Looking for BB’s killer
Abdul Manan Adil

THE former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s untimely demise on December 27, 2007 at Liaquat Bagh Rawalpindi, has left the much desired political process in a lurch- Her killing is a tragic loss of a moderate voice in a country already plagued by radical element that endangers its very stability- Even the sternest critic of Benazir Bhutto could not have denied her efforts towards democracy and national reconciliation. While the death of Benazir Bhutto is being mourned by millions of Pakistanis, the world was also quick with unanimous condemnation of this latest act of terrorism. It was immediately condemned by the US, the UK, Russia, France and India. The world’s greatest democratic leader George Bush has claimed that Benazir laid down her life for the “ideals of democracy”. The attack shows that there are still those in Pakistan trying to undermine reconciliation and democratic development in Pakistan. Many of the Pakistani political parties are calling it a set-back for democracy and her death is generally seen as a blow to the electoral exercise.
Despite her iconic status and personal charisma, Benazir Bhutto was a vacillating and wavering political figure. She was surrounded by many controversies. Much of the goodwill she had enjoyed during her initial electioneering years, she squandered and wasted while in power as Prime Minister. She twice lost her Government while serving as Prime Minister - in 1990, the Bhutto Government was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on grounds of corruption charges, and in 1996 the Bhutto Government was dismissed again by President Farooq Leghari, not only on charges of corruption but also for-carrying out staged killings. Charges of massive corruption, nepotism and graft, of money-laundering involving several million dollars, have also been leveled at her record in office.. Now that she is dead, the media is trying to portray Benazir Bhutto as if she was a great democratic and trustworthy leader. An honest and objective account of her two tenure as PM, was replete with stifling the democratic growth of institutions marked by corrupt governance. Zardari said that he would continue to work to promote her mission. Was it to take away all the residual assets of Pakistan with him? Many say that Benazir did not allow others to gain much recognition, and she concentrated power and decision-making in her hands by becoming life-time Chairperson of PPP, although suggestions had been made to make Makhdoom Amin Fahim the chairperson, in order to bring in a flavor of democracy. Was that the democratic dispensation she believed in?
After her return from self-exile, Benazir became so desperate and worried to grab power that she even compromised the sovereignty by reiterating all-out support to the American operations inside Pakistan territory to hunt Taliban remnants, and allowing scientist AQ Khan to be interrogated by the US. She wanted to possess power at all conditions, and showed no regard to the public feelings or country’s integrity. There are skeptics who see her return to Pakistan as a clever double-dealing; to get back in the political struggle with the backing of US, and want to institutionalize democratic process in the country. Worked by opportunistic and ego-centric tendencies, she exhibited contradictory dealing towards curbing extremism. On one side, she planned to curb extremism through “physical force” rather than any political negotiation and settlement. On the other hand, Taliban’s Government was recognized by Pakistan during her premiership despite their deplorable human rights record.
Who is responsible for the death of Benazir Bhutto? There is no doubt that Benazir Bhutto had many enemies. After her rhetoric against Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists, her list of enemies grew phenomenally. Who had the most advantage from her death? For one, the religious fanatics hated her. Taliban, al-Qaeda, the religious political outfits, all had a grudge against her. While giving an interview to “Parade” magazine in Larkana, Benazir warned that “I am what terrorists most fear, a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan”. The extremists called for suicide bombings in a blatant manner to wipe her off the political spectrum. Anyhow, there is little reason to ‘believe that they would kill her, as it would accrue no advantage for them. They can easily create the chaos by blasting a bomb anywhere in any major city of. Pakistan, though the impact would not have been created as it was achieved by the killing of Benazir.
This makes us to follow the second line of investigations leading towards her husband Asif Ali Zardari. He can not be absolved as he will be the greatest benefactor of her death. The way the ‘will’ story has emerged, it seems that Mr Zardari himself has been involved in this conspiracy. With shady character in the past how could Benazir nominate Mr Zardari as her successor? Some of the testimonial evidence underlying the involvement of Zardari in the killing of Benazir suggests; Firstly, she never had good relationship with her husband and Mr 10% was solely responsible for her Government toppled for corruption allegations. Zardari used his traditional violent methods to subdue his opponents and used the government power of his wife to extract benefits through his corrupt and violent deals. Asif Zardari had even maintained private jails where he tortured his opponents. Benazir’s record for corruption surpassed all the pervious governments as she amassed huge assets mostly in Dubai, the UK and other Western capitals plundering the assets of her country. By killing Benazir, the road to Prime Minister House will be clear for Mr Zardari and this is enough to consider him alleged murderer. Secondly, considering the eagerness and impatience of Zardari for elections even when other parties were, ready to boycott the elections, one may figure out his insatiable lust for power. Zardari wants to cash sympathy vote in elections, putting aside his so-called grief over the death of his spouse. Thirdly, it is a known truth that Zardari killed ‘Murtaza Bhutto’. General public and even many PPP supporters dislike Zardari a lot. After killing the brother, it’s not hard to kill the sister too. Fourthly, Zardari has produced a “will” of Benazir regarding the future fate of PPP leadership. Suddenly a will has corne into existence that nobody has seen before. Many doubted the authenticity of the will, and say that the will is self-fabricated and self-concocted document, nominating Mr Zardari as Benazir’s successor. Mumtaz Bhutto, Benazir’s uncle denounced Asif Ali Zardari as the new co-chairman of the PPP. He considered that the PPP leadership should have passed to San am Bhutto, Benazir’s younger sister, or to one of the two children of Ghinwa Bhutto (the widow of Murtaza Bhutto), Benazir’s brother. The Zardaris have made no sacrifices for the party.
They have just profited from it. One can make out from the behaviour and’ conduct of Mr. Zardari that he is the one who has devised the grand plan for her murder. There are many conspiracy theories about the Benazir’s assassination. These theories are further heightened by the media. The accusations and counter accusations have already started to fly among political rivals while an investigation is going on. In such an environment, this murder will probably remain a mystery in the minds of many of her supporters regardless of any inquiries, domestic or international. The Bhutto family refusal to allow any autopsy will ensure the mystery continues. Pakistan has sought the help of Scotland Yard experts in investigating the tragic murder of Ms Benazir Bhutto. The government is committed to unearthing the evidence, finding out the truth and bringing those responsible for this heinous crime to justice. The forensic and technical expertise of the Scotland Yard would greatly supplement the efforts of investigating the assassination. However, a peaceful political transition through reconciliation and dialogue at the earliest is necessary so as to give less opportunity to those negative forces that would seize the moment to permanently damage Pakistan’s unity and stability for their own ends.


