Excellent article. Its worth reading. One of the question he raise is who benefited from BB’s death? I think we all know the answer.
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/258150.html
From India to Pakistan: Jamhooriyat Zindabad
Sudheendra Kulkarni
Posted online: Sunday, January 06, 2008 at 0000 hrs Print Email
A superficial reading of history would make us see a parallel between the assassinations of four former prime ministers — a mother and son killed in India and a father and daughter eliminated in Pakistan. But there is a crucial difference: Neither Indira Gandhi nor her son Rajiv was killed because of any power struggle in India. Also, the assassins had nothing to do with the Indian state.
Contrast this with how Zulfikar Ali Bhutto died in 1979 and how his daughter Benazir met her violent end 28 years later. ZAB’s death by hanging in a Rawalpindi jail was a case of judicial murder. Its aim was to nip in the bud the emergence of democratic rule in Pakistan. YouTube has a video (www.pakistaniat.com) that shows General Zia-ul-Haq, who seized power from Bhutto in 1977, promising free and fair polls “within 15 days” and transfer of power to a civilian government. The promise was never kept, and Zia went on to rule Pakistan for 11 long years. The beneficiary of Bhutto’s death was the Pakistani army.
Significantly, America had backed Zia’s power-grab since he agreed for Pakistan to serve as a “frontline” state in Washington’s proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It tolerated not only his military dictatorship, but also his Islamisation drive, his nurturing of the Taliban in Afghanistan and his support to cross-border terrorism in India.
The world does not yet know who killed BB. But the answer probably lies in the question: who stands to benefit the most from her killing? Pakistan has been under military rule for the past eight years. There was tremendous people’s pressure on Pervez Musharraf to step down and transfer power to a democratically elected government. What did he do? He subverted the judiciary, jailed pro-democracy activists, placed under house arrest all those political leaders who were opposed to him, and got himself “re-elected” as president during a one-month emergency rule that was specially devised to enable him to rewrite an already mutilated constitution to empower him as the effective ruler. Once again, America backed a military ruler in Islamabad, first when he wore the army uniform and later when he took it off. The only concession it made to Pakistani people’s democratic aspiration was forcing Benazir into a sham power-sharing agreement with Musharraf and forcing Musharraf into calling for early elections.
But democracy, even a flawed one, is a lion that refuses to be tamed or caged. Benazir had her imperfections. But with people on her side, she was poised to sweep the polls and seemed determined to challenge Musharraf’s authority. If you have any doubts, just listen to her last campaign speech. So who stands to gain from her disappearance from the political scene now?
The gravest crisis that the Pakistani state faces today is the erosion of its credibility in the eyes of its own people. No state can survive if rogue elements within it are suspected to have had a hand in political assassinations aimed at benefiting somebody in the power struggle. Similarly, no nation can survive if the universal and eternally relevant principles of truth and justice are repeatedly trampled upon. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s rulers have hidden too many dark truths, right from the time of Mohammed Ali Jinnah.
The question that troubles me is why we in India have chosen to remain silent, passive and seemingly indifferent spectators when our brothers and sisters in Pakistan are going through a difficult time? Why are we not showing solidarity with the movement for democracy across the border? There was no protest action anywhere in our country when the lawyers’ agitation in Pakistan was suppressed and the media was muzzled.
Aitzaz Ahsan, a brave and brilliant lawyer and one of the leading lights of the pro-democracy campaign, is still languishing in jail and, reportedly, being tortured. Why is there not even a murmur in India? Why should only the United States, Britain and China be playing a role in Pakistan, guided solely by their narrow geo-political interests? India has a lot at stake in what happens to Pakistan — indeed, more than any other country in the world. Therefore, shouldn’t the people and political parties in our country be seen to be standing by the side of those in Pakistan who are fighting against military rule on the one hand and jihadi terrorism on the other?
Convincing Pakistanis about our good intentions is not going to be easy, since its military rulers have a vested interest in perpetuating popular suspicion about India. Nevertheless, we should persist in conveying our fraternal feelings and thoughts to them. It is time for us to make them believe that they have no truer friend in the world than the people of India. Once a critical mass of Pakistanis is convinced that India can be a helpful partner in the pursuit of peace, progress and democracy, we can together change the history of our subcontinent.
For this to happen, we must begin by shouting ‘Jamhooriyat Zindabad’ loudly enough for people across the border to hear our voice of support and solidarity. It should be heard as the voice of a sincere brother and neighbour, more trustworthy than any they might have heard so far from Washington, London and Beijing.