Benazir Bhutto Assassinated (Updated)

Posted on by

Initial reports 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
  • 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”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by vinod. Bookmark the permalink.

401 thoughts on “Benazir Bhutto Assassinated (Updated)”

  1. Dev,

    There is Benazir’s brothers Shahnawaz and Murtaza, Phoolan Devi, Beant Singh (Punjab Chief Minister, Abdul Ghani Lone, Najibullah (President of Afghanistan), one prime minister of Bhutan come to mind. I think wikipedia had a detailed list.

  2. vinod’s original post talks about the possible political repercussions of this assassination, and about Bhutto in a political context, so people bringing up Bhutto’s politics and personal legacy didn’t seem untoward.

  3. Dev (200):

    You can’t just take areas of the world and compare number of assassinations. That’s not really going to tell you much, anyway.

    Besides, I think Africa would win on sheer numbers alone.

    Here, this will help you in your desire to accumulate figures.

  4. I think we should keep in mind the problems of all emerging democracies, including the U.S. and Italy when evaluating this situation. Maybe it’s because we’re so tied to this area, it’s easier for us to make claims about the horrors of politics in South Asia. But these are what some would call expected occurrences. We’re changing a way a place is organized and runs here! It doesn’t happen overnight or even in 100 years. Honestly, if I wasn’t at work, I’d research and write out each country and example, but I remember learning quite a few in my college days of studying international relations and the like. Just a thought…

  5. hmmm like some other posters, i don’t have all the facts right at my fingertips. but the allowance of well-articulated points of view that are not necessarily palatable is one of the hallmarks of liberal (libertarian?) thinking. it is frustrating to be called out for “allowing the 2 sentiments to co-exist” (sadness on what her death means to the people of pakistan/the desire to not sugar coat what she actually did or opinions and yes, speculation, on what her “fiendish” plan was, etc). to me this either/or sentimentality, usually posited by the people who want to deify the person who died, is no different than “you’re either with us or against us.”

    my $CDN 0.02.

  7. 51 · heartsick said

    This is so true i woke up this morning to news of her assasination and it left me heartsick, i am not pakistani so i don’t know the full impact but this is just so sick, killing a woman who obviously had the best interest of Pakistan at heart and wanted democracy for her home country and she is killed in cold blood, it is sick.

    I’m sure there’s a lot more idiocy and naivete to point out in the deluge of comments, but goddamn if you’re not a complete idiot.

  8. 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?

    Akbar Bugti, Baloch leader

  9. While I do admire Benazir Bhutto for doing what she did, accepting that she was human, and that she did certain things in power that we may not agree with, doesn’t affect that admiration. I admire her because she’s a good role model, as far as not allowing the establishment to dictate what you can do or where you can speak. If you have an opinion, voice it. If you want to join politics, then by all means, join it, regardless of your gender. She had the support of a political dynasty, but she also had the smarts to use her opportunities for her own benefit. How many of us can say the same?

    Acknowledging that she made some mistakes or did some less-than-savory things should have no bearing on your admiration. So what if she did those things? Different people do different things with power. Some situations require less-than-savory means in order to get what you want. She thought that her goals were worth it, and went ahead and did it. It’s politics.

    The fact that she had a violent death, while regrettable, and a cowardly act on the part of the assassins, is no reason to deify her. Plenty of people in history have had violent deaths. Plenty of politicians too. It’s what she did with her life that should count. If you consider her worthy of admiration, then continue to admire her, by all means. Just acknowledge that she was as human as the rest of us.

  10. It would really be extremely counterproductive for the liberal elements in Pakistan, to which Mushharaf the muhajir, Nawaz Sharif the punjabi and the late Benazir Bhutto the half-iranian sindhi all belong, to fight each other and ignore the REAL enemy: al-Qaeda, Taliban, wahhabis, deobandis.

  11. Hilarious — I get quoted in the NYtimes (in the Lede Blog) for my comment (under a temporary, one thread only, pseudonym), and the NYT geniuses can’t tell the difference between the name on the comment and the “quote” tag on the right hand side.

