Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Remembered

#10 by PunjabiZulu on April 20, 2004 4:10pm PT
I agree that corruption started in ZAB`s period but not monetarily but in terms of bending the rules of institutions for oneself. It was actually in dictator Zia`s period it reached to its worst. Now a days this sectarian violance in which approx 3000 shias have been killed , this corruption in every department, Armies high handedness, is a gift of greatest of all general zia.

Imran Hafeez
Islamabad

#9 by labyrinth1 on April 20, 2004 4:10pm PT
If he would have been a timid person. He would have asked for mercy from Zia, which he didnt. He was a man of honor who choosed to die instead of lowering his down. The same zia who wanted to get rid of him is risponsible for his popularity. I can bet that if Bhutto would have not been killed, i would be hating him for his wrong doing. This zia`s act is responsible for creating bhutto`s jiyalas. I also call myself one.
If what u told about this urine story was true, every one would have known it. Not even a single person, including that brigadier who was to implement his execution and was there at bhutto cell every time has ever come up with it.


Imran Hafeez

correction #8: Elections in december 1970 and january 1971......

My grandfather, always tells me stories about different politicians of Pakistan and when he talks about Zulffi, I listen to him with great intrest,
one of the stories is that Zulfi was with some of his high-level Arab friends and he was offering them beers in glass and in sindi he mentioned to one of his servents in Larkana that mix the beer with Murry Beer (one of Pakistan`s famous local beer) and later on-wards one of his Arab friends mentioned him ` Bhutto Saab Pakistani Beer Bhe Buhat Ache Hai -- yeh milawat kyoon ?` * Mr.Bhutto Pakistani Beer is good enough why mix it with something else?`
and Zulfi laughed!
My Grandfather was one of the anti-Bhutto Gen`s of that time-- was present at the time when Bhutto got hanged -- according to him Bhutto was so scared that his urine was all over the jail-- that night!

He sounds like the Indira Gandhi of Pakistan...a leader who thought the destiny of his country and his family were one and the same thing but whose rule was responsible ultimately for the rot of institutions, corruption and violence by the state against its citizens (Punjab was Indira Gandhis Bangladesh)

Wolpert’s Zulfi Bhutto makes interesting reading. As does Balakh Sher Mazari`s, ``A Journey to Disillusionment.``

If there was one man, after Jinnah, who could have changed the destiny of Pakistan, it was Bhutto. He could have been the Lee Kuan Yu of Pakistan. He was a brilliant politician. Pakistan has yet to see a politician of his caliber. He was extremely articulate. He wrote and spoke beautifully. He was energetic. He was from the core powerful elite class of Pakistan – the Sindhi feudals. Yet he had a genuine awami following (in West Pakistan). He was popular all over West Pakistan. He was highly educated. His father’s name was well-known.

The guy had everything going for him. Yet, in the end, he let his faults completely overshadow his virtues. What was his biggest fault? He was far too ambitious and self-centered. To the point of destroying his own country, just to fulfill his own ambitions. His career is filled with tragic events for Pakistan, in which everyone, except he, himself, lost out.

His second fault was that when push came to shove, he let his feudal personality dominate of his socialist politics.

Bhutto had no issues in joining a military govt., under Ayub. He even advised and encouraged Ayub to get into the 65 war. After the war, when Ayub finally agreed to a truce with India, Bhutto exploited the opportunity to the fullest, and used Pakistan’s retreat on Kashmir as the basis of his new political party’s agenda. His speeches of that time, are filled with references to Kashmir.

Bhutto lost the election in 71, thoroughly, to Mujib. This would, and should, have been the end of his political ambition of becoming the PM of Pakistan. Due to the demographics of Pakistan, Mujib would have continued to win subsequent elections, and Bhutto could never become a PM. So Bhutto got Pakistan into another war. After the war, as Yahya and Co. were licking their wounds, Bhutto once again benefited from it. The only way Bhutto could have become the PM was if Bangladesh separated. It did, due to a great extent to Bhutto`s actions, and Bhutto was back on top again.

He came up with the 1973 Constitution. And then tore it apart, completely and immediately, through all kinds of amendments. He jailed his political opponents, left and right. He was truly a dictator. In fact, Bhutto and Zia are the only two true, ``dictators`` that Pakistan has had.

He then used populist politics and nationalized Pakistan’s fast-growing economy, for short-term political gains. Instead of nationalizing Pakistans` feudals` holdings. This is the biggest tragedy in the history of Pakistan. Pakistan would have been a relatively wealthy country, by now, inspite of political issues, had the economy not been nationalized. Pakistan was taught as an economic case-study in Harvard in the late 60s (Shahid Javed Burki). Pakistan had done in the 60s, what India is only now starting to do in its economy.

He appointed Zia as the COAS, completely out of turn, breaking all traditions. And eventually paid for it, with his own life.

The list goes on and on.

I think Bhutto could have played a constructive role, had Mujib been allowed to become a PM. Being a vulnerable leader of the opposition, would have served Bhutto well. It would have made him more humble. His party would have developed much stronger roots outside the feudal circles.

I think his epitaph would be, “He talked the patriotic talk, but did not walk the walk.”

i would have to disagree with all due respect with Dr. Khwaja Ashraf. what pakistan does not need more than ever is another Bhutto.

Dear Ras Siddiqui,
Thanks for reporting the San Pablo event.
[I don`t think there can ever be a consensus on ZAB. I remember people immolating themselves in protest, after his hanging. And I have met people who wonder why was he hanged only once.
Chances are we will be confused even after reading Wolpert.]
C.

He made Pakistan a guinea pig for Islamic Socialism. Implicitly he coveted power and nuclear was one best currency.

Ironic that the clock turned full circle and he was finally acknowlegded as the father of the bomb. In contrast the other crook met his waterloo through proliferation.

So what is the lesson in these contrasts spaced 25 years in between.

A good article...

Requires no further elaboration.

ZAB was a thug, pure and simple.

Aside from being the only national leader, he was a bit of both.

ZAB single handedly destroyed Pakistan. By nationalizing the Banks, he opened the gates of corruption that cannot be closed. By nationalizing the industries he retarded the economic growth, brought the incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats and politicians into the boardrooms, and made thriving private companies such as Valika, that could have become Tata of Pakistan, disappear altogether. By nationalizing private schools such as Habib Public School, he screwed up the secular education system. By declaring Ahmadis “kafirs” he instigated and unleashed the mullahs to commit mass murder of those poor souls with impunity. He is the one responsible for splitting Pakistan.

Pakistan would have been a lot better country today if it weren’t for ZAB. He was corrupt to the core, inept, and without a vision. A true demagogue, he was popular only because he could make public speeches with thunder. That’s it. He is the one responsible for the Zia legacy and the Army’s entrenchment into Pakistan’s all spheres of life. This article is a classic example of an ignorant and a pathetic demagogue who had done so much long term harm to his country being turned into an icon and hailed as a “genius”. What a farce.

ZAB should be remebered.. for all the harm he did to Pakistan and the the evil he unleashed.