Sent to me by Sarah Shafiq. Take a look:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/28/pakistan_in_turmoil_after_benazir_bhuttos
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
immaterial, material, immaterial, material...
Unless you have been living on a deserted island the past 3 days, you probably know about the tragic events of 27 December 2007 at Pakistan. What the more media savvy and informed of you all also probably know is that there has been "violence" in all parts of the country and reaction to the murder—nay—assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
She may not have been a saint, however, we all recognise her as the bravest, most courageous political leader Pakistan has seen. All this said (and one can go on and on enumerating the effect of this woman's life and death on Pakistan), one wonders at the military government 's (I refuse to call it anything but that) goons and their claims of how she died. Their latest pearl of wisdom for us is that it is immaterial as to HOW she died. What matters is WHO did it. My 5 year old cousin can most probably figure this one out...why would a government not want to find out how the country's most national, unifying of leaders was killed?
I fail to comprehend people (there are a handful of them ... quite vocal) who will go to great lengths to blame the party, the media and, guess what?--THE VICTIM! I ask this: despite her insistence for security, she was not provided any (and this I can debate for a few hours if you want); despite her insistence for Scotland Yard or FBI to investigate the Karachi bombing, the government refused. What is the government so scared of? If our intelligence is so amazing that within a few hours of her assassination, they intercept a long telephonic conversation between Taliban’s leaders, claiming they killed her, why don’t we just pick them up and arrest them? Okay, so they say that’s impossible. I can live with that. Why could they not intercept ANY communication regarding the assassination before it took place? When Brig. Javed Cheema, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Information declares with such arrogance that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies do not need foreign help, why is it that the only thing they can come up with is the unbelievably silly story of ho she hit her head and died and all the eye witnesses and Bhutto’s aides are somehow delusional?
The “immaterial” tag to the MO of her murder is so obviously a cover up for the security lapse that even those who have tried not to get into this debate have been forced into it simply due to the cover up itself. Why does that matter? The lapse in security means a lapse in the security provided by the government...the government under General (retd) Musharraf. Criminal negligence aside, if one were to apply an A=B=C policy, who stands to gain from her death? We could see her popularity in Pakistan as well as her appeal for the west. They feel more comfortable in trusting an open minded, secular Muslim head of government, elected by popular vote by the masses, instead of the increasingly unpopular general. The “new political demands” of today’s age calls for a political leadership, all inclusive, within the system, and secular. The army may be good at quelling violence and protests (by its sheer strength of force) but it will never take the place of a national party. It has been observed in other countries around the world, where no such party has been allowed to exist which can unify its diverse population. Coming back to the earlier question, who stands to gain? Only those who have always wanted to control power—the “intelligence” agencies a.k.a military intelligence, controlled by the military.
Musharraf has been losing ground since quite some time now. There will always be those who support military governments in Pakistan. Belonging to a military background or having gained from military governments (read Ayesha Siddiqa Agha’s “Military Incorp.”, these people continue with their loud, garish support of a dictator who has brought the country to the unfortunate place it is at right now. It is this very Musharraf who would have been dispensable had Benazir come to power (the most probable result of the elections). Despite her much talked about “deal” with the General, she was obviously proving to be a thorn in his military side. Her populist politics had no place in a government run by a man in uniform. Scenes of the assassination scene being washed away by local authorities and Benazir’s repeated claims of being under threat from elements “within the establishment”, will not be forgotten soon.
Whether it be Mush himself, the intelligence agencies we keep talking about, the “western powers” or these extremists (who are also very neatly tied up with our esteemed intelligence agencies) who killed her, the fact is that the security lapse is real, it happened, and no matter how many press conferences the government arranges, the world refuses to believe their stories.
She may not have been a saint, however, we all recognise her as the bravest, most courageous political leader Pakistan has seen. All this said (and one can go on and on enumerating the effect of this woman's life and death on Pakistan), one wonders at the military government 's (I refuse to call it anything but that) goons and their claims of how she died. Their latest pearl of wisdom for us is that it is immaterial as to HOW she died. What matters is WHO did it. My 5 year old cousin can most probably figure this one out...why would a government not want to find out how the country's most national, unifying of leaders was killed?
I fail to comprehend people (there are a handful of them ... quite vocal) who will go to great lengths to blame the party, the media and, guess what?--THE VICTIM! I ask this: despite her insistence for security, she was not provided any (and this I can debate for a few hours if you want); despite her insistence for Scotland Yard or FBI to investigate the Karachi bombing, the government refused. What is the government so scared of? If our intelligence is so amazing that within a few hours of her assassination, they intercept a long telephonic conversation between Taliban’s leaders, claiming they killed her, why don’t we just pick them up and arrest them? Okay, so they say that’s impossible. I can live with that. Why could they not intercept ANY communication regarding the assassination before it took place? When Brig. Javed Cheema, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Information declares with such arrogance that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies do not need foreign help, why is it that the only thing they can come up with is the unbelievably silly story of ho she hit her head and died and all the eye witnesses and Bhutto’s aides are somehow delusional?
The “immaterial” tag to the MO of her murder is so obviously a cover up for the security lapse that even those who have tried not to get into this debate have been forced into it simply due to the cover up itself. Why does that matter? The lapse in security means a lapse in the security provided by the government...the government under General (retd) Musharraf. Criminal negligence aside, if one were to apply an A=B=C policy, who stands to gain from her death? We could see her popularity in Pakistan as well as her appeal for the west. They feel more comfortable in trusting an open minded, secular Muslim head of government, elected by popular vote by the masses, instead of the increasingly unpopular general. The “new political demands” of today’s age calls for a political leadership, all inclusive, within the system, and secular. The army may be good at quelling violence and protests (by its sheer strength of force) but it will never take the place of a national party. It has been observed in other countries around the world, where no such party has been allowed to exist which can unify its diverse population. Coming back to the earlier question, who stands to gain? Only those who have always wanted to control power—the “intelligence” agencies a.k.a military intelligence, controlled by the military.
Musharraf has been losing ground since quite some time now. There will always be those who support military governments in Pakistan. Belonging to a military background or having gained from military governments (read Ayesha Siddiqa Agha’s “Military Incorp.”, these people continue with their loud, garish support of a dictator who has brought the country to the unfortunate place it is at right now. It is this very Musharraf who would have been dispensable had Benazir come to power (the most probable result of the elections). Despite her much talked about “deal” with the General, she was obviously proving to be a thorn in his military side. Her populist politics had no place in a government run by a man in uniform. Scenes of the assassination scene being washed away by local authorities and Benazir’s repeated claims of being under threat from elements “within the establishment”, will not be forgotten soon.
Whether it be Mush himself, the intelligence agencies we keep talking about, the “western powers” or these extremists (who are also very neatly tied up with our esteemed intelligence agencies) who killed her, the fact is that the security lapse is real, it happened, and no matter how many press conferences the government arranges, the world refuses to believe their stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)