Log in

View Full Version : Benazir Bhutto: a reluctant martyr?



Spirit of Spartacus
28th December 2007, 17:17
Comrades, I wrote down my opinion on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and I would like to share it with you.

http://wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com/200...luctant-martyr/ (http://wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/benazir-bhutto-the-reluctant-martyr/)


Dying a violent, untimely and unexpected death yesterday, Benazir Bhutto joined the ranks of those political figures whose legacy in death is very different from the role they actually played in life.

In life, she was an inconsistent democrat at best, and a willing tool of US imperialism, repeatedly making conciliatory gestures to a discredited military regime when she could afford to take a stand against it.

In death, she has become the martyr of democracy and social justice. Thousands of working-class supporters of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) are rallying behind her name all over the country, and the military-dominated establishment is having a tough time controlling them.

Let me be honest: long have I wanted to write a political obituary for Benazir Bhutto, a leader whom I criticized in the harshest of terms and denounced as an untrustworthy opportunist. Who could have imagined, though, that soon a time would come when a complete obituary would be required? Who could have imagined that the successor of the great Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, daughter of the East and darling of the West, would be killed in this brutal manner?

I wanted to see her sidelined in the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and hoped that her negative influence might be ended, so that there might be no compromise with the military regime. Instead, she was murdered in cold blood.

After Musharraf’s declaration of emergency, Benazir was unwillingly catapulted into becoming once again a faltering and yet important leader of the opposition.

I view this as an attack not just on her person, but on all progressive forces in the country. The most likely perpetrators are elements within the military establishment who are sympathetic to Islamic militants (possibly from within anti-Musharraf circles in the intelligence agencies). Either that, or else the attack was carried out by Baitullah Mahsud’s militant forces from north-western Pakistan. And incidentally, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, given the links of some elements in the military with militant political Islam in this region.

Whoever is responsible for it, their target was to terrorize progressive forces as a whole.

Even though Benazir Bhutto was a highly flawed leader, today I sympathize with her and her family. We must stand with the Pakistani working-class, which clung desperately to the legacy of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter. We must stand with the brutalized and terrorized Pakistani masses, who flocked around Benazir’s quasi-socialist populist slogans of “Roti, kapra aur makaan” (Bread, clothes and housing).

This assassination is the single worst outcome which I can imagine for the Pakistani political situation at the moment.

And yet, it opens up some opportunities for progress. The most obvious development is the radicalization of the PPP (especially its rank-and-file). Benazir Bhutto’s death has thrown the PPP firmly into the opposition against the military regime.

This violent death might allow consistent democratic leaders like Aitzaz Ahsan to take control of the PPP, cleanse it of opportunism and weakness, and once again make it a spear-head of the Pakistani working-people in their struggle for social justice.

Benazir was an unwilling and reluctant martyr.

Circumstances placed her in a position where she could take up the mantle of her great father.
Circumstances brought her back to Pakistan.
Circumstances upset her deal with the military establishment and its masters in Washington.
Circumstances placed her, once again, in the head of the anti-military opposition.
Circumstances made her follow her illustrious father in dying and becoming a martyr to the cause of the Pakistani masses.

Circumstances, not her own will, made her legacy what it is right now. And yet I respect this legacy.

Last month, I wrote the following:


On my blog, I have criticized Benazir Bhutto in the harshest of terms. This has meant that some readers took offence and chided me for what they perceive as an immature divorce from the realities on the ground. I beg to differ with them.
The reality on the ground is this: Benazir Bhutto is the only political leader in Pakistan who controls a real mass party, i.e. the PPP. At this moment, she is the ONLY leader with the street power needed to truly confront the military regime, launch a mass movement for restoring democracy and lead Pakistan to a brighter future.
Instead, she dilly-dallies, talks of deals with the military and speaks the language of her new patrons in Washington.
In my humble opinion, if Benazir does not take the hard but logical choice of openly confronting the military regime and severing her cosy ties to the US establishment, she too will be consigned to the ash-heap of history.

In life, Benazir could not do this. But in death, she has achieved it.

So I say: may she rest in peace, and may the Motherland find a way out of this difficult time.

