much
confusion. But some facts are certain. There
definitely were gunshots, and this was followed
by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that
suicide bombers can be bought with any number of
rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by
heavenly rewards would blow himself up. Therefore
Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist
groups are strong possibilities. They always
hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced
in Washington that, if elected prime minister,
she would fight them even more vigorously than
Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of
Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also
strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden
within the establishment, could also have done
it. They have a stock of suicide bombers
available to them, as evidenced by the success
they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon
army commandos as well as their own colleagues.So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do
it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by
the government. First, publicly available
photographs and videos show a modern-looking
gunman accompanying the suicide bomber. He fired
three shots, heard by all present, at least one
of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a
second sharpshooter in a building too. On the
other hand, the government initially insisted she
died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an
obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the
same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after
the assassination, the police washed away all the
bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite
possible that non-Islamists in the government
have somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers,
trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their
dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth
will never be known.As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups
saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be
used against them, and a leader who could
secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and
popular. But Musharraf and his political party,
the PML(Q), have also gained because a political
rival has been eliminated. The losers are those
Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern
Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs.
Although she never delivered on her promises, her
followers never lost faith.Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of
Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic
takeover, in your opinion?A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five
years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam
on to its people as a matter of policy. Prayers
in government departments were deemed compulsory,
punishments were meted out to those who did not
fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts
required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge
of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated
through schoolbooks. Today government
intervention is no longer needed because of a
spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now
the state is realizing that it shot itself in the
foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have
turned against it. It is supreme irony that the
Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under
the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the
fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently
targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a
jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a
thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the
Taliban.The pace of radicalization has quickened. There
are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon
was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in
major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets
have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent
and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic
sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg;
we'll see much more in years ahead.Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be
removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the
independent judiciary restored, a new neutral
caretaker government installed for overseeing
free and fair elections, and then elections that
would decide upon the new parliament and prime
minister. This will not immediately solve
Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance,
maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism -
but it would get Pakistan on the track to
democracy instead of the self-destruction it is
racing towards.Q: People in Washington are increasingly
frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism
efforts, however they think there are no
alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think
about this?A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want
lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding,
although here too there is deception at work.
They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani
military leaders, Musharraf included, are the
makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after
Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in
Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him
as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such
praises disappeared, but under his leadership the
army still covertly supported jihadist groups and
the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the
Americans will have to dump him at some point. It
is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere
in the country except in the top business circles
and the top army leadership. Until recently he
ran both the army and the government himself,
with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament
put in place through rigged elections. When the
courts were about to rule that he could not
legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend
the constitution and impose emergency rule. He
dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the
judges, replacing them with judges who obey his
every command. He blocked all independent
television channels, and punished the news media
for disparaging him or the army. His police
arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy
activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in
closed military courts. This was necessary, he
said, to save Pakistan from a rapidly growing
Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic
extremists on the day that the judges were
arrested. In spite of all this, George W. Bush
called Musharraf "a democrat at heart".The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by
supporting the army consistently for decades.
They have lost credibility and respect among
Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that
America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this
situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani
(the new army chief) takes over, the best that
American can hope for is for the status quo. This
is sad, because America is a great country with
many virtues. If only they could get over their
hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an
impossible task anyway.Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government
responsible for the assassination. Tragically,
suicide bombings are not condemned with any
particular vigor. There is no strong reaction
against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis.
Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them
because this might be seen as a criticism of
Islam. Interestingly, in all the street
demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto
assassinations, there was no call for cracking
down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone
taxidriver who thought the Islamists did it.Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al
Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need
to mobilize both its people and the state. The
notion of a power-sharing agreement between the
state and Taliban is a non-starter; the
spectacular failures of earlier agreements should
be a lesson. Instead the government should help
create public consensus through open forum
discussions, proceed faster on infrastructure
development in the tribal areas, and make
judicious use of military force - troops only, no
air power. This should become every Pakistani's
war, not just the army's, and it will have to be
fought even if America packs up and goes away.
But, as long as Musharraf is president, it will
be impossible to get popular support for the war.
If presented with a choice between Musharraf and
the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of
Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am
sure they would regret
it later.Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot
of concern about the possibility that nuclear
weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic
fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington
Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military
experts and intelligence analysts convened in
Washington for exploring strategies to secure
Pakistani nukes if the Pakistani regime falls
apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as, -
there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure
the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What
do you think about this?A: The government says there is absolutely no
danger of loose nukes. Pakistan has been sending
serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division,
which is the agency responsible for handling
nuclear weapons, to the United States for
training in safety measures (PAL's locking
devices, storing procedures, etc). But there's no
way of telling if this will be effective.
Extremists have already penetrated deep into the
army and the intelligence agencies. We now see
repeated evidence: for example, last month an
unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter
Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret
intelligence], was collecting employees early in
the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber
who blew himself up killing 25. It was an inside
job.And now there are many other such examples, such
as that of an army man killing 16 Special
Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at
Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is
clearly at war with another part. There are also
scientists, as well as military people, who are
radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind:
can there be collusion between different
field-level commanders, resulting in the
hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider
groups develop links with insiders? Given the
absence of accurate records of fissile material
production, can one be certain that small
quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons
grade plutonoium have already not been diverted?
I do not know the answers. Nobody does.[Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of nuclear and
high-energy physics, and chairman of the
department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University
in Islamabad]
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
