January 30, 2008...4:03 pm
In memoriam: Benazir Bhutto —Aitzaz Ahsan
I will remember her for three qualities: a constant urge to reach out to her people, a willingness to take on Herculean challenges, and for her ability to forgive, even embrace, her enemies. These three qualities made her superhuman. And all three took her to her tragic, yet heroic death?
“The first thing I want to do is to release all political prisoners,” she announced as our meeting on November 30, 1988 began at Dr Zafar Niazi’s house in Islamabad. In the elections held after the death of General Zia-ul Haq, the PPP, despite all efforts of the agencies, had succeeded in the elections. After failing to prop up any rival, then-President Ghulam Ishaq had finally agreed that very day to accept her as prime minister of Pakistan.
The historic meeting of PPP leadership was being held to set top priorities for Bibi’s first government. It was here as prime minister-designate that she showed her mettle. So far her life and emotions had been premised on the bitter fact that her dearest father had been deposed, imprisoned, humiliated, falsely charged, hanged and then buried without due ceremony. But she brought to that meeting only her winning smile and the undiluted optimism of a political idealist.
Zia had left behind a large number of political prisoners and convicts of military courts. Each had been denied due process. Releasing them, she said, was going to be her number one priority.
“What pledge should we make to ourselves?” she asked. “That we must ensure press freedom,” I suggested. “For anything that it may print?” she asked. “Yes, for anything. We must set a precedent,” I said. And she agreed at once, excited that it was a good idea.
Next day I was sworn in as her interior minister. In that capacity, I received countless recommendations to prosecute this or that publication. I turned down each of these even when our government was brutally and deliberately slandered.
Once a cabinet colleague complained to her that I was not prosecuting publications for false propaganda against her husband Asif Zardari. “But Malik Sahib,” she retorted, “we have pledged to allow full freedom to the media. We will have to bear with it.” Then she turned to me and asked: “Is there anything that can be done without the government getting involved?” “Yes,” I replied. “Asif should file a civil suit for damages in his personal capacity.” And so it was that Mr Asif Zardari, husband of a serving prime minister had the grace to file a private civil suit for damages as an ordinary litigant.
That is what she was: at once humane and proper. How can I recount in such a short piece, all aspects of a life lived to such fullness, particularly when I have worked so close to her during her life? Even books will fail to do justice. Presently only a few instances establishing her more prominent qualities must suffice. One was fortitude.
Between 1990 and 1993 there were as many as 18 prosecutions against her and Asif Zardari. Both were also slandered and defamed. I had publicly promised to turn these prosecutions “from the trial of Mohtarma into the trial of Ishaq Khan”. In the end, they were both acquitted in all those cases, with her husband bravely facing adversity and she standing by him like a rock. She had the fortitude to bear the designed torment aimed at her by the notorious regime of Jam Sadiq Ali in Sindh.
Never will I forget that day in 1992 when I entered the outer gate of Landhi Jail to defend Asif in a trial being conducted inside the jail itself. There she was, the former prime minister of Pakistan, carrying two young infants, Bilawal and Bakhtawar, in her arms, and sitting on a pile of bricks. I was furious and immediately went to the Jail Superintendent. But she calmed me down saying that she had learnt not to expect any decency from the jail staff. After all, she herself had remained imprisoned for five years as a young girl.
Through all her trials and tribulations, she demonstrated amazing charm and stamina. When she came to stay with us in Gujrat in December 1986, she arrived at 3 am on that freezing December night having travelled a full 10 hours from Lahore, but she sat up chatting with Bushra for another one hour with Zaynab, our youngest, in her lap. Early in the morning she was up, fresh as a flower, all ready to meet local party officials.
She kept punishing schedules and was the only politician who had toured the entire Pakistan, city by city, town by town, village by village and hamlet by hamlet at least five times. She knew the party workers by face and the towns by the streets.
And through it all she remained a model of womanhood at its most sublime. While being the most hardworking, hands-on, leading politician of the country, she was unabashedly feminine at the same time. In this intolerant and male dominated country, she refused to be uncomfortable about her womanhood. She gave birth to her first child in the middle of 1988 election campaign and another child while she was the first woman prime minister of Muslim Pakistan.
