Often when people-especially the students- come to know of my humble association with Pakistan’s most outstanding political leader, I am asked the question as to what made me admire him. As a student of history, I do not hesitate to tell them that he was one of the few leaders who left an indelible footprint on the sands of time that remained a permanent landmark for the posterity. Great leaders are known for such feats, and Bhutto Sahib had no parallel. Martyred Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was, indeed, the most prominent leader of Pakistan to have made a permanent niche in the hall of fame as second to none among the leaders in the world. It required no rocket science to tell that his defiance of the superpowers in his pursuit of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb was not a secret to anyone. What he said regarding the “cost of eating grass” and, ultimately, laying his life for it screamed to all and sundry that he was afraid of no one. It was his sublime dare to take on the Americans who conveyed it to him through Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger, during his visit to Lahore that he would be made a horrible example if he continued to develop the Pakistani nuclear bomb and crashland Pakistan into the exclusive nuclear club. If his defiance and ultimate sacrifice were not enough to justify his claim for his greatest achievement for the defence of the country, it could be the Simla agreement for ensuring lasting peace in 1972 that enabled him to snatch the victory out of the Indian jaws after Pakistani generals had shamefully laid down their arms. It was, indeed, his masterly stroke of statesmanship that, despite being the leader of a vanquished nation, he skilfully negotiated with victorious Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on an agreement that gave peace to the two countries for 48 years. The 1973 Constitution has proved to be the strongest binding force; keeping provinces united-more powerful than the religion itself Unfortunately, despite the best efforts by the leaders on the two sides of the divide, the situation continued to escalate and all hopes of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries remained engulfed by the dark clouds. In view of the ongoing jingoistic relationship between India and Pakistan, one would like to emphasise upon the leadership of the two countries to emulate the wisdom shown by the two leaders in Simla. Let the Indian leadership climb down from the tiger and move onto a course that could give a chance to peace and tranquillity in the region. It is the dying need of the hour to save the poverty struck millions from living under the poverty line. Just imagine both India and Pakistan spending billions of rupees monthly to keep their troops merely a few hundred of them, perked upon Siachin Glacier-the highest battlefield with the most useless confrontation going on since 1984. General Zia’s only wise words were when he dismissed war to claim the frozen mountain heights as most useless since “no grass fit for human consumption grows there” nor is the snow fit for making ice-cream. When the hardliner Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed his high office, Prime Minister Imran Khan expressed the hope that it would be possible for him to do business with Modi. However, non-state actors on the two sides could not sustain the positive of mutual overtures. The very hopeful composite dialogue could not get out of the limbo due to a continuing lack of trust. Immediately afterwards, the Pathankot incident once again forced the situation back to square one. Ever since then the notorious non-state actors have succeeded in subverting moves for normalisation. One is reminded of the earlier thaw when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Premier Benazir Bhutto agreed to demilitarise Siachen Glacier. It was a major achievement after Simla but it was subverted by hawks. Whether it was Bhutto Sahib’s success at Simla or his defiance of the west in pursuit of nuclear deterrence-each one was his unparalleled achievements- difficult to gauge each other’s merit. However, as a student of history and politics, I believe the 1973 Constitution was his most astounding achievement. It resolved the divisive issue of the quantum of autonomy for the provinces in the light of Quaid-e-Azam’s assertion that in Pakistan federating units would have more autonomy than the states in the United States of America. The 1973 Constitution has proved to be the strongest binding force; keeping provinces united-more powerful than the religion itself. It is regretful to say that some misguided elements or those representing the vested interest that flourishes under the strong centre with Praetorian diktat in the country want to do away the Constitution, especially the 18th Amendment. When the Army Chief described the 18th Amendment as lethal as Six points of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, provinces reacted very strongly to it and one saw them unified in defence of 18th amendment. Their stand was categorical that they would not have anything short of genuine autonomy and would be opposed to being treated as colonies of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Smaller provinces have valid reservations and their fears of colonisation are genuine. Voices have been raised describing it as an invasion of Sindh by the federal government. Independent constitutional experts, however, have a different view. For them, it is perhaps a calculated attempt by the Establishment to undo the 18th Amendment as it stands contrary to centralised authority being the sole arbiter of power. This fact legitimately emphasises the most prominent feather in Bhutto Sahib’s cap as the saviour of Pakistan after the 1971 break up. Notwithstanding the ignominious role of General Yahya and his junta in not handing over power to the elected representatives of the people as the immediate cause, fear of the possibility of history being repeated makes it imperative to discuss here those irreversible factors that would have led to the break up in any case. And after East Pakistan, other provinces too could have followed suit. Some experts are very concerned about the future of Balochistan now, which according to them, is looking at the Bangladesh example to follow. Bhutto Sahib had identified the main cause that forced East Pakistan to go independent. It was much similar to the break-up of India in 1947. Religion had nothing to do for the establishment of Pakistan; the partition was due to economic disparities and conflict of interests between Muslims and Hindus pertaining to employment in services, equal opportunities in business, equitable share in power and resources. East Pakistan became Bangladesh for the same reasons mainly its economic exploitation by the Centre, step-motherly treatment in power and inequitable resource sharing despite it being the majority province. A similar situation existed in the three smaller provinces of West Pakistan that had been merged into One-Unit to reduce them to the status of colonial fiefs of Lahore. After the fall of Dhaka in 1971, the prospects of creation of three more states became imminent, especially when the Soviet leadership in early 1972 had made it clear that it stood for the right of self-determination of the smaller nationalities. Much before Bangladesh in the smaller provinces, fissiparous forces had been demanding independence. The writing on the wall was clear. Something substantive had to be done to resolve the question of the quantum of autonomy. It was a challenge for Bhutto Sahib and to save Pakistan from yet another breakup, he vigorously lobbied with the elected representatives of the smaller provinces to remain an inseparable component of the federation in which they were to have more powers and greater autonomy than enjoyed by the states in the US. Bhutto Sahib convinced them that their salvation lay in a federal Pakistan with maximum autonomy to the provinces. Elected leaders of all the provinces joined hands to be the framers of the 1973 Constitution incorporating the inalienable concept of autonomy. It is a fact that the 1973 Constitution is the product of the collective wisdom of the elected representatives of the four provinces–among them being many constitutional experts. Playing foul with the Constitution by General Ziaul Haq and General Musharraf distorted the Constitution with arbitrary amendments. It almost amounted to do away the letter and spirit of the 1973 Constitution. Martyred Benazir Bhutto had learnt the lesson from history. She made it clear to her party leaders and others who were with her in the long struggle for the restoration of democracy-that Pakistan could only be saved by maximum autonomy to the provinces and collective wisdom of national leadership as the country had become extremely problematic. Bhutto Sahib considered politics, not an end in itself but a means to usher an egalitarian order for the alleviation of the sufferings of the masses, unshackling them, giving them a voice to speak and stand up for their rights. An authority on politics of Pakistan Professor Ian Talbot believes that Bhutto “is occupying public space as a charismatic leader arising from coalescing social, political, cultural and economic factors. To put it simply, Bhutto’s charisma was rooted in his embodiment of popular aspirations for social justice.” Despite his perpetual adversaries out there to undermine him, Bhutto Sahib continues to rule from his grave the hearts and minds of poor people of Pakistan. The author is the former High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK and a veteran journalist