Bhutto’s Judicial Murder Revisited

HP, do comment on #46 when you wake up.

#47 Posted by akcheema,

Thank you.

You see, one needs to separate Bhutto's controversial personality and politics from the circumstances of his death. In case of the former, history has judged him to be a great albeit flawed Genius. As for the latter, it has been established that no court would convict a person - let alone grant a death penalty - and then actually carry it out on a 3-3 split verdict made 4-3 only by the CJ himself, based on the evidence presented in the case. That case is barred from being used as a precedent in any future case by the international judicial community itself.

HP,

What was NAP's strength. Why wasn't there any attempt to bring PPP and Awami League together in a coalition that was successful?

The six points are very reasonable given the Lahore resolution framework as Pakistan's basic document.

As for blaming Bhutto for massacres in Bangladesh, I was always very clear that Bhutto is to be blamed if we use Masada complex logic.

#44 Posted by masadi
“Firstly, the West, the more establishment/military oriented part would never have settled for East rule, so it would have been a setup for failure and not any democracy enhancement.”

Set up for failure? Would that mean that the current govt. should give up now because sooner or later the army will strike against them? Bhutto represented only two provinces of Pakistan and certainly was not a representative of the west as there was no West Pakistan in 1971.
Basically by staying with this argument, you are negating the whole ideology that you are fighting for so vigorously. Political struggles don’t stop because of the expected failure. They go on despite many odds. I think you should reconsider this.

“the idhar hum udhar tum was the most democratic setup to keep the union intact with autonomy and democracy,”

The democratic process for Bhutto was to fight for Sindh and Punjab’s rights in the assembly. True that Mujib had no representation in the West but would you blame him for that instead of applying your post# 6 scenario to Mujib’s situation also. Mujib barely got time to establish his party in East Pakistan. I hope you know that he was in jail from 1958 to until 1966 on many fabricated cases including the agartala conspiracy case.

Actually Awami league existed in West Pakistan also. It had contesting elections in Sindh. Awami League also had a working relationship with NAP of Wali Khan. In 1971, NAP too was not only banned but many of NAP workers were arrested allover Pakistan. NAP was the only party in W. Pak that protested army action in E.Pak. The Baloch supported Awami League against the army.

What was Bhutto’s role then? He disappeared in Europe and then came back to become the Deputy PM under Yahya. I know that is one decision, he must have regretted when he was in adiala jail.

I got to sleep now but I sure will look up your response in the morning.

Masadi,

To a fanatically closed and rigid mind that you have, indeed the world exists in black or white.

I have fighting for Bhutto -not just on this website but on many other forums- much longer than you could spell the word Bhutto. Try my previous handle "ylh" on this website.

However, I am not blind to his faults which are many. He was a human being and if you try to make him into a god, I have the right to point out his weaknesses and major flaws. Bhutto was a victim of his own feudal mentality and enormous contradictions- including at times careerist opportunism. The easy way he took on the Ahmadi issue, where even a lesser prime minister like Nazimuddin had preferred to give up his pmship and take stand against the Mullahs, was one such Bhutto flaw. His flirtation with Pan-islamism was another such issue though it could have worked.

But I will always admire Bhutto for his patriotism, his vision for the people, the courage with which he took on his opponents and the fact that he was the first high priest of the Church of MAJ - a post which I currently proudly occupy.

-ylh

Re: # 42; Zeemax

point taken; say no more.

Cheers

#45 Posted by masadi,

masadi, I think it is cruel to debate the memory of a great man who was removed from the scene in such a callous manner, and which many zameer-frosh types still defend. As I said, history has already given its verdict, and the events in Pakistan have proven it. His grave still draws more votes than any living man or woman does.

I think more important to discuss is - is Zardari heading towards a 'great betrayal'?

Of-course I'm referring to the unanimous vote for PM, the PPP delagtions to MQM, the distancing from restoration of judiciary and removal of president - and most importantly Ch. Ahmed Mukhtar, the Defence Minister's statement that musharraf is an asset because he's a salable commodity for foreign assistance.

What do you think? HP and tahmed32's views too would be appreciated.

Manto writes "HP,

That is precisely my view. You know I am an old Bhutto supporter ... it is in my blood."

Given the scathing attacks on ZAB by Manto in arguing with me and the fact that multiple times he has blamed the man for the massacres in Bangladesh by the Pakistani Army and for the capitulation of Bengal, this guy is a charlatan through and through....

HP writes "Bhutto clearly saw an opening and worked with the army like many politicians still do"

Firstly, the West, the more establishment/military oriented part would never have settled for East rule, so it would have been a setup for failure and not any democracy enhancement. Taking note of the reality of the power situation and the uniquely odd nature of the two part country matters more in enhancing democracy through manuverability than blanket application fo democracy theory. The new govt would have been removed shortly by the establishment and all gains to that date lost.

Second, Mujib had no representation in the West, the idhar hum udhar tum was the most democratic setup to keep the union intact with autonomy and democracy, proposed by ZAB, the Army didn't want that, it wanted its dictatorial rule all over the land. Just because ZAB understood their shenanigans and tried to work within the boundary set for politicians by the military does not mean that he was being an opportunist when he clearly carried the mandate of the people of the West. Carrying the mandate of the people of the West was a grander achievement than those of the east in changing the system, as the establishment was vested more in the West. Rather it was Mujib who didn't want democracy to work and gave the military the excuse it was looking for to complete the foregone conclusion of an independant Bangal...

Quote:

In 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. Symbolically, this took place on January 30; the same date that Charles I had been executed. His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Abbey until 1685. Afterwards the head changed hands several times, including the sale in 1814 to a man named Josiah Henry Wilkinson, before eventually being buried in the grounds of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960

#41 Posted by akcheema,

Look akcheema, any debate about Bhutto is quite useless. As they say history is the best (and perhaps only) judge, that is now done. History has already judged Z.A. Bhutto as a great leader, who was murdered by a military dictator. Period.

His own daughter despite two terms as P.M did not reopen the case. Zardari too will not. But it will be reopened someday. It will be then that his murderers will be exhumed and executed posthumously just as Oliver Cromwell.

Re: # 37; Zeemax

It is unfair of you to attribute something to me that I didn't say.

ZAB ruled like an absolute, omnipotent dictator, no question. All I am saying is if the process of elections and re-elections was carried on, that problem would have sorted itself out in due course.

It is also a valid argument that he WAS NOT the legitimate inheritor of govt from Yahya Khan; Mujib-ur-Rahman was. But that is another story. Some of the things on record also include the "udher tum idher hum" assertion by none other than ZAB himself; I am pretty certain you have an 'explanation' for that too as for everything else.

'is hamaam mein sab nangay hain'.

Let's not try to 'create' the version of history that suits us for the day.

I am off as I have better things to do with my time than talk about lost opportunities for reform in Pakistani history; we could be here forever....

#36 Posted by bjkumar

Read #35. End of discussion on the subject from my side.

Regards

And Zeemax,

Freeing 90,000 POWs is not really a big deal when the other side is just as eager to get rid of them!

#35 Zeemax

What I am referring to is the comprehensive written account. What you (claim to) refer to is...

...heresay!

Even that green-eared Manto of a lawyer will tell you that the latter is to be discounted!

(Especially when the memory is likely to be weak and failing - as in your time of life!)