    Anyway, an accounting of the (mostly sad) fates of the Bhutto clan

    Zulfikar Ali bhutto (father) — Hanged by Zia, 1979 Nusrat Bhtto (mother) — Suffering from Alzheimers

    Benazir Bhutto (daughter)– Assassinated 2008 Murtaza Bhutto (son) — Killed by Karachi police under Benazir’s second Prime Ministership, 1996 Shahnawaz Bhutto (son) — Poisoned / Drug overdose in France, 1985 Sanam “Sunny” Bhutto (daughter) — Living in London, not involved in politics

    Fauzia Bhutto (Murtaza’s first wife, Fatima’s mother, Rehana’s sister) — Living in California(?) Fatima Bhutto (Murtaza’s daughter with Fauzia) — Journalist in Pakistan, opponent of Benazir

    Ghinwa Bhutto (Murtaza’s second wife) — Leader of PPP (Shaheed Bhutto), opponent of Benazir Zulfikar Junior (Murtaza’s son with Ghinwa)– Living in Karachi

    Rehana Bhutto (Shahnawaz’ wife, Fauzia’a sister) — imprisoned in France under the “good samaritan law”, now in the US (?) (???) (Shahnawaz’ daughter) — Now in USA(???)

    Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (Benazir’s Son) — At Oxford Bakhtar Bhutto Zardari (Benazir’s son) — Living in Dubai Aseefa Bhutto Zardari (Benazir’s daughter) — Living in Dubai

    I don’t think Sanam has any children, but she is clearly the most Fab (see New Year’s Eve, 1980).

  12. Ok, people. It is perfectly reasonable to want to see both sides of an argument. It is also great to mull over the shortcomings (and positive qualities) of a human being who is a public, political, and yes, polarizing, figure. But when you do that in the immediate aftermath of a crime perpetrated against that person, you are explicitly or implicitly drawing parallels and insinuating cause & effect.

    In some weird way, this is like saying ‘Oh, yes, the poor girl was raped. But unrelatedly, isn’t she the same girl who sits in cars with strange men/wears jeans in a village/holds hands with her boyfriend on Marine Drive’. Yes, you’re not saying statement 2 is the cause of statement 1. But saying those two together, at the same time, is what is causing the heartache for some of us who’re still not out of the zone of shock.

  13. I believe that tomorrow morning in Pakistan is going to be a very trying time for those people, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world. I believe that they are going to have plenty of violent riots there, and this could escalate to a full-blown civil war. International observers would see that there are many factions fighting but that each faction seems to have no agenda and no beliefs. There just fighting to vent their anger and perhaps to settle historical scores between different ethnic groups, political beliefs, etc.

    During this time, the destabilized nation could see the different ethnic groups (i.e. Sindhis, Baluchis, Pashtuns, etc.) all vying for independence. Keep in mind that the Pashtuns would make this demand via the Taliban/Al Qaeda, and this is what worries me.

    During the full-blown Pakistani Civil War, we would see lakhs and lakhs, of Pakistani refugees in India’s major border cities, such as Amritsar, Delhi, Mumbai via Gujurat, and also, the refugees would enter via the unpatrolled Thar Dessert.

    There is always the possibility that Pakistan could fall into the hands of a fundamentalist who has brought order during this chaos, much the same way that Afghanistan fell in the hands of the Taliban, who originally brought law and order to Afghanistan. This could be a very grave concern. These mullah-warriors have no knowledge or interest in economics, free-markets, diplomacy, and they don’t embrace pluralism or modernism. They would, however, try to siege Kashmir, among other things, and assert more of their influence in Afghanistan.

    Perhaps this new Talibanized Pakistan would reach out to Bangladesh, and they would attempt to reach out to China, but I’m convinced that China would seperate themselves from this mullah regime.

    Basically, I don’t see any future for Pakistan. What we have seen here is analgous to dawn of terror which engulfed Afghanistan in ’73 during their Saur Revolution and culminated in Sept.11th, 2001. What I’m very concerned about are all the refugees entering India, which will destabilize India (like the way the Palestinian refugee camps destabilized Lebanon and Jordan) and shift the demographics a little in the favor of the Muslims. I’m also very concerned about power falling into the hands of a mullah warrior, who is only concerned with jihad.

  14. In some weird way, this is like saying ‘Oh, yes, the poor girl was raped. But unrelatedly, isn’t she the same girl who sits in cars with strange men/wears jeans in a village/holds hands with her boyfriend on Marine Drive’.

    Umm, no it’s not. Bhutto was a politician. She had power. This is a ridiculous analogy.

  15. Regular Sepia Commentor,

    One minor thing with your post, Bakhtar is actually Bakhtwar who is her second daughter.