RedKnight
28th December 2007, 19:52
Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 28, 2007 05:16 pm
Comrades, I wrote down my opinion on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and I would like to share it with you.

http://wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com/200...luctant-martyr/ (http://wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/benazir-bhutto-the-reluctant-martyr/)


Dying a violent, untimely and unexpected death yesterday, Benazir Bhutto joined the ranks of those political figures whose legacy in death is very different from the role they actually played in life.

In life, she was an inconsistent democrat at best, and a willing tool of US imperialism, repeatedly making conciliatory gestures to a discredited military regime when she could afford to take a stand against it.

In death, she has become the martyr of democracy and social justice. Thousands of working-class supporters of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) are rallying behind her name all over the country, and the military-dominated establishment is having a tough time controlling them.

Let me be honest: long have I wanted to write a political obituary for Benazir Bhutto, a leader whom I criticized in the harshest of terms and denounced as an untrustworthy opportunist. Who could have imagined, though, that soon a time would come when a complete obituary would be required? Who could have imagined that the successor of the great Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, daughter of the East and darling of the West, would be killed in this brutal manner?

I wanted to see her sidelined in the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and hoped that her negative influence might be ended, so that there might be no compromise with the military regime. Instead, she was murdered in cold blood.

After Musharraf’s declaration of emergency, Benazir was unwillingly catapulted into becoming once again a faltering and yet important leader of the opposition.

I view this as an attack not just on her person, but on all progressive forces in the country. The most likely perpetrators are elements within the military establishment who are sympathetic to Islamic militants (possibly from within anti-Musharraf circles in the intelligence agencies). Either that, or else the attack was carried out by Baitullah Mahsud’s militant forces from north-western Pakistan. And incidentally, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, given the links of some elements in the military with militant political Islam in this region.

Whoever is responsible for it, their target was to terrorize progressive forces as a whole.

Even though Benazir Bhutto was a highly flawed leader, today I sympathize with her and her family. We must stand with the Pakistani working-class, which clung desperately to the legacy of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter. We must stand with the brutalized and terrorized Pakistani masses, who flocked around Benazir’s quasi-socialist populist slogans of “Roti, kapra aur makaan” (Bread, clothes and housing).

This assassination is the single worst outcome which I can imagine for the Pakistani political situation at the moment.

And yet, it opens up some opportunities for progress. The most obvious development is the radicalization of the PPP (especially its rank-and-file). Benazir Bhutto’s death has thrown the PPP firmly into the opposition against the military regime.

This violent death might allow consistent democratic leaders like Aitzaz Ahsan to take control of the PPP, cleanse it of opportunism and weakness, and once again make it a spear-head of the Pakistani working-people in their struggle for social justice.

Benazir was an unwilling and reluctant martyr.

Circumstances placed her in a position where she could take up the mantle of her great father.
Circumstances brought her back to Pakistan.
Circumstances upset her deal with the military establishment and its masters in Washington.
Circumstances placed her, once again, in the head of the anti-military opposition.
Circumstances made her follow her illustrious father in dying and becoming a martyr to the cause of the Pakistani masses.

Circumstances, not her own will, made her legacy what it is right now. And yet I respect this legacy.

Last month, I wrote the following:


On my blog, I have criticized Benazir Bhutto in the harshest of terms. This has meant that some readers took offence and chided me for what they perceive as an immature divorce from the realities on the ground. I beg to differ with them.
The reality on the ground is this: Benazir Bhutto is the only political leader in Pakistan who controls a real mass party, i.e. the PPP. At this moment, she is the ONLY leader with the street power needed to truly confront the military regime, launch a mass movement for restoring democracy and lead Pakistan to a brighter future.
Instead, she dilly-dallies, talks of deals with the military and speaks the language of her new patrons in Washington.
In my humble opinion, if Benazir does not take the hard but logical choice of openly confronting the military regime and severing her cosy ties to the US establishment, she too will be consigned to the ash-heap of history.

In life, Benazir could not do this. But in death, she has achieved it.

So I say: may she rest in peace, and may the Motherland find a way out of this difficult time.

In a way I agree with you. Only it is very difficult to establish a revolutionary Left-wing regime, since the fall of the Soviet Union. Though we may not like it, the U.S. is the last remaining super power in the world. Benazir Bhutto could hardly afford to openly antaganise the American government, especialy with the U.S. military next door in Afganistan. Also, and this is just my opinion and not the policy of the Third Camp, Musharaf's sucessor might still need to rule as a benevolent despot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator) , until the Republic of Pakistan can be safeguarded from the fanatical islamic jihadists. Sort of like a Roman style dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator).

