“Tomorrow they may decide to kill me because I know too much. But I want this on record so that one day, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, somebody goes back and says: What was happening in Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan?”
Nearly twelve years ago monthly Herald published this interview of Benazir Bhutto (taken by Ali Dayan Hasan). This is perhaps the most revealing interview that BB gave to a local publication. In the context of Pakistan in 2012, this interview remains most relevant. This introduction to the interview is most insightful as it echoes many themes that we are living through once again. Her successor, Yusuf Raza Gilani has made similar remarks on the floor of the Parliament. At least we seemed to have inched a little forward though the destination of democratic Pakistan remains rather elusive. RR

In her most candid interview since 1988, Benazir Bhutto, twice elected prime minister of Pakistan, reveals the extent to which successive civilian governments have been held hostage, and destabilised, by the ‘security apparatus’ of the military. Bhutto, chairperson of the PPP — the single largest political party of the country — explains the helplessness of civilian governments in the face of Intelligence-inspired disinformation on the one hand, and ideologically motivated illegal activities of ‘rogue elements’ of the army on the other. She argues that the security apparatus of the country is out of control and that no government can hope to function smoothly unless these elements are brought under  formalised command structure that prevents them from taking on the role of a state within a state. There is much evidence to support Bhutto’s claims, including that of her adversaries — General Aslam Beg, General Hameed Gul and General Asad Durrani — all of whom conspired against civilian governments and have repeatedly gone on record to admit as much. “Blaming politicians alone for tarnishing democracy is actually less than half the story,” argues Bhutto. Here, she explains why.

To read the full interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue

Here are a few pertinent passages from the interview:

Q. You have presided twice over a controlled democracy. What have you learnt from the experience?
A. There is a tendency in Pakistan, due to military dictatorships and one-man rule, to think that one person can make all the difference. But in a democratic system, it is not just one person that makes a difference. A democratic ruler, such as myself, functions within the confines of the constitution. We need a civic consensus on what a constitution should be and what constitutes freedom and plurality. I had to work on the mandate I was given and that is why I say that we did not achieve much. I had to work with the 8th amendment and a president who could sack the prime minister. In other words, some elements in the intelligence agencies used the president when they felt I was becoming too powerful. They never allowed us enough time to elect members of the senate which would have made my party — and the democratic forces — stronger. The real solution lies not with any individual. I can only give a clarion call. Then it depends on the masses whether they rally around that call to say that they want a constitution based on the supremacy of the will of the people and that the prime minister and parliament must determine national security and not the military.

Q. Did you attempt to rein in the intelligence agencies when you were in power?
A. Yes, I did. For instance, in December 1988, within a week of my forming the government, Brigadier Imtiaz working at the ISI Internal began contacting political parties to overthrow my government. My political adviser at the time, General Babar, moved to have him replaced. The army refused initially, though later, Brigadier Imtiaz was removed from the ISI Internal, not from the army itself. So, I tried but they defied me and because of the 8th amendment, I could not remove any officer myself. We collected proof, in 1989, of ISI elements visiting MNAs for a no-confidence move. We made audio tapes. The head of the MI entered my office and saw the photograph of the man who had been approaching my MNAs. He panicked, took the photograph and the tape and then sent me a report saying the man in question was deranged. In 1990, when the ISI launched a similar effort, we made a videotape called Operation Jackal . A serving army officer, Brigadier Imtiaz, technically not in the ISI but substantively still there, was taped saying: ‘the army does not want her, the president does not want her, the Americans don’t want her’. He was seeking the support of parliamentarians to oust the government. I gave that tape, substantive proof of treason, to General Beg. He filibustered.

On March 23, 1989, the army jawans mobbed me in a show of support when I went to the Pakistan Day parade. General Beg panicked. I was used to being mobbed and public adulation. I told him it was all right. The support waned when the intelligence agencies — sometimes the ISI, sometimes the MI, at others the FIT and the FIU and even the corps command — intrigued. Poisonous stories were prepared and circulated to the corps
remove you and replace you with General Imtiaz as COAS’. It was a ridiculous story but he believed it. They told Ghulam Ishaq Khan that, ‘If she gets a senate majority, she’ll impeach you and replace you with Yahya Bakhtiar’. They concocted these stories. They went to one of my party leaders and said, ‘Get 10 MNAs and we will make you prime minister’. A corps commander went to my husband in 1989 and said that they could not salute a woman. ‘Let her make you prime minister as we have no problems with the PPP’.
In 1993, they sent a Middle Eastern prince to tell me the same thing — that Nawaz was going but I should bow out because if I fought, things would be different.