  16. The Bush regimes obsession with imposing the american political system around the world (Benazir was a casualty of this campaign) is naive, ignorant and hypocritical. Its Naive because it is likely to empower medievalist, religious fundamentalist types; Ignorant because democracy is not a universal panacea: just look what 60 years of democracy has accomplished in benighted India; and above all Hypocritical: why is it so important to impose democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan but not in long term american allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt??

    The primary emphasis shoud be on Rule of Just Law. And the provision of basic sustenance for the nations populace (water, food, healthcare, education etc). Western style Democracy is not necessarily conducive to this. India the largest democracy in the world is shining proof of that.

  17. Anyone else just catch the interview on CNN with a western journalist (didn’t catch the name)…who apparently received an e-mail from Bhutto after the Oct bombings, wherein she stated that if she were to be killed, that Musharraf would be to blame? The modus operandi–a likely sniper shot–followed by a suicide bombing to make it appear to be the work of Al Qaeda?

    Sad but terrifying that Musharraf will likely use this as a ruse to secure more “anti-terrorism” funds from the US.

  18. 67 · Topcat said

    Modernised and independent minded women have always suffered in Islamist Pak. Singer Nadia Hassan died mysteriously too. It is time women take charge in Pak. Elect Begum Nawazish Ali.

    Nadia Hassan died of breast cancer.

  21. I am saddened, if not entirely shocked… I had always feared she would meet her end this way. She was an equal combination of fierce courage and cold calculation and I will be sorry to add her to the list of assassinated leaders that I will eventually teach my students about. I recently completed a mural student project on women leaders ( where my fifth grade girls discovered that the Asian and African continents have a way more impressive count of female presidents/premiers than North America)… the drawing of her is remarkably beautiful.

    I’m not sure if this will usher in darker days for Pakistan but I can only hope that it can dig itself out of the downward spiral it now is in.

  24. Well, the pakistani public will probably now get their first good look at the next claimant to the political dynasty started by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: his daughter Benazir’s oldest son who is 19 years old is heading to Larkana for his mother’s funeral.

  25. This is from Wikipedia, so it is suspect:

    The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto’s rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[13] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.

    Is this a fair assessment or something that was done without her consent? I am willing to believe the latter given the strength of the military/ISI

  26. louiecypher, you beat me to it. I was just wondering about the accuracy of that part myself. Most of her rhetoric was anti-fundamentalist, so this seems a bit at odds with her recent public statements on the topic. In fact, she’s accused Musharraf of exactly the same thing: aiding their rise, largely by inaction.

    And she was definitely at odds with the Taliban before she arrived in Pakistan earlier this year. She publicly blamed the Taliban and al-Quaeda for the first attack on her after she landed.

  27. Salil,

    Blah blah blah. All assassinations of US Presidents were by lone actors with mental problems, not the vanguard of some sort of political movement. Bhutto was assassinated for political reasons, and she wasn’t even in power.

    I will agree that the existence of Indian democracy is a little bit perplexing, but whatever India has, Pakistan does not.

  29. umm- I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here Topcat: “OK Sadkarachite, The problem is apparent here. That is the lack of acceptance of failure of the Pak as a state and Pakistani community in general. Your boiling blood is the source of problem.” My blood boiled (and don’t forget, I did mention that I recognized my reaction could be somewhat irrational) because I read by these comments that somehow the Pakistani media’s supposed unwillingness to post this news fast enough was the a source of incredible shame to the Pakistani people. While there are many things wrong with Pakistani society, bold journalism is not really one of them. There are hundreds of journalists still in lockup for reasons that probably need an entire different thread. There are several restrictions on the media right now, completely unfair and illegal ones, yet they’re still airing their news and various views on the assassination (including quite boldly airing accusations that the army and/or Musharraf could have been involved in this act), just ask someone who’s watching GEO or ARY News now in Lahore, Karachi, or any other city in Pakistan. I do wonder if what angers people like you is that they do not portray Benazir as the savior many, including you, seem to think she was or rather could have been.

    She WAS twice a democratically elected leader and there WAS a great deal of collusion going on with religious fundamentalists and extremists then. Many of us Pakistanis still remember that and other factors and so viewed her comments, speeches, and rhetoric with quite a bit of skepticism.

  30. Ranasinghe Premadasa in Sri Lanka

    Sirimavo’s husband, Solomon Bandaranaike, was assassinated by a buddhist monk.

    Premadasa got it from a Tiger suicide bomber.

    Chandrika Kumaratunga (Sirimavo’s daughter) lost an eye in attack in ’99.