Guiarat: Modi’s trump card
Sadaf Yunus

FOLLOWING the recently concluded Gujarat elections, Narendra Modi has emerged as the undisputed leader and role model for Hindu extremists in India. Modi’s successful campaign has established him as a strong hardcore Hindu leader. Narendra Modi has been referred to by some critics as the ‘merchant of death’. He hit the headlines in 2002, when he was accused of failing to halt some of the worst religious violence India had ever seen. Riots had erupted after dozens of Hindu pilgrims were killed in a train fire in the town of Godhra. More than 3000 people, mostly Muslims, died in the resulting violence. His opponents said that he had directly instigated the Hindu mobs that were believed to have led most of the attacks. Since then, Modi has been seen as the face of aggressive Hinduism. Analysts say the reason as to why Modi remained relatively intact was only because of the strong support he enjoyed among senior leaders in the right-wing Hindu organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The RSS has a strong base in Gujarat and Modi’s ties to it were seen as a pillar of strength. Modi’s initial strategy of trying to get re-elected on a platform of fast economic development looked shaky. But after the Sohrabuddin incident, the election had been transformed into a Hindu Muslim issue. Unintentionally, the media and secular parties ensured his reelection. The violation of human rights, which worried those who were outside Gujarat, worried Gujararti Hindus very little.
Today, this question will be on the minds of a majority of people of India and even the international community; that can an emerging economic power like India be available to a fascist political movement that may wreck the peace of the world? Modi’s election victory should be analyzed through three dominant undercurrents: It pits the state of Gujarat against the Central Government. It pits Hindus against the Muslims. It pits lawlessness against the laws of the land. Modi in Gujarat had orchestrated a campaign against the Central government, which is ruled by the Congress and the Communists, absolutely opposed to Modi’s Hindutva. Just as the Communists have carved two states as their regional strongholds, where they are ensconced on a long term basis, Modi too feels, Hindutva needs a secure base in a regional state with its own private and distinct identity. The difference between CPM and Modi is that while CPM has courted Muslim votes, both in West Bengal and in Kerala, to solidify its rule in a long term consolidation and reaped its benefits. Modi, a true follower of the extremely radicalized RSS movement, that is ideologically committed to the physical destruction of Muslims, in India and abroad, has deeply communalized Gujarat polity and had demonized Muslims to carve out his own communalized vote-bank that is against the latter and the spirit of Indian constitution. In fact, he is grossly in violation of the election code of conduct that prohibits and even debars any political party that does not confirm to Constitutional benchmark of believing and practicing the twin fundamentals of democracy and secularism.
For all practical purposes, Modi’s progress has all the contours of a Hitler winning his election in a democratic Germany but later using his political power to impose his own brand of dictatorship, built around nationalism and racial dominance and matchlessness. Hitler had his Jews, while Modi has his Muslims. Modi had held a meeting of his top people and reported to have given 3 days to avenge the Godhra train burnings, blaming local Muslims for the accident. Just as on an indication, in Germany the party cadre destroyed hundreds of shops owned by Jews; in Gujarat a similar orgy of death and destruction was unleashed on the Muslims. Their shops and properties were looted and then burned. In rural areas, Muslims were unceremoniously butchered, burned or buried in mass graves. Muslim women were raped, killed and burned. Some were torched alive. Hitler gave one night. Modi is reported to have given three days. Modi’s public campaign brought the worst fascist logic to all his hostile declaration. When he challenged Sonia to hang him for the intentional murder of Sohrabuddin, he was challenging the rule of law in India. He did not care for the fact that he was in open and direct contempt of court and even liable to be prosecuted as the prime accused as the mastermind in a fake encounter, that is currently being pursued in courts. During the election campaign, Modi’s outbursts were typical of Hitlerian views. He kept on challenging the law of the land.
