Wajid Shamsul Hasan is the High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK and Advisor to former prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. He writes about her vision of relations between India, Pakistan and the region. The views and ideas expressed in the article are his own.
London: The death of my parents was a moment of profound grief for me. But then time served as the proverbial healer and I was back to business as usual sooner than later. However, in case of one's idols it is different.
Ever since my ideal of student years and subsequently a relationship of life long admiration --Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB)-- was judicially murdered in 1979 by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq I have carried an ulcerating wound to this day despite the fact that his "dearest daughter" and my most beloved leader martyred Benazir Bhutto did go a long way to fulfill the vacuum caused by his death. She took the boldest and bravest decision of her life when she stepped into his shoes to carry forward the torch of freedom that he lit with his blood.
It was she who revived hope in many millions like me after ZAB's death when it certainly looked like end of the road for a liberal, democratic and progressive Pakistan. She reminded ZAB's teeming followers that her great father walked to the gallows head high so that they should never bow or surrender to dictatorship and forces of oppression. With unparalleled resilience, dauntless determination and steeled commitment she stood by the side of her eminent mother Begum Nusrat Bhutto like a rock to inspire the poor and downtrodden masses to carry on ZAB's mission for the empowerment of the have-nots, less privileged, deprived and denied.
Her dream was to make Pakistan what Quaid-i-Azam dreamt it to be and her father had set it on the course to realising it in form and substance as a modern, democratic and progressive state with no room for religious extremism, intolerance or discrimination of caste, creed or colour. Like the Quaid and her father—she carried on her shoulders their mission for converting Pakistan into a prosperous, united, peaceful federal Pakistan where Sindhis, Punjabis, Balochs, Pathans, Sarikis, Mohajirs and other ethnic or religious groups could provide strength in diversity to the state's socio-economic and political fabric.
PAGE_BREAK
As Mr Jinnah would not have a Pakistan that were to have space for obscurantism, bigotry or extremism—she picked up the pieces where her father had left. And she turned out to be the strongest ever champion for Quaid's ideals for his Pakistan, to save it with her blood from becoming a theocratic state to ensure—as Mr Jinnah wanted-- to be an egalitarian society where all its citizens were to have equal rights and equal opportunities as well free to practice their religions.
It was pursuit of this dream that led her back to Pakistan to challenge not only military dictatorship but all other evil forces that were allied with it threatening the very existence of the country. And on top of her agenda was to take on religious extremism and terrorism though it could mean death for her. She stoutly believed that one should rather die for her ideals. Like her father she also believed that it is the greatness of a cause that one stands for leaves indelible imprints on the sand of times. She struggled all her life for democracy not for using it as a means to power but as the means to a much greater end-- to empower the people.
Indeed, when she was most brutally assassinated on December 27 last year by the enemies of Pakistan—it was not only the death of my life's other idol, it seemed to be the end of hope, shattering of a dream and an imminent deluge. And had she not left a strong and invincible political party-the PPP- and not willed her husband to lead it—the enemies of Pakistan both internally and externally—in the corridors of power and outside—would have succeeded at breaking the country through a bloodbath and civil war.
President Asif Ali Zardari and her brave son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari defused her emotionally charged followers in millions all over the country by reminding them that their beloved leader Benazir Bhutto gave her life to save Pakistan and not to destroy it. And that democracy was the only revenge to honour her.
My association with her covered a period of over three decades. If I get down to recall each moment that I spent with her—it could mean millions of words and rivers of tears since it would be an emotional journey down the memory lane.
First anniversary of her death falls in an environment when Pakistan is under threat of war. As such I would take this as an opportunity to dilate on her dreams for the region—especially India and Pakistan—the two countries that have often lived dangerously.
Following the horrendous Mumbai tragedy a crescendo of war hysteria is being built. According to a report by CNN—India had put its air force on the highest alert to gear it up to strike. Earlier two of its fighter planes had intruded Pakistan's air space. And Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari--keeping his sustained cool and commitment to promote peace and in order not to vitiate an already tension-loaded environment—dismissed the violation as an error of judgement by the Indian pilots. A similar air intrusion in 1999 following Kargil was responded by Pakistan and two Indian planes were shot down.
Pakistan believes that Mumbai tragedy much similar to Islamabad Marriott's—has something to do with sinister invisible hands or the non-state killers who do not want peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region. They did succeed in pushing the two nations to the brink of war and derailing to a dangerous halt the on going dialogue between Pakistan and India for peaceful co-existence.
PAGE_BREAK
Martyred Pakistani Prime Minister believed in permanent peace in the region for improving the quality of life for the poor and suffering masses of the two countries. The wars that the two countries had fought and the several stands off on the brink of yet another violent conflict often occupied her thoughts.
Were these wars worth it? Did building of huge armies and piling of nuclear weapons contribute anything to overcome the desperate poverty that marks the lives of over 1.4 billion people eking out a sub human existence in the two countries?
She used to ponder that every minute, hundreds die destroying the happiness of their families and leaving a mark of shame on society. Monies well spent could have addressed some of the common features of the social malaise. What bothered her most was the abysmally low quality of human existence.
And I quote her: "It is a sad reflection on our times that "greatness" is measured in terms of military missiles and nuclear reach. Napoleon said that "armies do not march on empty stomachs" and I believe nations are great when basic human needs, to education, health, employment and human rights are met."
She wanted both Islamabad and New Delhi to engage in a series of dialogue and confidence building measures at all levels with the aim to bury the past and build a future in which the nations of South Asia could move on to the road to modernity and a future free of terrorism, extremism and militancy.