    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.

    anna (189),

    well the ‘can we/should we criticize her so soon?’ question does seem to be the dominant one on this thread. I think your consideration for her family and friends is mirrored by the critics’ consideration for all people who got screwed over while she was in power (not that you aren’t including them as well.) Personally, i feel that the lives of those who died/were imprisoned while Bhutto held the reins of power represent a powerful moral voice that compels us to keep these criticisms alive–a voice i find more compelling than the pleas for temperance from Bhutto supporters/sympathizers.

  31. louiecypher, you beat me to it. I was just wondering about the accuracy of that part myself. Most of her rhetoric was anti-fundamentalist, so this seems a bit at odds with her recent public statements on the topic. In fact, she’s accused Musharraf of exactly the same thing: aiding their rise, largely by inaction. And she was definitely at odds with the Taliban before she arrived in Pakistan earlier this year. She publicly blamed the Taliban and al-Quaeda for the first attack on her after she landed.

    Well, it won;t be the first time politicians have changed their stance on an issue when they are out of power. Every party in power has to make unpopular decisions that are right for the country. It’s very easy for the opposition to knock the party down on those decisions. COme election time, when the opposition is in power, they continue the unpopular policy, (because ultimately the policy decision is the right one) and the original party in power protests the decision that they themselves made. Oldest trick in the book

    The best example is the Congress alliance and the Sangh parivar alliance in India. When, Manmohan Singh started liberalizing India’s economy under Narsimha Rao, the Sangh Parivar knocked them down hard. But, that didn;t stop the BJP from liberalizing when they came into power, and the Congress used the same rhetoric that the Sangh used against them. Now, that Manmohan Singh is the PM, Sangh uses the exact same rhetoric that they used against Rao.

    In countries where there is limited accountability of government, and most of your constituency is incapable of going to a library to read a 5 year old newspaper, the rules are differrent. Who cares if you say one thing and do another? What is important is the here and now. You do what is best to gain support. It doesn’t matter if you can’t fulfill promises as long as you can keep up the appearances of benevolence.

  33. well the ‘can we/should we criticize her so soon?’ question does seem to be the dominant one on this thread. I think your consideration for her family and friends is mirrored by the critics’ consideration for all people who got screwed over while she was in power (not that you aren’t including them as well.) Personally, i feel that the lives of those who died/were imprisoned while Bhutto held the reins of power represent a powerful moral voice that compels us to keep these criticisms alive–a voice i find more compelling than the pleas for temperance from Bhutto supporters/sympathizers.

    That’s a good point, but I don’t think it was about consideration for her “family and friends”. I thought the consideration was for the far less lofty, anonymous people who have nowhere but here to emote about this. Why not delay the criticism for a day and let people grieve? If we wouldn’t feel as strongly about whatever we want to pin on her here tomorrow, then that’s telling and most of this thread is typical blog froth and bluster.

    Meanwhile, per what I’m listening to right now, even people in Pakistan who were not her supporters, were upset by this. Many of them when interviewed didn’t mention the negatives that previous commenters here have– I don’t think they were mugging for western mics. Personally, I find it interesting that it wasn’t just her rank and file who were upset by her death. Most of this thread is far harsher than the Pakistani voices I listened to today, and I’m inclined to give those voices a bit more weight.

  34. 158 · A N N A said

    <

    blockquote>153 · cc said

    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.

    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.

    For goodness sake…

    First of all, I was providing a little balance in response to all those saying her part in Pakistan’s future would lead to good things pointing out she was hardly the ideal leader some are making her out to be. Second, I also acknowledged that this was terrible news. And I’m not at all suggesting her death is a good thing, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea.

    Spare me your platitudes, please. The fact is, we are NOT sitting around in person discussing this. You may think an assassination means we have to self-censor our disapproval of a politician. Sorry, I don’t. Not even for a day. This was someone whose decisions affect the lives of many people, a public figure. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always been of the belief that public figures with power like Bhutto must be closely watched and criticized when need be. Alive or dead. You say to do otherwise would be “regular old kindess”, I say it’s being dishonest. If Dick Cheney died, you think people here will keep silent about all the horrors he inflicted on the world? Even out of so-called “respect”? And Bhutto was no angel. I do agree there are situations where such comments would not be appropriate. For example, at her funeral. But I’m not going to be there, and I doubt very much you are, either. I mean, if we’re not expected to be honest on a message board, what’s left?

    She may very well have played a part in her brother’s assassination. Her plundering of the treasury and her contempt for the downtrodden helped exaserbate the suffering of the poor people of Pakistan. And let’s not even mention the people she vicimized thanks to her well-known support of the Taliban. I’m sure if you asked them, they wouldn’t give two figs about “regular old kindesses”, thank you.