Recently, the Tehelka news magazine released a footage made by an undercover journalist, in which leaders of Hindu groups alleged that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had sanctioned the violence in 2002. The investigation was carried out over six months. Prominent representatives of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal admitted in their conversations that Modi had sanctioned the killings; in the wake of February 27, 2002 train burning in Godhra in which 59 Hindu passengers were killed. The communal violence in Gujarat left more than 3000 people, mostly Muslims, dead and thousands injured and homeless. This investigation confirmed that the murder of Muslims was not a spontaneous swelling of anger but a planned genocide strategized and executed by top functionaries of the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and state authorities, with the knowledge and sanction of Narendra Modi. Reacting to the Tehelka revelations, the BJP termed it as ‘a political stunt on the eve of Assembly elections in the state’. Modi has systematically ruined every institution in the state, the police, the executive and the judiciary. Impunity sows the seeds of further violence and undermines the rule of law for all citizens. Had the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission inquiry into the Bombay riots in 1992 and 1993 been implemented, then Gujarat’s 2002 carnage could have been avoided. If political forces in India are not alert and aware; India could become a victim of a fascist takeover by Hindutva forces.




Pragmatist at the helm
Yan Wei

LEE Myung Bak’s career is a legendary success story that enjoys broad recognition from South Koreans. The country’s new president-elect was born to a poor family in south South Korea but ascended to the top spot of the country’s largest conglomerate company. He went on to become mayor of Seoul and is now about to become the country’s next president. Lee’s ambition is part of the reason why he won a landslide victory in the country’s recent presidential election, Chinese foreign affairs experts said. As the first former South Korean CEO to be elected president, Lee is expected to fine-tune South Korea’s relations with foreign countries in a pragmatic way while concentrating on reviving the country’s economy, they said.
Lee of the conservative Grand National Party was declared the winner of South Korea’s presidential elections on December 19. With 49 percent of the vote, he secured the biggest victory margin in the 20-year history of country’s democratic elections. His closest rivals, Chung Dong Young of the liberal United New Democratic Party, received 26.1 percent, and independent candidate Lee Hoi Chang secured 15.1 percent, according to final figures released by the National Election Commission. Rising from the grassroots Since Lee made his way up to rank of the elite class through his own efforts, voters find him more acceptable than career politicians, said Zhang Liangui, a professor specializing in Korean studies at the Institute of International Strategic Studies at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
Lee is a capable leader who is strongly motivated, Zhang said. He became an executive at Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. in his thirties and helped turn it into South Korea’s largest conglomerate company. When he left as chairman in 1992, Hyundai had more than 160,000 employees worldwide, compared to 90 in 1965, the year Li started at the company. Lee is also famous for his stint as Seoul’s mayor from 2002 to 2006, during which he transformed the city’s landscape with the restoration of a buried downtown stream and revamped its public transportation system. The incumbent government’s many failures also facilitated Lee’s election victory, Zhang said. South Korea’s annual economic growth has slowed considerably since current president Roh Moo Hyun took over in 2002. Many South Koreans are complaining about the widening wealth gap and heavy burdens of employment, housing and education.
(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)