Then there was her courage. She was afraid of nothing. I was on her truck at the time of the blast of October 18. Next morning when I met her she was in her normal routine. I did not know that I was seeing her for the last time. When I sought her leave to return to Lahore for my Supreme Court Bar elections, she said, “It will be a landslide in your favour. Good luck. And thanks for being here.” When I was withdrawing from the parliamentary contest I sent word to her and she consulted me through Senator Safdar Abbasi on my choice for my substitute. She accepted the choice. But I was arrested the day after my election as president SCBA and denied permission even to attend the funeral or soyem of the one who believed in freeing political prisoners and the media, and in politics of non-violence.
As a political leader she could organise and mobilise the biggest political organisation in Pakistan, set the political agenda, make millions of ordinary people dream the greatest dreams for this land and yes, in fair elections, win elections too. She could do all that. But what she could not tackle were certain self-appointed guardians of the state, who refused to allow people the right to solve their problems themselves and who harassed, hounded, threatened and conspired against her. They did not permit her a fair shot at the democratic game because they knew that she would win, not by breaking the Constitution or at gun point but through the sheer will of ordinary people who are supposed to be sovereign. Even on the last day of her life, her foremost concern was not how to win the elections but how to prevent them from being rigged. I wonder if people understand that in this lies a tragedy, not only for Bibi, but for this nation.
Many sincere analysts questioned the integrity of her politics. They did not understand that after facing conspiracy after conspiracy, Bibi was forced to factor painful ground realities in her decision-making, always striving to achieve one day her true political ideals.
This fundamental question may indeed be addressed through another question: Why, during the 30 years from 1977, when an elected and popular prime minister was ousted at gun point to the date when Bibi lost her life to another gun, the total period for which she, the most popular political leader, was allowed to govern the country was three times less than the time that Chaudhry Shujaat’s party remained in power? The real source of this country’s problems may be revealed by the answer. In kowtowing to the civil and military bureaucracy there is a premium. He and his ilk can do it. She could not. They survive. She had to be eliminated.
One cannot help wondering why our establishment that claims to be obsessed with maintaining the federation, could not bring itself to see in Bibi that glorious human chain that kept all four provinces together, and as an asset and an ally instead of a foe.
Above all else I will remember her for three qualities: a constant urge to reach out to her people, a willingness to take on Herculean challenges, and for her ability to forgive, even embrace, her enemies. These three qualities made her superhuman. And all three took her to her tragic, yet heroic death.
All I can now say is: ‘Bibi it is an honour to have worked for you and with you. The Himalayas wept the death of your father. The world weeps for you.’
Aitzaz Ahsan is a former Interior Minister and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association
Courtesy Daily Times
15 Comments
January 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm
great memoriam, by a geat man, for a great leader.
Love u Aitazaz. Love u BB. And Miss u BB. Miss u a lot. Miss u a lot. Miss u Lot.
January 31, 2008 at 7:14 am
my apologies. i would have commented earlier, but for the longest time i couldn’t rid myself of the uncontrollable urge to barf (perhaps it was indigestion caused by the delicious mutton karhai i gorged myself on at lunch yesterday) following my reading of this fine fine fine piece eulogising a fine fine fine leader who in her life performed many fine fine fine acts displaying much political courage, and who in her death leaves us in a fine fine fine mess (which, of course, is not entirely or even significantly of her making).
her commitment to freedom of the press is legendary. her first information minister of course let her down (if you believe peepul-paltry spin doctors) (and i, of course, do believe the spin doctors, cos i BELEIVE in the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!), yes he let her down folks, and the reprobate had to be transferred to the ministry of science and technology, and things were never, sadly, the same after that (tsk tsk tsk). and now a statesman of the stature of barrister aitzaz ahsan states that she was committed to the cause of freedom of the press. (and fortunately(?) not simply committed, i suppose.)
now i’m a believer
not a trace
of doubt in my mind
i’m in… luck?
i am also
happythrilledoverjoyed to see that the feudal spirit is alive and kicking inside barrister ahsan’s manly breast. naturally, a former prime minister cannot, no absolutely cannot be allowed to sit on a mere pile of bricks. why, apart from anything else, such former prime ministers would be usurping some poor plebian woman’s right to that fine pile of bricks. i’m told that in 1993, following the reported incident at landhi jail, a consortium of well-heeled begumaat funded the fabrication of a semi-perfect replica of the takht-e-tawoos to replace the now famous plebian brickpile, in case former prime ministers ever again needed to vist landhi jail. after all, this is rightly in keeping with our wonderfully wonderfully wonderful plebian-patrician tradition.in the end, though, the world weeps the sad and tragic death of a wolrd-famuos poilticain. i just wish that
thelate great steve irwin was around to explain, in his own unique manner, the somewhat peculiar behaviour of a large number of the mourners.January 31, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Dear Mr. kinkminos .
