May, Bhutto and terrorism

Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?

What did Benazir Bhutto stand and struggle for all her life?

Democracy, rule of law, freedom of expression, empowerment of the people irrespective of

caste, creed, colour or gender especially of the less privileged, peaceful co-existence for all human kind

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s address to the 72nd Annual session of UNGA in New York was music to my ears. In an emotional speech Ms May—her country becoming victim of frequent acts of terrorism—reminded the world of her friend Benazir Bhutto who was martyred by terrorists a decade ago.”

“This year is the tenth anniversary of the death of the woman who introduced me to my husband, and who was known well to many of us in this United Nations. Benazir Bhutto was brutally murdered by people who actively rejected the values that all of us here in this United Nations stand for.”

Recalling Bhutto, who was killed in a terrorist attack in December 2007, she stood aloft against terrorism “in a country that has suffered more than most at the hands of terrorists.” She was “murdered for standing up for democracy, murdered for espousing tolerance, and murdered for being a woman”.

May’s speech should serve as an eye-opener for the overly biased, anti-Bhutto PML-N leadership, including the establishment and others in cahoots with them. By mentioning about the colossal Bhutto tragedy—elimination of Pakistan’s only internationally recognisable face, Ms May encapsulated ugly manifestations of terrorism and its catastrophic impact on human beings world over. There could not be a better exposition of the evil that threatens every one where ever one is.

Pakistan’s run-away (called Bhagora General in Urdu) General Pervez Musharraf avoiding his arrest for alleged murders of Benazir Bhutto and Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti–has exposed his devil’s workshop and his epileptic thinking recently by crudely shifting  irrefutable allegation of being murderer of Pakistan iconic leader on her husband. There is not enough space to respond to his recent quixotic outbursts, one would suffice to repeat to him words of British Prime Minister that Benazir Bhutto was “murdered for standing up for democracy, murdered for espousing tolerance, and murdered for being a woman.”

What did Benazir Bhutto stand and struggle for all her life? Democracy, rule of law, freedom of expression, empowerment of the people irrespective of caste, creed, colour or gender especially of the less privileged, peaceful co-existence for all human kind whereas General Pervez Musharraf was an internationally pariah dictator that no one respectable  leader would have wanted to shake hands with until 9/11.

As opposed to her higher ideals, General Musharraf had violated every one of those values that civilised world is defending against terrorism. He committed act of treason by violating the Constitution of the country in October 1999, he had subverted democracy, rule of law and disparaged country’s highest judiciary. As regards women in Pakistan he was as brazen as any rapist could be when answering a question regarding her rape, he was inhumanly dismissive—‘such women get raped to seek visa to go abroad and acquire nationality.’

As regards Benazir Bhutto—he felt like General Zia did vis-à-vis Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.  He was scared of her that he would not let her return to Pakistan.  He made it clear to her time and again, that Pakistan had no space for her as long as he was in power. Despite the best efforts of the foreign friends of Pakistan to whom GPM owed loyalty, he would not let Bhutto come back. When he met her in Abu Dhabi in January 2007, his mantra from start to end was, he would not let her return to Pakistan.

He opposed her participation in elections and threatened her life with “horrible consequences”.  His message was clear to her, not only he had entire establishment with him, intelligence and security apparatus but he had closest links with the Jihadi terrorist networks including Beitullah Mehsod. His defence of Hafiz Saeed shows how deeply involved he is with such elements and how convenient it was for him to use them for elimination of his rivals.

One single act of having the crime scene washed by fire tenders under his orders within minutes of her assassination—is enough proof to indict him for Bhutto’s murder. Brigadier (retd) Javeid Iqbal Cheema, former director general of National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) had told the Anti-Terrorist Court (ATC) that he had received orders direct from the Presidency to have the area washed immediately.

It was, indeed, an intriguing co-incidence that in Karachi (Oct 18, 2017) too when her cavalcade was attacked by suicide bombers, fire tenders—as if they were standing nearby–reached the scene of the crime first much before ambulances could pick up dead bodies and take injured to the hospitals. She narrowly escaped in the attack aimed to kill her while over 150 of PPP jiyalas were martyred.

Significance of the washing of the scenes of crime both in Karachi and Rawalpindi –according to experts—held the key for tracing those involved in the dastardly acts or the master minds behind it. This could be judged from the fact that General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani as DG ISI investigated the attempt on President Musharraf’s life, got to the bottom of the case through a telephone chip recovered from the scene of the blast. In Bhutto’s case, the all-powerful master mind destroyed all the evidence. The desperate urgency shown in hosing the entire area instead of following mandatory standard procedure of cordoning off the scene of crime identifies the murderer explicitly. And it were under General Pervez Musharraf’s orders that the scene of crime in Rawalpindi was washed.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s reference to the mother of all victims of terrorism—Benazir Bhutto—instantly got the global issue into focus with all its ugly manifestations. And if Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqqan Abbasi or Pakistan’s Permanent Representative too had mentioned about the murder of Pakistan’s only iconic and internationally recognisable face, it could have been the most appropriate response to American President’s recent canard against Pakistan.