  35. Spare me your platitudes, please. The fact is, we are NOT sitting around in person discussing this.

    Such civility on this thread. No one said that Bhutto was innocent or shouldn’t be discussed fully– all that was attempted was an explanation for the wide disconnect between some very upset commenters and those who were more critical, to keep things civil. Fighting with a blogger is hardly productive– and when they’ve already stated that they are leaving the conversation, it’s pointless.

  36. Typical third world idiocy in action in Pakistan: mobs burning buses, cars, shops and homes, attacking police, government property etc. What the hell does that accomplish? Instead, shouldnt they be venting their anger at the wahhabi and deobandi mosques and madrassahs that spawned the killers of their heroine?

  38. Typical third world idiocy in action in Pakistan: mobs burning buses, cars, shops and homes, attacking police, government property etc. What the hell does that accomplish? Instead, shouldnt they be venting their anger at the wahhabi and deobandi mosques and madrassahs that spawned the killers of their heroine?

    Rioting, yes. Idiocy, on balance of probability, yes. Third world-specific, not so much. Buckeye fans do roughly the same thing every time they win. Or lose. Or go to the rest room.

    But I’m more disturbed at the statement re venting anger on mosques and stuff.

  39. 225 · louiecypher said

    Is this a fair assessment or something that was done without her consent? I am willing to believe the latter given the strength of the military/ISI

    I don’t think that Pakistan’s support for Taliban was possible without an overt or covert support from then Prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Remember that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE were the ONLY 3 nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It is possible that Benazir’s intentions of supporting the Taliban were purely to gain support of the Pasthun constituents of NWFP. Nevertheless her policies at the time did help the Taliban gain a stronghold in Afghanistan (the main opposition – the Northern Alliance – in Afghanistan at that time consisted of mainly Tajiks and Uzbeks). Her recent denouncement of Taliban and jihadi militants in Pakistan may also be purely out of the desire to position herself as a feasible and favorable alternative to Musharraf in the eyes of politicians in Washington D.C.

    I hope that one of the main lesson politicians in Pakistan take from this tragedy is that their policy of supporting the Jihadi elements and using them as a weapon to wage a proxy war in Kashmir has failed. Discontinuing this support and acting against these fanatics would be in the interest of both Pakistan and the world now. It is kind of sad that an ex-prime minister of the country had to be assassinated for this realization to occur (if at all it does occur).

    One can argue indefinitely about Benazir’s checkered record and her ideology. I for one would like to hope that her assassination results into a stronger movement for a moderate and progressive Pakistan.

  40. It’s more than just Benazir, even if people didn’t agree with her politics or achievments. She had much to be criticised for. But like it or not, at this point in history she represented something greater than her imperfections. What happened today was an attack on all Pakistanis because whether or not she represented you as a Pakistani, she represented something to the murderers, something satanic, to be hunted and snuffed out at the cost of as many innocent lives besides Benazir as it took. That this is their mentality, their practise, their darkness, their evil, is enough to make the lines in the sand clear to all.

    This was a message to all Pakistanis today, tommorrow and forver. That if at any time leaders emerge, who are prepared to oppose the paradigms and ideologies that have petrified Pakistan, if all future leaders and politicians are susceptible to this, will live under a permanent death sentence, what hope is there for Pakistan away from the military and the bullying fascism of the extremists? This atrocity was the jihadis and those who might have colluded with them spitting in the face of every Pakistani and warning them not to be uppity, to maintain silence, to be passive, to not challenge what these fascists say is the road on which Pakistan shall travel. They want to put Pakistan under a permanent control order, on a leash, with a gun to her head forever. That is why this is all so tragic, so horrific, and so unholy.

  41. First of all, RIP Benazir Bhutto. No doubt that she pissed many off with her politics, but she was a strong, articulate, intelligent female leader, which is not very common in our world today.

    Second, the only way that the political situation in Pakistan will stabilize is if the U.S. finally acknowledges that Pakistan is a military dictatorship with no interest in stopping al-Qaeda and other militant groups except for that eternal $$, they can cut off that said dinero and shock some sense into the Pakistani government. All the instability in Pakistan is there because the aid that the U.S. has unquestioningly given to Pakistan for years has been poorly spent by the elite ruling class.

    Let’s hit ’em where it hurts, people.

