Who is Responsible for Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination?

The contradictory interpretations of the occurrence of death of the great Pakistani politician and stateswoman are a reflection of the divergence of opinions about the original decision maker of this national tragedy.

Official Pakistan Ministry of Interior version

According to Brigadier Javed Cheema, spokesman of Pakistan's Ministry of Interior, Benazir Bhutto was killed after smashing her head on her car's sunroof while trying to duck, and that no bullet or shrapnel was found inside her body.

"If she had not come out of the vehicle, she would have been unhurt, as all the other occupants of the vehicle did not receive any injuries", Brigadier Cheema said. He went on specifying that the bomber also apparently fired three times at her but missed his target. According to this version, when Benazir Bhutto ducked, she hit the lever of the sunroof of the car that was to speed her away from her campaign rally. The precision of the description by Brigadier Cheema sounds astounding: "the lever struck near her right ear and fractured her skull". 

The Ministry of Interior persistently tried to inculpate Al-Qaeda; reference was therefore made to a telephone call interception. According to the narrative, a top Al-Qaeda figure congratulating a militant for the attack on Benazir Bhutto. Police said at least 16 people died and more than 60 were injured in the attack. 

Benazir Bhutto top aide’s affirmation

Farooq Naik, Bhutto's top lawyer and senior official in her Pakistan People's Party, demented categorically the aforementioned version, characterizing it as a "pack of lies". Contrarily, he gave a convincing description of the atrocious scene, saying "two bullets hit her, one in the abdomen and one in the head. Bhutto's personal secretary Naheed Khan and party official Makhdoom Amin Fahim were in the car and they saw what happened. It is an irreparable loss and they are turning it into a joke with such claims. The country is heading towards civil war". He concluded adding that "she was taken to hospital; she was bleeding. It was a serious security lapse'.'

Quite interestingly, Farooq Naik questioned the reliability of the Al Qaeda-related scenario. "The government is now claiming that Baitullah Mehsud is responsible,'' Naik said. "What is the evidence'?'

The ensuing explosive situation: occurrence or target?
 
Many expressed their concern with the Pakistani inferno where violence prevails in the daily life, and one wave of paranoia triggers the next wave of hysteria.
 
Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto’s major contender in the January 8 elections, announced that his party will boycott the elections, and called on Musharraf to quit as the nation's leader. "Under the present circumstances and under Musharraf, neither is campaigning possible nor is a free election", Sharif pinpointed speaking to reporters in Islamabad after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.

Quite indicative is the fact that Sharif postponed traveling to Larkana (where the Bhutto family tomb is located in Pakistan’s Sindh province), after Bhutto's husband advised him not to attend the burial because of security concerns.

With Musharraf stripped of the last trace of legitimacy, and with the chaotic demonstrations having become regular part of a daily life whereby many are continually killed in clashes, it becomes comical to follow Western analysts who keep meaninglessly talking of civil society in Pakistan.

A specimen of this useless approach that leads to nowhere is given by Karl Inderfurth, Professor of International Relations at George Washington University (http://www.gwu.edu/~elliott/faculty/inderfurth.cfm); although he never met a Pakistani Islamic extremist in an interpersonal debate and he has no access to their mentality and system of thought (except through secondary sources, so he is unable to understand correctly), he felt safe to claim the following: "This is a definitive moment for Pakistan's future, and the only way I think the country can survive is for the forces of moderation to come together. I believe that President Musharraf will be a very important part of deciding what happens next, but so should the leaders of the political parties, and civil society in Pakistan"
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aZx5SysdheUU).  

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto should not impress anyone; apart her personal brave attitude that perfectly reflected an illustrious family tradition, the event is a common affair in today’s Pakistan. This does not mean that there is no civil society in Pakistan. On the contrary, there are several millions of enlightened academia, intellectuals and simple people who would be willing to contribute to the establishment of a civilized form of Islamic Democracy.

For many long decades, Pakistan attempted to gradually advance in the direction of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, and even Parviz Musharraf in an interview portrayed the founder of the Turkish Republic as a source of inspiration. Quite unfortunately, the civil society will not be expressed, let alone imposed, and Musharraf’s sources of inspiration will just remain sources.

Pakistan was methodically driven to a situation that will last long. And if there is going to be an Islamic Republic run by fanatics, it will not be a theocracy like neighboring Iran. It will be mostly what it is now; simply Musharraf will go. The target was to turn Pakistan deliberately into a unique case.

Pseudo-Islamic Ochlocracy

This is the reality in which Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf found themselves engulfed. The reason is simple. I would suggest anyone seeking insightful on Pakistan and the prevailing ochlocracy to first go through two pertinent contributions that have been recently published by an astute Pakistani commentator, Muhammad Khurshid, namely ‘Are Religious Seminaries Really Responsible For Spreading Violence In Pakistan?’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=47102) and ‘Pakistani Nation Experiencing Trauma’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=47057).

