Dear Editor,
That “Benazir Bhutto had looted Pakistan” as stated by R. Khan in his letter and had failed the Islamic nation cannot be disputed. But which Pakistani leader had not been corrupt and which ruler had not failed the people? Even General Pervez Musharraf’s (current President) military regime has been plagued by massive corruption as complained of by U.S officials and his government has also failed the nation.
Musharraf’s regime has miserably failed to stem the rising tide of terrorism so much so that U.S policy makers describe Pakistan as the most dangerous place on the planet.
Pakistan and other South Asian nations go through what I refer to as “cycles of corrupt leaders”. I visit the region every year and understand their politics well. The South Asian countries are peculiar and unique societies that replace one corrupt government with another corrupt government; poor people are simply fed up of their rulers but they keep trying with another one hoping it will be different and bring them some benefits. With regards to Pakistan itself, there is an odd co-existence of military despotism and civilian rule. There have always been tensions between the two and recently these tensions have led to anarchy which created the conditions leading to Benazir’s assassination.
The fact that Benazir was corrupt does not justify the military coups against her elected governments or her assassination because when democracy was restored she lost at the ballot box. It would have been better for the people to boot her out rather than for the military to intervene and turn a blind eye to Islamic extremism determined to end democratic rule and gains made by women towards equality.
I was in Bangkok when Benazir was killed and I can tell you everyone I met in the streets was taken by shock and anger. All the newspapers and TV stations in the country had her killing as headline news. The entire world was also stunned as portrayed on international networks. The hope of democracy that Benazir offered to the people of Pakistan has been severely hurt with her assassination. The passion with which she came back to the country knowing that her life was at stake will be remembered forever.
As R. Khan pointed out, Benazir was living a life of luxury (in London, Dubai, and New York where her husband spent three years on the Upper East Side). But she gave up this luxury to return to Pakistan to face arrest and death threats in order to restore some semblance of order in Pakistan and to rescue the country from jihadism. She acknowledged she made errors during her rule and promised a new page. She deserved another chance because there was no one else to save the country. She was the country’s last populist leader with modern, liberal views of society and who would like to see a society that does not go back to a medieval practice of Islam where females would be denied an education. Washington recognized that she was Pakistan’s last saviour and that is why they nudged her to return to Pakistan and to work with General Musharraf.
There is no doubt that her assassination has robbed Pakistan of a bold and moderate leader. Her senseless killing by Islamic fundamentalists has plunged the country into yet another political turmoil and has put off the country’s path to democracy.
I would describe Benazir as a true patriot and a leader who wanted to deliver her country from extremism and anarchy. I never got the opportunity to meet her when she spoke at several universities in NYC, but friends who attended her lectures said she impressed them and was a most charming woman. She was simply brilliant and quickly learnt the ropes of politics. I should also note that she impressed her student peers at Harvard, Oxford and Radcliffe universities enough for them to elect her to prominent positions.
I wish Benazir had lived for the elections. I have no doubt she would have become Prime Minister again.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
