Benazir is dead. Conspiracy theories are already up and working, ones that are complex, and are hard to understand. Pakistani administration of the Mush had initially told of her death due to the blast, where as the ‘scintillating revelation’ by the close aide of the departed leader seems to hinting otherwise. The Al-Qaeeda and Taliban, which was blamed, rather instantaneously, had denied their involvement. ‘It’s against our culture to attack woman’. Maulvi Muhammad Omar, a spokesman for Pakistani Taliban commander Baitullah Meshsud was found stating in Peshawar on phone from an undisclosed location. But can you trust Taliban? This is the question that may be humming your mind, and that’s obviously natural. Taliban regime, which when in force in Afghanistan, had violated almost all the human rights laws by executing those woman for alleged ‘adultery’. It didn’t even seek evidence in many of their cases before executing. Yet they deserve a benefit of doubt given the fact that they have been, rather passionately, taking in the responsibility for the alleged execution in the past. But if not Taliban then who else is to blame?
The US or any of its intelligence agencies, or that of its ally, is simply not to be held responsible for Benazir had promised things that were highly favorable to them. She was pawn of theirs, have no doubts. It was owing to US pressure that Mush was forced to form an alliance with her, and for no other reasons. To support this point you may rely on her election manifesto that prominently spoke of three important agenda: Allowing the US to investigate A Q Khan’s alleged involvement in the global nuclear proliferation, action against the Islamic Fundamentalist forces to disarm them and Uprooting of the ‘brutal’ regime of the Musharraf.
Speaking to Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, authors of the recently released book ‘Deception: Pakistan, The United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy’, Benazir had made some very interesting revelations. In December 1998, Benazir recalls, accompanied by her advisers, entered the prime minister’s secretariat only to find that she had been ‘physically constrained’. “My office had been stripped,” she alleged. “There were no pens, pencils, not even a sheet of paper. I had only one staff officer. How was I supposed to run a country? I rang up General Beg and asked why I had no official files. “The president asked for all files to be sent to him,” Beg responded. Bhutto said, “I’m the prime minister and I want them back.” What she read when the paperwork was finally returned filler her with gloom. Bhutto, who had attained a degree in political science from Harvard and a MA in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford, recalled: “President Zia had hijacked the country. Pakistan spent only 2.6 per cent of the GNP (Gross National Product) on education while 6.7 per cent was handed over to the military. The year I came in, they were preparing to import $2.693 billion in arms. Soldiers out numbered doctors by 10 to 1. With the Pakistan military, it always was a case of total detachment. They didn’t contest elections. They had no relations with the people. They carried out the worst kinds of adventurism. Pakistan imploded while they meddled and I was throttled.” She was also found saying “The situation is no different now, either.” The book recalls of such incidents experienced even by Nawaz Sheriff.
Simply speaking no prime minister in the Islamic Republic ever had an opportunity to rule his country with liberty that which was always distributed between the Government, Army and ISI by its Constitution – one that was hardly ever enforced, in entirety. These, what were dubbed as, three pillars of Pakistan were never of the proportionate length. They always fought for powers against each other, and at times ruthlessly. Eventually as the history stands testimony to the fact – it was Army that had the final say. They didn’t ever have an obligation to fight elections. And yet they could take the power away from elected representatives just like that.
Musharraf has been in power for a long time now. He has tasted the fame, one that he may never otherwise tasted. Could he? He has been receiving millions of dollars in aides from the United States for combating terror in Pakistan. What has he done? He is, to be honest, nowhere aiming at the target. Funds received have all been redirected towards modernizing the military, while, as per confirmed reports; North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Waziristan are already out of his grip to fall in the hands of fanatic Taliban without a bullet fired. Baluchistan that which is unhappy with governance from Pakistan is seeking its independence now so strongly. Yet, the Mush is reluctant to vacate his position to pave way for free and fair election in his country. Why? Of course its about money and power. What else?
The two major hindrances Mush ever had were that in the guise of Benazir and Nawaz. Benazir was a pawn of the United States while Nawaz is the blue-eyed boy of the Saudi Royal family – custodians of the holy mosque at Mecca. Given the allegiance of Nawaz to the Saudi, mush knows the fact that he would certainly find it easy to handle him. If at all anyone he wouldn’t be able to control, after elections are over, is Benazir, given she is victorious. Bhutto already had the support of Americans who, had she won, would have easily disowned Mush. Thus leaving the General to the mercy of his makers. What would ‘poor’ Mush do then? He has every thing at stake? Don’t you think? Would he be happy to see that happen? So who has more chance of striking out Bhutto?
Yes, Islamic Fundamentalists too have a reasonably good reason for striking her off. Their statement ‘It’s against our culture to attack woman’ is completely bogus, absolutely bunk. They have done that countless time when they were in power and they do it, as some reports say, in their administered areas of Pakistan, namely: North West Frontier Province and, some parts of, Waziristan. What may be noted is that the way in which she was killed wasn’t really a conventional Jihadi style. Won’t you agree with me on this?
Author is Editor-In-Chief of Aseemaa: Journal for National Resurgence and can be contacted by email firstname.lastname@example.org