Bhutto’s Judicial Murder Revisited

#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.

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.

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.

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

How the honorable defence minister came to that conclusion ie "musharraf is a saleable commodity" at this point is beyond me.

Musharraf is a spent force. PPP should not stick out its neck for him.

The transformation of Mr. Sharif is the greatest thing that has happened to Pakistan recently. Zardari must not save Musharraf's skin or he will risk making sharif the strongest leader in Pakistan.

#54 Posted by MantoLives,

It appears PPP workers are not happy with the direction things are taking. Arbab Ghulam Raheem was manhandled just now outside Sindh assembly oath taking session, prevented from taking oath, and his pictures alongwith Ch Shujaat etc pulled off the Assembly walls, torn up and thrown in the street by PPP workers.

That puts paid to Ijaz Gul's (albeit very plausible) theory re PPP+all the others minus PML-N hypothesis. That's not what the people want - all of them - regardless of PPP or PML-N. They want musharraf OUT and Judiciary restored. No ifs and buts.

Saw the entire session. Amazing ... looked like it was a scene from ROME.

HP writes "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?"

You miss a basic point that I put forward which is a fact, the West (whether or not it existed on the map as a seperate entity or not, it was seperate for all intents and purposes) determined the affairs of the East and not the other way around. Given that context, unlike that of the current politicians, giving the reign to the East would result in immediate roll back to military dictatorship (which you don't disagree with)- as well as disenfranchisement of the people of the West, and how they (the army) reacted to the stalemate vindicates my point.

The idhar hum udhar tum was the most "democratic" outcome which only someone wanting to create trouble would seek to avoid. I also mentioned that given the setup of Mujib rule, the foregone conclusion of Bangladesh breaking apart as well as the West breaking apart as well would have ensued- how would a military defeated and battered faced by civil unrest in the West as well have avoided Indian intervention and seperatist movements- the nation would have burned and warped into nothingness- which is also vindicated by what you write.

Further the achievements towards even getting the army to an elections and the stepping down of Ayub is moreso a consequence of the work and rabble rousing of ZAB than anything Mujib did, or anything that occurred in the East...GIven these facts a coming together and sharing of power on equal terms (idhar hum udhar tum) quite similar to what is taking place today would have weakened Army power and worked for restoration of democratic roots in which the contribution of ZAB is second to none East or West. The union would have been mainatined on equal terms had mujid been willing to work with the ZAB in the West. You cannot blame the man for either seeking a compromise for the people of the West, nor can you blame him for standing down when he had little power compared to the military to achieve anything other than becomming an unnecessary casualty- a casualty which with Bangladesh going down would result in the West going down as well, as I have mentioned earlier- which he did not because when you understand how the game is played you don't commit national suicide...He did strike when the military was at its weakest and that strike achieved a constitution for Pakistan and saved the nation, and for the first time brought the people into the power equation of this country be it for a little time....

Now snakes like Salim Chauhan who does not have the balls to argue with me here writes in the unplugged section like a damn fool that by these points, which I had made earlier I was being "racist" towards the Bengalis, this is absolute horse shit.

When the colonials have carved out nation states in a most messy manner ensuring that democracy based on uniformity of opinion and equal opportunity never arises in our nations, due to most artificial divisions, trying to place the Western model of cheerful robots (that think uniformly like morons or default to elite positions in all but the most distractive issues of "values" because it took an entire history to convert them into such uniformity) unto our nation will ensure that it reverts shortly to military rule- and history has proven me right, that is what they seek, play one against the other, reward one and punish the other in successive turns so that corruption and lack of democracy becomes endemic in our lands; so in order to enfranchise the people you have to compromise, maneuver and come together as representatives of the people (similar to the spirit we find today at least on the face of it among the major winners), and similar to what ZAB sought with Mujib, to block out the military and the externals who want the all or none setup like Mujib was desiring, as a willing participant to the foregone conclusion of a seperate Bangladesh- because they (the colonials) know in our setup that will never work and they will by default never let the voices of the people emerge. That is simply what I am stating given our context, regarding the Mujib/ZAB issue, it has nothing to do with ethnicity of anyone (though ass wipe leeches among the Mohajirs (the few vocal ones and their followers)who cry foul for no reason, will deliberately try to convert it into a battle of ethnicities. A-hole, SC, when you develop the kind of human consciousness that I possess then we can talk about who is being racist.....

Something for Manto to chew on that I found while reading an article:

“In an interval of less than a year,” writes Stanley Wolpert, “Zulfi had roused most of West Pakistan, bringing its young men from a state of apathy or despair to the brink of righteous revolt against the military dictator (Ayub) and his major pillars of support. He had set Sindh on fire, stirred the Frontier, and taken Pindi by storm....(Addressing a mammoth meeting in Lahore, ‘the heartbeat’ of Punjab, Bhutto) took the jacket from his back and threw it into the cheering, almost worshipful crowd of frenzied young men, who looked to him as more than a political leader. He was the stuff true martyrs and mahdis were made of. There was fire not only in his speech but in his bloodshot bulbous eyes that rarely closed, hardly ever rested any more - sleep had abandoned Zulfi by now.” (Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan: His Life and Times, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 126)

Masadi,

I am not sure what you want to convince me of. I was supporting Bhutto before you even knew he existed.

Good that you have finally discovered some fine scholarship. I do hope you read Stanley Wolpert's book "Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan" very closely. Wolpert's view of the great man is much more critical than my view of him.

I do hope this excerpt will finally make you go read the book.

PS I don't get this masadi guy.


He is now quoting something to prove some point to me which exists in his head.

Meanwhile if I were to quote the same book on Bhutto's role in Bangladesh, on his manipulation, on his treatment of J A Rahim, his abuse of authority and his nepotism he would denounce it as US elite propaganda and call me all sorts of names.

Bhutto was - as zeemax wrote- a flawed genius. People should admire him for what he did and point out the obvious mistakes and issues.

Manto writes " I was supporting Bhutto before you even knew he existed."

Mian I am older than you are, I knew he existed when you were still in your diapers....

Regarding your views on ZAB, our resident bot Arjun should do us all a service and produce your scathing attacks on ZAB- which you made just because I was talking positively of him.

Regarding the quote that is about busting Ayub and the quote- any quote- makes it amply clear when the author is narrating his own pov as against documenting what is in history. I never read quotes as "authority" unlike you, I read them and present them for their content value...

What I was getting at in #58 was that the ZAB wanted compromise of the kind that the politicians of the current election-on the face of it- have achieved, to counter the military and its President for life while enfranchising the people who had caused the change in the power equation- their representatives sitting as a no concern opposition would be neither fair nor "democratic"- while Mujib was acting as democracy buster (as fact given the context and reality of the situation)- to undo not only Bengal from Pakistan but to undo the Western parts as well- his act was much like the BB when she returned to strenghten Musharraf and the military (before the people and their reality- made quite clear by the current reports that show that over 50% of the population faces food insecurity- on how the military's a-hole (Musharraf and his goons) have made the people of this country suffer, etc changed her)...

Re: # 62 & 63

Children, please stop going about something as stupid as this. In case you didn't know, Bhutto is dead. That is what this article is about.

It doesn't matter to Bhutto now that he is dead so why does it matter so much to you two idiots?