Initial rep
orts are coming in and SM will certainly pass on the message. First, CNN Reports –
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) — Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was targeted in a deadly suicide bombing Thursday. Media reports quote her husband saying she suffered a bullet wound to the neck in the attack.…The attacker is said to have detonated a bomb as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.
Some first guesses at implications..
While President Pervez Musharraf has promised free and fair parliamentary elections next month, continued instability in the tribal areas and the threat of attack on large crowds has kept people from attending political rallies and dampened the country’s political process.Campaigners from various political groups say fewer people are coming out to show their support due to government crackdowns and the threat of violence.
Today’s violence come less than two weeks ahead of January parliamentary elections and as many days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a six-week-old state of emergency he said was necessary to ensure the country’s stability.
Stay tuned.
<
p>
Updates:
- Getty’s image archive of the event makes for some powerful browsing..
- MSNBC: “A party security adviser said Bhutto was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, then the gunman blew himself up.”
- Sky: “Sky News correspondent Alex Crawford said from Pakistan the country’s upcoming January elections would “most likely be postponed or cancelled” because of the attack.”
- “What’s worse, that Musharaff may have had a role in this or that he was powerless to stop it?”
- CNN’s obit on Bhutto
- State Department – “It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy.”
- Very informative blog entries from NBC’s correspondant in Pakistan-
But if you are any one of the 99.9 percent of the rest of the 165 million Pakistanis, you hardly notice the emergency law anymore….But most Pakistanis don’t feel it. Musharraf wants it that way…Most analysts here say Musharraf has damaged his reputation, perhaps critically. But so far, he hasn’t pushed people to the streets. Shops are open. Banks are open. Markets are full. Prices are the same as before emergency law. [link]
With her white veil, bejeweled blouses, flawless English and flair for drama and theatrical timing, Benazir Bhutto has painted herself as lady liberty, a lone woman willing to risk all and stand up to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his emergency rule…. But Pakistan is not Myanmar, and Bhutto is no Aung San Suu Kyi [link]
- Excellent NYT article on Bhutto’s dark side –
Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned to Pakistan to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party… But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions — has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.
…”She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knows Ms. Bhutto … her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues..
- World Reaction including India –
In India, which has long had a thorny relationship with its neighbors in Pakistan, an Indian Congress Party spokesman told the Press Trust of India, “… we must express our deep concern at anything that disrupts and disturbs the even keel of democratic governance in Pakistan… it is not only anti-democracy but also generates instability.”
- Belmont Club –
…meaningful elections can occur only when the armies — in this case the Pakistani Army and the armed Islamic militants — are committed to the processes of democracy. When every group under arms within a society is determined to settle the question of power by combat the role for the ballot is small indeed. The next few days will show whether the Pakistani Army — for it will surely not be the Taliban — can rededicate itself to electoral democracy. Pakistan needs its George Washington. Unfortunately it only has its Pervez Musharraf.
<
p>
Some of Vinod’s thoughts –
- Both Musharaff and Bhutto are considered Pro-US / Pro-West / Secular leaders
- Especially relative to the Islamists
- And importantly, relative to the general population
- Bhutto moreso than Musharraf
- So, Jihadist forces (who are both anti-Musharraf and anti-Bhutto) are a likely culprit
- To them, Bhutto was a powerful ally to Musharraf (rather than a rival) and potentially more dangerous in the long run
- Knocking out an important ally wins them almost as much “cred” as taking out Musharraf directly
- Bhutto was “more dangerous” because she was even more vocally Pro-West as well as a woman
- “Pro-Musharraf forces” are getting the initial blame by some … but my gut leans skeptical
- The jury is still out on whether this is a net gain or net loss for Musharraf’s interests
- It certainly feeds the perception that he’s not in control of the country
- To them, Bhutto was a powerful ally to Musharraf (rather than a rival) and potentially more dangerous in the long run
- Given their similarities, what are the substantive differences between Musharraf and Bhutto?
- One key difference was their respective views of the general Pakistani population; Musharaff was a bit more of a “realist” ; Bhutto presented herself as an “idealist”
- Musharaff feared that the populism writ large would lead to an illiberal democracy
- Bhutto was more willing to turn to the electorate to ..
