Editor's Choice

Featured Post

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


Saturday, 4 April 2009

Irfan Husain: Living with Bhutto’s ghost

Saturday, 04 Apr, 2009

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his family pose for a photograph - AP/File photo.
EXACTLY 30 years ago today, I was driving back with friends from a weeklong fishing trip in Azad Kashmir.

We did not have much luck with the fish: locals told us army officers had decimated entire streams by using explosives to stun all aquatic life, and scooping up the fish that floated to the top. But we had a lot of fun exploring the upper reaches of Neelum Valley with its fast-flowing river, and its snow-covered peaks.

That afternoon, we stopped for lunch at a roadside restaurant and learned that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, ex-prime minister of Pakistan, had been hanged in the dead of night by Gen Zia and his henchmen. A pall of gloom descended on our small party, and the drive back to Lahore was very subdued. The next morning, I was back at work, and was appalled and furious when a colleague offered me mithai to celebrate Bhutto’s judicial murder. In my anger, I almost bit his head off.

Looking back, I can see that many others shared, and continue to share, his hatred of Bhutto. Indeed, the degree of personal antipathy towards the dead politician can be directly correlated to a person’s wealth: the rich can be heard running Bhutto down for his real and perceived flaws three decades after his death. But for millions of poor Pakistanis, his name still evokes hope, and above all, an abiding devotion.

The Urdu word ‘jiyala’ does not translate easily into English. It has connotations of spiritual ecstasy and passion bordering on madness. Ever since its foundation in 1969, the term has come to be applied to younger members of the Pakistan People’s Party. In particular, it applies to the followers of the Bhuttos, the founders and hereditary leaders of the party. These jiyalas tend to be youthful, enthusiastic and totally committed. Mostly they live in the villages and slums of Sindh and southern Punjab, and look to the PPP to lift them out of their poverty and give them some self-respect. This is the party’s core constituency and the vote-bank the Bhuttos have relied on to bring them to power.

When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was elected in a landslide on a socialist manifesto in 1970, he ushered in a wave of nationalisation that transformed Pakistan’s economic scenario overnight. Scores of factories and banks were taken over and many powerful business families found themselves suddenly marginalised. A succession of pro-worker laws empowered and emboldened industrial labour and peasant farmers, leading to a series of strikes and lockouts. Simultaneously, Bhutto fired hundreds of civil servants on charges of corruption and inefficiency.

Opposition politicians and journalists were often targets of his ire, and he soon became a hate figure for large swathes of Pakistani society. Accused of employing fascistic methods, Bhutto made many enemies during his term, especially among the well-to-do. But the poor of Pakistan revered him for his employment-generation projects and his pro-labour policies and rhetoric.

When he was toppled in an army coup in July 1977, thousands of rich and middle-class Pakistanis cheered, and many were delighted when he was hanged after a farcical murder trial in 1979. Over the next decade, the army and bureaucracy proceeded to erase all vestiges of his legacy.

Strikes were brutally put down and the PPP’s progressive policies rolled back. A secular curriculum was replaced with an Islamic one. The army, earlier chastened by its defeat at India’s hands in 1971, now blamed Bhutto for its humiliation, even though Gen Yahya Khan was president then, and the country was under martial law. Two generations of students and military cadets have grown up on this self-serving myth.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had infuriated his class because he threatened to make a fundamental change in the status quo. By weakening the business and bureaucratic elites and empowering workers and peasants, it seemed he might overturn the natural order of things, leading Pakistan to a social revolution. And nobody can be as ferocious as a bourgeois whose sense of privilege and position in society is imperilled. Members of the social elite closed ranks against Bhutto and made common cause with the army. Opposition politicians begged the generals to take over. Finally, Bhutto was brought down and killed.

There are today in Pakistan a large number of educated, middle-class people who support the status quo and are comfortable with their privileged place in society. They educate their children privately in Pakistan and abroad, receive medical attention in excellent private hospitals and own generators to be independent of a ramshackle public power grid.