The Gulag
28th December 2007, 20:14
Don't forget the Indians, Russians, and Chinese. All of them can give the United States the bird, and we can't do much about it. But never mind that the United States won't be able to properly overthrow the Pakistani government. What I want to know is why people would be against the government because she was killed by terrorists?

dez
28th December 2007, 20:33
Originally posted by The [email protected] 28, 2007 08:13 pm
Don't forget the Indians, Russians, and Chinese. All of them can give the United States the bird, and we can't do much about it. But never mind that the United States won't be able to properly overthrow the Pakistani government. What I want to know is why people would be against the government because she was killed by terrorists?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-83Q_ooVLLs

Bilan
28th December 2007, 21:55
Originally posted by The Gulag+December 29, 2007 06:13 am--> (The Gulag @ December 29, 2007 06:13 am) Don't forget the Indians, Russians, and Chinese. All of them can give the United States the bird, and we can't do much about it. But never mind that the United States won't be able to properly overthrow the Pakistani government. What I want to know is why people would be against the government because she was killed by terrorists? [/b]
It hasn't been established who killed her.
It could've been just terrorists - Al Queda. It's speculation, presently.

------------


some other person
Though we may not like it, the U.S. is the last remaining super power in the world

China is a growing economic super power. It in itself is arguably a present super power. Not the super power, but a super power.



Also, and this is just my opinion and not the policy of the Third Camp, there might be need of a temporary martial law, until the Republic of Pakistan can be safeguarded from the fanatical islamic jihadists

Die in a fire.

Comrade Rage
28th December 2007, 22:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:51 pm
Also, and this is just my opinion and not the policy of the Third Camp, there might be need of a temporary martial law, until the Republic of Pakistan can be safeguarded from the fanatical islamic jihadists. Sort of like a Roman style dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator).
That may be true, unless the left regains it's composure and fights for a revolution at this time.

bootleg42
28th December 2007, 22:35
I'm actually curious to what extent are those Islamic jihadists influential in the peasant and working class of Pakistan. Can anyone give me an idea??? If they have huge support, that's a bad thing (equally as bad as the U.S. gaining control over the area).

Are they just a small nutty group or are they seriously supported by a lot of people within Pakistan??

This whole thing is messed up. You got a military dictator, an imperialist power and their politicians within the country, and a bunch of religious regressive fanatics all in there. Where are the revolutionary leftists??? Are there any revolutionary leftists in Pakistan, other than the PPP's Marxist sec?????

Also to what extent are the Marxists in the PPP influential themselves?

Sky
28th December 2007, 23:40
Are they just a small nutty group or are they seriously supported by a lot of people within Pakistan??

Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan

According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/pol...anis/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html)

RedKnight
29th December 2007, 03:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:39 pm

Are they just a small nutty group or are they seriously supported by a lot of people within Pakistan??

Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan

According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/pol...anis/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html)
Which means in that case, if popular elections were to be held, it would result in a tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). This further demonstrates why there needs to be a small cadre of trained professional revolutioaries directing the revolution, and subsequent worker state. Otherwise the country might descend into mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule).

SouthernBelle82
29th December 2007, 06:18
Here's an interesting interview with her about BinLadin.

Link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLItJMVNleY

SouthernBelle82
29th December 2007, 06:19
Originally posted by RedKnight+December 29, 2007 03:47 am--> (RedKnight @ December 29, 2007 03:47 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 11:39 pm

Are they just a small nutty group or are they seriously supported by a lot of people within Pakistan??

Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan

According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/pol...anis/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html)
Which means in that case, if popular elections were to be held, it would result in a tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). This further demonstrates why there needs to be a small cadre of trained professional revolutioaries directing the revolution, and subsequent worker state. Otherwise the country might descend into mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule). [/b]
Not to mention this is a country with nuclear power too.

Asoka89
29th December 2007, 06:38
That support for Bin Ladin doesnt mean all that much, Pakistani's have traditionally been secular, traditionally more South Asian than middle-eastern in much of their culture aside from religion, forget that poll the masses DO NOT want to use nuclear weapons against the world, they are decent hardworking people, a minority of extermists have power in the western frontier regions and has pockets of support but most people are behind progression and democracy, but also against imperialism, there is an opening for the Left here.