- lead the country to more democracy (if you think she has Good Intentions)
- secure more power / perks for herself (if you think she has Bad Intentions despite the lofty rhetoric)
- By contrast, Musharraf feared that Bhutto’s push for “more democracy” would backfire, leading to “less liberalism” rather than realizing her (stated) intentions…
- Perversely, Bhutto’s assassination is a perfect example of illiberality that gives Musharaff the license to enact repressive, authoritarian policy.
- Given these similar goals but different assessments of the starting line, Musharraf sees himself as a Kemal Atatürk ; Bhutto saw herself as Indira Gandhi or Joan of Arc
- Another difference stems from background – Musharraf came up to national leadership via the military while Bhutto through politics
- If you believe the best hope for the country is to follow the “Turkish Model” [more info…] , the Pakistani military is comparatively more professional and a modernizing force relative to the rest of the civil service
- So, arguably, Musharraf is potentially a more effective, less corrupt manager than a career politician.
- of course, a “manager” and a “national leader” are 2 very different things
- … as are “how well” you deploy power vs. “what you do with it”
Gandhi, please. If Gandhi were in a grave, he’d be rolling in it right about now. Sure, it requires a steely spirit to get ahead as a woman in subcontinental (heck, any, just see coverage in America today), especially Pakistani, politics even if you are born in the most influential political families, but that’s the only admirable trait I see in her.
Jenn,
I know you are very upset, but you’re not the only one who feels like this is not the time to hash out why Benazir was flawed; I don’t think it’s the most gracious move, either. When I’m upset, it’s difficult to write neutrally or productively, so I know where you’re commenting from and I can appreciate your anguish. But your comment contains elements which demean your passion and your point. Please try to keep it civil, for everyone’s sake or maybe, out of respect for the woman who was murdered today, who was many things, including eloquent.
As for the rest of you– start spelling properly. The Lede blog at The New York Times has quoted several of you. No pressure. 😉
Good lord, is it really impossible to imagine a universe where one can say “this is awful, horrible news” and “doesn’t change the fact that she was a crook, a detriment to the working class, and probably a shill for the U.S.?” Those two sentiments aren’t allowed to co-exist?
And it’s not being bitter. It’s just stating facts. Only in the U.S. is healthy, adult skepticism discouraged.
golfastrian, it wasn’t a personal attack on your comments – just frustration with the situation. i suppose, if this is a plot by a group like al qaeda, collateral ‘damage’ might not be of much concern…
i woke up my friend this morning with this terrible news. when he called his family back home in karachi, they told him that there have been gunshots all through the night, and there are mobs roaming the streets with whatever weapons they can get their hands on – from guns to knives and sticks. it’s very saddening. i hope one day pakistan gets the leaders it needs who will think less of their personal and political well-being and more about that of their fellow pakistanis.
It is puzzling to me that a woman who was obviously willing to die for her politics did not spend years beefing up her party and preparing for succession. If she had, her death would become a precious political opportunity. A patriot would think about these things in advance – brood about them. Perhaps I am missing something – can someone fill me in.
Chachaji, you mentioned Rajiv and Sanjay Gandhi but did not mention John and Bobby Kennedy. It is an irrelevant parallel. Some days back muslim scholars were making parallels between Islamic terrorism and IRA but the difference there was that while IRA had a negotiable issue, Islamists have a non-negotiable one, that is your way of life or mine.
Jenn, I agree with you completely and think you should ignore some of those calling your views hyperbole – they are being typically short sighted.
Benazir was an international figure who reflected the light and intelligence of a culture that is rountinely lambasted for being idiotic and backwards, and justly so based on its usual leadership.
Musharraf is a pathetic joke, while NPR and other news outlets are providing all-day coverage of this tragedy. I doubt Mush, or any other Pakistani would inspire such coverage because they are incapable of inspiring anything.
And to her disparagers, she was never convicted of any crime, and cannot be held solely accountable for a country normally led, and filled with, so many idiots and cowards.