  42. 235 · SM Intern said

    Spare me your platitudes, please. The fact is, we are NOT sitting around in person discussing this.
    Such civility on this thread. No one said that Bhutto was innocent or shouldn’t be discussed fully– all that was attempted was an explanation for the wide disconnect between some very upset commenters and those who were more critical, to keep things civil. Fighting with a blogger is hardly productive– and when they’ve already stated that they are leaving the conversation, it’s pointless.

    Hold up! I wasn’t trying to be uncivil. I was annoyed, but not upset or angry or anything. If I was anything, then it was in the spirit of vigorous debate, that’s all. If I came across as more than what I intended, I apologize. It’s more difficult to express things in writing that may come across more clearly when spoken. Anna was very civil, and I didn’t scroll down at the time to see she had left.

  43. That if at any time leaders emerge, who are prepared to oppose the paradigms and ideologies that have petrified Pakistan, if all future leaders and politicians are susceptible to this, will live under a permanent death sentence, what hope is there for Pakistan away from the military and the bullying fascism of the extremists?

    Sure, but how complicit was Musharraf in this – on balance, this could turn out quite nicely for him, and he could have just as well been lax enough about security to allow natural events to take their course. From the NY Times: Husain Haqqadi, a spokesman for her party, told CNN that the Interior Ministry had been “dismissive” of Ms. Bhutto’s requests for better security protection, “The government officials tried to blame the victim,” Mr. Haqqadi told CNN. “They told her she should not hold rallies.” Mr. Haqqadi said Ms. Bhutto’s party tried to get permission to hire an international security consulting company, but was rebuffed, leaving Ms. Bhutto dependent on the government security services to protect her in public. “Official security clearly failed in Rawalpindi today,” Mr. Haqqadi told the network. Noting that Ms. Bhutto was shot in the neck before the bomb blast, he said, “How could that happen except by negligence in the security establishment?”

  44. If I came across as more than what I intended, I apologize. It’s more difficult to express things in writing that may come across more clearly when spoken.

    Thanks, cc. Wish there were more like ya.

  45. I know some of you have made points about dynastic succession in response to my attempts to be positive about South Asian female leaders

    I guess Anna is no longer part of this discussion but I think just for the sake of other people reading this and so that misinformed impressions are not formed, it should be mentioned that Indira is not exactly Ms Positive when it comes to Indian politics. Might be my ignorance but I hardly recall anything special she did for women that other politicians did not, and those measures probably were populist anyways. She was a strong astute leader who happened to be a woman, but thats all there is to it. Plus there is her legacy which still hurts us every day – she destroyed the democratic nature within the congress, brought about nepotism (Sanjay and his forced nasbandi, Maruti etc etc) plus her advisers, brought dynastic attributes to Indian politics, she took India far more left than it ever was and that too at a time when there was some cry for aligning with the free market economic principles, she probably was one of the first to use populism for political purposes in a big way, and then there is the emergency which is a blot on our democracy. It can be disputed but Operation Blue Star may have been handled better. I am not so sure she was as wonderful for India as one would like to believe.

  46. the fallout of this is terrible. pakistan is burning right now. benazir’s “supporters” are torching the cars on the streets. the hospitals and airports are closed –this is an excerpt from an email from a friend in karachi i recd this morning. the internet access in karachi is intermittent and i havent heard again from her — people are all in their homes and are scared to get out. this whole thing is just awful, simply awful.

  48. Agree with Ardy that neither Indira nor BB did anything special for women, but then neither did Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir or Sirimavo Bandaranaike, though Cory Aquino is said to have accomplished reforms that improved women’s lives, and she left office alive as well. I think we’re deluded about this because of the Clinton campaign. I’d say it’s pretty much indisputable hat BB looked a whole lot better while on the job than Attila the Hen or any of the others. Only the good-looking die young. About the purported e-mail from BB saying Musharraf was going to do her in, does BB have a friend like Lucia Flecha de Lima who is willing to step up and say, ‘The butler wrote it’?

  49. I am not so sure she was as wonderful for India as one would like to believe.

    No she was not wonderful, in fact she was disastrous for India and you can trace almost all the problems facing India today back to her regime. Ardy is completely right about her but I still remember when she was assassinated how shocked everyone was and how unthinkable and needless her death seemed.

  50. I think the forgotten hero here is Asif Ali Zardari. We must mourn for his loss, and support his quest for greatness and upliftment of the Pakistani people. I submit my obeisance for the Sher-e-Sind, truly a people’s choice.