It is quite diffeicult to undrestand for me (and to which somehow aitezaz has also hinted) that why we always want to see each and every things in most absolute contexts. Being a PhD student of Science, I have the greatest of belief and that is Nothing is absolute but relitive. And this becomes even more important when u r going to analyse a politicle figure or a political incident because of the very bitter, rough and complex nature of the world of Politics. When some of our friends analyse benazir, they at once forget the very complex and rude realities of politics in pakistan and start searching something as absolute as God or Prophet or an angel, which unfortuntely, in the real physical world is impossible to find.
In the very first address of Mohtarma, on television in 1988. i remember(although I was very young, perhaps only 12yrs old, far away from understanding the true depth of what she was saying but still find it little bit diffent from what i was expecting or what i had been listening about differnt political leaders) She Said that I will not open the old cases to avenge my fathers murder. A most unexpeted announcement. Then in the same address, I remember at one place she said these words ” Dolat bhi keya cheez hei Dosto” And Can U believe when she Said this sentence, tears started coming out of her eyes. I wish if i can get the video of that memorable address.
And then we witnes in the next 20yrs, the most courging but Humble, Challanging but Sublime, aggressive but Proper female character that human history have ever witnessed, or perhaps will ever witness. From most sever punishment of having her husband in the jail to most notorious and Vulgar conspiracies, from having been removed from primenstership to fulfill her ideals and dreams to most painful event of murder of her brother, from forced but regretful exile to life risky come back, our eyes witnessed something which you can only expect from some one “Benazir”. The unexmplary. And who dare to forget those 71 days, from October18 to December 27. Who dare? At every inctance, at every fraction of Second we felt threat to her life and she knew that too. But what she did. I m afraid the whole human history will find it really difficult figure out one such example. Yes my dear, despite of the fact that she was threatened that she will be slaughterd, fired, bombed, she went to the most dangerous areas of Pakistan, Balochistan/Frontier just for the sake of her people and her country. As Aitezaz quite rightlyt said, it will need books over books to really enlighten the differnt aspects of Mohtama´s life.
It is more than one month that we have been deprived of the most precious one we had, me and all my friends here in Europe, doing there studies, cannot stop the explosions blasting in our minds. A leader of Mohtarma´s stature Mohtarma´s character and Mohtarma´s importantce we had and how easily we lost her. How easily she was killed. Just pitty. Just pitty.
February 4, 2008 at 7:19 am
well said kinkminos
in my response to rafia zakaria here i went over board perhaps
Benazir Bhutto - A Feminist? and listed seven or eight links of corruption charges against the couple
(rafia forgave me, i think:))
but i was reeling after reading this piece by “the statesman” aitezaz ahsan quoted here perhaps
i mean why not call a spade a spade?
yes she was a good mother, and good woman and good wife etc. etc.
BUT she was demonstrably a bad leader, a feudal at heart, and certainly NOT a democratic angel
February 4, 2008 at 9:43 am
i was speaking to an uncle in karachi yesterday and happened to mention the above eulogy. his immediate reasponse was, “it’s tongue in cheek, yaar!”
he may be right. either way, there was obviously a fair bit of political gamesmanship involved in the writing of it.
February 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm
if you haven’t *chucked* in a while, here’s something that will surely do the trick:
Benazir Buttho’s last testament, published in yesterday’s sunday times aaf de london.
or as neil young quips on the wonderful csny live album, four way street:
“here’s a song that’s guaranteed to bring you right down
it’s called don’t let it bring you down”
on reflection, it seems to have been ghost-written posthumously (if you’ll pardon the atrocious, and entirely unintended, pun).
February 4, 2008 at 12:18 pm
i see friend temporal has already posted an excerpt to the aforementioned article (plus the link) over at baithak
February 5, 2008 at 4:13 am
there goes “men of conviction” blah blah
yara, sub kay sub is hamaam maiN nangay haiN
kiya mushy, kiya asif, kiya sharif, sub nangay haiN
aur woh bhee nangi thee hum bhee nangay hain
February 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Reading comments from these two guys i cannot stop but recalling iqbals saying
Marde Nadan pe kalame narm-o-nazook be Asar
Or in modern world language,
U can never argue with those who r brain washed.