SouthernBelle82
29th December 2007, 20:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:37 am
That support for Bin Ladin doesnt mean all that much, Pakistani's have traditionally been secular, traditionally more South Asian than middle-eastern in much of their culture aside from religion, forget that poll the masses DO NOT want to use nuclear weapons against the world, they are decent hardworking people, a minority of extermists have power in the western frontier regions and has pockets of support but most people are behind progression and democracy, but also against imperialism, there is an opening for the Left here.
I think so too but I think the worry is that one of these radical groups could get their hands on the nuclear power and use it.

Spirit of Spartacus
29th December 2007, 23:15
Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 29, 2007 08:24 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 29, 2007 08:24 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 06:37 am
That support for Bin Ladin doesnt mean all that much, Pakistani's have traditionally been secular, traditionally more South Asian than middle-eastern in much of their culture aside from religion, forget that poll the masses DO NOT want to use nuclear weapons against the world, they are decent hardworking people, a minority of extermists have power in the western frontier regions and has pockets of support but most people are behind progression and democracy, but also against imperialism, there is an opening for the Left here.
I think so too but I think the worry is that one of these radical groups could get their hands on the nuclear power and use it. [/b]
A complete fantasy propagated by the imperialist media.

Don't take that shit seriously, comrade. No political analyst in Pakistan takes that possibility seriously. Pakistan's nukes aren't just lying around on a street, waiting for extremists to seize and launch.

The nuclear facilities are given such high security by the military regime that they can hold out against a foreign attack.

Do you seriously believe that a bunch of extremists, sitting in the north-western mountains of Pakistan, could take over the vast metropolitan cities like Karachi, Lahore and others, and then overpower security forces to seize the nukes?

Saorsa
1st January 2008, 11:19
It seems unlikely.

Faux Real
1st January 2008, 13:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:34 pm
I'm actually curious to what extent are those Islamic jihadists influential in the peasant and working class of Pakistan. Can anyone give me an idea??? If they have huge support, that's a bad thing (equally as bad as the U.S. gaining control over the area).

Are they just a small nutty group or are they seriously supported by a lot of people within Pakistan???
It's funny how the Bush administration and its supporters don't wish the people to be influenced by extremism, but the military coup and period of dictatorship isn't considered extreme itself. If Musharaf is supposed to be moderate, after installing himself as leader of the military and state for over 8 years, imposing martial law, spending just about every penny on an arms race with India, then just about everything in the country is an 'extreme'.

Religion is not much of a factor because it's a practical Islamic state already. The 'Jihadists' have no influence at all, and the working class remains religious but socially secular.

Also, and this is just my opinion and not the policy of the Third Camp, there might be need of a temporary martial law, until the Republic of Pakistan can be safeguarded from the fanatical islamic jihadists. Sort of like a Roman style dictatorship.
Fucking stupid. There's no way a few 'fanatics' in the isolated parts of the country could topple the military regime in place. The large industrial cities are heavily fortified and there's no way they would ever topple it. Pakistans military is very advanced, as it's the only place where American aid goes to. To think the 'terrorists are gonna have nukes!111oneone' is a little premature and ill-informed.

RedKnight
1st January 2008, 21:36
Fucking stupid. There's no way a few 'fanatics' in the isolated parts of the country could topple the military regime in place. The large industrial cities are heavily fortified and there's no way they would ever topple it. Pakistans military is very advanced, as it's the only place where American aid goes to. To think the 'terrorists are gonna have nukes!111oneone' is a little premature and ill-informed. Michael Savage is premature and illinformed, because he says that Pakistan needs an autocratic government, like the Shah. And that World War might break out, like after Archduke Ferdinand got assasinated. He also fears that terrorists, like Al Qaeda, might get ahold of nukes from countries like Pakistan.

Holden Caulfield
1st January 2008, 21:43
in nations like pakistan and turkey the army have complicated roles and cant really be assesed by 'western' standards,

the actions of millitants although relatively unimportant can lead to changes in public feeling through propagnda etc..

i dont think the nukes issue is tht important at the moment compared to the dicatorship in place in pakistan and the rights of the pakistani people