153 · cc said
I think it’s about timing. Right now, there is a lot of shock and concern, whether one considered her good, bad, a mixture of both. To those who did appreciate her, I’m guessing it hurts to see some of the negative comments so soon after her assassination. To those who didn’t appreciate her, it’s a challenge to keep the feelings of the other group in mind while engaging in dialogue. Doing so is not required and it’s not an attack on skepticism, nor is it a collective exercise in delusion– but understanding where the other side is coming from would enable the continuation of a civil conversation, which does benefit all.
If we were all sitting around in person discussing this, I think most wouldn’t say as much about her faults, because you could see the faces of those who are consumed with how tragic this is. That’s just regular old kindness. It doesn’t deny what’s true or condemn you for thinking differently, if you consider the words you are saying and the impact they will have on someone who is upset or grieving.
Will this bring Fatima Bhutto into mainstream politics??
You mean the woman who named herself chairperson for life of the party she took over after her father’s assassination, and who maintained an iron hold on the party even when she spent her life in “self-imposed exile” in England?
cc #153, well said. Nothing excuses such a brutal, callous act, but Benazir Bhutto was hardly a moral paragon.
First Female PM in a Muslim Nation, sounds radical even today, America has not progressed that far. RIP.
Anna: It’s not like its JFK or someone else that the American public has any familiarity with. So it would be hard to convey the import of this without some background on her life.
This dearth of role models for girls is unfortunate, but things haven’t been so grand for boys either. Am I supposed to look up to “I like my baksheesh in Swedish kroners” Rajiv Gandhi, “I vuld like to recite special poem” Vajpayee, or “I drink my own brew” Moraji ? I remember the softball questions Benazir got during her administration and how development professionals would get all dewey eyed about what she would do for Pakistani peasant women. There is a strong desire to believe that women heads of state will be selfless and honourable but the sad truth is that they follow the same norms as their fathers.
79 · GujuDude said
The ISI wears rouge? I’d put them more for rust or a dark maroon.
Bhutto definitely had her faults (and then some), but as a woman I have to say she stands as an incredibly brave, intelligent role model. She could have stayed at home or in the office–but she chose to get out there in the public eye and lead a country. The fact that a female did this in a country that’s normally very repressive of women is quite remarkable.
ak, I know you weren’t criticising, I just needed to clarify my view on the matter – thanks though
Agreed. Just an observation, but I feel like the coverage of her assassination is actually more deferential than it would be were she male, no doubt partly because of the assumption that she could’ve done ‘so much more’ simply by virtue of being a woman.
The images of men of the PPP crying over her death, though- that is touching.
I was always suspicious of Begum Nawazish Ali.
To add on to that- I think another reason that the coverage is more deferential than it would be were she male is because Western media regularly fails to acknowledge that in countries like India and Pakistan, class/caste/family background is deeply ingrained and can ‘trump’ gender. You see some of that in the comments here too.
Or…because her being a woman leader, twice, of a Muslim country which is really traditional is something of note? 🙂 As Rudie C pointed out, we’re living in a country where people are actually asking whether we’re ready for a female president; it is not surprising that some of us appreciate how a supposedly “backwards” nation didn’t have that hang-up. I would aver that that is the reason for the coverage you consider more deferential.
Just read in one of the obituaries, her father and two brothers also met violent deaths.
10 · Candadai Tirumalai said
Why all this grief and hand-wringing over the death of “leaders?” Are their lives worth more than the “common” people they disappeared, tortured, executed, killed in “encounters,” forcibly sterilized, etc?
I don’t know, but their boys in Afghanistan love kohl and evoke Ziggy Stardust era Bowie
CNN.com is now reporting that it was the bullet to the neck that killed her and the the bomb exploded shortly thereafter. They say that the bomber was on a motorcycle nearby.
Only to clarify – not sidetrack. There is no ‘parallel’, only a similarity in the family history of ‘ruling families’ in India and Pakistan. And with the Kennedys, before Jack and Bobby, there was also their eldest brother Joe Jr who died in a World War 2 plane explosion. I deliberately did not mention it, so as not to sidetrack. (Other Kennedys also died un-natural deaths).