For these people, life is good, and they do not want their comfortable boat to be rocked. But for the vast majority of Pakistanis, life is hard and getting harder all the time. The state educational system is terrible and millions of children are denied a meaningful education. Most people do not have access to clean drinking water, electricity and paved roads. Government hospitals are grossly under-funded, and medical care is a privilege few can afford.

This is the Pakistan Bhutto wanted to transform. And while most Pakistani politicians talk of wanting change, they are basically conservatives who want to improve the economy without wishing to transform society. For them, the role model is Saudi Arabia, a rich country where an anachronistic social order is still in place. Bhutto, on the other hand, stood for fundamental social change based on secularism and equality. This was — and is — anathema to the establishment, as well as to much of the rising middle class. And to prevent such a social order from coming into being, they are prepared to go to any length.

Who today remembers Shaukat Aziz, our prime minister only two years ago? Bhutto was in power for just over five years three decades ago. Yet his name continues to resonate in Pakistan’s collective memory. A hate figure for the elite, he has entered popular folklore as a symbol of hope. Long after lesser figures who followed him have been consigned to the dustbin of history, Bhutto will continue to define the battle lines between the haves and the have-nots. (Dawn)


Sikander Hayat said...

Pakistan has not been able to recover from the fateful day when Bhutto was hanged by a military dictator Zia-Ul-Haq. We have to make sure that a heinous crime like this must not happen again.


By Sikander Hayat

Anonymous said...

After Quaid-e-Azam, Bhutto was perhaps the only leader witnessed by Pakistan, having popular mass support.
However, three decades after his death, its the vote bank of illiterate that has brought PPP to power and keeps a person like Zardari in the position of the country's President.

Sikander Hayat said...

On 4th April 1979, a dictator Zia Ul Haq oversaw a judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. We must not let this kind of thing happen again and the only way to stop us from repeating history is by not forgetting history.


By Sikander Hayat

Aamir Mughal said...

Zia's children Sunday, April 05, 2009 Ayesha Siddiqa

As the entire Pakistani nation watches video footage of a 17-years-old girl screaming on their television screens during the process of her torture at the hands of the brutal Taliban in Swat, one wonders if the mothers, sisters, daughters and the male members of this nation will ever take time out to think about this system of justice advocated by these men who are not even qualified to interpret the Quran and Sunnah.

How did these men know that she had committed adultery? Or were the men in Iran, who ran a jeep over both the arms of a young boy to punish him for stealing sure about his economic circumstances? Sadly, all this will be justified in certain quarters as upholding of Sharia. But the legal system of any land is meant to do justice which is not just the application of some legal norms, but the application of law in conjunction with sensitivity towards the economic, social and political conditions of a place.

The application of Sharia is extremely complex as it entails a stringent mechanism for evidence. For instance, a witness has to meet certain conditions. The witness has to be one: (a) who has never been punished for any crime, (b) has always said all his prayers in time, (c) never urinated standing up, (d) never eaten from a market place, (e) never committed any major sin, (f) never committed any minor sin, and (g) never failed to carry out obligations prescribed by Quran and Sunnah. These conditions are so stringent that according to Pakistan's former Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah even he would not qualify to be a witness.

Referring to the case of the girl flogged in Swat, the fact of the matter is that this is one example of the dire conditions of women in a large number of Muslim societies where there is no legal system for this particular gender to prove their innocence. In Pakistan in particular where the Hudood laws were formulated under the Zia regime, the objective was not to bring justice in the society but to throttle all forms of justice. In this respect, the Taliban in Swat and those who ruled Afghanistan for some time are Zia'children. They use force arbitrarily and apply laws without the real context to enhance their own power.

For those, who think of General Ziaul Haq as an exemplary marde momin, it would be beneficial to read Tahir Wasti's seminal work --- Application of Islamic Criminal Law in Pakistan: Sharia in Practice". The book published in January this year and authored by a man, who has experience of both Islamic law and British common law, is the first detailed research enlisting the ramifications of the application of sharia law in Pakistan. The writer argues that Zia's decision to impose Nizam-e-Islam on February 2 1979 was not a sincere act. Wasti, in fact, argues that had the military dictator been sincere he would have also invoked the law of Qisas and Diyat as part of his Islamic regulations that mainly consisted of the five laws pertaining to: drinking, Zina (adultery), Zakat and usher, highway robbery, and theft. The punishment for some of these crimes is not even prescribed in the Quran.