She inherited this desire to build peace with honour from her father Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had signed Shimla agreement with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Despite many tense moments, the Shimla Spirit seems to have prevailed to this day. India and Pakistan have not gone to full war since it was signed in 1972 although they fought three wars before the signing of the Shimla Agreement.
As a 19-year old she was an eyewitness to the Shimla spirit and when she was elected Prime Minister in 1988 she moved the peace agenda forward with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. As partners in SAARC, they signed the South Asian Preferential Tariff Agreement hoping to learn from the lessons of Europe. She hoped that one day like Europe, riven apart by the rivalries of Germany and France, found peace through a common market so would India and Pakistan.
PAGE_BREAK
The path blazed by her was continued by Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who initiated the Bus Diplomacy. Unfortunately the Bus diplomacy was derailed by the Kargil conflict and later attack on the Indian Parliament threatening to bring the two countries to war in an eye ball to eye ball confrontation.
The previous military regime in Islamabad had engaged with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to continue the path lit in Shimla. Islamabad and New Delhi even signed an agreement for bipartisan cooperation in fighting terrorism. Yet, despite the stated desire of both countries to move forward, not much progress was made. Kashmir remained the core dispute between the two countries. She wanted leaders of the two countries to realise that other nations have disputes too, for example India and China over their border. However, these disputes do not spill over into acts of violence, terrorism and brutality.
And she laid down her party's line that is being followed with great commitment by President Asif Ali Zardari that progress in relations between India and Pakistan has historically come about when India and Pakistan were both under democratically elected governments.
She believed that democratically elected governments have a mandate from the people and are concerned about achieving targets that can be delivered to the people.
Military regimes that do not rely on public acceptability have less of sensitivity to the public concerns. Thus we can see that the Shimla Agreement and the SAPTA tariff agreement were signed when both Pakistan and India were led by democratic governments. It were democratic governments that had also signed other important agreements including the non-attack on each others nuclear facilities, agreements on trade and travel as well as draft agreements on redeployment from Siachen to Kargil and the mutual reduction in troops.
Besides, PPP has always considered militancy a threat not only to countries in the neighbourhood but to its own people and that is why she was categorically opposed to extremism and militancy. The PPP—during its two previous tenures attempted to give Pakistanis peace and security as they went about their lives. Now once again the PPP and its coalition partners can not countenance innocent civilian people in Pakistan being butchered in various parts of the country and nor could it countenance militant and terrorist groups holding its foreign policy hostage. As a policy much before 9/11 martyred Benazir Bhutto had advised General Pervez Musharraf to distance himself away from militants.
Ms Bhutto contested the view in some western capitals regarding the nature of governments and their ability to fight terrorism, extremism and militancy. She was opposed to the view in which dictatorship was shown preference over democratic dispensations. She used to warn western powers that they were wrong in believing that a strong man is better equipped to take the rough and ready decisions, even brutal and bloody ones that a democratic government cannot take.
PAGE_BREAK
Ms Bhutto held the view that dictatorship needs crisis to justify its existence. As such the nature of a dictatorial regime vitiates against internal and external security. Moreover, the bloody and brutal tactics often alienate the public or the neighbours. This in turn leaves a vicious cycle where, despite attempts, internal and external peace remains a dream.
Pakistan is an example of where the international community threw its weight behind a military dictatorship following the events of 9/11. Despite whatever previous government claimed it did, it advertently or inadvertently led to the regrouping of the defeated and demoralised Taliban/AlQaeda and a stage came when it was compelled to sign a "peace treaty" with the militants.
Mohtarma took pains to explain to the west the point of difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. A dictator relies on the military to resolve problems. While militaries may instil short term counter terror, they cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. And without winning the hearts and minds of the people, it is often impossible to restore the writ of government. However, in a democracy, there is participation of the people. The government is part of the people who have elected it. It is the people who shape the policies, own the policies and ensure the success of the policies.
It is less than a year that Pakistan has had a democratic government. No doubt the international community has welcomed its return to democracy but while it gave billions and seven years to a dictator to sort out terrorism, it does not want to give enough time or assistance to the democratic government to tackle the problem.
Notwithstanding its intensified efforts against terrorism ever since it came to power nine months ago, the elected government is expected to clean sweep all those non-state factors that had been connived by the previous rulers. Pakistan now needs to be supported more for making sincere efforts in battling extremism, terrorism and militancy. We believe by eliminating the curse we can pave the way for a future of economic emancipation, free from hunger, disease, unemployment and discrimination in South Asia.
Let me conclude with a thought provoking observation of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and I quote: "Far too long India and Pakistan have seen the prism of their relations in terms of competing interests. However, the world has changed. We are no longer living through the cold war or a bi-polar world. To latch on to policies that were framed within a context that no longer exists is irrational. The time has come to focus on complementing interests as the world moves towards regional blocs. It is through such complementing interests that both India and Pakistan can help shape a South Asia that can argue its best interests and win agreements in world forums in an environment when global institutes are taking more and more decisions."
Instead of joining blame game Pakistan's western friends must do some heart searching to find the truth and to apportion their own role in the mess that we are passing through currently. London can not pass the buck onto the present government for three/fourth of Al-Qaeda terrorists allegedly from Pakistan that it had to deal with when it was being ruled by its favourite General Pervez Musharraf.
Had our western friends listened to saner voices like Lord Chris Patten who wrote (TWSJ May 10, 2006) that in order to bring about stability and peace in Afghanistan Pakistani military dictatorship needed to be replaced by strong democracy.
Indeed--had Pakistan had elections as early as 2006 and had Benazir Bhutto supported to return to Pakistan to participate in the polls, the course of history would have changed for the good and terrorism sponsored as full time money making business would have ceased to function.
Comments
0 comment