But to return to track – the Bhuttos – Fatima Bhutto – Benazir’s neice and Murtaza’s daughter, may some day lay claim to her grandfather Zulfiqar’s political legacy. She resembles Benazir quite considerably, but had been a bitter political opponent. At 25 she is still young, but Rahul Gandhi was even younger when his father Rajiv was assasinated in 1991.
OK, no more on this from me.
Salil,
Your comments decisively prove that Pakistan is not ready for democracy if the people of Pakistan share your simplistic and naive views.
A stable democracy requires that a majority of the citizenry are not only able, but willing, to participate in a process where consensus decisions are reached non-violently.
This requires several things that Pakistan does not have, has never had, and is unlikely to have in the future. At best the Pakistani people can hope for a Putin-like figure to impose some level of stability.
5 · RM said
I don’t always agree with US foreign policy, but I feel that many who criticize it don’t always appreciate the jockeying for position by both the US and Russia during the Cold War. The US doesn’t bear any great affection for Pakistan (just as the USSR with India).
As far as the current support that the US gives Pakistan. I think supporting Pakistan has helped the war in Afganistan and resulted in the capture of many Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan. I think the State Dept. is well aware of how Pakistan is using the funding that the US provides. The headway made against Al Qaeda wouldn’t be possible without Pakistan’s support. Is the ISI and/or the Pakistani govt using this support for their own purposes (which sometimes works against the US effort)? Of course, but it’s better than not having their help.
If it was India that was bordering Afganistan, it would be India that would be receiving the military and economic support. And it wouldn’t be because India is a democracy, it would be because the US needs her support.
Well I did say ‘partly.’ Though personally this reminds me of when Pratibha Patil became the Indian President and Western feminists were talking about what a great ‘milestone’ it was, without knowing that the position of President in India doesn’t really mean much, and without realizing that whatever ‘milestone’ may be achieved by her being President is outweighed by what a typical (read: corrupt) Indian politician she is. I hold the same here; then again, I am pretty cynical.
168 · nala said
Doesn’t make it less special or noteworthy, IMO. I also used to believe in that argument about caste trumping gender…but then there was Mayawati.
One of my favorite things about India is that it had a female leader, one of my favorite things about being brown was that most South Asian countries have. 🙂 I am simple-minded enough and so easy-to-please that this makes me happy. Blame my father, it was his favorite comeback to ignorant jerks who denigrated India, a few less progressive decades ago. He thought Ferraro got far too much nastiness, because she was female. Ah, good times, that 1984 election.
This is such sad news. I hope she finds peace atleast now.
This is the song (in telugu and I apologize in advance to non-telugu readers) that comes up in my mind when I learnt about her death. I think this song summarizes “tribal traditions of violence” in any country:
paatarati guhalu, paalarata gruhAlaina adavi neeti marinda yenni yugalaina veta ade vetu ade, naati kathe antha nattadivulu nadi veedhiki nadichosthe vinta?
Chachaji,
Although Rahul did not become active in politics till some years back and Murtaza was assassinated in 1996 when Fatima was 14 and Rahul was 21 when his father was assassinated.
Dynasty and nepotism/godfathers are the ace of spades.
158 · A N N A said
<
blockquote>
I think it’s about timing. Right now, there is a lot of shock and concern, whether one considered her good, bad, a mixture of both. To those who did appreciate her, I’m guessing it hurts to see some of the negative comments so soon after her assassination.
If we were all sitting around in person discussing this, I think most wouldn’t say as much about her crimes,
Not entirely true, I watching this with my some of my American and Chinese friends and we are actually talking about her ‘real’ motives of coming back to Pakistan. I think nobody should be under any illusion that she sacrificed her life for Pakistan or Democracy. She was in it either to get back to the loot she was missing since her last time (most likely), or to save her and her husband’s legacy (somewhat like the reasons Sonia Gandhi entered politics; to save her family’s loot from being snatched away). If there is any moral to this immediate story is what my grandma would tell you, politics in the sub-continent is just not worth it.
So stop re-writing history, and sugar coating the tragedy. See it for what it is.
171 · Harbeer said
Because they’re the ones in the public eye and are the individuals we’ve gotten to know over time. It’s why Princess Diana’s death from a resulting car accident garnered international attention while a housewife’s vehicular death in rural Alabama only makes local news.