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give

Eventually, under pressure, Beg just retired the man whereas he should have been tried for treason. Then, when the no-confidence move failed, I was approached by my MPAs in the NWFP who said that General Beg had called them to the GHQ and said, ‘We want to get rid of her starting with the NWFP and could you please move a no- confidence vote against her.’ So, a
commanders and the jawans to put the seeds of hatred in people’s hearts. These included false stories of corruption, of Indian agents, of Jewish agents, of American agents, Sikh lists. Thus, an impression was created that we are corrupt traitors and even our supporters turned against us. Beg was with me till the Intelligence worked on him and convinced him that ‘she wants to
them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance the

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance theno-confidence move against me. At that time, we heard that the money came from Saudi Arabia. I sent a minister to meet King Fahd. He has been very kind to me and I really like him. He is an urbane, generous and kind man. I told my emissary to remind the king that he had said to me: ‘Ali Bhutto was my brother and my friend. I opposed his murder. I thought it was unjust then and I think it is unjust now. You are like my daughter’. Then how come he was sending money to overthrow my government?
He sent back a message saying that the Saudi government was not involved and it was a private Saudi citizen. Later on, from these two individuals who were with the PML then but are with us now, I learnt that the meetings involved Sharif, a then-serving corps commander and Osama and they wheedled 10 million dollars out of Osama to overthrow the government.
Meanwhile, my parliamentarians informed me that they were offered a million dollars each by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi to get rid of me. I like Mr. Jatoi. He treats me like a daughter and personally I have no problem with him. But I do think Mr. Jatoi and I both owe it to the nation that the facts should come out.
I set up my own Trojan horse. I told the MNAs to go ahead and take the money. ‘Let them think you are with them’. That is how they lost the no-confidence motion. My four MNAs were counted against me but they did not crossover and two more joined me. Otherwise they had it all set. And then we had this very funny incident when these four MNAs came to the prime minister’s house with briefcases of money and said, ‘You take it’, and I said, ‘No, I cannot’. In the end, of course, the money was not taken but the fact remains that these sorts of sums were paid for no-confidence votes. And they were not paid by the political parties but by the intelligence agencies and rogue elements in the military as well as right-wing adventurists.
And at the SAF games, Beg sat next to me with a very satisfied smile on his face. When three PML MNAs came and sat next to me, his face fell. ‘What are they doing here?’ he asked me in panic. I smiled and said they had joined the government. ‘Isn’t that wonderful?’ Beg just looked like a ghost. And then we were accused of horse-trading and corruption. Thus the intelligence agencies try to create a ‘heads, I win, tails, you lose’ situation for the political class. This simply cannot continue…

“We cannot have an army or intelligence agencies that constantly destabilise governments. We cannot have rogue elements incessantly violating their oath and plunging the nation into crises.”

To read the interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue

 Raza Habib Raja
This article tries to evaluate the politician Benazir Bhutto and the way she affected her party and the Pakistani political landscape. Since the article tries to adopt a CRITICAL approach therefore it points her weaknesses besides appreciating her strengths.

Cult of personality which has become somewhat of a rarity in the West is an integral part of the political culture here. Such personality cults form around Political leaders, particularly famous ones, in our part of the world. Strong political leaders are not merely the reflection of the society but are often strong enough to affect it. Late Benazir Bhutto was one of such political personalities. Charismatic personalities are often riddled with contradictions and like all such personalities she also had her strengths and weaknesses.

Benazir Bhutto though it is not often acknowledged was in many ways Pakistan’s only true liberal leader. Compared to her charismatic father who was ready to manipulate religious sensitivities to extract political mileage, Benazir Bhutto knew where to stop. Yes, she was pragmatic and like all politicians acted in rational self interest-Politics is after all realpolitiks- but she did not try to whip religion for that purpose.

Those who believe in a secular, liberal and plural Pakistan, like to remember Jinnah for his 11th August speech; likewise I would like to remember Benazir Bhutto through a statement she made in early 1990s when she said “Insanoon ke hath Paon Katne munasib Nayee Samajte. Khuda Zalim Nayee Hai. Zalim Quaneen ko Islami nayee manti” (We do not think amputating hands and legs of human beings is an appropriate thing to do. God is not cruel. I do not think that harsh laws can be Islamic). This statement, though now rarely quoted caused quite a stir in early 1990s. In fact the Imam of Badshahi Mosque even issued a fatwa against her. Other than her, I have never heard ANY politician utter such a statement. I wish that this statement had started a wave where people could have mustered enough courage to actually start a critical discourse on religious laws and on the role of religion in their lives. Sadly it merely created short term controversy and print media of those days lapped on it for creating sensational headlines. The statement could not define her legacy but nevertheless is an important indication of the stuff Benazir Bhutto was made of.

Benazir Bhutto inherited the party from Bhutto but in many ways she earned her title. After all when her brothers chose to stay outside and indulge in militant tactics she decided to adopt the political course and tried to engage with the supporters of her party. Even legacy politics need charismatic inheritors who can engage with the masses. It is that kind of mass populism which acts as a cancelling agent to religious fervour and its political manifestation at the mass level. Benazir Bhutto could do it brilliantly despite the fact that her Urdu was not as fluent as her father’s.

Her biggest achievement for the PPP was that she was able to glue the party after him. Her stature which was underpinned by much more than her blood linage ensured that unity prevailed. While it helped the party in the transitory phase as it needed a strong leader but in the longer run has proven counterproductive as legacy politics has become too entrenched.

