Since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto every politician has been trying to play the "sympathy" card to get more free air time for them. The Media and other politicians, who were her bitter rivals once, portrayed her as an "Angel" and a great leader. No doubt she was a very intelligent person and knew how and when to play her political cards. But she was neither "a great" leader nor a sincere one.According to Ralph Peters, a New York Post columnist, writes:
"Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country."
These are very bold allegations by Peters, but sadly, they are very close to the truth. if we simply use common sense and and look back at our history, we probably be able get answers to most of our questions.
Benazir Bhutto came to power for the very first time in December 1988 on the false promises of eradicating poverty and lawlessness in the country. Unfortunately, within two years of her coming to power, "in August 1990 the President of Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, dismissed her government on charges of corruption and other malfeasance and called for new elections."
"During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts."
Apart from widespread corruption and lawlessness, Benazir was also believed to be involved in a carefully planned police assassination of her younger brother, Murtaza Bhutto, in 1996 while she was the Prime Minister.
Fatima Bhutto, the niece of Benazir and daughter of Murtaza bhutto wrote in an article for Los Angeles Times:
"My father [Murtaza] was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics."
"To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered,although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a 'much higher' political authority."
During this time Mr. Zardari, Benazir's husband had established his reputation as "Mr. 10 Percent" for taking kickbacks on every single government contract and corruption.
In November 1996, her government was again dismissed by then President, Farooq Leghari on charges of allegations of corruption, economic mismanagement and a decline of law and order.
Both Ms. Bhutto and her husband were convicted of corruption by a Lahore court, but was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001 only because of evidence of government interference.
In 1998, Swiss investigators recovered documents that, " reveal that a company set up by Miss Bhutto's lawyer siphoned off commissions from a deal between a Polish company and the Pakistani government." (Source: BBC)
The following week Asif Zardari was formerly indicted by Swedish court for money laundering charges.
The above mentioned are some of the highlights of Benazir Bhuttos' political life. I have presented you hard facts without injecting any of my opinion above. The fact that her two terms as the Prime Minister of Pakistan ended abruptly and left Pakistan in shambles, tells you something about her.
Well now she is no longer with us. May Allah forgive her.
Sources:
- "The Bhutto Assassination: Not what she seemed to be", by Ralph Peters, New York Post, Dec 2007
<http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_bhutto_assassination__not_what_she_s_912265.htm?page=0> - "What's the Deal with Bilawal Bhutto Zardari?", NPR, Dec 2007
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17717208> - "Bhutto, Benazir", Encyclopedia Britannica, Jan 2008
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079076> - "FOX Facts: Benazir Bhutto", Fox News, Dec 2007
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318525,00.html> - "Aunt Benazir's false promises", by Fatima Bhutto, Los Angeles Times, Nov 2007
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,2482408.story> - "Details released of corruption charges against Benazir Bhutto", BBC News, July 1998
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/138117.stm>
okay, even if she did all those things and she was corrupt ,she did not take the country back.she took it forward.the economy might not have grown propotionately but was stable, inflation was low.ordinary people benfitted unlike this government which complains of high GDP but can not answer for the inflation and unemployement..the corrup[tion of zardari is highlithed by people like u but u do not say anything about the corruption of army generals especiallyt musharraf.Zardari was mr 10% but musharraf and his cronies are mr 80%.regarding her brothersa assination pakistan intellgence agencies were involved adn scotland yard was called but leghairi cancelled the enquiry.it was he who was responsible not benazir okay.get ur facts straight.I AN NOT A PPP MSUPPORTER.I SAY EVERYTHING IN RETROSPECT OKAY.She might niot have been an angel but she did a much better job than musharraf and his goons.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments Junaid. This article I wrote is based on hard facts collected from many different reliable sources. (refer to sources section for more info.)
ReplyDeleteI never said that Army or others are not corrupt but so far we have no concerete evidence to hold up that claim.
Junaid, even though you say you aren't a PPP supporter, you sure do talk like one. Of course every leader that Pakistan had so far has been corrupt in one way or the other. We never had any "angelic" leaders before so why do we even expect to have any afterwards. Most Pakistanis are willing to look over the corrupt factor if the leader actually does something good for them.
ReplyDeleteAs for President Musharraf being "80%" corrupt as you say, do you have any hard evidence to support that? Or is it just what you thnk about him?
WOWWW gr8 man really incredible ...so you mean to say
ReplyDelete'even if she did all those things and she was corrupt ,she did not take the country back'
in fact your saying she put it forward ..i mean at one side your accepting she did all those things and she was corrupt on the other hand your saying she took country forward..hmm well if she took billions of dollars from Pakistan's treasury and transferred to swiss bank accounts wasnt that a nations loss howcome a country can go forward while money is going out illegally into private accounts with all due respect but i think u been biased
The partition of India, and the formation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, by the British Raj, was not done because the British liked Muslims. They had slaughtered them by the thousands in 1856, when the Hindus and Muslims joined hands under the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to drive out the firenghee (white-skinned foreigners). Those who remember that untold part of the history of the Indian independence movement, talk of the piles of bodies lying in the streets of Delhi slaughtered by British soldiers. Most of them, like Benazir Bhutto and her colleagues who died on Dec. 27, were Muslims. The Muslims were "traitors" aspiring to reinstate the "despicable" and "corrupt" Mughal dynasty, London screamed.
ReplyDeleteThe key to the British Empire's financial success was its ability to manipulate Islam. The British Empire-builders eliminated the Islamic Caliphate, created nations out of deserts, eliminated some nations, and partitioned others to create Islamic nations. Britain was aware that the oil fields of Arabia would be a source of great power in the post-World War II decades. The western part of British India bordered Muslim Central Asia, another major source of oil and gas, bordering Russia and Muslim Afghanistan. British India also bordered Islamic Iran and the Persian Gulf—the doorway to the oil fields of Arabia. In order to keep its future options open, Balochistan, bordering northeastern Iran, and the tribal Pushtun-dominated areas bordering Afghanistan, remained as British protectorates.
So, when the break-up of British India was planned by Churchill and others, Balochistan was not a problem. The problem was the Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which was led by a pro-Congress Party leadership, and had voted in the last referendum before partition, to join Hindu-majority India.
What London wanted was that the large Hindu-dominated India must not have common borders with Russia, or Central Asia. That could make it too powerful and, worst of all, energy independent. Pakistan was created by the gamesmen in London because they wanted a weak Muslim state that would depend heavily on the mighty British military. The Cold War period held this arrangement in place, to the satisfaction of the British. The Kashmir dispute, triggered from London to cut off Indian access to Afghanistan, served the British policy-makers well.
But the post-Cold War days are different. China is rising in the north and seeking entry into the Persian Gulf and Central Asia through the western part of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. China has a long-term plan to build, and build, and build, infrastructure in this area, to bring resources into its vast but thinly populated western sector that extends from bordering areas of Kazakstan under the shadows of the Tien Shan mountains in the West, to the Shaanxi province deep inside China.
What is the connection of this history to the gruesome incident that happened in the darkening shadows of Liaquat Ali Bagh in Rawalpindi? It is important for the Pakistanis, as well for the other citizens of the Indian subcontinent, to know and assimilate.
Britain wants another partition of Pakistan. Whether Washington wants it, or not, it is playing second fiddle to this absurd policy. This time, a new nation is supposed to emerge—a weak and disoriented nation, born out of violence, just like the partition of British India. This nation will consist of Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and Balochistan—all situated west of the Indus River and bordering he British-drawn disputed Durand Line that allegedly separates Afghanistan from Pakistan.
The death of Bhutto was a step to breaking up Pakistan.