I don’t see anything remarkable about this, it’s all about dynastic succession in South Asia and is consistent with our feudal past. The same man who would bow before his Rani would slap his wife for speaking out of turn. As I have pointed out in other posts, sexism manifests itself in different ways. A country like India, despite the poor state of affairs for women overall, is probably more likely to produce a scientist/astronaut from its upper class than the West.
183 · Shalu said
Not exactly. The deaths by traffic accident you provide as examples are (to a great extent) random accidents. I referred to victims of state-sponsored terror vs. perpetrators of state-sponsored terror.
See comment 149 for “why I’m so disappointed by it,” Anna. And also why it is arguably necessary, even if it’s only been hours since she died.
Balance and perspective. It’s important to accept the good AND the bad about a person. You seem to think I’m focusing exclusively on the bad. That’s because so many people around me seem to be focusing entirely on the good (and in some cases, like this troll, even seem to be making it up as they go along, purely out of some need to feel like they’re part of things). To place value on a person simply because she was a woman, or a mother, or held power, is ridiculous. It’s what she did with those roles and how she handled them that govern whether I remember her with respect, indifference, or disdain. Bhutto held power twice before, and it was no secret that she was an imperialistic (in the “personal power” sense of the word) ruler who did not brook dissent, and yet purportedly and ostensibly was pro-democracy.
She did not build bridges. She did not spend ANY time reforming the ills of Pakistan. And she definitely was not some kind of paragon of female virtue, or some icon for the ages. Yes, she was not convicted of any crime…but that says more about the state of law and finance in Pakistan in those days than it does about her ethics. She plundered the state Treasury, she doled out favors to flunkies, and she got away with it.
Okay, okay.
So fine. Here are some at least marginally positive points about Benazir Bhutto:
Feel free to add to that list as you wish.
I’d like to take a moment to ask Jenn what’s more sheep-like, to be voicing an unpopular opinion in the face of dissent, or to jump in with the herd because it feels satisfying? It’s becoming more and more obvious that your judgment of Bhutto is superficial at best, and not based on any kind of actual familiarity with the subject at hand.
Gazsi (175):
Ah, there we go again. Because…this violence was enacted by the entirety of the Pakistani population, right? They ALL killed her.
By this logic, America is not ready for democracy since JFK was assassinated. And Lincoln. Etc.
You conflate whether the people are ready for democracy with the likelihood of democracy, and then blame the people for the latter. If that’s the case, then the Iraq war is your fault, and screw you for advocating it. You personally are not ready for democracy, and I’m hereby taking it away from you. You’ve personally killed something like 300,000 people, and frankly, I’m sick of it. Cut it out right now, you war-monger.
Wait, what’s that, you say? You didn’t vote for the war? Well, yes you did! You’re a citizen of somewhere or the other, and I bet your government was all fired up after 9/11. I bet they might have sent troops to Iraq! So you’re not ready for democracy. You personally. Nope. Not ready. Sorry. But feel free to apply again next year!
Ms. Bhutto was human, and like most of us she had good and bad points (and whether you see certain of her characteristics as good or bad probably depends on who you are). Some of those bad points directly and/or adversely affected people here. It is fine to explain that/why you personally found her to be worthy of admiration, or why you consider her death a tragedy. While I can understand that it may be uncomfortable for people to hear certain things and while I would hope that people who point out the shadows in her character do so with some sensitivity, in my view it is both beyond the pale and nonsensical to suggest that people who were not enamoured of her in life should be silenced from posting any negative comments because she has died. Unless I’ve been advised incorrectly, this is not her private funeral nor is this the site of the Benazir Bhutto official fan club. Ms. Bhutto was a political leader who led a public life and was likely assassinated in that capacity. Furthermore, just how long are people supposed to be silent? Some people would suggest that a few hours mourning is appropriate before the barbs can occur, others would suggest a few days and some of the more sensitive amongst our species would no doubt suggest that a violent death gets you a pass for all time. And yes, I would say the same about Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
For the record, I don’t know enough about Ms. Bhutto to be able to comment with authority on her flaws and achievments. However, when watching her speak on news panels etc., I found her extremely articulate and she seemed to radiate a great deal of intelligence, even when I might disagree with her position (I’d hate to be on the other side of a debate). I admire her achievments, especially given the context in which they occurred, although I suspect that her connections helped her a fair bit (so perhaps I should admire her ability to capitalize on her opportunities, which is far more than I have done). If she was truly a force for moderation, I am saddened by the loss of another potential source of peace. If the allegations about the corruption are true (I don’t know), I am saddened, disappointed and disgusted that someone who had so much to offer just couldn’t keep her hands out of the kitty. If allegations about her extra-territorial involvement in instigating matters in India is true, well on the one hand, I admire her tactical ability, while at the same time not being terribly cut up about her death. And while doing so, I still have enough neurons to spare to be able to regret the violence of the assassination and to feel for her family members and friends for whom this event is a personal tragedy.