The reason that Zia left out Qisas and Diyat, which finally became an ordinance in 1990 during Benazir Bhutto's government and finally passed as a law after twenty minutes of debate in parliament under Nawaz Sharif was because he was too eager to hang Bhutto. Such a law would not have allowed for the approver Masood Mehmood, which, in turn, means that Bhutto could not have been sentenced to death.

Not surprisingly, Bhutto had filed a review petition number 5-R of 1979 on 13/02/1979 in the Supreme Court asking that his case be tried under Sharia or Nizam-e-Islam through first invoking the law on Qisas and Diyat. Notwithstanding the fact that while in power Bhutto himself played to the gallery by using religion, in case of his trial his plea to use the religious law was primarily as a legal point that would technically stop the Zia government from sentencing him to death. Interestingly, as Wasti points out in his book, Zia kept returning the draft of this law until he had managed to put Bhutto to death. The Supreme Court justices gave a split decision on the Bhutto case arguing on page 29 of the decision of the said review petition that under section 302 of the PPC read with section 109 of the PPC, this was a case of unintentional murder in which there was no room for the witness of an approver. The decision including the said review petition by Bhutto is reported in PLD 1979 Supreme Court 741 and the two volumes on "Bhutto's Trial Documents" published by Justice Afzal Haider.

Zia's government also challenged other cases in which such a law needed implementation. Unfortunately, the author states, it were judges like Justices Tanzeel-ur-Rehman and Afzal Cheema who helped Zia cheat the entire country by bringing about amendments in the sharia law that suited the military dictator's interests and allowed him not to pass the law on Qisas and Diyat as long as he was alive.

What is even sadder is that such discrepancy in Nizam-e-Islam was never seriously challenged by any quarters. Even after the Qisas and Diyat law came into force, first as an ordinance, and later, as law, no one really pointed out the problem in invoking the said law. As Wasti points out in his book, since it is difficult to find a witness, the law of Qisas was never implemented and the government basically uses tazeer or diyat to pass judgments. Diyat allows for compromise in case of murder, a law which was framed not to bring peace and justice in the society according to religious principles, but to suit the interests of the more powerful. There are cases after cases reported in Wasti's book in which poor and weak people were forced to accept a compromise and forgive the murderers of their loved ones. The law even encouraged exchange of women as part of a settlement. Reportedly, since the law came into force some judges showed their magnanimity by ordering the payment of blood-money in addition to exchange of women. Interestingly, the system was never fully challenged by the legal community due to what senior lawyer and now human rights activist Iqbal Haider termed, on the floor of parliament in 1990, as greed of the legal community. This law permits lawyers to claim their fee without putting in effort that they would otherwise have to do to in defense of their clients.

The screams of the young Swati girl are the knock on the door of the entire society to wake up and not allow these men and others like them, who are at best Zia's children in terms of their sense of legal fairness, to bring violence in this country in the name of religion. This is not just about better treatment of women but also a matter of justice for all and peace and tranquility in the society. What is being presented as sharia is in reality a system that protects the unquestioned power of those who have monopoly over violence and resources in the society. A legal system is an ever-evolving process that needn't mimic the past without taking into account the circumstances. In the words of Maulana Amin Ahsan Aslahi, religion of the past is history of the present which can only be used as a good reference point and no more.

The writer is an Islamabad-based social scientist and author of Military Inc. Email: ayesha.ibd@gmail.com


Post a Comment

1. You are very welcome to comment, more so if you do not agree with the opinion expressed through this post.

2. If you wish to hide your identity, post with a pseudonym but don't select the 'anonymous' option.

3. Copying the text of your comment may save you the trouble of re-writing if there is an error in posting.