February 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm
friend ammad, one could, with an equally straight face, say the same for you. why can’t we agree to disagree? you believe in her sainthood and i, to put it mildly, don’t.
as for her having said the words, ”Dolat bhi keya cheez hei Dosto,” you forgot to include the word “vah,” at the beginning of the sentence.
i will agree that she displayed what may pass for bravery. but i also know that without daring to brave the obvious dangers, she would have been nothing. an aging has-been living out the rest of her days in exile as a nobody, which her training would not allow her to do.
what rankles most is that she seemed to have all this promise and potential which, for reasons i cannot claim to be rightly aware of, ultimately came to nothing. what a let down! what a waste!
in conclusion i will only say this: how can a person who appointed herself chairperson-for-life of a political party, and brooked no dissent from “fellow” party members, claim to uphold the ideals of democracy. it beggars belief that sentient people continue to hold her up as a beacon of democratic ideals.
party, jageer uss ki
mulk jageer uss ka
vah vah ke nakhra gori ka
shava ke nakhra gori ka
February 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm
we are a nation of pirs and fakirs
pirs are akin to shaheeds and
mohterams and mohtermas, you bet
not to forget rehmat ullah alaihays
we are a nation of pirs and fakirs
and if you are a betting person
i will bet you. … me and the majority
are fakirs and them, they’re pirs
February 7, 2008 at 4:52 am
heh heh…
are we talking of majorities moral or immoral?
February 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm
paupers can be of either persuasion
February 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Sorry to interpose, seems like you guys having a good time, slandering, smearing with your reactionary sarcasm and having a few chuckles.
If you look at the history, this is not something new, the urban bourgeoisie class in Pakistan, now uninspiringly called the ‘Civil Society’ were always a conservative bunch, they were seized with unprecedented shock and dread when Z A Bhutto sweeped the elections. Their conservatism became increasingly reactionary when Bhutto initiated popular economic reforms which saw the rapid emergence of working class and which converted the rural peasants as a real political force. Thus this same class was behind the 1976 anti-Bhutto movement by carrying out hate campaigns and social propaganda against Bhutto, highlighting his drinking habit and his irreligiosity. This class backed Zia’s military dictatorship, his puritanical rule and his continuous onslaught against Bhuttos. The same urbanite bourgeoisie class and their progeny attacked Benazir on her two stints, slandered her, defamed her and went to the extend of questioning her personal character.
The same bourgeoisie class went into shock, confusion and hysteria at the sight of 10 million ‘uncivil’ people, mainly peasants, daily-wage workers and political activists who came out to greet her when she returned from exile on October 18. Despite the severe propaganda and slandering, all the hue and cry about NRO, being an American agent and dealing with a dictator, the urban bourgeoisie were reeling under a mix of fear, disdain and shocked at the sight of millions of masses. The most deranged arguments they come up with is that ‘Peoples Party is her fiefdom and workers are her slaves’ and their hate statements went to the extend that she orchestrated the attack and killed 180 of her slaves on 18th October just to gather some sympathies. Its all very dandy and intellectual to post things on the web with twisted sarcasm and innuendos, but if you actually go to places like Sindh and Punjab and talk to people, ‘the uncivil’ you realize how well-informed and politically wise they are.
And to be sure she was no angel, she had faults and she made mistakes, her arrogance and corruption withstanding, she was committed and brave. And I hate that bourgeoisie morality, their standards of justice, democracy and politics to be universally true and to shape society after their own image. There is no sense of history, most of these folks think that the history of Pakistani politics started on March last year with the debacle of Chief Justice. This civil society was comfortably sitting with dictators and religious conservatists when this corrupt woman was in prison or on the streets of Pindi, Lahore and Karachi, with a young son an infant baby. The same corrupt woman was again on the streets and addressing big gatherings with threats of assassination, even going to Baluchistan where no political leader would dare to, when she could have easily sit back done some interviews and corner meetings, in the end she came here to loot and plunder again.
And so when a brilliant statesman comes along and gives his honest opinion about matters he is being accused of keeping the feudal spirit alive and being tongue in cheek
Haan waqai, tongue in cheek yaar, very tongue in cheek!
June 27, 2008 at 10:06 am
good article
Leave a Reply