I am very worried about what the consequences of the assassination in Pakistan, both out of concern for the citizens of Pakistan and for more selfish reasons. I’m hoping the those who predict that the mourning period will allow for national catharsis and that this event will not cause further long-term instability and violence are correct.
oops. Block quote tag in my previous comment was supposed to end after “stability.”
Well, on that unnecessarily rude note, I’m bowing out of this conversation which I have devoted five non-stop hours to moderating.
|||
Yes, Benazir and Indira are products of political families, but so is Dubya. South Asia does not have a monopoly on such power-hoarding. I know some of you have made points about dynastic succession in response to my attempts to be positive about South Asian female leaders (which I did because I think it’s where some of the pain about negativity re: Benazir’s track record is stemming from) and I think that would be a great discussion to have– another time. Let’s not sidetrack this post further.
May her memory be eternal, may the families of all who were hurt or lost be comforted, and may justice come swiftly to those who are terrorizing Pakistan.
Its the jokers wild in these dynastic house of cards that cause the most trouble. The Gemayel family of Lebanon is another political family/dynasty that has seen a number of its family members assassinated over the years.
156 · Topcat said
here ia another irrelevant parallel – BB was assassinated in Liaquat Bagh the same place where the first prime minister of Pak was killed
One could argue that Bhutto, Indira and the vast majority of South Asian female leaders are leaders only by virtue of their family tie to a powerful male. Thus their leadership is a function of traditional gender roles. In South Asia, these roles don’t preclude women from appearing and speaking in public, thank god – I suppose that is something. But it’s not the same sort of phenomenon as Thatcher or Merkel.
Thanks Rahul – didn’t know that stuff.
Its stupid and cynical politicking for Bhutto’s supporters to blame Musharraf and the Army for this assassination. Suicide bombings are the hallmark of al-Qaeda and other maniacal muslim fundamentalists. And al-Qaeda has already taken credit for the killing. It had all the motivations: she was even more pro-american than Mushharaf and as another poster wrote, “just a couple days back BB had voiced out that Pak Madarassas are nurturing killers and authorities are not doing anything”.
Right…except the unpopular opinion on this more-cynical-than-thou thread is the one which expresses any sort of positivity about the deceased.
I just listed three positive points about Bhutto. And I don’t see you listing ANY. So you are clearly more negative than I am. You lose, I win.
Next!
Because it’s easier to speak baaaadly of her with the rest of the herd. 😉
MLK liberated a race, Gandhi helped liberate a nation, Bhutto helped liberate the Pakistani Treasury. I now understand the comparison Jenn was drawing and will now go back to grazing and avoiding amorous frat boys
When the ‘positivity’ is hyperbolic and compares Bhutto to MLK Jr. and Gandhi, I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question that.
Didn’t just one person do that? True, one bathetic rant is annoying enough to make your eyes cross, thus causing you to see double, but still.
The subcontinent is definitely the most dangerous place in the entire world for political leaders. Assassinated leaders include:
Liaqat Ali Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Zia ul-Haq, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan
Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi in India
Mujibur Rahman and much of his immediate family in Bangladesh
Ranasinghe Premadasa in Sri Lanka
King Birendra and his Queen in Nepal
Any others?