Through careful reading of these articles, one should expect Benazir Bhutto’s assassination; furthermore, one should also be able to distinguish the hand that killed her. Yes, it is very correct what Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and key South Asia policymaker in the 1990s, told CFR.org, namely that he believes that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was intended to destabilize Pakistan (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15130/pakistan_after_bhutto.html?breadcrumb=%2F); but the destabilization started earlier, much earlier, when nobody – except the perpetrators – noticed it.  

The prevailing mob of the Pakistani streets, who de facto impose the socio-political situation they want, through their massive appearance, is managed and guided by the dynamics of their own beliefs, thoughts, Indian History interpretations, perceptions of events, and explanations of international, regional and local developments. There is no need for local sheikhs to further incite them, as the hysteria shaped in the mind of dozens of millions is a crystallized situation that will not further develop or change – except in extremely rare cases (that we need not consider).

Ochlocracy is not Theocracy.

The suicide bomber and assassin certainly received an order and was given the means of his endeavour. He found all his acts correct, and there are many millions in Pakistan who share this idea. The reason is that they view these acts as a revenge against Western biases against them.

The prevailing mob of the Pakistani streets has very little to do with Islam; they think they do, but any ochlocracy is governed by imaginative narratives that have little to do with rational thought or spiritual faith. One should see them as drunkard Christians; to what extent would they represent Christianity? In fact, with the rise of ochlocracy, Islam gradually disappears from Pakistan, as the mob’s imaginative narratives prevail totally.

The hatred that invaded the hearts of the Pakistani ochlos does not emanate from Coranic prescriptions against the infidels or from Hadith excerpts scrutinizing the details of a fighter’s behaviour. It comes straight from the imaginative narratives that are daily produced and diffused as interpretation of political developments.

Benazir Bhutto would have been assassinated earlier, had a certain sheikh said in his khutbah (sermon pronounced before the Friday prayer) that if prime minister, Bhutto would legalize homosexual marriage in Pakistan. A thunderous reaction following similar narratives is not relevant of Coran, and does not lead to theocracy – it never happened in Iran.

Who Generated Ochlocracy in Pakistan?

In fact, behind the hand that shot Benazir Bhutto stands a sheikh – paragon of the ochlocracy. And behind him stand those who contributed to this sheikh’s traumatic experience, those who performed as actors of historical events that have been traumatically interpreted by this sheikh’s ancestors and mentors.

Despite his chaotic mental disorder, this sheikh and his colleagues are able to read a long list of historical records that fully justify the first point – only – of their initial perception, namely that of being unjustly targeted and unfairly treated. There are events that need no interpretation; they speak by themselves; here are very few of them:

- Pakistan is not a normal state, and should have never be formed.

- Bangladesh is not a normal state, and should have never be formed.

- India is not a normal state, and should have never be formed.

- The formation of the Subcontinent’s three major states was – undisputedly – carried out in a malevolently and heinously anti-Islamic way.

- Indian Muslims have been split into three states (India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan), whereas Hindus regrouped in one (India).

- Indian Muslims not only were multi-divided but they had to accept that the two predominantly Muslim states (Pakistan West and Pakistan East – currently Bangladesh) have no territorial continuity.

- Although Hindu total just 59% of the total population of India (we do not include here Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan – only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), they have been given a disproportionately vast country to rule, as India represents 77% of the total area of the three states, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

- In fact, to repair the damage, an area of no less than 1000000 km2 should be cut off from today’s India and be geographically adjusted in a way to offer Indian Muslims the possibility to have one state with territorial continuity (thus merging Pakistan, the North of India, and Bangladesh).

- The entire affair was an anti-historical abnormality that intended to eradicate the historical reality that, before the colonial period, India’s largest part was ruled by the Islamic Mogul Empire.

When in 1558, Suleyman the Magnificent reigned at Istanbul, Tahmasp I ruled in Esfahan, and Akbar rose to power in Delhi, one person could move from today’s Western Algeria to Myanmar by only crossing two borderlines, namely the Ottoman – Persian frontier and the Persian – Indian border.

- Although there is no doubt about the internal reasons of the three Islamic mega-states’ decadence, it is beyond any doubt that the criminal deeds of the colonial powers involved incredible exploitation and diffusion of strife and discord. Both are acts of hatred and inhumanity.

- In India, since the British prevailed, after cheating the tolerant and righteous  Mogul emperors, and after winning over the Portuguese and the French, the dishonorable East India Company and the British administration performed nefarious and atrocious deeds that even the word ‘genocide’ cannot help describe.

- The British contributed to the diffusion of Barbarism and Misery in the Subcontinent, even butchered Tibetan Buddhist monks, and monstrously attempted to sell opium to the Chinese! They, when departing, completed the evil work of disproportional partition, thus leaving behind the seed of extremism and ochlocracy.

- The British are responsible for the repugnant butchery perpetrated during the First War of Independence (1857).

And 150 years later, the British are responsible for the ochlocracy that put an end to Benazir Bhutto’s life.

In fact, it was ‘Sir’ Thomas Roe’s hand that killed Benazir Bhutto, as his tongue had deceived the Great Mogul Emperor Jahangir, who accorded trade privileges to the British, who in turn – so humanely – used them against India.  

Note
Picture: Jahangir deceived and Benazir Bhutto assassinated – 400 years of British in India