In legacy politics the direction of a political party is often controlled by the cultish leader. PPP’s direction from 1986 owed largely to her vision and political outlook. PPP changed with times and Benazir while holding on to the legacy politics was very willing to embrace newer ideas. As socialism waned globally, Benazir was quick to reform her party’s ideological outlook and PPP started to transform from a centre left to economically conservative and socially liberal party. In fact the privatization program started with her tenure. She was also extremely keen on bringing in foreign investment and her second stint as Prime Minister witnessed huge investments in the power sector as several Independent Power Projects (IPPs) were set up. The move which was severely criticised by subsequent Nawaz Sharif government as being “unfair” to Pakistan, ultimately proved one of the most beneficial economic decisions taken by her government. As Pakistan suffered from terrible electricity shortages, the situation would have been virtually catastrophic if there were no IPPs.

Politically she was a realist though knew how to balance the pragmatism with ideological stance of the party. Her pragmatism emanated from her experience as a Prime Minister particularly her first tenure. She quickly realized that in Pakistan the “deep state” held all the keys and if her party aspired to have power, it could not go totally against the so called establishment. Therefore when Nawaz Sharif conspired to remove her from power in 1990, she returned him the favour in 1993 when she supported Ghulam Ishaq Khan in his efforts to remove him.

Moreover despite having liberal outlook she had no stupid romantic notions about militant parties like MQM. She was firmly behind the 1995-96 operation and understood that action was needed to eradicate militancy. She was pretty firm and did not yield to blackmailing tactics even when the killings mounted. At one time, corpses were being daily found in bags with chits attached to chest stating “Naseer Ullah Baber ke liey Tuhfa” (A gift for Naseer Ullah Baber).

I think it was her administrative quality which perhaps was her weakest trait. Her second tenure was riddled with severe controversies and in fact it alienated her core support which was reflected in 1996 elections. Although it is often claimed that in 1996 establishment rigged the elections but the reality was that PPP voter simply did not come out to vote. In fact throughout Punjab and NWFP, its candidates were getting less than 10,000 votes per constituency in the elections for national assembly seats.

It was the controversies of that tenure which continued to cast a deep shadow over the rest of Benazir’s life. All of the infamous cases are related to that period.

Despite going into exile in late 1990s, Benazir continued to have a lot of influence on the local politics and once Nawaz Sharif was again removed, her popularity witnessed resurgence. PPP became a key party after 2002 elections and in the last years of Musharraf regime was the most sought after party by the establishment and US alike for tackling rising extremism and for ensuring trouble less continuance of the battle against Islamic militants.

Things started to move in an uncontrollable direction after the lawyers movement started. Although now the PPP tries to call the movement “reactionary” but the fact is that during her life Benazir never publicly criticized it despite the fact that she knew that from pragmatic point of view, the movement though weakening Musharraf could also adversely affect her leverage. In fact PPP selectively supported the movement. An intelligent person like Benazir would have never supported the lawyers’ movement if it was totally “reactionary” particularly at that point. Of all the politicians, she was the best in striking a balance between political necessity and ideological orientation. In fact the fact that PPP in post Benazir time adopted delaying tactics allowed the right wing elements to literally hijack the movement. Had she been alive, things would have taken a better turn as she was far more astute than her successor.

Her death has obviously been a big blow to Pakistan’s prospects of becoming a more tolerant and moderate political entity. Religious extremism in fact benefited the most from her tragic death.

Moreover her tragic death also solidified the legacy politics as her successor had to be from her nearest relatives to keep the party intact. Dynasty politics became further entrenched and even Bilawal had to be renamed as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is claimed by the PPP that BB Sahiba nominated the current Joint Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari. By following him, they are actually following her desires. And yet the ones who were near to Benazir during her lifetime and even her final moments like Sherry Rehman, Naheed Khan and Amin Fahim are now out of the limelight. If her wishes were that dear to PPP then people on whom Benazir had trust should not be given such treatment.

To be fair to the current chairman, PPP led government has tried to reach out to various ethnicities and tried to adopt reconciliatory approach. In some constitutional matters the party has fared quite well and has successfully brokered an improved NFC award. Provincial autonomy has also improved. However the quality of governance remains a problematic area.

It has to be understood that eventually people judge a government not merely on its ideological orientation but also on its actual performance in economic and administrative realm. And yes there will always be those who despite ideologically agreeing with a liberal party will nevertheless assess the actual performance and vote against it. In USA the registered Democrats far outnumber the registered Republicans and yet there have been Republican presidents and legislatures. Even in the recent midterm elections the conservatives make a strong comeback.

Merely calling the critics as “Pseudo Liberals” or members of naive “chattering classes” or “closet conservatives” will not do the trick. Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves. Likewise whipping Benazir’s and Bhutto’s name won’t make the issues with it disappear. A Shaheed may act as a powerful rallying force in one election but cannot deliver performance. Post Benazir PPP needs to realize that.