Benazir Bhutto’s gruesome assassination on December 27 sparked spontaneous riots resulting in the destruction of public and private property, including the offices of the Election Commission of Pakistan and the PMLQ. For three days, rioters brought a good part of the country to a virtual standstill. Figures of the overall damage released by the interior ministry are quite telling in this regard. The mayhem was unprecedented in Pakistan’s history, as even the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did not lead to such devastation. The government has ascribed the extraordinary public outrage to two factors: the immense grief that PPP workers felt at the tragic death of their beloved leader; and acts of loot and plunder perpetrated by criminal elements. Is this explanation satisfactory?
It is only partially adequate. The government leaves out other factors responsible for it because they are unpleasant to admit. The fact of the matter is that the outrage was basically directed against the person of Pervez Musharraf, and is explained by four factors.
The first one relates to the enormous economic disparity that exists between the rich and the poor. The Musharraf government claims to have achieved on average about 7 percent economic growth per annum during the last several years. Without going into the controversy about how much of this figure is contrived, the fact of the matter is that in a replay of the Ayub era, the economic dividend has reached only a small section of society while a good part has not benefited from it at all. Many of those involved in the mayhem are the wretched of the earth for whom the death of Bhutto means the death of hope for a better future.
The second factor stems from the way Musharraf has handled the question of extremism and terrorism in this country. There is a general perception that he is America’s man in Islamabad, ready to act according to his master’s voice. It is fair to say that Pakistanis generally do not like to live under a Taliban-like dispensation. However, it is equally undeniable that they do not like the way their government has been treating the Islamists. For example, they do not seem to approve the killing of fellow Pakistanis by security forces in the tribal areas. The same goes for the Pakistani government’s operation last year against Islamists holed up in Lal Masjid. The latter incident was perhaps a turning point in shaping people’s hostility towards Musharraf on his handling of the situation.
The third source of hostility relates to the fact that Pakistanis do not like Musharraf any more. Every ruler in Pakistan has a certain shelf life after which he or she becomes unwanted. This is true for both civilian and military rulers. For example, Ayub Khan, after a ten-year rule, had to go because people wanted change at the top. Similarly, Zia-ul Haq was unpopular after eleven years in power and when he died, no one shed any tears for him except for the religious fringe. As far as civilian rulers are concerned, no one except for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (whose tenure lasted for more than five years) ruled for an extended period of time. The people’s desire for change at the top is understandable because problems confronting the country are so numerous that the one at the helm of affairs is bound to fail. It appears as if Musharraf never attended to this particular aspect. Had he done so, he would have gracefully quit in 2007. Perhaps he did, but the greed for power got the better of him.
Finally, hostility towards Musharraf stems from his brutal assault on the judiciary and media in the course of 2007. It started with his attempt to sack the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, because he perceived him as a stumbling block in his bid for re-election as president. He failed to do so at the first attempt but succeeded at the second when he sent him along with most of his fellow SC judges packing, thus extinguishing Pakistanis’ hope for constitutionalism and rule of law that the PCO-ed judiciary had come to symbolise. Next, he tried to muzzle the media, particularly the electronic media because its negative portrayal of him was perceived as a threat to his re-election. He ultimately succeeded in his designs when, under the guise of the so-called emergency, he was able to restrain TV channels by making them accept stringent conditions for operation.
Musharraf has successfully weathered all threats to his rule resulting from the above factors. He is now confronted with a new threat that has the potential to blow him away: Bhutto’s murder. The PPP is demanding an international inquiry into the incident. According to press reports, the government is receptive to the idea of international assistance but it is not clear whether it wants a domestic inquiry with some foreign technical input or an internationally conducted inquiry. Honestly speaking, the government is damned if it goes for the former solution because the PPP may not recognise such an inquiry given its utter lack of confidence in the government. It is equally damned if it consents to the latter formula because on the basis of evidence currently available, it looks as if it cannot escape being found guilty of a security lapse if not outright complicity in the murder.
The government needs to proceed in the matter very carefully because the situation poses a potential threat to the federation of Pakistan. Following Bhutto’s assassination, there is already a perception in Sindh that Punjab killed another Bhutto. This was testified by the slogans that were reportedly raised against Pakistan on the occasion of Bhutto’s burial ceremony. The government should, for the sake of national integrity, go for the second solution though it may hurt national pride. Not only that, the government should gracefully accept the finding of the inquiry. And if the finding is against it, Musharraf should be prepared to call it quits and hand over power to the Senate chairman because nothing short of his departure would satisfy the PPP. In case he fails to do so, it could create a perilous situation. There is an earnest hope that Musharraf, who has always prided himself in putting “Pakistan first” will act on the slogan at this hour of trial.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at [email protected]